AMERICA, VOL. III (OF 8)***


E-text prepared by Giovanni Fini, Dianna Adair, Bryan Ness, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images
generously made available by Internet Archive/American Libraries
(https://archive.org/details/americana)



Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this file
      which includes the more than 240 original illustrations.
      See 50987-h.htm or 50987-h.zip:
      (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/50987/50987-h/50987-h.htm)
      or
      (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/50987/50987-h.zip)


      Images of the original pages are available through
      Internet Archive/American Libraries. See
      https://archive.org/details/narrcrithistory03winsrich


Transcriber’s note:

      Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

      Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).

      A carat character is used to denote superscription. A
      single character following the carat is superscripted
      (example: nascim^o). Multiple superscripted characters
      are enclosed by curly brackets (example: C^{no}).





English Explorations and Settlements in North America 1497-1689


[Illustration]


NARRATIVE AND CRITICAL HISTORY OF AMERICA

Edited by

JUSTIN WINSOR

Librarian of Harvard University
Corresponding Secretary Massachusetts Historical Society

VOL. III







Boston and New York
Houghton, Mifflin and Company
The Riverside Press, Cambridge

Copyright, 1884,
by James R. Osgood and Company.
All rights reserved.




                   CONTENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.

  [_The English arms on the title are copied from the Molineaux map,
  dated 1600._]

                                                                    PAGE
  CHAPTER I.

  THE VOYAGES OF THE CABOTS. _Charles Deane_                           1

  ILLUSTRATION: Sebastian Cabot, 5.

  AUTOGRAPHS: Henry VII., 1; Henry VIII., 4; Edward VI., 6; Queen
  Mary, 7.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                       7

  ILLUSTRATIONS: La Cosa map (1500), _phototype_, 8, 8; Ruysch’s
  map (1508), 9; Orontius Fine’s map (1531), 11; Stobnicza’s map
  (1512), 13; Page of Peter Martyr in fac-simile, 15; Thorne’s
  map (1527), 17; Sebastian Cabot’s map (1544), 22; Lok’s map
  (1582), 40; Hakluyt-Martyr map (1587), 42; Portuguese Portolano
  (1514-1520), 56.


  CHAPTER II.

  HAWKINS AND DRAKE. _Edward E. Hale_                                 59

  ILLUSTRATIONS: John Hawkins, 61; Zaltieri’s map (1566), 67;
  Furlano’s map (1574), 68.

  AUTOGRAPHS: John Hawkins, 61; Francis Drake, 65.

  CRITICAL ESSAY ON DRAKE’S BAY                                       74

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Modern map of California coast, 74; Viscaino’s
  map (1602), 75; Dudley’s map (1646), 76, 77; Jeffreys’
  sketch-map (1753), 77.

  NOTES ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION. _The Editor_                   78

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Hondius’s map, 79; Portus Novæ Albionis, 80;
  Molineaux’s map (1600), 80; Sir Francis Drake, 81, 84; Thomas
  Cavendish, 83.


  CHAPTER III.

  EXPLORATIONS TO THE NORTH-WEST. _Charles C. Smith_                  85

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Martin Frobisher, 87; Molineaux globe (1592),
  90; Molineaux map (1600), 91; Sir Thomas Smith, 94; James’s map
  of Hudson Bay (1632), 96.

  AUTOGRAPHS: Martin Frobisher, 87; John Davis, 89; George
  Waymouth, 91; William Baffin, 94.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                      97

  ILLUSTRATION: Luke Fox’s map of Baffin’s Bay (1635), 98.

  THE ZENO INFLUENCE ON EARLY CARTOGRAPHY; FROBISHER’S AND
  HUDSON’S VOYAGES. _The Editor_                                     100

  ILLUSTRATIONS: The Zeno map (_circa_ 1400), 100; map in Wolfe’s
  _Linschoten_ (1598), 101; Beste’s map (1578), 102; Frobisher’s
  Strait, 103.


  CHAPTER IV.

  SIR WALTER RALEGH: SETTLEMENTS AT ROANOKE AND VOYAGES TO
  GUIANA. _William Wirt Henry_                                       105

  AUTOGRAPHS: Walter Ralegh, 105; Queen Elizabeth, 106; Ralph
  Lane, 110.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     121

  ILLUSTRATIONS: White’s map in Hariot (1587), 124; De Laet’s map
  (1630), 125.

  AUTOGRAPH: Francis Bacon, 121.


  CHAPTER V.

  VIRGINIA, 1606-1689. _Robert A. Brock_                             127

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Jamestown, 130; George Percy, 134; Seal of the
  Virginia Company, 140; Lord Delaware, 142.

  AUTOGRAPHS: King James, 127; Delaware, 133; Thomas Gates, 133;
  George Percy, 134; George Calvert, 146; William Berkeley, 147.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     153

  AUTOGRAPHS: William Strachey, 156; Delaware, 156; John Harvey,
  156; John West, 164.

  NOTES ON THE MAPS OF VIRGINIA, ETC. _The Editor_                   167

  ILLUSTRATION: Smith’s map of Virginia or the Chesapeake,
  _phototype_, 167.


  CHAPTER VI.

  NORUMBEGA AND ITS ENGLISH EXPLORERS. _Benjamin F. De Costa_        169

  ILLUSTRATION: Map of Ancient Pemaquid, 177.

  AUTOGRAPHS: J. Popham, 175; Ferd. Gorges, 175.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     184

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Modern map of Coast of Maine, 190; Henri II. map
  (1543), 195; Hood’s map (1592), 197; Smith’s map of New England
  (1616), 198.

  AUTOGRAPHS: J. Popham, 175; Ferd. Gorges, 175.

  EARLIEST ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS ON AMERICA, AND OTHER NOTES. _The
  Editor_                                                            199

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Title of Eden’s Münster, 200; Münster’s map
  (1532), 201, (1540), 201; Title of Stultifera Nauis (1570),
  202; Gilbert’s map (1576), 203; Linschoten, 206; John G. Kohl,
  209; Lenox globe (1510-1512), 212; Extract from Molineaux globe
  (1592), 213; Frankfort globe (1515), 215; Molineaux map (1600),
  216.

  AUTOGRAPHS: Humphrey Gilbert, 203; Richard Hakluyt, 204; Jul.
  Cæsar, 205; Ro. Cecyll, 206; John Smith, 211.


  CHAPTER VII.

  THE RELIGIOUS ELEMENT IN THE SETTLEMENT OF NEW
  ENGLAND.—PURITANS AND SEPARATISTS IN ENGLAND. _George E. Ellis_    219

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     244


  CHAPTER VIII.

  THE PILGRIM CHURCH AND PLYMOUTH COLONY. _Franklin B. Dexter_       257

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Site of Scrooby Manor-House, 258; Map of Scrooby
  and Austerfield, 259; Austerfield church, 260; Record of
  William Bradford’s baptism, 260; Robinson’s House in Leyden,
  262; Plan of Leyden, 263; Map of Cape Cod Harbor, 270; Map of
  Plymouth Harbor, 272; Historic Swords, 274; Governor Edward
  Winslow, 277; Pilgrim relics, 279; Governor Josiah Winslow, 282.

  AUTOGRAPHS: John Smyth, 257; John Robinson, 259; Robert Browne,
  261; Francis Johnson, 261; Signatures of Mayflower Pilgrims
  (William Bradford, Myles Standish, William Brewster, John
  Alden, John Howland, Edward Winslow, George Soule, Francis
  Eaton, Isaac Allerton, Samuel Fuller, Peregrine White, Resolved
  White, John Cooke), 268; Dorothy May, 268; William Bradford,
  268; Thomas Cushman, 271; Alexander Standish, 273; James Cole,
  senior, 273; Signers of the Patent, 1621 (Hamilton, Lenox,
  Warwick, Sheffield, Ferdinando Gorges), 275; Governors of
  Plymouth Colony (William Bradford, Edward Winslow, Thomas
  Prence, Thomas Hinckley, Josiah Winslow), 278.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     283

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Extract from Bradford’s History, 289; First
  page, Plymouth Records, 292.

  AUTOGRAPH: Nathaniel Morton, 291.


  CHAPTER IX.

  NEW ENGLAND. _Charles Deane_                                       295

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Dudley’s map of New England (1646), 303;
  Alexander’s map (1624), 306; John Wilson, 313; Dr. John Clark,
  315; John Endicott, 317; Hingham meeting-house, 319; Joseph
  Dudley, 320; John Winthrop of Connecticut, 331; John Davenport,
  332; Map of Connecticut River (1666), 333.

  AUTOGRAPHS: William Blaxton, 311; Samuel Maverick, 311; Thomas
  Walford, 311; Mathew Cradock, 312; John Wilson, 313; Quaker
  autographs, 314; John Endicott, 317; Colonial ministers of
  1690 (Charles Morton, James Allen, Michael Wigglesworth,
  Joshua Moody, Samuel Willard, Cotton Mather, Nehemiah Walter),
  319; Joseph Dudley, 320; Abraham Shurt, 321; Thomas Danforth,
  326; Thomas Hooker, 330; John Haynes, 331; John Winthrop, the
  younger, 331; John Allyn, 335; William Coddington, 336; Samuel
  Gorton, 336; Narragansett proprietors (Simon Bradstreet, Daniel
  Denison, Thomas Willett, Jno. Paine, Edward Hutchinson, Amos
  Richison, John Alcocke, George Denison, William Hudson), 338;
  Roger Williams, 339.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     340

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Seal of the Council for New England, 342; Cotton
  Mather, 345; Ship of the seventeenth century, 347; Fac-simile
  of a page of Thomas Lechford’s _Plaine Dealing_, 352; James
  Savage’s manuscript note on Lechford, 353; Beginning of Thomas
  Shepard’s Autobiography, 355.

  AUTOGRAPHS: Leaders in Pequot war (John Mason, Israel
  Stoughton, Lion Gardiner), 348; Jonathan Brewster, 349;
  Nathaniel Ward, 350; Signatures connected with the Indian Bible
  (Robert Boyle, Peter Bulkley, William Stoughton, Joseph Dudley,
  Thomas Hinckley, John Cotton, John Eliot, James Printer), 356;
  Edward Johnson, 358; John Norton, 358; Edward Burrough, 359;
  Robert Pike, 359; Benjamin Church, 361; Thomas Church, 361;
  William Hubbard, 362; Walter Neale, 363; Ferdinando Gorges,
  364; John Mason, 364; Roger Goode, 364; Thomas Gorges, 364;
  Connecticut secretaries (John Steel, Edward Hopkins, Thomas
  Welles, John Cullick, Daniel Clark, John Allyn), 374.

  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES; EARLY MAPS OF NEW ENGLAND. _The Editor_     380

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Maps of New England (1650), 382, (1680), 383.

  AUTOGRAPH: John Carter Brown, 381.


  CHAPTER X.

  THE ENGLISH IN NEW YORK. _John Austin Stevens_                     385

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Sir Edmund Andros, 402; Great Seal of Andros,
  410.

  AUTOGRAPHS: Commissioners (Richard Nicolls, Sir Robert Carr,
  George Cartwright, Samuel Maverick), 388; Francis Lovelace,
  395; Thomas Dongan, 404; Jacob Leisler, 411.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     411

  NOTES. _The Editor_ 414

  ILLUSTRATIONS: View of New York (1673), 416; View of The
  Strand, 417; Plan of New York, 418; Stadthuys (1679), 419.

  AUTOGRAPH: Thomas Willett, 414.


  CHAPTER XI.

  THE ENGLISH IN EAST AND WEST JERSEY, 1664-1689. _William A.
  Whitehead_                                                         421

  AUTOGRAPHS: King James, 421; Richard Nicoll, 421; Robert Carr,
  422; John Berkeley, 422; G. Carteret, 423; Philip Carteret,
  424; James Bollen, 428; Edward Byllynge, 430; Gawen Laurie,
  430; Nicolas Lucas, 430; Edmond Warner, 430; R. Barclay, 436;
  Earl of Perth, 439.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     449

  NOTE. _The Editor_                                                 455

  ILLUSTRATION: Sanson’s map (1656), 456.

  NOTE ON NEW ALBION. _Gregory B. Keen_                              457

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Insignia of the Albion knights, 462; Farrer map
  of Virginia (1651), 465.

  AUTOGRAPH: Robert Evelin, 458.


  CHAPTER XII.

  THE FOUNDING OF PENNSYLVANIA. _Frederick D. Stone_                 469

  ILLUSTRATIONS: George Fox, 470; William Penn, 474; Letitia
  Cottage, 483; Seal and Signatures to Frame of Government, 484;
  Slate-roof House, 492.

  AUTOGRAPHS: William Penn, 474; Thomas Wynne, 486; Charles
  Mason, 489; Jeremiah Dixon, 489; Thomas Lloyd, 494.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     495

  ILLUSTRATIONS: Title of _Some Account_, etc., 496; Title of
  _Frame of Government_, 497; Receipt and Seal of Free Society
  of Traders, 498; Gabriel Thomas’s map (1698), 501; Seal of
  Pennsylvania, 511; Section of Holme’s map of Pennsylvania, 516.


  CHAPTER XIII.

  THE ENGLISH IN MARYLAND, 1632-1691. _William T. Brantly_           517

  ILLUSTRATIONS: George, first Lord Baltimore, 518; Baltimore
  arms, 520; Map of Maryland (1635), 525; Endorsement of
  Toleration Act, 535; Baltimore coins, 543; Cecil, second Lord
  Baltimore, 546.

  AUTOGRAPHS: George, first Lord Baltimore, 518; Leonard Calvert,
  524; Thomas Cornwallis, 524; John Lewger, 528; Thomas Greene, 533;
  Margaret Brent, 533; William Stone, 534; Josias Fendall, 540;
  Charles Calvert, 542.

  CRITICAL ESSAY                                                     553

  AUTOGRAPH: Thomas Yong, 558.


  INDEX                                                              563




NARRATIVE AND CRITICAL

HISTORY OF AMERICA.




CHAPTER I.

THE VOYAGES OF THE CABOTS.

BY CHARLES DEANE, LL. D.

_Vice-President, Massachusetts Historical Society._


“WE derive our rights in America,” says Edmund Burke, in his _Account
of the European Settlements in America_, “from the discovery of
Sebastian Cabot, who first made the Northern Continent in 1497. The
fact is sufficiently certain to establish a right to our settlements
in North America.” If this distinguished writer and statesman had
substituted the name of John Cabot for that of Sebastian, he would have
stated the truth.

[Illustration: SIGN MANUAL OF HENRY VII.]

John Cabot, as his name is known to English readers, or Zuan Caboto, as
it is called in the Venetian dialect, the discoverer of North America,
was born, probably, in Genoa or its neighborhood. His name first
appears in the archives of Venice, where is a record, under the date
of March 28, 1476, of his naturalization as a citizen of Venice, after
the usual residence of fifteen years. He pursued successfully the study
of cosmography and the practice of navigation, and at one time visited
Arabia, where, at Mecca, he saw the caravans which came thither, and
was told that the spices they brought were received from other hands,
and that they came originally from the remotest countries of the
east. Accepting the new views as to “the roundness of the earth,” as
Columbus had done, he was quite disposed to put them to a practical
test. With his wife, who was a Venetian woman, and his three sons, he
removed to England, and took up his residence at the maritime city
of Bristol. The time at which this removal took place is uncertain.
In the year 1495 he laid his proposals before the king, Henry VII.,
who on the 5th of March, 1495/6, granted to him and his three sons,
their heirs and assigns a patent for the discovery of unknown lands
in the eastern, western, or northern seas, with the right to occupy
such territories, and to have exclusive commerce with them, paying to
the King one fifth part of all the profits, and to return to the port
of Bristol. The enterprise was to be “at their own proper cost and
charge.” In the early part of May in the following year, 1497, Cabot
set sail from Bristol with one small vessel and eighteen persons,
principally of Bristol, accompanied, perhaps, by his son Sebastian;
and, after sailing seven hundred leagues, discovered land on the 24th
of June, which he supposed was “in the territory of the Grand Cham.”
The legend, “prima tierra vista,” was inscribed on a map attributed
to Sebastian Cabot, composed at a later period, at the head of the
delineation of the island of Cape Breton. On the spot where he landed
he planted a large cross, with the flags of England and of St. Mark,
and took possession for the King of England. If the statement be true
that he coasted three hundred leagues, he may have made a _periplus_ of
the Gulf of St. Lawrence, returning home through the Straits of Belle
Isle. On his return he saw two islands on the starboard, but for want
of provisions did not stop to examine them. He saw no human beings,
but he brought home certain implements; and from these and other
indications he believed that the country was inhabited. He returned in
the early part of August, having been absent about three months. The
discovery which he reported, and of which he made and exhibited a map
and a solid globe, created a great sensation in England. The King gave
him money, and also executed an agreement to pay him an annual pension,
charged upon the revenues of the port of Bristol. He dressed in silk,
and was called, or called himself, “the Great Admiral.” Preparations
were made for another and a larger expedition, evidently for the
purpose of colonization, and hopes were cherished of further important
discoveries; for Cabot believed that by starting from the place
already found, and coasting toward the equinoctial, he should discover
the island of Cipango, the land of jewels and spices, by which they
hoped to make in London a greater warehouse of spices than existed in
Alexandria. His companions told marvellous stories about the abundance
of fish in the waters of that coast, which might foster an enterprise
that would wholly supersede the fisheries of Iceland. On the 3d of
February 1497/8 the King granted to John Cabot (the sons are not named)
a license to take up six ships, and to enlist as many men as should be
willing to go on the new expedition. He set sail, says Hakluyt, quoting
Fabian, in the beginning of May, with, it is supposed, three hundred
men, and accompanied by his son Sebastian. One of the vessels put back
to Ireland in distress, but the others continued on their voyage. This
is the last we hear of John Cabot. His maps are lost. It is believed
that Juan de la Cosa, the Spanish pilot, who in the year 1500 made a
map of the Spanish and English discoveries in the New World, made use
of maps of the Cabots now lost.

Sebastian Cabot, the second son of John Cabot, was born in Venice,
probably about the year 1473. He was early devoted to the study of
cosmography, in which science his father had become a proficient, and
Sebastian was largely imbued with the same spirit of enterprise; and
on the removal of his father with his family to England, he lived
with them at Bristol. His name first occurs in the letters patent of
Henry VII., dated March 5, 1495/6, issued to John Cabot and his three
sons, Lewis, Sebastian, and Sancius, and to their heirs and assigns,
authorizing them to discover unknown lands. There is some reason to
believe that he accompanied his father in the expedition, already
mentioned, on which the first discovery of North America was made; but
in none of the contemporary documents which have recently come to light
respecting this voyage is Sebastian’s name mentioned as connected with
it. A second expedition, as already stated, followed, and John Cabot
is distinctly named as having sailed with it as its commander; but
thenceforward he passes out of sight. Sebastian Cabot, without doubt,
accompanied the expedition. No contemporary account of it was written,
or at least published, and for the incidents of the voyage we are
mainly indebted to the reports of others written at a later period, and
derived originally from conversations with Sebastian Cabot himself; in
all of which the father’s name, except incidentally, as having taken
Sebastian to England when he was very young, is not mentioned. In these
several reports but one voyage is spoken of, and that, apparently,
the voyage on which the discovery of North America was made; but
circumstances are narrated in them which could have taken place only on
the second or a later voyage.

With a company of three hundred men, the little fleet steered its
course in the direction of the northwest in search of the land of
Cathay. They came to a coast running to the north, which they followed
to a great distance, where they found, in the month of July, large
bodies of ice floating in the water, and almost continual daylight.
Failing to find the passage sought around this formidable headland,
they turned their prows and, as one account says, sought refreshment
at Baccalaos. Thence, coasting southwards, they ran down to about the
latitude of Gibraltar, or 36° N., still in search of a passage to
India, when, their provisions failing, they returned to England.

If the views expressed by John Cabot, on his return from his first
voyage, had been seriously cherished, it seems strange that this
expedition did not, at first, on arriving at the coast, pursue the more
southerly direction, where he was confident lay the land of jewels and
spices.

They landed in several places, saw the natives dressed in skins of
beasts, and making use of copper. They found the fish in such great
abundance that the progress of the ships was sometimes impeded. The
bears, which were in great plenty, caught the fish for food,—plunging
into the water, fastening their claws into them, and dragging them to
the shore. The expedition was expected back by September, but it had
not returned by the last of October.

There is some evidence that Sebastian Cabot, at a later period, sailed
on a voyage of discovery from England in company with Sir Thomas Pert,
or Spert, but which, on account of the cowardice of his companion,
“took none effect.” But the enterprise is involved in doubt and
obscurity.

[Illustration: AUTOGRAPH OF HENRY VIII.]

In 1512, after the death of Henry VII., and when Henry VIII. had been
three years on the throne, Sebastian Cabot entered into the service
of Ferdinand, King of Spain, arriving at Seville in September of that
year, where he took up his residence; and on the 20th of October was
appointed “Capitan de Mar,” with an annual salary of fifty thousand
maravedis.[1] Preparations for a voyage of discovery were now made,
and Cabot was to depart in March, 1516, but the death of Ferdinand
prevented his sailing. On the 5th of February, 1518, he was named, by
Charles V., “Piloto Mayor y Exâminadór de Pilotos,” as successor of
Juan de Solis, who was killed at La Plata in 1516. This office gave
him an additional salary of fifty thousand maravedis; and it was soon
afterwards decreed that no pilots should leave Spain for the Indies
without being examined and approved by him. In 1524 he attended,
not as a member but as an expert, the celebrated junta at Badajoz,
which met to decide the important question of the longitude of the
Moluccas,—whether they were on the Spanish or the Portuguese side of
the line of demarcation which followed, by papal consent in 1494, a
meridian of longitude, making a fixed division of the globe, so far
as yet undefined, between Spain and Portugal. On the second day of
the session, April 15, he and two others delivered an opinion on the
questions involved.

In the following year an expedition to the Moluccas was projected,
and under an agreement with the Emperor, executed at Madrid on the
4th of March, Sebastian Cabot was appointed its commander with the
title of Captain-General. The sailing of the expedition was delayed
by the intrigues of the Portuguese. In the mean time his wife,
Catalina Medrano, who is again mentioned with her children a few
years later, received by a royal order fifty thousand maravedis as a
_gratificacion_. On April 3, 1526, the armada sailed from St. Lucar
for the Spice Islands, intending to pass through the Straits of
Magellan. It was delayed from point to point, and did not arrive on
the coast until the following year, when Cabot entered the La Plata
River. A feeling of disloyalty to their commander, the seeds of which
had been sown from the beginning, broke out in open mutiny. He had,
moreover, lost one of his vessels off the coast of Brazil. He therefore
determined to proceed no farther at present, to send to the Emperor a
report of the condition of affairs, and in the mean time to explore
the La Plata River, which had been penetrated by De Solis in 1515. He
remained in that country for several years, and returned in July or
August, 1530. The details of this expedition are described in another
volume of this work and by another hand.

[Illustration: SEBASTIAN CABOT.

[This cut follows a photograph taken from the Chapman copy of the
original. The original was engraved when owned by Charles J. Harford,
Esq., for Seyer’s _Memoirs of Bristol_, 1824, vol. ii. p. 208, and
a photo-reduction of that engraving appears in Nicholl’s _Life of
Sebastian Cabot_. Other engravings have appeared in Sparks’s _Amer.
Biog._, vol. ix. etc. See Critical Essay.—ED.]]

As might have been expected, this enterprise was regarded at home as
a failure, and Cabot had made many enemies in the exercise of his
legitimate authority in quelling the mutinies which had from time to
time broken out among his men. Complaints were made against him on his
return. Several families of those of his companions who were killed
in the expedition brought suits against him, and he was arrested and
imprisoned, but was liberated on bail. Public charges for misconduct
in the affairs of La Plata were preferred against him; and the Council
of the Indies, by an order dated from Medina del Campo, Feb. 1, 1532,
condemned him to a banishment of two years to Oran, in Africa. I have
seen no evidence to show that this sentence was carried into execution.
Cabot, who on his return laid before the Emperor Charles V. his final
report on the expedition, appears to have fully justified himself in
that monarch’s esteem; for he soon resumed his duties as Pilot Major,
an office which he retained till his final return to England.

Cabot made maps and globes during his residence in Spain; and a large
_mappe monde_ bearing date 1544, engraved on copper, and attributed to
him, was found in Germany in 1843, and is now deposited in the National
Library in Paris. This map has been the subject of much discussion.
While in the employ of the Emperor, Cabot offered his services to
his native country, Venice, but was unable to carry his purpose into
effect. He was at last desirous of returning to England, and the Privy
Council, on Oct. 9, 1547, issued a warrant for his transportation from
Spain “to serve and inhabit in England.” He came over to England in
that or the following year, and on Jan. 6, 1548/9, the King granted
him a pension of £166 13s. 4d., to date from St. Michael’s Day
preceding (September 29), “in consideration of the good and acceptable
service done and to be done” by him. In 1550 the Emperor, through his
ambassador in England, demanded his return to Spain, saying that Cabot
was his Pilot Major under large pay, and was much needed by him,—that
“he could not stand the king in any great stead, seeing he had but
small practice in those seas;” but Cabot declined to return. In that
same year, June 4, the King renewed to him the patent of 1495/6, and in
March, 1551, gave him £200 as a special reward.

[Illustration: AUTOGRAPH OF EDWARD VI. OF ENGLAND.]

The discovery of a passage to China by the northwest having been deemed
impracticable, a company of merchants was formed in 1553 to prosecute a
route by the northeast, and Cabot was made its governor. He drew up the
instructions for its management, and the expedition under Willoughby
was sent out, the results of which are well known. China was not
reached, but a trade with Muscovy was opened through Archangel. After
the accession of Mary to the Crown of England, the Emperor made another
unsuccessful demand for Cabot’s return to Spain. On Feb. 6, 1555/6,
what is known as the Muscovy Company was chartered, and Cabot became
its governor. Among the last notices preserved of this venerable
man is an account, by a quaint old chronicler, of his presence at
Gravesend, April 27, 1556, on board the pinnace, the “Serchthrift,”
then destined for a voyage of discovery to the northeast. It is related
that after Sebastian Cabot, “and divers gentlemen and gentlewomen”
had “viewed our pinnace, and tasted of such cheer as we could make
them aboard, they went on shore, giving to our mariners right liberal
rewards; and the good old Gentleman, Master Cabota, gave to the poor
most liberal alms, wishing them to pray for the good fortune and
prosperous success of the ‘Serchthrift,’ our pinnace. And then at the
sign of the ‘Christopher,’ he and his friends banqueted, and made me
and them that were in the company great cheer; and for very joy that he
had to see the towardness of our intended discovery he entered into the
dance himself, amongst the rest of the young and lusty company,—which
being ended, he and his friends departed most gently commending us to
the governance of Almighty God.”

[Illustration: AUTOGRAPH OF QUEEN MARY.]

Cabot’s pension, granted by the late King, was renewed to him by Queen
Mary Nov. 27, 1555; but on May 27, 1557, he resigned it, and two days
later a new grant was issued to him and William Worthington, jointly,
of the same amount, by which he was deprived of one half his pay. This
is the last official notice of Sebastian Cabot. He probably died soon
afterwards, and in London. Richard Eden, the translator and compiler,
attended him in his last moments, and “beckons us, with something of
awe, to see him die.” He gives a touching account of the feeble and
broken utterances of the dying man. Though no monument or gravestone
marks his place of burial, which is unknown, his portrait is preserved,
as shown on a preceding page.


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

UNLIKE the enterprises of Columbus, Vespucius, and many other
navigators who wrote accounts of their voyages and discoveries at
the time of their occurrence, which by the aid of the press were
published to the world, the exploits of the Cabots were unchronicled.
Although the fact of their voyages had been reported by jealous and
watchful liegers at the English Court to the principal cabinets of the
Continent, and the map of their discoveries had been made known, and
this had had its influence in leading other expeditions to the northern
shores of North America, the historical literature relating to the
discovery of America, as preserved in print, is, for nearly twenty
years after the events took place, silent as to the enterprises and
even the names of the Cabots. Scarcely anything has come down to us
directly from these navigators themselves, and for what we know we have
hitherto been chiefly indebted to the uncertain reports, in foreign
languages, of conversations originally held with Sebastian Cabot many
years afterwards, and sometimes related at second and third hand.
Even the year in which the voyage of discovery was made was usually
wrongly stated, when stated at all, and for more than two hundred years
succeeding these events there was no mention made of more than one
voyage.[2]

[Illustration: LA COSA MAP. 1500. _Left side_]

[Illustration: LA COSA MAP. 1500. _Right side_]

[Illustration: RUYSCH’S MAP, 1508.]

I now ask the reader to follow me down through the sixteenth century,
if no further, and examine what notices of the Cabots and their voyages
we can find in the historical literature of this period; and then to
examine what has recently come to light.

John Cabot had died when his son Sebastian in 1512, three years after
the death of Henry VII., left England and entered into the service of
the King of Spain, who gave him the title of Captain, and a liberal
allowance, directing that he should reside at Seville to await orders.
He there became an intimate friend of the famous Peter Martyr, the
author of the _Decades of the New World_, or _De Orbe Novo_, and a
volume of letters entitled _Opus Epistolarum_, etc., a writer too well
known to need further introduction here. Through Martyr, for the first
time, there was printed in 1516 an account of the voyage of the Cabots.

[Illustration: PART OF ORONTIUS FINE’S GLOBE OF 1531, REDUCED TO
MERCATOR’S PROJECTION.]

He published in that year at Alcala (Complutum), in Spain, the first
three of his Decades, addressed to Pope Leo X., the second and third
of which Decades had been written in 1514 and 1515.[3] In the sixth
chapter of the third Decade—of which we give later a page in slightly
reduced fac-simile—is the following:—

 “These northern shores have been searched by one Sebastian Cabot,
 a Venetian born, whom, being but in manner an infant, his parents
 carried with them into England, having occasion to resort thither for
 trade of merchandise, as is the manner of the Venetians to leave no
 part of the world unsearched to obtain riches. He therefore furnished
 two ships in England at his own charges, and first with three hundred
 men directed his course so far towards the North Pole that even in the
 month of July he found monstrous heaps of ice swimming on the sea, and
 in manner continual daylight; yet saw he the land in that tract free
 from ice, which had been molten. Wherefore he was enforced to turn his
 sails and follow the west; so coasting still by the shore that he was
 thereby brought so far into the south, by reason of the land bending
 so much southwards that it was there almost equal in latitude with the
 sea _Fretum Herculeum_. He sailed so far towards the west that he had
 the island of Cuba on his left hand in manner in the same degree of
 longitude. As he travelled by the coasts of this great land (which he
 named Baccalaos) he saith that he found the like course of the waters
 toward the great west, but the same to run more softly and gently
 than the swift waters which the Spaniards found in their navigation
 southward.... Sebastian Cabot himself named these lands Baccalaos,
 because that in the seas thereabout he found so great multitudes of
 certain big fishes much like unto tunnies (which the inhabitants
 call _baccallaos_)[4] that they sometimes staied his ships. He also
 found the people of those regions covered with beasts’ skins, yet not
 without the use of reason. He also saith there is great plenty of
 bears in those regions which use to eat fish; for plunging themselves
 into the water, where they perceive a multitude of these fishes to
 lie, they fasten their claws in their scales, and so draw them to
 land and eat them, so (as he saith) they are not noisome to men. He
 declareth further, that in many places of those regions he saw great
 plenty of laton among the inhabitants. Cabot is my very friend, whom
 I use familiarly, and delight to have him sometimes keep me company
 in mine own house. For being called out of England by the commandment
 of the Catholic king of Castile, after the death of Henry VII. King
 of England, he is now present at Court with us, looking for ships to
 be furnished him for the Indies, to discover this hid secret of
 Nature. I think that he will depart in March in the year next
 following, 1516, to explore it. What shall succeed your Holiness
 shall learn through me, if God grant me life. Some of the Spaniards
 deny that Cabot was the first finder of the land of Baccalaos, and
 affirm that he went not so far westward.”[5]

 [Illustration: STOBNICZA’S MAP, 1512, REDUCED.

 [The legends on the map even on the large scale are not clear, and
 Brunet, _Supplement_, p. 697, gives a deceptive account of them.
 The _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 54, makes them thus: On North
 America, “Ortus de bona ventura,” and “Isabella.” Hispaniola is
 called “Spagnolla.” On the northern shore of South Ameica, “Arcay”
 and “Caput de Sta de.” On its eastern parts, “Gorffo Fremosa,” “Caput
 S. Crucis,” and “Monte Fregoso.” At the southern limit, “Alla pega.”
 The straight lines of the western coasts, as well as the words “Terra
 incognita,” are thought to represent an uncertainty of knowledge. The
 island at the west is “Zypangu insula,” or Japan. Mr. Bartlett, the
 editor of the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, is of the opinion that the
 island at the north is Iceland; but it seems more in accordance with
 the prevailing notions of the time to call it Baccalaos. It appears
 in the same way on the Lenox globe, and in the circumpolar MS. map of
 Da Vinci (1513) in the Queen’s library at Windsor, where this island
 is marked “Bacalar.” The eastern coast outline of the Stobnicza map
 bears a certain resemblance to the Waldseemüller map which appeared in
 the Ptolemy of 1513, having been however engraved, but not published,
 in 1507, and Stobnicza may have seen it. If so, he might have
 intended the straight western line of North America to correspond to
 the marginal limit of the Ptolemy map; but he got no warrant in the
 latter for the happy conjecture of the western coast of the Southern
 Continent, nor could he find such anywhere else, so far as we know.
 The variations of the eastern coast do not indicate that he depended,
 solely at least, upon the Ptolemy map, which carries the northern
 cut-off of the northern continent five degrees higher. “Isabella” is
 transferred from Cuba to Florida, and the northeast coast of South
 America is very different. There are accurate fac-similes of this
 Ptolemy map in Varnhagen’s _Premier Voyage de Vespucci_, and in
 Stevens’s _Historical and Geographical Notes_, pl. ii. See the chapter
 on Norumbega, _notes_.—ED.]]

This account we may well suppose to have come primarily from Sebastian
Cabot himself, and it will be noticed that his father is not mentioned
as having accompanied him on the voyage. Indeed, no reference is made
to the father except under the general statement that his parents
took him to England while he was yet very young, _pene infans_. No
date is given, and but one voyage is spoken of. It may be said that
Peter Martyr is not here writing a history of the voyage or voyages
of the Cabots; that the account is merely brought into his narrative
incidentally, as it were, to illustrate a subject upon which he was
then writing,—namely, on a “search” into “the secret causes of
Nature,” or the reason “why the sea runneth with so swift course
from the east into the west;” and that he cites the observations of
Sebastian Cabot, in the region of the Baccalaos, for his immediate
purpose. Richard Biddle, in his _Life of Sebastian Cabot_, pp. 81-90,
supposes the voyage here described to be the second, that of 1498,
undertaken after the death of the father, as the mention of the three
hundred men taken out would imply a purpose of colonization, while the
first voyage was one of discovery merely; and thinks that this view is
confirmed by a subsequent reference of Martyr to Cabot’s discovery of
the Baccalaos, in _Decade_ seven, chapter two, written in 1524, where
the discovery is said to have taken place “twenty-six years before,”
that is, in 1498.[6]

[Illustration: PETER MARTYR, 1516.]

A map of the world was composed in 1529 by Diego Ribero, a very
able cosmographer and map-maker of Spain in the early part of the
sixteenth century. It is a very interesting map, but is so well known
to geographers that I need give no particular description of it here.
The northern part of our coast, delineated upon it, is supposed to
have been drawn from the explorations and reports of Gomez made in
1525. It was copied and printed, in its general features only, in
1534, at Venice. A superior copy in fac-simile of the original map was
published by Dr. Kohl in 1860, at Weimar, in his _Die beiden Æltesten
General-Karten von Amerika_.[7] On this map an inscription, of which
the following is an English version, is placed over the territory
inscribed Tierra del Labrador: “This country the English discovered,
but there is nothing useful in it.” See an abridged section of the map
and a description of it in Kohl’s _Doc. Hist. of Maine_, i. 299-307.[8]

[Illustration: THORNE’S MAP, 1527.]

In 1530, four years after Martyr’s death, there was published at
Alcala (Complutum), in Spain, his eight Decades, _De Orbe Novo_, which
included the three first published in 1516, in the last of which,
the third, appeared the notice of Sebastian Cabot cited above. And
it may be added here that the three Decades, including the _De nuper
... repertis insulis_, etc., or abridgment, so called, of the fourth
Decade, printed at Basel in 1521, were reprinted together in that city
in 1533. Of later editions there will be occasion to say something
farther on. Martyr’s notice of Cabot was the earliest extant, and the
republication of these Decades, at different places, served to keep
alive the important fact of the discovery of North America under the
English flag. In some of these later Decades, written in 1524 and 1525,
references will be found to Sebastian Cabot and to his employment in
Spain.

There was published in Latin at Argentoratum (Strasbourg), in 1532,
by James Ziegler,—a Bavarian theologian, who cultivated mathematics
and cosmography with success,—a book relating in part to the northern
regions. Under the head of “Gronland” the author quotes Peter Martyr’s
account of Sebastian Cabot’s voyage:—

 “Peter Martyr of Angleria writeth in his Decades of the Spanish
 navigations, that Sebastian Cabot,[9] sailing from England continually
 towards the north, followed that course so far that he chanced upon
 great flakes of ice in the month of July; and diverting from thence
 he followed the coast by the shore, bending toward the south until he
 came to the clime of the island of Hispaniola above Cuba, an Island
 of the Cannibals. Which narration hath given me occasion to extend
 Gronland beyond the promontory or cape of Huitsarch to the continent
 or firm land of Lapponia above the castle of Wardhus; which thing I
 did the rather for that the reverend Archbishop of Nidrosia constantly
 affirmed that the sea bendeth there into the form of a crooked elbow.”

This writer evidently supposed that Cabot sailed along the east coast
of Greenland, and the inference he drew from Cabot’s experience, as
related by Martyr, confirmed his belief that that country joined on
to Lappona (Lapland),—an old notion which lasted down to the time of
Willoughby,—making “one continent;” and so he represented it on his
map no. 8, published in his book.[10] He places “Terra Bacallaos” on
the east coast of “Gronland.” He believed that Cabot’s falling in with
ice proved “that he sailed not by the main sea, but in places near unto
the land, comprehending and embracing the sea in the form of a gulf.”
I have copied this from Eden’s English version of Ziegler (_Decades_,
fol. 268), in the margin of which at this place Eden says, “Cabot told
me that this ice is of fresh water, and not of the sea.”[11]

There was published at Venice in 1534, in Italian, a volume in three
parts; the first of which was entitled, _Summario de la generale
historia de l’indie occidentali cavato da libri scritti dal signor don
Pietro Martyre del consiglio delle indie della maesta de l’imperadore,
et da molte altre particulari relationi_.[12]

This, as will be seen, purports to be a summary drawn from Peter Martyr
and other sources,—“from many other private accounts.” The basis
of the work is Martyr’s first three Decades, published together in
Latin in 1516, the original arrangement of the author being entirely
disregarded, many facts omitted, and new statements introduced for
which no authority is given. By virtue of the concluding words of
the quoted title, the translator or compiler appears to claim the
privilege of taking the utmost liberty with the text of Martyr. For
the well-known passage in the sixth chapter of the third Decade, where
Martyr says that Sebastian Cabot “sed a parentibus in Britāniam insulam
tendentibus, uti moris est Venetorum: qui commercii causa terrarum
omnium sunt hospites transportatus pene infans” (“whom being yet but in
manner an infant, his parents carried with them into England, having
occasion to resort thither for trade of merchandise, as is the manner
of the Venetians to leave no part of the world unsearched to obtain
riches”), the Italian translator has substituted, “Costui essendo
piccolo fu menato da suo padre in Inghilterra, da poi la morte del
quale trouandosi ricchissimo, et di grande animo, delibero si come
hauea fatto Christoforo Colombo voler anchor lui scoprire qualche nuoua
parte del mōdo,” etc. (“He being a little boy was taken by his father
into England, after whose death, finding himself very rich and of
great ambition, he resolved to discover some new part of the world as
Columbus had done”).

M. D’Avezac has given some facts which show that the editor of this
Italian version of Peter Martyr, as he calls this work, was Ramusio,
the celebrated editor of the _Navigationi et Viaggi_,[13] etc., and
this work is introduced into the third volume of that publication,
twenty-one years later. Mr. Brevoort has also called my attention to
the fact that the woodcut of “Isola Spagnuola,” used in the early work,
was introduced into the later one, which is confirmatory of the opinion
that Ramusio was at least the editor of the _Summario_ of 1534.[14]

Cabot we know was, during his residence in Spain, a correspondent of
Ramusio,—at least, the latter speaks once of Cabot’s having written to
him, and we shall see farther on that they were not strangers to each
other,—and it is possible that this modification of Peter Martyr’s
language was authorized by him. It is here stated, however, that Cabot
reached only 55° north, while in the prefatory _Discorso_ to his third
volume the editor says that Cabot wrote to him many years before that
he reached the latitude of 67 degrees and a half, and no explanation
is given as to whether the reference is to the same voyage. A fair
inference from the passage above cited from the Italian _Summario_
would be that Sebastian Cabot planned the voyage of discovery after his
father’s death, which we know was not true; as it was equally untrue
that the death of his father made him very rich, for the Italian envoy
tells us that John Cabot was poor. Indeed, the whole language of the
passage relating to Sebastian Cabot is mythical and untrustworthy,
whoever may have inspired it.[15]

I now come to a map of Sebastian Cabot, bearing date 1544, as the
year of its composition, a copy of which was discovered in Germany in
1843, by Von Martius, in the house of a Bavarian curate, and deposited
in the following year in the National Library in Paris. It has been
described at some length by M. D’Avezac, in the _Bulletin de la Société
de Géographie_, 4 ser. xiv. 268-270, 1857. It is a large elliptical
_mappe monde_, engraved on metal, with geographical delineations drawn
upon it down to the time it was made. I saw the map in Paris in 1866.
On its sides are two tables: the first, on the left, inscribed at the
head “Tabula Prima;” and that on the right, “Tabula Secunda.” On these
tables are seventeen legends, or inscriptions, in duplicate; that is to
say, in Spanish and in Latin, the latter supposed to be a translation
of the former,—each Latin legend immediately following the Spanish
original and bearing the same number.[16]

After the seventeen legends in Spanish and in Latin, we come to
a title or heading: “Plinio en el secund libro capitulo lxxix.,
escriue” (“Pliny, in the second book, chapter 79, writes”). Then
follows an inscription in Spanish, no. 18, from Pliny’s _Natural
History_, cap. lxvii., the chapter given above being an error. Four
brief inscriptions, also in Spanish, numbered 19 to 22, relating to
the natural productions of islands in the eastern seas, taken from
other authors, complete the list. So there are twenty-two Spanish
inscriptions or legends on the map,—ten on the first table and twelve
on the second,—the last five of which have no Latin _exemplaires_;
and there are no Latin inscriptions without the same text in Spanish
immediately preceding.

There are no headings prefixed to the inscriptions, except the 1st, the
17th, and 18th. The first inscription, relating to the discovery of
the New World by Columbus, has this title, beneath Tabula Prima, “_del
almirante_.” The 17th—a long inscription—has this title: _Retulo,
del auctor conçiertas razones de la variaçion que haze il aguia del
marear con la estrella del Norte_ (“A discourse of the author of the
map, giving certain reasons for the variation of the magnetic needle
in reference to the North Star”). It is also repeated in Latin over
the version of the inscription in that language. The title to the 18th
inscription, if it may be called a title, has already been given.

The 17th inscription begins as follows: “Sebastian Caboto, capitan
y piloto mayor de la S. c. c. m. del Imperador don Carlos quinto
deste nombre, y Rey nuestro sennor hizo este figura extenda en plano,
anno del nascim^o de nrō Salvador Iesu Christo de MDXLIIII. annos,
tirada por grados de latitud y longitud con sus vientos como carta
de marear, imitando en parte al Ptolomeo, y en parte alos modernos
descobridores, asi Espanoles como Portugueses, y parte por su padre, y
por el descubierto, por donde, podras navegar como por carta de marear,
teniendo respecto a luariaçion que haze el aguia,” etc. (“Sebastian
Cabot, captain and pilot-major of his sacred imperial majesty, the
emperor Don Carlos, the fifth of this name, and the king our lord, made
this figure extended on a plane surface, in the year of the birth of
our Saviour Jesus Christ, 1544, having drawn it by degrees of latitude
and longitude, with the winds, as a sailing chart, following partly
Ptolemy and partly the modern discoveries, Spanish and Portuguese, and
partly the discovery made by his father and himself: by it you may
sail as by a sea-chart, having regard to the variation of the needle,”
etc.). Then follows a discussion relating to the variation of the
magnetic needle, which Cabot claims first to have noticed.[17]

In the inscription, No. 8, which treats of Newfoundland, it says: “This
country was discovered by John Cabot, a Venetian, and Sebastian Cabot,
his son, in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ, MCCCCXCIV. [1494] on the
24th of June, in the morning, which country they called ‘primum visam’;
and a large island adjacent to it they named the island of St. John,
because they discovered it on the same day.”[18]

A fac-simile of this map was published in Paris by M. Jomard, in Plate
XX. of his _Monuments de la Géographie_ (begun in 1842, and issued
during several years following down to 1862), but without the legends
on its sides, which unquestionably belong to the map itself; for those
which, on account of their length, are not included within the interior
of the map, are attached to it by proper references. M. Jomard promised
a separate volume of “texte explicatif,” but death prevented the
accomplishment of his purpose.[19]

[Illustration: PART OF THE SEBASTIAN CABOT MAPPE MONDE, 1544.]

If this map, with the date of its composition, is authentic, it is the
first time the name of John Cabot has been introduced to our notice
in any printed document, in connection with the discovery of North
America. Here the name is brought in jointly with that of Sebastian
Cabot, on the authority apparently of Sebastian himself. He is said to
be the maker of the map, and if he did not write the legends on its
sides he may be supposed not to have been ignorant of their having been
placed there. As to Legend No. 8, copied above, who but Sebastian Cabot
would know the facts embodied in it,—namely, that the discovery was
made by both the father and the son, on the 24th of June, about five
o’clock in the morning; that the land was called _prima vista_, or its
equivalent, and that the island near by was called St. John, as the
discovery was made on St. John’s Day? Whether or not Sebastian Cabot’s
statement is to be implicitly relied on, in associating his own name
with his father’s in the voyage of discovery, in view of the evidence
which has recently come to light, the legend itself must have proceeded
from him. Some additional information in the latter part of the
inscription, relating to the native inhabitants, and the productions
of the country, may have been gathered in the voyage of the following
year. Sebastian Cabot, without doubt, was in possession of his father’s
maps, on which would be inscribed by John Cabot himself the day on
which the discovery was made.

Whatever opinions, therefore, historical scholars may entertain as
to Sebastian Cabot’s connection with this map in its present form,
or with the inscriptions upon it as a whole, all must admit that the
statements embodied in No. 8, and, it may be added, in No. 17, could
have been communicated by no one but Sebastian Cabot himself. The
only alternative is that they are a base fabrication by a stranger.
Moreover, this very map itself, or a map with these legends upon it,
as we shall see farther on, was in the possession of Richard Eden, or
was accessible to him; and one of its long inscriptions was translated
into English, and printed in his _Decades_, in 1555, as from “Cabot’s
own card,”—and this at a time when Cabot was living in London, and
apparently on terms of intimacy with Eden. Legend No. 8 contains an
important statement which is confirmed by evidence recently come to
light, namely, the fact of John Cabot’s agency in the discovery of
North America; and, although the name of the son is here associated
with the father, it is a positive relief to find an acknowledgment from
Sebastian himself of a truth that was to receive, before the close of
the century, important support from the publication of the _Letters
Patent_ from the archives of the State. And this should serve to modify
our estimate of the authenticity of reports purporting to come from
Sebastian, in which the father is wholly ignored, and the son alone
is represented as the hero. The long inscription, No. 17, contains
an honorable mention of his father, as we have already seen; and in
the Latin duplicate, the language in the passage which I have given
in English will be seen to be even more emphatic than is expressed in
the Spanish text. Indeed, in several instances in the Latin, though
generally following the Spanish, so far as I have had an opportunity
of observing, there are some statements of fact not to be found in the
Spanish.[20] The passage already cited concludes thus in the Latin:
“And also from the experience and practice of long sea-service of the
most excellent John Cabot, a Venetian by nation, and of my author [the
map is here made to speak for itself] Sebastian his son, the most
learned of all men in knowledge of the stars and the art of navigation,
who have discovered a certain part of the globe for a long time hidden
from our people.”[21]

Though we are not quite willing to believe that Sebastian Cabot wrote
the eulogy of himself contained in this passage, yet who but he could
have known of those facts concerning his father, who, we suppose, had
been dead some fifty years before this map was composed?

The map itself, as a work of Sebastian Cabot, is unsatisfactory, and
many of the legends on its sides are also unworthy of its alleged
author. It brought forward for the first time, in Legend 8, the year
1494 as the year of the discovery of North America, which the late
M. D’Avezac accepted, but which I cannot but think from undoubted
evidence, to be adduced farther on, is wrong. The “terram primum visam”
of the legend is inscribed on the northern part of Cape Breton, and
there would seem to be no good reason for not accepting this point on
the coast as Cabot’s landfall. The “y de s. Juan,” the present Prince
Edward Island, is laid down on the map; and although Dr. Kohl thinks
that the name was given by the French, and that Cabot may have taken
it, not from his own survey, but from the French maps, I have seen
no evidence of the application of the name on any map before this of
Cabot. Cartier gave the name “Sainct Jean” to a cape on the west coast
of Newfoundland, in 1534, discovered also on St. John’s Day; but this
fact was not known, in print at least, till 1556, when the account of
his first voyage was published in the third volume of Ramusio.

We find no strictly contemporaneous reference to this map, or evidence
that it exerted any influence on opinions respecting the first two
voyages of the Cabots; and the name of John Cabot again sinks out of
sight. Dr. Kohl has called attention to the fact that the author of
this map has copied the coast line of the northern shore largely from
Ribero.

It may be added that the inscription No. 8, on Cabot’s map, has since
its republication by Hakluyt, with an English version by him, in
1589, been regarded as containing the most definite and satisfactory
statement which had appeared as to the discovery of North America,
the date as to the year having been subjected to some interesting
criticisms, to be referred to farther on.

In the year 1550 Ramusio issued at Venice the first volume of his
celebrated collection of voyages and travels in Italian, entitled,
_Delle Navigationi et Viaggi_, etc. This contained, in a discourse on
spices, etc., the well-known report of a conversation at the villa of
Hieronymo Fracastor, at Caphi, near Verona, in which the principal
speaker, a most profound philosopher and mathematician, incidentally
relates an interview which he had, some years before, with Sebastian
Cabot at Seville. Ramusio, who was present, and tells the story
himself, says he does not pretend to give the conversation precisely as
he heard it, for that would require a talent beyond his; but he would
try and give briefly what he could recollect of it. The substance of
Cabot’s story as related, much abridged by me, is this:—

Sebastian Cabot’s father took him from Venice to London when he was
very young, yet having some knowledge of the _humanities_, and of
the sphere. His father died at the time when the news was brought of
the discovery of Columbus, which caused a great talk at the court
of Henry VII., and which created a great desire in him (Cabot) to
attempt some great thing; and understanding, by reason of the sphere,
that if he should sail by the northwest he would come to India by a
shorter route, he caused the king to be informed of his idea, and the
king immediately furnished him with two small ships, and all things
necessary for the voyage, which was in the year 1496, in the beginning
of summer. He therefore began to sail to the northwest, expecting to
go to Cathay, and from thence to turn towards India, but found after
some days, to his displeasure, that the land ran towards the north. He
still proceeded hoping to find the passage, but found the land still
continent to the 56th degree; and seeing there that the coast turned
toward the east, he, in despair of finding the passage, turned back
and sailed down the coast toward the equinoctial, ever hoping to find
the passage, and came as far south as Florida, when, his provisions
failing, he returned to England, where he found great tumults among the
people, and wars in Scotland.

The volumes of Ramusio became justly celebrated throughout the literary
centres of Europe, and the publication of the account of Sebastian
Cabot’s discovery in the first volume attracted the attention of
scholars in England. It will be noticed that Sebastian Cabot here, as
well as in the account in Peter Martyr, is said to have been born in
Venice, and taken to England while yet very young; yet not so young
but that he had acquired some knowledge of letters, and of the sphere.
He speaks here of the death of his father as occurring before the
voyage of discovery was entered upon, for which he had two small ships
furnished him by the king. He says that this was in the year 1496; yet
he speaks of events occurring in England on his return,—great tumults
among the people, and wars in Scotland,—which point to the year
1497. The latitude he reached “under our pole” was 56 degrees; and,
despairing to find the passage to India, he turned back again, sailed
down the coast, “and came to that part of this firm land we now call
Florida.”[22] Many incidents here described could not have occurred on
the voyage of discovery, as we shall see farther on.

We do not know the precise year in which the interview at Seville
between this learned man and Sebastian Cabot was held, but have given
some reasons below for believing that it took place about ten years
before it was printed by Ramusio.[23]

I might mention here another reference to Cabot, in Ramusio’s third
volume, 1556, though of a little later date. In a prefatory dedication
to his excellent friend Hieronimo Fracastor,[24] at whose house the
conversation related in Ramusio’s first volume took place, Ramusio
under date of June 20, 1553, says that “Sebastian Cabot our countryman,
a Venetian,” wrote to him many years ago that he sailed along and
beyond this land of New France, at the charges of Henry VII. King of
England; that he sailed a long time west and by north into the latitude
of 67½ degrees, and on the 11th of June, finding still the sea open,
he expected to have gone on to Cathay, and would have gone, if the
mutiny of the shipmaster and mariners had not hindered him and made him
return homewards from that place.[25]

I have already briefly referred to this letter, in speaking of the
alleged voyage of 1516-17, contended for by Biddle (pp. 117-19), on
which occasion he thinks Cabot entered Hudson Bay. This passage in
Ramusio is mentioned twenty years later by Sir Humphrey Gilbert, in
his tract, as we shall see farther on, principally on account of the
high degree of northern latitude reached, 67½°, and where the sea
was found still open.[26] As this is the only account of a voyage which
describes so high an elevation reached, and an immediate return thence
by reason of mutiny, some have supposed that the incidents described
must have occurred on a third voyage, in company with Sir Thomas
Pert. On Cabot’s map of 1544 there is inscribed a coast line trending
westward, terminating at the degree of latitude named.

In 1552 Gomara’s _Historia General de las Indias_ was published at
Saragossa in Spain. In cap. xxxix., under the head of “Los Baccalaos,”
he says:—

 “Sebastian Cabot was the first that brought any knowledge of this
 land, for being in England in the days of King Henry VII. he furnished
 two ships at his own charges, or (as some say) at the King’s, whom
 he persuaded that a passage might be found to Cathay by the North
 Seas.... He went also to know what manner of lands those Indies
 were to inhabit. He had with him three hundred men, and directed
 his course by the track of Iceland, upon the Cape of Labrador, at
 fifty-eight degrees (though he himself says much more), affirming
 that in the month of July there was such cold and heaps of ice that
 he durst pass no further; that the days were very long and in manner
 without night, and the nights very clear. Certain it is that at sixty
 degrees the longest day is of 18 hours. But considering the cold and
 the strangeness of the unknown land, he turned his course from thence
 to the west, refreshing themselves at Baccalaos; and following the
 coast of the land unto the 38th degree, he returned to England.”[27]

Francis Lopez Gomara was among the most distinguished of the historical
writers of Spain. In his _History of the Indies_ his purpose was to
give a brief view of the whole range of Spanish conquest in the islands
and on the American continent, as far down as about the middle of the
sixteenth century. He must have known Cabot in Seville, and might have
informed himself as to his early maritime enterprises, but he seems
to have neglected his opportunity. His book was published after Cabot
had returned to England. On one point in the above brief account,
namely, as to whether the ships were furnished at the charge of Cabot,
he speaks doubtfully. Peter Martyr had said that Cabot furnished two
ships at his own charge, while Ramusio, in the celebrated _Discorso_,
makes Cabot say that the king furnished them. As usual but one voyage
is spoken of; and Sebastian Cabot is the only commander, and is called
a Venetian. His statement contains little new, and is principally a
repetition of Peter Martyr. There is added the statement that the
expedition, on returning from the northern coasting, “refreshed at
Baccalaos.” The degrees given, as to the latitude and longitude reached
in sailing both north and south, appear to be an inference from Martyr
and Ramusio. The incidents here related of course refer to the second
voyage. Gomara, in his history, has other notices of Cabot during his
residence in Spain at a later period, in connection with his account of
the junta at Badajos, and the expedition to the La Plata.

In 1553 Richard Eden, the first English collector of voyages and
travels, published in London a translation “out of Latin into English”
of the fifth book of the _Universal Cosmographia_ of Sebastian Münster,
entitling it _A Treatise of the Newe India_,[28] etc. In the dedication
of the book to the Duke of Northumberland, who had been Lord High
Admiral of England under Henry VIII., Eden says, incidentally, that
“King Henry VIII. about the same year of his reign [i. e. between April
1516 and April 1517], furnished and sent forth certain ships under the
gouvernance of Sebastian Cabot yet living, and one Sir Thomas Pert,
whose faint heart was the cause that the voyage took none effect;” and
that if manly courage “had not at that time been wanting, it might
happily have come to pass that that rich treasure called Perularia,
which is now in Spain in the city of Sivil, and so named for that in it
is kept the infinite riches brought hither from the new-found-land of
Peru, might long since have been in the Tower of London, to the king’s
great honor and wealth of this his realm.”

I find no notice taken of this statement of Eden, at the time, and it
is only when we come down to the publication of Hakluyt’s folio, in
1589, that we see an attempt made to attach some importance to it.
Although deviating a little from the chronological order of this
narrative, I propose here to bring together what I may have to say
concerning this voyage.

Dr. Kohl[29] very properly says that this incidental remark of Eden is
all the original evidence we have on this so-called expedition of Cabot
in 1516, to which some modern writers attach great importance, and by
which great discoveries are said to have been made under Henry VIII.
Hakluyt, in his folio of 1589, p. 515, copies the language of Eden
cited above, and also an abstract from a spurious Italian version of
Oviedo, in Ramusio’s collections, in which that writer is made to say
that a Spanish vessel in the year 1517 fell in with an English rover
at the islands of St. Domingo and St. John’s in the West Indies, on
their way from Brazil; and concludes that this English rover could be
none other than the vessel of Cabot and Pert. But Richard Biddle,[30]
nearly two hundred and fifty years after Hakluyt wrote this opinion,
exploded this theory by showing that Oviedo, in his genuine work,
really gave 1527 as the date of the meeting of the English vessel, as
narrated. Biddle, however, still had faith in Eden’s statement that
an expedition sailed from England in the year indicated, commanded
by Cabot and Pert, but held that it took a northwesterly direction,
and that it was on this expedition that Cabot entered Hudson Bay, and
reached the high latitude of 67½ N. as mentioned by him in a letter
to Ramusio;[31] in which letter Cabot says that “on the 11th of June,
finding still the open sea without any manner of impediment, he thought
verily by that way to have passed on still the way to Cathay, which
is in the east, ... if the mutiny of the shipmaster and mariners had
not hindered him, and made him to return homewards from that place.”
Biddle saw a parallel in the language of Eden as to the “faint heart”
of Pert, and in that of Cabot as to the “mutiny of the shipmaster and
mariners;” not forgetting also similar language in a letter written by
Robert Thorne to Doctor Ley, in 1527, relating to a voyage of discovery
to the west, in which Thorne’s father and another merchant of Bristol,
Hugh Eliot, were participants—which voyage, Mr. Biddle says, was in
1517—that, “if the mariners would then have been ruled and followed
their pilots’ mind, the lands of the West Indies, from whence all the
gold cometh, had been ours.”[32] Mr. Biddle forgets that in the letter
of Cabot to Ramusio, cited above, the writer says that the voyage of
which he is here speaking was made in the reign of Henry VII., who died
in 1509, seven or eight years before the date which Biddle assigns to
the alleged Cabot and Pert voyage.

Dr. Kohl, who has very learnedly and at great length examined the
claims for this voyage of 1516-17,[33] has little confidence that
any such expedition actually sailed. Eden says the voyage “took none
effect,” which may mean that the expedition never sailed. It seems
also very improbable that Cabot, so recently domiciled in Spain, where
he was occupying an honorable position, should leave it all now and
re-enter the service of England, by whose Government he had apparently
for so many years been neglected. No English or Spanish writer mentions
his leaving Spain at this time.[34]

In 1555 there appeared in London the first collection in English of
the “results of that spirit of maritime enterprise which had been
everywhere awakened by the discovery of America.” The book was edited
by Richard Eden,—just mentioned as the translator of the fifth book
of Munster, in 1553,—and consisted of translations from foreign
writers, principally Latin, Spanish, and Italian, of travels by sea
and land, largely relating to discoveries in the New World. The book
was entitled, _The Decades of the Newe Worlde or West India_, etc.,
inasmuch as one hundred and sixty-six folios out of three hundred and
seventy-four, which the book contains, consist of the first three
Decades of Peter Martyr, and an epitome of the fourth Decade first
issued at Basle, in 1521. Then follow abstracts of Oviedo, Gomara,
Ramusio, Ziegler, Pigafeta, Munster, Bastaldus, Vespucius, and several
others. Some of the voyages are original and were drawn up by Eden’s
own hand. It is a very desirable book to possess; and though Eden was
a clumsy editor, not always correct in his translations, and did not
always make it clear whether he or his author was speaking, we are
grateful to him for the book. An enthusiastic tribute is paid to Eden
and his book by Richard Biddle,[35] who sets him off by an invidious
comparison with Richard Hakluyt, whom he studiously depreciates. Eden
was apparently a devoted Catholic, and was a spectator of the public
entry of Philip and Mary into London in 1554. He says that the splendid
pageant as it passed before him inspired him to enter upon some work
which he might in due season offer as the result of his loyalty, and
“crave for it the royal blessing.”[36] In his preface to the reader
Eden gives a brief review of ancient history, and coming down to the
time of the conquest of the Indies by Spain he eulogizes the conduct of
that nation towards the natives, particularly in having so effectually
labored for their conversion. His language is one continued eulogy of
the Spaniards. He urges England to submit to King Philip, of whom he
says:—

 “Of his behavior in England, his enemies (which canker virtue never
 lacked),—they, I say, if any such yet remain,—have greatest cause
 to report well, yea so well, that if his natural clemency were not
 greater than was their unnatural indignation, they know themselves
 what might have followed.... Being a lion he behaved himself as a
 lamb, and struck not his enemy having the sword in his hand. Stoop,
 England, stoop, and learn to know thy lord and master, as horses and
 other brute beasts are taught to do!”

He earnestly desires to see the Christian religion enlarged, and urges
his countrymen to follow here the example of the Spaniards in the New
World. He says:—

 “I am not able, with tongue or pen, to express what I conceive
 hereof in my mind, yet one thing I see which enforseth me to speak,
 and lament that the harvest is so great and the workmen so few. The
 Spaniards have showed a good example to all Christian nations to
 follow. But as God is great and wonderful in all his works, so beside
 the portion of land pertaining to the Spaniards (being eight times
 bigger than Italy, as you may read in the last book of the second
 Decade), and beside that which pertaineth to the Portugals, there
 yet remaineth another portion of that main land reaching toward the
 northeast, thought to be as large as the other, and not yet known
 but only by the sea-coasts, neither inhabited by any Christian men;
 whereas, nevertheless, (as writeth Gemma Phrisius) in this land
 there are many fair and fruitful regions, high mountains, and fair
 rivers, with abundance of gold, and diverse kinds of beasts. Also
 cities and towers so well builded, and people of such civility,
 that this part of the world seemeth little inferior to our Europe,
 if the inhabitants had received our religion. They are witty people
 and refuse not bartering with strangers. These regions are called
 Terra Florida and Regio Baccalearum or Bacchallaos, of the which you
 may read somewhat in this book in the voyage of that worthy old man
 yet living, Sebastian Cabot, in the vi. book of the third Decade.
 But Cabot touched only in the north corner, and most barbarous part
 thereof, from whence he was repulsed with ice in the month of July.
 Nevertheless, the west and south parts of these regions have since
 been better searched by other, and found to be as we have said
 before.... How much therefore is it to be lamented, and how greatly
 doth it sound to the reproach of all Christendom, and especially to
 such as dwell nearest to these lands (as we do), being much nearer
 unto the same than are the Spaniards (as within xxv days sailing
 and less),—how much, I say, shall this sound unto our reproach and
 inexcusable slothfulness and negligence, both before God and the
 world, that so large dominions of such tractable people and pure
 gentiles, not being hitherto corrupted with any other false religion
 (and therefore the easier to be allured to embrace ours), are now
 known unto us, and that we have no respect neither for God’s cause nor
 for our own commodity, to attempt some voyages into these coasts, to
 do for our parts as the Spaniards have done for theirs, and not ever
 like sheep to haunt one trade, and to do nothing worthy memory among
 men or thanks before God, who may herein worthily accuse us for the
 slackness of our duty toward him.”

The few voyages of discovery made by the English in the first part of
the sixteenth century, either by the authority of the Government or on
private account, were productive of little results; and when Sebastian
Cabot finally returned to England from Spain, in 1547 or 1548, his
influence was engaged by sundry merchants of London, who were seeking
to devise some means to check the decay of trade in the realm, by the
discovery of a new outlet for the manufactured products of the nation.
The result was the sending off the three vessels under Willoughby,
in May, 1553, to the northeast, and finally the incorporation of the
merchant adventurers, with Cabot as governor.

In Richard Eden’s long address to the reader prefixed to his
translation of the fifth Book of Sebastian Münster, written probably
before the Willoughby expedition had been heard from, he speaks of “the
attempt to pass to Cathay by the North East, which some men doubt, as
the globes represent it all land north, even to the north pole.” In
his preface to his _Decades_, cited above, written two years later, we
have seen that he urges the people of England to turn their attention
in the old direction, and to take possession of the waste places still
unoccupied by any Christian people; which regions be says are called
Terra Florida and Regio Baccalearum. These offer a large opportunity
for traffic as a remedy for the stagnation of trade under which England
is suffering, and a wide field for the Christian missionary.

The reader will have noticed, in the above extract, that Eden says
that Sebastian Cabot “touched only in the north corner and most
barbarous part” of the region which he is urging his countrymen to take
possession of, “from whence he was repulsed with ice in the month of
July.”

Eden’s _Decades_ placed before the English reader for the first time
the several notices of Sebastian Cabot, of which mention has been here
made; namely, by Martyr, Ramusio, Gomara, and the brief Commentary
by Ziegler. And the fact that this large unoccupied territory at the
west, which Eden here urges the English Government and people to take
possession of, was discovered by Cabot for the English nation, could
not fail in time to produce its fruit upon the English mind.

Sebastian Cabot, as we have seen, was living in England at the time
Richard Eden published his book, and a very old man. Eden appears
to have been on terms of acquaintance with him, if not of intimacy;
and unless the infirmities of years weighed too heavily upon his
faculties, Cabot might have been able to impart much information to
one so curious and eager as Eden was to gather up details. Eden more
than once speaks of what Sebastian Cabot told him. In the margin of
folio 255, where is a report of the famous conversation concerning
Sebastian Cabot, extracted from Ramusio, in which Cabot is spoken of as
“a Venetian born,” Eden says: “Sebastian Cabot told me that he was born
in Brystowe, and that at iiii years old he was carried with his father
to Venice, and so returned again into England with his father, after
certain years, wherby he was thought to have been born in Venice.” This
was a bad beginning on the part of Eden as an interviewer; that is to
say, the truth was not reached.

Sebastian Cabot, if he had been asked, might have told Eden much more.
Why did not Eden hand in a list of questions? Why did he not submit to
him a proof-sheet of the story from Ramusio, which we know contains so
many errors, and ask him to correct it, so that the world might have
a true account of the discovery of North America? What an excellent
opportunity was lost to Cabot for printing here under the auspices
of Eden all those maps and discourses which Hakluyt, at a later
period, tells us were in the custody of the worshipful Master William
Worthington, who was very willing to have them overseen and published,
but which have never yet seen the light![37]

I have already called attention to the fact that Eden had a copy of
Cabot’s map, and translated one of the legends upon it,—that relating
to the River La Plata, no. vii.[38]

About this time, or perhaps a few years earlier, there was painted in
England a portrait of Sebastian Cabot, supposed for many years to have
been done by Holbein, whose death has usually been referred to the year
1554, though recent investigations have rendered it probable that he
died eleven years before. The first notice of this portrait which I
have seen is in Purchas.[39] A minute description of it, with a notice
of its disappearance from Whitehall, where it hung for many years, is
given by Mr. Biddle,[40] who subsequently purchased the picture in
England and brought it to this country, where in 1845 it was burned
with his house and contents, in Pittsburg, Pa. Two excellent copies of
it, however, had fortunately been taken, one of which, by the artist
Chapman, is in the gallery of the Massachusetts Historical Society,[41]
and the other in that of the New York Historical Society.[42] The
portrait was painted after Cabot had returned to England; and it is
said, I know not on what authority, to have been painted for King
Edward VI., who died in 1553. Cabot lived some five years longer.
The picture represents Cabot as a very old man. It has the following
inscription upon it:[43]—

  EFFIGIES· SEBASTIANI CABOTI
  ANGLI· FILII· JOHÃNIS· CABOTI· VENE
  TI· MILITIS· AVRATI· PRIMI· INVĒT
  ORIS· TERRÆ NOVIÆ SUB HERICO VII. ANGL
      LÆ REGE.

A peculiar interest is attached to this inscription, from the
circumstance that it must probably have proceeded from Sebastian Cabot
himself; that is to say, the facts intended to be embodied in it by
the artist or herald could best come from him. But being clumsily
expressed, it is uncertain whether the son or the father was intended
to be represented as the knight and discoverer. With the exception
of the legend on the map already mentioned, it is the only direct
testimony presumably from Sebastian himself as to the principal fact
involved. That joins both the father and the son as discoverers. Here
the honor is given to but one of them, but unhappily the only statement
clearly expressed is that Sebastian Cabot is an Englishman and the son
of John Cabot, a Venetian. Which was the knight and the discoverer no
one can tell certainly from the legend itself. The inscription has
been the subject of considerable discussion and even controversy.[44]
Humboldt has a brief note on the subject,[45] in which he says: “Il
importe de savoir si c’est le père Jean ou le fils Sebastien qui est
désigné comme celui auquel la décoverte est due. Si c’était le fils,
Holbein aurait probablement placé le mot _filii_ après _Veneti_. Il
aurait écrit: _Effigies_ Seb. Caboti Angli, Joannis Caboti Veneti
filii....” We now know from other evidence that John Cabot was the
discoverer of North America. He may have been accompanied by his son,
Sebastian, but it would have been a pleasant fact to have the testimony
of the son to his father’s honor clearly expressed, as may have been
intended in this awkward composition. Sebastian Cabot has been the
sphinx of American history for over three hundred years, and this
inscription over his head in his picture does not tend to divest him
of that character. There has as yet appeared no other evidence to show
that either John Cabot or Sebastian was ever knighted. Purchas[46]
insists on giving the title of “Sir” to the son. Laying aside the
question as to the interpretation of the inscription on the portrait,
there is sufficient evidence elsewhere to show that Sebastian Cabot
was not a knight. In two documents to be more particularly noticed in
another place,—one dated in May, 1555, and the other in May, 1557, the
latter dated not long before Sebastian Cabot’s death,—relating to a
pension granted to him by the Crown of England, he is styled “Armiger,”
a dignity below that of knight and equivalent to that of esquire. See
Rymer’s _Fœdera_, vol. xv. pp. 427 and 466.

In 1558 there was published in Paris a book entitled _Les Singularitez
de la France Antarcktique_, etc., by F. André Thevet, the French
Cosmographer.[47] This writer is held in little estimation, and
deservedly so. In chapter lxxiv. fol. 145, _verso_, in speaking of the
Baccalaos, is this passage:—

 “It was first discovered by Sebastian Babate, an Englishman, who
 persuaded Henry VII., King of England, that he could go easily this
 way by the North to Cathay, and that he would thus obtain spices
 and other articles from the Indies equally as well as the King of
 Portugal; added to which he proposed to go to Peru and America, to
 people the country with new inhabitants, and to establish there a
 New England, which he did not accomplish. True it is he put three
 hundred men ashore, somewhere to the north of Ireland, where the cold
 destroyed nearly the whole company, though it was then the month of
 July. Afterwards Jaques Cartier (as he himself has told me) made two
 voyages to that country in 1534 and 1535.”

This passage it will be seen is a mere perversion of that in Gomara,
changing the name of Cabot to Babate, and Iceland to Ireland, but
adding the wholly unauthorized statement that the three hundred men
were put ashore and perished in the cold. Mr. Biddle,[48] who calls
attention to this writer’s recklessness, says that this is a “random
addition suggested by the reference in Gomara to one of the objects
of Cabot’s expedition, and the reasons which compelled him to turn
back.” On the other hand, he thinks it possible that Thevet “derived
his information from Cartier, who would be very likely to know of any
such attempt at settlement.” It is not at all likely that Thevet had
any authority whatever for his statement. His mention of Cartier is
probably suggested by seeing in Gomara,[49] immediately following the
extract from him above quoted, the mention of Cartier as being on that
coast in 1534 and 1535. But Thevet’s statement has entered into sober
history, and has been quoted and requoted.

Captain Antonio Galvano, the Portuguese, had died in 1557, leaving
behind him a _Trádado_, a historical treatise, which was published
at Lisbon in 1563. It gives an account “of all the discoveries,
ancient and modern, which have been made up to the year one thousand
five hundred and fifty.” This is a valuable chronological list of
discoveries in which the writer includes, in the latter part, his
own experience. He spent the early part of his life in India, and the
latter part, on being recalled home, in compiling an account of all
known voyages. The Hakluyt Society have published Galvano’s book in
the original, from a copy, believed to be unique, in the Carter-Brown
Library, at Providence R. I. It is accompanied by an English version,
by an unknown translator, long in the possession of Hakluyt, corrected
and published by him, as the title says, in 1601.[50] Hakluyt never
could get sight of a copy of the original edition. On comparing the
texts, several omissions and additions are noticed by the modern
editor. The former are supposed to be due to the inadvertence of
the translator, the latter to Hakluyt, who supplied what he thought
important from other sources; and to him are probably due the marginal
references. The following is the English version of Galvano’s
account[51] of Cabot’s discovery, some omissions having been supplied
by the modern editor:—

 “In the year 1496 there was a Venetian in England called John Cabota,
 who having knowledge of such a new discovery as this was [viz. the
 discovery by Columbus], and perceiving by the globe that the islands
 before spoken of stood almost in the same latitude with his country,
 and much nearer to England than to Portugal, or to Castile, he
 acquainted King Henry the Seventh, then King of England, with the
 same, wherewith the said king was greatly pleased, and furnished him
 out with two ships and three hundred men; which departed and set sail
 in the spring of the year, and they sailed westward till they came in
 sight of land in 45 degrees of latitude towards the north, and then
 went straight northwards till they came into 60 degrees of latitude,
 where the day is eighteen hours long, and the night is very clear
 and bright. There they found the air cold, and great islands of ice,
 but no ground in seventy, eighty, an hundred fathoms sounding, but
 found much ice, which alarmed them; and so from thence putting about,
 finding the land to turn eastwards, they trended along by it on the
 other tack, discovering all the bay and river[52] named Deseado, to
 see if it passed on the other side; then they sailed back again,
 diminishing the latitude, till they came to 38 degrees toward the
 equinoctial line, and from thence returned into England. There be
 others which say that he went as far as the Cape of Florida, which
 standeth in 25 degrees.”

It will be seen that the greater part of this is taken from Gomara, and
the writer had also read Peter Martyr and Ramusio, and from the latter
takes his year 1496. One statement,—namely, that Cabot came in sight
of land in 45 degrees north,—is original here, which would almost lead
one to suppose that Galvano had seen the _prima vista_ of Cabot’s map.

It will be noticed, near the beginning of the extract from Galvano,
that John Cabot is said to be the discoverer. Thus it stands in the old
English version as published by Hakluyt, but in the original Portuguese
it reads: “No anno de 1496 achandose hum Venezeano por nome Sebastiāo
Gaboto em Inglaterra,” etc. The substitution of John for Sebastian was
no doubt due to Hakluyt, who also made this marginal note: “The great
discovery of John Cabota and the English.”[53]

In this same year (1563) there was published in London an English
version from the French of Jean Ribault, entitled, _The whole and True
discoverie of Terra Florida_ (_englished the Flourishing Lande_), etc.,
giving an account of the attempt to found a colony at Port Royal in
the preceding year. The translation was made by Thomas Hacket, and was
reprinted by Richard Hakluyt in his _Divers Voyages_, in 1582.[54] In
referring to the preceding attempts at discovery and settlement of
those northern shores, he says:—

 “Of the which there was one, a very famous stranger named Sebastian
 Cabota, an excellent pilot, sent thither by King Henry, the year
 1498, and many others, who never could attain to any habitation, nor
 take possession thereof one only foot of ground, nor yet approach or
 enter into these parts and fair rivers into the which God hath brought
 us.”[55]

This passage from Ribault is cited principally for the date there
given, 1498, as the year of Sebastian Cabot’s visit to the northern
shores. It was not the year of the discovery, but was the year of the
second voyage. Where did Ribault pick up this date? No one of the
notices of Cabot’s voyage hitherto cited contains it. I have already
called attention to Peter Martyr’s language, in 1524, that Sebastian
Cabot discovered the Baccalaos twenty-six years before, from which by a
calculation that date is arrived at.[56]

In 1570 Abraham Ortelius published at Antwerp the first edition of
his celebrated _Theatrum orbis terrarum_, containing fifty-three
copperplate maps, engraved by Hogenberg.[57] In the beginning of
the book is a list of the maps which Ortelius had consulted, and he
mentions among them one by “Sebastianus Cabotus Venetus, Universalem
Tabulam: quam impressam æneis formis vidimus, sed sine nomine loci et
impressoris.” This would seem to describe, so far as it goes, the Cabot
map in the National Library, at Paris, which is a large engraved map of
the world, “without the name of the place or the printer.”

Mr. Biddle was impressed with the belief that Ortelius was largely
influenced in the composition of his map by the map of Cabot. He
contended that Cabot’s landfall was the coast of Labrador, and he found
near that coast, on the map of Ortelius, a small island named St.
John, which he supposed was that discovered by Cabot on St. John’s day
and so named, and was taken by Ortelius from Cabot’s map.[58] But an
examination of the Paris map fails to confirm Biddle’s hypothesis. The
“Y. de s. Juan,” is in the Gulf of St. Lawrence near where the _prima
vista_ is placed. A delineation of what might be called Hudson Bay
appears on the map of Ortelius, and Biddle supposed that Cabot’s map
furnished the authority for it. But no such representation of that bay
appears on Cabot’s map.

In 1574 there appeared at Cologne another edition of Peter Martyr’s
three Decades, published in connection with some writings of the
distinguished Fleming, Damiani A. Goès.[59] The third Decade of Martyr,
as I have already said, contained the earliest notice of Sebastian
Cabot.

       *       *       *       *       *

We have arrived at a period now when the public men of England
began especially to interest themselves in voyages of discovery and
colonization, and successfully to engage the good offices of the
Queen in their behalf. “There hath been two special causes in former
age,” says George Beste in “the Epistle Dedicatory” to his voyages of
Frobisher, published in 1578, “that have greatly hindered the English
nation in their attempts. The one hath been lack of liberality in the
nobility; and the other, want of skill in the cosmography and the art
of navigation,—which kind of knowledge is very necessary for all
our noblemen, for that, we being islanders, our chiefest strength
consisteth by sea. But these two causes are now in this present age
(God be thanked!) very well reformed; for not only her Majesty now,
but all the nobility also, having perfect knowledge in cosmography,
do not only with good words countenance the forward minds of men, but
also with their purses do liberally and bountifully contribute unto the
same; whereby it cometh to pass that navigation, which in the time of
King Henry VII. was very raw, and took (as it were) but beginning (and
ever since hath had by little and little continual increase), is now in
her Majesty’s reign grown to his highest perfection.”[60]

Frobisher sailed on his first voyage in June, 1576. The tract of Sir
Humphrey Gilbert, entitled, _A Discourse of Discovery for a new Passage
to Cataia_, principally written ten years before, was published before
Frobisher left the Thames. The reference in this tract to Sebastian
Cabot—who “by his personal experience and travel hath set forth and
described this passage [that is, the Straits of Anian] in his charts,
which are yet to be seen in the Queen’s Majesty’s Privy Gallery at
Whitehall, who was sent to make this discovery by King Henry VII.,
and entered the same fret,” etc.—has led Mr. Biddle to suppose that
Frobisher had the benefit of Cabot’s experience, and that his maps or
charts hanging in the gallery at Whitehall had delineated on them the
strait or passage through to the Pacific, which Cabot entered, and
would have passed on to Cathay, if he had not been prevented by the
mutiny of the master and mariners.[61]

One would naturally infer that Gilbert wrote this passage after
inspecting the map in Whitehall, but the full passage of which we have
here given an extract is taken from Cabot’s letter in Ramusio,[62] to
which work Gilbert refers in the margin of his tract thus: “Written
in the Discourses of Navigation.”[63] I may add that in the following
year, 1577, Richard Willes published a new edition of Eden,[64]
containing all the references to Cabot in the genuine edition, and also
a paper on Frobisher’s first voyage, with some speculations, added to
those of Gilbert, as to the northwest passage. In this paper, addressed
to the Countess of Warwick, he makes frequent reference to Cabot’s
card or table, in possession of the countess’s father “at Cheynies,”
as proving by Cabot’s experience the existence of such a strait as had
been spoken of by Gilbert, and of which Frobisher in his first voyage
was in search. He says: “Cabota was not only a skilful seaman but a
long traveller, and such a one as entered personally that strait, sent
by King Henry VII. to make this aforesaid discovery, as in his own
discourse of navigation you may read in his card drawn with his own
hand; the mouth of the northwest strait lieth near the 318 meridian,
betwixt 61 and 64 degrees in elevation, continuing the same breadth
about 10 degrees west, where it openeth southerly more and more.”[65]

If the Countess of Warwick’s father, the Earl of Bedford, had a map
by Cabot, with a northwestern strait delineated on it in degrees of
latitude and longitude as described by Willes, it could not be a
copy of the recently recovered Paris map. In the latter the coast to
the north of Labrador from latitude 58 to 65 runs in a northeasterly
direction, when it suddenly trends in a northwesterly direction, its
delineation ceasing at latitude 68, where is this inscription, “Costa
del hues norueste” (coast west-northwest). Dr. Kohl is of opinion that
Cabot is here delineating, from his own experience, Cumberland Island
in Davis’s Strait; but Mr. Biddle thinks that Cabot’s highest northern
latitude was reached in Fox’s Channel on the shores of Melville
Peninsula. All these speculations seem to me to be based on very
uncertain data.[66]

One is impressed with the ambiguous language of Willes when he speaks
of Cabot’s “own discourse of navigation [which] you may read in his
card drawn by his own hand.” The phrase “discourse of navigation”
sounds so much like Gilbert’s reference in the margin of his tract to
Ramusio, that I am disposed to refer it to that source.

Clement Adams, as we shall see farther on, made a copy of Cabot’s map
or a copy of some reputed map of Cabot, in 1549 (if the supposition as
to the date is correct), which in Hakluyt’s time hung in the gallery at
Whitehall, and of which copies were also to be seen in many merchants’
houses; yet it is difficult to understand how different copies of a
genuine map of Cabot could contain such variations. Certainly they are
all unsatisfactory, and throw but little light on the voyage of the
Cabots.

The indefatigable compiler and translator Belleforest issued in
1576,[67] in Paris, his _Cosmographie Universelle_, on the basis of
the work of Sebastian Munster; and he says[68] that Sebastian Cabot
attempted, at the expense of Henry VII. of England, to find the way
to Cathay by the north; that he discovered the point of Baccalaos,
which the Breton and Norman sailors now call the Coast of Codfish, and
proceeding yet farther reached the latitude of 67 degrees towards the
Arctic pole. Substantially the same passage may be found in Chauveton’s
_Histoire Nouvelle du Nouveau Monde_, p. 141, published at Geneva, in
1579, being a translation of Benzoni, and of other writers.

In connection with Frobisher’s voyage there was published in London,
in 1578, _A Prayse and Report of Maister Martyne Frobisher’s Voyage to
Meta Incognita_, by Thomas Churchyard, a miscellaneous and voluminous
writer, who says: “I find that Cabota was the first in King Henry
VII.’s days that diserned this frozen land or seas from 67 towards the
north, from thence toward the south along the coast to 36 degrees.”[69]

The work of George Beste, the writer of the account of Frobisher’s
three voyages, before mentioned, published in London in 1578, speaks of
Sebastian Cabot as having discovered sundry parts of new-found-land,
and attempted the passage to Cathay, and as being an Englishman, born
in Bristowe. And a yet further reference is made to him, with the
singular additional statement that the date of his discovery was 1508.
This date may be a clerical or typographical error.

These brief notices of Sebastian Cabot are cited as showing how a
tradition is kept alive by one author or compiler quoting another,
neither of which is of the slightest authority in itself.

In 1582 there appeared at Paris a work entitled _Les Trois Mondes_,
etc. by L. V. Popellinière. It is a mere compilation, and embraces
translations from various authors relating to the discoveries of the
different maritime nations of Europe in various parts of the world. His
third world is Australia, called by the Spaniards, he says, Terra del
Fuego, which is here represented on a map as a large continent.[70] On
fol. 25 it is said that Cabot was the first to conduct the English to
the Baccalaos, which was better known to him than to any other; that
he armed two ships at the charge and with the consent of Henry VII. of
England to go there, and took out with him three hundred Englishmen,
and sailed along 48½ degrees in a strait, but was so baffled by the
extremity of the cold which he found there in July, that, although the
days were long, and the nights were clear, he did not dare to pass
beyond with his men to the island to which he wished to conduct them.

This is substantially a resumé of the account in Gomara, with a
discrepancy in stating the latitude reached.

Following a long resumé in French of the conversation in the first
volume of Ramusio, this writer remarks: “This then was that Gabote
which first discovered Florida for the King of England, so that the
Englishmen have more right thereunto than the Spaniards; if to have
right unto a country, it sufficeth to have first seen and discovered
the same.”[71]

In 1580 was published the first edition of Stow’s _Chronicle_ (or
_Annals_) _of England_, etc., which contains, under the year 1498, the
alleged passage from Fabian, which Mr. Biddle[72] charges Hakluyt with
perverting, by prefixing in his larger work the name of John Cabot to
the “Venitian” as it appeared in the _Divers Voyages_ of 1582. The
passage in Stow begins thus: “This year one Sebastian Gabato, a Genoa’s
son, born in Bristow,” etc. Reference will be made to this document
farther on.

In 1582 Richard Hakluyt published his _Divers Voyages_, his first book,
which contains many curious and important documents. It is dedicated to
Master Philip Sidney, Esquire, who, with other statesmen and public men
of England, was then deeply interested in American Colonization, being
largely inspired by political considerations. The dedication contains
an interesting summary of what had been done by other nations, and the
reasons why England should now enter upon this work. Reasons are also
given for believing that “there is a strait and short way open into
the west even unto Cathay,” which they had so long desired to find.
And finally the claim of England to the large unsettled territory in
America is set forth, “from Florida to sixty-seven degrees northward,
by the letters patent granted to John Gabote and his three sons, Lewis,
Sebastian, and Santius, with Sebastian’s own certificate to Baptista
Ramusius of his discovery of America, and the testimony of Fabian our
own chronicler.”

We begin now to approach for the first time a document which is of
the highest authenticity and value. I mean the letters patent, which
Hakluyt here prints,[73] under which the discovery of North America
was made by authority of England. John Cabot, the father, now emerges
from obscurity, for we find the grant is to him and to his three sons,
of whom Sebastian is the second. The patent gave them permission to
sail with five ships, at their own costs and charges, under the royal
banners and ensigns, to all countries and seas of the east, of the
west, and of the north, and to seek out and discover whatsoever isles,
countries, and provinces of the heathen and infidels, whatsoever they
be, which before this time had been unknown to Christians. They also
had license to set up the royal banners in the countries found by them,
and to conquer and possess them as the king’s vassals and lieutenants.
This document is dated 5 March, 1495 (that is 1496, new style). Hakluyt
also prints an extract from Fabian’s chronicle, furnished him by John
Stow, and supposed to have been in manuscript, as it is not contained
in any printed edition of Fabian. In the heading which Hakluyt gives
to the paper as printed, he says it is “a note of Sebastian Gabote’s
voyage of discovery.” The document reads: “This year the King (by means
of a Venetian which made himself very expert and cunning in knowledge
of the circuit of the world and islands of the same, ...) caused to man
and victual a ship at Bristowe to search for an island which, he said
he knew well, was rich and replenished with rich commodities,—which
ship thus manned and victualed at the King’s cost, divers merchants
of London ventured in her small stocks, being in her as chief patron
the said Venetian. And in the company of the said ship sailed also out
of Bristowe three or four small ships fraught with slight and gross
merchandizes; ... and so departed from Bristowe in the beginning of
May, of whom in this Mayor’s time returned no tidings.” This of course
refers to the voyage of 1498.

In the margin against this paper Hakluyt has this note: “In the 13
year of King Henry the VII., 1498,” and also “William Purchas, Mayor
of London,” whose time expired the last of October, 1498. Stow, as
has been seen, had already printed this paper, two years before, in
his _Annals_; and it is reprinted in later editions of that work.
What precise shape the original paper was in, which was used by Stow
and Hakluyt, we do not know. If they had but one original it was not
followed in all its details by both. Dr. E. E. Hale printed in the
_Proceedings_ of the American Antiquarian Society for October, 1865, a
paper from the Cotton manuscripts in the British Museum, Vitellius, A.
xvi, which he thought was the original paper used by each, and to which
Hakluyt’s copy conforms more nearly than does that of Stow. The Cotton
manuscript gives no name to the navigator, but calls him a stranger
“Venetian,” as does Hakluyt. Stow, who probably rarely heard of the
name of John Cabot, and was very familiar with that of Sebastian, calls
him “Sebastian Gaboto, a Genoa’s son.”[74]

Hakluyt also prints in this precious little volume the substance of
Sebastian Cabot’s letter to Ramusio, printed in the beginning of his
third volume, in which he mentions the degree of latitude, 67½° N.,
which Cabot reached in his voyage in search of a way to Cathay.

He also prints for the first time the two well-known letters of Robert
Thorne, in the latter of which, addressed to Dr. Ley, the English
ambassador to Spain, the writer says that his father and another
merchant of Bristol, Hugh Eliot, were the discoverers of the new-found
lands. Some have conjectured that these merchants went out with the
Cabots, and others that they were in some later expedition not well
defined. Hakluyt also prints here an English version of “Verarzanus,”
and Hacket’s “Ribault.” The volume also contains two maps, one of
which, prepared by Michael Locke, was made, he says, “according to
Verarzanus’s plat,” an “old excellent map, which he gave to King Henry
VIII., and is yet in the custody of Master Locke.” The map of Locke was
probably made only in its general features according to the original
model, and contained some more modern additions by its compiler. It has
one interesting inscription upon it,—namely, on the delineation of C.
Breton we read, “J. Gabot, 1497.” This is the first time I have seen
this date assigned as the date of the discovery.[75]

Hakluyt’s little volume expressed the interest felt in England on the
subject of North American colonization, and furnished the ground on
which England based her title to the country. He also announced in
this book that Sebastian Cabot’s maps and discourses were then in the
custody of one of Cabot’s old associates, William Worthington, who was
willing to have them seen and published.

       *       *       *       *       *

The interest in the contemplated voyage of Sir Humphrey Gilbert, who
made the first serious attempt in that century at colonization for
England, culminated next year, when he sailed and never returned. Among
the reports of that voyage was one written by Mr. Edward Haies in 1583,
in which he says: “The first discovery of these coasts (never heard of
before) was well begun by John Cabot the father, and Sebastian the son,
an Englishman born, who were the first finders out of all that great
tract of land stretching from the Cape of Florida unto those islands
which we now call the Newfoundland; all which they brought and annexed
unto the crown of England.”[76]

Sir George Peckham, a large adventurer with Gilbert, also wrote in 1583
on the same theme, and he makes mention of the title of England in the
following language: “In the time of the Queen’s grandfather of worthy
memory, King Henry VII., letters patent were by his Majesty granted to
John Cabota, an Italian, to Lewis, Sebastian, and Sancius, his three
sons, to discover remote, barbarous, and heathen countries, which
discovery was afterwards executed to the use of the Crown of England in
the said King’s time by Sebastian and Sancius, his sons, who were born
here in England.”[77] It seems to have been thought that the title of
England would be strengthened by the statement that the discoverers,
or some of them, were native subjects of the Crown of England. This
seems to have been one reason why it has always been insisted on that
Sebastian Cabot, so long supposed to be the discoverer, was born in
England.[78]

[Illustration: LOK’S MAP, 1582.—REDUCED.]

I have already spoken of an edition of Peter Martyr’s _Decades_ in the
original Latin, _De Orbe Novo_, published at Paris in 1587, under
the editorship of Richard Hakluyt, who was then residing in that
city in connection with the British Embassy. It was dedicated to Sir
Walter Raleigh, for whom, three years before, Hakluyt had written the
_Discourse on Westerne Planting_. It was the first time the _Decades_
had been printed entire since the first edition of them appeared at
Alcala in Spain in 1530. It has been suggested by Mr. Brevoort that the
Spanish Government did not favor their circulation, or encourage their
republication. In Hakluyt’s edition there was inserted an excellent
map of North and South America, of small size, six and a half by seven
and a half inches, and dedicated to him by the maker, “F. G.” On the
delineation of the coast of Labrador, there is inscribed just north
of the River St. Lawrence, “Baccalaos Ab Anglis, 1496.” This date was
without doubt supplied by Hakluyt himself, who, in his _Discourse on
Westerne Planting_, insisted on that erroneous date as the true year of
discovery,—citing the conversation in the first volume of Ramusio for
his authority, as we have seen.

In tracing down the notices in print of John or Sebastian Cabot, we
come now to a book of considerable interest, published in Venice in
1588, some years after the death of its author, Livio Sanuto. It was
entitled _Geographica Distincta_, etc., and related in part to matters
connected with naval science. The author was deeply interested in the
subject of the variation of the needle, and having heard that Sebastian
Cabot had publicly explained this subject to the King of England
(supposed to be Edward VI., on Cabot’s return to England), he applied
to the Venetian ambassador there resident to ascertain from Cabot
himself where he had fixed the point of no variation. The information
was accordingly procured and published by Sanuto. In the course of
his investigations the author made use of a map composed by Cabot
himself, in which the position of this meridian was seen to be one
hundred and ten miles to the west of the island of Flores, one of the
Azores. Mr. Biddle,[79] who dwells at some length on this volume, calls
attention to the fact “that the First Meridian on the maps of Mercator,
running through the most western point of the Azores, was adopted with
reference to the supposed coincidence in that quarter of the true and
magnetic poles.” Sanuto makes frequent reference to the map of Cabot
in his book, and also makes mention of Cabot’s observations relating
to the variation of the compass at the equator. I have already called
attention to one of the legends on Cabot’s map of 1544, no. 17, which
relates in part to the variation of the needle. In _Prima Parte_, lib.
ii. fol. 17, Sanuto gives a brief account of Cabot’s voyage, which
Mr. Biddle[80] says corresponds minutely with that which Sir Humphrey
Gilbert derived from the map hung up in Queen Elizabeth’s gallery.
Sanuto, however, evidently copied from Cabot’s letter in the preface of
the third volume of Ramusio, from which also the language in Gilbert is
drawn.

In 1589 Hakluyt published his first folio of 825 pages entitled, _The
Principal Navigations, Voyages, and Discoveries of the English Nation_,
a monument of his industry as a collector. In this first folio Hakluyt
included several pieces from his little quarto tract of 1582, and he
collected and put into English other most important evidence relating
to the discovery of North America by the Cabots. He gave the passage
in Peter Martyr, the conversation in Ramusio, the extract from Gomara,
added to those documents reprinted from the quarto tract, all of which
have been here noticed in the order in which they appeared in print.
It may be added that in the passage from Fabian Hakluyt introduced
the name of John Cabot as the Venetian, though he allowed the name of
Sebastian to stand in the heading, probably through inadvertence. He
also brought the marginal date into the text.

[Illustration: A SKETCH OF THE HAKLUYT-MARTYR (1587) MAP.

[This sketch-map is taken from the fac-simile in Stevens’s _Historical
and Geographical Notes_, and needs the following key:—

  1. Groenlandia.
  2. Islandia.
  3. Frislandia.
  4. Meta incognita ab Anglis inventa An. 1576.
  5. Demonum ins.
  6. S. Brandon.
  7. Baccalaos ab Anglis, 1496.
  8. Hochelaga.
  9. Nova Albion inventa An. 1580, ab Anglis.
  10. Nova Francia.
  11. Virginia, 1584.
  12. Bermuda.
  13. Azores.
  14. Florida.
  15. Nueva Mexico.
  16. Nova Hispania.
  17. Caribana.
  18. Brasilia.
  19. Fretum Magellani.
  20. Peru.

This map is so rare that the copies in some of the choicest collections
lack it, such as the Huth (p. 920,) Brinley (no. 42), and Carter-Brown
(no. 370). Rich priced a copy in 1832 with the map at £4 4s., which
would to-day be a small sum for the book without the map; while a copy
with the map is now worth £20. Quaritch, Cat. 331, no. 1. The Boston
Athenæum copy has the map. See Norton’s _Lit. Gazette_, new series, i.
272. _Bull. Soc. Géog._, Oct. 1858, p. 271.—ED.]]

He also produced here from the Rolls Office a memorandum of a license
granted by the King to John Cabot alone, to take five English ships of
two hundred tons or under, with necessary furniture, and mariners and
subjects of the King as would willingly go with him,—dated the 3d day
of February in the thirteenth year of his reign (1497/8).

The full copy of this license Hakluyt probably never saw, and the
significance of this brief memorandum was never known until, two
hundred and forty years afterwards, the entire document was found and
published by Mr. Richard Biddle in his _Memoir of Sebastian Cabot_.[81]
It was therefore often interpreted, in connection with the letters
patent previously issued, as a grant to take up ships for the first
voyage, which, as was supposed, did not take place till 1498.

The original grant of this license, of which Hakluyt publishes a brief
memorandum, is found to be a permit to enlist ships and mariners, etc.,
“and them convey and lead _to the land and isles of late found by the
said John in our name and by our commandment_. Paying for them and
every of them as and if we should in or for our own cause pay, and none
otherwise.”

The part I have italicized is most significant, and shows that a
previous voyage had been made by John Cabot under the authority of the
Crown.

Hakluyt also reprinted for the first time, in Latin, with an English
version, an extract from Sebastian Cabot’s map, being no. 8 of the
Legends inscribed upon it, relating to the discovery of North America,
already recited on p. 21. And in saying that it was taken from
Sebastian Cabot’s map, I should explain that Hakluyt says it was “an
extract taken out of the map of Sebastian Cabot, cut by Clement Adams,
... which is to be seen in her Majesty’s Privy Gallery at Westminster,
and in many other ancient merchants’ houses.” This language is a little
equivocal, and some have supposed that Hakluyt intended to say that
the extract simply was cut by Adams, and not that the whole map was
copied by him. Clement Adams was a schoolmaster and a learned man, and
probably was not an engraver. But Hakluyt is elsewhere more explicit.
In his _Westerne Planting_,[82] he says: “His [Cabot’s] own map is in
the Queen’s Privy Gallery at Westminster, the copy whereof was set out
by Mr. Clement Adams, and is in many merchants’ houses in London.”
It was probably reproduced under the inspection of Adams. We do not
know the year in which Adams’s copy was made, unless an equivocal date
in the margin of Purchas[83] may be regarded as expressing the year,
namely “1549.” Purchas has fallen into great confusion in attempting to
describe Cabot’s map and his picture as they hung in Whitehall in his
time.[84]

All these documents relative to the Cabot voyages were reprinted by
Hakluyt in the third volume of his larger work—bearing a similar
general title to that of 1589—published in 1600.[85] In the extract
from Cabot’s map, cut by Clement Adams, there reproduced, he changed
the date of the year of the discovery from 1494 to 1497. This latter
is no doubt the true date, but on what authority did Hakluyt make the
change? M. D’Avezac, who contended that 1494 was the true date of the
discovery, that being the date on Cabot’s map, believed that the change
was the result of a typographical error.[86] That it was deliberate
and that the change was not made by an error of the printer, is shown
by the fact that the altered date appears both in the Latin extract
and the English version of it; and that the index or general catalogue
at the beginning of the third volume, in noticing the authorities for
Sebastian Cabot’s voyage, gives “1497” as the year. Again, a copy of
Emeric Molyneaux’s map, prepared about this time, and inserted in some
copies of this volume of Hakluyt, has on the delineation of Labrador,
which some suppose to have been the _prima vista_ of Cabot, the
following inscription: “This land was discovered by John and Sebastian
Cabot for King Henry VII., 1497.”[87] I have already referred to the
earliest use of this date as the year of the discovery, inscribed on a
map of Locke in Hakluyt’s _Divers Voyages_ of 1582. But the true source
of the date is not here revealed.[88]

Clement Adams’s map is yet a mystery. I have already called attention
to two editions of Cabot’s map, one of which is in the National Library
at Paris, and another from which the legends in Chytræus were copied.
The extract from Adams’s edition, first made by Hakluyt in 1589,[89]
was in Latin, but from a text quite different from that of Chytræus,
or from the Paris map. It is Legend No. 8 of the inscriptions, and was
the “Chapiter of Gabot’s mapp _De terra nova_,” as set out by Adams,
which Hakluyt tells us of in his _Discourse_.[90] This heading is the
same as that in Chytræus. Here we have two different translations from
a Spanish original. Did Adams transcribe from another copy of Cabot’s
map yet to be discovered—for we can hardly suppose he would make a new
Latin version of the legends, with one already before him—or did he
translate from a map with the Spanish legends only?—neither of which
precious documents is to be found in our bureaus of cartography, and
they are yet to be added to Dr. Kohl’s list of lost maps!

Following Hakluyt’s extract from Adams’s map is an English version by
him, beginning thus:—

 “In the year of our Lord 1494, John Cabot, a Venetian, and his son
 Sebastian (with an English fleet set out from Bristol), discovered
 that land which no man before that time had attempted, on the 24th of
 June, about five of o’clock early in the morning. This land he called
 Prima vista, that is to say, First seen, because, as _I suppose_, it
 was that part whereof they had the first sight from sea. That island
 which lyeth out before the land he called the Island of S. John, upon
 this occasion, as _I think_, because it was discovered upon the day of
 St. John the Baptist.”

It is scarcely necessary to say that the passage in parenthesis is not
in the original, but is introduced by Hakluyt. But the words which I
have italicized are represented in the extract by “credo” and “opinor,”
and are not authorized by the language of the Paris map, nor by the
same legend in Chytræus. In the concluding part of this extract, not
here quoted, Hakluyt speaks of a certain kind of fish seen by the
Cabots, “which the _Savages_ call Baccalaos.” The Latin of Adams’s map
and of the Paris map is _vulgus_, which may mean the common people of
Europe, or the fishermen. In the Spanish of the Paris map, it is said
that the fish are called Baccalaos, but it does not say by whom. The
“white bears” of the Spanish crept into the Latin of Adams, and of
course into Hakluyt’s English, as “white lions.”

An interesting discussion as to the authenticity of this map of Cabot
in the Paris Library, in connection with the genuineness of the date
1494, as expressing the true year of the discovery of North America,
may be seen in the letter of M. D’Avezac to President Woods, already
referred to. M. D’Avezac accepts the map and the date as genuine and
authentic, while Dr. Kohl rejects both. Mr. Richard Henry Major, in
his paper on “The True Date of the English Discovery,” etc., ably
reviews the whole question discussed by those distinguished _savans_,
and adopts a somewhat modified view. He believes that Sebastian Cabot
originally drew a map with _legends_ or inscriptions upon it in Spanish
only, but that he had no hand in publishing it, or in correcting it
for the press, and that the errors in the engraved map arose from
the ignorance or inadvertence of transcribers; that the date of the
discovery, 1497, was expressed in Roman numerals in the manuscript;
that the letter V. in the numerals VII. was carelessly drawn, and not
well joined at the base, so that a reader might well take it for a
II.; and that such an error might more easily occur in a manuscript,
especially on parchment, than on an engraved map on paper. As evidence
that the Paris map, which Dr. Kohl thinks was made in Germany or
Belgium, was copied from a Spanish manuscript, Mr. Major cites the
instance of the name Laguna de Nicaragua being rendered into “Laguna
de Nicaxagoe.” The Spanish manuscript _r_ being in the form of our
northern x, the transcriber showed his ignorance by substituting the
one letter for the other. So also as regards the copy made by Clement
Adams from the Spanish original. He made an independent translation of
the inscriptions into Latin, which accounts for the two Latin versions,
and also made the same error for the same reason, in giving the date
1494, instead of 1497.

Mr. Major believes that Hakluyt had good reason for making the
change of date from 1494 to 1497 as the true date of discovery, as
in the same volume in which the change was made he introduced the
remarkable map of Molyneaux, referred to above, on which that date
was inscribed as the year of the discovery; and furthermore that he
may have consulted the papers of Cabot in the possession of William
Worthington.[91]

       *       *       *       *       *

To return again from this long digression to the volumes of Hakluyt
in which he has brought together his various authorities relating
to the voyages of the Cabots, one is impressed with a feeling of
disappointment that he makes no attempt to reconcile their apparent
glaring discrepancies,—that is to say, as to the different dates given
in them to the voyage of discovery, and the variation in the different
degrees of latitude reached; while no opinion is expressed as to the
comparative agency of John or Sebastian Cabot, or the question as to
whether there was more than one voyage,—I mean a second immediately
following the first which was of discovery. In the general catalogue
prefixed in 1600 to the third volume of his larger work, he refers to
these several “testimonies” as proving a voyage of discovery in 1497,
while in reality no one of them proves that date, bearing in mind that
the date in the extract from Adams’s map was in this later reprint
inserted by him on some evidence not found in his volumes,—the truth
being that all these testimonies, taken as a whole, refer probably to
two if not three voyages, as we have already seen.[92]

I do not forget that these volumes of Hakluyt contain other interesting
documents relating to Cabot,—namely, the record of the pension granted
by Edward VI., dated Jan. 6, 1548-49, of £165 13_s._ 6_d._, to date
from the preceding Michaelmas Day (September 29); the Ordinances and
Instructions compiled by Cabot for the intended voyage for Cathay, May
9, 1553; his appointment in the charter of the Muscovy Company, Feb.
6, 1555-56, as its governor; the story of his presence on board the
“Serchthrift” at Gravesend on the 13th of April, 1556, about to sail
on a voyage of discovery to the northeast, where the venerable man
“entered into the dance himself.”[93]

I have already referred to a volume of Chytræus, containing the
Latin legends on Sebastian Cabot’s map, which was published about
this time,—the first edition in 1594, a second in 1599, and a third
edition in 1606. We can hardly suppose that Hakluyt ever saw this book,
at least in the earlier editions, as he could hardly have failed to
incorporate the inscriptions into his larger work. The date 1494 given
in the 8th Legend as the year of the discovery of the new lands, and
the same date incorporated in Hakluyt’s folio of 1589 from Adams’s
map, gave currency to its use to a limited extent.[94] But Hakluyt’s
larger work of 1598-1600 quite superseded in use his previous books,
and Chytræus was probably rarely seen or consulted; yet Mr. Biddle, who
never could have seen Chytræus or Hakluyt’s folio of 1589, could never
understand why later writers, like Harris and Pinkerton, adopted that
date.

I did not propose, in presenting this sketch of authorities relating to
the Cabots, in chronological order, to pursue the inquiry much beyond
the period to which I have arrived. Neither do I flatter myself that
I have, in the field already traversed, embraced everything in printed
form that should have been noticed, and something of value may have
escaped me. In proceeding, therefore, to notice two or three important
works relating to my theme published about the period now reached, I
shall conclude this chapter by introducing some important material
which has come to light at a later time, from the slumbering archives
of foreign States, and much of it within a few years.[95]

One of the most important books relating to the history of America
was published at Madrid, 1601-15, by Herrera,—_Historia General_. It
contains nothing relating to the first voyages of the Cabots, except
the passage from Gomara already cited; but it gives other interesting
facts respecting Sebastian Cabot’s residence in Spain, drawn from
official documents. In citing passages from this work below, I have
also made use of the more recently published works of Navarrete, and
even of other writers, where they relate to the same subject. In the
“deceptive conversation” given in the first volume of Ramusio, Cabot
is made to say that the troubles in England induced him, that is,
on his return from his voyage of discovery, to seek employment in
Spain. But Peter Martyr informs us that Cabot did not leave England
until after the death of Henry VII., which took place in 1509.[96]
Herrera[97] mentions the circumstances under which the invitation from
Ferdinand was given and accepted, and Cabot arrived in Spain, Sep. 13,
1512.

He was taken into service as “capitan,” with pay of fifty thousand
maravedis by a royal grant made at Lagroño, Oct. 20, 1512.[98]
Eden,[99] in a translation of Peter Martyr, makes that author say
that Cabot had been, at the time at which Martyr was writing, 1515,
appointed a member of the Council of the Indies, but it is believed
that the original language of Martyr, “concurialis noster,” will not
bear that interpretation.[100] In 1515 he was appointed “Cosmographo
de la Casa de la Contratacion,” an office which involved the care of
revising maps and charts.[101] And in that same year, Peter Martyr
tells us, there was projected a voyage under the command of Cabot, to
search for that “hid secret of Nature” in the northwest, to sail in
the following year, 1516. But the death of King Ferdinand, on the 23d
of January of that year, put an end to the expedition. In November,
1515, Cabot and Juan Vespucius gave an opinion (_parecer_) concerning
the demarcation line in Brazil.[102] I have already spoken of the
alleged voyage of Cabot and Sir Thomas Pert from England, of 1516-17,
concerning which serious doubts have been expressed. Herrera makes
no mention of Cabot’s leaving Spain at this time; and De Barcia,
not perhaps the highest authority, in the preface to his _Ensayo
Chronologico_, etc., Madrid, 1723, says that Cabot was residing quietly
in Spain from 1512 to 1526, and that “he never intended or proposed to
prosecute the proposed discovery.” On Feb. 5, 1518, he was appointed
“Piloto Mayor y Examinador de Pilotos,” succeeding Juan de Solis, who
had been killed on the La Plata River in 1516, with the same pay in
addition to that of capitano.[103] In 1520 this appointment is again
confirmed, with orders that no pilot should pass to the Indies without
being first examined and approved by him.[104] On April 14, 1524, the
celebrated Congress at Badajos was held, which was attended by Cabot,
not as a member but as an expert; and he and several others delivered
an opinion on the questions submitted, April 15, the second day of the
session.[105] Immediately after the decision of the Congress, which
was pronounced practically in favor of the Spanish interest, a company
was formed at Seville to prosecute the trade to the Moluccas, through
the Straits of Magellan, and Cabot was invited to take the command;
and in September of this year he received the sanction of the Council
of the Indies to engage in the enterprise, and the agreement with
the Emperor was executed at Madrid on March 4, 1525, and the title
of Captain-General was conferred upon him. It was intended that the
expedition should depart in August, but it was delayed by the intrigues
of the Portuguese, and did not sail till April 3, 1526.[106] Cabot’s
expedition to the La Plata, it having been diverted on the coast from
its original destination, will be considered in another volume. On Oct.
25, 1525, his wife, Catalina Medrano, was directed by a royal order to
receive fifty thousand maravedis as a “gratificacion.”[107]

Cabot returned from South America to Seville with two ships at the end
of July or the beginning of August, 1530, and laid his final report
before the Emperor, of which an abstract may be found in Herrera.
Private complaints were laid against him, and at the suit of the
families of some of his companions who had perished in the expedition
he was arrested and imprisoned, but liberated on bail. Public charges
were preferred against him for misconduct in the affairs of the La
Plata, and the Council of the Indies by an order dated from Medina del
Campo, Feb. 1, 1532, condemned him to a banishment of two years to
Oran, in Africa. But the sentence was not carried into execution. Under
the date of 1531, Herrera speaks of his wife and children.[108]

During Cabot’s absence, that is to say, on April 4, 1528, Alonzo de
Chaves was appointed “Piloto Mayor,” with Ribero;[109] but the office
was resumed by him not long after his return. Navarrete quotes from
the Archivo de Indias a declaration made in 1574, by Juan Fernandez
de Ladrillos, of Moguer, a great pilot, over seventy years old, who
had sailed to America for twenty-eight years, that he was examined by
Sebastian Cabot in 1535.[110] This office Cabot retained till he left
Spain and returned to England.

I may as well introduce here as elsewhere a few passages from that
part of the history of Oviedo recently published at Madrid, for the
first time, by the Academy of History. Oviedo is very severe on Cabot
for his want of knowledge and skill in his operations on the La Plata.
But my citations are for another purpose. “Another great pilot (piloto
mayor), Sebastian Cabot, Venetian by origin, educated in England, who
at present is Piloto Mayor and Cosmographer of their Royal Majesties,
etc.... I will not defend from passions ... and negligence Sebastian
Cabot in the affairs of this expedition, since he is a good person and
skilful in his office of cosmography, and making a map of the whole
world in plane or in a spherical form; but it is not the same thing to
command and govern people as to point a quadrant or an astrolabe.”[111]

Several interesting episodes in the life of Cabot during his residence
in Spain have been recently made public from the Venetian archives.
They may be related here.

The story of Cabot’s intrigue with the authorities of Venice is told
in a remarkable and interesting letter of Gasparin Contarini, the
Venetian ambassador to Charles V., dated Valladolid, Dec. 31, 1522.
Cabot was at this time holding a high office under the Emperor, and
was drawing large pay. It appears that he had made secret proposals
to the Council of Ten through a friend of his, a certain friar, named
Hieronimo de Marin, a native of Ragusa, to enter into the service of
Venice, and disclose the strait or passage which he claimed to have
discovered, whereby she would derive a great commercial benefit. He
proposed to visit Venice and lay the whole plan before the Council.
The Council of Ten, though they had but little confidence in the
scheme, made all this known to their ambassador by letter, in which
they enclosed a letter also for Cabot, which they had instructed the
friar to write to him. Contarini sent for Cabot, who happened then
to be residing at the court, and gave him his letter, which he there
read with manifest embarrassment. After his fears had been quieted he
told Contarini that he had previously, in England, out of the love he
bore his country, spoken to the ambassadors of Venice on the subject
of the newly discovered countries, through which he had the means of
benefiting Venice, and that the letter had reference to that subject;
but he besought the ambassador to keep the thing a secret, as it would
cost him his life. Contarini told him that he was thoroughly acquainted
with the whole affair, but they would talk further on the subject in
the evening. At the hour appointed, when they were closeted alone in
the ambassador’s chamber, Cabot said:—

 “My Lord Ambassador, to tell you the whole truth, I was born in
 Venice, but was brought up in England (Io naqui a Venetia, ma sum
 nutrito in Engelterra), and then entered the service of their Catholic
 Majesties of Spain, and King Ferdinand made me a captain, with a
 salary of 50,000 maravedis. Subsequently his present Majesty gave
 me the office of Pilot Major, with an additional salary of 50,000
 maravedis, and 25,000 maravedis besides, as a gratuity; forming a
 total of 125,000 maravedis, equal to about 300 ducats.”

He then proceeded to say that being in England some three years
before, Cardinal Wolsey offered him high terms if he would sail with
an armada of his on a voyage of discovery, for which preparations were
making; but he declined unless the Emperor would give his consent,
in which case he would accept the offer. But meeting with a Venetian
who reproached him for not serving his own country instead of being
engaged altogether for foreigners, his heart smote him, and he wrote
the Emperor to recall him, which he did. And on his return to Seville,
and contracting an intimate friendship with this Ragusan friar, he
unbosomed himself to him; and, as the friar was going to Venice,
charged him with the aforesaid message to the Council of the Ten, and
to no one else; and the Ragusan “swore to me a sacred oath to this
effect.” Cabot then said he would go to Venice, and lay the matter
before the Council, after getting the Emperor’s consent to go, “on the
plea of recovering his mother’s dowry.” The ambassador approved of
this, but made some serious objections to the feasibility of the scheme
which Cabot proposed for the benefit of Venice. Cabot answered his
objections. In the course of the conversation he told Contarini that he
had a method for ascertaining by the needle the distance between two
places from east to west, which had never been previously discovered
by any one. The interview was concluded by his promising to go to
Venice at his own expense, and return in like manner if his plan was
disapproved by the Council. He then urged Contarini to keep the matter
secret.

On the following 7th of March the ambassador again wrote to the Chiefs
of the Ten, saying that Cabot had been several times to see him, and
that he was disposed to come to Venice to carry his purpose into
effect, but that he did not then dare ask leave for fear he might be
suspected of going to England, and he must wait three months longer;
and that Cabot desired the Council to write him a letter urging him to
come to Venice for the dispatch of his affairs (meaning his private
business). On the 28th of April the Council, in the name of the Ragusan
friar, wrote to Cabot what had been done to discover where his property
was; that there was good hope of recovering the dower of his mother
and aunt, and that had he been present no doubt the object would have
been attained before. He is therefore urged to come at once, “for your
aunt is very old.” The Council say they have caused this letter to be
written “touching his private affairs, in order that it may appear
necessary for him to quit Spain.” On the 26th of July, Contarini again
writes that Cabot, who had been residing at Seville, had come to
Valladolid on his way to Venice, and was endeavoring to get leave of
the Imperial Councillors to go, and that the Signory would be informed
of the result of the application. Probably he never went. The next
mention of him in the Venetian correspondence, during his residence in
Spain, is under the date of September 21, 1525,—that Sebastian Cabot
is captain of the fleet preparing for the Indies.[112]

Cabot still kept up his intrigues with Venice, even after his return
to England. On the 12th of September, 1551, the Council of Ten write
to their ambassador in England, telling him to assure Cabot that they
are gratified by his offer, and that they will do all they can about
the recovery of his property there, but that it is necessary that he
should come personally to Venice, as no one there knows him; that the
matters concerned are over fifty years old, and by the death of men,
decay of houses, and perishing of writings, as well as by his own
absence, no assured knowledge can be arrived at. He should therefore
come at once. Ramusio, the Secretary of the Council, had been put in
trust by Cabot of all such evidences as should come to hand regarding
Cabot’s business, and he would use all diligence towards establishing
his rights. In the mean time the ambassador is to learn from him all he
can about this navigation.

Whether this talk about Cabot’s property in Venice, the dowry from his
mother and his aged aunt, was all fictitious, perhaps never can be
known. That these alleged facts were used as a pretext or “blind” in
this correspondence, was on both sides avowed.[113]

It has been already mentioned, that, after Cabot’s return to England,
and his entry into the service of Edward VI.,—a warrant for his
transportation hither from Spain having passed the Privy Council on the
9th of Oct. 1547,—the King, on the 6th of January, 1548/9, granted him
a pension for life of £166 13_s._ 4_d._, “in consideration of good and
acceptable service done and to be done by him.” But in the following
year a little _contretemps_ occurred between Cabot and the Emperor
Charles V. Through the Spanish ambassador, Jan. 19, 1549/50, Charles
had demanded the return of Cabot to Spain, saying that he was the
“Grand Pilot of the Emperor’s Indies, ... a very necessary man for the
Emperor, whose servant he was, and had a pension of him.” The Council
replied that Cabot was not detained by them, but that he had refused
to go, saying that being the King’s subject there was no reason why he
should be compelled to go. The ambassador insisted that Cabot should
declare his mind to him personally; and an interview was held, at which
Cabot made a declaration to the same import, but said he was willing
to write to the Emperor, having good-will towards him, concerning some
matters important for the Emperor to know. He was then asked if he
would return to Spain if the King of England and the Council should
demand of him to go; to which Cabot made an equivocal answer, but which
the Council, to whom a report of the conversation was made by a third
person present, interpreted to mean that he would not go, as he had
divers times before declared to them.[114]

In March, 1551, Sebastian Cabot received from the King a special reward
of £200. On the 9th of September, 1553, soon after the accession of
Philip and Mary, the Emperor, Charles V., again made an earnest request
that Cabot should return to Spain. But he declined to go. On the 27th
of November, 1555, Cabot’s pension was renewed to him. Edward VI.
having died two years previous, the former grant had probably expired
with him. On the 27th of May, 1557, Cabot resigned his pension, and
on the 29th a new grant was made to him and to William Worthington,
jointly, of the same amount, so that Cabot was bereft of half his
pay.[115] Cabot died not long afterwards, the precise date, however,
not being known.

Mr. Biddle was strongly impressed with the belief that Cabot suffered
great neglect and injustice in his last days from Philip, through the
jealousy of Spain of the growing commerce and maritime enterprise
of England, stimulated by one who had left his father’s service and
refused to return, and “who was now imparting to others the benefit
of his vast experience and accumulated stores of knowledge.” And he
believed that William Worthington, who was associated with Cabot in the
last grant to him of his pension, was a creature of Spain, who finally
got possession of Cabot’s papers, and confiscated them beyond the reach
of the students and statesmen of England.

I will now call attention to some documents recently made public,
principally derived from the archives of Venice and of Spain, which
reveal John Cabot again to our view and show him to have been the real
discoverer of North America.[116]

John Cabot, or in the Venetian dialect, Zuan Caboto, was probably born
in Genoa or its neighborhood, and came to Venice as early as 1461. He
there married a daughter of the country, by whom he had three sons. On
the 28th of March, 1476, by the unanimous consent of the Senate, he
obtained his naturalization as a citizen of Venice,[117] “within and
without,” having resided there fifteen years.[118] He engaged in the
study of cosmography and the practice of navigation, and at one time
visited Mecca, where the caravans brought in the spices from distant
lands. He subsequently left Venice with his family for England and
took up his residence in Bristol, then one of the principal maritime
cities of that country. Sebastian is reported as saying that his father
went to England to follow the trade of merchandise. When this removal
took place is uncertain. Peter Martyr says that Sebastian, the second
son, at the time was a little child (_pene infans_), while Sebastian
himself says, if correctly reported, that he was very young (_che egli
era assai giouare_), yet that he had some knowledge of the _humanities_
and of the sphere. He therefore must have arrived at some maturity of
years.[119] Eden[120] says that Sebastian told him that he was born
in Bristol, and was taken to Venice when he was four years old, and
brought back again after certain years. He told Contarini, at a most
solemn interview, that he was born in Venice and bred (_nutrito_) in
England, which is probably true. It is reasonable to suppose that the
three sons were of age when the letters patent were granted to them and
their father in March, 1496, in which case Sebastian, being the second
son, must have been born as early as 1473, or three years before his
father took out his papers of naturalization in Venice.[121]

In a letter from Ferdinand and Isabella to Doctor de Puebla, in London,
dated March 28, 1496, they say, after acknowledging his letter of
the 21st of January: “You write that a person like Columbus has come
to England for the purpose of persuading the King to enter into an
undertaking similar to that of the Indies, without prejudice to Spain
and Portugal. He is quite at liberty.” But Puebla is further charged to
see that the King of England, who they think has had this temptation
laid before him by the King of France, is not deceived in this matter,
for that these undertakings cannot be executed without prejudice to
Spain and Portugal.[122]

A reasonable inference from this would be, that John Cabot had arrived
in England not long before the date of Puebla’s letter to their
Majesties, to lay his proposals before Henry VII., as Columbus had done
some years before through his brother, and not that he had been a long
resident in the country. The letters patent had already been issued,
that is to say, on the 5th of March.[123] This letter from Spain may
have caused some delay in the sailing of the expedition, which did not
depart till the following year. But some time was necessary to beat
up recruits for the voyage, and to enlist the aid of the substantial
citizens of Bristol in the undertaking. John Cabot, accompanied perhaps
by his son Sebastian, finally sailed in the early part of May, 1497,
with one small vessel and eighteen persons, “almost all Englishmen
and from Bristol,” says Raimondo; who adds, “The chief men of the
enterprise are of Bristol, great sailors.” A few foreigners were
included in the company, as we learn from the same authority that a
Burgundian and a Genoese accompanied them. The name of the vessel is
said to have been the “Matthew.” Mr. Barrett[124] says: “In the year
1497, June 24th, on St. John’s day, as it is in a manuscript in my
possession, ‘was Newfoundland found by Bristol men in a ship called
the Matthew.’” How much of this paragraph was in the manuscript is not
clear. The first part of it was evidently taken from Hakluyt. And we
are not told whether the manuscript was ancient or modern. It cannot
now be found.[125]

John Cabot returned in the early part of August. The following
well-known memorandum, from the Privy Purse Expenses of Henry VII.,
“August 10, 1497: To him who found the New Isle, 10_l._,” is supposed
to refer to him.[126]

Additional evidence concerning the voyage will now be given. The
following is a letter from Lorenzo Pasqualigo, a merchant residing in
London, to his brothers in Venice, dated August 23d, 1497, which I have
somewhat abridged:—

 “The Venetian, our countryman, who went with a ship from Bristol, is
 returned, and says that 700 leagues hence he discovered land in the
 territory of the Grand Cham. He coasted 300 leagues and landed, saw
 no human beings, but brought to the king certain snares set to catch
 game, and a needle for making nets. Was three months on the voyage.
 The king has promised that in the spring our countryman shall have ten
 ships. The king has also given him money wherewith to amuse himself
 till then, and he is now in Bristol with his wife, who is also a
 Venetian, and with his sons. His name is Zuan Cabot, and he is styled
 the great Admiral. Vast honor is paid him. The discoverer planted on
 his new-found land a large cross, with one flag of England and one of
 St. Mark, by reason of his being a Venetian.... London, 23d of August,
 1497.”[127]

On the following day, August 24, 1497, Raimondo de Soncino, envoy of
the Duke of Milan to Henry VII., wrote the following passage in a long
dispatch to his Government:

 “Also, some months ago, his Majesty sent out a Venetian who is a very
 good mariner, and has good skill in discovering new islands, and he
 has returned safe, and has found two very large and fertile new
 islands, having likewise discovered The Seven Cities, four hundred
 leagues from England in the western passage. This next spring his
 Majesty means to send him with fifteen or twenty ships.”[128]

In the following December, Raimondo de Soncino wrote another letter
from London, making more particular mention of John Cabot’s discovery,
and of the intention of the King to authorize another expedition. This
letter, from the State Archives of Milan, was first published in the
_Annuario Scientifico_, in 1865,[129] and is now published in English
for the first time. There is some obscurity in the letter in a few
places, in naming the direction in which the vessel sailed, as the
east when the west was evidently intended. Whether this was a clerical
error, or whether by the term “the east” was meant “the land of the
spices” to which the expedition was bound, and which in the language
of the day lay to the east, is uncertain. Neither is the geographical
object named as “Tanais” recognized. This letter throws no light on
the Landfall. I am indebted to Professor Bennet H. Nash, of Harvard
College, for revising the translation of this letter.

  MOST ILLUSTRIOUS AND EXCELLENT MY LORD:—

 Perhaps among your Excellency’s many occupations, it may not
 displease you to learn how his Majesty here has won a part of Asia
 without a stroke of the sword. There is in this kingdom a Venetian
 fellow, Master John Caboto by name, of a fine mind, greatly skilled
 in navigation, who seeing that those most serene kings, first he of
 Portugal, and then the one of Spain, have occupied unknown islands,
 determined to make a like acquisition for his Majesty aforesaid.
 And having obtained royal grants that he should have the usufruct
 of all that he should discover, provided that the ownership of the
 same is reserved to the crown, with a small ship and eighteen persons
 he committed himself to fortune; and having set out from Bristol,
 a western port of this kingdom, and passed the western limits of
 Hibernia, and then standing to the northward he began to steer
 eastward, leaving (after a few days) the North Star on his right
 hand; and, having wandered about considerably, at last he fell in
 with _terra firma_, where, having planted the royal banner and taken
 possession on behalf of this King, and taken certain tokens, he has
 returned thence. The said Master John, as being foreign-born and poor,
 would not be believed if his comrades, who are almost all Englishmen
 and from Bristol, did not testify that what he says is true. This
 Master John has the description of the world in a chart, and also in
 a solid globe which he has made, and he [or the chart and the globe]
 shows where he landed, and that going toward the east he passed
 considerably beyond the country of the Tanais. And they say that it
 is a very good and temperate country, and they think that Brazil-wood
 and silks grow there; and they affirm that that sea is covered with
 fishes, which are caught not only with the net but with baskets, a
 stone being tied to them in order that the baskets may sink in the
 water. And this I heard the said Master John relate, and the aforesaid
 Englishmen, his comrades, say that they will bring so many fishes that
 this kingdom will no longer have need of Iceland, from which country
 there comes a very great store of fish which are called stock-fish.
 But Master John has set his mind on something greater; for he expects
 to go farther on toward the East (Levant,) from that place already
 occupied, constantly hugging the shore, until he shall be over against
 [or “on the other side of”] an island, by him called Cipango, situated
 in the equinoctial region, where he thinks all the spices of the
 world, and also the precious stones, originate; and he says that in
 former times he was at Mecca, whither spices are brought by caravans
 from distant countries, and that those who brought them, on being
 asked where the said spices grow, answered that they do not know,
 but that other caravans come to their homes with this merchandise
 from distant countries, and these [caravans] again say that they are
 brought to them from other remote regions. And he argues thus,—that
 if the Orientals affirmed to the Southerners that these things come
 from a distance from them, and so from hand to hand, presupposing
 the rotundity of the earth, it must be that the last ones get them
 at the North toward the West; and he said it in such a way, that,
 having nothing to gain or lose by it, I too believe it: and what is
 more, the King here, who is wise and not lavish, likewise puts some
 faith in him; for (ever) since his return he has made good provision
 for him, as the same Master John tells me. And it is said that, in
 the spring, his Majesty afore-named will fit out some ships, and will
 besides give him all the convicts, and they will go to that country
 to make a colony, by means of which they hope to establish in London
 a greater storehouse of spices than there is in Alexandria; and the
 chief men of the enterprise are of Bristol, great sailors, who, now
 that they know where to go, say that it is not a voyage of more than
 fifteen days, nor do they ever have storms after they get away from
 Hibernia. I have also talked with a Burgundian, a comrade of Master
 John’s, who confirms everything, and wishes to return thither because
 the Admiral (for so Master John already entitles himself) has given
 him an island; and he has given another one to a barber of his from
 Castiglione-of-Genoa, and both of them regard themselves as Counts,
 nor does my Lord the Admiral esteem himself anything less than a
 Prince. I think that with this expedition there will go several poor
 Italian monks, who have all been promised bishoprics. And, as I have
 become a friend of the Admiral’s, if I wished to go thither I should
 get an archbishopric. But I have thought that the benefices which
 your Excellency has in store for me are a surer thing; and therefore
 I beg that if these should fall vacant in my absence, you will cause
 possession to be given to me, taking measures to do this rather
 [especially] where it is needed, in order that they be not taken from
 me by others, who because they are present can be more diligent than
 I, who in this country have been brought to the pass of eating ten or
 twelve dishes at every meal, and sitting at table three hours at a
 time twice a day, for the sake of your Excellency, to whom I humbly
 commend myself.

  Your Excellency’s
  Very humble servant,

  RAIMUNDUS.

  LONDON, Dec. 18, 1497.

These letters are sufficient to show that North America was discovered
by John Cabot, the name of Sebastian being nowhere mentioned in them,
and that the discovery was made in 1497. The place which he first
sighted is given on the map of 1544 as the north part of Cape Breton
Island, on which is inscribed “prima tierra vista,” which was reached,
according to the Legend, on the 24th of June. Pasqualigo, the only one
who mentions it, says he coasted three hundred leagues. Mr. Brevoort,
who accepts the statement, thinks he made the _periplus_ of the Gulf
of St. Lawrence, passing out at the straits of Belle Isle, and thence
home.[130] He saw no human beings, so that the story of men dressed in
bear-skins and otherwise described in the Legend must have been seen by
Sebastian Cabot on a later voyage. The extensive sailing up and down
the coast described by chroniclers from conversations with Sebastian
Cabot many years afterwards, though apparently told as occurring on
the voyage of discovery,—as only one voyage is ever mentioned,—must
have taken place on a later voyage. There was no time between the 24th
of June and the 1st of August for any very extensive explorations.
Indeed, John Cabot intimated to Raimondo that he intended on the next
voyage to start from the place he had already found, and run down the
coast towards the equinoctial regions, where he expected to find the
island of Cipango and the country of jewels and spices. No doubt he
was anxious to return and report his discovery thus far, and provide
“for greater things.” The plea of a shortness of provisions may have
covered another motive. The great abundance of fish reported might have
supplied any immediate want.

[Illustration: PORTUGUESE PORTOLANO. 1514-1520.

[This map, at no. 5, places the Breton discovery at the Cabot landfall.
The original is dated by Kohl (_Discovery of Maine_, 179) in 1520; and
by Kunstmann in 1514. Stevens, _Hist. and Geog. Notes_, pl. v., copies
Kunstmann. The points and inscriptions on it are as follows:—

1. Do Lavrador (Labrador). Terram istam portugalenses viderunt atamen
non intraverunt. (The Portuguese saw this country, but did not enter
it.)

2. Bacaluaos (east coast of Newfoundland).

3. (Straits of Belle Isle.)

4. (South entrance to Gulf of St. Lawrence.)

5. Tera que foij descuberta por bertomas. (Land discovered by the
Bretons.)

6. Teram istam gaspar Corte Regalis portugalemsis primo invenit, etc.
(Nova Scotia. Gaspar Cortereal first discovered this country, and he
took away wild men and white bears; and many animals, birds and fish
are in it. The next year he was shipwrecked and did not return, and
so was his brother Michael the following year.) The voyages of the
Cortereals will be described in Vol. IV.—ED.]]

John Cabot was now in high favor with the King, who supplied him with
money, by which he was able to make a fine appearance. Indeed, the King
granted him under the great seal, during the royal pleasure, a pension
of twenty pounds sterling per annum, having the purchasing value of
two hundred pounds at the present time; to date from the preceding
25th of March. The grant was a charge upon the customs of the port of
Bristol. The document authorizing this grant we are able to present
here for the first time in print. The order from the King is dated the
13th of December, 1497, and it passed the seals the 28th of January,
1498:[131]—

 “Memorandum quod xxviii. die Januarii anno subscripto istæ litteræ
 liberatæ fuerunt domino Cancellario Angliæ apud Westmonasterium
 exequendæ:—

 “Henry, by the Grace of God King of England and of France and Lord of
 Ireland, to the most reverend father in God, John Cardinal Archbishop
 of Canterbury, primate of all England and of the apostolic see legate,
 our Chancellor, greeting:—

 “We let you wit that we for certain considerations, us specially
 moving, have given and granted unto our well-beloved John Calbot,
 of the parts of Venice, an annuity or annual rent of twenty pounds
 sterling to be had and yearly paid from the feast of the Annunciation
 of Our Lady last past, during our pleasure, of our customs and
 subsidies coming and growing in our port of Bristowe by the hands of
 our customs there for the time being at Michaelmas and Easter, by even
 portions. Wherefore we will and charge you that under our great seal
 ye do make hereupon our letters patents in good and effectual form.
 Given under our privy seal, at our palace of Westminster, the xiiith
 day of December, the xiiith year of our reign.”

Preparations were now made for a second voyage, and a license to John
Cabot alone, as we have already seen, was issued by the King, for leave
to take up six ships and to enlist as many of the King’s subjects
as were willing to go. This was evidently a scheme of colonization.
Peter Martyr says, if this is the voyage which he is describing, that
Sebastian Cabot—for he never speaks of John—furnished two ships
at his own charge, and Sebastian Cabot, in Ramusio, says that the
King furnished them, and the Bristol merchants are supposed to have
furnished three others; and they took out three hundred men.[132] The
Fabian manuscript quoted by Hakluyt says they sailed in the beginning
of May; and De Ayala says they were expected back by September. There
is no doubt that Sebastian Cabot accompanied his father on this voyage.
From the documents already cited from Peter Martyr and Ramusio there is
some reason to believe that the expedition coasted some distance to the
north, and then returning ran down the coast as far as to the 36° N.
without accomplishing the purpose for which they went. That this latter
course was pursued receives some confirmation from the declarations
of John Cabot on his return from the first voyage, that he believed
it practicable to reach in that direction the Island of Cipango and
the land of the spices. But the prospects were discouraging and their
provisions failed. Gomara, in noticing this voyage, says that on their
return from the north they stopped at Baccalaos for refreshment. But
all the accounts relied on for this voyage are vague and, as we have
already seen, unsatisfying.

The following letter from the Prothonotary, Don Pedro de Ayala,
residing in London, to Ferdinand and Isabella, dated July 25, 1498,
relates to the sailing of this expedition:

 “I think your Majesties have already heard that the King of England
 has equipped a fleet in order to discover certain islands and
 continents which he was informed some people from Bristol, who manned
 a few ships for the same purpose last year, had found. I have seen
 the map which the discoverer has made, who is another Genoese like
 Columbus, and who has been in Seville and in Lisbon asking assistance
 for his discoveries. The people of Bristol have, for the last seven
 years, sent out every year two, three, or four light ships in search
 of the Island of Brazil and the Seven Cities, according to the fancy
 of this Genoese. The King determined to send out ships, because the
 year before they brought certain news that they had found land. His
 fleet consisted of five vessels, which carried provisions for one
 year. It is said that one of them, in which Friar Buel went, has
 returned to Ireland in great distress, the ship being much damaged.
 The Genoese has continued his voyage. I have seen on a chart the
 direction which they took and the distance they sailed; and I think
 that what they have found, or what they are in search of, is what
 your Highnesses already possess. It is expected that they will be
 back in the month of September.... I think it is not further distant
 than 400 leagues.... I do not now send the chart, or _mapa mundi_,
 which that man has made, and which, according to my opinion, is false,
 since it makes it appear as if the land in question was not the said
 islands.”[133]

We see by this letter that this “Genoese,” who had discovered land the
year before, had again sailed on the expedition here described. If so
important a person as John Cabot now was to the King had died before
its departure, the fact would have been known at court, and De Ayala
would surely have mentioned it, as the Spaniards were very jealous of
all these proceedings. The statement that the King had equipped the
fleet may only mean that the expedition was fitted and sent out under
his countenance and protection. De Ayala says it was expected back
in September, but it had not returned by the last of October. No one
knows when the expedition returned, and no one knows what became of
John Cabot. When the domestic calendars of the reign of Henry VII. are
published, some clew to him may turn up. In the mean time we must wait
patiently.

The enterprise was regarded as a failure, and no doubt the Bristol and
London adventurers suffered a pecuniary loss. All schemes of Western
discovery and colonization were for years substantially abandoned by
England. Some feeble attempts in this direction appear to have been
made in 1501 and 1502, when patents for discovery were granted by
Henry in favor of some merchants of Bristol, with whom were associated
several Portuguese, but it is not certain that anything was done under
their authority.[134]

[Illustration: Autograph Charles Deane]

       *       *       *       *       *

NOTE.—Henri Harrisse’s _Jean et Sébastien Cabot, leur origine et leurs
voyages_, has been published since this chapter was completed.




CHAPTER II.

HAWKINS AND DRAKE.

BY THE REV. EDWARD EVERETT HALE, D.D.,

_Massachusetts Historical Society._


THE English voyagers had no mind to content themselves with adventure
in those more rugged regions to which the Cabots had introduced them.
Whether in peace or war, their relations with Spain were growing closer
and closer all through the sixteenth century. Sebastian Cabot, in fact,
soon passed into the service of the Spanish Crown. Indeed, if we had no
other memorial of the intimacy between English and Spanish navigators,
we could still trace it in our language, which has derived many of its
maritime words from Spanish originals. The seamen of England found
their way everywhere, and soon acquainted themselves with the coasts
of the West India Islands and the Spanish main. There exists, indeed,
in the English archives a letter written as early as 1518 by the
Treasurer-General of the West Indies to Queen Katherine, the unhappy
wife of Henry VIII., in which he describes to her the peculiarities
of his island home. He sends to her a cloak of feathers such as were
worn by native princesses. From that time forward, allusions to the new
discoveries appear in English literature and in the history of English
trade.[135] Still, it would be fair to say, that, for thirty years
after the discovery of America, that continent attracted as little
attention in England as the discovery of the Antarctic continent, forty
years ago, has attracted in America up to this time.

It belongs to another chapter to trace the gradual steps by which
the English fisheries developed England’s knowledge of America. The
instincts of trade led men farther south, in a series of voyages which
will be briefly traced in this chapter. One of the earliest of them,
which may be taken as typical, is that of William Hawkins, of Plymouth.
Not content with the short voyages commonly made to the known coasts of
Europe, Hawkins “armed out a tall and goodly ship of his own,” in which
he made three voyages to Brazil, and skirted, after the fashion of the
time, the African coast. He carried thither <DW64>s whom he had taken
on the coast of Guinea. He deserves the credit, therefore, such as it
is, of beginning that African slave-trade in which England was engaged
for nearly three centuries.

The second of these voyages seems to have been made as early as 1530.
He brought to England, from the coast of Brazil, a savage king, whose
ornaments, apparel, behavior, and gestures were very strange to the
English king and his nobility. These three voyages were so successful,
that a number of Southampton merchants followed them up, at least as
late as 1540.

It was, however, William Hawkins’s son John who was knighted by Queen
Elizabeth for his success in the slave-trade, and in acknowledgment of
the wealth which his voyages brought into England. Engaging several
of his friends, some of whom were noblemen, in the adventure, John
Hawkins sailed with a fleet of three ships and one hundred men for the
coast of Guinea, in October, 1562. He took—partly by the sword, and
partly by other means—three hundred or more <DW64>s, whom he carried
to San Domingo, then called Hispaniola, and sold profitably. In his own
ships he brought home hides, ginger, sugar, and some pearls. He sent
two other ships with hides and other commodities to Spain. These were
seized by the Spanish Government, and it is curious that Hawkins should
not have known that they would be. His ignorance seems to show that his
adventure was substantially a novelty in that time. He himself arrived
in England again in September, 1563. Notwithstanding the loss of half
his profits in Spain, the voyage brought much gain to himself and the
other adventurers.

Thus encouraged, Hawkins sailed again, the next year, with four ships,
of which the largest was the “Jesus,” of Lubec, of seven hundred tons;
the smallest was the “Swallow,” of only thirty tons. He had a hundred
and seventy men; and, as in all such voyages, the ships were armed.
Passing down the coast of Guinea, they spent December and January in
picking up their wretched freight, and lost by sickness and in fights
with the <DW64>s many of their men. On the 29th of January, 1565, they
had taken in their living cargo, and then they crossed to the West
Indies. On the voyage they were becalmed for twenty-one days. But they
arrived at the Island of Dominica, then in possession of savages, on
the 9th of March. From that period till the 31st of May, they were
trading on the Spanish coasts, and then returned to England, touching
at various points in the West Indies. They passed along the whole coast
of Florida, and they are the first Englishmen who give us in detail any
account of Florida.[136]

It was Hawkins’s great good fortune to come to the relief of the
struggling colony of Laudonnière, then in the second year of its
wretched history. From his narrative we learn that the settlers had
made twenty hogsheads of wine in a single summer from the native
grapes, which is perhaps more than has been done there since in the
same period of time.[137] The wretched colonists owed everything to
the kindness of Hawkins. He left them a vessel in which to return to
France; and they had made all their preparations so to do, when they
were relieved—for their ultimate destruction, as it proved—by the
arrival of a squadron under Ribault.[138] Hawkins returned to England
after a voyage sufficiently prosperous, which had lasted eleven months.
He had lost twenty persons in all; but he had brought home gold,
silver, pearls, and other jewels in great store.

[Illustration: John Hawkins

[This cut follows a photograph of the bas-relief which is given in the
Hakluyt Society’s edition of the _Hawkins Voyages_. Another engraving
of it is given in _Harper’s Magazine_, January, 1883, p. 221.—ED.]]

His account of Florida is much more careful than what he gives of any
of the West India Islands. From his own words it is clear that he
thought it might be of use to England, and that he wanted to draw
attention to it as a place open to colonization. Like so many other
explorers, from Ponce de Leon down to our own times, he was surprised
that a country, which is so attractive to the eye, should be left so
nearly without inhabitants. It seems to have been more densely peopled
when Ponce de Leon landed there in 1513 than it was at the beginning of
this century. To such interest or enthusiasm of Hawkins do we owe an
account of Florida, in its native condition, more full than we have of
any other of our States, excepting New Mexico, at a period so early in
our history.

Besides tobacco, he specifies the abundance of sorrel,—which grew as
abundantly as grass,—of maize, of mill, and of grapes, which “taste
much like our English grapes.” He describes the community building
of the southern tribes, as made “like a great barne, in strength not
inferiour to ours,” with stanchions and rafters of whole trees, and
covered with palmetto leaves. There was one small room for the king and
queen, but no other subdivisions. In the midst of the great hall a fire
was kept all night. The houses, indeed, were only used at night.

In a country of such a climate and soil, with “marvellous store of
deer and divers other beasts, and fowl and fish sufficient,” Hawkins
naturally thought that “a man might live,” as he says quaintly. Maize,
he says, “maketh good savory bread, and cakes as fine as flower.”
The first account to be found in English literature of the “hasty
pudding” of the American larder, the “mush” of the Pennsylvanians,[139]
is in Hawkins’s narrative. “It maketh good meal, beaten, and sodden
with water, and eateth like pap wherewith we feed children.” The
Frenchmen, fond by nature of soup, had made another use of it, not
wholly forgotten at this day. “It maketh also good beverage, sodden
in water and nourishable; which the Frenchmen did use to drink of in
the morning, and it assuaged their thirst so that they had no need to
drink all the day after.” It was, he says, because the French had been
too lazy to plant maize for themselves that their colony came to such
wretched destitution. To obtain maize, they had made war against the
so-called savages who had raised it, and this aggression had naturally
reacted against them.

It is interesting to observe that in all these early narratives of
the slave-trade there is no intimation that it involved cruelty or
any form of wrong. Hawkins sailed in the ship “Jesus,” with faith as
sincere as if he had sailed on a crusade. His sailing orders to his
four ships close with words which remind one of Cromwell: “Serve God
daily; love one another; preserve your victuals; beware of fire; and
keep good company.” By “serve God,” it is meant that the ship’s company
shall join in religious services morning and evening; and this these
slave-traders regularly did. In one of their incursions on the Guinea
coast they were almost destroyed by the native <DW64>s, as they well
deserved to be. Hawkins narrates the adventure with this comment: “God,
who worketh all things for the best, would not have it so, and by him
we escaped without danger. His name be praised for it!” And again, when
they were nearly starved, becalmed in mid-ocean: “Almighty God, who
never suffereth his elect to perish, sent us the ordinary breeze.”[140]

The success of the second voyage was such that a coat-of-arms was
granted to Hawkins. Translated from the jargon of heraldry, the grant
means that he might bear on his black shield a golden lion walking over
the waves. Above the lion were three golden coins. For a crest he was
to have a figure of half a Moor, “bound, and a captive,” with golden
amulets on his arms and ears. No disgrace attached to the capturing of
Africans and selling them for money. That the Heralds’ Office might
give to the transaction the sanctions of Christianity, it directed
Hawkins, five years after, to add in one corner of the shield the
pilgrim’s scallop-shell in gold, between two palmer’s staves, as if to
intimate that the African slave-trade was the true crusade of the reign
of Elizabeth.

So successful was this expedition, that Hawkins started on a third,
with five ships, in October, 1567. He commanded his old ship, the
“Jesus,” and Francis Drake, afterward so celebrated, commanded the
“Judith,” a little vessel of fifty tons. They took four or five hundred
<DW64>s, and crossed to Dominica again, but were more than seven
weeks on the passage. As before, they passed along the Spanish main,
where they found the Spaniards had been cautioned against them. They
absolutely stormed the town of Rio de la Hacha before they could obtain
permission to trade. In all cases, although the Spanish officers had
been instructed to oppose their trade, they found that <DW64>s were
so much in demand that the planters dealt with them eagerly. After a
repulse at Cartagena, they crossed the Gulf of Mexico towards Florida,
but were finally compelled, by two severe tempests, to run to San
Juan d’ Ulua, the port of Mexico, for repairs and supplies. Here they
claimed the privileges of allies of King Philip, and were at first
well enough received. Hawkins takes to himself credit that he did not
seize twelve ships which he found there, with, £200,000 of silver on
board. The local officers sent to the City of Mexico, about two hundred
miles inland, for instructions. The next day a fleet from Spain, of
twelve ships, arrived in the offing. Hawkins, fearing the anger of his
Queen, he says, let them come into harbor, having made a compact with
the Government that neither side should make war against the other.
The fleet entered, and for three days all was amity and courtesy. But
on the fourth day, from the shore and from the ships, the five English
vessels were attacked furiously, and in that little harbor a naval
action ensued, of which the result was the flight of the “Minion” and
the “Judith” alone, and the capture or destruction of the other English
vessels. So crowded was the “Minion,” that a hundred of the fugitives
preferred to land, rather than to tempt the perils of the sea in her.
They fell into the hands of the Inquisition, and their sufferings were
horrible. The others, after a long and stormy passage, arrived in
England on the 25th of January, 1568/69.

It is a real misfortune for our early history that no reliance can be
placed on the fragmentary stories of the few survivors who were left
by Hawkins on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. One or two there were
who, after years of captivity, told their wretched story at home. But
it is so disfigured by every form of lie, that the most ingenious
reconstructer of history fails to distil from it even a drop of the
truth. The routes which they pursued cannot be traced, the etymology
of geography gains nothing from their nomenclature, and, in a word,
the whole story has to be consigned to the realm of fable.[141] Such a
narrative as these men might have told would be our best guide for what
has been well called by Mr. Haven “the mythical century” of American
history.

In this voyage of Hawkins the Earls of Pembroke and of Leicester were
among the adventurers.

If Hawkins’s account of the perfidy of the Spaniards at San Juan d’Ulua
be true,—and it has never been contradicted,—the Spanish Crown that
day brought down a storm of misery and rapine from which it never
fairly recovered. The accursed doctrine of the Inquisition, that no
faith was to be kept with heretics, proved a dangerous doctrine for
Spain when the heretics were such men as Hawkins, Cavendish, and Drake.
On that day Francis Drake learned his lesson of Spanish treachery; and
he learned it so well that he determined on his revenge. That revenge
he took so thoroughly, that for more than a hundred years he is spoken
of in all Spanish annals as “The Dragon.”[142]

Hawkins gives no account of Drake’s special service in the
“Judith,”—the smallest vessel in the unfortunate squadron, and one of
the two which returned to England; nor has Drake himself left any which
has been discovered; nor have his biographers. Clearly his ill-fortune
did not check his eagerness for attack; and from that time forward
Spain had at least one determined enemy in England.

[Illustration]

He had made two voyages to the West Indies in 1570 and in 1571, of
which little is known. For a fifth voyage, which he calls the third of
importance, he fitted out a little squadron of only two vessels, the
“Pasha” and the “Swan,” and sailed in 1572, with no pretence of trade,
simply to attack and ravage the Spanish main. He specially assigns
as his motive for this enterprise his desire to inflict vengeance
for injuries done him at Rio de Hacha in 1565 and in 1566, and, in
particular, that he might retaliate on Henriques, Viceroy of Mexico,
for his treachery at San Juan d’ Ulua. It seems that he had vainly
sought amends at the Court of Spain, and that the Queen’s diplomacy
had been equally ineffective. The little squadron, enlarged by a third
vessel which joined them after sailing, attacked Nombre de Dios, then
the granary of the West Indies, but with small success. They then
insulted the port of Cartagena, and afterward, having made an alliance
with the Cimaronnes, since and now known as Maroons,—a tribe of
savages and self-freed Africans,—they marched across the isthmus,
and Drake obtained his first sight of that Pacific Ocean which he was
afterward to explore. “Vehemently transported with desire to navigate
that sea, he fell upon his knees and implored the divine assistance
that he might at some time sail thither and make a perfect discovery of
the same.” The place from which Drake saw it was probably near the spot
where Balboa “thanked God for that great discovery,” and that he had
been first of Christian men to behold that sea. His discovery was made
in 1513, sixty years before Drake renewed it.[143]

The narrative which we cite is in the words of the historian Camden.
Camden tells us also that Drake had “gotten together a pretty sum of
money” in this expedition, and, satisfied for the moment, he remained
in England. He engaged himself in assisting, at sea, in the reduction
of Ireland. But he had by no means done with the Spaniards, and at the
end of 1577, sailing on the 15th of November, he left Plymouth on the
celebrated voyage in which he was to sail round the world. The squadron
consisted of the “Pelican,” of one hundred tons, the “Elizabeth,” of
eighty, the “Swan,” of fifty, and the “Marigold” and “Christopher,”
of thirty and of fifteen tons. Of these vessels the “Pelican” was the
only one which completed the great adventure. Her armament was twenty
guns of brass and iron. She had others in her hold. So well had Drake
profited by earlier expeditions, that his equipment was complete, and
even luxurious. He carried pinnaces in parts, to be put together when
needed. He had “expert musicians, rich furniture, all the vessels for
the table, yea, many even of the cook-room, being of pure silver.”
In every detail he was prepared to show the magnificence and the
civilization of his own country.

The crew were shipped and the expedition sailed, with the pretence
of a voyage to Egypt. This was to blind the Spanish envoys, in
concealment of the real object of the expedition, as similar
expeditions since have been veiled. But it is clear enough that the
partners in the enterprise and the men they shipped knew very well
whither they were faring.

After one rebuff, the fleet finally left England on the 13th of
December, 1577, and, with occasional pauses to refit at the Cape de
Verde and at different points not frequented by the Portuguese or
Spaniards on the Brazilian coast and the coast south of Brazil, they
arrived at Port St. Julian on the 19th of June, in the beginning of the
southern winter. Here they spent two months, not sailing again until
the 17th of August, when they essayed the passage of the Straits of
Magellan. While at Port St. Julian Drake found, or professed to find,
evidences of the treachery of Doughty, one of the gentlemen in whom at
first he had most confided. Doughty was tried before a jury of twelve,
found guilty, and beheaded. They all remembered that Magellan had had a
similar experience in the same harbor fifty-seven years before. Indeed
they found the gibbet on which, as they supposed, John of Cartagena had
been hanged by Magellan, with his mouldering bones below. The Spaniards
said that Drake himself acted as Doughty’s executioner. Fletcher says,
“he who acted in the room of provost marshal.” It is hard to see how
the Spaniards should know.

After a series of stormy adventures, they found themselves safe in the
Pacific on the 28th of October. After really passing the straits, they
had been driven far south by tempests, and on the extreme point of
Tierra del Fuego Drake had landed. On a grassy point he fell upon the
ground at length, and extended his arms as widely as possible, as if
to grasp the southern end of the hemisphere,—in memory, perhaps, of
Cæsar’s taking possession of England. The “Pelican” was the only vessel
now under his command. The others had either been lost or had deserted
him; and though he sought for his consorts all the way on his voyage
northward, he sought in vain.

From Drake’s own pen we have no narrative of this remarkable voyage.
His chaplain, Fletcher,[144] gives a good account of Patagonia and
of the natives, from the observations made in Port St. Julian and in
their after experiences as they passed the straits. The Englishmen
corrected at once the Spanish fable regarding the marvellous height
of these men. They corrected errors which they supposed the Spaniards
had intentionally published in the charts. It is supposed that Drake
sighted the Falkland Islands, which had been discovered by Davis a
few years before. Drake gave the name of Elizabeth Islands, or the
Elizabethides, to the whole group of Tierra del Fuego and its neighbors.

In their voyage north they touched for supplies at a great island,
which the Spaniards called Mucho; and afterward at Valparaiso, where
they plundered a great ship called the “Captain of the South,” which
they found at anchor there. Fletcher describes all such plunder with a
clumsy raillery, as if a Spaniard’s plunder were always fair game. To
Drake it was indeed repayment for San Juan d’ Ulua. Farther north, they
entered the bay of “Cyppo;” and in another bay, still farther north,
they set up the pinnace which they had in parts on board their vessel.
In this pinnace Drake sailed south a day to look for his consorts; but
he was driven back by adverse winds. After a stay of a month here,
which added nothing to our knowledge of the geography of the country,
they sailed again. “Cyppo” is probably the Copiapo of to-day.

[Illustration: ZALTIERI’S MAP, 1566.

This sketch follows a drawing by Kohl in his manuscript in the American
Antiquarian Society’s Library. This is the key:—

  1. Mare Septentrionale.
  2. Terra incognita.
  3. Quivira prov.
  4. C. Nevada.
  5. Tigna fl.
  6. R. Tontonteac.
  7. Y. delle Perle.
  8. Y. di Cedri.
  9. Giapan.
  10. Mare di Mangi.
  11. Chinan Golfo.
  12. Parte di Asia.]

Pausing for plunder, or for water, or fresh provisions, from time
to time, they ran in, on the 7th of February, to the port of Arica,
where they spoiled the vessels they found, generally confining their
plunder to silver, gold, and jewels, and such stores as they needed
for immediate use. At Callao they found no news of their comrades; but
they did find news from Europe,—the death of the kings of Portugal,
of France, of Morocco, and of Fez, and of the Pope of Rome. From one
vessel they took fifteen hundred bars of silver, and learning that a
treasure-ship had sailed a fortnight before, went rapidly in pursuit of
her.

They overtook her on the 1st of March, and captured her. As part of
her cargo, she had on board “a certain quantity of jewels and precious
stones,” thirteen chests of silver reals, eighty pounds weight of
gold, twenty-six tons of uncoined silver, two very fair gilt silver
drinking-bowls, “and the like trifles,—valued in all about three
hundred and sixty thousand pezoes,”—as Fletcher says in his clumsy
pleasantry. The ships lay together six days, then Drake “gave the
master a little linen and the like for his commodities,” and let him
and his ship go. Her name, long remembered, was the “Cacafuego.” The
Spanish Government estimated the loss at a million and a half of
ducats. A ducat was about two dollars.

Drake now determined to give up the risk of returning by the way he
came, and to go home by the north or by crossing the Pacific. He
abandoned the hope of joining his consorts, who had, though he did not
know it, no thought of joining him. On the 16th of March he touched
at the Island of Caines, where he experienced a terrible earthquake;
on the 15th of March at Guatulco, in Mexico, where he took some fresh
provisions; and sailing the next day, struck northward on the voyage in
which he discovered the coast of Oregon and of that part of California
which now belongs to the United States.

[Illustration: MAP OF PAULO DE FURLANO, 1574.

Furlano is said to have received this map from a Spaniard, Don Diego
Hermano de Toledo, in 1574. The sketch is made from the drawing in
Kohl’s manuscript in the American Antiquarian Society’s Library. The
key is as follows:—

  1. Mare incognito.
  2. Stretto di Anian.
  3. Quivir.
  4. Golfo di Anian.
  5. Anian regnum.
  6. Quisau.
  7. Mangi Prov.
  8. Mare de Mangi.
  9. Isola di Giapan.
  10. Y. di Cedri.]

A certain doubt hangs over the original discovery of the eastern
coast of this nation. There is no doubt that the coast of Oregon was
discovered to Europe by the greatest seaman of Queen Elizabeth’s
reign.[145]

Taking as plunder a potful of silver reals,—the pot, says Fletcher,
“as big as a bushel,”—and some other booty, Drake sailed west, then
northwest and north, “fourteen hundred leagues in all.” This, according
to the account of Fletcher, his chaplain, brought them to the 3d of
June,[146] when they were in north latitude 42°. On the night of that
day, the weather (which had been very hot) became bitterly cold; the
ropes of the ship were stiff with ice, and sleet fell instead of rain.
This cold weather continued for days. On the fifth they ran in to a
shore which they then first descried, and anchored in a bad bay, which
was the best roadstead they could find. But the moment the gale lulled,
“thick stinking fogs” settled down on them; they could not abide there;
and from this place[147] they turned south, and ran along the coast.
They found it “low and reasonable plain.” Every hill was covered with
snow, though it was in June.

In the latitude of 38° 30′, they came to a “convenient and fit
harbour.” Another narrator says, “It pleased God to send us into a
fair and good bay, with a good wind to enter the same.” They entered,
and remained in it till the 23d of July. During all this time they
were visited with the “like nipping colds.” They would have been glad
to keep their beds, and if they were not at work, would have worn
their winter clothes. For a fortnight together they could take no
observations of sun or star. When they met the natives, they found them
shivering even under their furs; and the “ground was without greenness”
and the trees without leaves in June and July.

The day after they entered this harbor an Indian came out to them in a
canoe. He made tokens of respect and submission. He threw into the ship
a little basket made of rushes containing an herb called _tobàh_.[148]
Drake wished to recompense him, but he would take nothing but a hat,
which was thrown into the water. The company of the “Pelican” supposed
then and always that the natives considered and reverenced them as
gods. In preparation for repairing the ship, Drake landed his stores.
A large company of Indians approached as he landed, and friendly
relations were maintained between them and the Englishmen during the
whole of their stay. Drake received them cautiously but kindly. He set
up tents, and built a fort for his defence. The natives, watching the
English with amazement, still regarded them as gods. One is tempted to
connect this superstition with the direct claim which Alarcon had made
of a divine origin, in presence of these tribes, a generation before,
though at a point five hundred miles away. Fletcher’s description of
their houses is precisely like the Spaniard’s account of the winter
houses of the tribes he met. “Those houses are digged round within the
earth, and have from the uppermost brimmes of the circle clefts of wood
set up, and joined close together at the top like our spires on the
steeple of a church; which, being covered with earth, suffer no water
to enter, and are very warm; the door in the most part of them performs
the office also of a chimney to let out the smoke; it’s made in bigness
and fashion like to an ordinary scuttle in a ship, and standing
slopewise.”[149]

At the end of two days an immense assembly, called together from all
parts of the country, gathered to see the strangers. They brought with
them feathers and bags of _tobàh_ for presents or for sacrifices.
Arrived at the top of the hill, their chief made a long address,
wearying his English hearers and himself. When he had concluded, the
rest, bowing their bodies in a dreamy manner “and long producing of the
same,” cried “Oh!” giving their consent to all that had been spoken.
This reminds one of the “hu” of the Indians of the Tizon. The women,
meanwhile, tore their cheeks with their nails, and flung themselves
on the ground, as if for a personal bloody sacrifice. Drake met this
worship, not as Alarcon had done, but by calling his company to prayer.
The men lifted their eyes and hands to heaven to signify that God was
above, and besought God “to open their blinded eyes to the knowledge of
him and of Jesus Christ the salvation of the Gentiles.” Through these
prayers, the singing of psalms, and reading certain chapters of the
Bible, Fletcher, who was the chaplain, says they sat very attentively.
They observed every pause, and cried “Oh!” with one voice, greatly
enjoying our exercises. They thus showed a more catholic spirit than
the whites had shown, who were wearied by the length of the address of
the savages. Drake made them presents, which at the departure of the
English they returned, saying that they were sufficiently rewarded by
their visit.

The fame of this visit extended so far, that at the end of three days
more, on the 26th of June, a larger company assembled. This time the
king himself, with a body-guard of one hundred warriors, was with them.
They called him their _Hióh_. He approached the English, preceded by a
mace-bearer, who carried two feather crowns, with three chains of bone
of marvellous length, often doubled. Such chains were of the highest
estimation, and only a few persons were permitted to wear them. The
number of chains, indeed, marked the rank of the highest nobility, some
of whom wore as many as twenty. Next to the mace-bearer came the king
himself. On his head was a knit crown somewhat like those which were
borne before him. He wore a coat of the skins of conies coming to his
waist. His guards wore similar coats, and some of them wore cauls upon
their heads, covered with a certain vegetable down, almost sacred, and
used only by the highest ranks. The common people followed, naked, but
with feathers,[150] every one pleasing himself with his own device. The
last part of the company were women and children. Each woman brought a
well-made basket of rushes. Some of these were so tight that they would
hold water. They were adorned with pearl shells and with bits of the
bone chains. In the baskets they had bags of _tobàh_ and roots called
_petáh_, which they ate cooked or raw. Drake meanwhile held his men in
military array.

The mace-bearer then pronounced aloud a long speech, which was dictated
to him in a low voice by another. All parties, except the children,
approached the fort, and the mace-bearer began a song, with a dance
to the time, in which all the men joined. The women danced without
singing. Drake saw that they were peaceable, and permitted them to
enter his palisade. The women showed signs of the wounds which they had
made before coming, by way of preparing for the solemnity.

At the request of the chief, Drake then sat down. The king and others
made to him several orations, or, “indeed, supplications, that he would
take province and kingdom into his hand, and become their king and
patron.” With one consent they sang a song, placed one of the crowns
upon his head, hung their chains upon his neck, and honored him as
their _Hióh_.

Drake did not think he should refuse this gift. “In the name and to
the use of Queen Elizabeth, he took the sceptre, crown, and dignity of
the country into his hand.” He only wished, says the historian, that
he could as easily transport the riches and treasures wherewith in the
upland it abounds, to the enriching of her kingdom at home. Had Drake
had any real knowledge of the golden gravel over which the streams of
the upland flowed, it may well be that the history of California would
have been changed.

From this time, through several weeks while Drake remained there, the
multitude also remained. At first they brought offerings every three
days as sacrifices, until they learned that this displeased their
English king. Like other sovereigns who have had much to do with this
race, he found that he had to feed his red retainers. But he had
mussels, seals, “and such like,” in quantity sufficient for their
rations.

Drake made a journey into the country. He saw “infinite company” of fat
deer, in a herd of thousands. He found a multitude of strange “conies”
in large numbers, with long tails, and with a bag under the chin in
which to carry food either for future supply or for their children.

Drake erected on the shore a post, on which he placed a plate of brass.
Here he engraved the Queen’s name, the date of his landing, the gift of
the country by the people, and left her Majesty’s portrait and arms.
The last were not designed by his artists, as some historians have
carelessly supposed, but were on a silver piece, of sixpence, “showing
through a hole made of purpose in the plate.”

When the people saw that Drake could not remain, they could not
conceal their grief. At last they stole on the English unawares with
a sacrifice which “they set on fire,” thus burning a chain and bunch
of feathers. The English could not dissuade them till they fell to
prayers and singing of psalms, when the sad natives let their fire go
out, and left the sacrifice unconsumed. On the 23d of July the friends
parted, the English for the shores of Asia, the savages to the hills,
where they built fires as long as the “Pelican” was in sight. Thus did
England take possession of the region which, after near three hundred
years, proved to be the richest gold-bearing country in the world.
Drake gave to the country the name of New Albion, and it bore that name
on the maps for centuries. He called it so “for two causes: in respect
of the white banks and cliffs which lie towards the sea; and the
other because it might have some affinity with our country in name.”
Curiously enough, the original narrative says, “There is no part of
earth here to be taken up wherein there is not some speciall likelihood
of gold or silver.”[151]

From the time when the Government’s ships crept along the coast to Cape
Mendocino, and then turned, unwilling, to their long voyage to Asia,
observations on that coast were doubtless repeated by navigators. The
line of coast took different courses and different names accordingly.
But it is well-nigh certain that from the time of Drake until 1770 the
California now a part of the United States had no European inhabitants.
The part of California which is in Mexico was first settled by Jesuit
missions, whose first successes date from the year 1697.

Drake returned to England by way of the Cape of Good Hope, and arrived
at Plymouth in triumph on the 26th of September, 1580. He had given the
name NOVA ALBION to the western coast of North America thus discovered;
he had taken possession for his sovereign, Elizabeth, with better color
of right than most discoverers could urge. But under this title the
Queen never claimed, nor her successors indeed, until, after three
centuries, Drake’s voyage may have been sometimes cited as a vague or
shadowy introduction to any rights by which England claimed the mouth
of the Columbia River and the region northward.[152]

The name NOVA ALBION was generally applied on the maps to the more
northerly region, the Oregon of our geography. But the name CALIFORNIA
held its place for the whole region known to us as the State of
California, as well as for the peninsula and the gulf. The distinction
between Upper and Lower California is still observed.

Drake’s reception at home was an enthusiastic one, by a populace always
anxious for a hero. It was tempered somewhat by the cautious feelings
of some, who regarded with no favorable eye the policy of private
reprisals upon another nation in time of peace. The Queen had no such
compunctions. She received him with undisguised favor, dined with him
on board his ship, and made him a knight. She directed that the vessel
which had borne her authority about the world should be carefully
preserved; and when the ship was finally broken up, John Davis, the
Arctic navigator, caused a chair to be made of the timbers, which is
now one of the relics of interest in the Bodleian Library, and within
whose seat Abraham Cowley wrote one of his well-known poems.

At length, in 1585, Queen Elizabeth determined on open hostility, and
giving Drake his first royal commission, and an ample fleet and land
force, he started on his successful expedition to the Spanish main,
when town after town fell into his hands, and the Spanish settlements
experienced most poignantly ravages similar to those which they had so
abundantly for nearly a century inflicted upon the natives of those
regions. Of his subsequent exploits in European waters this is no place
for the recital; but in 1595 he prevailed upon Elizabeth to put him,
in connection with his old patron and companion, Sir John Hawkins,
once more in command of another expedition to Spanish America. They
sailed from Plymouth in August, with the purpose of seizing Nombre de
Dios, and then of marching his twenty-five hundred troops to Panama
to capture the treasure which took that route from Peru on its way to
Spain. The expedition was a melancholy failure. The Spaniards were
forewarned. Porto Rico successfully resisted the English in the first
place, and the attack on Panama was abortive.

Hawkins died, overcome by the reverses; and Drake, struck with a fever
of mortification, sank beneath the fatal influences of the climate,
and died on board his ship early in the following year. His remains
were placed in a leaden casket and sunk off Puerto Cabello, and there
was no failure of suspicions that he had been the victim of foul play.
There are those in the English nation who indulge the hope that the
casket may yet be recovered, and that the remains of the great English
“Dragon” may yet rest beneath the pavement of Westminster Abbey.


CRITICAL ESSAY ON DRAKE’S BAY.

THE question where was the “convenient and fit harbor,” the “fair and
good bay,” which Drake entered on the Pacific coast, and where he
careened and repaired the “Pelican,” is still undecided, after much
discussion by the Californian geographers, who have now their capital
in the city of San Francisco,—on that matchless land-locked harbor
which is entered by the narrow passage known as the “Golden Gate.” The
authorities are not many, and are not quite in accord.

The narrative of Fletcher, which has been followed in the text, gives
the latitude of this bay as 38° 30′ north. But the briefer narrative
in Hakluyt[153] says: “We came within thirty-eight degrees towardes
the line; in which height it pleased God to send us into a faire and
good bay, with a good wind to enter the same.” Here is a difference of
half a degree. But the text in Hakluyt is supported by a manuscript
marginal note on what seems to be the original drawing of Dudley’s
map, and which is preserved in Munich, where the language (Italian)
is: “This map begins with the port of New Albion, in longitude 237°
and latitude 38°, discovered by the Englishman Drake in 1579 or
thereabout, as above,—a convenient place to water and to collect
other refreshment.” The manuscript has a note, which the engraving has
not, “Porto bonissimo.” But on the coast farther north, where the same
author speaks of the cold, he says: “Drake returned to 38½ degrees, and
the weather was temperate, and he called it New Albion.” The _Arcano
del Mare_, in which these maps are printed, was not published till
1646. But Dudley, the author, was active in maritime affairs in England
in all the last ten years of the sixteenth century. He was the son of
Elizabeth’s Earl of Leicester; he was brother-in-law of Cavendish,
administered on his estate, and must have seen his chart.[154] Hakluyt
had wished to publish his narrative of Drake in his edition of 1589;
but this account by Pretty was not regularly embodied by Hakluyt in
his great work till 1600.[155] The _World Encompassed_ was not printed
until 1628, but is from Fletcher’s contemporary notes. Dudley himself
prepared an expedition to the South Seas. He may be spoken of as a
valuable contemporary authority. The English Government did not publish
such discoveries. But Cavendish would have had Drake’s charts.

[Illustration: MODERN MAP.

This sketch will indicate the relative positions of the several bays.]

Now the opening of the Golden Gate is in latitude 37° 46′: it exactly
corresponds with “within 38° N.” of one account, but it lacks 44′ of
the 38° 30′ of the other two. The discrepancy is not so important
when we find that in 38° 30′ there is no harbor and no bay, good or
bad. The voyager must come down the coast as far as 38° 15′ to find
Bodega Bay, which has, accordingly, been assigned by some conjectures
as Sir Francis’ resting-place. Just south of this, near the line of
38°, is an open roadstead which has some advocates in this discussion.
Between this bay and the Golden Gate, the point of Los Reyes runs out
southwest. East of this, and northwest of the Golden Gate, is another
open roadstead, facing the south, which for many years, long before the
discovery of Californian gold, had been known as Jack’s Bay, or Sir
Francis Drake’s Bay. One of these four bays is chosen by one or another
geographer as the fair and good harbor into which a special providence
drove Drake by a favorable wind.

[Illustration: VISCAINO’S MAP.

Sketch from _Carta de los reconocimentos hechos en 1602 por el Capitan
Sebastian Vizcaino formada por los Planos que hizo el misno durante su
comision_, in an atlas in the State Department at Washington.]

In this discussion, the map of Dudley, whose information was nearly
at first-hand, plays an important part. His representation of Drake’s
bay—a sort of bottle-shaped harbor—so far resembles the double bay of
San Francisco, that it would probably decide the question, but that,
unfortunately, he gives two such bays. His two maps, also, do not very
closely resemble each other. It becomes necessary to suppose that one
of his bays was that which we know as Bodega Bay, or that both are
drawn from the imagination. The map of Hondius gives a chart of Drake’s
bay,[156] which has, unfortunately, no representation to any bay on the
coast, and is purely imaginary.

The discussion is complicated from the fact, that, if Drake entered
San Francisco Bay, the English Government kept its secret so well that
they forgot it themselves. What is curious is, that for two centuries
the Spaniards were seeking at intervals for “Port St. Francisco,” and
did not find it. In 1603, Viscaino put into a bay which he called Port
St. Francisco; but it is urged[157] that Viscaino really entered the
Bay of Monterey. The Spaniards by this time were eagerly seeking a bay
of refuge for their Asiatic squadrons.[158] They knew that Drake had
repaired a vessel somewhere. Viscaino passed “Port St. Francisco” in
a gale, and returned into it, according to the narrative. It was not
until 1769 that a land party of Franciscan monks finally discovered to
Spain the magnificent Bay of San Francisco. One theory is that no one
ever discovered it before; but a contemporary manuscript account of the
discovery, preserved in the British Museum, says distinctly that this
famous port, according to the signs given by history, is called San
Francisco. It is distant from St. Diego two hundred leagues, and is to
be found in 38½°. “They say it is the best bay they have discovered;
and while it might shelter all the navies in Europe, it is entered by a
straight of three leagues, and surrounded with mountains which make the
waters tranquil.”

[Illustration: COAST OF NOVA ALBION, FROM DUDLEY’S ARCANO DEL MARE.]

The reader must understand that all the maps had a port of Sir Francis,
or a Puerto San Francisco, or some similar name. One English map
bravely says,[159] “Port Sr. Francis Drake, _not_ St. Francisco,” for
the bay discovered in 1770.

[Illustration: JEFFERYS’ SKETCH.]

So soon as this discovery was known in England, Captain Burney claimed
it as Drake’s bay; in America, Davidson, in the _Coast Pilot_, and Mr.
Greenhow give the same decision.

Probably the early maps must be taken as the best and decisive
authorities.

The reader has before him Dudley’s two maps. Of these, Dudley says
that California was drawn by an English pilot. In his text describing
the shore, he goes no further than Cape St. Lucas, and then crosses
to California, which suggests that he is following Cavendish, who
took this course, and who was Dudley’s near kinsman. On the margin in
the manuscript of Dudley’s map at Munich, he calls Drake’s bay “Porto
bonissimo,” “the best of harbors,”—an expression which certainly does
not belong to Jack’s Bay. In both maps, also, it is represented as
the southern of the two deep bays, of which the northern appears to
correspond to Bodega Bay, and the southern to San Francisco Bay. On the
larger of the two maps Drake’s bay is placed in the same relation to
Monterey as is held by San Francisco.

[Illustration: DUDLEY’S CARTA PRIMA.

[This is a section from a marginal map on the “Carta Prima” of Dudley’s
_Arcano del Mare_, vol. i. lib. 2, p.19. Key:—

  1. C. Arboledo.
  2. Ensa Larga.
  3. P^o. di Don Gasper.
  4. R. Salado.
  5. P^o. dell Nuovo Albion scoperto dal Drago C^{no}. Inglese.
  6. Enseada
  7. P^o. di Anonaebo.
  8. P^o. di Moneerei.
  9. C. S. Barbera.
  10. C. S. Agostino.
  11. Quivira R^o.
  12. Nuova Albione.—ED.
]]

In the curious “new map” mentioned by Shakespeare in “Twelfth
Night,”[160] the spot where Drake landed is indicated. The names, as
one reads southward from the parallel of 40°, are C. Roxo, Sierra de
los Pescadores,—Tierra de Paxaros R. GRANDE, which seems to be Drake’s
harbor,—Rio Hermoso, C. Frio, Sierra Nevada, C. Blanco, Cicuic, Playa,
Tiguer. Cicuic and Tiguer are evidently borrowed from Ciceyé and Tiguex
of Coronado’s narrative. The same position is given to Tiguex in
Hondius’s map. Of this the scale is so small that Drake’s Bay could
not be determined from it, were it not for the issuing of the dotted
line showing his homeward track.

The Spanish geographers are at work on this subject, with full
understanding of the points involved in the problem. It will not be
long, probably, before the question is decided. This writer does not
hesitate to say that he believes it will prove that Drake repaired
his ship in San Francisco Bay, and that this bay took its name not
indirectly from Francis of Assisi, but from the bold English explorer
who had struck terror to all the western coast of New Spain.[161]

[Illustration: Autograph Edward E Hale]


EDITORIAL NOTES

ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

FOR the authoritative accounts of William Hawkins’s Brazilian voyages,
we must go to Hakluyt’s third volume, as published in 1600. In it
likewise we shall find the account of the West Indian voyages of
Sir John Hawkins in 1562, 1564, and 1567-68. We may also read them
in the usual compilations drawn from Hakluyt, among the latest of
which is _The Elizabethan Seamen_ of Payne, who remarks that “nothing
which Englishmen had done in connection with America previous to
those voyages had any result worth recording.” Lowndes, in his
_Bibliographer’s Manual_, gives an edition, in 1569 (London), of John
Hawkins’s _True Declaration of the Troublesome Voyages to the Partes of
Guynea and the West Indies_; but Sabin (_Dictionary_, viii. 157) thinks
it was only printed in Hakluyt.

[Illustration: A SKETCH OF HONDIUS’S MAP.

A sketch of a part of Hondius’s map of the world, on which Drake’s
route is marked; it is taken from a fac-simile in the Hakluyt Society’s
edition of The World Encompassed.

Key:—

  1. Nova Albion, sic a Francisco Draco, 1579, dicta qui bis ab incolis
     eodem die diademate redimitus, eandem Reginæ Angliæ consecravit.
  2. Hic præ ingenti frigore in Austrum reverti coactus est lat. 42 die
     5 Junii.
  3. Cozones.
  4. [Drake’s Bay].
  5. Tigues.
  6. I. de passao.
  7. California.
  8. San Miguel.
  9. Damantes.
  10. Mare Vermeo.
  11. S. Thomas.]

Fox Browne, in his _English Merchants_, chap. viii., shows the
relations which Hawkins in his day established with British commerce.

_The Observations of Sir Richard Hawkins, Knight, in his Vojage jnto
the South Sea, Anno Domini 1593_, was printed in London in 1622,[162]
and was reprinted in 1847 by the Hakluyt Society, under the editing of
Captain C. R. D. Bethune. The book gives us some useful notes upon the
aborigines of Florida and the regions farther south.

The most convenient embodiment, however, of the ancient records and
of modern criticisms upon all the exploits of the Hawkinses is in the
volume of the Hakluyt Society for 1878,—_The Hawkins’ Voyages during
the Reigns of Henry VIII., Queen Elizabeth, and James I._, edited, with
an Introduction, by the careful hand of Clements R. Markham. Here we
have not only what Hakluyt has preserved for us, but the _Observations_
of 1622, and other journals and narratives.

[Illustration: PORTUS NOVÆ ALBIONIS.

This is an outline sketch of the map of Drake’s Bay given in the margin
of Hondius’s map, but which is omitted in the reproduction of that map
in the Hakluyt Society’s edition of _The World Encompassed_. The map is
rare, and our sketch follows another belonging to Mr. Charles Deane.

  Key:—1. A group of Indian houses.
        2. Place of the ship.
        3. Portus Novæ Albionis.
        4. A group of the English conferring with the natives.

A fac-simile of the original engraving is given in Gay’s _Popular
History of the United States_, ii. 577. It has a Latin legend beneath
it, which reads: “The inhabitants of Nova Albion lament the departure
of Drake, now twice crowned, and by frequent sacrifices lacerate
themselves.” A curious picture representing the crowning of Drake is in
the 1671 edition of Montanus, p. 213.

A writer in the _San Francisco Evening Bulletin_, Oct. 5, 1878, says
that the island in the sketch is misplaced, if Bodega Bay is intended,
being below the peninsula; but that, viewed from the position assigned
to Drake’s ship, it seems to be outside, as drawn. He maintains that
this bay answers all the other conditions of Fletcher’s description,
and that Hondius’s sketch is confirmed by Dudley’s map.]

For Drake the material is more abundant. Regarding his famous voyage
round the world in 1577-80, the earliest statement in print is one
said to be by Francis Pretty, and called _The famous Voyage of Sir
Francis Drake into the South Sea ... begun in the yeare of our Lord
1577_.[163] Hakluyt had this, and says in effect, in the Introduction
of his 1589 edition, that the friends of Drake who did not wish their
publications forestalled, had wished him to omit it. Hakluyt, however,
seems to have privately printed it, in six pages, and these, without
pagination, are found in some, if not all, copies of the 1589 volume,
inserted after page 643.[164] It finally publicly appeared in his third
volume of the 1598-1600 edition. A more authoritative publication,
however, was _The World Encompassed by Sir Francis Drake, carefully
Collected out of the notes of Master Francis Fletcher, Preacher in this
imployment, and divers others his followers_, London, 1628.[165] It was
reprinted in 1635,[166] and made part of _Sir Francis Drake revived_ in
1653.[167] It was again reprinted by the Hakluyt Society in 1855, with
an Introduction by W. S. W. Vaux. This and other accounts of the voyage
have also found a place in the general collections of Hakluyt, Harris,
and the Oxford Voyages.[168]

The report of Da Silva mentions that Drake captured some sea-charts
from the Spaniards during this voyage; and Kohl (_Catalogue of Maps in
Hakluyt_, p. 82) supposes that Drake had with him the maps of Mercator
and Ortelius. After Drake’s return, Hondius made a map of the world, in
which he tracked both the routes of Drake and Cavendish; and of that
portion showing New Albion, as well as of his little plan of Drake’s
Bay, sketches are given herewith. Kohl thinks (page 84) that Hondius
may have used Drake’s own charts in this little marginal sketch, while
the main map has “little to do with Drake’s own charts.” Hondius,
however, is thought to have been living in England at this time.
Molineaux is known to have used Drake’s reports and perhaps his map, in
making his mappemonde of 1600, of which an outline sketch of a part of
the Pacific coast is annexed. This is the map mentioned by Mr. Hale as
supposed to be referred to by Shakespeare.

[Illustration: FROM MOLINEAUX’S MAP, 1600.

The Key:—

  1. Nova Albion.
  2. Cabo Mendocino. “It appeareth by the discoverie of Francis Gaulle,
     a Spaniard, in the year 1584, that the sea betweene the west part
     of America and the east of Asia (which hath bene ordinarily set out
     as a straight, and named in most maps the Streight of Anian) is
     above 1,200 leagues wide at the latitude of 38°, and that the
     distance betweene Cape Mendocino and Cape California, which many
     maps and sea-charts make to be 1,200 or 1,300 leagues, is scarce so
     much as 600.” [This legend is in the right-hand upper corner of the
     map. Gali (or Gaulle), in returning from China in 1583, had struck
     the California coast at 37° 30´. His account appeared in
     Linschoten, and so was rendered in the English translation of
     Linschoten, 1598, and is given in Hakluyt, vol. iii. (1600) p. 442.]
  3. R. Grande.
  4. C. San Francisco.
  5. Rio Grande.
  6. C. Blanco.
  7. C. Blanco.
  8. B. Hermosa.
  9. B. San Lorenzo.
  10. California.
  11. R. Grande.
  12. S. Francisco.
  13. New Mexico.
  14. Cibola.]

For Drake’s expedition of 1585-86, we have the original account in
Latin, printed at Leyden in 1588,—_Expeditio Francisci Draki_,—which
should be accompanied by four large folding maps; namely, of Cartagena,
St. Augustine, San Domingo, and S. Jacques (Guinea).[169] An English
translation by Thomas Cates appeared in London the next year (1589)
as _A Summarie and true Discourse of Sir Francis Drake’s West Indian
Voyage, wherein were taken the towns of St. Jago, Sancto Domingo,
Cartagena, and Saint Augustine._[170] This first edition seems to have
been without maps; but a second edition of the same year is sometimes
found with copies of the Leyden maps, besides a fifth, a mappemonde,
showing “The famous West Indian Voyadge,” which did not appear in the
Leyden edition.[171] The _Huth Catalogue_, ii. 442, notes a third
edition for the same year.[172]

In 1855, Louis Lacour edited at Paris a French manuscript upon this
1585-86 expedition, which is preserved in the National Library at
Paris.[173]

The expedition in 1587, by Drake and Norris, against the Spaniards in
Europe, does not fall within our present scheme.[174]

Of Drake’s last voyage in 1595-96 we have his log-book, printed for the
first time in Kunstmann’s _Entdeckung Amerikas_ in 1859. A manuscript
account, by Thomas Maynarde, is preserved in the British Museum, which,
with a Spanish account, “Francis Draque y Juan Acquines,”[175] was
printed by the Hakluyt Society in 1849, under the editing of W. D.
Cooley.

Henry Savile’s _Libell of Spanish Lies_, giving the earliest English
account in print, was issued in London in 1596 (_Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, vol. i. no. 508), and was also included in Hakluyt’s third
volume in 1600.[176]

Tiele—_Mémoire bibliographique_ (1867), p. 300—says that Hakluyt
lent his account, two years before he published it, to the Dutch
historian Van Meteren, who printed a Dutch version of it at Amsterdam
in 1598.[177]

[Illustration: SIR FRANCIS DRAKE.

A fac-simile of a copperplate engraving in H. Holland’s _Heroologia_,
Arnheim, 1620, p. 105,—a book now rare. There is a copy in Harvard
College Library. Cf. also _Magazine of American History_, March, 1883.
There is another head by Houbraken in his series of heads, London,
1813, p. 47.

A library, which is said to have been begun by Drake and kept up by
his descendants at Nutwell Court, Lympstone, Devon, was recently sold
in London. Cf. _London Times_, March 16, 1883. There were books in
the sale pertaining to America, which were published early enough to
have been collected by Drake himself; but the rarest of the Americana,
of interest to the students of this period, must rather have been
the accumulation of the younger Francis Drake, the chronicler of his
uncle’s exploits. Some of the rare books mentioned in other chapters of
this history are noted as bringing the following prices: Rich’s _Newes
from Virginia_, £93; Whitaker’s _Good Newes from Virginia_, £90, later
priced by Quaritch at £105; Hariot’s _New found land of Virginia_,
£300, later advertised by Quaritch for £335; Rosier’s _True Relation_,
£301, later marked by Ouaritch at £335; _Declaration of the State of
the Colonie and Affairs in Virginia_, £46; De la Warre’s _Relation_,
£26 11_s._; _Good Speed to Virginia_, £30; Hamor’s _True Discourse_,
£69; _New Life of Virginia_, £18 5_s._, later priced by Ouaritch at
£25; _True Declaration of the Estat of the Colonie of Virginia_, £80,
later priced by Quaritch at £96.]

A kinsman of Drake published at London, in 1626, _Sir Francis Drake
revived: calling upon this dull or effeminate age to follow his noble
steps for gold and silver, by this memorable relation of the rare
occurrences (never yet declared to the world) in a third Voyage made
by him to the West Indies in the yeares ‘72 and ‘73, faithfully taken
out of the reporte of Christofer Ceely, Ellis Hixon, and others;
reviewed by Sir Fr. Drake himself, and set forth by Sir Fr. Drake,
his nephew_.[178] This edition was reissued in 1628, with the errata
corrected.[179] It was again reissued in 1653, in the first collected
edition of Drake’s voyages, under the title, _Sir Francis Drake
revived: four several voyages ... collected out of the notes of the
said Sir Francis Drake, Master Philip Nichols, Master Francis Fletcher,
... carefully compared together_.[180]

[Illustration: CAVENDISH.

Follows a copperplate engraving in H. Holland’s _Heroologia_, Arnheim,
1620, p. 89.]

In 1595 a _Life of Drake_ by C. FitzGeffrey was published in
London.[181] Fuller, in his _Holy and Prophane State_ (1642), gives a
characteristic seventeenth-century estimate of Drake, and he knew some
of Drake’s kin.

Samuel Clarke’s _Life and Death of Drake_ was published in London
in 1671.[182] Robert Burton’s _English Hero_, long a popular book,
and passing through many editions, was first published in 1687 and
1695, and was translated into German and other foreign tongues.
Dr. Johnson’s _Life of Drake_ has his peculiar flavor. Of the later
biographies, Barrow’s seems to unite best the various details of
Drake’s career.[183]

The voyages of Candish, or Cavendish, can be followed in the Latin and
German of De Bry’s eighth part of his _Great Voyages_ (1599), and in an
abridged form in Hulsius’ part vi. There is no separate English edition
of the account of the 1586-88 voyage, written by Francis Pretty, who
took part in it; but besides the text in Hakluyt’s third volume (it had
been briefly given in the 1589 edition), it can be found in the later
collections of Callender (1766), Harris (vol. i.), and Kerr (vol. x.);
cf. S. Colliber’s _Columna Rostrata, or a Critical History of English
Sea Affairs_, London, 1727. It was later reprinted in Dutch, Amsterdam,
1598, and in 1617.[184]

[Illustration: SIR FRANCIS DRAKE.

This portrait, said to follow the three-quarters likeness in Vaughan’s
print (of which there is a copy in the Lenox Library), is a fac-simile
of a cut in the title of _Sir Francis Drake revived_, issued in London
in 1626, by his nephew, Sir Francis Drake, Baronet; cf. _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, ii. 133. Another likeness of a little later date will
be observed in the fac-simile of the Virginia Farrar map, given in
connection with Professor Keen’s paper on “Plowden’s Grant,” in the
present volume. There are other portraits on the title of De Bry, parts
viii. (1599) and xi. (1619), and in Hulsius, part vi. (1603), and on
the folding map in part xvi. (1619); cf. also _Le Voyage Curieux_,
Paris, 1641.

Some new light has been thrown upon Drake by a namesake, Dr. Drake,
in the _Archæological Journal_, 1873; and Mr. Walter Herries Pollock
says the latest word in the _National Review_, May, 1883. Two other
testimonies to the alleged change of the name of San Francisco Bay
(see p. 77) may be found among the contributions of the middle of the
last century to the history of the Pacific coast geography. The map
published by the Imperial Academy of St. Petersburg in 1754 and 1773
says, “Port de Francois Drake, fausement appellé de St. Francois.”
J. Green, in his _Remarks in support of the new Chart of North and
South America_, London, 1753, says, “The French geographers within
this century have converted Port Sir Francois Drake into Port San
Francisco.”]




CHAPTER III.

EXPLORATIONS TO THE NORTH-WEST.

BY CHARLES C. SMITH,

_Treasurer of the Massachusetts Historical Society._


THE fresh spirit of maritime adventure which marked the last decade of
the fifteenth century and the first quarter of the sixteenth century,
owed its origin to mistaken theories as to the distance between the
west of Europe and the east of Asia. Columbus believed that the
land which he first discovered was an island on the coast of Japan;
and he seems never to have relinquished this idea. The contemporary
geographers all cherished the same mistake; and the early maps give a
much better representation of the coast-line of Asia than they do of
the shores of North America.[185] It is a curious fact that the true
position and form of South America were familiar to cartographers
long before there was any exact knowledge of the northern half of the
continent. North America was regarded as an island or a collection
of islands, through which it would not be difficult to find a short
passage to Zipangu and Cathay,—the modern Japan and China.[186]
Gradually these mistakes yielded to more correct views; but it was
still believed that a feasible passage existed around the northern
shore of the new continent. This belief was the inspiring motive of
all the early northwestern explorations, and it lingered almost to
our own time, long after every one knew that such a passage would be
of no practical use. At length the problem has been solved; but the
introduction of new methods of ocean and land trade and travel has
deprived it of all but a purely scientific and geographical interest.
Meanwhile the search for a northwest passage has developed an heroic
endurance and a perseverance in surmounting obstacles scarcely
paralleled anywhere else, and has added largely to the stores of human
knowledge.

At the head of the long list of explorers for a northwest passage stand
the names of the Cabots; but the intricate questions as to the measure
of just fame to be assigned to father and son have been fully treated
in another chapter of this work,[187] and neither John nor Sebastian
penetrated the more northern waters with which our inquiry is mainly
concerned. It is enough now to recall their names as the leaders in an
enterprise in which for nearly three centuries England took a foremost
part, and that so early as 1497 John Cabot set sail in the hope of
this great discovery. Within the next half century he was followed by
his son Sebastian, the Cortereals, Cartier, and Hore, not one of whom
sought to reach a high northern latitude. It was not until Frobisher
sailed on his first voyage that the real northwest explorations can
be said fairly to have begun. Since that time more than one hundred
voyages and land journeys have been undertaken in this vain quest.

In two of the northwestern voyages of Martin Frobisher the discovery
of a short way to the South Sea was only a secondary object. The
adventurers at whose cost they were undertaken looked mainly to
the profit from a successful search for gold, though they were not
unmindful of the advantages to be gained by shortening the distance to
the Spice Islands of the East. In the bitter quarrel between Frobisher
and Michael Lok, after the third voyage, it was charged that Frobisher
had neglected this part of the undertaking. But it was natural that
Lok, who had no doubt lost heavily by the voyages, should be angry
with Frobisher, and endeavor to make the most of any failure on his
part to carry out the whole plan; and there is no reason to believe
that Frobisher wilfully neglected the interests or the wishes of his
employers, however much they may have been disappointed. The whole
amount subscribed for the three voyages was upward of twenty thousand
pounds, and of this sum Lok subscribed, for himself and his children,
nearly one fourth. Among the subscribers were Queen Elizabeth, who
invested four thousand pounds, Lord Burleigh, the Earl and Countess of
Warwick, the Earl of Leicester, the Earl and Countess of Pembroke, Sir
Philip Sidney, Sir Thomas Gresham, Sir Francis Walsingham, and others
scarcely less conspicuous in that generation.

Frobisher’s first expedition consisted of two small vessels, the
“Gabriel” and the “Michael,” one of twenty-five tons and the other of
twenty tons, and a pinnace of ten tons. They set sail from Blackwall
on the 15th of June, 1576, but it was not until the 1st of July that
they were clear of the coast of England. Not long after coming in sight
of Friesland, Frobisher parted company with the pinnace, in which
were four men, who were never seen again; and about the same time the
“Michael” slipped away without any warning, and returned to England.
Nevertheless, Frobisher pressed on, and on the 21st he entered the
opening now known as Frobisher’s Strait or Bay, “having upon eyther
hande a great mayne or continent; and that land uppon hys right hande
as hee sayled westward, he judged to be the continente of Asia, and
there to bee devided from the firme of America, which lyeth uppon
the lefte hande over against the same.”[188] Into this bay, as it is
now known to be, he sailed about sixty leagues, capturing one of the
natives, whom he carried to England. The land, Meta Incognita, he
took possession of in the name of the Queen of England, commanding his
company, “if by anye possible meanes they could get ashore, to bring
him whatsoever thing they could first find, whether it were living or
dead, stocke or stone, in token of Christian possession.”[189] Some
of the men returned to him with flowers, some with green grass, “and
one brought a peece of black stone, much lyke to a seacole in coloure,
which by the waight seemed to be some kinde of mettall or mynerall.”
Frobisher reached England on his return in the following October, and
on his arrival presented the stone to one of his friends, an adventurer
in the voyage. The wife of this gentleman accidentally threw it into
the fire, where it remained for some time, when it was taken out and
quenched in vinegar. It then appeared of a bright gold color, and on
being submitted to a goldfinder in London, was said to be rich in gold;
and large profits were promised if the ore was sufficiently abundant.

[Illustration

This cut follows the engraving in the Hakluyt Society’s edition of
_Frobisher’s Voyages_.]

With this report, there was little difficulty in providing means for
a second voyage. The new expedition consisted of a “tall ship of her
Majesty’s,” named the “Ayde,” of two hundred tons, and of two smaller
vessels, with the same names as those in the former voyage, but now
said to be of thirty tons each. They were manned in all by one hundred
and twenty men, to which number Frobisher was limited by his orders.
After some delay, he sailed from Harwich on the 31st of May, 1577. By
his orders he was directed to proceed at once to the place where the
mineral was found, and set the miners at work. There he was to leave
the “Ayde,” and then to sail to another place visited on his first
voyage, where a further attempt at mining was to be made, and where one
of the small barks was to be left. With the remaining bark he was to
sail fifty or a hundred leagues farther west, to make “certayne that
you are entred into the South Sea; and in yo^r passage to learne all
that you can, and not to tarye so longe from the ‘Ayde’ and worckmen
but that you bee able to retorne homewards w^{th} the shippes in due
tyme.” If the mines should prove less productive than it was hoped
they would be, he was to “proceade towards the discovering of Cathaya
w^{th} the two barcks, and returne the ‘Ayde’ for England agayne.”[190]
Frobisher had his first sight of Friesland on the 4th of July; and he
reached Milford Haven, in Wales, on his return voyage, about the 23d
of September. During this period of a little more than two months, his
energies were mainly devoted to procuring ore, of which, in twenty
days, he obtained nearly two hundred tons; but he also made as careful
an examination as was practicable of the region previously visited by
him, and added something to the stock of geographical knowledge. Two of
the natives were captured, and were carried to England to be educated
as interpreters.

Frobisher’s third voyage was planned on a much larger scale than any
other which hitherto had been sent to the Arctic regions, and he
was placed in command of fifteen vessels. They were all collected
at Harwich by the 27th of May, 1578; and after receiving their
instructions from Frobisher, they sailed together on the 31st. On
the 2d of July they reached the mouth of Frobisher’s Bay; but after
entering it a short distance, they found it so choked with ice that
it was impossible to proceed. One of the vessels was soon sunk by the
ice, and all suffered more or less. After beating about for several
days, they entered a strait, supposed at first to lead to their desired
goal, but which was, in fact, what is now known as Hudson’s Strait, the
entrance to the great bay which bears his name, “havyng alwayes a fayre
continente uppon their starreboorde syde, and a continuance still of an
open sea before them.” According to Best, one of the captains, and an
historian of the expedition, Frobisher was probably one of the first
to discover the mistake, though he persuaded his followers that they
were in the right course and the known straits. “Howbeit,” he adds,
“I suppose he rather dissembled his opinion therein than otherwyse,
meaning by that policie (being hymself ledde with an honorable desire
of further discoverie) to enduce y^e fleete to follow him, to see a
further proofe of that place. And, as some of the company reported,
he hath since confessed, that, if it had not bin for the charge and
care he had of y^e fleete and fraughted shippes, he both would and
could have gone through to the South Sea, called Mare del Sur, and
dissolved the long doubt of the passage which we seeke to find to the
rich countrey of Cataya.”[191] Toward the latter part of July it was
determined not to proceed any farther, and after many difficulties and
dangers they returned to Meta Incognita. It had been their intention
to erect a house here, and to leave a considerable party to spend the
winter. But after a full consideration it was decided that this plan
was impracticable, and it was relinquished. A house of lime and stone
was, however, built on the Countess of Warwick’s Island, in which
numerous articles were deposited. On the last day of August the fleet,
having completed their loading with more than thirteen hundred tons of
ore, sailed for England, where they arrived at various times about the
1st of October, and with the loss of not more than forty men in all.
The ore proved to be of very little value, and the adventurers lost a
large part of what they had subscribed.[192]

Of the voyages of Sir Humphrey Gilbert, who is often included among the
northwest explorers, little need be said here; for though he wrote an
elaborate _Discourse of a Discovery for a new Passage to Cataia_, to
stimulate the search for a northwest passage, the voyage in which he
lost his life was not extended beyond the coasts of Newfoundland.[193]

[Illustration]

[Illustration: FROM THE MOLINEAUX GLOBE, 1592.

[This globe is now in the Middle Temple. (See Editorial Note E, at the
end of Dr. De Costa’s chapter.) This is thought to have been made,
in part at least, from Davis’s charts, which are now lost. Kohl’s
_Catalogue of Maps in Hakluyt_, p. 23. The sketch is to be interpreted
thus:—

   1. Grocland.
   2. Hope Sanderson.
   3. London cost.
   4. Marchant Yle.
   5. Davies island.
   6. Challer’s Cape.
   7. Gilbert’s Sound.
   8. Easter Point.
   9. Regin. Eli. forland.
  10. Fretum Davis.
  11. Mare Conglelatum.
  12. C. Bedford.
  13. Sandrson’s tour.
  14. Mont Ralegh.
  15. E. Cumberland isles.
  16. E. Warwicke’s forland.
  17. L. Lumley’s inlet.
  18. A furious overfall.
  19. Terre de Labrador.
  20. Dorgeo.
  21. I. de Arel.(?)

                   —ED.]]

Next in importance to the three voyages of Frobisher are the three
voyages of Captain John Davis, who has been immortalized by the
magnificent strait which bears his name, and which was discovered
on his first voyage. On this voyage he sailed from Dartmouth on the
7th of June, 1585, with two vessels,—the “Sunshine,” of fifty tons,
manned by twenty-three persons, and the “Moonshine,” of thirty-five
tons, with seventeen men. But it was not until three weeks later that
he was able to take his final departure from the Scilly Islands; and
he arrived at Dartmouth, on his return, on the 30th of September.
In this brief period he made some important discoveries, and sailed
as far north as 66° 66′, and westward farther than any one had yet
penetrated, “finding no hindrance.” He naturally concluded that he
had already discovered the desired passage, and that it was only
necessary to press forward in order to insure entire success. But he
was compelled by stress of weather to put back, and he reached England
shortly afterward. On his second voyage his little fleet was increased
by the addition of the “Mermaid,” of one hundred tons, and the “North
Star,” a pinnace of ten tons. He sailed from Dartmouth on the 7th of
May, 1586, and for a time everything promised well; but at the end of
July the crew of his largest vessel became discontented, and returned
with her to England. Meanwhile, the “Sunshine” and the pinnace had been
sent to make discoveries to the eastward of Greenland. But, in nowise
disheartened by these circumstances, Davis determined to prosecute his
enterprise in the “Moonshine.” He reached, however, not quite so far
north as in his previous voyage, and apparently about as far west, and
arrived home early in October,—“not having done so much as he did in
his first voyage,” is the judgment of one of his successors in Arctic
navigation.[194]

On his third voyage he sailed from Dartmouth, on the 19th of May,
1587, with three vessels,—the “Elizabeth,” the “Sunshine,” and a
smaller vessel, the “Helen,”—and arrived at the same port, on his
return, on the 15th of September. His course was in the track which
he had previously followed; but he added little to the knowledge he
had already gained, and having been inadequately provided for a long
voyage, was obliged to sail for home when he thought “the passage is
most probable, the execution easie.”[195]

[Illustration: FROM MOLINEAUX’S MAP, 1600.

[It is claimed that Davis, who was in England, June, 1600, to February,
1601, probably furnished the plot, and there is manifest an endeavor
in it to reconcile the old Zeno map. Davis’s discoveries are correctly
placed, but Frobisher’s are on the wrong side of the Straits. It needs
the following key:—

   1. A furious overfall.
   2. Warwick’s forelande.
   3. E. Cumberland Inlet.
   4. Estotiland.
   5. M. Rawghley.
   6. Saunderson’s towe.
   7. C. Bedford.
   8. Fretum Davis.
   9. Desolation.
  10. Warwick’s Forlande (_repeated_).
  11. Meta incognita.
  12. Mr. Forbusher’s straights.
  13. Reg. E. Foreland.
  14. Freyland.
  15. Gronlande.

See Editorial Note F, at the end of Dr. De Costa’s chapter.—Ed.]]

[Illustration]

It is a matter for surprise, in view of the sanguine expectations of
Davis, that an interval of nearly fifteen years elapsed between his
return from his third voyage and the sailing of the next expedition.
This was sent out at the cost of the East India Company, and consisted
of two small vessels,—the “Discovery,” under the command of Captain
George Waymouth, and the “Godspeed,” under John Drew. Waymouth sailed
from the Thames on the 2d of May, 1602, under a contract which provided
that he should sail directly toward the coast of Greenland and the sea
described as Fretum Davis, and that thence he should proceed by those
seas, “or as he shall find the passadge best to lye towards the parts
or kingdom of Cataya or China, or the backe side of America, w^{th}out
geveng ouer the proceedinge on his course soe longe as he shall finde
those seas or any ṗte thereof navigable, and any possibilitie to
make way or passadge through them.”[196] In spite of these specific
directions, the voyage was not productive of any important results,
though it is probable that he sighted land to the north of Hudson’s
Strait; and Luke Fox appears to have been right when he says that
Waymouth “neither discovered nor named any thing more than Davis, nor
had any sight of Groenland, nor was so farre north; nor can I conceive
he hath added anything more to this designe. Yet these two, Davis and
he, did (I conceive), light Hudson into his straights.”[197] Waymouth
himself ascribed his failure to a mutiny which occurred in the latter
part of July, and which compelled him to return to Dartmouth, where he
arrived on the 5th of August. An inquiry into the causes of the failure
was begun shortly afterward, but no evidence has been found to show how
it terminated.

Three voyages were undertaken not long afterward by the Danes, in which
James Hall was the chief pilot; and one by the English, under the
command of John Knight, in a pinnace of forty tons, sent out by the
East India and Muscovy companies. But each of these voyages had for
its chief object the discovery of gold and silver mines, and though
they all seem to have followed in the track of Frobisher, they added
little or nothing to the knowledge of Arctic geography, and contributed
nothing toward the solution of the problem of a northwest passage.
The first of these expeditions, in which both Hall and Knight were
employed, consisted of two small ships and a pinnace, and sailed from
Copenhagen on the 2d of May, 1605. After coasting along the western
shore of Davis Strait as far north as 69°, the ships reached Elsinore
on their return early in August. The next year a fleet of four ships
and a pinnace was sent out, with Hall as pilot-major. They sailed from
Elsinore on the 29th of May, but were prevented by the ice and stormy
weather from reaching as far north as before, and after much delay they
returned to Copenhagen on the 4th of October. In 1607 Hall accompanied
a third expedition, consisting of two vessels, which was equally
unproductive of results. When they had reached no farther than Cape
Farewell, on the southern coast of Greenland, they were compelled to
return, from causes which are variously stated, but which were probably
complicated by a mutinous spirit in the crew.

In the same year with Hall’s second voyage, Knight sailed from
Gravesend, on the 18th of April. Two months afterward he made land on
the coast of Labrador; and the captain and five men went on shore to
find a convenient place for repairing their vessel. Leaving two men
with their boat, the captain and three men went to the highest part
of the island. They did not return that day, and on the following day
the state of the ice was such that it was impossible to reach them,
and they were never heard from afterward. The pinnace then went to
Newfoundland to repair; and after encountering many perils, reached
Dartmouth on the 24th of December. Hall made a fourth voyage, in
1612, in two small vessels fitted out by some merchant-adventurers in
London. In this voyage he was mortally wounded in an encounter with the
Esquimaux on the coast of Labrador. His death destroyed all hope of a
successful prosecution of the enterprise, and shortly afterward the
vessels returned to England.

Henry Hudson had already acquired a considerable reputation as a
bold and skilful navigator, and had made three noteworthy voyages of
discovery when he embarked on his voyage for northwest exploration. On
the 17th of April, 1610, he sailed from Gravesend in the “Discovery,”
a vessel of only fifty-five tons, provisioned for six months; and on
the 9th of June he arrived off Frobisher’s Strait. He then sailed
southwesterly, and entering the strait which bears his name, passed
through its entire length, naming numerous islands and headlands,
and finally, on the 3d of August, saw before him the open waters of
Hudson’s Bay. Three months were spent in examining its shores, and on
the 10th of November his vessel was frozen in. She was not released
until the 18th of June in the following year, and six days afterward
a mutiny occurred. Hudson and his son, with six of the crew who were
either sick or unfit for work, were forced into a shallop, where they
were voluntarily joined by the carpenter; and then the frail boat
was cut loose, and the mutineers set sail for home, leaving their
late master and his companions to the mercy of the waves or death
by starvation. They were never seen or heard of again; but after
encountering great perils and privations, the mutineers finally made
land in Galway Bay, on the coast of Ireland. Hudson’s own account of
the voyage terminates with his entrance into the bay discovered by
him. For the later explorations and for the tragic end of the great
navigator’s brilliant career, we are forced to trust to the narrative
of one of his men, Abacuk Pricket. If we may believe the story told by
him, he had no part in the mutiny; but no one can read his narrative
without sharing the suspicion of Fox: “Well, Pricket, I am in great
doubt of thy fidelity to Master Hudson.”[198]

Two years after Hudson sailed on his last voyage, a new expedition
was sent to the northwest under the command of Sir Thomas Button. It
consisted of two ships, the “Resolution” and the “Discovery,” and
was provisioned for eighteen months. “Concerning this voyage,” says
Luke Fox, “there cannot bee much expected from me, seing that I have
met with none of the Journalls thereof. It appeareth that they have
been concealed, for what reasons I know not.”[199] Button sailed from
England in the beginning of May, and entering Hudson’s Strait, crossed
the Bay to the southern point of Southampton Island, which he named
Carey’s Swan’s Nest. He then kept on toward the western side of the
Bay, to which he gave the significant name “Hope’s Check,” and coasting
along the shore he discovered the important river which he called Port
Nelson, and which is now known as Nelson’s River. Here he wintered,
“and kept three fires all the Winter, but lost many men, and yet was
supplied with great store of white Partridges and other Fowle,” says
Fox.[200] On the breaking up of the ice he made a thorough exploration
of the bay and of Southampton Island, and finally returned to England
in the autumn, having accomplished enough to give him a foremost rank
among Arctic navigators.

A little less than a year and a half after Button’s return, Robert
Bylot and William Baffin embarked on the first of the two voyages
commonly associated with their names.

[Illustration]

They sailed from the Scilly Islands on Good Friday, April 7, 1615, in
the “Discovery,” a ship of about fifty-five tons, in which Bylot had
already made three voyages to the northwest. Following a course already
familiar to him, they passed through Hudson’s Strait, and ascended what
is now known as Fox Channel. Here and at the western end of Hudson’s
Strait they spent about three weeks, and then sailed for home, where
they arrived in the early part of September.

[Illustration: SIR THOMAS SMITH.

Passe’s engraving is very rare. It is also reproduced by Markham, in
whose Introduction are accounts of Smith, Sir Dudley Digges, Sir John
Wolstenholme, and other eminent patrons of Arctic exploration in that
day. See Belknap’s _American Biography_, ii. 9.]

Their next voyage was one of far greater interest and importance, and
ranks among the most famous of the Arctic voyages. They sailed again
in the “Discovery,” leaving Gravesend on the 26th of March, 1616, with
a company numbering in all seventeen persons; and coasting along the
western shore of Greenland and through Davis Strait, they visited and
explored both shores of the great sea which has ever since borne the
name of Baffin’s Bay. Here they discovered and named the important
channels known as Lancaster Sound and Jones Sound, beside numerous
smaller bodies of water and numerous islands since become familiar to
Arctic voyagers. All this was accomplished in a short season, and on
the 30th of August they cast anchor at Dover on their return.

Fifteen years elapsed, during which no important attempt was made
toward the discovery of a northwest passage; but in 1631 two voyages
were undertaken, to one of which we owe the quaint, gossippy narrative
entitled _Northwest Fox, or Fox from the Northwest Passage_. Luke Fox,
its author, was a Yorkshireman, of keen sense and great perseverance,
as well as a skilful navigator. He had long been interested in
northwest explorations; and, according to his own account, he wished to
go as mate with Knight twenty-five years before. At length he succeeded
in interesting a number of London merchants and other persons in the
enterprise, and on the 5th of May, 1631, he set sail from Deptford
in the “Charles,” a pinnace of seventy tons, victualled for eighteen
months. He searched the western part of Hudson’s Bay, discovered the
strait and shore known as Sir Thomas Roe’s Welcome, sailed up Fox
Channel to a point within the Arctic Circle, and satisfied himself, by
a careful observation of the tides, of the existence of the long-sought
passage, but failed to discover it. On his return he cast anchor in
the Downs on the 31st of October, “not having lost one Man, nor Boy,
nor Soule, nor any manner of Tackling, having beene forth neere six
moneths. All glory be to God!”[201]

On the same day on which Fox began his voyage, Captain Thomas James
sailed from the Severn in a new vessel of seventy tons, named the
“Maria,” manned by twenty-two persons, and, like Fox’s vessel,
victualled for eighteen months. On his outward voyage he encountered
many perils, and on more than one occasion his vessel barely escaped
shipwreck. His explorations were confined to the waters of Hudson’s
Bay, and more particularly to its southeastern part, where he wintered
on Charlton Island. Here he built a house in which the ship’s company
lived from December until June, enduring as best they might all the
horrors of an Arctic winter on an island only a little north of the
latitude of London. On the 2d of July they again set sail, but were so
hampered by ice that their progress was very slow, and in the latter
part of August James, with the unanimous concurrence of his officers,
determined to return home. He arrived at Bristol on the 22d of October,
1632, having added almost nothing to the knowledge gained by Fox in a
third of the time.

[Illustration: A PART OF JAMES’S MAP.

[This is the southwest corner of a folding map, 16 × 12 inches,
entitled “The Platt of Sayling for the discoverye of a passage into
the South Sea, 1631,1632,” which belongs to James’s _Strange and
Dangerous Voyage_, London, 1633. Mr. Charles Deane has two copies, both
with photographic fac-similes of the map made from the copy now in
the Barlow Library, New York. The Harvard College copy is defective.
The map has a portrait of James, “ætatis suæ, 40.” (Cf. Sabin’s
_Dictionary_, ix. 35,711; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. no. 400.
Quaritch priced it in 1872, £36.) The narrative was reprinted in 1740,
and is in the Collections of Churchill and Harris.—ED.]]

Both voyages were substantially failures, and their want of success
nearly put an end to northwestern explorations. It was more than a
hundred years before the matter was again taken up in any deliberate
and efficient manner. But in the long list of Arctic navigators there
are no greater names than those of Frobisher, Davis, Hudson, and
Baffin. With means utterly disproportioned, as it now seems, to the
task which they undertook, these men accomplished results which have
called forth the admiration of more than one of their successors. They
did not find the new and more direct way to Cathay which they sought
for; but they dispelled many geographical illusions, and every fresh
advance in our knowledge of the Arctic regions has only confirmed the
accuracy of their statements. The story of these later explorations
belongs to another part of this History; and we shall there see an
energy and perseverance and an heroic endurance of hardship for the
solution of great geographical problems not unworthy of the men whose
voyages have been here narrated.


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

A COMPLETE bibliography of the northwest explorations is apart from
our present purpose.[202] The principal works used in the preparation
of the preceding narrative were almost all of them written by the men
who were the chief actors in the scenes and incidents described, or are
based on the original journals of those men. Their general accuracy and
trustworthiness have never been challenged, and with some unimportant
exceptions the statements of the early navigators have been confirmed
by their successors. The men who first encountered the perils of
those unknown seas were men of plain, straightforward character, who
told in simple and unpretentious words what they saw and did. Some
rectifications of their opinions and descriptions have, it is true,
become necessary; in part through the imperfections of the early
astronomical instruments, and in part through the difficulty, often
very great, of deciding what was land and what water, even from the
most careful observation. As a general rule, the early latitudes are
given too high from the first of these causes; but the longitudes are
substantially correct.

Of the works which are mainly compilations, the undisputed pre-eminence
belongs to Hakluyt’s _Voyages_ and Purchas’s _Pilgrimes_. Hakluyt
was an enthusiast with regard to western discoveries, and he spared
neither time nor labor to obtain trustworthy information with regard
to the voyages in which he took so deep an interest. His narratives
of the early voyages, so far as we have the means of verifying them,
follow with almost entire accuracy the original documents, though
in a few instances he has abbreviated his originals, apparently
from motives of economy and the want of space. In these instances,
however, the republication of the narratives by the Hakluyt Society,
with the learned annotations of their thoroughly competent editors,
places before the reader an exact copy of the originals. Purchas is
an authority of less importance than Hakluyt, but a similar remark
will apply to his accounts of the early voyages, though they are
more abridged than Hakluyt’s. Luke Fox prefixed to his quaint and
fascinating narrative of his own voyage an account of what had been
done by his predecessors, and this must be classed among the best
authorities. Of the later compilations the _Chronological History_[203]
of Sir John Barrow, so far as it covers the earlier period, should
not be overlooked by any one who wishes for a full summary of what was
accomplished. He was scarcely less of an enthusiast than was Hakluyt;
and his statements of fact are apparently indisputable. But he was a
man of strong and often of unreasonable prejudices, and his opinions,
particularly regarding events near his own time, cannot always be
accepted without a careful investigation of their grounds. The
_Narratives_,[204] edited by Mr. Rundall for the Hakluyt Society, must
also be classed with the compilations useful in this study.

[Illustration: BAFFIN’S BAY—CAPT LUKE FOX 1635.]

As an attempt to find a practicable passage between the Atlantic and
the Pacific, either through or around North America, every voyage
early and late was a failure. The theories in accordance with which
northwestern explorations were first undertaken were unsound, and
the objects by which they were inspired found realization long ago
in quite other ways. But not the less did those theories and those
objects animate men with a zeal and self-sacrifice worthy of the
Crusades, and produce results of great importance. No easier route to
China and Japan was discovered to enrich the fortunate adventurers; no
valuable territories were added to the realm of England; and it was an
utterly barren sovereignty which Frobisher and his successors claimed.
But for the disappointment of these expectations there was an ample
compensation in the whaling grounds to which they pointed the way,
and which have proved the fruitful source of large accessions to the
wealth of nations;[205] and it was something to learn, almost from the
first, that the gold mines from which so much was expected were only a
delusion and a snare.

We subjoin a specific mention of some of the more important separate
sources. For Frobisher the student may refer to Admiral Collinson’s
excellent gathering for the Hakluyt Society, as embodying the earliest
monographic literature upon the Northwest search.[206] Of John
Davis of Sandridge, whose exploits we are concerned with, there has
sometimes been confusion with a namesake and contemporary, John Davis
of Limehouse, and Mr. Froude has confounded them in his _Forgotten
Worthies_; but a note in the Hakluyt Society’s edition of _Davis’s
Voyages_, p. lxxviii, makes clear the distinction, and is not the least
of the excellences of that book, which contains the best grouping of
all that is to be learned of Davis.[207]

Referring to the general collections, for the intervening voyages we
come to Hudson’s explorations, and must still trust chiefly to the work
of the Hakluyt Society,[208] to which must also be credited the best
summary of the voyages conducted by Baffin.[209]

For Fox’s quaint and somewhat capriciously rambling narrative, the
present reader may possibly chance upon an original copy,[210] but
he can follow it at all events in modern collections. The author
accompanied it with a circumpolar map, which is only to be found,
according to Markham, in one or two copies; and a fac-simile of
Markham’s excerpt of the parts interesting in our inquiry is herewith
given.

[Illustration]


EDITORIAL NOTES.

=A.= THE ZENO INFLUENCE ON EARLY CARTOGRAPHY.—Frobisher’s reference to
Friesland indicates the influence which the Zeno map, then for hardly a
score of years before the geographers of Europe, was having upon their
notions regarding the North Atlantic.

[Illustration: THE ZENO CHART, _circa_ 1400.]

Of this map and its curious history a full account is given in Vol.
I. of the present History. It had been brought to light in Italy in
1558, and Frobisher is said to have taken it with him on his voyage.
Its errors in latitude deceived that navigator. When he fell in
with the Greenland shore, in 61°, he supposed himself to be at the
southern limit of Friesland, that being Zeno’s latitude for that point
(the southern point of his Greenland being in 66°); and thus that
unaccountable insular region of the Zeno chart was put anew into the
maps of the North Atlantic, and remained there for some time. Again,
when Davis fell in with land in 61°, he thought it neither Friesland
nor Zeno’s Greenland, but a new country, which he had found and which
he named “Desolation;” and so it appears in Molineaux’s map and globe,
and in Hudson’s map (given in fac-simile in Asher’s _Henry Hudson_),
as an island south of Greenland, with a misplaced Frobisher’s Straits
(still misplaced as late as the time of Hondius) separating it from
Greenland. Our Zeno chart must be interpreted by the following key:—

  1. Engronelant (Greenland).
  2. Grolandia.
  3. Islanda (Iceland).
  4. Norvegia (Norway).
  5. Estland (Shetland Islands?).
  6. Icaria.
  7. Frisland (Faroe Islands?).
  8. Estotiland (Labrador?).
  9. Drogeo (Newfoundland or New England?).
  10. Podalida.
  11. Scocia (Scotland).
  12. Mare et terre incognite.

Its influence can be further traced, twenty years later, in the map of
the world which Wolfe, in 1598, added to his English translation of
Linschoten. We annex a sketch-map of the Arctic portion, which needs to
be interpreted by the key below the cut.

[Illustration: FROM WOLFE’S LINSCHOTEN, 1598.

  1. Terra Septemtrionalis.
  2. Grocland.
  3. Groenland.
  4. Island (Iceland).
  5. Friesland.
  6. Drogeo.
  7. Estotiland.
  8. R. Nevado.
  9. C. Marco.
  10. Gol di S. Lorenzo.
  11. Saguenay flu.
  12. Canada.
  13. Nova Francia.
  14. Norōbega.
  15. Terra de Baccalaos.
  16. Do Bretan.
  17. Juan.
  18. R. de Tomēta.
  19. S. Brādam.
  20. Brasil.]

Considering the doubt attached to the Zeno chart, it would seem that
the earliest undoubted delineation of American parts of the Arctic
land is the representation of Greenland which appears in the Ptolemy
of 1482. This position of Greenland was reproduced, about ten years
before Frobisher’s voyage, in Olaus Magnus’s Latin _Historia_, Basil,
1567, who puts on the peninsula this legend: “Hic habitant Pygmei
vulgo Screlinger dicti.” There had been an earlier Latin edition of
the _Historia_ at Rome in 1555, and one in Italian at Venice in 1565:
there was no English edition till 1658. (_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p.
269.) Ziegler’s _Schondia_ had in Frobisher’s time been for forty years
or more a source of information regarding the most northern regions.
(_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, pp. 103, 120, for editions of 1532 and 1536.)

The cartographical ideas of the North from the earliest conceptions
may be traced in the following maps, which for this purpose may be
deemed typical: In 1510-12, in the Lenox Globe, which is drawn in Dr.
De Costa’s chapter; the map in Sylvanus’s _Ptolemy_, 1511, represents
Greenland as protruding from the northwest of Europe; the globe of
Orontius Fine, 1531, is resolvable into a similar condition, as shown
on page 11 of the present volume; Mercator’s great map of 1569,
blundering, mixes the Zeno geography with the later developments;
Gilbert’s map, 1576, gives an insular Greenland of a reversed trend
of coast; the Lok map of 1582 may be seen on page 40, and the
Hakluyt-Martyr map on page 42. The map of America showing the Arctic
Sea which appears in Boterus’s _Welt-beschreibung_, 1596, and Acosta’s
map (1598) of Greenland and adjacent parts, can be compared with
Wolfe’s, in Linschoten, already given in this note. Finally, we may
take the Hondius maps of 1611 and 1619, in which Hondius places at 80°
north this legend: “Glacis ab Hudsono detecta.”


=B.= FROBISHER’S VOYAGES.—George Beste’s _True Discourse of Discoverie
by the North Weast_, 1578, covers the three voyages, and contains two
maps,—one a mappemonde, the most significant since Mercator’s, and of
which in part a fac-simile is here given. The other is of Frobisher’s
Straits alone. Kohl, _Catalogue of Maps mentioned in Hakluyt_, p. 18,
traces the authorship of these charts to James Beare, Frobisher’s
principal surveyor. Compare it with Lok’s map, page 40, of the present
volume.

[Illustration: PART OF MAP IN BESTE’S “FROBISHER,” 1578.]

Beste’s book is very rare, and copies are in the Lenox and Carter-Brown
libraries. It is reprinted by Hakluyt.

Beste’s general account may be supplemented by these special
narratives:—

_First Voyage._ A State-paper given by Collinson, “apparently by M.
Lok.” The narrative by Christopher Hall, the master, in Hakluyt. See an
examination of its results in _Contemporary Review_ (1873), xxi. 529,
or _Eclectic Review_, iii. 243.

_Second Voyage._ Dionysius Settle’s account, published separately in
1577. _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, no. 206, with fac-simile of title.
It was reprinted by Mr. Carter-Brown (50 copies) in 1869. See notice
by J. R. Bartlett in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1869, p. 363.
This narrative is given in Hakluyt, vol. iii.; Pinkerton, vol. xii.;
Brydge’s _Restituta_, 1814, vol. ii. Chippin’s French version of
Settle, _La Navigation du Cap. Martin Forbisher_, was printed in 1578.
It is in the Lenox and Carter-Brown libraries. It has reappeared at
various dates, 1720, 1731, etc. From this French version of Settle was
made the Latin, _De Martini Forbisseri Angli navigatione in regiones
occidentis et septentrionis, narratio historica ex Gallico sermone
in Latinum translata per D. Joan Tho. Freigium_, Norbergæ, 1580, 44
leaves. This is also in the Lenox, Carter-Brown, and Sparks (Cornell
University) Collections. Cf. _Sunderland Catalogue_, ii. 4,650. Its
value is from $10 to $30. It was reprinted with notes at Hamburg
in 1675. Stevens, _Hist. Coll._, i. 33. Brinley, no. 28. Sabin,
_Dictionary_, vii. 25,994. This edition is usually priced at $12 or
$15. There are also German (1580, 1679, etc.) and Dutch (1599, 1663,
1678; in Aa’s Collection, 1706) editions. In the 1580 German edition is
a woodcut of the natives brought to England. _Huth Catalogue_, ii. 556.

_Third Voyage._ Thomas Ellis’s narrative, given by Hakluyt and
Collinson. Edward Sellman’s account is also given by Collinson.

Collinson’s life of Frobisher, prefixed to his volume, is brief; his
authorities, other than those in the body of his book, are Fuller’s
_Worthies of England_, and such modern treatises as Campbell’s _Lives
of the Admirals_, Barrow’s _Naval Worthies_, Muller’s _History of
Doncaster_, etc. S. G. Drake furnished a memoir, with a good engraving
of the usual portrait, in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, vol. iii.;
and there is a _Life_ by F. Jones, London, 1878. Biddle, in his
_Cabot_, chap. 12, epitomizes the voyages, and they can be cursorily
followed in Fox Bourne’s _English Seamen_, and Payne’s _Elizabethan
Seamen_. Commander Becher, in his paper in the _Journal_ of the Royal
Geographical Society, xii. 1, gives a useful map of the Straits, a part
of which is reproduced in the accompanying cut. In the same volume of
the _Journal_ its editor enumerates the various manuscript sources,
most of which have been printed, and have been referred to above.

[Illustration: FROBISHER’S STRAIT.]


=C.= HUDSON’S VOYAGES.—The sources of our information on this
navigator’s four voyages to the North are these:—

_First voyage_ in 1607, under the auspices of the Muscovy Company, to
the Northeast. A log-book, in which Hudson may have had a hand, or
to which he may have supplied facts; and a few fragments of his own
journal. Purchas’s _Pilgrims_, vol. iii.; Asher’s _Henry Hudson_, pp. i
and 145.

_Second voyage_, 1608, under the auspices of the Muscovy Company, to
the Northeast. A log-book by Hudson himself. Purchas’s _Pilgrims_, iii.
574; _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, i. 81; Asher’s _Hudson_, p. 23.

A map by Hondius illustrating the first and second voyage, and given by
Asher in fac-simile, was originally published in Pontanus’s _History of
Amsterdam_, Latin ed. 1611, and Dutch ed. 1614.

_Third voyage_, 1609, under the auspices of the East India Company, to
the Northeast, where, foiled by the ice, he turned and sailed to make
explorations between the coast of Maine and Delaware Bay. The journal
of Juet, his companion. Purchas’s _Pilgrims_, vol. iii.; Asher’s
_Hudson_, p. 45. See further in Mr. Fernow’s chapter in Vol. IV. of
this History.

_Fourth voyage_, 1610, to the Northwest, discovering Hudson’s Strait
and Hudson’s Bay. Purchas, _Pilgrims_, vol. iii., got his account
from Sir Dudley Digges. He also gives an abstract of Hudson’s journal
(Asher, p. 93); a discourse by Pricket, one of the crew, whom Purchas
discredits, which is largely an apology for the mutiny which set Hudson
adrift in an open boat in the bay now bearing his name (Asher, p. 98);
a letter from Iceland, May 30, 1610, perhaps by Hudson himself, and an
account of Juet’s trial (Asher, p. 136). Purchas added some new facts
in his _Pilgrimage_, reprinted in Asher, p. 139.

H. Gerritsz seized the opportunity, occasioned by the interest in
Hudson’s voyage and his fate, to promulgate his views of the greater
chance of finding a northwest passage to India, rather than a northeast
one; and in the little collection of tracts edited by him, produced
first in the Dutch edition of 1612, he gives but a very brief narrative
of Hudson’s voyage, which is printed on the reverse of the map showing
his discoveries,—the maps, which he gives, both of the world and of
the north parts of America being the chief arguments of his book,
the latter map being also reproduced by Asher. The original Dutch
edition is extremely scarce, but four or five copies being known. A
reproduction of it in 1878 by Kroon, through the photo-lithographic
process, consists of 200 copies, and contains also, under the general
title of _Detectio freti Hudsoni_, a reproduction of the Latin edition
of 1613, with an English version by F. J. Millard, and an Introductory
Essay on the origin and design of this collection, which, besides
Gerritsz’s tract, includes others by Massa and De Quir. Sabin’s
_Dictionary_, viii. 33,489; Asher’s _Hudson_, p. 267.

In the enlarged Latin translation, ordinarily quoted as the _Detectio
freti Hudsoni_ of 1612, Gerritsz inverted the order of the several
tracts, giving more prominence to Hudson, as May’s expedition to the
northeast had in the mean time returned unsuccessful. _Huth Catalogue_,
ii. 744, shows better than _Brunet_, iii. 358, the difference between
this 1612 and the 1613 editions. H. C. Murphy’s _Henry Hudson in
Holland_. The _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. 131, gives this little
quarto the following title: _Descriptio ac delineatio Geographica
detectionis freti sive, Transitus ad Occasum, suprà terras Americanas
in Chinam atq: Iaponem ducturi, Recens investigati ab M. Henrico
Hudsono Anglo_, etc., and cites the world in two hemispheres as among
the three maps which it contains. A copy in Mr. Henry C. Murphy’s
collection has a second title, which shows that Vitellus and not
Gerritsz made the Latin translation. This other title reads: _Exemplar
Libelli ... super Detectione quintæ Orbis terrarum partiscui Australiæ
Incognitæ nomen est: item Relatio super Freto per M. Hudsonum Anglum
quæsito, ac in parte dedecte supra Provincias Terræ Novæ, novæque
Hispaniæ, Chinam, et Cathaiam versus ducturo ... Latine versa ab
R. Vitellio, Amstelodami ex officina Hessilii Gerardi. Anno 1612_.
Speaking of this little tract and the share which Gerritsz had in it,
Asher, in his _Henry Hudson the Navigator_, says, “Around it grew in a
very remarkable manner the most interesting of the many collections of
voyages and travels printed in the early part of the sixteenth century.”

In a second Latin edition, 1613, Gerritsz again remodelled his
additions, and gave a further account of May’s voyage. _Huth
Catalogue_, ii. 744; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. 152; Tièle, _Mémoire
bibliographique_, 1867, no. 153; Muller’s _Essai d’une bibliographie
néerlando-russe_, 1859, p. 71.

To some copies of this second edition Gerritsz added a short appendix
of two leaves, Sig. G, which is reprinted in the Kroon reproduction,
and serves to make some bibliographers reckon a third Latin edition.
There are in the Lenox Library six copies of the original, representing
the different varieties of the Dutch and Latin texts. One of the
copies in Harvard College Library has these two additional leaves,
which are also in the copy in the Carter-Brown Library, whose
_Catalogue_, ii. 152, says that the fac-simile reprint by Muller must
have been made from a copy with different cuts and ornamental capitals
and tail-pieces, as these are totally different from those of the
Carter-Brown copy. The map of the world was repeated in this edition.

The original Dutch text has been reprinted in several later collections
of voyages, published in Holland. The English translation in Purchas is
incomplete and incorrect; and that of Millard, as well as the English
generally in the Kroon reprint, could have been much bettered by a
competent native proof-reader.

German versions appeared in De Bry and in Megiser’s _Septentrio
novantiquus_, p. 438, both in 1613; and in 1614 in Hulsius, part xii.

There is a French translation in the _Receuil d’Arrests_ of 1720.




CHAPTER IV.

SIR WALTER RALEGH: THE SETTLEMENTS AT ROANOKE AND VOYAGES TO GUIANA.

BY WILLIAM WIRT HENRY,

_Third Vice-President of the Virginia Historical Society._


HISTORY has recorded the lives of few men more renowned than Walter
Ralegh,—the soldier, the sailor, the statesman, the courtier, the
poet, the historian, and the philosopher. The age in which he lived,
the versatility of his genius, his conspicuous services, and “the deep
damnation of his taking off,” all conspired to exalt his memory among
men, and to render it immortal. Success often crowned his efforts in
the service of his country, and the impress of his genius is clearly
traced upon her history; but his greatest service to England and
to the world was his pioneer effort to colonize America, in which
he experienced the most mortifying defeat. Baffled in his endeavor
to plant the English race upon this continent, he yet called into
existence a spirit of enterprise which first gave Virginia, and then
North America, to that race, and which led Great Britain, from this
beginning, to dot the map of the world with her colonies, and through
them to become the greatest power of the earth.

[Illustration]

Walter Ralegh[211] was born, in 1552, in the parish of Budleigh, in
Devonshire. His father was Walter Ralegh, of Fardel, and his mother was
Catherine, daughter of Sir Philip Champernown, of Modbury, and widow of
Otho Gilbert, of Compton, in Devonshire. On his mother’s side he was
brother to Sir John, Sir Humphrey, and Sir Adrian Gilbert,—all eminent
men. He studied at Oxford with great success, but he left his books in
1569 to volunteer with his cousin, Henry Champernown, in aid of the
French Protestants in their desperate struggle for religious liberty
under the Prince of Condé and Admiral Coligny. He reached France in
time to be present at the battle of Moncontour, and remained six years,
during which time the massacre of St. Bartholomew occurred. Afterward
he served in the Netherlands with Sir John Norris under William of
Orange in his struggle with the Spaniards.

In these wars he became not only an accomplished soldier, but a
determined foe to Roman Catholicism and to the Spanish people. His
contest with Spain, thus early begun, ended only with his life. It
was indeed a war to the death on both sides. Elizabeth, his great
sovereign, with all the courage of a hero in the bosom of a woman,
sustained him in the conflict, and had the supreme satisfaction of
seeing him administer a death-blow to Spanish power at Cadiz; while her
pusillanimous successor rendered himself forever infamous by putting
such a conqueror to death at the mandate of the Spanish King.

[Illustration]

The claim of Spain to the New World, based upon its discovery by
Columbus, fortified by a grant from Pope Alexander VI. and further
strengthened by continued exploration and by settlements, was disputed,
at least as regards the northern continent, by England on the strength
of the Cabot voyages, of which an account has been given in the opening
chapter of this volume. The English claimed that they were entitled
to North America by the right of Cabot’s discovery of its mainland
preceding that of Columbus, who had not then touched the mainland at
the south. No serious effort was made, however, to follow up this claim
by a settlement till 1578, when Elizabeth granted to Sir Humphrey
Gilbert a charter looking to a permanent occupation of the country.
Sir Humphrey sailed in November, 1578, with seven ships and three
hundred and fifty men. One of the fleet, the “Falcon,” was commanded by
Ralegh, who had already learned to be a sailor as well as a soldier.
His presence with the expedition was not alone due to his attachment to
his distinguished brother. He had already discovered that the power of
Spain was due to the wealth she derived from her American possessions,
and he earnestly desired to secure for England the same source of
power. His attention had been attracted to the coast of Florida by
Coligny, whose colony of Huguenots there had been brutally murdered by
the Spaniards under Menendez in 1565.

The voyage of Gilbert met with disaster. In a short time all the ships
except Ralegh’s were forced to return. Ralegh determined to sail for
the West Indies, but when he had gone as far as the Islands of Cape
de Verde, upon the coast of Africa, he was forced by a scarcity of
provisions to return. He arrived at Plymouth in May, 1579, after having
experienced many dangerous adventures in storms and sea-fights.

Sir Humphrey had returned before him, and was busy preparing for a
renewal of the voyage; but an Order from the Privy Council, April 26,
prohibited their departure. The conflicts at sea seem to have been with
Spanish vessels, and complaints had been made to the Council concerning
them.

Ralegh spent but little time in vain regrets, but at once took service
in Ireland, where he commanded a company of English soldiers employed
to suppress the insurrection headed by the Earl of Desmond, who led a
mongrel force of Spaniards, Italians, and Irishmen. His service began
under the Lord Justice Pelham, and was continued under his successor,
Lord Grey. His genius and courage soon attracted public notice, and
won for him the favor of the Queen. Upon his return in 1582 he made
his appearance at court, and at once became that monarch’s favorite.
No one could have been better fitted to play the _rôle_ of courtier
to this clever, passionate, and capricious woman. Ralegh is described
by a contemporary as having “a good presence in a handsome and
well-compacted person; a strong natural wit, and a better judgment;
with a bold and plausible tongue, whereby he could set out his parts
to the best advantage.” He had the culture of a scholar and the fancy
of a poet, as well as the chivalry of a soldier; and he superadded to
these that which was equally as attractive to his mistress,—unrivalled
splendor in dress and equipage.

The Queen’s favor soon developed into magnificent gifts of riches
and honor. He was given the monopolies of granting license for the
export of broadcloths, and for the making of wines and regulating
their prices. He was endowed with the fine estates in five counties
forfeited to the Crown by the attainder of Anthony Babington, who
plotted the murder of Elizabeth in the interest of Mary of Scotland;
and with twelve thousand acres in Ireland, part of the land forfeited
by the Earl of Desmond and his followers. He was made Lord Warden of
the Stannaries, Lieutenant of the County of Cornwall, Vice-Admiral of
Cornwall and Devon, and Captain of the Queen’s Guard.

One of his Irish estates was near the home of Edmund Spenser, secretary
to Lord Grey during the Irish rebellion, and a visit which led to
a renewal of their friendship led also to the publication, at the
instance of Ralegh, of the _Faerie Queene_, in which Elizabeth is
represented as Belphœbe.

No sooner did Ralegh find that his fortune was made, than he determined
to accomplish the object of his passionate desire,—the English
colonization of America. He furnished one of the little fleet of
five ships with which Sir Humphrey Gilbert sailed June 11, 1583,
upon his last and most disastrous voyage to America, and was only
prevented from going with him by the peremptory order of the Queen,
who was unwilling that her favorite should incur the risk of any
“dangerous sea-fights.” The gallant Sir Humphrey, after taking formal
possession of Newfoundland, sailed southward, but, experiencing a
series of disasters, went down with his ship in a storm on his return
homeward.[212]

Ralegh obtained a new charter, March 25, 1584, drawn more carefully
with a design to foster colonization. Not only was he empowered to
plant colonies upon “such remote heathen and barbarous lands, not
actually possessed by any Christian prince nor inhabited by Christian
people,” as he might discover, but the soil of such lands was to be
enjoyed by the colonies forever, and the colonies planted were to “have
all the privileges of free denizens and persons native of England,
in such ample manner as if they were born and personally resident in
our said realm of England, any law, etc., notwithstanding,” and they
were to be governed “according to such statutes as shall be by him or
them established; so that the said statutes or laws conform as near
as conveniently may be with those of England, and do not oppugn the
Christian faith, or any way withdraw the people of those lands from our
allegiance.”[213]

These guarantees of political rights, which first appeared in the
charter to Sir Humphrey Gilbert, were renewed in the subsequent charter
of 1606, under which the English colonies were planted in America, and
constituted one of the impregnable grounds upon which they afterwards
maintained the struggle which ended in a complete separation from the
mother country. It is doubtless to Ralegh that we are indebted for
these provisions, which justified the Virginia burgesses in declaring
in 1765,—

 “That the first adventurers and settlers of this his Majesty’s colony
 and dominion brought with them, and transmitted to their posterity
 and all other his Majesty’s subjects since inhabiting in this his
 Majesty’s said colony, all the privileges, franchises, and immunities
 that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and possessed by the people
 of Great Britain.”

Ralegh’s knowledge of the voyages of the Spaniards satisfied him that
they had not explored the Atlantic coast north of what is now known
as Florida, and he determined to plant a colony in this unexplored
region.[214] Two ships were immediately made ready, and they sailed
April 27, 1584, under the command of Captains Philip Amadas and Arthur
Barlowe, for the purpose of discovery, with a view to a permanent
colony.

On the 10th of May they reached the Canaries, on the 10th of June the
West Indies, and on the 4th of July the American coast. They sailed
northward one hundred and twenty miles before they found “any entrance
or river issuing into the sea.” They entered the first which they
discovered, probably that now known as New Inlet, and sailing a short
distance into the haven they cast anchor, and returned thanks to God
for their safe arrival. Manning their boats, they were soon on the
nearest land, and took possession of it in the name “of the Queen’s
most excellent Majestie, as rightful Queene and Princesse of the
same,” and afterwards “delivered the same over to Sir Walter Ralegh’s
use, according to her Majestie’s grant and letters patents under her
Highnesse great seale.” They found the land to be about twenty miles
long and six miles wide, and, in the language of the report to Sir
Walter,—

 “very sandie and low towards the water’s side, but so ful of grapes,
 as the very beating and surge of the sea overflowed them, of which we
 found such plentie, as well there as in all places else, both on the
 sand and on the greene soile on the hils as in the plaines, as well on
 every little shrubbe, as also climing towards the tops of high cedars,
 that I thinke in all the world the like abundance is not to be found;
 and myselfe having seene those parts of Europe that most abound, find
 such difference as were incredible to be written.”

The report continues:—

 “This Island had many goodly Woodes full of Deere, Conies, Hares,
 and Fowle, even in the middest of Summer, in incredible abondance.
 The Woodes are not such as you finde in Bohemia, Moscovia, Hercynia,
 barren and fruitles, but the highest and reddest Cedars of the world,
 farre bettering the Cedars of the Azores, of the Indies, or Lybanus;
 Pynes, Cypres, Sassaphras, the Lentisk, or the tree that beareth the
 Masticke, the tree that beareth the rind of blacke Sinamon.”

On the third day a boat with three natives approached the island, and
friendly intercourse was at once established. On the next there came
several boats, and in one of them Granganimeo, the king’s brother,
“accompanied with fortie or fiftie men, very handsome and goodly
people, and in their behavior as mannerly and civill as any of Europe.”
When the English asked the name of the country, one of the savages,
who did not understand the question, replied, “Win-gan-da-coa,” which
meant, “You wear fine clothes.” The English on their part, mistaking
his meaning, reported that to be the name of the country.

The King was named Wingina, and he was then suffering from a wound
received in battle. After two or three days Granganimeo brought his
wife and daughter and two or three children to the ships.

 “His wife was very well favoured, of meane stature, and very bashfull;
 shee had on her backe a long cloake of leather, with the furre side
 next to her body, and before her a piece of the same; about her
 forehead shee hade a band of white corall, and so had her husband many
 times; in her eares shee had bracelets of pearles hanging doune to
 her middle, and these were of the bignes of good pease. The rest of
 her women of the better sort had pendants of copper hanging in either
 eare; he himself had upon his head a broad plate of golde or copper,
 for being unpolished we knew not what mettal it should be, neither
 would he by any meanes suffer us to take it off his head, but feeling
 it, it would bow very easily. His apparell was as his wives, onely the
 women wear their haire long on both sides, and the men but on one.
 They are of colour yellowish, and their haire black for the most part,
 and yet we saw children that had very fine auburne and chesnut-
 haire.”

The phenomenon of auburn and chestnut- hair may be accounted for
by the fact, related by the natives, that some years before a ship,
manned by whites, had been wrecked on the coast; and that some of the
people had been saved, and had lived with them for several weeks before
leaving in their boats, in which, however, they were lost. It was the
descendants of these men, doubtless, who were found by the English.

After the natives had visited the ships several times, Captain Barlowe
with seven men went in a boat twenty miles to an island called Roanoke
(probably a corruption of the Indian name Ohanoak), at the north end of
which “was a village of nine houses built of cedar and fortified round
about with sharp trees to keep out their enemies, and the entrance
into it made like a turnpike, very artificially.” There they found the
wife of Granganimeo, who, with her attendants, in the absence of her
husband, entertained them “with all loue and kindness, and with as much
bounty (after their manner) as they could possibly devise.”

They did not attempt to explore the mainland, but returned to England,
arriving about the middle of September, and carrying with them two of
the natives, Manteo and Manchese. They were enthusiastic concerning
all they had seen, describing the soil as “the most plentiful, sweet,
fruitful, and wholesome of all the world,” and “the people most gentle,
loving, and faithful, void of all guile and treason, and such as live
after the manner of the Golden Age.”

The Queen, not less delighted than Ralegh, named the newly-discovered
country VIRGINIA, in commemoration of her maiden life, and conferred
upon Ralegh the honor of knighthood. He now had a new seal of his arms
cut, with the legend, _Propria insignia Walteri Ralegh, militis, Domini
et Gubernatoris Virginiæ_. He was soon honored also with a seat in
Parliament by his native shire of Devon, and rose to eminence in that
body.

[Illustration]

Upon the return of his expedition Ralegh began to fit out a colony
to be planted in Virginia. Everything was made ready by the next
spring, and on the 9th of April, 1585, he sent from Plymouth a fleet
of seven ships in command of his cousin, Sir Richard Grenville, “with
one hundred householders, and many things necessary to begin a new
state.” The colony itself was put in the immediate charge of Ralph
Lane, who was afterwards knighted by the King. He had seen considerable
service, and was on duty in Ireland when invited by Ralegh to take
command of the colony. The Queen ordered a substitute to be appointed
in his government of Kerry and Clanmorris, “in consideration of his
ready undertaking the voyage to Virginia for Sir Walter Ralegh at her
Majesty’s command.” His residence in Ireland and Ralegh’s interest
there account for a number of Irish names which appear among the
colonists. Captain Philip Amadas was associated with Lane as his
deputy, and among those who accompanied him were two who were men of
distinction. One, Thomas Cavendish, afterwards became celebrated as a
navigator by sailing round the world; and another, Thomas Hariot, was a
mathematician of great distinction, who materially advanced the science
of algebra, and was honored by Descartes, who imposed some of Hariot’s
work upon the French as his own.

On the voyage the conduct of Sir Richard Grenville gave great offence
to Lane and the leading men of the colony, and Lane became convinced
that Grenville desired his death. On the 26th of June they came to
anchor at Wocokon, now known as Ocracoke Inlet. On the 11th of July
Grenville crossed the southern portion of Pamlico Sound, and discovered
three Indian towns,—Pomeiok, Aquascogoc, and Secotan. At Aquascogoc a
silver cup was stolen from one of his men, and failing to recover it,
they “burned and spoiled their corn, all the people being fled.” This
act of harsh retribution made enemies of the inhabitants of this part
of the country, and was unfortunate in its consequences.

Grenville landed the colony at Roanoke Island, and leaving Lane in
charge of one hundred and seven men, he sailed for England August 25,
promising to return with supplies by the next Easter. Lane at once
erected a fort on the island, and then began to explore the coast and
rivers of the country. The exploration southward extended about eighty
miles, to the present county of Carteret; northward, about one hundred
and thirty miles, to the vicinity of Elizabeth River; northwest, about
the same distance, to a point just below the junction of the Meherrin
and Nottoway rivers; and westward, up the Roanoke River to the vicinity
of Halifax.

Lane was a man of decided ability and executive capacity. He informed
himself regarding the country and its inhabitants, and protected
his men from the many dangers which surrounded them. He soon became
convinced that a mistake had been made in attempting a settlement on
Roanoke Island, because of the dangerous coast and wretched harbor.
He learned on his voyage up the Chowan, from an Indian king named
Monatonon, that on going three days’ journey in a canoe up the river
and four days’ journey over land to the northeast, he would come to a
king’s country which lay upon the sea, whose place of greatest strength
was an island in a deep bay. This information evidently pointed to
Craney Island in Chesapeake Bay. Lane thereupon resolved, as soon as
the promised supply arrived from England, to send ships up the coast
to discover the bay, and to send men overland to establish posts, and
if he found the bay to be as described, to transfer the colony to its
shore.

The two natives who had been carried to England had returned with Lane.
Manteo was a firm friend to the English, while Manchese became their
implacable enemy. Granganimeo, the brother, and Ensenore, the father,
of Wingina, were also friendly, but both died within a few months after
the arrival of the colony, and the king, who had changed his name to
Pemisapan, did all in his power to destroy it. When Lane ascended the
Roanoke, he found that the tribes along its banks, with whom he had
previously entered into terms of friendship, had been informed by
Pemisapan that the English designed to kill them. They had retired
into the interior with their families and provisions, and Lane, whose
supplies were running short, found great difficulty in subsisting his
men.

The exploration of this river, called by the Indians Moratoc, was
deemed of the greatest importance, as the natives reported it as
flowing with a bold stream out of a rock upon the coast of the Western
Ocean, and running through a land rich in minerals. During the voyage
they were reduced to great straits for subsistence, but the men
insisted on going farther and feeding on the flesh of dogs, rather than
to give up the search. Finally they were attacked by the natives, and
being without food they returned from their search for the mines and
the South-Sea passage. The scarcity of provisions at Roanoke Island
had now become a matter of serious concern, as the time had passed
for Sir Richard Grenville to return with supplies, and Pemisapan was
endeavoring to starve them out. In order to get subsistence Lane was
forced to divide his men into three parties. One of these he sent to
the Island of Croatoan, and another to Hatorask. Learning from Skyco, a
son of King Monatonon, held as a hostage, that Pemisapan had informed
him of a plot to murder the English, Lane saved his men by striking the
first blow, and putting to death Pemisapan and seven or eight of his
chief men.

Within a few days afterwards Sir Francis Drake, with a fleet of
twenty-three sail, returning from sacking St. Domingo, Carthagina,
and St. Augustine, came in sight of the Island of Croatoan, and on
the 10th of June came to anchor near Roanoke Island. Drake acted in
the most generous manner towards the colonists. He proposed to carry
them back to England if they desired it, or to leave them sufficient
shipping and provisions to enable them to make further discovery.
Lane and his men, being desirous to stay, accepted the last offer,
promising when they had searched the coast for a better harbor to
return to England in the coming August. They had despaired of the
return of Sir Richard Grenville, and they believed that Ralegh had
been prevented from looking after them by the condition of public
affairs in England. Sir Francis at once placed one of his ships at the
disposal of Lane, and began to put provisions aboard. Before this was
accomplished a storm arose, which lasted three days and threatened
to destroy the whole fleet. To save themselves several of the ships
put to sea, and among them the “Francis,” selected for the use of the
colony, with the provisions aboard. After the storm had abated Drake
offered another ship of much greater burden, it being the only one he
could then spare; but it being too heavy for the harbor and not suited
for their purposes, Lane with the chief men determined to ask for a
passage to England for the colony, which was granted them by Drake, and
they arrived at Plymouth on the 27th of July, 1586, having lost but
four of their number. Thomas Hariot carried with him, on the return
of the colony, a carefully prepared description of the country,—its
inhabitants, productions, animals, birds, and fish,—and John White,
the artist of the expedition, carried illustrations in water-colors.
Specimens of the productions of the country were also carried by the
colonists; and of these two, though not previously unknown in Europe,
through the exertions of Ralegh were brought into general use, and have
long been of the greatest importance. One was the plant called by the
natives _uppowoc_, but named by the Spaniards tobacco; the other, the
root known as the potato, which was introduced into Ireland by being
planted on the estate of Ralegh. In Hariot’s description of the grain
called by the Indians _pagatour_, we easily recognize our Indian corn.

Soon after the departure of the colony a ship arrived with supplies
sent by Ralegh, with a direction to assure them of further aid. Finding
no one on the island, this vessel returned to England. Fifteen days
after its departure Sir Richard Grenville arrived with three ships well
provisioned, but finding the island desolate, and searching in vain for
the colony or any information concerning it, he also returned, leaving,
however, fifteen men with provisions for two years. This was done to
retain possession of the country, and in ignorance of the hostility
of the natives and of the purpose of Lane to abandon that locality as
a settlement. Though seemingly wise and proper, it proved to be the
source of further misfortune.

Sir Walter Ralegh, upon receiving the report of Lane, determined to
make no further effort to settle Roanoke Island, but at once began to
prepare for a settlement upon Chesapeake Bay. He granted a charter of
incorporation to thirty-two persons, nineteen of whom were merchants of
London who contributed their money, and thirteen, styled “the Governor
and Assistants of the city of Ralegh in Virginia,” who adventured
their persons in the enterprise. Of the nineteen styled merchants, ten
were afterwards subscribers to the Virginia Company of London which
settled Jamestown. Among them were Sir Thomas Smith, for years the
chief officer of that company, and one of the two Richard Hakluyts.
John White was selected as the governor, and with him were sent one
hundred and fifty persons, including seventeen women. They were carried
in three ships in charge of Simon Ferdinando, with directions to
visit Roanoke Island and take away the men left there by Sir Richard
Grenville, and then to steer for Chesapeake Bay. On July 22, 1587, they
arrived at Hatorask, and White, taking with him forty of his best men,
started in the pinnace to Roanoke Island.

Ferdinando, who was a Spaniard by birth, was either acting in the
interest of Spain or was angered by his difficulties with White. He
had purposely separated from one of the ships during the voyage, and
instead of carrying the colony to Chesapeake Bay, as he had agreed,
he no sooner saw White and his men aboard the pinnace for Roanoke
Island, than he directed the sailors to bring none of the men back,
on the pretext that the summer was too far spent to be looking for
another place. The colony was thus forced to remain upon the island.
They found evidence of the massacre by the savages of the men left
by Grenville, and they soon experienced the hostility of the Indians
toward themselves.

Manteo, who had gone to England with Lane, returned with White,
and was of the greatest service to the colony. By the direction of
Ralegh he “was christened in Roanoke, and called lord thereof, and of
Dasamonguepeuk, in reward of his faithful service.” On the 18th of
August Eleanor, daughter of the governor and wife of Ananias Dare one
of the assistants, gave birth to a daughter, “and because this child
was the first Christian born in Virginia, she was named Virginia.”

The little vessel, from which Ferdinando had parted company, arrived
safely with the rest of the colony aboard in a few days, and the men
who landed on the island, all told, were one hundred and twenty souls.

When the time came for the ships to return to England it was determined
by the unanimous voice of the colony to send White back to represent
their condition and to obtain relief. He at first refused to go, but at
last yielded to their solicitation, and on the 5th of November arrived
in England.

When White landed he found the kingdom alarmed by the threatened
Spanish invasion. Ralegh, Grenville, and Lane were all members of the
council of war, and were bending every energy toward the protection
of England from the Spanish Armada. Ralegh’s genius shone forth
conspicuously in this crisis, and his policy of defending England on
the water by a well-equipped fleet was not only adopted, but has been
steadily pursued since, and has resulted in her becoming the great
naval power of the world.

Ralegh did not forget his colony, however, and by the spring he had
fitted out for its relief a small fleet, which he placed under the
command of Sir Richard Grenville. Before it sailed every ship was
impressed by the Government, and Sir Richard was required to attend
Sir Walter, who was training troops in Cornwall. Governor White, with
Ralegh’s aid, succeeded in sailing for Virginia with two vessels,
April 22, 1588, but encountering some Spanish ships and being worsted
in a sea-fight, he was forced to return to England, and the voyage
was abandoned for the time. White was not able to renew his effort
to relieve the colony during the year 1589, but during the next
year, finding that three ships ready to sail for the West Indies at
the charges of John Wattes, a London merchant, had been detained by
the order prohibiting any vessel from leaving England, he applied
to Ralegh to obtain permission for them to sail, on condition that
they should take him and some others with supplies to Roanoke Island.
After obtaining permission to sail on this condition, the owner and
commanders of the ships refused to take any one aboard except White;
and as they were in the act of sailing, and White had no time to lodge
complaint against them, he went aboard, determined alone to prosecute
his search. On the 15th of August they came to anchor at Hatorask.
When White left the colony they had determined to remove fifty miles
into the interior, and it had been agreed that they should carve on
the trees or posts of the doors the name of the place where they were
seated, and if they were in distress a cross was to be carved above
the name. White found no one on the island, but the houses he had
left had been taken down and a fort erected, which had been so long
deserted that grass was growing in it. The bark had been cut from one
of the largest trees near the entrance, and five feet from the ground,
in fair capital letters, was cut the word CROATOAN, without any sign
of distress. Further search developed the fact that five chests,
buried near the fort, had been dug up and their contents destroyed.
White recognized among the fragments of the articles some of his own
books, maps, and pictures. He concluded that the colony had removed
to Croatoan, the island from which Manteo came, whose inhabitants
had been friendly to the English. White at once begged the captain
of the ship to carry him to Croatoan, which the captain promised to
do; but a violent storm preventing, he finally determined to sail for
England, where they arrived on the 24th of October. This was White’s
fifth and last voyage, as he states in his letter to Hakluyt in 1593.
His disappointment produced despondency, and he abandoned all hope of
relieving the colony, with whom he had left his daughter and grandchild.

Ralegh had already spent forty thousand pounds in his several efforts
to colonize Virginia, and he found himself unable to follow up his
design from his own purse alone. He thereupon leased his patent to a
company of merchants, hoping thus to achieve his object. But in this
he was disappointed. He did not abandon all hope of final success,
however, but continued to send out ships to look for his lost colony.
In 1602 he made his fifth effort to afford them help by sending Captain
Samuel Mace, a mariner of experience, with instructions to search for
them. Mace returned without executing his orders, and Ralegh wrote to
Sir Robert Cecil on the 21st August that he would send Mace back, and
expressed his faith in the colonization of Virginia in these words,
“I shall yet live to see it an Englishe nation.” He lived, indeed, to
see his prediction verified, but not until he was immured in the Tower
of London. During the last years of Elizabeth’s reign he continually
pressed the Secretary and Privy Council for facilities to resume his
schemes, but without success; and he finally abandoned all hope of
finding the colony left at Roanoke Island.

What became of this colony was long a question of anxious inquiry, only
to be solved by the information obtained from the Indians after the
English settled at Jamestown. It was then ascertained that they had
intermixed with the natives, and, after living with them till about
the time of the arrival of the colony at Jamestown, had been cruelly
massacred at the instigation of Powhatan, acting under the persuasions
of his priests.[215] Only seven of them—four men, two boys, and a
young maid—had been preserved from slaughter by a friendly chief. From
these was descended a tribe of Indians found in the vicinity of Roanoke
Island in the beginning of the eighteenth century, and known as the
Hatteras Indians. They had gray eyes, which were found among no other
tribes, and claimed to have white people as their ancestors.

The failure of Ralegh’s efforts to colonize Virginia may be ascribed
to the inherent difficulties of the enterprise, increased by the
inexperience of those sent out; to the unfortunate selection of the
place of settlement; and, above all, to the war with Spain, which
prevented Ralegh from taking proper care of the infant colony until it
could become self-sustaining.

But although the colonies he sent to Virginia perished, to Ralegh must
be awarded the honor of securing the possession of North America to the
English. It was through his enterprise that the advantages of its soil
and climate were made known in England, and that the Chesapeake Bay was
fixed upon as the proper place of settlement; and it was his genius
that created the spirit of colonization which led to the successful
settlement upon that bay.

Ralegh incurred the displeasure of the Queen in 1592 by his marriage
with Elizabeth Throgmorton, her beautiful maid of honor. He was more
than compensated, however, by the acquisition of a faithful and loving
wife, who was in every way worthy of him. The jealous Queen sent them
both to the Tower. After a few months’ imprisonment Sir Walter was
released, that he might superintend the division of the rich spoil
taken in the Spanish ship “Madre de Dios,” on her return from the West
Indies, by a privateering fleet which he had sent out. The Queen was
personally interested in this enterprise, and got the lion’s share of
the profits. Afterward he was permitted to retire with his wife to his
estate, and there he matured his plans for a voyage to Guiana, which he
had been long considering. His colony had found no mines in Virginia,
and he longed to make England the rival of Spain in mineral wealth.

Spanish travellers had reported that the natives told of a city of gold
called “El Dorado,” which was situated in the unexplored region of the
northeastern portion of South America, known as the “Empire of Guiana.”
Between the years 1530 and 1560 a number of expeditions had been sent
by the Spaniards to this unknown land. They had proved unsuccessful,
and been attended with great loss of life and money. Ralegh was seized
with a desire to visit this region and secure its riches. In 1594
he sent out Jacob Whiddon, with instructions to examine the coast
contiguous to the River Orinoco, and to explore that river and its
tributaries. Whiddon met at the Island of Trinidad with Antonio de
Berreo, the Spanish governor, who was himself planning an exploration
of the region along the Orinoco, and who opposed every obstacle to
the success of Whiddon’s mission. Ralegh’s agent returned to England
towards the close of the year with but little trustworthy information.
Sir Walter continued his preparations, however, and on February 9,
1595, with a squadron of five ships, he sailed from Plymouth for
Trinidad, having aboard one hundred officers, soldiers, and gentlemen
adventurers. Before the end of March he arrived at Trinidad. He
captured the town of St. Joseph, and took Berreo prisoner. Treating his
captive with kindness, Ralegh soon learned from him what he knew of
Guiana. He was informed by Berreo that the empire of Guiana had more
gold than Peru; that the imperial city called by the Spaniards “El
Dorado” was called by the Indians “Manoa,” and was situated on a lake
of salt water two hundred leagues long, and that it was the largest
and richest city in the world. Berreo showed Sir Walter a copy of a
narrative by Juan Martinez of his journey to Manoa, which had induced
Berreo to send a special messenger to Spain to get up an expedition for
the conquest of El Dorado, or, as it was then called, “Laguna de la
Gran Manoa.”

This narrative appeared to confirm the marvellous tales concerning El
Dorado which had so long obtained credence. Ralegh did not rely on
Berreo, however, but sought out the oldest among the Indians on the
island, and inquired of them concerning the country, its streams and
inhabitants. He then started upon his perilous voyage up the Orinoco,
with four boats and provisions for a month. He entered by the most
northern of the divisions through which that remarkable river flows
into the sea, and after struggling against its rapid, various, and
dangerous currents for more than a month, and reaching the mouth of the
Caroni, and ascending that stream some forty miles to the vicinity of
its falls, he was forced by the rising of the river to return,—finding
that his farther progress was not only prevented thereby, but his
return made dangerous. He supposed he had gone four hundred miles by
the windings of the river, and he was still more than two hundred
miles from the country of which Manoa was the capital, according to
the reckoning of Berreo. Ralegh did not find the rich deposits of gold
he had hoped for, but saw, as he supposed, many indications of that
metal, and secured specimens of ores and precious stones. He found that
the Spaniards had previously traversed the country contiguous to the
river, and been cruel in their treatment of the natives. He informed
them that his Queen, whose portrait he showed them, was the enemy of
the Spaniards, and that he came to deliver them from their tyranny.
He soon made them his fast friends by his kindness, and an old chief,
Topiawari, promised to unite the several tribes along the river in a
league against the Spaniards by the time Sir Walter should return. This
chief gave his son to Ralegh as a pledge of his fidelity, and received
in return two Englishmen, who were instructed to learn what they could
of the country, and, if possible, to go to the city of Manoa.

Ralegh arrived in England in the latter part of the summer of 1595,
after laying under contribution several Spanish settlements on the way.
He published a glowing account of his voyage, in which he related not
only the wonderful things he had seen, but the more wonderful things
which had been told him by the Spaniards and natives. He was firmly
persuaded of the existence of El Dorado, and also that there lived in
Guiana the Amazons, a race of women who allowed no man to remain among
them; and the Ewaipanoma, a tribe who had their eyes in their shoulders
and their mouths in the middle of their breasts. The publication was
eagerly read, and increased his already great reputation. But it was
severely criticised at the time, as it has been since by Hume and other
historians. During the present century two distinguished men—Humboldt
and Schomburgk—have explored the Orinoco and the countries drained by
it and its almost innumerable tributaries. They found that what Ralegh
stated of the country, as coming under his own observation, was true,
while many of the tales told him by others were the merest fiction.

In January, 1596, Ralegh sent Captain Laurence Keymis, a companion
of his first voyage, with two ships, to renew the exploration of the
Orinoco, with a view to planting a colony. He returned in June, and
his report confirmed Ralegh in his belief in the mineral wealth of the
country. He brought intelligence, however, of a Spanish settlement made
by Berreo near the mouth of the Caroni, with the men sent out to him
from Spain.

When Keymis landed in England he found that Ralegh had been partially
restored to the favor of the Queen, and united with Essex and Howard
in command of the force sent to attack Cadiz. The operations before
that city were directed by Ralegh’s genius, and he led the van of the
naval attack which resulted in the destruction of the Spanish fleet
and the capture of the city. From the effects of this blow Spain never
recovered, and the 21st of June, 1596, the day of the battle, marks the
date of her decline as one of the great powers. During the next year he
struck her another blow by the capture of Fayal.

In the year 1596 Ralegh despatched one of the smaller ships which had
fought at Cadiz, to Guiana, under the command of Captain Leonard Berry,
but with no important results. In 1598 he attempted to get together
a fleet of thirteen ships, to be commanded by Sir John Gilbert, with
which to convey a colony to the fertile valley of the Orinoco, but from
some cause, not known, he failed.

His frequent failures did not dampen his ardor in the cause of
colonization, but he found that it “required a prince’s purse to
have it thoroughly followed out,” and he therefore endeavored to
interest the Ministry in his schemes. But the end of the great Queen
was approaching, and instead of aiming at the enlargement of her
kingdom, her ministers were scheming for their own advancement with her
successor.

The accession of James to the throne of England changed the fortunes of
Ralegh. When he met the King he found the royal mind already prejudiced
against him. He was displaced from the Captaincy of the Guard, and
shortly afterwards was arrested on a charge of treason, in plotting
with the Count of Arenburg, an ambassador of the Archduke Albert, to
place Lady Arabella Stuart upon the throne, and to obtain aid from the
King of Spain for the purpose. The mockery of a trial which followed
drew from one of his judges the statement, which succeeding ages have
pronounced true, that “never before was English justice so injured or
so degraded.” The brutal conduct of Sir Edward Coke who prosecuted,
and of Chief-Justice Popham who presided, at the trial, and denied the
request of Ralegh to be confronted with the witnesses against him, has
consigned their memory to lasting infamy. That Ralegh, after spending
his life in war with Spain, should plot with her to overthrow his King
and put another in his place is not credible, and that the Government
that prosecuted him did not believe the charge is conclusively shown by
the fact, that the Count of Arenburg retained the favor of King James,
and further, that some of the men prominent in the prosecution were at
the time in the paid service of Spain.

James did not proceed to execute the sentence of death which his
corrupt court had pronounced against Ralegh, but kept him a prisoner in
the Tower for thirteen years. In prison he devoted himself to the study
of chemistry and to literary composition; and the great wrong done in
depriving him of his liberty resulted in that literary treasure, the
_History of the World_.

As prison life became more and more irksome to Ralegh, he attempted to
relieve himself from it by obtaining employment in Virginia or Guiana,
promising the King rich returns if he would but permit him to visit
either country. Finally, by bribing those who had the ear of the King,
he was released January 30, 1616, to prepare for a voyage to Guiana. He
had been assured by Keymis that a rich mine existed near the mouth of
the Caroni, and he pledged himself to find it or else to bear all the
expenses of the expedition. Keymis was to go along with him, and also a
sufficient force “to defend him against the Spaniards inhabiting upon
the Orenocke, if they offered to assaile him,—not that it is meant
to offend the Spaniards there, or to beginne any quarrell with them,
except themselves shall beginne the warre.” It was said in London at
the time that Ralegh wanted to obtain a pardon under the Great Seal,
but it required a further expenditure of money which he needed in his
expedition, and he was advised by Bacon that the King’s commission
under which he sailed was equivalent to a pardon. The release of Ralegh
enabled him to see Pocahontas, who was in England in 1616, and we can
well conceive with what interest he beheld her who had so much aided in
realizing his hope of seeing Virginia an English nation.

King James had fallen under the influence of Count Gondomar, the
Spanish ambassador, to whom Ralegh was particularly obnoxious on
account of his lifelong enmity to Spain. The Count attempted to prevent
the sailing of the expedition, but failing in that, he obtained from
the King Ralegh’s plans, and at once transmitted them to Madrid, where
steps were immediately taken to thwart them. In June, 1617, Ralegh
sailed with eleven vessels from Plymouth, having with him his son,
young Walter Ralegh, Captain Keymis, and four hundred and thirty-one
men. He arrived at Trinidad in December, suffering from the effects
of a violent fever. He was too feeble to attempt the ascent of the
Orinoco, but sent forward his son and Keymis. When they approached
St. Thomas, settled since his first voyage, they were attacked by the
Spaniards. The conflict ended in the taking of the town, but at the
cost of young Walter Ralegh’s life. Keymis continued the search for
the mine, and with a part of his men reached the vicinity of the place
at which he had located it on his previous voyage. The hostility of
the Spaniards reduced his numbers so that he felt forced to return to
St. Thomas for reinforcements. After returning to that point he became
despondent, and finally burnt the town and returned to Trinidad, taking
along with him documents found at St. Thomas, which showed that the
plans of Ralegh, communicated to the King, had been betrayed to the
Court of Madrid. When Keymis met Ralegh and saw how he was affected by
the failure of the expedition and the loss of his son, and heard his
reproaches, he was seized with remorse at the thought that upon him
rested the responsibility for the failure, and committed suicide.

Ralegh, utterly dispirited and broken-hearted, now turned his face
homeward, and arrived at Plymouth early in July, 1618. He was arrested
upon his arrival, by order of the King, on the charge of breaking the
peace with Spain. No trial was had upon this charge, which could not
have been sustained; but as the King of Spain demanded that he should
be put to death James sought for a legal cover for compliance, and upon
the advice of Bacon determined to issue a warrant for his execution
upon the conviction of 1603. Ralegh was brought before the Court of
King’s Bench on the 28th of October, and asked what he had to allege
in further stay of execution. He pleaded his commission from the King,
giving him command of the expedition to Guiana, as working a pardon,
but was told that “Treason must be pardoned by express words, not
by implication.” Nothing remained but to execute the death-warrant,
already drawn by Bacon and signed by the King. He was beheaded on the
next day, meeting death with the greatest fortitude. His execution
excited the horror and indignation of the Protestant world, and King
James was at once arraigned at the bar of public opinion. He called to
his defence the genius of his Lord Chancellor, and Bacon attempted to
justify him by publishing a disgraceful attack upon Ralegh’s fame. But
the effort was in vain. The world acquitted Ralegh of the charges which
had been made the pretext of his judicial murder, and adjudged King
James to be the real criminal.


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THE life of Sir Walter Ralegh, reprehensible in some of its parts, but
admirable in most and brilliant in all, has been variously portrayed.
Lord Bacon in 1618 published in quarto _A Declaration of the Demeanor
and Carrige of Sir Walter Ralegh, as well in his Voyage as in and since
his Return_, etc., intending it as a justification of the conduct of
King James in beheading him; but it grossly misrepresented him. He
began with the statement that “Kings are not bound to give account of
their actions to any but God alone;” but the whole apology is framed
upon the theory that King James was forced by the popular voice to give
an account of this base action. It appears from a letter of Bacon to
the Marquis of Buckingham, dated Nov. 22, 1618,[216] that the King made
very material additions to the manuscript after Bacon had prepared it.

[Illustration]

The first Life of Ralegh was published with his works not long after
his death. The name of the author is not given, and it is not a full
narrative, but was written during his life or soon after his death.

The next publication was under the style of _The Life of the Valiant
and Learned Sir Walter Ralegh, Knight, with his Tryal at Winchester_,
London: printed by J. D. for Benj. Shirley and Richard Tonsin, 1677.
This has sometimes been attributed to James Shirley, the dramatist, who
was a contemporary of Ralegh. The narrative, however, was little more
than what was already known from books familiar to the public.

In 1701 the Rev. John Prince, a fellow-Devonian, published in his
_Worthies of Devon_ a short memoir of Ralegh, which was the best
account of its subject that had then appeared. He was able to throw
light upon some of the obscurer portions of his life by his local
knowledge, and his book is still worthy of perusal.

No other Life of Ralegh of value appeared until 1733, when William
Oldys published his work, which showed great industry in collecting
and judgment in arranging his material. For near a century it was
the standard _Life of Ralegh_, and was the source from which writers
derived their materials. Notwithstanding the criticism of Gibbon, that
“it is a servile panegyric or flat apology,” this work is of great
value. It contains all that was accessible, when it was published, from
printed records, and much information derived from the descendants of
Ralegh and from his contemporaries.[217]

Dr. Thomas Birch published three several Lives of Ralegh,[218]—the
first in 1734, in the _General Dictionary, Historical and Critical_.
This author corresponded with the descendants of Ralegh, and collected
various anecdotes of him, but he made no additions of real value to the
work of Oldys.

The next work worthy of mention was by Arthur Cayley in 1805, although
a dozen Lives perhaps appeared between Birch’s and this. Cayley made
valuable additions to the knowledge concerning Ralegh which Oldys had
gathered. He brought to light several new and valuable documents, which
threw additional light upon his subject.[219]

In 1830 Mrs. A. T. Thompson published a _Life of Ralegh_ in London,
which was republished in Philadelphia in 1846, containing fifteen
original letters then first printed from the collection in the
State-Paper Office, throwing light on the share he took in the
political transactions of his times. It was of but little additional
value so far as its other materials were concerned.

In 1833 Patrick Fraser Tytler published a _Life of Ralegh_, “with a
Vindication of his Character from the Attacks of Hume[220] and other
writers.” This writer added several original documents to the material
previously used, but his publication is more justly entitled to the
criticism of Gibbon on the work of Oldys than was that book. He first
carefully traced out the conspiracy which brought Ralegh to the
scaffold.

In 1837 there appeared in Lardner’s _Cabinet of Biography_, among the
Lives of the British Admirals, an excellent life of Ralegh by Robert
Southey, the poet. The author’s only addition to the knowledge afforded
by previous writers was in reference to the Guiana expeditions, the
additional information being drawn from Spanish sources.

In 1847 the Hakluyt Society published Ralegh’s accounts of his voyages
to Guiana, with notes and a biographical memoir by Sir Robert H.
Schomburgk. This memoir is an admirable summary of what was then known
of Ralegh, and the publication is a complete vindication of Ralegh’s
statements and conduct in reference to Guiana. The notes of the author
are of the greatest value. He was a British Commissioner to survey the
boundaries of Guiana in 1841, and traversed the country visited by
Ralegh and those sent out by him. He also had the benefit of Humboldt’s
previous exploration of the country. This writer published for the
first time two valuable manuscripts in the British Museum, both from
the pen of Ralegh. One was written about the year 1596, and entitled
“Of the Voyage for Guiana,” and the other was the journal of his last
voyage to that country.

In 1868 there was published in London the most valuable of all the
biographies of Ralegh. It was written by Edward Edwards, and is
“based on contemporary documents preserved in the Rolls House, the
Privy Council Office, Hatfield House, the British Museum, and other
manuscript repositories, British and foreign, together with his
letters now first collected.” The author also had the advantage of the
correspondence of the French ambassador at London during the latter
part of Ralegh’s life. He has cleared up some of the obscure parts
of Ralegh’s career, and has, not only by the very full collection of
his letters, but by the admirable treatment of his subject, rendered
invaluable service to his memory.[221]

Another Life of Ralegh, published in the same year (1868) by St. John,
is also the embodiment of the latest information, and is better adapted
to the general reader than that of Edwards, and elucidates some points
more fully.

The voyage of Amadas and Barlow to Roanoke Island in 1584 was related
by the latter in a Report addressed to Sir Walter Ralegh. The voyage
of Sir Richard Grenville in 1585, conveying Ralph Lane and the colony
under his command, was related by one of the persons who accompanied
Grenville, and the account of what happened after their arrival was
written by one of the colonists, probably Lane himself.[222] An account
of the country, its inhabitants and productions, was written by Thomas
Hariot (_b._ 1560; _d._ 1621), one of the colony.[223] There are also
accounts of the voyages of John White to Virginia written by himself.

These several publications are found together in Hakluyt, and are of
the highest authority. They have been republished by Francis L. Hawks,
D.D., LL.D., with valuable notes, in the first volume of his _History
of North Carolina_, published in 1857. Dr. Hawks was a native of North
Carolina, and personally familiar with its coast, and thus enabled
to fix the localities mentioned in the early voyages. His book is
accompanied with valuable maps. He defends Lane with much ability from
the attacks of Bancroft and others.[224]

The letters of Ralph Lane constitute a very valuable addition to the
history of Lane’s colony, and show that the disputes between Lane and
Grenville had in all probability much to do with Lane’s abandonment of
the enterprise.

[Illustration: WHITE’S OLD VIRGINIA (HARIOT).]

[Illustration: PART OF DE LAET’S MAP, 1630.]

The voyages to Guiana are related by Ralegh himself.[225] The journal
of the second voyage is given by Schomburgk from the original
manuscript in the British Museum. The collections of the works of
Ralegh show his several other writings concerning Guiana, among
which are an “Apology for the Voyage to Guiana,” written in 1618, on
his way from Plymouth to London as a prisoner; to gain time for the
preparation of which he feigned sickness at Salisbury. Expecting to be
put to death, he was determined before he died fully and elaborately
to justify to the world his last expedition, which had been grossly
misrepresented. It was not published till 1650.

In Force’s _Historical Tracts_, vol. iii., there is published a letter,
written Nov. 17, 1617, “from the River Aliana, on the coast of Guiana,”
by a gentleman of the fleet, who signs his initials “R. M.” It is
entitled _Newes of Sir Walter Rawleigh_, and gives the orders he issued
to the commanders of his fleet, and some account of the incidents of
the expedition.[226]

In Sir Walter Ralegh’s _History of the World_ he often illustrates his
subject by the incidents of his own life, and thus we have in the book
much of an autobiography.

[Illustration]

       *       *       *       *       *

NOTE.—At the charge of an American subscription a Ralegh window has
been placed in St. Margaret’s Church, Westminster, London; and a
sermon, _Sir Walter Raleigh and America_, was preached by the Rev.
Canon Farrar, at the unveiling, May 14, 1882.




CHAPTER V.

VIRGINIA, 1606-1689.

BY ROBERT A. BROCK,

_Corresponding Secretary of the Virginia Historical Society._


ON the petition of Hakluyt (then prebendary of Westminster), Sir
Thomas Gates, Sir George Somers, and other “firm and hearty lovers
of colonization,” James I., by patent dated the 10th of April, 1606,
chartered two companies (the London and the Plymouth), and bestowed on
them in equal proportions the vast territory (then known as Virginia)
lying between the thirty-fourth and forty-fifth degrees of north
latitude, together with the islands within one hundred miles of the
coast stretching from Cape Fear to Halifax.

[Illustration]

The code of laws provided for the government of the proposed colonies
was complicated, inexpedient, and characteristic of the mind of the
first Stuart. For each colony separate councils appointed by the King
were instituted in England, and these were in turn to name resident
councillors in the colonies, with power to choose their own president
and to fill vacancies. Capital offences were to be tried by a jury, but
all other cases were left to the decision of the council. This body
was, however, to govern itself according to the prescribed mandates
of the King. The religion of the Church of England was established,
and the oath of obedience was a prerequisite to residence in the
colony. Lands were to descend as at common law, and a community of
labor and property was to continue for five years. The Adventurers,
as the members of the Company were termed, were authorized to mine
for gold, silver, and copper, to coin money, and to collect a revenue
for twenty-one years from all vessels trading to their ports. Certain
articles of necessity, imported for the use of the colonists, were
exempted from duty for seven years. Sir Thomas Smith, an eminent
merchant of London, who had been the chief of the assignees of Sir
Walter Raleigh and ambassador to Russia, was appointed treasurer of the
Company.

But the body of the men who composed the expedition had little care
for forms of government. A wilder chimera than the impractical devices
of the selfish and pedantic monarch possessed them. “I tell thee,”
says Seagull, in the play of _Eastward Ho!_ which was popular for
years, “golde is more plentifull there than copper is with us; and for
as much redde copper as I can bring I’ll have thrise the weight in
gold. Why, man, all their dripping-pans ... are pure gould; and all
the chaines with which they chaine up their streets are massie gold;
and for rubies and diamonds, they goe forth in Holydayes and gather
‘hem by the seashore, to hang on their children’s coates and sticke
in their children’s caps, as commonly as our children weare saffron
gilt brooches and groates with holes in ‘hem.” A life of ease and
luxury is pictured by Seagull, and, as the climax of allurement, with
“no more law than conscience, and not too much of eyther.”[227] The
expedition left Blackwall on the 19th of December, but was detained
by “unprosperous winds” in the Downs until the 1st of January,
1606-7. It consisted of three vessels,—the “Susan Constant,” of one
hundred tons, with seventy-one persons, in charge of the experienced
navigator Captain Christopher Newport (the commander of the fleet);
the “God-Speed,” of forty tons, Captain Bartholomew Gosnold, carrying
fifty-two persons; and the “Discovery,” of twenty tons, Captain John
Ratcliffe, carrying twenty persons. The crews of the ships must have
constituted thirty-nine of the total of these, as the number of the
first planters was one hundred and five. In the lists of their names,
more than half are classed as “gentlemen,” and the remainder as
laborers, tradesmen, and mechanics. Two “chirurgeons,” Thomas Wotton,
or Wootton, and Wil. Wilkinson, are included; the service of the first
of them in a professional capacity is afterwards noted. Sailing by the
old route of the West Indies, the Virginia coast was reached on the
26th of April, and in Chesapeake Bay on that night the instructions
from the King were examined. These, with a mystery well calculated
to promote mischief, had been confided to Newport, in a sealed box,
with the injunction that it should not be opened until he reached
his destination. The councillors found to be designated were Edward
Maria Wingfield, Bartholomew Gosnold, John Smith, Christopher Newport,
John Ratcliffe, John Martin, and John Kendall. Wingfield, a man of
honorable birth and a strict disciplinarian, who had been a companion
of Ferdinando Gorges in the European wars, was chosen president; and
Thomas Studley, cape-merchant, or treasurer.

On the 29th of the month a cross was planted at Cape Henry, which
was so named in honor of the Prince of Wales, the eldest son of King
James; the name of his second son, then Duke of York, afterwards
Charles I., being perpetuated in the opposite cape. The point at which
the ships anchored the next day was designated, in thankful spirit,
Point Comfort. On the 13th of May, 1607, the colonists landed at a
peninsula on the northern bank of the river known to the natives as
Powhatan, after their king, but to which the English gave the name
James River. Upon this spot, about fifty miles from its mouth, they
resolved to build their first town, to which they also gave the name
of the English monarch. The selection of this site is said to have
been urged by Smith and objected to by Gosnold. The better judgment
of the latter was vindicated in the sequel. Smith—at this time not
yet twenty-eight years of age, a man the most remarkably endowed among
those nominated for the council, and whose administrative capacity was
to be so prominently evidenced—was at first excluded from his seat
because, says Purchas, he had been “suspected of a supposed mutinie”
on the voyage over.[228] This proscription in all probability had no
more warrant than in the jealousy which the recent adventurous career
and the confident bearing of Smith may be supposed to have excited,
since he was admitted to office on the 10th of June following. The
colonists at once set about building fortifications and establishing
the settlement. Newport, Smith, and twenty-three others in the mean
time ascended the river in a shallop on a tour of exploration. At an
Indian village below the falls was found a lad of about ten years
of age with yellow hair and whitish skin, who, it has been assumed,
was the offspring of some representative of the ill-fated Roanoke
Colony left by White, of which it is narrated that seven persons
were preserved from slaughter by an Indian chief.[229] On the 26th
of May, the day before the return of the explorers to Jamestown, the
unfinished fort (not completed until the 15th of June) was attacked by
the savages, who were repulsed by the colonists under the command of
Wingfield. The colonists had one boy killed and eleven men wounded,
one of whom died. Communion was administered by the chaplain, the Rev.
Robert Hunt, on Sunday, the 21st of June, and on the next day Newport
sailed for England in the “Susan Constant,” laden with specimens of the
forest and with mineral productions. A bark or pinnace, with provisions
sufficient to sustain the colonists for three months, was left with
them. The prospect of the men thus cast upon their own resources, was
not promising. Disturbed by the fatuous hope of discovering gold,
divided by faction, unused to the labor and hardships to which they
were now subjected, and in daily peril from the hostility of the
savages, the difficulties of success were enhanced by the insalubrity
of their ill-chosen settlement. By September fifty of them, including
the intrepid Gosnold, had died, and the store of damaged provisions
upon which they mainly depended was nearly exhausted. Violent
dissension ensued, which resulted, on the 10th of the month, in the
displacement of Wingfield by Ratcliffe in the office of president,
and the deposing, imprisonment, and finally the execution of Kendall;
by which the Council, never more than seven in number (including
Newport), and in which no vacancies had been filled, was reduced to
three only,—Ratcliffe, Smith, and Martin. Reprehensible as the conduct
of the colonists at this period may have been, they yet held religious
observances in regard. Their piety and reverence are instanced both
by Smith and Wingfield. In Bagnall’s narrative in the _Historie_ of
the first, it is noted that “order was daily to haue Prayer, with a
Psalme;”[230] and Wingfield states that when their store of liquors was
reduced to two gallons each of “sack” and “aqua-vitæ,” the first was
“reserued for the communion table.”[231]

[Illustration: JAMESTOWN.

This cut follows a sketch made about 1857 by a travelling Englishwoman,
Miss Catherine C. Hopley, and shows the condition of the ruined church
at that time.]

Differences among the colonists being somewhat allayed, labor was
resumed, habitations were provided, a church was built, and, through
the courage and energy of Smith, supplies of corn were obtained from
the Indians. Leaving the settlement on the 10th of December, Smith
again ascended the Chickahominy to get provisions from the savages, but
incurring their hostility, two of his companions, Emry and Robinson,
were killed, and Smith himself was taken captive. Being released after
a few weeks, on the promise of a ransom of “two great guns and a
grindstone,” he returned to Jamestown. On his arrival there he found
the number of the colonists reduced to forty, and that Captain Gabriel
Archer had been admitted to the Council during his absence. Archer
caused him to be arrested and indicted, under the Levitical law, for
allowing the death of his two men; but in the evening of the same day,
Jan. 8, 1607-8, Newport returned from England with additional settlers
(a portion of the first supply), and at once released both Smith and
Wingfield from custody. Within five or six days the fort and many of
the houses at Jamestown were destroyed by an accidental fire. Newport,
accompanied by Matthew Scrivener (newly arrived and admitted to the
Council), with Smith as interpreter and thirty or forty others, now
visited Powhatan at his abode of Werowocomico. This was at Timberneck
Bay, on the north side of York River. On the east bank of the bay still
stands a quaint stone chimney,[232] subsequently built for Powhatan by
German workmen among the colonists. Hostages were exchanged; Namontack,
an Indian who was taken to England by Newport, being received from
Powhatan for Thomas Savage, a youth aged thirteen, who for many years
afterwards rendered important service to the colonists as interpreter.
With supplies of food obtained from Powhatan and Opecancanough, the
chief of the Pamunkey tribe, the party returned to Jamestown.

The ship being loaded with iron ore, sassafras, cedar posts, and
walnut boards, Newport, with Archer[233] and Wingfield as passengers,
sailed on the 10th of April from Jamestown, and on the 20th of May,
1608, arrived in England. The diet of the colonists was soon reduced
to meal and water, and through hunger and exposure death diminished
them one half. While they were engaged in re-building Jamestown and
in planting, to their great joy Captain Nelson, who had left England
with Newport, but from whom he had been separated by storm and detained
in the West Indies, arrived in the ship “Phœnix,” with provisions
and seventy settlers, being the remainder of the first supply of one
hundred and twenty. He departed for England on the 2d of June with a
cargo of cedar-wood, carrying Martin of the Council. Smith, in an open
boat, with fourteen others,—seven gentlemen (including Dr. Walter
Russell of the last arrival), and seven soldiers,—accompanied the
“Phœnix” down the river, and parted from her at Cape Henry, with the
bold purpose of exploring Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, and
establishing intercourse with the natives along their borders. To
the islands lying off Cape Charles, Smith gave his own name. After a
satisfactory cruise, having crossed the bay, visited its eastern shore,
and explored the Potomac River some thirty miles, the party returned
late in July to Jamestown for provisions. Smith again embarked on the
24th of July to complete his explorations, with a crew of twelve,
similarly constituted as before, but with Anthony Bagnall as surgeon.
At the head of Chesapeake Bay they were hospitably entertained by a
tribe of Indians, supposed by Stith[234] to have been of the Iroquois,
or Five Nations, and also by the Susquehannas, at a village on the
Tockwogh (now Sassafras) River. The highest mountain to the northward
observed by them was named Peregrine’s Mount, and Willoughby River
was so called after the native town of Smith. The Indian tribes
on the Patuxent, and the Moraughtacunds and the Wighcomoes on the
Rappahannock, were visited. Richard Featherstone, a “gentleman” of the
party, dying, was buried on the banks of the last-named river, which
was explored to the falls, near where Fredericksburg now is. Here
a skirmish took place with the Rappahannock tribe. The Pianketank,
Elizabeth, and Nansemond rivers were in turn examined for a few miles.
From the results of these discoveries Smith composed his Map of
Virginia, a work so singularly exact that it has formed the basis of
all like delineations since, and was adduced as authority as late as
1873 towards the settlement of the boundary dispute between the States
of Virginia and Maryland. The drawing was sent to England by Newport
before the close of the year, and in 1612 was published in the _Oxford
Tract_. Returning to Jamestown, Sept. 7, 1608, Smith was elected
President of the Council over Ratcliffe (who suffered from a wounded
hand and was enfeebled by sickness), and now, for the first time, he
had the “letters patent” of office placed in his hands.[235] Ever
firm, courageous, and persevering, he at once instituted vigorous and
salutary measures adapted to the wants and conducive to the discipline
of the colonists. The church was repaired, the storehouse covered,
and magazines erected. Soon after, Newport arrived for the third time
from England, with the second supply of settlers, seventy in number.
Among them were Captains Peter Wynne and Richard Waldo, Francis West
(the brother of Lord Delaware), Raleigh Crashaw, Daniel Tucker, some
German and Polish artisans for the manufacture of glass and other
articles, Mrs. Thomas Forest, and her maid, Ann Burras. The last named
of these—the first Englishwomen in the colony—became, before the
close of the year, the wife of John Laydon. This was the first marriage
celebrated in Virginia. Newport had left England under the silly
pledge not to return without a lump of gold, or without tidings of the
discovery of a passage to the North Sea, or without the rescue of one
of the settlers of the lost company of Sir Walter Raleigh. The Company
added the equally impossible condition that he should bring a freight
in his vessel of equal value to the cost of the expedition, which was
£2,000. In case of failure in these respects, the colonists were to be
abandoned to their own resources. Much valuable time was consumed by
Newport in an idle coronation of Powhatan (for whose household he had
brought costly presents), and in futile efforts for the accomplishment
of the visionary expectations of the Company. At last there was
provided by those of the colonists who remained at their labors a part
of a cargo of pitch, tar, glass, and iron ore, and Newport set sail,
leaving at Jamestown about two hundred settlers. The iron ore which he
carried was smelted in England, and seventeen tons of metal sold to the
East India Company at £4 per ton. In the preservation of the colony
until the next arrival, the genius and energy of Smith were strongly
but successfully taxed,—for Captain Wynne dying, and Scrivener and
Anthony Gosnold, with eight others, having been drowned, he alone of
the Council remained. His measures were sagacious. Corn was planted,
and blockhouses were built and garrisoned at Jamestown for defence,
and an outpost was established at Hog Island, to give signal of the
approach of shipping.

At the last place the hogs, which increased rapidly, were kept. But
being subject to the treachery of the natives, the colonists were in
continual danger of attack, and were too slothful to make due provision
for their wants, so that the tenure of the settlement became like a
brittle thread. The store of provisions having been spoiled by damp or
eaten by vermin, their subsistence now depended precariously on fish,
game, and roots. The prospects of the colony were so discouraging at
the beginning of the year 1609, that, in the hope of improving them,
the Company applied for a new charter with enlarged privileges. This
was granted to them, on the 23d of May, under the corporate name of
“The Treasurer and Company of Adventurers and Planters of the City of
London for the first Colony in Virginia.” The new Association, which
embraced representatives of every rank, trade, and profession, included
twenty-one peers, and its list of names presents an imposing array of
wealth and influence. By this charter Virginia was greatly enlarged,
and made to comprise the coast-line and all islands within one hundred
miles of it,—two hundred miles north and two hundred south of Point
Comfort,—with all the territory within parallel lines thus distant
and extending to the Pacific boundary; the Company was empowered to
choose the Supreme Council in England, and, under the instructions and
regulations of the last, the Governor was invested with absolute civil
and military authority.

[Illustration]

With the disastrous experience of the previous unstable system, a
sterner discipline seems, under attending circumstances, to have been
demanded to insure success. Thomas West (Lord Delaware), the descendant
of a long line of noble ancestry, received the appointment of Governor
and Captain-General of Virginia. The first expedition under the second
charter, which was on a grander scale than any preceding it, and which
consisted of nine vessels, sailed from Plymouth on the 1st of June,
1609.

[Illustration]

Newport, the commander of the fleet, Sir Thomas Gates,
Lieutenant-General, and Sir George Somers, Admiral of Virginia,
were severally authorized, whichever of them might first arrive at
Jamestown, to supersede the existing administration there until the
arrival of Lord Delaware, who was to embark some months later; but
not being able to settle the point of precedency among themselves,
they embarked together in the same vessel, which carried also the
wife and daughters of Gates. Among the five hundred colonists, were
the returning Captains Ratcliffe, Archer, and Martin, divers other
captains and gentlemen, and, by the suggestion of Hakluyt, a number
of old soldiers[236] who had been trained in the Netherlands. On the
23d of July the fleet was caught in a hurricane; a small vessel was
lost, others damaged, and the “Sea Venture,” which carried Gates,
Somers, and Newport, with about one hundred and fifty settlers, was
cast ashore on the Bermudas. Captain Samuel Argall (a relative of Sir
Thomas Smith) arrived at Jamestown in July, with a shipload of wine and
provisions, to trade on private account, contrary to the regulations of
the Company. As the settlers were suffering for food, they seized his
supplies. Many of them at this time had gone to live among the Indians,
and eighty had formed a settlement twenty miles distant from the
fort. Early in August the “Blessing,” Captain Archer, and three other
vessels of the delayed fleet sailed up James River, and soon after the
“Diamond,” Captain Ratcliffe, appeared, without her mainmast, and she
was followed in a few days by the “Swallow,” in like condition.

The Council being all dead save Smith, he, obtaining the sympathy of
the sailors, refused to surrender the government of the colony; and
the newly arrived settlers elected Francis West, the brother of Lord
Delaware, as temporary president. The term of Smith expiring soon
after, George Percy—one of the original settlers, a brother of the
Earl of Northumberland, and a brave and honorable man—was elected
president, and West, Ratcliffe, and Martin were made councillors.

[Illustration: George Percy]

Smith, about Michaelmas (September 29), departed for England or, as
all contemporary accounts other than his own state, was sent thither
“to answer some misdemeanors.”[237] These were doubtless of a venial
character; but the important services of Smith in the sustenance of
the colony appear not to have been as highly esteemed by the Company
as by Smith himself. He complains that his several petitions for
reward were disregarded, and he never returned to Virginia. Modern
investigation has discredited many of the so-long-accepted narratives
in which he records his own achievements and judges so harshly the
motives and conduct of all others of his companions; and the glamour
of romance with which he invested his own exploits has been somewhat
dissipated. But whatever may have been the fervor of his imagination
as a historian, it was more than equalled by his fertility of resource
in vital emergencies, and there is ample evidence that his services in
the preservation of the infant colony were momentous. After his return
to England but little is recorded of him until the year 1614, during
which he made a successful voyage to New England, under the auspices
of the Plymouth Company, which gained for him the title of Admiral of
New England.[238] Whatever may have been the defects of Smith, the
greatness of his deeds has impressed him enduringly on the pages of
history as one of the most prominent figures of his period. At the time
of his departure for England he left at Jamestown three ships, seven
boats, a good stock of provisions, nearly five hundred settlers, twenty
pieces of cannon, three hundred guns, with fishing-nets, working-tools,
horses, cattle, swine, etc.

Jamestown was strongly fortified with palisades, and contained between
fifty and sixty houses. The favorable prospects of the colony were soon
threatened by the renewal of Indian hostilities. Provisions becoming
scarce, West and Ratcliffe embarked in small vessels to procure corn.
The latter, deceived by the treachery of Powhatan, was slain with
thirty of his companions, two only escaping,—one of whom, Henry
Spelman, a young gentleman well descended, was rescued by Pocahontas,
and lived for many years among the Patowomekes. He acquired their
language, and was afterwards highly serviceable to his countrymen as an
interpreter. He was slain by the savages in 1622. No effort by tillage
being made to replenish their provisions, the stock was soon consumed,
and the horrors of famine were added to other calamities. The intense
sufferings of the colonists were long remembered, and this period is
referred to as “the starving time.” In six months their number was
reduced to sixty, and such was the extremity of these that they must
soon have perished but for speedy succor. The passengers of the wrecked
“Sea Venture,” though mourned for as lost, had effected a safe landing
at the Bermudas, where, favored by the tropical productions of the
islands, they, under the direction of Gates and Somers, constructed
for their deliverance two vessels from the materials of the wreck and
cedar-wood, the largest of the vessels being of eighty tons burden.
The Sabbath was duly observed by them under the faithful ministry of
Mr. Bucke. Among the passengers was John Rolfe and wife,[239] to whom
a male child was born on the island, who was christened Bermuda; a
girl also born there was named Bermudas. Six of the company, including
the wife of Sir Thomas Gates, died on the island. The company of
one hundred and forty men and women embarked on the completed
vessels—which were appropriately named the “Patience” and the
“Deliverance”—on the 10th of May, 1610, and on the 23d they landed at
Jamestown. Here the church bell was immediately rung, and such of the
famished colonists as were physically able repaired to the sanctuary,
where “a zealous and sorrowful prayer” was offered by Mr. Bucke. The
new commission being read, Percy, the acting president, surrendered
the former charter and his credentials of office. The fort was in a
dismantled condition, and most of the habitations had been consumed for
fire-wood. So forlorn was the condition of the settlement that Gates
reluctantly resolved to abandon it and to return to England by way of
Newfoundland, where he expected to receive succor from trading-vessels.
Some of the colonists were with difficulty restrained from setting fire
to the town, Gates, with a guard to prevent it, remaining on shore
until all others had embarked. A farewell volley was fired; but the
leave-taking of a spot associated with so much suffering was tearless.

In the mean time, the repeated ill tidings brought by returning ships
to England, and the supposed loss of the “Sea Venture” had so dismayed
the members of the Company in London that many of them withdrew their
subscriptions. Lord Delaware—who is characterized in the “Declaration”
of the Council, in 1610, as “one of approved courage, temper, and
experience”—determined to go in person as Governor and Captain-General
of Virginia (the first of such title and authority), and, disregarding
the comforts of home and noble station, “did bare a grate part upon
his owne charge.” By his example, constancy, and resolution, “that
which was almost lifeless” was revived in the Company. On Feb. 21,
1609-10, William Crashaw, a preacher at the Temple (the father of the
poet eulogized by Cowley), in view of the departure of Lord Delaware,
delivered before the Council and Adventurers in London a stirring
sermon, which was the first preached in England to any embarking for
Virginia in a missionary cause.[240] Distinct and unequivocal testimony
is given by the Company, in the “Declaration” already cited, as to
the reputation of settlers for the colony, none being desired but
those of blameless character. Five weeks later Lord Delaware sailed
with three vessels and one hundred and fifty settlers, and arrived in
Virginia providentially to intercept, off Mulberry Island, Gates and
his disheartened companions as they were descending the river, who
returned at once to Jamestown. The fleet, following, arrived there on
Sunday, the 10th of June. The first act of Lord Delaware upon landing
was to fall devoutly upon his knees and offer up a prayer, after which
he repaired with the company to the church, to listen to a sermon by
Mr. Bucke. Two days later a council was organized, consisting of Sir
Thomas Gates, lieutenant-general, Sir Thomas Somers, admiral, Sir
Ferdinando Wenman, master of ordnance (who soon died), Captain Newport,
vice-admiral, Captain George Percy and William Strachey, secretary and
recorder. Captain John Martin was made master of the steel and iron
works. The restoration of the settlement was prosecuted with vigor, and
the church, a building sixty feet in length by twenty-four in breadth,
was repaired, and services were held regularly twice on Sunday, and
again on Thursday. Two forts were also built on Southampton River, and
called after the King’s sons, Henry and Charles, respectively.

The administration of Delaware, though ludicrously ostentatious for
so insignificant a dominion, was yet highly wholesome, and under
his judicious discipline the settlement was restored to order and
contentment. On the 19th of June Sir George Somers, in his cedar
pinnace, accompanied by Argall in another vessel, re-embarked to seek
for provisions. The vessels separating, Argall on the 27th of August
“came to anchor in nine fathoms, in a very great bay,” called by him
Delaware,[241] and on the ninth of the month reached Cape Charles.
Somers, soon after parting from Argall, reached the Bermudas, where,
dying from the effects of the hardships he had undergone, his body
was embalmed and conveyed to England by his nephew, Captain Matthew
Somers. About Christmas, Captain Argall sailed in the “Discovery” up
the Potomac for supplies of corn, and rescued the captive English boy
Henry Spelman from Jopassus, the brother of Powhatan. In the month of
February following, Argall, aided by a small land force under Captain
Edward Brewster, attacked the chief of the Warraskoyacks for a breach
of contract and burned two of his towns. Sir Thomas Gates, being
despatched to England to report to the Company the condition of the
colony, succeeded by strenuous appeals in inducing it to send a fresh
supply of settlers and provisions. During his absence, the health of
Lord Delaware failing, on the 28th of March, 1611, accompanied by
Dr. Bohune and Captain Argall, he sailed for England by way of the
Isle of Mevis, leaving Percy in authority. On the 17th of March Sir
Thomas Dale, with the appointment of “high marshall,” had sailed with
three vessels for the colony, with settlers (among whom was the Rev.
Alexander Whitaker) and cattle. He reached Point Comfort May the 12th,
and spent several days in provisioning and disciplining that station
and the forts Henry and Charles on the Southampton River, and in
planting corn.

Sir Thomas landed at Jamestown on Sunday the 19th, where, first
repairing to the church, he listened to a sermon from the Rev. Mr.
Poole, after which, his commission being read by Secretary Strachey,
Percy surrendered the government to him. Under an extraordinary code
of “Lawes, Divine, Morall, and Martiall,” compiled by William Strachey
for Sir Thomas Smith, and based upon those observed in the wars in the
Low Countries, Dale inaugurated vigorous measures for the government
and advancement of the colony. The church was repaired, and store,
powder, and block houses severally were built, while pales and posts
were prepared for a new settlement. The site selected for the last
was a peninsula in Varina Neck on James River, known as Farrar’s
Island, which is formed by an extraordinary curve resembling that of a
horseshoe, where the river, after a sweep of seven miles, returns to
a point within a hundred and twenty yards from that of its deviation.
The name of the bend, Dutch Gap,[242] by the events of the late civil
war attained a historic notoriety. The building of the new town was
delayed by insubordination among the colonists, which however, under
the rigors of the martial code in force, was promptly quelled, eight of
the ringleaders being executed. The pernicious system of a community
of property was now to some extent remedied by Dale, in the allotment
to each settler of three acres of land to be worked for his individual
benefit. “Comon gardens for hemp and flaxe, and such other seedes,”
were also laid out.[243]

In June, 1611, Sir Thomas Gates, accompanied by his wife (who died on
the passage) and daughters and the Rev. Mr. Glover (who lived but a
short time after his arrival in the colony), followed Dale with six
ships, three hundred settlers, and one hundred cows, besides other
cattle and an abundant supply of provisions. He arrived at Jamestown
early in August, and thus increased the number of the colonists to
seven hundred persons. Gates established himself at Hampton, deputed
the command of Jamestown to Percy, and sent Dale, early in September,
with three hundred and fifty men, to found the projected town of
Henrico, at which, among the “three streets” of buildings erected,
was a handsome church. The foundation of another, to be of brick, was
laid.[244] In December, the Appomattox Indians having committed some
depredations, Dale captured their town on the south side of the James,
near the mouth of Appomattox River (and about five miles distant from
Henrico), and upon its site established a third town, which he called
Bermuda. Here the pious apostle Alexander Whitaker fixed his residence,
serving as the minister both of Bermuda and Henrico.[245] Several
plantations were laid out near Bermuda,—Upper and Lower Rochdale,
West Shirley, and Digges’ Hundred. In conformity with the code of
martial law, each hundred was subjected to the control of a captain.
In December, also, Newport arrived at London from Jamestown, in the
ship “Star,” with a cargo of “forty fine and large pines for masts,”
and with the daughters of Sir Thomas Gates as passengers. Newport’s
name does not again appear in connection with Virginia.[246] The
reinforcements for the colony for some months were insignificant, the
only ships sent over being the “John and Francis” and the “Sarah,”
with few settlers and less provisions, and the “Treasurer” with fifty
persons, under the bold and unscrupulous Captain Samuel Argall, who,
sailing from England in July, 1612, arrived at Point Comfort, September
17.[247] This year was a marked one in the inauguration by John Rolfe
of the systematic culture of tobacco,—a staple destined to exert
a controlling influence in the future welfare and progress of the
colony, and soon, by the paramount profit yielded by its culture, to
subordinate all other interests, agricultural as well as manufacturing.
This influence permeated the entire social fabric of the colony,
directed its laws, was an element in all its political and religious
disturbances, and became the direct instigation of its curse of African
slavery. It may be added, however, as an indisputable fact, that the
culture of tobacco constituted the basis of the present unrivalled
prosperity of the United States, and that this staple is still one of
the most prolific factors in the revenue of the General Government.

Early in the spring of 1613, the colonists needing food, Argall
determined on a bold stroke, and with the bribe of a copper kettle
induced Jopassus, the king of Potomac, in whose domain Pocahontas was
sojourning, to betray her into his hands. Having sent a messenger to
Powhatan, demanding as a ransom the restoration of all English captives
held by him, and of all arms and tools stolen from the settlement,
Argall returned with his captive to Jamestown. There was a protracted
struggle in the breast of the savage chieftain between avarice and
parental affection.

Some months later Dale, with a command of one hundred and fifty men,
sailed up York River to Werowocomico, the seat of Powhatan, carrying
Pocahontas with him. Meeting with defiance, he landed and destroyed
the settlement, and then returned to Jamestown. The ship “Elizabeth”
arriving in March with thirteen settlers, Sir Thomas Gates departed
in her for England finally, leaving the government to Dale. An event
most auspicious for the future welfare of the colony soon occurred.
A mutual attachment springing up between John Rolfe and Pocahontas,
with the consent of Sir Thomas Dale they were united in marriage by
the Rev. Alexander Whitaker, about the 5th of April, 1614. This was a
politic example, which Dale himself unsuccessfully attempted to follow,
although he had then a wife in England. Sending Ralph Hamor (who had
been secretary of the Council under Lord Delaware) to Powhatan, with
a request for the younger sister of Pocahontas, a girl scarce twelve
years of age, his overtures were disdainfully rejected. The results of
the union of Rolfe and Pocahontas were the good-will of Powhatan during
the remainder of his life, and a treaty of peace with the formidable
Chickahominy tribe, by which the natives agreed ever to be called
Englishmen, and to be true subjects to the British crown. With the
immunity of peace, and under the wholesome discipline of Dale, industry
was stimulated, property accumulated, and famine was no longer feared.
Prosperity being now seemingly assured to the colony, the martial
spirit of Dale sought other modes of manifesting itself. As early as
1605 the French had sent settlers to Acadia, and planted a colony at
Port Royal, which had now attained some prominence.

[Illustration: SEAL OF THE VIRGINIA COMPANY.

This is a fac-simile of the engraving used in the publications of the
Company. Cf. _Calendar of Virginia State Papers_, i. p. xxxix; Neill’s
_Virginia Company_, p. 156. An example of this seal with the same
dimensions and devices, but with the differing legend on the reverse
of “COLONIA VIRGINÆ—CONSILIO PRIMA,” is in the collections of the
Virginia Historical Society. It is of red wax between the leaves of a
foolscap sheet of paper, and is affixed to a patent for land issued by
Sir John Harvey, governor, dated March 4, 1638.]

This being deemed by Dale an invasion of the territory of Virginia,
which by charter extended to the forty-fifth degree of latitude,
he sent Argall to dislodge the settlers, which was summarily
accomplished.[248] Stimulated to new conquests, Argall on his return
visited the Dutch settlement near the site of Albany, on the Hudson,
and compelled its governor to capitulate.[249] It was however soon
after reclaimed by the Dutch. Argall now sailed for England, where he
and Gates both arrived in June, 1614. In March, 1612, a third charter
had been granted to the Virginia Company, extending the boundaries of
the colony so as to include all islands lying within three hundred
leagues of the continent,—one object of which was to embrace the
Bermuda or Summer Islands, of the fertility of which extravagant
accounts had been given; but these last were soon after sold by the
Company to one hundred and twenty of its members, who became a distinct
corporation.[250] The privilege of holding lotteries for the benefit
of the Company was also secured. Gates reporting that the colony in
Virginia would perish unless better provided, the Company held for
its relief a grand lottery, by which the sum of £29,000 was secured.
The year 1615 is remarkable in the history of Virginia for the first
establishment of a fixed property in the soil, in the granting by the
Company of fifty acres to every freeman in absolute right.


Good order being established, and the colony prosperous, in April,
1616, Sir Thomas Dale, leaving the government to Captain George
Yeardley as his deputy, accompanied by Rolfe, Pocahontas, and several
Indians of both sexes, sailed for England, where he arrived on the
12th of June. The settlements in Virginia at this time were Henrico,
the seat of the college for the education of the natives (of whom
children of both sexes were already being taught), and of which the
Rev. William Wickham was the minister,—its limits being Bermuda,
Nether Hundred, or Presquile, the residence of the Deputy-Governor
Yeardley and of the Rev. Alexander Whitaker; West and Shirley Hundred,
Captain Isaac Madison, commander; Jamestown, Captain Francis West, Mr.
Mease, minister; Kiquotan; and Dale’s Gift, on the sea-coast near Cape
Charles, Lieutenant Cradock, commander. The total population of the
colony was three hundred and fifty-one.

Pocahontas was the object of much kindly attention in London, where she
was presented at court by Lady Delaware, attended by Lord Delaware,
her husband, and other persons of quality. In March, 1617, John Rolfe
prepared to return to Virginia with Pocahontas and their infant child
Thomas,[251] but on the eve of embarkation Pocahontas was stricken with
the small-pox, of which she died on the 21st instant, aged twenty-two
years, and was buried at Gravesend, in the county of Kent.[252] Tobacco
proving the most salable commodity of the colony, in 1616 Yeardley
directed general attention to its culture, the profit of which speedily
became so alluring that all other occupations were forsaken for it.

Through the influence of the court faction of the Company, in 1617,
Captain Samuel Argall was elected Deputy-Governor of Virginia. He
arrived in the colony on the 15th of May, with one hundred settlers,
accompanied by Ralph Hamor as Vice-Admiral, and John Rolfe as
“Secretary and Recorder-General.” They found “the market-place,
streets, and all other spare places” in Jamestown planted with
tobacco.[253] In a few days thereafter Captain Martin also arrived
in a pinnace, after a passage of five weeks. The whole number of the
colonists was now about four hundred. To reinforce the languishing
colony, the Company, in April, 1618, sent thither Lord Delaware, the
Governor-General, in the ship “Neptune,” with two hundred men, and
supplies. After his departure the ship “George” arrived from Virginia
with such complaints of the malfeasance of Argall, who under martial
law had loaded the colonists with oppressive exactions and robbed them
of their property, that letters were despatched to Lord Delaware to
seize upon all goods and property in Argall’s possession. Lord Delaware
dying on the passage, these letters fell into the hands of Argall,
who, to make the most of his remaining time, grew yet more tyrannical.
For seizing one of the servants of the estate of Lord Delaware, on
the complaint of Edward Brewster, the son of its manager, Argall
was arrested, and on the 15th of October, 1618, tried and sentenced
to death; but the penalty was commuted to perpetual banishment. He
secretly stole away from the colony April the 9th, 1619, leaving
Captain Nathaniel Powell in authority. Upon the intelligence of the
death of Lord Delaware, Captain George Yeardley, who was knighted on
the occasion, was appointed to succeed him. Sir Edwin Sandys also
displaced Sir Thomas Smith as treasurer of the Company.

[Illustration: LORD DELAWARE.

His portrait is preserved at Bourne, the seat of his descendant the
present Earl de la Warr, in Cambridgeshire, England. There is a copy
of it in the Library of the State of Virginia at Richmond, which was
made by William L. Sheppard, an artist of that city in July, 1877. He
is represented as a stout, ruddy-visaged Saxon, with a most benevolent
expression of countenance. King James granted a pension to the widow of
Lord Delaware, who was alive in 1644, and is called Dame Cecily Dowager
de la Warre in the sixth _Report of the Historical Commission_ to
Parliament, in a paper in which the continuance of her pension is asked
for.]

Yeardley arrived in the colony April the 19th with a new authority
under the charter, by which the authority of the governor was limited
by a council and an annual general assembly, to be composed of the
Governor and Council, and two burgesses from each plantation, to
be freely elected by the inhabitants thereof. John Rolfe, who was
succeeded in the office of Secretary of the Colony by John Pory, a
graduate of Cambridge, a great traveller and a writer, was, with
Captain Francis West, Captain Nathaniel Powell, William Wickham,
and Samuel Macock, added to the Council. On Friday, July 30, 1619,
in accordance with the summons of Governor Yeardley in June, the
first representative legislative assembly ever held in America was
convened in the chancel of the church at James City or Jamestown, and
was composed of twenty-two burgesses from the eleven several towns,
plantations, and hundreds, styled boroughs. The proceedings were
opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Bucke, and each burgess took the
oath of supremacy. John Pory was elected speaker, and sat in front
of Governor Yeardley, and next was John Twine, the clerk, and at the
bar stood Thomas Pierse, sergeant-at-arms. The delegates from Captain
John Martin’s plantation were excluded, because by his patent, granted
according to the unequal privilege of the manors of England, he was
released from obeying any order of the colony except in time of war
and the Company was prayed that the clause in the charter guaranteeing
equal immunities and liberties might not be violated, so as to “divert
out of the true course the free and public current of justice.” The
education and religious instruction of the children of the natives
was enjoined upon each settlement. Among the enactments, tobacco was
authorized as a currency, and the treasurer of the colony (Abraham
Percy) was directed to receive it at the valuation of three shillings
per pound for the best, and eighteen-pence for the second quality.
The government of ministers was prescribed according to the Church
of England, and a tax of tobacco laid for their support. It was also
enacted that “all persons whatsoever upon the Sabbath days shall
frequent divine service and sermons, both forenoon and afternoon.” To
compensate the officers of the Assembly, a tax of a pound of tobacco
was laid upon every male above sixteen years of age.

The introduction of <DW64> slavery into the colony is thus noted by
John Rolfe: “About the last of August [1619] came in a Dutch man of
warre, that sold us twenty Negars.”[254] During this year there were
sent to the colony more than twelve hundred settlers, and one hundred
“disorderly persons” or convicts, by order of the King, to be employed
as servants. Boys and girls picked up in the streets of London were
also sent, and were bound as apprentices[255] to the planters until
the age of majority. In June twenty thousand pounds of tobacco, the
crop of the preceding year, was shipped to England. In November the
London Company adopted a coat-of-arms, and ordered a seal to be
engraved.[256] The Company appears ever to have held in due regard the
importance of education as intimately connected with the preservation
and dissemination of Christianity in the colony. Under an order from
the King, nearly £1,500 were collected by the bishops of the realm to
build the college at Henrico, and fifteen thousand acres of land were
appropriated for its support.[257] To cultivate it during the years
1619 and 1620 one hundred laborers were sent over under the charge of
Mr. George Thorpe (a kinsman of Sir Thomas Dale) and Captain Thomas
Newce as agents. At a meeting of the Company held June 28, 1620,
the Earl of Southampton was elected to succeed Sir Edwin Sandys as
treasurer.

The population of the colony in July was estimated at four thousand,
and during the year forty thousand pounds of tobacco were shipped to
England. The freedom of trade which the Company had enjoyed for a brief
interval with the Low Countries, where they sold their tobacco, was in
October, 1621, prohibited in Council, and thenceforward England claimed
a monopoly of the trade of her plantations. The planters at length
were absolved from service to the Company, and enjoyed the blessings
of property in the soil and of domestic felicity. In the autumn of
1621 the practice was begun by the Company of shipping to the colony
young women of respectability as wives for the colonists, who were
chargeable with the cost of transportation. This charge was at first
one hundred and twenty, afterwards one hundred and fifty, pounds of
tobacco. A windmill, the first in America, was about this time erected
by Sir George Yeardley, and iron-works (the primal inauguration of this
essential manufacture in this country) were established at Falling
Creek on James River, under the management of Mr. John Berkeley.[258]

Upon the request of Sir George Yeardley to be relieved of the cares
of office, Sir Francis Wyatt was appointed to succeed him upon the
expiration of his term of government on the 18th of November, 1621. Sir
Francis, with a fleet of nine sail, arrived in October, accompanied by
his brother, the Rev. Haut Wyatt, Dr John Pott as physician, William
Claiborne (destined to later prominence in the colony) as surveyor of
the Company’s lands, and George Sandys[259] as treasurer, who during
his stay translated the _Metamorphoses_ of Ovid and the First Book
of Virgil’s _Æneid_. This first Anglo-American poetical production
was published in 1626. Sir Francis Wyatt brought with him a new
constitution for the colony, granted July 24, by which all former
immunities and franchises were confirmed, trial by jury was secured,
and the Assembly was to meet annually upon the call of the Governor,
who was vested with the right of veto. No act of this body was to be
valid unless ratified by the Company; but, on the other hand, no order
of the Company was to be obligatory without the concurrence of the
Assembly. This famous ordinance furnished the model of every subsequent
provincial form of government in the Anglo-American colonies.[260] In
November Daniel Gookin arrived from Ireland with fifty settlers under
his control and thirty-six passengers, and planted himself in Elizabeth
City County, at Mary’s Mount, just above Newport News.[261] There
arrived during the year twenty-one vessels, bringing over thirteen
hundred men, women, and children. The aggregate number of settlers
arriving during the years 1619, 1620, and 1621 was thirty-five hundred
and seventy.

Deluded by long peace, on the 22d of March, 1622, the unsuspecting
colonists fell easy victims to a frightful Indian massacre of men,
women, and children, to the number of three hundred and forty-seven.
Among the slain were Mr. George Thorpe, the agent for the college at
Henrico, and Mr. John Berkeley, master of the iron-works at Falling
Creek.[262] Their death and the destruction of their charges terminated
the prosecution of these material measures for the good of the colony.
The future policy with the savages was aggressive until the peace
of 1632. At an Assembly held in March, 1623, monthly courts to be
appointed by the Governor were authorized. The Virginia Company, in
their opposition to the King in the nomination of their officers, had
already incurred his ill-will, which was increased by the freedom with
which they discussed public measures so as to invoke his denunciation
of them as “but a seminary to a seditious parliament.” Violent factions
divided them, and the massacre came at a juncture to fan discontent.
Commissioners were sent to Virginia by the King to gather materials
for the ruin of the Company. The result was the annulling of its
charter by the King’s Bench on the 16th of June, 1624. Sir Francis
Wyatt was continued as governor by commission from King James, dated
Aug. 26, 1624, and again in May, 1625, by the young monarch, Charles
I., who appointed as councillors for the colony, during his pleasure,
Francis West, Sir George Yeardley, George Sandys, Roger Smith, Ralph
Hamor, John Martin, John Harvey, Samuel Matthews, Abraham Percy,
Isaac Madison, and William Claiborne. He omitted all mention of an
assembly, and there is no preserved record of the meeting of this body
again until 1629. The administration of Wyatt was wise and pacific.
The death of his father, Sir George Wyatt, calling him to Ireland, he
was succeeded, in May, 1626, by Sir George Yeardley, who dying Nov.
14, 1627, the Council elected as his successor, on the following day,
Francis West, a younger brother of Lord Delaware. West, departing for
England on the 5th of March, 1628, was succeeded by Dr. John Pott. The
export of tobacco in 1628 was five hundred thousand pounds. Charles,
desiring a monopoly of the trade, directed an assembly to be called
to grant it. That body, replying the 26th of March, demanded a higher
price and more favorable terms than his Majesty was disposed to yield.
The colony rapidly increased in strength and prosperity, the population
in 1629 being five thousand. Pott was superseded as governor in March,
1630, by Sir John Harvey, who had been one of the commissioners sent
in 1623 to procure evidence to be used against the Virginia Company.
Between him and the colonists there was but little good-will, and his
arbitrary rule soon rendered him odious.

[Illustration]

In July, by a strange mutation of fortune, Pott, the late governor,
was tried for cattle-stealing, and convicted. This was the first trial
by jury in the colony. It was in 1630 that George Calvert, with his
followers, arrived in the colonies; but the details of his experience
here and of the disputes about jurisdiction arising out of the grant
of the present territory of Maryland, made to him and confirmed to his
son in 1632, are given in another chapter.[263] It was under successive
grants from the governors in 1627, 1628, and 1629, and from Charles
I. in 1631, that William Claiborne had established his trading-posts
in the disputed territory, from which he was driven with bloodshed,
and by the final decree of the King in 1639 despoiled of £6,000 of
property. Harvey—actuated, it has been charged, by motives of private
interest—sided with Maryland in the disputes, and rendered himself so
obnoxious that an assembly was called for the 7th of May, 1635, to hear
complaints against him. Before it met, however, he consented to go to
England to answer the charges, and was “thrust out of his government”
by the Council on the 28th of April, and Captain John West, a brother
of Lord Delaware, was authorized to act as his successor until the
King’s pleasure might be known. In 1634 the colony was divided into
eight shires,[264] subject, as in England, to the government of a
lieutenant.[265] The election of sheriffs, sergeants, and bailiffs was
similarly provided for. The King, intolerant of opposition, reinstated
the hated Harvey as governor, by commission dated April 2, 1636.[266]
During his rule of three years thereafter, no assembly was held.
Charles gradually relaxed his policy, and in November, 1639, displaced
Harvey with Sir Francis Wyatt, who in turn was succeeded by Sir
William Berkeley as governor in February, 1642. During the year three
Congregational ministers came from Boston to Virginia to disseminate
their doctrines.

[Illustration]

Their stay, however, was but short; for by an enactment of the Assembly
all ministers other than those of the Church of England were compelled
to leave the colony. It will be shown that their success was limited.
On the 18th of April, 1644, a second Indian massacre occurred. The
number of victims has been differently stated as three and five
hundred. During a visit by Berkeley to England, from June, 1644, to
June, 1645, his place was filled by Richard Kemp. In 1642 the ship
of Richard Ingle, from London, had been seized by Governor Brent,
of Maryland, acting under a commission from Charles I., and an oath
against Parliament tendered the crew. Ingle escaped, and, securing a
commission from Parliament to cruise in the waters of the Chesapeake
against Malignants, as the friends of the King were called, reappeared
in February, 1645, in the ship “Reformation,” near St. Inigo Creek,
where there was a popular uprising, and with the aid of the insurgents
and forces from Virginia expelled Leonard Calvert and installed Colonel
Edward Hill as governor. Calvert regained authority in August, 1646.
The colony of Virginia continued to prosper. In 1648 the population
consisted of fifteen thousand whites and three hundred <DW64> slaves.
Domestic animals were abundant; corn, wheat, rice, hemp, flax, and many
vegetables were cultivated; there were fifteen varieties of fruit, and
excellent wine was made. The average export of tobacco for several
years had been 1,500,000 pounds. Besides the “old field schools,” there
was a free school endowed by Benjamin Symmes with two hundred acres of
land, a good house, forty milch cows, and other appurtenances.

The Dissenters, who had increased in number to one hundred and
eighteen, now encountered the rigors of colonial authority in
imprisonment and banishment, and all opposition to the Established
Church was decisively quelled.[267]

With the beheading of Charles I. on the 30th of January, 1649, the
Commonwealth of England was inaugurated; but Virginia still continued
its allegiance to his son, the exiled prince, and offered an asylum to
his fugitive adherents. Three hundred and thirty of these, including
Colonel Henry Norwood and Majors Francis Morrison and Richard Fox,
arrived near the close of 1649 in the “Virginia Merchant.”

Norwood was sent the following year by Berkeley to Holland to invite
the fugitive King to Virginia as its ruler, and returned from Breda
with a new commission for Berkeley as governor, dated June 3, and
another for himself as treasurer of the colony, in approbation of the
loyalty manifested. Charles II. was crowned by the Scotch at Scone in
1651, and, invading England with his followers, was utterly overthrown
and defeated at Worcester, September 3. In the same month the Council
of State issued instructions to Captain Robert Dennis, Richard Bennet,
Thomas Steg,[268] and William Claiborne, as commissioners for the
reduction of Virginia to the authority of the Commonwealth. Captain
Dennis arrived at Jamestown in March, 1652, and the capitulation
of the colony was ratified on the 12th instant upon liberal terms,
which confirmed the existing privileges of the colonists and granted
indemnity for all offences against Parliament. The commissioners Bennet
and Claiborne soon after effected the reduction of Maryland, but with
singular moderation allowed its Governor and Council to retain their
offices upon the simple condition of issuing all writs in the name of
the Commonwealth. A provisional government was organized in Virginia,
on the 30th of April, by the election by the House of Burgesses of
Richard Bennet as governor and William Claiborne as secretary of state,
and a council of twelve, whose powers were to be defined by the Grand
Assembly, of which they were ex-officio members.

A remarkable instance of individual enterprise was given in the early
part of 1654 by Francis Yeardley,[269] who effected discoveries
in North Carolina, and at the cost of £300 purchased from the
natives “three great rivers and all such others as they should like
southerly,” and took possession of the country in the name of the
Commonwealth.[270] In March, 1655, Richard Bennet was appointed the
agent of the colony at London, and was succeeded as governor by Edward
Digges. In 1656 Colonel Edward Hill the elder, in endeavoring with
one hundred men to dislodge seven hundred Ricahecrian Indians who had
seated themselves at the Falls of James River, was utterly routed.
Bloody Run, near Richmond, significantly derives its name from this
encounter. On the 13th of March, 1657, Edward Digges was sent to London
as the agent of the colony, and was succeeded as governor by Samuel
Matthews. The government of the colony under the Commonwealth was
beneficent, and the people were prosperous.

Upon the reception of the intelligence of the death of Oliver and
of the accession of Richard Cromwell as Protector, obedience was
acknowledged by the Assembly on the 9th of March, 1658. Richard
Cromwell resigned on the 22d of April, 1659, and Matthews had died
in January previously. England was for a time without a monarch, and
Virginia without a governor. The Virginia Assembly, convening on the
23d of March, 1660, elected Sir William Berkeley as governor, and
declared that all writs should be issued in the name of the Grand
Assembly. On the 8th of May Charles II. was proclaimed as King in
England, and on the 31st of July following he transmitted a new
commission to his faithful adherent, Sir William Berkeley. In March,
1661, 44,000 pounds of tobacco were appropriated by the Assembly to
defray the cost of an address to the King, praying him to pardon the
inhabitants of Virginia for having yielded during the Commonwealth
to a force they could not resist. And in contrition for their tacit
submission to the “execrable power that so bloodily massacred the
late King Charles the First of blessed and glorious memory,” it was
enacted that “the 30th of January, the day the said King was beheaded,
be annually solemnized with fasting and prayer, that our sorrows may
expiate our crime, and our tears wash away our guilt.”[271] A little
later, the 29th of May, the date of the restoration of Charles II., was
decreed to be celebrated annually as a “holy day.”[272]

Berkeley being sent on the 30th of April, 1661, by the colony to
England to protest against the enforcement of the Navigation Act,
Colonel Francis Morrison was elected in his stead. Berkeley returned
in the fall of 1662 with advantageous patents for himself, but
without relief for the colony. Colonel William Claiborne, secretary
of state, was displaced by Thomas Ludwell, commissioned by the
King. Colonel Francis Morrison and Henry Randolph, clerk of the
Assembly, were appointed to revise the laws, and it was ordered that
all acts which “might keep in memory our forced deviation from his
Majesty’s obedience” should be “expunged.” A satisfactory account of
the condition of the colony in 1670 is afforded in a report made by
Governor Berkeley to the Lords Commissioners of Foreign Plantations.
The executive consisted of the Governor and sixteen councillors
commissioned by the King, who determined all causes above £15; causes
of less amount were tried by the county courts, of which there were
twenty. The Assembly, composed of two burgesses from each county, met
annually; it levied the taxes, and appeals lay to it. The legislative
and executive powers rested in the Governor, Council, Assembly, and
subordinate officers. The Acts of the Assembly were sent by the
secretary of the colony to the Lord Chancellor. All freemen were bound
to muster monthly in their own counties. The force of the colony
numbered upwards of eight thousand horsemen. There were five forts,
mounted with thirty cannon.

The whole population was forty thousand, of which two thousand were
<DW64> slaves, and six thousand white servants. Eighty vessels arrived
yearly from England and Ireland for tobacco; a few small coasters
came from New England. The annual exportation of tobacco was 15,000
hogsheads (about 12,000,000 pounds), upon which a duty of two shillings
a hogshead was levied. Out of this revenue the Governor received as
salary £1,200. The King had no revenue from the colony except the
quit-rents.[273] There were forty-eight parishes, the ministers of
which were well paid. Under the monopoly of the Navigation Act the
price of tobacco was greatly depressed, the cost of imported goods
enhanced, and the trade of the colony almost extinguished; yet the
profligate King oppressed the colonists still further, and by a grant
of the whole territory of Virginia to Lords Arlington and Culpeper they
found themselves deprived of the very titles to the lands they owned.
The privilege of franchise was even virtually withheld, for there had
been no election of burgesses since the Restoration in 1660, the same
legislature having continued to hold its sessions by prorogation.
The colonists grew so impatient under their accumulated grievances
that a revolt was near bursting forth in 1674. It was quieted for a
time by some pacific concessions; but the fires only slumbered, and
an immediate grievance and a popular leader were alone required to
produce revolutionary measures. The severity of the policy against the
Indians incensed them to hostility, and the lives of the colonists were
in constant jeopardy. They petitioned the Governor for protection,
and on the meeting of the Assembly in March, 1676, war was declared
against the Indians, and a force of five hundred men raised and put
under the command of Sir Henry Chicheley to subdue them; but when he
was about to march he was suddenly and without apparent cause ordered
by Berkeley to disband his forces. The Indians continued their murders
until sixty lives had been sacrificed. The alarmed colonists, having
in vain petitioned the Governor for protection, rose tumultuously in
self-defence, including quite all the civil and military officers of
the colony, and chose Nathaniel Bacon, Jr., as their leader. Bacon,
who was of the distinguished English family of that name, had been
but a short time in the colony; but he was a member of the Council,
brave, rich, eloquent, and popular. He had an immediate stimulant,
too, in the murder at his plantation, near the site of Richmond, of
his overseer and a favorite servant.[274] Bacon, fruitlessly applying
for a commission, marched at the head of five hundred men against the
savages; and in the mean time Berkeley proclaimed them as traitors
and ineffectually pursued them with an armed force. Bacon replied in
a declaration denouncing the Governor as a tyrant and traitor to his
King and the country. During Berkeley’s absence the planters in the
lower counties rose, and, the revolt becoming general, he was forced to
return, when he endeavored to quiet the storm. Writs for a new Assembly
were issued, to which Bacon was elected. He, having punished the
savages, while on his way to the Assembly was arrested in James River
by an armed vessel, but was soon released on parole. When the Assembly
met on the 5th of June, he read at the bar a written confession and
apology for his conduct, and was thereupon pardoned and readmitted to
his seat in the Council. He was also promised a commission to proceed
against the Indians; but, being secretly informed of a plot by the
Governor against his life, he fled, returning however to Jamestown in
a few days with a large force, when, appealing to the Assembly, they
declared him their general, vindicated his course, and sent a letter
to England approving it. They also passed salutary laws of reform.
Berkeley resisted, dissolved them, and in turn addressed the King.
Bacon, all-powerful, having extorted a commission from the Governor,
marched against the Indians. Berkeley once more proclaimed him as a
traitor. Bacon, on hearing it, in the midst of a successful campaign
returned; and Berkeley, deserted by his troops, fled to Accomac. Bacon,
now supreme, called together, by an invitation signed by himself and
four of the Council, a convention of the principal gentlemen of the
colony, at the Middle Plantation, to consult for defence against the
savages and protection against the tyranny of Berkeley. He also issued
a reply to the proclamation of Berkeley, in which he vindicates himself
in lofty strains.[275] He now again marched against the Indians;
but in his absence a fleet which he had sent to capture Berkeley was
betrayed, and the Governor returned to Jamestown at the head of the
forces sent to capture him. Bacon now returned, and Berkeley, deserted
by his men, fleeing again to Accomac, Bacon triumphantly entered
Jamestown and burned the State House. He died shortly afterwards
from disease contracted by exposure, and his followers, left without
a leader, dispersed, and Berkeley was finally dominant. On the 29th
of February, 1677, a fleet with a regiment of soldiers, commanded by
Colonels Herbert Jeffreys and Francis Morrison, arrived in the colony
to quell the rebellion. Jeffreys, Morrison, and Berkeley sat as a
commission to try the insurgents. They were vindictively punished:
the jails were filled, estates confiscated, and twenty-three persons
executed. At length the Assembly, in an address to the Governor,
deprecated any further sanguinary punishments, and he was prevailed
upon, reluctantly, to desist. All the acts of the Assembly of June,
1676, called Bacon’s Laws, were repealed, though many of them were
afterwards re-enacted. Berkeley, being recalled by the King, sailed for
England on the 27th of April, 1677, and was succeeded by Sir Herbert
Jeffreys as governor. Jeffreys effected a treaty with the Indians,
but dying in December, 1678, was succeeded by Sir Henry Chicheley,
who in turn gave place, on the 10th of May, 1680, to Lord Culpeper,
who had been appointed in July, 1675, governor of Virginia for life.
Virginia was now tranquil. The resources of the country continued
to be developed. The production and export of tobacco—the chief
staple—steadily increased, and with it the prosperity of the colony.
The ease with which wealth was acquired fostered the habits of personal
indulgence and ostentatious expenditure into which the Virginia planter
was led by hereditary characteristics.

Undue stress has been laid by many historians upon the transportation
of “convicts” to the colony. Such formed but a small proportion of the
population, and it is believed that the offence of a majority of them
was of a political nature. Be it as it may, all dangerous or debasing
effect of their presence was effectually guarded against by rigorous
enactments. The vile among them met the fate of the vicious, while
the simply unfortunate who were industrious throve and became good
citizens. It is clearly indicated that the aristocratic element of the
colony preponderated.

The under stratum of society, formed by the “survival of the fittest”
of the “indentured servant” and the “convict” classes, as they improved
in worldly circumstances, rose to the surface and took their places
socially and politically among the more favored class. The Virginia
planter was essentially a transplanted Englishman in tastes and
convictions, and emulated the social amenities and the culture of the
mother country.[276] Thus in time was formed a society distinguished
for its refinement, executive ability, and a generous hospitality, for
which the Ancient Dominion is proverbial.


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THERE is abundant evidence, as instanced by Mr. Deane in a paper in the
_Boston Daily Advertiser_, July 31, 1877, that the name of Virginia
commemorates Elizabeth, the virgin queen of England. Mr. Deane’s paper
was in answer to a fanciful belief, expressed by Mr. C. W. Tuttle in
_Notes and Queries_, 1877, that the Indian name Wingina, mentioned by
Hakluyt, may have suggested the appellation.[277] The early patents are
given in Purchas (abstract of the first), iv. 1683-84; Stith; Hazard’s
_Historical Collections_, i. 50, 58, 72; _Popham Memorial_ (the first),
App. A; and Poor’s _Gorges_, App.

See a paper by L. W. Tazewell, on the “Limits of Virginia under
the Charters,” in Maxwell’s _Virginia Historical Register_, i. 12.
These bounds were relied on for Virginia’s claims at a later day to
the Northwest Territory. Cf. H. B. Adams’s _Maryland’s Influence in
Founding a National Commonwealth_, or Maryland Historical Society
Publication Fund, no. 11. See also Lucas’s _Charters of the Old English
Colonies_, London, 1850. Ridpath’s _United States_, p. 86, gives a
convenient map of the grants by the English crown from 1606 to 1732.
Mr. Deane has discussed the matter of forms used in issuing letters
patent in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ xi. 166.

The earliest printed account of the settlement at Jamestown, covering
the interval April 26, 1607-June 2, 1608, is entitled: _A True Relation
of such occurrences and accidents of noate as hath hapned in Virginia
since the first planting of that Collony which is now resident in the
South part thereof, till the last returne from thence. Written by
Captaine Smith, Coronell of the said Collony, to a worshipfull friend
of his in England_. Small quarto, black letter, London, 1608.[278]

The second contemporary account appears in _Purchas His Pilgrimes_, iv.
1685-1690, published in 1625, and is entitled, “Obseruations gathered
out of a Discourse of the Plantations of the Southerne Colonie in
Virginia by the English, 1606, written by that Honorable Gentleman
Master George Percy.”[279] The narrative gives in minute detail the
incidents of the first voyage and of the movements of the colonists
after their arrival at Cape Henry until their landing, on the 14th of
May, at Jamestown. It is to be regretted that a meagre abridgment only
of so valuable a narrative should have been preserved by Purchas, who
assigns as a reason for the omissions he made in it, that “the rest is
more fully set down in Cap. Smith’s Relations.”

The third account of the period, “Newport’s Discoveries in Virginia,”
was published for the first time in 1860 in _Archæologia Americana_,
iv. 40-65. It consists of three papers, the most extended of which is
entitled: “A Relatyon of the Discovery of our river from James Forte
into the Maine; made by Captain Christopher Newport, and sincerely
written and observed by a Gentleman of the Colony.” This “Relatyon”
is principally confined to an account of the voyage from Jamestown
up the river to the “Falls,” at which Richmond is now situated, and
back again to Jamestown, beginning May 21 and ending June 21, the day
before Newport sailed for England. The second paper, of four pages, is
entitled: “The Description of the new-discovered river and country of
Virginia, with the liklyhood of ensuing riches, by England’s ayd and
industry.” The remaining paper, of only a little more than two pages,
is: “A brief description of the People.” These papers were printed from
copies made under the direction of the Hon. George Bancroft, LL.D.,
from the originals in the English State Paper Office, and were edited
by the Rev. Edward Everett Hale.[280]

The next account to be noted, “A Discourse of Virginia,” by Edward
Maria Wingfield, the first President of the colony, was also printed
for the first time in _Archæologia Americana_, iv. 67-163, from a
copy of the original manuscript in the Lambeth Library, edited by
Charles Deane, LL.D., who also printed it separately. The narrative
begins with the sailing of Newport for England, June 22, 1607, and
ends May 21, 1608, on the author’s arrival in England. The final six
pages are devoted by Wingfield to a defence of himself from charges
of unfaithfulness in duty, on which he had been deposed from the
Presidency and excluded from the Council. The narrative was cited for
the first time by Purchas in the margin of the second edition of his
_Pilgrimage_, 1614, pp. 757-768. He also refers to what is probably
another writing, “M. Wingfield’s notes,” in the margin of p. 1706, of
vol. iv. of his _Pilgrimes_. Mr. Deane reasonably conjectures that the
narrative of Wingfield as originally written was more comprehensive,
and that a portion of it has been lost.[281] Chapter I. of Neill’s
_English Colonization in America_ is devoted to Wingfield.

Another narrative of the period:—

_A Relation of Virginia_, written by Henry Spelman, “the third son
of the Antiquary,” who came to the colony in 1609, was privately
printed in 1872 at London for James Frothingham Hunnewell, Esq., of
Charlestown, Mass., from the original manuscript.[282] Spelman, who
was a boy when he first came to Virginia, lived for some time with
the Indians, became afterwards an interpreter for the Colony, and was
killed by the savages in 1622 or 1623.

In 1609 there were four tracts printed in London, illustrative of the
progress of the new colony:—

1. _Saules Prohibition staid, a reproof to those that traduce Virginia._

2. William Symondes’ _Sermon_ before the London Company, April 25,
1609.[283]

3. _Nova Britannia: offeringe most excellent Fruites by Planting in
Virginia._[284]

4. _A Good Speed to Virginia._ The dedicator is R. G., who “neither in
person nor purse” is able to be a “partaker in the business.”[285]

In 1610, appeared the following:—

1. W. Crashaw’s _Sermon_ before Lord Delaware on his leaving for
Virginia, Feb. 21, 1609.

2. _A true and sincere declaration of the purpose and ends of the
plantation begun in Virginia._[286]

3. A true declaration of the estate of the Colonie in Virginia.[287]

4. The mishaps of the first voyage and the wreck at Bermuda were
celebrated in a little poem by R. Rich, one of the Company, called
_Newes from Virginia_, which was printed in London in 1610.[288]

William Strachey was not an actual observer of events in the colony
earlier than May 23, 1610, when he first reached Jamestown. The
incidents of his letter, July 15, 1610, giving an account of the wreck
at Bermuda and subsequent events _(Purchas_, iv. 1734), must, so far as
antecedent Virginia events go, have been derived from others.[289]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

In 1612 Strachey edited a collection of _Lawes Divine_ of the
colony.[290]

There are two MS. copies of his _Historie of Travaile into Virginia
Britannia; expressing the Cosmographie and Comodities of the Country,
together with the Manners and Customes of the People_,—one preserved
in the British Museum among the Sloane Collection, and the other is
among the Ashmolean MSS. at Oxford. They vary in no important respect.
The former was the copy used by R. H. Major in editing it for the
Hakluyt Society in 1849. This copy was dedicated to Sir Francis Bacon.

In 1611 Lord Delaware’s little _Relation_ appeared in London.[291] In
1612 the Virginia Company, to thwart the evil intentions of the enemies
of the colony, printed by authority a second part of _Nova Britannia_,
called _The New Life of Virginia_. Its authorship is assigned to Robert
Johnson.[292]

In 1612 the little quarto volume commonly referred to as the _Oxford
Tract_ was printed, with the following title: _A Map of Virginia. With
a Description of the Country, the Commodities, People, Government,
and Religion, Written by Captaine Smith, sometimes Governour of the
Country. Whereunto is annexed the proceedings of those Colonies since
their first departure from England, with the discoveries, Orations,
and relations of the Salvages, and the accidents that befell them in
all their Iournies and discoveries. Taken faithfully as they were
written out of the writings of Doctor Rvssell, Tho. Stvdley, Anas
Todkill, Ieffra Abot, Richard Wiffin, Will. Phettiplace, Nathaniel
Powell, Richard Potts. And the relations of divers other intelligent
observers there present then, and now many of them in England, by W.
S. At Oxford, Printed by Joseph Barnes_, 1612. As the title indicates,
the tract consists of two parts. The first, written as Smith says,
in the _Generall Historie_, “with his owne hand,” is a topographical
description of the country, embracing climate, soil, and productions,
with a full account of the native inhabitants, and has only occasional
reference to the proceedings of the colony at Jamestown. The second
part of the _Oxford Tract_ has a separate titlepage as follows: “The
proceedings of the English Colonie in Virginia since their first
beginning from England in the year 1606, till this present 1612, with
all their accidents that befell them in their iournies and Discoveries.
Also the Salvages’ discourses, orations, and relations of the Bordering
Neighbours, and how they became subject to the English. Vnfolding even
the fundamentall causes from whence haue sprang so many miseries to the
vndertakers, and scandals to the businesse; taken faithfully as they
were written out of the writings of Thomas Studley, the first provant
maister, Anas Todkill, Walter Russell, Doctor of Phisicke, Nathaniel
Powell, William Phettiface, Richard Wyffin, Thomas Abbay, Tho. Hops,
Rich. Potts, and the labours of divers other diligent observers, that
were residents in Virginia. And pervsed and confirmed by diverse now
resident in England that were actors in this busines. By W. S. At
Oxford, Printed by Joseph Barnes. 1612.”[293]

Alexander Whitaker’s _Good Newes from Virginia_ was printed in 1613.
He was minister of Henrico Parish, and had been in the country two
years. The preface is by W. Crawshawe, the divine.[294] Ralph Hamor the
younger, “late secretary of that colony,” printed in London in 1615
his _True Discourse of the present state of Virginia_, bringing the
story down to June 18, 1614. It contains an account of the christening
of Pocahontas and her marriage to Rolfe. It was reprinted in 1860
at Albany (200 copies) for Charles Gorham Barney, of Richmond.[295]
Rolfe’s _Relation of Virginia_, a MS. now in the British Museum,
was abbreviated in the 1617 edition of Purchas’s _Pilgrimage_, and
printed at length in the _Southern Literary Messenger_, 1839, and
in the _Virginia Historical Register_, i. 102. (See also Neill’s
_Virginia Company_, ch. vi.) There are various other early printed
tracts, besides those already mentioned, reprinted by Force, which are
necessary to a careful study of Virginian history.[296]

Fortunately a copy of the records of the Company[297] from April
28, 1619, to June 7, 1624, is preserved. This copy was made from
the originals, which are not now known to exist, at a time when the
King gave sign of annulling their charter. Nicholas Ferrar (see the
_Memoir of Nicholas Ferrar_ by Peter Peckard, London, 1790, a volume
throwing much light on early Virginian history, and compare Palfrey’s
_New England_, i. 192), with the aid of Collingwood the secretary,
seems to have procured the transcription at the house of Sir John
Danvers, in Chelsea, an old mansion associated with Sir Thomas More’s
memory. Collingwood compared each folio, signed it,—the work being
completed only three days before judgment was pronounced against the
Company,—and gave the whole into the hands of the Earl of Southampton
for safe keeping, from whom the records passed to his son Thomas, Lord
High Treasurer, after whose death, in 1667, William Byrd, of Virginia,
bought them for sixty guineas, and it was from the Byrd family, at
Westover, that Stith obtained them, to make use of in his _History_.
By some means Stith’s brother-in-law, Peyton Randolph, got them, and
at his death in 1775 his library was sold, when Jefferson bought it,
and found these records among the books. Jefferson’s library afterwards
becoming the property of the United States, these records in two
volumes (pp. 354 and 387 respectively) passed into the Library of
Congress, where they now are.

In May, 1868, Mr. Neill, who had used these records while working on
his _Terra Mariæ_, memorialized Congress, explaining their value, and
offering, without compensation, to edit the MS., under the direction
of the Librarian of Congress.[298] The question of their publication
had already been raised by Mr. J. Wingate Thornton ten years earlier,
in a paper in the _Historical Magazine_, February, 1858, p. 33, and
in a pamphlet, _The First Records of Anglo-American Colonization_,
Boston, 1859. In these the history of their transmission varies a
little from the one given above, which follows Neill’s statements.[299]
Being thwarted in his original purpose, Mr. Neill made the records
the basis of a _History of the Virginia Company of London_, Albany,
1869, which, somewhat changed, appeared in an English edition as
_English Colonization in America in the Seventeenth Century_.[300] Of
considerable importance among the papers transmitted to our time is
the collection which had in large part belonged to Chalmers, and been
used by him in his _Political Annals_; when passing to Colonel William
Aspinwall,[301] they were by him printed in the _Mass. Hist. Coll._ 4th
series, vols. ix. and x., with numerous notes, particularly concerning
the earlier ones, beginning in 1617, in which the careers of Gates,
Pory,[302] and Argall are followed.

Mr. Deane, _True Relation_, p. 14, quotes as in Mr. Bancroft’s hands a
copy from a paper in the English State-Paper Office entitled “A Briefe
Declaration of the Plantation of Virginia during the first twelve
years when S^r Thomas Smyth was Governer of the Companie [1606-1619],
and downe to the present tyme [1624], by the Ancient Planters now
remaining alive in Virginia.” Mr. Noël Sainsbury, in his _Calendar of
State Papers, Colonial Series_, London, 1860, etc., has opened new
stores of early Virginian as well as of general Anglo-American history,
between 1574 and 1660. The work of the Public Record Office has been
well supplemented by the _Reports of the Historical Commission_, which
has examined the stores of historical documents contained in private
depositaries in Great Britain. Their third Report of 1872 and the
appendix of their eighth Report are particularly rich in Virginian
early history, covering documents belonging to the Duke of Manchester.
The _Index_ to the Catalogue of MSS. in the British Museum discloses
others.

In 1860 the State of Virginia sent Colonel Angus W. McDonald to London
to search for papers and maps elucidating the question of the Virginia
bounds with Maryland, Tennessee, and North Carolina, which resulted
in the accumulation of much documentary material, and a report to the
Governor in March, 1861, Document 39 (1861), which was printed. See
_Hist. Mag._ ix. 13.

Matter of historical interest will be found in other of the documents
of this boundary contest: Document 40, Jan. 9, 1860; Senate Document,
Report of Commissioners, Jan. 17, 1872, with eleven maps, including
Smith’s; Final Report, 1874; Senate Document No. 21, being reprints
in 1874 of Reports of Jan. 9, 1860, and March 9, 1861; House Document
No. 6, Communication of the Governor, Jan. 9, 1877. There were also
publications by the State of Maryland relating to the contest.[303]

In 1874 there was published, as a State Senate Document, _Colonial
Records of Virginia_, quarto, which contains the proceedings of the
first Assembly, convened in 1619 at Jamestown,[304] with other early
papers, and an Introduction and Notes by the late Hon. Thomas H.
Wynne. Attention was first called in America to these proceedings by
Conway Robinson, Esq. (who had inspected the original manuscript in
the State-Paper Office, London), in a Report made as chairman of its
Executive Committee, at an annual meeting of the Virginia Historical
Society, held at Richmond, Dec. 15, 1853, and published in the
_Virginia Historical Reporter_, i. 7. They were first published in
the _Collections_ of the New York Historical Society, 1857, with an
Introduction by George Bancroft.[305]

Abstracts from the English State-Paper Office have been furnished the
State Library of Virginia by W. Noël Sainsbury, to Dec. 30, 1730.

There are various papers on the _personnel_ of the colony in the lists
of passengers for Virginia of 1635, which Mr. H. G. Somerby printed in
the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._ ii. 111, 211, 268; iii. 184, 388;
iv. 61, 189, 261; v. 61, 343; and xv. 142; and in the collection of
such documents, mostly before published, which are conveniently grouped
in Hotten’s _Original Lists_ (1600-1700), London, 1874 and 1881; and in
S. G. Drake’s _Researches among the British Archives_, 1860.

The Virginia Company published three lists of the venturers and
emigrants in 1619, and in 1620 a similar enumeration in a _Declaration
of the State of the Colonie_.[306] This was dated June 24; another
brief _Declaration_ bears date Sept. 20, 1620. A list of ships arriving
in Jamestown 1607-1624 is given by Neill in the _N. E. Hist. and
Geneal. Reg._, 1876, p. 415.

Neill has published various studies of the census of 1624 in the _N. E.
Hist. and Geneal. Reg._ for 1877, pp. 147, 265, 393.[307]

The most trustworthy source of information as to those who became
permanent planters and founders of families is afforded by the Virginia
records of land patents, which are continuous from 1620, and are no
less valuable for topographical than for genealogical reference.[308]

The manuscript materials of the history of Virginia have been ever
subject to casualty in the varied dangerous and destructive forms of
removal, fire, and war. The first capital, Jamestown, was several
times the scene of violence and conflagration. The colonial archives
were exposed to accident when the seat of government was removed to
Williamsburg; and finally when, in 1779, the latter was abandoned for
the growing town of Richmond, and when, upon the apprehended advance
of the British forces during the Revolution, they were again disturbed
and removed hastily to the last place. It is probable that at the
destruction by fire of the buildings of William and Mary College,
in 1705, many valuable manuscripts were lost which had been left in
them when the royal governors ceased to hold sessions of the Council
within her walls, and when other government functionaries no longer
performed their duties there. Many doubtless suffered the consequences
of Arnold’s invasion in 1781, upon whose approach the contents of the
public offices at Richmond were hastily tumbled into wagons and hurried
off to distant counties. The crowning and fell period of universal
destruction to archives and private papers was, however, that of our
late unhappy war, when seats of justice, sanctuaries, and private
dwellings alike were subjected to fire and pillage. The most serious
loss sustained was at the burning of the State Court House at Richmond,
incidental on the evacuation fire of April 3, 1865, when were consumed
almost the entire records of the old General Court from the year 1619
or thereabout, together with those of many of the county courts (which
had been brought thither to guard against the accidents of the war) and
the greater part of the records of the State Court of Appeals.

Of the records of the General Court, a fragment of a volume covering
the period April 4, 1670-March 16, 1676, is in the _Collections_
of the Virginia Historical Society, and another fragment—Feb. 21,
1678-October, 1692—is in the archives of Henrico County Court at
Richmond. In the State Library are preserved the journals of the
General Assembly from 1697 to 1744, with occasional interruptions.

Of the records of the several counties, the great majority of those of
an early period, it is certain, have been destroyed. Information as
to the preservation of the following has been received by the writer:
Northampton (old Accomac), continuous from 1634; Northumberland,
from 1652; Lancaster, from 1652; Surrey, a volume beginning in 1652;
Rappahannock, from 1656; Essex, from 1692; Charles City, a single
volume, from Jan. 4, 1650, to Feb. 3, 1655, inclusive; Henrico, a
deed book, 1697-1704, and, with interruptions, the same records to
1774,—all classes of records, unbroken, from October, 1781.

In elucidation of the social life and commerce of the period,—the
three decades of the seventeenth century,—the following may be named:
Letters of Colonel William Fitzhugh, of Stafford County, a lawyer
and planter, May 15, 1679-April 29, 1699; Letters of Colonel William
Byrd, of the “Falls,” James River, planter and Receiver-General of
the colony, January, 1683-Aug. 3, 1691,—in the _Collections_ of the
Virginia Historical Society.

The following parish records preserved in the library of the
Theological Seminary near Alexandria, Va., are valuable sources of
early genealogical information; Registers of Charles River Parish, York
County,—births 1648-1800, deaths 1665-1787;[309] Vestry Books (some
with partial registers) of Christ Church Parish, Middlesex County,
1663-1767; Petsoe Parish, Gloucester County, from June 14, 1677;
Kingston Parish, Matthews County, from 1679; St. Peter’s Parish, New
Kent County, from 1686.

Of such of the early papers in the State archives at Richmond as
escaped the casualties of the war, the Commonwealth intrusted the
editing to William P. Palmer; and vol. i., covering 1652-1781 (with a
very few, however, before 1689), was published in 1875 as _Calendar
of State Papers and other Manuscripts preserved in the Capitol at
Richmond_.[310]

On the life of Captain John Smith in general, some notes are made
in another chapter of this volume.[311] It will be remembered that
Fuller—in the earliest printed biography of Smith, contained in his
_Worthies of England_—says of him, “It soundeth much to the diminution
of his deeds, that he alone is the herald to publish and proclaim them.”

Mr. Deane first pointed out (1860), in a note to his edition of
Wingfield’s _Discourse_, that the story of Pocahontas’s saving Smith’s
life from the infuriated Powhatan, which Smith interpolates in his
_Generall Historie_, was at variance with Smith’s earlier recitals in
the tracts of which that book was composed when they had been issued
contemporaneous with the events of which he was treating some years
earlier, and that the inference was that Smith’s natural propensity
for embellishment, as well as a desire to feed the interest which had
been incited in Pocahontas when she visited England, was the real
source of the story. Mr. Deane still farther enlarged upon this view
in a note to his edition (p. 38) of Smith’s _Relation_ in 1866.[312]
It has an important bearing on the question that Hamor, who says so
much of Pocahontas, makes no allusion to such a striking service. The
substantial correctness of Smith’s later story is contended for by W.
Robertson in the _Hist. Mag._, October, 1860; by William Wirt Henry,
in _Potter’s American Monthly_, 1875; and a general protest is vaguely
rendered by Stevens in his _Historical Collections_, p. 102.

The file of the _Richmond Dispatch_ for 1877 contains various
contributions on the early governors of the colony of Virginia by E.
D. Neill, William Wirt Henry, and R. A. Brock, in which the claims
of Smith’s narrative to consideration are discussed. Charles Dudley
Warner, in _A Study of the Life and Writings of John Smith_, 1881,
treats the subject humorously and with sceptical levity. Smith finds
his latest champion, a second time, in William Wirt Henry, in an
address, _The Early Settlement at Jamestown, with Particular Reference
to the late Attacks upon Captain John Smith, Pocahontas, and John
Rolfe_, delivered before the annual meeting of the Virginia Historical
Society, held Feb. 24, 1882, and published with the _Proceedings_ of
the Society. Mr. Deane’s views are, however, supported by Henry Adams
(_North American Review_, January, 1867, and _Chapter of Erie, and
other Essays_, p. 192) and by Henry Cabot Lodge (_English Colonies in
America_, p. 6). Mr. Bancroft allowed for a while the original story
to stand, with a bare reference to Mr. Deane’s note (_History of the
United States_, 1864, i. 132); but in his Centenary Edition (1879,
vol. i. p. 102) he abandoned the former assertion, without expressing
judgment. The most recent recitals of the story of Pocahontas under the
color of these later investigations have been by Gay, in the _Popular
History of the United States_, i. 283, and by Charles D. Warner in his
_Captain John Smith_, before named,—the latter carefully going over
all the evidence.

Alexander Brown has contributed several articles, published in the
_Richmond Dispatch_ in April and May, 1882, in which he controverts
the views of Mr. Henry, not only as to the truth of the story of the
rescue, but as to the general veracity of Smith as a historian, taking
a more absolute position in this respect than any previous writer has
done.

Pocahontas is thought to have died at Gravesend just as she was about
re-embarking for America, March 21, 1617; and the entry on the records
of St. George’s Church in that place—which speaks of a “lady Virginia
born,” and has been supposed to refer to her—puts her burial March 21.
1617.[313]

For the tracing of Pocahontas’s descendants through the
Bollings,—Robert Bolling having married Jane Rolfe, the daughter of
Thomas Rolfe, the son of Powhatan’s daughter,—see _The Descendants
of Pocahontas_, by Wyndham Robertson, 1855, and Wynne’s Historical
Documents, vol. iv., entitled _A Memoir of a Portion of the Bolling
Family_, Richmond, 1868 (fifty copies printed), which contains
photographs of portraits of the Bollings.[314]

There is an engraving of Pocahontas by Simon Pass, which perhaps
belongs to, but is seldom found in, Smith’s _Generall Historie_.[315]
The original painting is said to have belonged to Henry Rolfe, of
Narford,—a brother of John, the husband of Pocahontas,—and from him
passed to Anthony Rolfe, of Tuttington, and from him again, probably
by a marriage, to the Elwes of Tuttington, and it is mentioned in a
catalogue of a sale of their effects in the last century. It has not
since been traced.[316]

Richard Randolph, of Virginia, is said to have procured from England
two portraits,—one of Rolfe, and the other of Pocahontas,—and they
were hung in his house at Turkey Island. After his death, in 1784, they
are said to have been bought by Thomas Bolling, of Cobbs, Va., and the
inventory showing them is, or was, in the County Court of Henrico. In
1830 they were in the possession of Dr. Thomas Robinson, of Petersburg,
when he wrote of the portrait of Pocahontas that “it is crumbling so
rapidly that it may be considered as having already passed out of
existence.” A letter of the late H. B. Grigsby to Mr. Charles Deane
states that he had heard it was on panel let into the wainscot. In
1843, while still owned by Mr. Robinson, R. M. Sully made a copy of it,
which seems to have proved acceptable, as appears from the attestations
printed in M’Kinney and Hall’s _Indian Tribes of North America_, 1844,
vol. iii., where at p. 64 is a reproduction in colors of Sully’s
painting. Mr. Grigsby says that the original was finally destroyed in
a contest which grew out of a dispute when the house was sold, whether
the panel went with it or could be reserved.[317]

Of the massacre at Falling Creek, March 22, 1621-22, the Virginia
Company printed, in Edward Waterhouse’s _Declaration of the State of
the Colony and Affairs in Virginia_, a contemporary account.[318] Mr.
Neill has made the transaction the subject of special consideration in
the _Magazine of American History_, i. 222, and in his _Letter to N. G.
Taylor_ in 1868, and has printed a considerable part of Waterhouse’s
account in his _Virginia Company_, p. 317 _et seq._

The massacre is also incidentally mentioned by the present writer
in a paper, “Early Iron Manufacture in Virginia, 1619-1776,” in
the _Richmond Standard_, Feb. 8, 1879, and by James M. Swank, in
“Statistics of the Iron and Steel Production of the United States,”
compiled for the Tenth Census, which may also be referred to for
information as to that industry in the Colony of Virginia.

An examination of the story of Claiborne’s rebellion is made in the
Maryland chapter in the present volume.

Respecting Bacon’s rebellion, the fullest of the contemporary accounts
is that of T. M. on “The beginning, progress, and conclusion of Bacon’s
Rebellion,” which is printed in Force’s _Tracts_, vol. i. no. 8.[319]
Equally important is a MS. “Narrative of the Indian and Civil Wars in
Virginia,” now somewhat defective, which was found among the papers of
Captain Nathaniel Burwell, and lent to the Massachusetts Historical
Society and printed carelessly in their _Collections_ in 1814, vol.
xi., and copied thence by Force in his _Tracts_, vol. i. no. 11, in
1836. The MS. was again collated in 1866, and reprinted accurately in
the Society’s _Proceedings_, ix. 299, when the original was surrendered
to the Virginia Historical Society (_Proceedings_, ix. 244, 298; x.
135). Tyler, _American Literature_, i. 80, assigns its authorship to
one Cotton, of Aquia Creek, whose wife is said to be the writer of “An
Account of our late troubles in Virginia,” which was first printed in
the _Richmond Enquirer_, Sept. 12, 1804, and again in Force’s _Tracts_,
vol. i. no. 9. The popular spreading of the news in England of the
downfall of the rebellion was helped by a little tract, _Strange news
from Virginia_, of which there is a copy in Harvard College Library.
There is in the British Museum Sir William Berkeley’s list of those
executed under that governor’s retaliatory measures, which has been
printed in Force’s _Tracts_, vol. i. no. 10.

Other original documents may be found in Hening’s _Statutes at Large_,
vol. ii.; in the appendix of Burk’s _Virginia_; and in the _Aspinwall
Papers_, i. 162, 189, published in the _Mass. Hist. Coll._ _An
Historical Account of some Memorable Actions, particularly in Virginia,
etc._, by “Sir Thomas Grantham, Knight” (London, 1716), was reprinted
in fac-simile with an Introduction by the present writer (Carlton
McCarthy & Co., Richmond, 1882).[320] The fragment of the records
of the General Court of Virginia, cited as being in the Collections
of the Virginia Historical Society, contains details of the trial
of the participants in the “rebellion” not included in Hening, and
the abstracts from the English State-Paper Office, furnished by Mr.
Sainsbury to the State Library of Virginia, give unpublished details.
Extracts from the same source are in the library of the present writer.
There are various papers in the early volumes of the _Hist. Mag._; see
April, 1867, for a contemporary letter. Massachusetts Bay proclaimed
the insurgents rebels.[321]

       *       *       *       *       *

The earliest _History of Virginia_ after John Smith’s was an anonymous
one published in London in 1705, with De Bry’s pictures reduced by
Gribelin. When it was translated into French, and published two
years later (1707) both at Amsterdam and Orleans (Paris), the former
issue assigned the authorship to D. S., which has been interpreted
D. Stevens, and so it remained in other editions, some only title
editions, printed at Amsterdam in 1712, 1716, and 1718, though the
later date may be doubtful. (Sabin, ii. 5112.) The true author, a
native of Virginia and a Colonial official, had meanwhile died there in
1716. This was Robert Beverley.[322] The book is concisely written,
and is not without raciness and crispness; but its merits are perhaps
a little overestimated in Tyler’s _American Literature_, ii. 264. His
considerate judgment of the Indians is not, however, less striking
than praiseworthy. For the period following the Restoration he may be
considered the most useful, though he is not independent of a partisan
sympathy.

Sir William Keith’s _History of Virginia_ was undertaken, at the
instance of the Society for the Encouragement of Learning, as the
beginning of a series of books on the English plantations; but no
others followed. It was published in 1738 with two maps,—one of
America, the other of Virginia,—and he depended almost entirely on
Beverley, and brings the story down to 1723.[323] Forty years after
Beverley the early history of the colony was again told, but only down
to 1624, by the Rev. William Stith, then rector of Henrico Parish;
being, however, at the time of his death (1755), the president of
William and Mary College. He seems to have been discouraged from
continuing his narrative because the “generous and public-spirited”
gentlemen of Virginia were unwilling to pay the increased cost of
putting into his Appendix the early documents which give a chief value
to his book to-day. He had the use of the Collingwood transcript
of the records of the Virginia Company. His book, _History of the
First Discovery and Settlement of Virginia_, was published at
Williamsburg in 1747, and there are variations in copies to puzzle the
bibliographer.[324] Stith’s diffuseness and lack of literary skill
have not prevented his becoming a high authority with later writers,
notwithstanding that he implicitly trusts and even praises the honesty
of Smith.[325]

The somewhat inexact _History of Virginia_ by John Burk has some of the
traits of expansive utterance which might be expected of an expatriated
Irishman who had been implicated in political hazards, and who was
yet to fall in a duel in 1808.[326] This book, which was published in
three volumes at Petersburg (1804-5), was dedicated to Jefferson. A
fourth volume, by Skelton Jones and Louis Hue Girardin, was added in
1816; but as the edition was in large part destroyed by a fire, it
is rarely found with the other three.[327] Burk used the copy of the
Virginia Company records which had belonged to John Randolph, as well
as some collections made by Hickman (which Randolph had had made when
it was his intention to write on Virginian history), and Colonel Byrd’s
Journal.

The name of Campbell is twice associated with the history of Virginia.
J. W. Campbell published in 1813 at Petersburg a meagre and unimportant
_History of Virginia_, coming down to 1781. The best known, however,
is the work of Charles Campbell, his son, who in 1847, at Richmond,
published a well-written _Introduction to the History of Virginia_,
and in 1860, at Philadelphia, a completed _History of the Colony and
Ancient Dominion of Virginia_, coming down to 1783,—a book written
before John Smith was called a romancer. The book, however defective
in arrangement and execution, is thought to be the best general
authority.[328]

The most comprehensive _History of Virginia_ is that of Robert R.
Howison, vol. i. coming down to 1763, being published at Philadelphia
in 1846, and vol. ii., ending in 1847, being published at Richmond the
next year. He is a pleasing writer, but sacrifices fact to rhetoric,
though he makes an imposing display of references.

To these may be added, in passing, William H. Brockenbrough’s _Outline
of History of Virginia to 1754_; Martin’s _Gazetteer_, 1835, and Howe’s
_Historical Collections of Virginia_, printed in Charleston, 1856.

       *       *       *       *       *

Respecting the religious history of the colony, besides the general
historians, there have been several special treatments. Mr. Neill has
written upon the Puritan affinities in _Hours at Home_, November,
1867, and on Thomas Harrison and the Virginia Puritans in his _English
Colonization_, where is also a chapter on the planting of the Church of
England.

Patrick Copland’s sermon, _Virginia’s God be thanked_, was preached
before the Company in London, April 18, 1622; a copy of which is in
Harvard College Library. Cf. Mr. Neill’s _Memoir of Rev. Patrick
Copland_, New York, 1871, p. 52, and his _English Colonization_, p. 104.

Further, see Hawkes’s _Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History
of the United States_, “Virginia,” 1836; Hening’s Statutes; _Papers
relating to the History of the Church in Virginia_, 1650-1770, by W.
S. Perry, 1870; Hammond’s _Leah and Rachel_, 1656; Bishop Meade’s _Old
Churches, etc._, 1855; “Notes on the Virginia Colonial Clergy” in the
_Episcopal Recorder_, and reprinted separately by E. D. Neill, 1877;
Savage’s Winthrop’s _History of New England_, and Anderson’s _Church of
England in the Colonies_, 1856.

The writer has also in his possession the Records of the Monthly
Meeting of Henrico County, June 10, 1699-1797, which he designs to
use in a history of the Society of Friends in Virginia. He has also
earlier isolated records, and a partial registry of births, marriages,
and deaths of those of the faith of the Society in Henrico and Hanover
counties in the eighteenth century.

For an account of early manufactures in Virginia, see Bishop’s _History
of American Manufactures_, 1866. For a view of the early agriculture,
see a paper by the present writer on the _History of Tobacco in
Virginia from its Settlement to 1790_; _Statistics, Agriculture, and
Commerce_, prepared for the Tenth Census; _History of Agriculture in
Virginia_, by N. F. Cabell, 1857; the _Farmers’ Register_, 1833-42;
_Transactions of the State Agricultural Society of Virginia_, 1855; and
“Virginia Colonial Money and Tobacco’s Part therein,” by W. L. Royall,
in _Virginia Law Journal_, August, 1877.

For a view of slavery in the colony, see Bancroft, ch. v.;
O’Callaghan’s _Voyages of the Slavers_; Wilson’s _Rise and Fall of the
Slave Power_; Cobb’s _Inquiry_; and the works of Cabell, Fitzhugh,
Fletcher, Hammond, Ross, Stringfellow, and general histories.

It is evident that no single author has yet given an adequate history
of Virginia; and while it is true that much precious material therefor
has perished, it is believed that the original record is yet not
wanting for such a representation of the past of the State as would be
at once more intelligible as to the motives which occasioned events,
and more convincingly just in the recital of them.

[Illustration]

[Illustration]


EDITORIAL NOTES.

=A.= MAPS OF VIRGINIA OR THE CHESAPEAKE.—There seem to have been
visits of the Spaniards to the Chesapeake at an early day (1566-1573),
and they may have made a temporary settlement (1570) on the
Rappahannock. (Robert Greenhow in C. Robinson’s _Discoveries in the
West_, p. 487, basing on Barcia’s _Ensayo Chronologico_; _Historical
Magazine_, iii. 268, 318; J. G. Shea in Beach’s _Indian Miscellany_.)
In the map which De Bry gave with the several editions of Hariot in
1590, the bay appears as “Chesepiooc Sinus;” but in the more general
maps, shortly after, the name Chesipooc, or some form of it, is applied
rather wildly to some bay on the coast, as by Wytfliet’s in 1597, or
earlier still by Thomas Hood, 1592, where the “B. de S. Maria” of the
Spaniards, if intended for the Chesapeake, is given an outline as vague
as the rest of the neighboring coast, where it appears as shown in the
sketch in chapter vi. between the Figs. 1 and 2. It may be, as Stevens
contends (_Historical and Geographical Notes_), that not before Smith
were the entangling Asian coast-lines thoroughly eliminated from this
region; but certainly there was no wholly recognizable delineation
of the bay till Smith recorded the results of the explorations which
he describes in his _Generall Historie_, chs. v. and vi. Smith
indicates by crosses on the affluents of the bay the limits of his own
observations. Strachey’s _Historie of Travaile_, p. 42.

In Smith’s _Map of Virginia, with a Description of the Country_, etc.,
Oxford, 1612, W. S., or William Strachey, eked out the little tract
with an appendix of others’ contributions. Strachey afterwards adopted
a considerable part in his _Historie of Travaile_. Mr. Deane, in his
edition of the _True Relation_, p. xxi, has given a full account of
this tract. Smith reprinted it in his _Generall Historie_ with some
changes and additions and small omissions. Purchas reprinted it in his
_Pilgrimes_, but not without changes and omissions of small extent,
and with some additions, which he credits on the margin to Smith; and
he had earlier given an abstract of it in his _Pilgrimage_. There
is a copy of the original in the Lenox Library. Tyler, _American
Literature_, i. 30, notices it.

The map accompanying this tract, engraved by W. Hole, appeared in three
impressions (Stevens’s _Bibliotheca Historica_, 1870, no. 1,903). It
was altered somewhat, and the words, “Page 41, Smith,” were put in
the lower right-hand corner, when it was next used in the _Generall
Historie_, 1624 and later; and in 1625 it was again inserted at pp.
1836-37 of Purchas’s _Pilgrimes_, vol. iv. De Bry next re-engraved
it in part xiii. of his _Great Voyages_, printed in German, 1627,
and in Latin 1634; and in part xiv. in German in 1630 (_Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, i. 370-71). It was also re-engraved for Gottfriedt’s _Newe
Welt_, published at Frankfort, and marked “Erforshet und beschriben
durch Capitain Iohan Schmidt.” The compiler of this last book was J.
Ph. Abelin, who had been one of De Bry’s co-workers, and he made this
work in some sort an abridgment of De Bry’s, use being made of his
plates, often inserting them in the text, the book being first issued
in 1631, and again in 1655. (Muller’s _Books on America_, 1872, no.
636, and (1877) no. 1,269.)

The map was next used in two English editions of Hondy’s _Mercator_,
“Englished by W. S.” 1635, etc., but with some fanciful additions, as
Mr. Deane says (Bohn’s _Lowndes_, p. 1103). The map of the coast in
De Laet, 1633 and 1640, was, it would seem, founded upon it for the
Chesapeake region; cf. also the map of Virginia and Florida called “par
Mercator,” of date 1633, and the maps by Blaeu, of 1655 and 1696.

Once more Smith’s plot adorned, in 1671, Ogilby’s large folio on
_America_, p. 193, as it had also found place in the prototype of
Ogilby, the Amsterdam Montanus of 1671 and 1673. In these two books
(1671-73) also appeared the map “Virginiæ, partis australis et Floridæ,
partis orientalis, nova descriptio,” which shows the coast from the
Chesapeake down to the 30th degree of north latitude.

Smith’s was finally substantially copied as late as 1735, as the best
available source, in _A Short Account of the First Settlement of the
Provinces_, etc., London, 1735,—a contribution to the literature of
the boundary dispute, and was doubtless the basis of the map in Keith’s
_Virginia_ in 1738; but it finally gave place to Fry and Jefferson’s
map of the region in 1750.

A phototype fac-simile, reduced about one quarter, of the earliest
state of the original map in the Harvard College copy of the Oxford
tract of 1612 is given herewith. A similar fac-simile, full size, is
given in Mr. Deane’s reprint of the _True Relation_, though it was not
published in that tract. A lithographic fac-simile, full size, but
without the pictures in the upper corners, is given in the Hakluyt
Society’s edition of Strachey, p. 23. Other reproductions will be
found in Scharf’s _Maryland_, i. 6, Scharf’s _Baltimore City and
County_, 1881, p. 38, and in Cassell’s _United States_, p. 27. That
in the Richmond (1819) reprint of the _Generall Historie_ is well
done, full size, on copper. This copperplate was rescued in 1867 from
the brazier’s pot by the late Thomas H. Wynne, and at the sale of his
library in 1875 was purchased for the State Library of Virginia.

Neill, in his _Virginia Company_, p. 191, mentions “A mapp of Virginia,
discovered to y^e Hills and its latt. from 35 deg. and ½ neer Florida
to 41 deg. bounds of New England. Domina Virginia Ferrar collegit,
1651,” and identifies this compiler of the map as a daughter of John
Ferrar. The map we suppose to be the one engraved by Goddard. This
map is associated with a London publication of 1650, called _Virgo
triumphans, or Virginia richly and truly valued_, which is usually
ascribed to Edward Williams, but is held nevertheless to be in
substance the work of John Ferrar of Geding. There were two editions
of this year (1650): _Brinley Catalogue_ no. 3,816; Quaritch, _General
Catalogue_, no. 12,535, held at £36 John Ferrar’s copy of the first
edition, with his notes, and the original drawing of the map, inserted
by Ferrar to make up a deficiency in the first edition, of which he
complains. Quaritch prices a good copy without such annotations at
£25. The second edition (1650) had additions, as shown in the title,
_Virginia, more especially the South part thereof, second edition,
with addition of the discovery of silkworms, etc._ In this the same
map appeared engraved as above, and the Huth copy of it has it in two
states, one without, and the other with an oval portrait of Sir Francis
Drake. (_Huth Catalogue_, v. 1594.) The Harvard College copy lacks
the map, which is described by Quaritch (no. 12,536, who prices this
edition at £32) in a copy from the Bathurst Library, as a folding sheet
exhibiting New Albion as well as Virginia, with the purpose of showing
an easy northern passage to the Pacific, the text representing the
Mississippi as dividing the two countries, and flowing into the South
Sea; see also _Menzies’ Catalogue_, no. 2,143, and the note in Major’s
edition of Strachey, p. 34, on a map published in 1651 in London. This
second edition was the one which Force followed in reprinting it in his
_Tracts_, vol. iii. no. 11. The _Huth Catalogue_ notes a third edition,
_Virginia in America richly valued_, 1651. The map is given on a later
page.


=B.= THE VIRGINIA HISTORICAL SOCIETY.—From 1818 to 1828 the eleven
volumes of the _Evangelical and Literary Magazine_, edited at Richmond
by John Holt Rice, D.D., had contained some papers on the early
history of the State, but no organized effort was made to work in this
direction before the Virginia Historical and Philosophical Society was
formed, in December, 1831, with Chief Justice Marshall as president,
and under its auspices a small volume of _Collections_ was issued in
1833; but from February, 1838, to 1847 the Society failed to be of
any influence. Meanwhile, from 1834 to 1864 the _Southern Literary
Messenger_ afforded some means for the local antiquaries and historical
students to communicate with one another and the public.

In December, 1847, a revival of interest resulted in a reorganization
of the old Association as the Virginia Historical Society, with the
Hon. William C. Rives as president. Promptly ensuing, Maxwell’s
_Virginia Historical Register_ was started as an organ of the Society,
and was published from 1848 to 1853,—six volumes. The Society laid
a plan of publishing the annals of the State, and, as preliminary,
intrusted to Conway Robinson, Esq., the preparation of a volume which
was published in 1848 as _An Account of the Discoveries in the West
until 1529, and of Voyages to and along the Atlantic Coast of North
America from 1520 to 1573_. This was an admirable summary, and deserves
wider recognition than it has had. It subsequently published, besides
various addresses, _The Virginia Historical Reporter_, 1854-1860, which
contained accounts of the Society’s meetings. The Civil War interrupted
its work, but in 1867 the Society was again resuscitated, and it has
been under active management since. There is a bibliography of its
publications in the _Historical Magazine_, xvii. 340. Its historical
students have contributed to the files of the _Richmond Standard_ since
Sept. 7, 1878, much early reprinted and later original matter relating
to Virginia.

       *       *       *       *       *

NOTE.—Since this chapter was completed has appeared Mr. George W.
Williams’s _Negro Race in America_, which has a chapter on the history
of Slavery in the colony of Virginia; and also Mr. J. A. Doyle’s _The
English in America, Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas_, London,
1882.




CHAPTER VI.

NORUMBEGA AND ITS ENGLISH EXPLORERS.

BY THE REV. BENJAMIN F. DE COSTA, D.D.

_Formerly Editor of the Magazine of American History._

THE story of Norumbega is invested with the charms of fable and
romance. The name is found in the map of Hieronimus da Verrazano of
1529, as “Aranbega,” being restricted to a definite and apparently
unimportant locality. Suddenly, in 1539, Norumbega appears in the
narrative of the Dieppe Captain as a vast and opulent region, extending
from Cape Breton to the Cape of Florida. About three years later
Allefonsce described the “River of Norumbega,” now identified with
the Penobscot, and treated the capital of the country as an important
market for the trade in fur. Various maps of the period of Allefonsce
confine the name of Norumbega to a distinct spot; but Gastaldi’s map,
published by Ramusio in 1556,—though modelled after Verrazano’s, of
which indeed it is substantially an extract,—applies the name to the
region lying between Cape Breton and the Jersey coast. From this time
until the seventeenth century Norumbega was generally regarded as
embracing all New England, and sometimes portions of Canada, though
occasionally the country was known by other names. Still, in 1582, Lok
seems to have thought that the Penobscot formed the southern boundary
of Norumbega, which he shows on his map[329] as an island; while John
Smith, in 1620, speaks of Norumbega as including New England and the
region as far south as Virginia. On the other hand Champlain, in 1605,
treated Norumbega as lying within the present territory of Maine. He
searched for its capital on the banks of the Penobscot, and as late as
1669 Heylin was dreaming of the fair city of Norumbega.

Grotius, for a time at least, regarded the name as of Old Northern
origin, and connected with “Norbergia.” It was also fancied that
a people resembling the Mexicans once lived upon the banks of the
Penobscot. Those who have labored to find an Indian derivation for
the name say that it means “the place of a fine city.” At one time
the houses of the city were supposed to be very splendid, and to
be supported upon pillars of crystal and silver. Pearls were also
reported as abundant, which at that early period was no doubt the
case. Charlevoix offers the unsupported statement that Francis I. made
Roberval “Lord of Norumbega.” Roberval was certainly the patentee of
the whole territory of Norumbega, though Mark Lescarbot made merry
over the matter, as he could find nothing to indicate any town except
a few miserable huts. It is reasonable to infer, however, that at an
early period an Indian town of some celebrity existed. Like the ancient
Hochelaga, which stood on the present site of Montreal and was visited
and described by Cartier, it eventually passed away. To-day, but for
Cartier, Hochelaga would have had quite as mythical a reputation
as Norumbega, which, however, still forms an appropriate theme for
critical inquiry.[330]

       *       *       *       *       *

The first Englishman whose name has been associated with any portion
of the region known as Norumbega was John Rut. This adventurer
reached Newfoundland during August, 1527, and afterwards, according
to Hakluyt’s report, sailed “towards Cape Breton and the coastes of
Arembec;” but Purchas, who was better informed, says nothing about any
southward voyage. One of the ships, the “Sampson,” was reported as
lost, while the other, the “Mary of Guilford,” returned to England.
There is nothing to prove that Rut even reached Cape Breton; much less
is it probable that he explored the coast southward, along Nova Scotia,
which was called “Arembec.”

The first Englishman certainly known to have reached any portion of
the region here treated as Norumbega was David Ingram, a wandering
sailor. During October, 1568, with about one hundred companions, he was
landed on the shore of the Gulf of Mexico by Captain John Hawkins, who,
on account of the scarcity of provisions, sailed away and left these
messmates behind. With two of his companions Ingram travelled afoot
along the Indian trails, passing through the territory of Massachusetts
and Maine to the St. John’s River, where he embarked in a French
ship, the “Gargarine,” commanded by Captain Champagne, and sailed
for France. The narrative of his journey is profusely embellished
by his imagination, it may be,—as is generally held; but that he
accomplished the long march has never been doubted. At that period the
minds of explorers were dazzled by dreams of rich and splendid cities
in America, and Ingram simply sought to meet the popular taste by his
reference to houses with pillars of crystal and silver.[331] He also
says that he saw the city of Norumbega, called Bega, which was three
fourths of a mile long and abounded with peltry. There is no doubt of
his having passed through some large Indian village, and possibly his
Bega may have been the Aranbega of Verrazano.

At the close of 1578 Sir Humphrey Gilbert made a voyage to North
America, but may not have visited Norumbega. The earliest mention of
his expedition is that found in Dee’s _Diary_, under date of Aug. 5,
1578, where he says: “Mr. Raynolds, of Bridewell, tok his leave of me
as he passed towards Dartmouth to go with Sir Umfry Gilbert towards
Hochelaga.”[332]

The first known English expedition to Norumbega was made in a “little
ffrigate” by Simon Ferdinando, who was in the service of Walsingham.
Ferdinando sailed from Dartmouth in 1579, and was absent only three
months. The brief account does not state what part of Norumbega
was visited; but the circumstances point to the northern part, and
presumably to the Penobscot region of Maine. It would also appear that
the voyage was more or less of the nature of a reconnoissance.

The first Englishman known to have conducted an expedition to
Norumbega was John Walker, who, the year following the voyage of
Ferdinando, sailed to the river of Norumbega, in the service of
Sir Humphrey Gilbert. He reached the Penobscot, of which he gave a
rough description, finding the region rich in furs, as described
by Allefonsce and Ingram. He discovered a silver mine where modern
enterprise is now every year opening new veins of silver and gold.
This voyage, like that of his predecessor, proved a short one,—the
return trip being made direct to France, where the “hides” which he had
secured were sold for forty shillings apiece.

In 1583 Sir Humphrey Gilbert took possession of Newfoundland; and
afterwards sailed for Norumbega, whither his “man” Walker had gone
three years before. In latitude 44° north, near Sable Island, he lost
his great ship, the “Admiral,” with most of his supplies; when, under
stress of the autumnal gales, the brave knight reluctantly abandoned
the expedition and shaped his course for home, sailing in a “little
ffrigate,”—possibly the “barck” of Ferdinando. Off the Azores, in the
midst of a furious storm, the frigate went down, carrying Sir Humphrey
with her; just as, shortly before, Parmenius—a learned Hungarian
who had joined the enterprise expressly to sing the praise of fair
Norumbega in Latin verse—had gone down in the “Admiral.”

In 1584, while Sir Humphrey Gilbert lay sleeping in his ocean grave,
Raleigh was active in Virginia, where the work of colonization was
pushed forward during a period of six years.[333] Meanwhile the
services of Simon Ferdinando as pilot were employed in this direction
in the pay of Granville, and Norumbega for a space was unsearched, so
far as we know, by the exploring English. There seems, however, ground
for supposing that the fisheries or trade in peltries may have allured
an occasional trafficking vessel, and contraband voyages may have been
carried on without the knowledge of the patentee, the furs being sold
in France. The elder Hakluyt appears to have had a very fair idea of
the region, and he knew of the copper mines off the eastern coast of
Maine, at the Bay of Menan, which was laid down on the map of Molyneux.
Nevertheless, the only voyager that we can now point to is Richard
Strong, of Apsham, who, in 1593, sailed to Cape Breton, and afterwards
cruised some time “up and down the coast of Arembec to the west and
southwest of Cape Breton.” He doubtless searched for seal in the waters
of Maine, and made himself familiar with its shores. It is said that
he saw men, whom he “judged to be Christians,” sailing in boats to the
southwest of Cape Breton.

The opening of the seventeenth century witnessed a revival of English
colonial enterprise; and Sir Walter Raleigh, though busy with schemes
for privateering, nevertheless found time to think of Virginia, of
which, both north and south, he was now the patentee. Accordingly he
sent out a vessel to Virginia under Mace, evidently with reference to
the lost colonists.[334] Upon the return of Mace, Sir Walter went to
Weymouth to confer with him, when, to his surprise, he learned that,
without authority, another expedition had visited that portion of his
grant which was still often called Norumbega. This was the expedition
of Gosnold, who sailed from Falmouth, March 26, 1602, in a small
bark belonging to Dartmouth, and called the “Concord.” The company
numbered thirty-two persons, eleven of whom intended to remain and
plant a colony, apparently quite forgetful of the fact that they were
intruders and liable to be proceeded against by the patentee. In this
voyage Gosnold took the direct route, sailing between the high and low
latitudes, and making a saving of nearly a thousand miles. In this
respect he has been regarded as an innovator, though probably Walker
pursued the same course. If there is no earlier instance, Verrazano, as
we now know, in 1524 set navigators the example of the direct course,
thereby avoiding the West Indies and the Spaniards. It is reasonable to
suppose that Gosnold took the idea direct from Verrazano, as he left
Falmouth with the Florentine’s letter in his hand, referring directly
to it in his own letter to his father; while Brereton and Archer
made abundant use of it in their accounts of the voyage. On May 14
Gosnold sighted the coast of Maine near Casco Bay, calling the place
Northland; twelve leagues southwest of which he visited Savage Rock,
or Cape Neddock, where the Indians came out in a Basque shallop, and
with a piece of chalk drew for him sketches of the coast. Next Gosnold
sailed southward sixteen leagues to Boon Island, and thence, at three
o’clock in the afternoon, he steered out “into the sea,” holding his
course still southward until morning, when the “Concord” was embayed
by a “mighty headland.” Their last point of departure could not have
been nearer the “mighty headland,” which was Cape Cod, than indicated
by the sailing time. If the starting-point had been Cape Ann, they
would have sighted Cape Cod before sunset. Archer says, when at Savage
Rock, that they were short of their “purposed voyage.” They had, then,
a definite plan. Evidently they were sailing to the place, south of
Cape Cod, described in the letter of Verrazano. Gosnold may have seen
this island in the great Verrazano map described by Hakluyt. At all
events Cape Cod was rounded, and the expedition reached that island of
the Elizabeth group now known as Cuttyhunk, where, upon an islet in a
small lake, they spent three weeks in building a fortified house, which
they roofed with rushes. All this work they kept a secret from the
Indians, while they intended, according to the narrative, to establish
a permanent abode. Indeed, this appears to have been the particular
region for which Sir Humphrey was sailing in 1583, as we know by
Hakluyt’s annotation on the margin of his translation of Verrazano
which Gosnold used.

From Cuttyhunk the members of the expedition made excursions to the
mainland, and they also loaded their vessel with sassafras and cedar.
When, however, the time fixed for the ship’s departure came, those who
were to remain as colonists fell to wrangling about the division of
the supplies; and, as signs of a “revolt” appeared, the prospects of
a settlement began to fade, if indeed the idea of permanence had ever
been seriously entertained. Soon “all was given over;” and June 17
the whole company abandoned their beautiful isle, with the “house and
little fort,” and set sail, desiring nothing so much as the sight of
their native land. Gliding past the gorgeous cliffs of Gay Head, the
demoralized company had no relish for the scene, but sailed moodily on
to No-Man’s Land, where they caught some wild fowl and anchored for
the night. The next day the “Concord,” freighted we fear with discord,
resumed the voyage, and took her tedious course over the solitary sea.

Gosnold reached South Hampton on the 23d of July, having “not one cake
of bread” and only a “little vinegar left;” yet even here his troubles
did not end, for in the streets of Weymouth he soon encountered Sir
Walter Raleigh, who confiscated his cargo of sassafras and cedar
boards, on the ground that the voyage was made without his consent, and
therefore contraband. Gosnold nevertheless protected his own interests
by ingratiating himself with Raleigh, leaving the loss to fall the
more heavily on his associates. Thus was Raleigh made, upon the whole,
well pleased with the results of the voyage, and he resolved to send
out both ships again. Speaking with reference to the unsettled region
covered by his patent, he says, “I shall yet live to see it an Englishe
nation.”

The year 1603 was signalized by the death of Elizabeth and the
accession of James, while at nearly the same time Raleigh’s public
career came to an end. Before the cloud settled upon his life, two
expeditions were sent out. The “Elizabeth” went to Virginia, under
the command of Gilbert, who lost his life there; while Martin Pring
sailed with two small vessels for New England. Pring commanded the
“Speedwell,” and Edmund Jones, his subordinate, was master of the
“Discoverer.” This expedition had express authority from Raleigh
“to entermeddle and deale in that action.” It was set on foot by
Hakluyt and the chief merchants of Bristol. Leaving England April 10,
Pring sighted the islands of Maine on the 2d of June, and, coasting
southward, entered one of the rivers. He finally reached Savage Rock,
where he failed to find sassafras, the chief object of his voyage,
and accordingly “bore into that great Gulfe which Captaine Gosnold
overshot.” This gulf was Massachusetts Bay, the northern side of which
did not answer his expectations; whereupon he crossed to the southern
side, and entered the harbor now called Plymouth, finding as much
sassafras as he desired, and he remained there for about six weeks.
The harbor was named Whitson, in honor of the Mayor of Bristol; and a
neighboring hill, probably Captain’s Hill, was called Mount Aldworth,
after another prominent Bristol merchant. On the shore the adventurers
built a “small baricado to keepe diligent watch and warde in” while
the sassafras was being gathered in the woods. They also planted seed
to test the soil. Hither the Indians came in great numbers, and “did
eat Pease and Beans with our men,” dancing also with great delight to
the “homely musicke” of a “Zitterne,” which a young man in the company
could play. This fellow was rewarded by the savages with tobacco and
pipes, together with “snake skinnes of sixe foote long.” These were
used as belts, and formed a large part of the savage attire, though
upon their breasts they wore plates of “brasse.”

By the end of July Pring had loaded the “Discoverer” with sassafras,
when Jones sailed in her for England, leaving Pring to complete the
cargo of the other ship. Soon the Indians became troublesome, and,
armed with their bows and arrows, surrounded the “baricado,” evidently
intending to make an attack; but when Pring’s mastiff, “greate Foole,”
appeared, holding a half-pike between his jaws, they were alarmed, and
tried to turn their action into a jest. Nevertheless, the day before
Pring sailed for England, they set the forest on fire “for a mile
space.” On August 9 the “Elizabeth” departed from Whitson Bay, and
reached Kingsroad October 2. Thus two years before Champlain explored
Plymouth Harbor, naming it Port of Cape St. Louis, ten years before
the Dutch visited the place, calling it Crane Bay, and seventeen years
before the arrival of the Leyden Pilgrims, Englishmen became familiar
with the whole region, and loaded their ships with fragrant products of
the neighboring woods.

       *       *       *       *       *

We next approach the period when the French came to seek homes on the
coasts of the ancient Norumbega, as, in 1604, De Monts and Champlain
established themselves at St. Croix,—the latter making a voyage to
Mount Desert, where he met the savages, who agreed to guide him to the
Penobscot, or Peimtegoüet, believed to be the river “which many pilots
and historians call Norembegue.” He ascended the stream to the vicinity
of the present Bangor, and met the “Lord” of Norumbega; but the
silver-pillared mansions and towers had disappeared. The next year he
coasted New England to Cape Malabar, but a full account of the French
expeditions is assigned to another volume of the present work.

The voyage of Waymouth, destined to have such an important bearing
upon the future of New England colonization, was begun and ended
before Champlain embarked upon his second expedition from St. Croix,
and the English captain thus avoided a collision with the French.
Waymouth sailed from Dartmouth on Easter Sunday, May 15, 1605 evidently
intending to visit the regions south of Cape Cod described by Brereton
and Verrazano. Upon meeting contrary winds at his landfall in 41°
2´ north, being of an irresolute temper, he bore away for the coast
farther east; and on June 18 he anchored on the north side of the
island of Monhegan. He was highly pleased with the prospect, and hoped
that it would prove the “most fortunate ever discovered.” The next
day was Whitsunday, when he entered the present Booth’s Bay, which he
named Pentecost Harbor. He afterwards explored the Kennebec, planting
a cross at one of its upper reaches; and, sailing for England June 16,
he carried with him five of the Kennebec natives, whom he had taken by
stratagem and force.

In connection with Waymouth’s voyage we have the earliest indications
of English public worship, which evidently was conducted according to
the forms of the Church, in the cabin of the “Archangel,” the savages
being much impressed thereby.[335] The historian of Waymouth’s voyage
declares “a public good, and true zeal of promulgating God’s holy
Church by planting Christianity, to be the sole intent of the honorable
setter forth of this discovery.”

[Illustration]

The narrative of Waymouth’s voyage was at once published, and attracted
the attention of Sir John Popham, chief-justice. It also greatly
encouraged Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who, in connection with Sir John,
obtained from King James two patents,—one for the London and the other
for the Plymouth company; the latter including that portion of ancient
Norumbega extending from 38° north to 45° north, thus completely
ignoring the claims of the French. The patentees were entitled to
exercise all those powers which belong to settled and well-ordered
society, being authorized to coin money, impose taxes and duties, and
maintain a general government for twenty-one years.

[Illustration]

This was accomplished in 1606, when Sir Ferdinando Gorges sent out a
ship under Captain Challons, which was captured by the Spaniards and
never reached her destination. Before hearing of the loss of this
ship, another was despatched under Thomas Hanam, with Martin Pring as
master. Failing to find Challons, they made a very careful exploration
of the region, which Sir Ferdinando says was the best that ever came
into his hands. In the mean time the five Indians brought home by
Waymouth had been in training for use in connection with colonization
under the supervision of Gorges. Indeed he expressly says that these
Indians were the means, “under God, of putting on foot and giving life
to all our plantations.” Accordingly the plans of a permanent colony
were projected, and on the last day of May, 1607, two ships—the “Gift
of God” and the “Mary and John”—were despatched under the command
of Captain George Popham, brother of the chief-justice, and Captain
Raleigh Gilbert. At the end of twenty-one days the expedition reached
the Azores, where the “Mary and John,” having been left behind by her
consort, barely escaped from the Netherlanders. Finally, leaving the
Azores, Gilbert stood to sea, crossing the ocean alone, and sighted
the hills of Le Have, Nova Scotia, July 30. After visiting the harbor
of Le Have, Gilbert sailed southward, rounding Cape Sable, and entered
the “great deep Bay” of Fundy. Then he passed the Seal Islands,
evidently being well acquainted with the ground, and next shaped his
course for the region of the Penobscot, looking in the mean time for
the Camden Hills, which, on the afternoon of August 5, lifted their
three double peaks above the bright summer sea. As he confidently
stood in towards the land, the Matinicus Islands soon shone white
“like unto Dover clifts;” and afterward the “Mary and John” found
good anchorage close under Monhegan, Waymouth’s fortunate island,
named in honor of England’s patron saint, St. George. Landing upon
the island Gilbert found a sightly cross, which had been set up by
Waymouth or some other navigator. The next morning, as the “Mary and
John” was leaving Monhegan, a sail appeared. It proved to be the “Gift
of God,” of whose voyage no account is now known. In company with his
consort Gilbert returned to the anchorage ground. At midnight he made
a visit to Pemaquid, on the mainland, accompanied by Skidwarres, one
of Waymouth’s Indians, rowing over the placid waters with measured
stroke among many “gallant islands.” They found the village sought
for, and then returned. The next day was Sunday, when the two ships’
companies landed upon Monhegan,—then crowned with primeval forests and
festooned with luxuriant vines,—where their preacher, the Rev. Richard
Seymour, delivered a discourse and offered prayers of thanksgiving. The
following is the entry of the pilot:—

 “Sondaye beinge the 9th of August, in the morninge the most part of
 our holl company of both our shipes landed on this Illand, the wch
 we call St. George’s Illand, whear the crosse standeth; and thear we
 heard a sermon delyvred unto us by our preacher, gguinge God thanks
 for our happy metinge and saffe aryvall into the contry; and so
 retorned abord aggain.”

This, so far as our present information extends, is the first recorded
religious service by any English or Protestant clergyman within
the bounds of New England, which was then consecrated to Christian
civilization.

On Sunday, August 19, after encountering much danger, both ships
were safely moored in the harbor of Sagadahoc at the mouth of the
Kennebec. The adventurers then proceeded to build a pinnace called the
“Virginia,” the first vessel built in New England. She crossed the
Atlantic several times.

[Illustration: ANCIENT PEMAQUID.

This sketch-map follows one given with Sewall’s paper on “Popham’s
town,” in _Maine Hist. Coll._, vii. See a more extended sketch of the
coast in the Critical Essay.]

The Kennebec was explored by Gilbert, while a fort, a church, a
storehouse, and some dwellings were built upon the peninsula of Sabino,
selected as the site of the colony. The two ships returned to England,
the “Mary and John” bearing a Latin epistle from Captain Popham to
King James. It gave a glowing description of the country, which was
even supposed to produce nutmegs. During the winter Popham died; and
in the spring, when a ship came out with supplies, the colonists were
found to be greatly discouraged, their storehouse having been destroyed
by fire, and the winter having proved extremely cold. Besides, no
indications of precious metals were found, and they now learned that
the chief-justice, like his brother, had passed away. Accordingly the
fort, “mounting twelve guns,” was abandoned, and Strachey says “this
was the end of that northern colony upon the river Sagadehoc.”

After the abandonment of Sabino the English were actively engaged in
traffic upon the coast; as appears from the testimony of Captain John
Smith, who, in describing his visit to Monhegan in 1614, says that
opposite “in the Maine,” called Pemaquid, was a ship of Sir Francis
Popham, whose people had used the port for “many yeares” and had
succeeded in monopolizing the fur-trade. The particulars concerning
these voyages, and the scattered settlers around the famous peninsula
of Pemaquid, are not now accessible.

The next Englishman to be referred to is Henry Hudson, who, with a crew
composed of English and Dutch, visited Maine in 1609,—probably finding
a harbor at Mt. Desert, where he treated the Indians with cruelty and
fired upon them with cannon. Sailing thence he touched at Cape Cod, and
went to seek a passage to the Indies by the way of Hudson River, which
had been visited by Verrazano in 1524, and named by Gomez the following
year in honor of St. Anthony. The voyage of Hudson is not of necessity
connected with English enterprise.[336] The next year Captain Argall,
from Virginia, visited the Penobscot region for supplies, but he does
not appear to have communicated with any of his countrymen.

In 1611 the English showed themselves on the coast with a strong hand.
This fact is learned from a letter of the Jesuit Biard, who, in writing
to his superior at Rome, gives the history of an encounter between the
English and French. From his narrative it appears that early in 1611
a French captain, named Plastrier, undertook to go to the Kennebec,
and was made a prisoner by two ships “that were in an isle called
Emmetenic, eight leagues from the said Kennebec.” He escaped by paying
a ransom and agreeing not to intrude any more. This fact coming to
the knowledge of Biencourt, the commander at Port Royal, the irate
Frenchman proceeded to the Kennebec to find the English and to obtain
satisfaction from them. Upon reaching the site of the Popham colony at
Sabino, Biencourt found the place deserted. On his return he visited
Matinicus (Emmetenic), where he saw the shallops of the English on
the beach, but did not burn them, for the reason that they belonged
to peaceful civilians and not to soldiers. Who then were the English
for whom Biencourt was so considerate? Evidently they were those led
by Captains Harlow and Hobson, who, as stated by Smith, sailed from
Southampton for the purpose of discovering an isle “supposed to be
about Cape Cod.” They visited that cape and Martha’s Vineyard, and,
it would appear, sailed along the coast of Maine, where they showed
Plastrier their papers, indicating that they acted by authority.
Possibly, however, Sir Francis Popham’s agent, Captain Williams, may
have been the commander who expelled the French. At all events there
was no lack of English representation on the coast of New England in
1611. Smith, speaking in a fit of discouragement, says that “for any
plantation there was no more speeches;” but the fact that Sir Francis
annually for many years sent ships to the coast indicates brisk
enterprise, though there may have been no movement in favor of such
a venture as that of the colony of 1607. Many scattered settlers, no
doubt, were living around Pemaquid. Smith may be quoted again as saying
that no Englishman was then living on the coast; but this is something
that he could not know. It is also opposed to recognized facts, and
to the declaration of Biard that the English in Maine desired “to
be masters.” Still we do not at present know the name of a single
Englishman living in New England during the winter of 1611. In 1612
Captain Williams was opposite Monhegan, at Pemaquid, where, no doubt,
his agents lived all the year round, collecting furs. In 1613 the scene
became more animated. At this period the French were boldly inclined,
and Madame de Guercheville had determined to found a Jesuit mission
in what was called Acadia. In 1613, therefore, the Jesuits Biard and
Masse left Port Royal and proceeded to establish themselves on the
border of Somes’s Sound in Mount Desert, where they began to land their
goods and build a fortification, the ship in which they came being
anchored near the shore. Argall, who was fishing in the neighborhood,
learned of their arrival from the Indians, and by a sharp and sudden
attack captured the French ship. He sent a part of the company to Nova
Scotia, and carried others to Virginia. This action was not justified
by the English Government, and some time afterward the French ship was
surrendered.[337]

       *       *       *       *       *

In the year 1614 Captain John Smith, the hero of Virginia, enters upon
the New England scene; yet his coming would appear, in some respects,
to have been without any very careful prevision, since he begins his
narrative by saying, “I chanced to arive in New England, a parte of
Ameryca, at the Ile of Monahiggan.” The object of his expedition was
either to take whales or to try for mines of gold; and, failing in
these, “Fish and Furres was our refuge.” In most respects the voyage
was a failure, yet it nevertheless afforded him the opportunity of
writing his _Description of New England_, whose coast he ranged in
an open boat, from the Penobscot to Cape Cod. His brief description,
so fresh and unconventional, will never lose its value and charm;
and, because so unique, it will maintain a place in the historical
literature of its time. Smith knew that his impressions were more or
less crude, yet the salient features of the coast are well presented.
At the Penobscot he saw none of the people, as they had gone inland
for the summer to fish; and at Massachusetts, by which he meant
the territory around Boston, “the Paradise of all those parts,” he
found the French six weeks in advance of him, they being the first
Europeans known to have visited the place. The River of Massachusetts
was reported by the natives as extending “many daies Iourney into
the entralles of that countrey.” At Cohasset he was attacked by the
natives, and was glad to escape; while at Accomacke, which he named
Plymouth, he found nothing lacking but “an industrious people.”
He was the third explorer to proclaim in print the value of the
situation.[338] One result of his examination was his Map of New
England, which he presented to Prince Charles.[339]


During the year 1614 another expedition was sent out. Gorges says that
while he was considering the best means of reviving his “languishing
hopes” of colonization, Captain Harlow brought to him one of the
Indians whom he had captured in 1611. This savage, named Epenow, had
been exhibited in London as a curiosity, being “a goodly man of brave
aspect.” Epenow was well acquainted with the New England tribes. At the
same time Sir Ferdinando had recovered Assacumet, one of Waymouth’s
Indians, who had been carried to Spain, in 1606, when Challons was
captured by the Spaniards. The possession of these two Indians inspired
the knight with hope, since he was firmly persuaded that in order to
succeed in colonization it would be necessary to have the good-will of
the natives, whose co-operation he hoped to secure through the good
offices of those whom he had taught to appreciate, in some measure,
the advantages of English civilization. In this respect he was wise.
In connection therefore with the Earl of Southampton he fitted out a
ship, which was put in command of Captain Hobson, whom he describes as
“a grave gentleman.” Hobson himself invested a hundred pounds in the
enterprise, one of the main objects of which was to discover mines of
gold. This metal, Epenow said, would be found at Capawicke, or Martha’s
Vineyard. Hobson sailed in June, 1614, and finally reached the place
where Epenow was “to make good his undertaking,” and where the savages
came on board and were entertained in a friendly and hospitable way.
Among the guests were Epenow’s brothers and cousins, who improved the
occasion to arrange for his escape,—it being decided, as it appears
from what followed, that upon their return he should jump overboard
and swim away, while the tribe menaced the English with arrows. They
accordingly appeared in full strength at the appointed time, when
Epenow, though closely watched, and clothed in flowing garments to
render his retention the more certain, succeeded in evading his keepers
and jumped overboard. Hobson’s musketeers immediately opened fire,
foolishly endeavoring to shoot the swimming savage, while Epenow’s
friends bravely shot their arrows and wounded the master of the ship
and many of the crew. In the end Epenow escaped; and Sir Ferdinando
says: “Thus were my hopes of that particular mode void and frustrate;”
adding, that such are “the fruits to be looked for by employing men
more zealous of gain than fraught with experience how to make it.”
Hobson however did not lose so much as was supposed; for, though no
doubt Epenow believed that gold existed at Capawicke, and that if it
should prove necessary he could bring the English to the mine, it is
clear that no precious metal existed. The supposed gold was simply a
sulphate of iron, which the mineralogist finds to-day in the aluminous
clays of Gay Head.

Though both Smith and Hobson had failed essentially in the objects of
their voyage, the former was not in the slightest degree disheartened,
but spoke in such glowing terms of the country and its resources that
the Plymouth Company resolved to take vigorous action, and offered
Smith “the managing of their authority in those parts” for life. The
London Company was also stirred up, and sent out four ships before the
people of Plymouth acted. The Londoners offered Smith the command of
their ships, which he declined, having already made a life-engagement.
Nevertheless the London ships sailed in January, led by Captain Michael
Cooper, and reached Monhegan in March, where they fished until June,
and then sent a ship of three hundred tons to Spain loaded with fish.
This ship was taken by the Turks, while another sailed to Virginia,
leaving the third to return to England with fish and oil. Smith’s
Plymouth friends, however, furnished only two ships. Nevertheless
he sailed with these, Captain Dermer being second in command. His
customary ill fortune still attended him, and not far from port he lost
both his masts, while his consort went on to New England. Sailing a
second time in a small vessel of sixty tons, Smith was next captured
by French pirates; and, while tossing at sea in captivity, wrote his
_Description of New England_. His language has been regarded as very
significant where he speaks of “the dead patent of this unregarded
country;” but this is the language of a depressed prisoner. The patent
was not dead; while, if it had been dead, English enterprise was alive,
of which his own voyage, though cut short by pirates, was a convincing
proof. To show that the patent was not dead, the Plymouth Company, in
1615, sent out Sir Richard Hawkins, who was acting “as President for
that year.” Hawkins sailed October 15. Gorges says that he spent his
time while in New England very usefully in studying the products of the
country; but unfortunately he arrived at the period when the Indian war
was at its height, and many of the principal natives were killed. From
New England he coasted to Virginia, and thence he sailed to Spain, “to
make the best of such commodities as he had got together,” which Sir
Ferdinando loosely says “was all that was done by any of us that year.”
Nevertheless, Smith tells us that Plymouth in 1616 sent out four ships,
and London two; while Purchas states that “eight voluntarie ships” went
to New England to make “further tryall.” Another of two hundred tons,
the “Nachen,” commanded by Edwarde Brawnde, who addressed an account of
the voyage to “his worthye good frend Captayne John Smith, admirall of
New England,” also went out. In his letter reference is made to other
vessels on the coast. The “Nachen,” of London, sailed from Dartmouth
March 8, and reached Monhegan April 20. Afterwards Brawnde went to
Cape Cod in his pinnace to search for pearls, which were also the
first things sought for by the Leyden emigrants, in 1620, when they
reached the harbor of Provincetown. Brawnde also mentions that he had
his boats detained by Sir Richard Hawkins, who thus appears to have
wintered upon the coast and to have sailed to Virginia in the spring.
Notwithstanding various mishaps, Brawnde entertained a favorable
impression of New England, where profitable voyages were to be made in
fish and furs, if not spoiled by too many factors, while he found the
climate good, and the savages “a gentell-natured people,” altogether
friendly to the English.

In 1617 Smith himself made the discovery that the patent of New England
was not dead. At that time he had secured three ships, while his
life-appointment for the new country was reaffirmed. Still misfortune
continued to pursue him, and he did not even succeed in leaving port.
Together with a hundred sail he was wind-bound at Plymouth for three
months. By the terms of the contract he says that he was to be admiral
for life, and “in the renewing of their Letters pattents so to be
nominated.” But for the unfortunate head-winds he would have gone to
New England in 1617 and undertaken a permanent work, as the times were
ripe. He might have begun either at Plymouth or Massachusetts, “the
paradise of all those parts,” and thus have made Boston anything but a
Nonconformist town.

In 1618 the English were still active, and Captain Rocroft went to
Monhegan to meet Captain Dermer, who was expected from Newfoundland.
Dermer, however, failed to appear, while Rocroft improved the occasion
to seize “a small barque of Dieppe,” which he carried to Virginia.
This Frenchman was engaged in the fur-trade at Saco, in disregard of
the claims of the English; but Gorges, with his customary humanity,
condoned the offence, the man “being of our religion,” and kindly made
good his loss. Soon after capturing the French trader, Rocroft came
near being the victim of a conspiracy on the part of certain of his own
men. When the plot was discovered he spared their lives, but set them
ashore at Saco, whence they went to Monhegan and passed the winter,
but succeeded in escaping to England in the spring. About this time
that poorly known character, Sir Richard Vines, passed a winter on the
coast, probably at Saco, sleeping in the cabins of the Indians, and
escaping the great plague, which swept away so many of the Sagamores.
The winter fisheries were commonly pursued, and the presence of
Englishmen on the coast all the year round was no doubt a common thing,
while a trading-post must have been maintained at Pemaquid. Rocroft
finally sailed to Virginia, where he wrecked his vessel, and then lost
his life in a brawl. Thus suddenly this “gallant soldier” dropped out
of New England history.

With the summer of 1619 Dermer finally reached Monhegan, the rendezvous
of English ships, and found that Rocroft had sailed for Virginia. While
his people engaged in fishing, he explored the coast in a pinnace as
far as Plymouth, having Squanto for his guide, and then travelled afoot
westward to Nummastuquyt, or Middleboro’. From this place he sent a
messenger to the border of Narragansett Bay, who brought “two kings” to
confer with him. Here also he redeemed a Frenchman who had been wrecked
at Cape Cod. Dermer adds immediately, that he obtained another at
Mastachusit, or the region about Boston, which he must have visited on
his way back to Monhegan. The account of his exploration is meagre; and
he hints vaguely at a very important island found June 12, which may
have been thought gold-bearing, as he says that he sent home “some of
the earth.” Near by were two other islands, named “King James’s Isles,”
because from thence he had “the first motives to search for that now
probable passage which hereafter may be both honorable and profitable
to his Majesty.” Clearly he refers to a supposed passage leading
through the continent to the Pacific and the Indies. In a letter
to Purchas, not now known, he mentioned the important island first
referred to, and probably described its locality, though its identity
is now left to conjecture. It may have been situated near Boston
Harbor, while the “probable passage” may have been suggested by the
mouths of the Mystic and the Charles, which, according to the report
given by the natives to Smith, penetrated many days’ journey into the
country.

Dermer finally reached Monhegan, and sent his ship home to England.
He afterwards put his surplus supplies on board the “Sampson,” and
despatched her for Virginia. He then embarked once more in his pinnace
to range along the coast. Near Nahant, during a storm, his pinnace was
beached; but getting off with the loss of many stores, and leaving
behind his Indian guide, he sailed around Cape Cod. At a place south of
the cape he was taken prisoner by the natives, but he escaped covered
with wounds. Subsequently he sailed through Long Island Sound, and,
passing through Hell Gate, he found it a “dangerous cataract.” While
here the savages on the shore saluted him with a volley of arrows. In
New York Harbor the natives proved peaceable, and undertook to show
him a strait leading to the west; but, baffled by the wind, he sailed
southward to Virginia, where he made a map of the coast, which he would
not “part with for fear of danger.” This map probably exhibited his
ideas respecting the “westward passage,” which was to be concealed from
the French and Dutch.[340] In Virginia this late but hopeful explorer
of Norumbega died.

Dermer was emphatically an explorer, and even in 1619 was dreaming of a
route through New England to China; but his most important work was the
peace made with the Indians at Plymouth. It is mentioned in his report
to Gorges. This report was quoted in the _Relation_ of the president
and council, and was used by Morton and Bradford. The latter quotes
him as saying, with reference to Plymouth, “I would that the first
plantation might here be seated, if there come to the number of fifty
persons or upward.” This was but the echo of Captain John Smith. Morton
endeavors, in an ungenerous spirit, to cheapen the services of Dermer,
but it would be as just to underrate the work of the English on the
Maine coast; and we should remember that it was their faithful friend
the Pemaquid Chief Samoset who hailed the Leyden colonists, upon their
arrival at Plymouth, with the greeting, “Welcome, Englishmen!”[341]
This was simply the natural result of the policy of peace and good-will
which imparted a gracious charm to the life of Sir Ferdinando Gorges,
who may be well styled the Father of New England Colonization. Here we
leave the English explorers of Norumbega.


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

DOCUMENTS, whether in our own tongue or in others, which throw light
upon the explorations of the English in Norumbega are by no means
wanting. They embrace formal report and epistolary chronicle in great
variety and of considerable extent. In some cases they are full
and rich in details, but in others they disappoint us from their
meagreness. Such deficiency particularly confronts us when we are
searching for the tracks of their progress in maps or charts of these
early dates.

The English, in reality, were behind the age in maritime
enterprise,[342] and this forms one reason for the delay in colonizing
ancient Norumbega.[343]

The present writer has never found an Indian on the coast of Maine
who could recall the word Norumbega, or any similar word. M. Beauvois
shows, among other facts, that the Icelandic vaga is the genitive
plural of _vagr_, signifying “a bay.” Possibly, however, the word is
Spanish. In this language _b_ and _v_ are interchangeable; and _vagas_
often occurs on the maps, signifying “fields;” while _norum_ may be
simply a corruption of some familiar compound. Perhaps the explanation
of the word does not lie so far away as some suppose, though the study
of the subject must be attended with great care. In this connection
may be consulted such works as Ramusio’s _Navigationi et Viaggi_,
etc., Venice, 1556, iii. 359; the _Ptolemy_ of Pativino, Venice,
1596, p. 281; Wytfliet’s _Descriptionis Ptolemaicæ Augmentum_, etc.,
Douay, 1603, p. 99; Magin’s _Histoire Universelle_, Douay, 1611, p.
96; _Introductio in Universam Geographicam_, by Cluverius, Amsterdam,
1729, p. 673; De Laet’s _Nieuwe Wereldt_, etc.; Leyden, 1625, p.
64, and his _Histoire du nouveau Monde_, etc., Leyden, 1640, p. 58;
Ogilby’s _America_, 1671, p. 138; Montanus’s _De Nieuwe en Onbekende
Wereldt_, Amsterdam, 1671, p. 29; Dapper’s _Die unbekante Neue Welt_,
etc., Amsterdam, 1673, p. 30. The subject of the varying bounds and the
name is also discussed by Dr. Woods in his introduction to Hakluyt’s
_Westerne Planting_, p. lii, and by the following: Sewall, _Ancient
Dominions of Maine_, p. 31; De Costa, _Northmen in Maine_, p. 44;
Murphy, _Verrazano_, p. 37; _Historical Magazine_, ii. 187; _Magazine
of American History_, May, 1881, p. 392.

The voyage of John Rut has been pointed out as the earliest voyage
having a possible connection with any portion of the territory of
Norumbega, which never included Bacalaos, though Bacalaos, an old
name of Newfoundland, sometimes included New England. The extreme
northeastern extension of Norumbega was Cape Breton. It was towards
Cape Breton and the coasts of Arembec, that Rut is said to have sailed
when he left St. John. Hakluyt is the first authority summoned in
connection with a subject which has elicited much curious discussion;
but Hakluyt was poorly informed.[344] He refers to the chronicles
of Hall and Grafton, who said that Henry VIII. sent out two ships,
May 20, 1527; yet he did not know either the name of the commander
or of the ships, one of which was given as the “Dominus vobiscum.”
Purchas, however, gives the names of both ships, and the letter of
Captain Rut to Henry VIII., together with a letter in Latin, written
by Albert de Prato, a canon of St. Paul’s, London, which is addressed
to Cardinal Wolsey.[345] Hakluyt, in his edition of 1589, reads,
“towards the coasts of Norombega,” instead of Arembec, as in the
edition of 1600. The latter appears to be a correction intended to
limit the meaning. Arembec may have been a name given to Nova Scotia.
A similar name was certainly given to one or more islands near the
site of Louisburg.[346] According to Hakluyt, Rut often landed his
men “to search the state of those unknown regions,” after he left the
northerly part of Newfoundland; but the confused account does not
prove that it was on Cape Breton or Arembec that they landed. Rut
says nothing about any such excursion, but simply says that he should
go north in search of his consort, the “Samson,” and then sail with
all diligence “to that island we are commanded;” and Hakluyt says
that it was an expedition intended to sail toward the North Pole.
Nevertheless, it has been fancied that Rut, in the “Mary of Guilford,”
explored all Norumbega, and then went to the West Indies. This notion
is based upon the statement of Herrera, who tells of an English ship
which lost her consort in a storm, and in 1519 came to Porto Rico from
Newfoundland,[347] the pilot, who was a native of Piedmont, having been
killed by the Indians on the Atlantic coast.[348] Herrera’s date has
been regarded as wrong; and it has been corrected, on the authority of
Oviedo, and put at 1527. There is no proof that Rut lost his pilot; but
as he had with him a learned mathematician, Albert de Prato, a priest,
it has been assumed that the priest was both a pilot and an Italian,
and consequently that the vessel seen at Porto Rico was Rut’s. It would
be more reasonable to suppose that this was the missing “Samson,” or
else one of the English traders sent to the West Indies in 1526/7.[349]
The ship described by Herrera was a “great ship,” heavily armed and
full of stores. On the other hand, the “Mary of Guilford” was a small
vessel of one hundred and sixty tons only, prepared for fishing.[350]
Finally, Rut was still at St. John August 10, while Hakluyt states
that the “Mary of Guilford” reached England by the beginning of
October. This, if correct, renders the exploration of Norumbega and
the cruise in the West Indies an impossibility. Nevertheless Rut must
have accomplished something, while it is significant that when Cartier
explored the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in 1534, he found a cape called Cape
Prato, apparently a reminiscence of the canon of St. Paul’s.[351]

David Ingram’s narrative, referred to in the text, was printed by
Hakluyt in 1589,[352] who, however, omitted it in 1600. Ingram suffered
much, and saw many things, no doubt, with a diseased brain. He listened
also to the stories of others, repeating them with additions in
sailor fashion; and, besides, may have been moved by vanity. Purchas,
referring to Hakluyt, says, “It seemeth some incredibilities of his
report caused him to leave him out in the next Impression, the reward
of lying being not to be believed in truths.”[353]

The larger portion however, of the statements in his narrative appears
to be true. He seems to have occupied about eleven months in reaching a
river which he calls Gugida,[354] this being simply the Indian Ouigoudi
of Lescarbot,[355] and the Ouygoudy of Champlain,[356] who, June 24,
1604, explored the river, and named it the St. John.

Concerning Simon Ferdinando there has been much misapprehension. He
was connected with the Virginia voyages in 1584-86. In the latter
year his ship was grounded. This led to his being loaded with abuse
by White.[357] It was re-echoed by Williamson[358] and Hawks.[359]
The latter declared that he was a Spaniard, hired by his nation to
frustrate the English colony, calling him a “treacherous villain” and
a “contemptible mariner;” yet Hawks did not understand the subject.
Subsequently, Ferdinando’s real character came to light; and, in one
of the oldest pieces of English composition produced on the continent
of North America, his skill and faithfulness were applauded by Ralph
Lane.[360] He was one of the numerous Portuguese domiciled in England;
but he had powerful friends like Walsingham, and thus became the leader
of the first-known English expedition to Norumbega. His life was
somewhat eventful, and like most men of his class he occasionally tried
his hand at privateering. At one time he was in prison on a charge
of heresy, and was bailed out by William Herbert, the vice-admiral.
His voyage of 1579 seems hitherto to have escaped notice; but this,
together with his personal history, would form the subject of an
interesting monograph.

It was through the calendars of the state-paper office that the fact of
John Walker’s voyage became known some time since, but not as yet with
detail; and it is only by means of a marginal note, which makes Walker
“Sir Humphrey Gilbert’s man,” that we get any clew to its purpose,
and from which we are led to infer its tentative character, and its
influence upon Gilbert’s subsequent career.[361]

Upon reaching Sir Humphrey Gilbert we discover a man rich in his
intentions respecting Norumbega. He was the patentee,[362] and he
possessed power and resources which would have insured success but for
the untimely termination of his career. The true story of his life yet
remains to be written, and in competent hands it would prove a noble
theme.[363] The State Papers afford many documents throwing light upon
his history, while the pages of Hakluyt supply many facts.[364]

The work of Barlow and others, from 1584 to 1590, does not properly
belong to the story of Norumbega; yet the attempts in Virginia may be
studied for the side-lights which they afford, the narratives being
given by Hakluyt,[365]—who also gives the voyage of the “Marigold”
under Strong, fixing the site of Arembec on the coast southwest of Cape
Breton.[366]

With the opening of the seventeenth century the literature of our
subject becomes richer. Gosnold’s voyage, now shorn of much of its
former prestige, has only recently come to be understood. It was
somewhat fully chronicled by Brereton and Archer, each of whom wrote
accounts. The original volume of Brereton forms a rare bibliographical
treasure.[367] It has been reprinted by the Massachusetts Historical
Society,[368] but an edition properly edited is much needed. In 1625
Purchas gave Archer’s account, with a letter by Brereton to Raleigh,
and Gosnold’s letter to his father.[369] The voyage is also treated in
the Dutch collection of Van der Aa,[370] which gives an engraving at
variance with the text, in that it represents the savages assisting
Gosnold in building his island fortification, the construction of which
was in fact kept a secret. The voyage of Gosnold has been accepted as
an authorized attempt at colonization, and used to offset the Popham
expedition of 1607; but that part of the titlepage of Brereton which
says that the voyage was made by the permission of Raleigh is now known
to be untrue, and the contraband character of the enterprise stands
confessed.[371]

It has been said more than once that Drake visited New England, and
gave Gosnold some account thereof; but while he brought home the
Virginia adventurers in 1587, and may then have touched on the coast
of North Virginia, no early account of any such visit is found. It has
also been said that Gosnold went so far in the work of fortification as
to build a platform for six guns. The authority for the statement does
not appear.[372]

The voyage of Martin Pring, as already pointed out, was a legitimate
enterprise, having the sanction of Sir Walter Raleigh, the
patentee.[373] This voyage is also the more noticeable as having had
the active support of Hakluyt. Harris says that a thousand pounds were
raised for the enterprise, and that Raleigh “made over to them all the
Profits which should arise from the Voyage.”[374] Here, therefore, it
may be proper to delay long enough to indicate something of Hakluyt’s
great work in connection with colonization.

       *       *       *       *       *

Richard Hakluyt was born about the year 1553, and was educated at
Westminster School and Christ Church College, Oxford. At an early age
he acquired a taste for history and cosmography. In the preface to his
work of 1589, dedicated to Walsingham, he says:—

 “I do remember that being a youth, and one of her Maiestie’s scholars
 at Westminster, that fruitfull nurserie, it was my happe to visit the
 chamber of Mr. Richard Hakluyt my cosin, a Gentleman of the Middle
 Temple, well known unto you, at a time when I found lying vpen his
 boord certeine bookes of Cosmosgraphie with a vniversal Mappe: he
 seeing me somewhat curious in the view thereof, began to instruct my
 ignorance by showeing me the divisions thereof.”

His cousin also turned to the 107th Psalm, relating to those who go
down into the sea in ships and occupy themselves on the great waters.
Upon which Hakluyt continues:—

 “The words of the Prophet, together with my cousin’s discourse (things
 of high and rare delight to my young nature), tooke so deepe an
 impression that I constantly resolved, if euer I were preferred to
 the Vniversity, where better time and more convenient place might be
 ministered for these studies, I would by God’s assistance prosecute
 that knowledge and kinde of literature, the doores whereof (after a
 sort) were so happily opened before me.”

This interview decided Hakluyt for life, and one of the first fruits
of his zeal was his _Divers Voyages_, published in 1582.[375] In
1589 appeared his _Principal Navigations_.[376] In the year 1600 he
enlarged his work, bringing it out in three volumes. In 1605 Hakluyt
was made a prebend of Westminster; and in 1609 he published _Virginia
Richly Valued_, being the translation of a Portuguese work.[377]
Hakluyt also published other pieces. He died in Herefordshire, in 1616,
finding a burial-place in Westminster Abbey. Still curiously enough,
notwithstanding his great services to American colonization, his name
has never been applied to any portion of our country; though Hudson,
in 1608, named a headland on the coast of Greenland in his honor.
He left behind, among other manuscripts, one entitled _A Discourse
of Planting_, recently published, though much of the essence of the
volume had been produced before in various forms.[378] Among the tracts
appended to Brereton are the _Inducements_ of Hakluyt the Elder, who
appears to have known all about the _Discourse_.[379]

       *       *       *       *       *

In connection with the voyage of Waymouth, 1605, one topic of
discussion relates to the particular river which he explored. This,
indeed, is a subject in connection with which a divergence of opinion
may be pardonable. Did he explore the St. George’s River, or the
Kennebec? Belknap, however, in 1796, in a crude fashion and with poor
data, held that the Penobscot was the river visited.[380] In 1857 a
Maine writer took the ground that Waymouth explored the Kennebec.[381]
Other writers followed with pleas for the St. George’s.[382]

[Illustration: SKETCH-MAP OF THE MODERN COAST OF MAINE.

  1. Portsmouth.
  2. York [Gorgiana, 1641].
  3. Agamenticus.
  4. Saco.
  5. Richmond Island.
  6. Casco.
  7. Sabino [Popham’s Colony].
  8. Sagadahoc River.
  9. Damariscotta River.
  10. Sheepscott River.
  11. Pemaquid.
  12. Monhegan Island.
  13. Fox Islands.
  14. Isle au haut.
  15. Castine [Pentagöet, Bagaduce].
  16. Mount Desert.
  17. Kennebec River.
  18. Penobscot River.
  19. George’s River.
  20. St. George’s Islands [?Pentecost harbor].
  21. Boothbay [? Pentecost].
  22. Camden Hills.
  23. Damariscove Islands.
  A. Lygonia, 1630; subsequently part of Gorges and Mason’s grant, 1622,
     and Somersetshire, 1635.
  B. Plymouth grant.
  C. Muscongus, 1630.
  D. Waldo patent.

See for the region about Pemaquid the map in the narrative part of this
chapter.]

Ballard wrote what was, in most respects, a convincing argument in
support of the Kennebec River.[383] In opposition to the advocate
of the Kennebec, it has been said that the high mountains seen by
Waymouth were not the White Mountains,—for the reason that the White
Mountains could not be seen,—but were the Camden hills, towards
which he went from Monhegan; and consequently that he reached the St.
George’s River, which lies in that direction. It has been said, also,
that the White Mountains cannot be seen from that vicinity. This is
simply an assumption. The White Mountains are distinctly visible in
fair weather from the deck of a ship lying inside of Monhegan.[384]
Yet the mountains in question have less to do with the subject than
generally supposed, since a careful examination of the obscure text
shows that it is not necessary to understand Rosier as saying that
in going to the river they sailed directly towards the mountains.
His language shows that they “came along to the other islands more
adjoining the main, and in the road directly with the mountains.”[385]
Here it is not necessary to suppose that it was the course sailed that
was direct, but rather that it was the _road_ that was direct with the
mountains,—the term _road_ signifying a roadstead, or anchorage place
at a distance from the shore, like that of Monhegan. Beyond question
Waymouth saw both the White and the Camden mountains; but they do
not form such an essential element in the discussion as both sides
have fancied. Strachey really settles the question where he says that
Waymouth discovered two rivers,—“that little one of Pamaquid,” and
“the most excellent and beneficyall river of Sachadehoc.”[386] This
river at once became famous, and thither the Popham colonists sailed in
1607. In fact, the St. George’s River was never talked about at that
period, being even at the present time hardly known in geography, while
the importance of the Kennebec is very generally understood.

The testimony of another early writer would alone prove sufficient to
settle the question. In fact, no question would ever have been raised
if New England writers had been acquainted with the works of Champlain
at an earlier period. In July, 1605, Champlain visited the Kennebec,
where the natives informed him that an English ship had been on the
coast, and was then lying at Monhegan; and that the captain had killed
five Indians belonging to their river.[387] These were the five Indians
taken by Waymouth at Pentecost Harbor—the modern Booth’s Bay—who were
supposed to have been killed, though at that time sailing on the voyage
to England unharmed.

The narrative of the expedition of Waymouth was written by James
Rosier, and published in 1605.[388] It was printed by Purchas, with
a few changes, in 1625;[389] and reprinted by the Massachusetts
Historical Society, in 1843.[390] This narrative forms the source of
almost everything that is known about the voyage. It contains some
perplexing passages; but when properly interpreted, it is found that
they are all consistent with other statements, and prove that the river
explored was the Kennebec.

The story of the Popham Colony, of 1607-8, at one time occasioned much
acrimonious discussion, for which there was no real occasion; but of
late the better the subject has been understood, the less reason has
been found for any disagreement between the friends of the Church of
England and the apologists of New England nonconformity.

Prior to the year 1849 the Popham Colony was known only through notices
found in Purchas,[391] the _Brief Relation_,[392] Smith,[393] Sir
William Alexander, Gorges,[394] and others. In the year 1849, however,
the Hakluyt Society published Strachey’s work, entitled _The Historie
of Travaile into Virginia Britannia_, edited by R. H. Major; chapters
viii., ix., and x. of which contained an account of the Popham Colony
found to be much fuller than any that had appeared previously. In 1852
these chapters were reprinted with notes in the _Collections_ of the
Massachusetts Historical Society;[395] and the next year four chapters
of the work were reprinted by the Maine Historical Society.[396]
In 1863 the same society published a _Memorial Volume_, which was
followed by heated discussions, some of which, with a bibliography of
the subject, were published in 1866. Articles of a fugitive character
continued to appear; and, finally, in 1880, there came from the press
the journal of the voyage to the Kennebec in 1607, by one of the
adventurers,[397] which was reprinted in advance from the _Proceedings_
of the Massachusetts Historical Society.[398] It would seem from the
internal evidence furnished by the journal and the express testimony
of Purchas,[399] that this composition was by James Davies, who, in
the organization at the Sagadahoc, held the office of Captain of the
Fort. This journal was found to be the source whence Strachey drew his
account of the colony, large portions of which he copied verbatim,
giving no credit. Since the publication of this journal no new material
has been brought to light.[400]

The Popham Colony formed a part of the work undertaken by Sir
Ferdinando Gorges and his colaborers, who sought so long and so
earnestly to accomplish the colonization of New England.[401] Many
experiments were required to insure final success, and the attempt
at Sagadahoc proved eminently useful, contributing largely to that
disciplinary experience essential under such circumstances. Viewed in
its necessary and logical connection, it need not be regarded as a
useless failure, since it opened the eyes of adventurers more fully,
bringing a clearer apprehension of the general situation and the
special requirements of the work which the North Virginia Company had
in hand.

A paragraph that may have some bearing on the condition of things
in Maine after the year 1608 appeared in 1609, and runs as follows:
“Two goodly Rivers are discovered winding farre into the Maine, the
one in the North part of the Land by our Westerne Colonie, Knights
and Gentlemen of _Excester_, _Plymouth_, and others. The other in the
South part thereof by our Colonie of _London_.”[402] Again a letter
by Mason to Coke, assigned to the year 1632, teaches that the work of
colonization was considered as having been continued from 1607.[403]
This would seem to indicate, that, in the opinion of the writer, the
work was not wholly abandoned; yet, concerning the actual condition of
affairs on the Maine coast for several years after the colonists left
Fort Popham, much remains to be learned. From neglected repositories
in the seaport towns of the south of England, material may yet be
gleaned to show a continuous line of scattered residents living around
Pemaquid during all the years that followed the departure of the Popham
colonists from Sabino[404] in 1608.

The visit of Henry Hudson to New England in 1609 is described in Juet’s
Journal.[405]

Argall’s visit to New England in 1610 is treated by Purchas, though
it has made no figure in current histories.[406] What appears to
be the most correct account of the voyage of Hobson and Harlow, in
1611, is found in Smith. The student may also consult the _Briefe
Relation_,[407] which, however, appears to confuse the account by
introducing an event of 1614, the capture of Indians by Hunt. Gorges is
also confused here, as in many other places.[408] We are indebted to
the French for the account of the capture and ransom of Plastrier.[409]

In connection with Argall’s descent upon the French at Mount Desert,
it will be necessary to consult the Jesuit Relations,[410] which throw
considerable light upon the transactions of the English at this period;
also the State Papers. These show that Argall’s ship was named the
“Treasurer.”[411] Champlain says that this ship mounted fourteen guns,
while ten more English vessels were at hand.[412] If his statement is
correct, there must have been a large number of Englishmen on the coast
at this period.

Smith, in 1614, as at other times, is his own historian, and his
writings show the growth of the feeling that existed with respect
to colonization, and they at the same time illustrate his adverse
fortune.[413]

Gorges gives an account of Hobson’s and Harlow’s voyage for 1614.[414]
Hunt’s cruelty, in connection with the Indians whom he enslaved and
sold in Spain, is made known by Smith.[415] Some of these Indians
recovered their liberty, and Bradford speaks of Squanto, the
interpreter to the Plymouth Colony.[416]

Gorges makes us acquainted with Sir Richard Hawkins, who was on the New
England coast at the close of the year 1615. Sir Richard was the son
of the famous John Hawkins, who set David Ingram and his companions
ashore in the Bay of Mexico. Hawkins was born in 1555, and in 1582 he
conducted an expedition to the West Indies. In 1588 he is found in
command of the “Swallow,” and he distinguished himself in the defeat
of the Armada. He next sailed upon an expedition to the Pacific, where
he was captured and carried to Spain.[417] In 1620 he was named in
connection with the Algerine expedition, dying at the end of 1621
or the beginning of 1622. A full account of his transactions in New
England would be very interesting; but the account of Gorges, in
connection with Brawnde’s Letter to Smith, must suffice.[418]

The story of Rocroft is told by Gorges, and Dermer writes of his own
voyage at full length.[419]

       *       *       *       *       *

It remains now to speak of the old cartology, so far as it may afford
any traces of the English explorers of Norumbega. At the outset
the interesting fact may be indicated that the earliest reference
to Norumbega upon any map is that of the Italian Verrazano, 1529;
while the most pronounced, if not the latest, mention during the
seventeenth century is that of the Italian Lucini, who engraved over
his “Nova Anglia” the word “Norambega,” which is executed with many
flourishes.[420]

Passing over the first cartographical indication of English exploration
on the coast of North America, in the map of Juan de la Cosa, which
is figured and described in the chapter on the Cabots; and passing
over the French and the Italians,[421]—adverting but for a moment
to the Dauphin map of 1543, with its novel transformation of the name
Norumbega into Anorobagea,—the next map that needs mention is that of
John Rotz, of 1542. It is of interest, for the reason that the “_booke
of Idrography_,”[422] of which it forms a part, was dedicated by its
author to Henry VIII. Rotz subscribes himself “sarvant to the King’s
mooste excellente Majeste.” The English royal arms are placed at the
beginning, though originally Rotz intended to present the book to
Francis I. Indeed, the outline of the coast is drawn according to the
French idea. Nevertheless, the names on the map are chiefly Spanish.
It shows no English exploration; and, in a general way, indicates an
absence of geographical knowledge on the part of that nation, which,
however, is recognized by the legend placed in the sea opposite the
coast between Newfoundland and the Penobscot. The legend is as follows:
“The new fonde lande quhaz men goeth a-fishing.” The main features of
the coast are delineated. Cape Breton and the Strait of Canseau, with
the Penobscot and Sandy Hook, are defined; but Cape Cod, the “Arecifes”
of Rotz, appears only in name, though in its proper relation to the
Bay of St. John the Baptist, a name given to the mouth of Long Island
Sound, in connection with the Narragansett Waters. The word Norumbega
does not occur, and the nomenclature is hardly satisfactory. It
contains no reference either to Verrazano or Cartier. The so-called map
of Cabot, 1544, does not touch the particular subject under notice.[423]

[Illustration: HENRI II. (DAUPHIN) MAP, 1546.

[The legends are as follows:—

  2. C. des Illes.
  3. Anorobagea.
  4. Arcipel de Estienne Gomez. [This voyage
  of Gomez will be described in
  Vol. IV.]
  5. Baye de St. Jhon Baptiste.
  6. R. de bona mere.
  7. B. de St. Anthoine.
  8. R. de St. Anthoine.
  9. C. de St. Xρofle.
  10. R. de la tournee.
  11. C. de Sablons.—ED.]

Frobisher’s map of 1578 shows a strait at the north leading from the
Atlantic to the Pacific, and bearing his name, but the map throws no
light upon Norumbega.[424]

Dr. John Dee was much interested in American enterprise, and made a
particular study of the northern regions, as well as of the fisheries.
Under date of July 6, 1578, he speaks of “Mr. Hitchcok, who had
travayled in the plat for fishing.”[425] A map bearing the inscription,
“Ioannes Dee, Anno, 1580,” is preserved in the British Museum.[426]
It reminds one of Mercator’s map of 1569, but is not so full. Dee was
frequently invited to the Court of Elizabeth to make known her title to
lands in the New World that had been visited by the English; and he was
deferred to by Hakluyt, Gilbert, Walsingham, and others.

He writes in his diary, under date of July 3, 1582, “A meridie hor
3½ cam Sir George Peckham to me to know the tytle of Norombega, in
respect of Spayn and Portugall parting the whole world’s distilleryes;
he promised me of his gift and of his patient ... of the new
conquest.”[427] Gilbert’s voyage was then being projected, but Dee’s
map has no reference to him or the English adventurers.[428] It shows
the main divisions of the coast of Norumbega, except Cape Cod, from
Sandy Hook to Cape Breton. The Penobscot is well defined, and Norombega
lies around its headwaters.

The map in Hakluyt’s Edition of Peter Martyr, published 1587, shows the
English nomenclature around and north of the waters of the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, but it gives away the territory of Norumbega to the French
as Nova Francia. On the west coast of North America is Nova Albion. In
Nova Francia there is a river apparently bearing the name of Arambe,
which, it has been suggested, was used later in a restricted sense. Not
far from this river, at the south, is the legend, “Virginia, 1580.”[429]

A map made in 1592, by Thomas Hood, does not show any English influence
on the coast, but Norombega is represented north of the Penobscot,
which is called R. des Guamas, intended for “Gamas,” the Stag
River.[430]

The globe of Molyneux[431] shows the explorations of Davis in the
north, and its author calls the northern continent, north of Sandy
Hook, “Carenas.” Confusion reigns to a considerable extent. Norumbega
is confined to the Penobscot, and nothing is indicated with respect to
the English in that quarter.

The map of Molyneux, 1600, is extremely interesting, but it does not
show the operations of the English in New England, though the Bay of
Menan is recognized, this being the place so well known to Hakluyt the
Elder for its deposits of copper.[432] New England, as on Lok’s map, is
shown as an island.[433]

The cartology at this period is very disappointing though the maps
pointed out the main features of the coast. In many respects they were
inferior to some of the earlier maps, and were occupied with a vain
iteration. A little later the map of Lescarbot, of 1609, as might be
supposed, is poor in its outlines and devoted rather to the French
occupation.[434]

[Illustration: HOOD’S MAP, 1592.

The Legends are as follows:—

   1. Rio de S. Spo.
   2. Rio Salado.
   3. C. de S. Joan.
   4. C. de las arenas.
   5. C. de Pero (arenas).
   6. Santiago.
   7. B. de S. Christoforo.
   8. Monte Viride.
   9. R. de buena madre.
  10. St. John Baptista.
  11. Terrallana.
  12. C. de las Saxas.
  13. Archipelago.
  14. C. S. Maria.
  15. C. de mucas y^{as}.
  16. R. das Guamas.
  17. Aracifes.
  18. R. de Mōtanas.
  19. R. de la Plaia.—ED.
]

Smith’s well-known map, issued with his _Description of New England_
in 1616, was the earliest to give a configuration of the coast,
approaching accuracy; and he could have found little in Lescarbot’s and
Champlain’s maps to assimilate, even if he had known them. Cape Cod now
for the first time was drawn with its characteristic bend. Smith says
that he had brought with him five or six maps, neither true to each
other nor to the coast.

Smith’s map did not originally contain a single English name,[435]
but the young Prince Charles, to whom it was submitted in accordance
with Smith’s request, changed about thirty “barbarous” Indian names
for others, in order that “posterity” might be able to say that that
royal personage was their “godfather.” A number of Scotch names were
selected, among others, by the grandson of the Queen of Scots. Smith
gave the name of Nusket to Mount Desert, confusing it, perhaps,
with the aboriginal Pemetic, which was changed to Lomond, given as
“Lowmonds” on the map. The prince very naturally desired to give names
recalling the country of his birth; and while Ben Lomond, one of the
noblest Caledonian hills, bears a certain grand resemblance to its
namesake, the breezes of the lake of Mount Desert, like “answering
Lomond’s,”

  “Soothe many a chieftain’s sleep.”

In a similar spirit he named the Blue Hills of Milton the “Cheuyot
hills;” the ancient river of Sagadahoc being the Forth, with what was
intended for “Edenborough” standing near its headwaters. There is
nothing on the map to recall the nonconformists of Nottinghamshire
and Lincolnshire, who afterwards came upon the coast, except Boston
and Hull which stand near the Isles of Shoals, being, in fancy, close
together on the map, as afterwards they were reproduced farther south,
in fact.

The young prince, then a lad of about fifteen, no doubt had suggestions
made to him respecting the names to be selected, as he favored the
southern and southwestern communities like Bristol and Plymouth, which
furnished those expeditions encouraged by churchmen like Popham and
Gilbert. Poynt Suttliff forms a distinct recognition of Dr. Sutliffe,
the Dean of Exeter, who took so much interest in New England.[436]

On this map we find the ancient Norumbega called New England. Rich
says that Smith was the first to apply this name. In reply, Mr. Henry
C. Murphy has referred to its alleged use by a Dutchman in 1612.[437]
Special reference is made to a statement printed upon the back of a
map contained in a book brought out by Hessell Gerritsz at Amsterdam,
giving a description of the country of the Samoieds in Tartary. The
phrase used, however, is not “New England,” nor “Nova Anglia,” but
“Nova Albion,”[438] which was applied to the whole region by Sir
Francis Drake, in his explorations on the Pacific coast.

[Illustration]

At that time the continent lying between the Atlantic and the Pacific
was regarded as a narrow strip of land; and as late as 1651 it was
estimated that it was only ten days’ journey on foot from
the headwaters of the James to the Pacific.[439] In 1609 the country
was called Nova Britannia. It would seem, therefore, according to
present indications, that Smith was entitled to the credit given him
by Rich. At all events the importance of Smith’s work in New England
cannot be questioned. Smith himself was not backward in asserting
the value of his services, declaring in one place that he “brought
New England to the Subjection of the Kingdom of Great Britain.”[440]
After the publication of his map, Norumbega well-nigh disappeared from
the pages of travellers,[441] and a new series of observation of the
territory was begun by the authors of works like those which chronicled
the doings of the Leyden Adventurers in New England.

[Illustration]

       *       *       *       *       *

EDITORIAL NOTES.


=A.= EARLIEST ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS ON AMERICA.—The backwardness of
the English in all that related to the extension of American discovery
is distinctly apparent in the comparatively few publications from
the London press in the sixteenth century which conduced to spread
intelligence of the New World on the land and incite rivalry on the
ocean. The following list will show this:—

=1509.= When Alexander Barclay put Sebastian Brant’s _Ship of Fools_
into English verse and published it in folio in London, he disclosed
one of the earliest references to the Spanish discoveries which the
English people could have read. This book is very rare; a copy brought
£120 at the Perkins sale in London in 1873,—_Carter-Brown Catalogue_,
p. 245. This edition has of late been reprinted in England, edited by
Jamieson.

=1511.=(?) A book _Of the newe Lādes_, printed about this time at
Antwerp, but in English, is thought to have been the earliest original
treatise in the English tongue which makes any mention of America. The
New World is supposed to be meant by “Armenica.” Harrisse, however,
assigns 1522 as its date,—_Bibl. Amer. Vet._ p. 196. There is a copy
in the British Museum.

=1519=, though put by some as early as 1510. _A new Interlude of the
iiij. Elements._ This has been already described in Mr. Deane’s chapter.

=1517.= Wynkyn de Worde printed Watson’s English prose translation of
Brant’s _Ship of Fools_.

A half century and more slipped away without the English press taking
heed, except in such chance notices as these, of what was so closely
engaging the attention of the rest of Europe. But in

=1553= appeared the earliest book produced in England chiefly devoted
to the American discoveries, and this was Richard Eden’s _Treatyse of
the newe India_, which he had translated from the Latin of the fifth
book of Sebastian Munster’s _Cosmographia_, pp. 1099 to 1113. See
_Carter-Brown Cat._ p. 171, and further in the chapter on the Cabots.

Munster was one of the most popular cosmographers of his day. He had
begun his work in 1532 by supplying a map by Apianus to Gyrnæus’s
_Novus Orbis_ of that date, which was not very creditable, being much
behind the times; and he made amends by trying to give the latest
information in an issue of Ptolemy, which he edited in 1540, to which
he supplied a woodcut map that did service in a variety of publications
for nearly all the rest of the century. It was one of the earliest
maps, in which interstices were left in the block for the insertion
of type for the names, and in this way it was made to accompany both
German and Latin texts. It was also used in Sylvanus’s Ptolemy, the
names being in red. Kohl, _Disc. of Maine_, p. 296; _Harvard Coll. Lib.
Bull._ i. 270.

Munster’s _Cosmographia_, to which he transferred this map, was first
published in German, according to Harrisse, _Bibl. Amer. Vet._, no.
258, quoting the _Labanoff Catalogue_, in 1541, and again in 1544, with
a new map. After this there were two German (1545 and 1550) and one
Latin (1550) edition, each published at Basle, and a French edition
(1552), all of which are generally noted, besides Eden’s version of
1552 (owned by Mr. Brevoort); cf. _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, 1865, p.
27, and an earlier one (1543), cited in Poggendorff’s _Biog.-lit.
Handwörterbuch_, ii. 234, which is not so generally recognized, if
indeed it exists at all. The statement is, however, enough to indicate
that Eden thus made a popular book the medium of his first presentation
to the English public.

[Illustration: TITLE OF EDEN’S MUNSTER.

The cut is taken from the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_. The Colophon reads:
“Thus endeth this fyfth boke of Sebastian Munster, of the lādes of Asia
the greater, and of the newefounde landes, and Ilandes. 1553.”]

=1555.= Richard Eden, who to his book-learning added the results
of converse with sailors, next published his _Decades of the Newe
Worlde, or West India_, derived in large part, as shown in Mr. Deane’s
chapter, from the Latin of Peter Martyr. This made to the English
public the first really collective presentation of the results of the
maritime enterprise of that time. (H. Stevens, _Bibl. Hist._ 1870,
no. 632; Field, _Indian Bibliog._ no. 484; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_,
p. 184, with fac-simile of title.) Among the supplemental matters was
a “Description of the two Viages made out of England into Guinea,”
in 1553-54, which were the earliest English voyages ever printed.
This 1555 edition, which fifty years ago was worth in good copies six
guineas (Rich’s _Catalogue_, 1832, no. 30), will now bring about £25.
The Editor has used the Harvard College and Mr. Charles Deane’s copies.
There was sold in the Brinley sale, no. 40, the 1533 edition of Peter
Martyr, which was the copy used by Eden in making this translation,
and it is enriched with his little marginal maps and annotations. See
Sabin’s _Dictionary_, i. 201, where it is said Bellero’s map, measuring
5 × 6½ inches, is found in some copies. The Lenox copy has a larger
map, 10½ × 7 inches, with a similar title.

=1559.= “A perticular Description of suche partes of America as are
by travaile founde out,” made the last chapter of a heavy folio, _The
Cosmographicalle Glasse_, which appeared in London, the work of a young
man, William Cunningham, twenty-eight years old, a doctor in physics
and astronomy. See _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 214, where a fac-simile
of the author’s portrait as it appeared in the book is given.

=1563.= _The whole and true discouerie of Terra Florida_, as set forth
in English, following Ribault’s narrative, was published in London on
the 30th of May. The book is so scarce that the Lenox and Carter-Brown
Libraries have been content with manuscript copies from the volume in
the British Museum. This may possibly indicate that the destruction of
the edition followed upon much reading and thumbing.

=1568.= _The New found Worlde, or Antarctike ... travailed and written
in the French tong by that excellent learned man, Master Andrewe
Thevet, and now newly translated into English. Imprinted at London
for Thomas Hacket._ This is a translation of Thevet’s well-known but
untrustworthy book. See _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 241; there is also
a copy in H. C. Murphy’s collection.

[Illustration: MUNSTER, 1532.]

[Illustration: MUNSTER, 1540.

This sketch-map needs the following key:—

  1. India Superior.
  2. Archipelagus 7448 Insularum.
  3. Francisca.
  4. C. Britonum.
  5. Terra Florida.
  6. Cortereali.
  7. Hispaniola.
  8. Cuba.
  9. Iucatan.
  10. Jamica.
  11. Antillæ.
  12. Dominica.
  13. Zipangri.
  14. Paria.
  15. Regio Gigantum.
  16. Fretum Magalini.
  17. Insulæ Inforunatæ.
  18. Oceanus Occidentalis.
  19. Insulæ Hesperidum.
  20. Insula Atlantica quam vocant Basilij et Americam.]

=1570.= Another English edition of Barclay’s version of the _Ship of
Fools_. The _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 243, gives the title and
portrait of Brant in fac-simile.

=1572.= Eden’s version of Munster again appeared under the title of _A
briefe Collection and Compendious Extract of Straunge and Memorable
Thinges, gathered out of the Cosmographeye of Sebastian Munster_. See
_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 172.

=1574.= Eden’s _Briefe Collection_ was reissued. There was a copy in
the Heber sale, and one is now in the British Museum, according to
Sabin.

[Illustration: Title of Stultifera Nauis (1570)

  [Stultifera Nauis,
  qua omnium mortalium narratur stultitia, admodum
  vtilis & necessaria ab omnibus ad suam salutem perlegenda,
  è Latino sermone in nostrum vulgarem versa,& iam diligenter
  impressa. An. Do. 1570.

  The Ship of Fooles, wherin is shewed the folly
  of all States, with  diners other workes adioyned  unto the same,
  very profitable and fruitfull for all men.
  Translated out of Latin into Englishe by Alexander
  Barclay Priest.]]

[Illustration: AUTOGRAPH OF SIR HUMPHREY GILBERT.]

=1576.= In April appeared Sir Humphrey Gilbert’s _Discourse of a
Discoverie for a new passage to Cataia_, a Gothic-letter tract of
great rarity in these days. It is credited with giving a new impulse
to English explorations; and had exerted some influence in manuscript
copies before being printed. See _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 258;
_Brinley Catalogue_, no. 31, Heber’s copy, which brought $255. It is
also in the Lenox Library; and this and the Carter-Brown copy have
the rare map which in the Catalogue of the latter collection is given
slightly reduced, and it is in part reproduced herewith. See Fox
Bourne’s _English Seamen_, chs. 5 and 7. Gilbert in this had undertaken
to prove, both from reasoning and report, that there was a northwest
passage, and that America was an island, and he recounts traditions of
its being sailed through. See Mr. Deane’s chapter on “The Cabots.”

[Illustration: PART OF GILBERT’S MAP, 1576.]

=1577.= Settle published in London his _True Reporte of the laste
Voyage into the west and northwest regions_, the author having
accompanied Frobisher on his voyage in 1577. Its rarity—for besides
the Grenville copy in the British Museum, that in the _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, p. 266, where its title is given in fac-simile, is the only
one we have noted—may signify the eagerness there was to read it, with
a consequent use great enough to destroy the edition, though there
are said to have been two issues the same year. A fac-simile reprint
(fifty copies) has been privately made from the Carter-Brown copy; and
it is also reprinted in Brydges’s _Restituta_, 1814, vol. ii. See _N.
E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1869, p. 363,—a notice by John Russell
Bartlett.

=1577.= Richard Willes brought out in London, with some augmentation,
an edition of Eden’s Peter Martyr, under the new title of _The History
of Trauvayle_, a stout volume, which in the known copies has stood wear
better. Willes’s preface tells the story of Eden’s labors, and adds,
“Many of his Englysche woordes cannot be excused in my opinion for
smellyng to much of the Latine.”

It would seem that the arrangement was still mostly the labor of Eden,
who did not die till 1576. Willes, however, suppressed Eden’s preface
of 1555.

This edition has likewise much appreciated in value. Rich, in his 1832
_Catalogue_, no. 57, priced a fine copy at £4 4_s._; now one is worth
£20 or more. There are copies in Harvard College, Carter-Brown (no.
312), Charles Deane’s and Boston Athenæum Libraries. See also _Brinley
Catalogue_, no. 41; _Sunderland Catalogue_, no. 4180; Field, _Ind.
Bibl._, no. 485; _Huth Catalogue_, p. 922.

[Illustration]

=1577.= John Frampton translated and published, under the title of
_Joyfull Newes out of the New founde Worlde_, a book of the Seville
Physician, Nicholas de Monardes. See _Brinley Catalogue_, no. 46;
Stevens’s _Nuggets_, 1924; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, no. 313.

=1578.= Thomas Churchyard’s _Prayse and Report of Maister Martyne
Forboisher’s Voyage to Meta Incognita_, London. Bohn’s _Lowndes_, p.
450, reports a copy in the British Museum.

=1578.= George Best published his _True Discourse of the late voyage of
discoverie for the finding of a passage to Cathaya by the North-weast,
under the Conduct of Martin Frobisher, generall_. This is also very
rare. See _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, no. 319, which shows the two rare
maps, a portion of one of which is given in fac-simile in ch. iii. from
that in Collinson’s _Martin Frobisher_.

=1578.= Thomas Nicholas printed, under his initials only, an English
version of Gomara’s account of Cortes’ conquest of New Spain, called
_The Pleasant Historie of the Conquest of the Weast Indies_. Fine
copies are worth about £10. There are copies in the Boston Athenæum,
Lenox Library, etc. See _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 275, for
fac-simile of title; Sabin’s _Dictionary_, vii. 311; W. C. Hazlitt’s
_Bibliog. Coll. and notes_, 2d ser. p. 265.

=1580.= A new edition of Frampton’s _Joyfull Newes_. This edition is
worth about £4. There is a copy in Harvard College Library. Rich,
_Catalogue_, 1832, no. 64.

=1580.= John Florio published a retranslation into English from
Ramusio’s Italian version of Cartier’s _Voyage to New France_ (1534),
which had appeared originally in French, but was not now apparently
accessible to Florio. _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, no. 331.

=1581.= T. Nicholas published an English translation, now very rare, of
Zarate’s account of the Conquest of Peru.

=1582.= Hakluyt began his active participation in furthering English
maritime exploration by his first publication, the little _Divers
Voyages_, dedicating it to Sir Philip Sidney; and in this he says: “I
marvaile not a little ... that we of England could never have the grace
to set fast footing in such fertill and temperate places as are left
as yet unpossessed.” Again he says: “In my public lectures I was the
first that produced and showed both the olde imperfectly composed and
the new lately reformed mappes, globes, and spheares, to the generall
contentment of my auditory.” See further in Mr. Deane’s chapter on “The
Cabots.” Cf. W. C. Hazlitt’s _Bibliog. Coll. and notes_, 1st ser. p.
101.

There is, unfortunately, no sufficiently extended account of Hakluyt,
and the most we know of him must be derived from his own publications.
The brief account in Anthony Wood’s _Athenæ Oxonienses_ is the source
of most of the notices. Mr. J. Payne Collier has added something in a
paper on “Richard Hakluyt and American Discovery” in the _Archæologia_,
xxxiii. 383; and Mr. Winter Jones in his Introduction to the reprint
of the _Divers Voyages_ has told about all that can be gleaned, and in
his Appendix he gives some papers before unprinted, including Hakluyt’s
will. The subject has had later treatment, with the advantage of some
recent information, in the Introduction to the _Westerne Planting_, by
Dr. Woods and Mr. Deane.

With the exception of the criticism of John Locke,—if he be the editor
of Churchill’s _Collection_,—who wished Hakluyt had condensed more,
and of Biddle, who accuses him of perversions in his account of the
Cabots (see Mr. Deane’s chapter), the general opinion of Hakluyt’s
labor has been very high. Locke’s explanatory catalogue of voyages,
which appeared in Churchill, is reprinted in Clarke’s _Maritime
Discovery_. Oldys in the _British Librarian_, p. 136, analyzes
Hakluyt’s books, and there is a list of them in Sabin’s _Dictionary_
and in the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 448. An account of the set in
the Lenox Library is printed in Norton’s _Literary Gazette_, i. 384.

Of the _Divers Voyages_, perfect copies are excessively rare, and the
two maps are almost always wanting. The two British Museum copies have
them, but the Bodleian has only the Lok map, and the same is true
of the Carter-Brown copy (_Catalogue_, p. 290). The other copies in
America belong to Harvard College (imperfect), Charles Deane, and Henry
C. Murphy. Of the maps, that by Lok is given in reduced fac-simile in
the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_ (as also in chapter i. of the present
volume), and both are given full size in the reprint of the Hakluyt
Society.

=1583.= Captain J. Carleill’s little _Discourse upon the entended
Voyage to the hethermoste Partes of America_, a tract of a few leaves
only, in Gothic letter, was probably printed about this time with the
aim to induce emigration and the fixing of commercial advantages.
Hakluyt thought it of enough importance to include it in his third
volume seventeen years later. _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 292.

=1583.= Sir George Peckham’s _True Report of the late Discoveries_,
etc. See further on this tract on a preceding page.

=1583.= M. M. S. published at London a small tract giving a
translation of Las Casas’ story of the Spanish deeds in the New World.
_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 293.

=1588.= What is called the second original work published in England
on the New World is Hariot’s _New Foundland of Virginia_, a small
quarto of twenty-three leaves, imprinted at London. Heber had a copy;
and Brunet, the first to describe it, took the title from Heber’s
Catalogue. There are copies in the Lenox, Huth (_Catalogue_, ii.
652), Grenville (British Museum) and the Bodleian libraries. Sabin,
_Dictionary_, viii. 30377, who says this, adds that there was a copy
sold surprisingly low at Dublin in 1873, escaping the attention of
collectors. It was reprinted at Frankfort in 1590. See chapter iv.

=1588.= Appeared an English version of the Latin account of Drake’s
voyage.

=1589.= Hakluyt gave out the first edition of his _Principall
Navigations_. Copies are at present worth from £5 to £10, according to
condition; and we have noted the following: Harvard College, Brinley
(no. 33), Carter-Brown (no. 384), Charles Deane, Long Island Historical
Society, Field (_Ind. Bibliog._ no. 631), Crowninshield (_Catalogue_,
no. 487), etc. The catalogues usually note the six suppressed leaves of
Drake’s voyage when present.

Hakluyt, at the end of his preface, speaks of “The comming out of a
very large and most exact terestriall Globe, collected and reformed
according to the newest, secretest, and latest discoveries, ...
composed by Mr. Emmerie Mollineaux, of Lambeth, a rare gentleman in his
profession.”

In place of this Molineaux map, there sometimes appears, at p. 597,
what Hakluyt calls “One of the best general mappes of the world,”
which is a recut plate of one in Ortelius’s Atlas; and in other copies
instead we find another edition of the same, which is also found in the
English translation of Linschoten. Sabin says he has sometimes found a
woodcut of Gilbert’s map substituted. The Ortelius map is reproduced in
chapter i. of the present volume.

=1591.= Job Hortop’s _Rare Travales of an Englishman_, published in
London. Bohn’s _Lowndes_, p. 1124. There is a copy in the British
Museum. Hortop was one of Ingram’s companions, and after being captured
and confined in Mexico, reached England after very many years’ absence.

=1595.= John Davis published his _Worlde’s Hydrographical
Descriptions_, which in parts reiterates the views of Gilbert’s
_Discourse_. The only copies known are in the Grenville Library
(British Museum) and Lenox Library, New York. It is reprinted in the
Hakluyt Society’s edition of _Davis’s Voyages_, p. 191, and in the 1812
edition of Hakluyt’s _Principall Navigations_.

=1596.= A third edition of Frampton’s _Joyfull Newes_. A fine copy is
worth about three guineas. See _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, no. 497.

=1596.= Second edition of Nicholas’s translation of Gomara. _Brinley
Catalogue_, nos. 32 and 5309; Sabin, _Dictionary_, 27752; Field, _Ind.
Bibl._ no. 611; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, no. 499.

[Illustration]

=1598.= Wolfe, of London, published an English translation, by William
Philip, of Linschoten’s _Discours of Voyages into y^e Easte and West
Indies, in foure Bookes_, with a dedication to Sir Julius Cæsar, Judge
of the High Court of Admiralty. The preface adds: “Which Booke being
commended by Maister Richard Hackluyt, a man that laboureth greatly
to advance our English Name and Nativity, the Printer thought good
to cause the same to bee translated into the English Tongue.” The
original became a very popular book on the Continent. The maps of
American interest are those of the World, of the Antilles, and of South
America. The description of America begins on p. 216. _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, i. no. 527; _Crowninshield Catalogue_, no. 625; Rich
(1832), no. 84, prices a copy at £8 8_s._

[Illustration]

These are all, or nearly all, the publications brought out in English
and relating to America prior to the enlarged edition of Hakluyt’s
Collection, which was dedicated to Sir Robert Cecil, and of which the
third volume, bearing date 1600, was devoted to America. Compared
with the publications of the Continent for the same century, they are
strikingly fewer in number; and such as they are, it will be seen that
of the thirty-four separate issues enumerated above only fourteen are
of English origin, and of the whole number only twelve belong to the
first three quarters of the century.

[Illustration]

During this same century the literature of navigation took its origin.
The Continental nations had already preceded. It was not till 1528 that
the first sea-manual appeared in England, and no copy of it is now
known. This was a translation of the French _Le Routier de la Mer_,
the antetype of the later rutters. The English edition was called _The
Rutter of the Sea_, and other editions appeared in 1536, 1541, and 1560
(?); the second of these adding, “A rutter of the northe, compyled
by Rychard Proude.” None of these, however, recognized the American
discoveries.

In 1561, Eden, at the suggestion of the Arctic navigator, Stephen
Burrough (b. 1525, d. 1586), again tried to give some impulse
to English interest by his translation of Martin Cortes’ _Art
of Navigation_, which had appeared at Seville ten years before.
(_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 151.) Cortes was the first to suggest a
magnetic pole. Frobisher, when he made his first voyage, fifteen years
later (1576), perhaps because Eden’s translation was out of print, took
with him a Spanish edition of Medina’s _Arte de Navegar_,—a work which
preceded Cortes’, but never became so popular in England.

In 1565 came a fifth edition of the _Rutter of the Sea_, and in 1573
William Bourne first issued his _Regiment of the Sea_, which long
remained the chief English book on navigation.[442]

Eden put forth, at what precise date is not known, but not later than
1576, _A very necessarie and profitable book concerning Navigation,
compiled in Latin by Joannes Taisnierus_, in which the translator
intimates that Cabot knew more of the ways of discovering longitude
than he had disclosed. See _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 262. _Davis’s
Voyages_ (Hakluyt Society) gives the date 1579.

Such books, as the interest in America became more general, increased
rapidly, and I note them in chronological order.

=1577.= Second edition, _Regiments of the Sea_.

=1578.= Edward Hellowes published in London, in a small tract, a
translation, _A booke of the Invention of Navigation_ of Antonio de
Gaevara, Bishop of Mondonedo, originally printed at Valladolid in 1539.

=1578.= Second edition, Eden’s Cortes.

=1580.= Sixth edition of _The Rutter of the Sea_.

=1580.= Third edition, Eden’s Cortes.

=1581.= _The Arte of Navigation. By Pedro de Medina. Translated out of
the Spanish by John Frampton._ Medina’s _Arte de Navegar_ originally
appeared at Valladolid in 1545.

=1584.= Fourth edition, Eden’s Cortes. See _Brinley Catalogue_, no. 19,
for a copy which has a folding woodcut map of the New World, which is
usually wanting in later editions.

=1585.= Robert Norman, hydrographer, published his _Newe Attractive_,
with rules for the art of navigation annexed.

=1587.= Robert Tanner’s _Mirror for Mathematiques, ... a sure safety
for Saylers_, etc.

=1587.= Seventh edition of _The Rutter of the Sea_.

=1588.= The first marine atlas ever made appeared at Leyden in 1583-84,
and this year in London as _The Mariner’s Mirrour, ... first made by
Luke Wagenaer, of Enchuisen, and now fitted with necessarie additions
by Anthony Ashley_.

=1588.= Fifth edition, Eden’s Cortes.

=1589.= Thomas Blundeville’s _Brief Description of Universal Mappes and
Cardes, and of their Use, and also the Use of Ptolemy his tables_.

=1589.= A sixth edition of Eden’s version of Martin Cortes’ _Arte of
Navigation_ appeared. Good copies of this small black-letter quarto are
worth about seven guineas. It is known that Hakluyt about this time was
endeavoring with the aid of Drake to found in London a public lecture
for the purpose of advancing the art of navigation.

=1590.= Robert Norman translated from the Dutch _The Safeguard of
Saylers, or Great Rutter_. Edward Wright corrected and enlarged this in
1612. Norman was the inventor of the dipping-needle, in 1576.

=1590.= Thomas Hood’s _Use of the Jacob’s Staffe; also a dialogue
touching the use of the Crosse Staffe_. These were instruments for
the taking of latitude. The astrolabe, an instrument of remote
antiquity, had been adapted to sea-use by Martin Behaim; but it was
soon found that it did not adapt itself to the automatic movement of
the observer’s body in a rolling sea, and in 1514 the cross-staff was
invented, or at least was first described.

=1592.= A third edition of Bourne’s _Regiment of the Sea_, corrected by
Thomas Hood.

=1592.= Thomas Hood’s _Use of both the Globes, celestiall and
terrestriall_, written to accompany the Molineaux globes.

=1592.= Thomas Hood’s _Marriner’s Guide_.

=1594.= John Davis published his _Seaman’s Secrets, wherein is taught
the three kindes of Sayling,—Horizontall, Paradoxall, and Sayling upon
a great Circle_. He held up the example of the Spaniards: “For what
hath made the Spaniard to be so great a Monarch, the Commander of both
Indies, to abound in wealth and all Nature’s benefites, but only the
painefull industrie of his Subjects by Navigation.” No copy of this
first edition is known. The second edition, 1607, is in the British
Museum, and from this copy the tract is reprinted in _Davis’s Voyages_
(Hakluyt Society ed.).

=1594.= _M. Blundevile, his Exercises_, with instruction in the art of
navigation. This proved a popular instruction book.

=1594.= Robert Hues printed in London a Latin treatise on the Molineaux
globes, _Tractatus de Globis, et eorum usu_. This includes a chapter by
Thomas Hariot on the rhumbs, or the lines which so perplexingly cover
the old maps.

=1596.= Another edition of Hood’s corrected issue of Bourne’s _Regiment
of the Sea_.

=1596.= Second edition of Norman’s _Newe Attractive_, etc.

=1596.= John Blagrave’s _Necessary and Pleasaunt Solace and recreation
for Navigators.... Whereunto ... he has anexed another invention
expressing on one face the whole globe terrestrial, with the two great
English voyages lately performed round the world_. This last is a map
by Hondius, reproduced in Drake’s _World Encompassed_ (Hakluyt Soc.
ed.).

=1596.= Thomas Hood’s _Use of the mathematicall Instruments, the Crosse
Staffe differing from that in common use, and the Jacob’s Staffe_.

=1596.= Seventh edition of Eden’s version of Cortes.

=1597.= Second edition of _Blundevile, his Exercises_.

=1597.= William Barlow’s _Navigator’s Supply, containing many things of
principal importance belonging to navigation_. Largely on compasses.

=1598.= John Wolfe translated and printed _A treatyse ... for all
seafaringe men, by Mathias Sijverts Lakeman, alias Sofridus_.

=1599.= Simon Stevin’s _De Haven-vinding_ appeared at Leyden, and
Edward Wright brought it out at once in English, as _The Haven-Finding
Art_.

=1599.= Edward Wright published his _Certain Errors in Navigation,
detected and corrected_. Wright was born in 1560, was lecturer on
navigation for the East India Company, was the verifier and improver of
Mercator’s projection, and is thought to have been the author of the
Molineaux map.

It will be observed that of this list of thirty-three publications for
twenty-five years about one half is of foreign origin.


=B.= HAKLUYT’S “WESTERNE PLANTING” AND THE MAINE HISTORICAL
SOCIETY.—The history of this manuscript, so far as known, is as
follows:—

The family of Sir Peter Thomson (who died in 1770) possessed it,
from whom Lord Valentia secured it, and this collector indorsed upon
it “unpublished” and “extremely curious.” It subsequently is found
in the hands of Mr. Henry Stevens, who put it into a public sale in
London, May, 1854; and in the Catalogue (lot 474) it is called “a
most important unpublished manuscript, 63 pages, closely and neatly
written, in the original calf binding.” It brought £44, and passed into
the Collection of Sir Thomas Phillipps. (Stevens’s _Hist. and Geog.
Notes_, 1869, p. 20.) This gentleman began in 1837 to print privately
a catalogue of his library, then kept at Middle Hill, Worcestershire,
and continued the printing, sheet by sheet, and under no. 14097 this
manuscript appears as “A Hakluyt Discourse.” In 1859 Sir Thomas bought
Thirlestane House, Cheltenham, the seat of Lord Northwick, and hither
he removed his vast collections of manuscripts and books, where they
now are, in the possession of his heirs, Sir Thomas having died in
1872. They are open to inquirers under restrictions. See _N. E. Hist.
and Geneal. Reg._, 1873, p. 429.

The manuscript of the _Westerne Planting_ is not thought to be in
Hakluyt’s hand, though in a contemporary script; and the writing of it
by Hakluyt seems to have been in progress during the summer of 1584,
while its author was thirty-two years old. There is evidence that it
existed in four or five copies,—of which the only one known at this
day is the Phillipps copy,—one of which was for the queen, and all
were made with the view of recommending the planting of Norumbega.

In 1867 Dr. Woods was commissioned by the Governor of Maine to
procure in Europe material for the early history of the State, and
the first fruit was the engaging of Dr. Kohl in the work, which
subsequently assumed shape in his _Discovery of Maine_, and the second
the procurement of this Hakluyt manuscript. Dr. Woods was engaged in
preparing it for the press, when his health declined, and the labor was
completed by Mr. Charles Deane, the book being published by the Maine
Historical Society in 1877.

       *       *       *       *       *

Under the auspices of this Society some important historical work has
been done. Dr. Kohl’s book is the most elaborate summary yet made
of the early explorations on our New England coast. The labors of
Dr. Woods have been the subject of consideration in Dr. E. A. Park’s
_Life and Character of Leonard Woods_, Andover, 1880, 52 pp., and in
Dr. C. C. Everett’s notice in _Me. Hist. Coll._, viii. 481, and in
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xviii. 15. The late George Folsom opened
an important field of investigation in his _Catalogue of Original
Documents in the English Archives relating to the Early History of
Maine_, privately printed, New York, 1858, which covers the years
1601-1700, and is said to have been compiled for him by Mr. H. G.
Somerby. See _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._,1859, p. 262, and 1869, p.
481. Of the labors of William D. Williamson, the principal historian
of the State, there is due record in the _Historical Magazine_, xiii.
265, May, 1868, and in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, i. 90. The
Hon. William Willis, of whom there are accounts in the _Maine Hist.
Coll._, vii. 473, and in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1873,
p. 1, was for many years the president of the Society, and besides
furnishing many communications, he issued a bibliography of Maine in
_Norton’s Literary Letter_, no. 4, 1859, which was much enlarged in
the _Historical Magazine_, xvii. 145, March, 1870. In connection with
this subject the bibliography in Griffin’s _History of the Press in
Maine_, 1872, deserves notice. There is in the _Hist. Mag._, Jan.
1868, an account of the Maine Historical Society and the historical
investigations it has patronized.

A list of the charters and grants on the Maine coast is given in the
_Hist. Mag._, March, 1870, p. 154. See in this connection S. F. Haven’s
lecture in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Lowell Lectures_.


[Illustration: DR. JOHN G. KOHL.

We are indebted for the photograph used by the engraver to Dr.
Kohl’s successor in the librarianship of the Public Library at
Bremen, Dr. Heinrich Bulthaupt. No name ranks higher than Kohl’s
in the investigations of our early North American geography. “From
my childhood,” he says, “I was highly interested in geographical
researches in connection with history.” Having gathered much material
on the early cartographical history of America in the archives and
libraries of Europe, he came to this country, and receiving an
appropriation from Congress to enable him to make copies of his maps
for the Government, he undertook that work, the results of which are
now in the State Department at Washington. All that he desired to do
was not provided for by the order of Congress, and he returned to
Europe disappointed in his hopes, but leaving behind him, besides
the collections in Washington, a memoir with maps on the discovery
of the western coast of America, which is now in the library of the
American Antiquarian Society. In Europe he annotated and published at
Munich in fac-simile the two oldest general maps of America, those
known as Ribero’s and Ferdinando Columbus’s, and a treatise on the
history of the Gulf Stream, as well as a condensed popular history of
the discovery of America. In 1868 he undertook, what proved to be his
chief contribution to American historical geography, his _Discovery of
Maine_. He did not feel that he had accomplished all in this that he
would; but it still remains the most important essay since Humboldt in
that peculiar field. See Charles Deane’s notice of Kohl in _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, Dec. 1878, and the memoir in the _Beilage zur Allgemeinen
Zeitung_, Augsburg, July 9, 1879.]

=C.= THE POPHAM COLONY.—It was unfortunate, as it was unnecessary,
that any theological color should have been given to the discussion
arising out of the claims made for this colony, since the merits of the
case concerned solely the historical significance of secular events,
upon which all were agreed in the main. The claim asserted by the
Maine Historical Society, or by those representing it, was this: That
the temporary settlement at Sabino, being made under the charter of
1606, was the first event to secure New England for the English crown,
and should therefore be deemed the beginning of the existence of its
colonies. The claim of those historical students who took issue was
this: That the granting in 1606 of a patent by the king to his subjects
concerned no further the question than that it simply formulated a
pre-existing claim, while the actual attempts at colonization by
Gosnold in 1602, whether authorized or not,—the latter alternative
having of late years been brought forward by Dr. De Costa,—were more
practically demonstrative of that claim, in accordance with the English
interpretation of rights in new countries, namely, actual possession.
Further, that the true historic beginning of New England was not in
the abortive attempts of Gosnold and Popham to effect a settlement,
however much, in connection with many other events, they helped in
preparing a way, but in the permanent colonization which was made at
Plymouth in 1620, which was the first founded upon family life, and
which under greater distress than befell either of the others, was
rendered permanent more by the spirit of religious independency, as
evinced by their Holland exile, than by the mercenary longing, which
was professedly the chief motive of the others. Strachey distinctly
says of the Popham Colony, that mining was “the main intended benefit
expected.”

It is susceptible of proof that the blood of the Pilgrims and of their
congeners runs through the veins of a large part of the population
of New England to-day. No genealogical tree has been produced which
connects our present life with a single one of the Sabino party.
How, then, was New England saved for the English race? The decisive
historical event is never those scattering forerunners which always
harbinger an epoch, but the fulfilment of the idea which comes in the
ripeness of time.

The controversy as it was waged was a reaction from the views with
which the Pilgrims had long been regarded for their devotion under
trial and for the pluck of their constancy in first making English
homes on this part of the continent. Maine writers like George Folsom
and William Willis had never questioned such established claims,
but had reasserted them. The leading spirit in this revocation of
judgment was Mr. John A. Poor, of Portland. This gentleman, having
done much to increase the material interests of his native State,
entered with pertinacity into a process of rendering, as he claimed,
the position of Maine in history more conspicuous. This required the
aggrandizement of the fame of Sir Ferdinando Gorges; and he began his
missionary work with a vindication of Gorges’ claims to be considered
the father of English colonization in America. It was no new idea,
for George Folsom had done Gorges justice in his _Discourse_ in 1846.
Mr. Poor’s lecture was printed, and was subsequently appended to the
_Popham Memorial_. To emphasize this claim, he secured the naming of
a new fort in Portland Harbor after Sir Ferdinando in 1860; and in
1862, when the General Government built a fortification on the old
peninsula of Sabino, his efforts caused it to be named Fort Popham,
and his zeal planned and directed a commemorative service in August of
that year on the spot, when a tablet recounting the claims of which
he was the champion was placed near its walls. The address which he
then delivered, which showed the intemperance, if not the perversity,
of an iconoclast, and which appeared with other papers and addresses
more or less pronounced in the same way in a _Popham Memorial_, opened
the controversy. See also _Historical Magazine_, Jan. 1863, and
Sept. 1866, and Mr. C. W. Tuttle’s account of Mr. Poor’s agency in a
“Memorial of J. A. Poor,” in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, Oct.
1872. The committee charged with the preparation of the _Memorial_
unwisely omitted a counter speech of the late J. Wingate Thornton, on
“The Colonial Schemes of Popham and Gorges,” which was accordingly
printed in the _Congregational Quarterly_, April, 1863, and separately,
and is examined favorably by Abner C. Goodell in the _Essex Institute
Collections_, Aug. 1863, p. 175. A similar unfavorable estimate of
Popham’s colonists had been taken by R. H. Gardiner in the _Maine
Historical Collections_, ii. 269; v. 226.

For some years the spirit was kept alive by recurrent commemorations.
Mr. Edward E. Bourne (see memoir of him in _N. E. Hist and Geneal.
Reg._, 1874, p. 9, and _Me. Hist. Coll._, viii. 386) answered the
detractors in an address, “The Character of the Colony founded by
George Popham,” Portland, 1864. The statements of Poor and Bourne led
to a review by S. F. Haven in the _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April
26, 1865, and in the _Hist. Mag._ (Dec. 1865, p. 358; March, July,
Sept., Nov., 1867; Feb. and May, 1869). There was a dropping fire on
both sides for some time. Meanwhile the address in 1865 by James W.
Patterson, on _The Responsibilities of the Founders of Republics_, led
to a controversy between William F. Poole attacking, and Rev. Edward
Ballard and Frederick Kidder defending, the colonists; and their
papers were printed together as _The Popham Colony: a Discussion of
its Historic Claims_, to which Mr. Poole appended a bibliography of
the subject up to 1866. Poole also gave his view of Gorges and the
colony in his edition of Johnson’s _Wonder Working Providence_, and in
the _North American Review_, Oct. 1868. At the celebration in 1871 Mr.
Charles Deane reviewed the erroneous conclusions presented at earlier
anniversaries, in a paper on “Early Voyages to New England, and their
Influence on Colonization,” which was printed in the _Boston Daily
Advertiser_, Sept. 2, 1871. A paper by R. K. Sewall on “Popham’s Town
of Fort St. George,” which contains a summary of the arguments and
events on the side of its historic importance, is given in the _Me.
Hist. Coll._, vii., accompanied by a map of the region. The latest
statement of the claim, apart from the review in the Preface to _The
Voyage to Sagadahoc_, referred to on an earlier page, is in General
Chamberlain’s _Maine_: _her Place in History_, which is too moderate
to provoke any criticism. Thus a reaction that at one time claimed the
necessity of rewriting history, has in the end engaged few advocates,
and is almost lost sight of.


=D.= CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH’S PUBLICATIONS.—The _Description_ is now a
rare book, worth with the genuine map, should one be offered, fifty
pounds or upwards. There is some bibliographical detail regarding it
in the _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 50, 52, 53. Latin and German
versions of it were included in De Bry, part x. Michael Sparke, the
London printer, issuing Higginson’s _New England’s Plantation_ in 1630,
appended this recommendation:—

 “But whosoever desireth to know as much as yet can be discovered, I
 advise them to buy Captaine John Smith’s booke of the description of
 New England in folio, and reade from fol. 203 to the end; and there
 let the reader expect to have full content.”

Smith’s letter (1618) to Bacon, upon New England, is in the _Hist.
Mag._, July, 1861, and the annexed autograph is taken from the original
in the Public Record office. See Sainsbury’s _Calendar of Colonial
Papers_, no. 42, p. 21; _Popham Memorial_, App. p. 104; Palfrey, _New
England_, i. 97.

[Illustration]

A little tract of Smith’s, _New England’s Trials_ [_i. e._ Attempts at
Settlements], needs to be taken in connection with the _Description_.
Of this tract, of eight pages, published in 1620, there is no copy
known in America, and Mr. Deane describes it and reprints it in the
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ xii. 428, 449, from the Bodleian copy, which
differs in the names of the dedication from the British Museum copy.
In 1622 it was issued in a second edition, enlarged to fourteen pages,
which is also very rare, though copies are in the Deane Collection
and in that of John Carter-Brown, from the last of which a privately
printed reprint has been made. It was this text which Force used in his
_Tracts_, ii. See _Brinley Catalogue_, no. 363.

Smith had moved, April 12, 1621, in a meeting of the Virginia Company,
that its official sanction should be given to a compiled history of
“that country, from her first discovery to this day,” showing that
the purpose of his _Generall Historie_ was then in his mind. (Neill’s
_Virginia Company_, p. 210.) The first edition of it was issued in
1624, and in it he included, besides abstracts of various other
writings, substantially all his previous publications on America (see
the chapter on Virginia in the present volume), except his _True
Relation_, in the place of which he had put the _Map of Virginia_, a
tract covering the same transactions. When reissued in 1626 it was
from the same type, and again in 1627, and twice in 1632. An account
of the various editions in the Lenox Library, which differ only in the
front matter and plates, can be found in Norton’s _Literary Gazette_,
new ser. i. pp. 134 _a_, 218 _c_. Mr. Deane has printed a part of the
original prospectus. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, ix. 454.

The best opportunity for studying the slight diversities of the
different issues of this book may be found in the Lenox Library, which
has ten copies, showing all the varieties. Among other copies, the
following are noted:—

1624., Charles Deane. A large paper dedication copy of this edition,
bound for Smith’s patron, the Duchess of Richmond and Lenox, was
bought, at the Brinley Sale in 1879, no. 364, for the Lenox Library,
$1,800. The Menzies and Barlow copies are also called large paper
ones. See _Griswold Catalogue_, no. 778; Field’s _Ind. Bibliog._ no.
1435. The _Huth Catalogue_, p. 1367, gives a copy of this edition in
the original rich binding, showing the arms of the Duke of Norfolk
quartered with those of his wife, the daughter of the Duchess of
Richmond and Lenox.

1626., Harvard College Library. Sparks’s Collection, now at Cornell
University, no. 2424.

1627., Prince Library in Boston Public Library. Massachusetts
Historical Society. See the _Crowninshield Catalogue_, no. 992.

1631., The _Huth Catalogue_, p. 1367, gives, perhaps by error, an
edition of this date. I have noted no other copy.

1632., Harvard College Library.

The two portraits of the Duchess of Richmond and of Matoaka are usually
wanting. See the note to chapter v. Average copies without the genuine
portraits, which in Rich’s day (1832) were worth five guineas, are now
valued at more than three times that sum. The portrait of Smith, which
is shown reduced on the map of New England already given, has been
similarly reproduced full size in the _Memorial History of Boston_, i.,
and is engraved in the Richmond edition of the _Generall Historie_, in
Bancroft, Drake’s _Boston_, Hillard’s _Life of Smith, N. E. Hist. and
Geneal. Reg._, Jan. 1858, etc.

The _Generall Historie_, in conjunction with the _True Travels_, was
carelessly reprinted at Richmond, in 1819, at the cost of the Rev. John
Holt Rice, D.D., who lost by the speculation. (_N. E. Hist. and Geneal.
Reg._, 1877, p. 114.) A large part appeared in Purchas’s _Pilgrims_,
iv. 1838. It is given entire in Pinkerton’s _Collections of Voyages_,
xiii.

It is the sixth book of this _Generall Historie_ which relates to
New England, and in this Smith supplements his own experience, and
brings the details down beyond the limits of this present chapter,
by borrowing from _Mourt’s Relation_ and reporting upon other
accounts, as he did in his still later publication, the tract called
_Advertisements for the Unexperienced Planters of New England_, which
brings the story down to 1630.

Dr. Palfrey has a note on the confidence to be reposed in Smith’s
books, in his _History of New England_, i. 89.

Smith was born in 1579 at Willoughby, as the parish records show.
(_Hist. Mag._, i. 313; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, ix. 451.) He died
June 21, 1631, signing his will the same day (_Ibid._ ix. 452), and
was buried in St. Sepulchre’s, London, where the inscription above
his grave is said to be now illegible. A committee of the American
Antiquarian Society was appointed in 1874 to see to its restoration,
but were prevented from acting by the demand of a fee for the privilege
from the vestry of the church. (_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1874,
p. 222.) In Sparks’s _American Biography_ is a memoir of him by George
S. Hillard; another, by W. Gilmore Simms, was printed in 1846; and a
recent study of his life and writings has been made by C. D. Warner,
who says that the inscription, with the three (Turks’?) heads in St.
Sepulchre’s, long supposed to mark the grave of Smith, is proved to
commemorate some one who died in September, aged 66, while Smith died
June, 1631, aged 51. Stow’s _Survey of London_, 1633, gives the long
epitaph which could be read on the walls of the church previous to its
destruction in the great London fire in 1666. Cf. Deane in _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, Jan. 1867, p. 454.

[Illustration: NEW WORLD FROM THE LENOX GLOBE.]

Simon Passe, whose Latinized name we see on the engraving of Smith’s
map, was ten years in England, and engraved many of the chief people
of the time; and as he was his own draughtsman, it is probable the
portrait of Smith was drawn by Passe from life, though Robert Clerke is
credited with draughting the map.


=E.= EARLY GLOBES.—The Molineaux globe referred to in the text was
constructed at the instance of that great patron of navigation, William
Sanderson. (_Davis’s Voyages_, Introduction by Markham, pp. xii. 211.)
It is said to be the earliest ever made in England. (_Ibid._ p. lix.)
It is two feet in diameter, and was completed in 1592. (Asher’s _Henry
Hudson_, p. 274.) The oldest globe known antedates it more than a
century, and of those intervening which are known, the following, with
the prototype, deserve mention:—

1. Martin Behaim’s, 1492, preserved in the library at Nuremberg. It
presents an open ocean between Europe and Asia. The first meridian runs
through Madeira. There is a copy in fac-simile in the Bibliothèque
Nationale, at Paris. There have been engraved delineations of it
by Doppelmayr at Nuremberg in 1730; by Dr. Ghillany, in connection
with his _Geschichte des Seefahrers Ritter Martin Behaim_, 1853; by
Jomard in his _Monuments de la Géographie_, 1854-56, pl. 15. There are
sections and reductions in Cladera’s _Investigaciones Historicas_,
Madrid, 1794; in Lelewel’s _Moyen Age_; in the _Journal of the Royal
Geographical Society_, xviii.; in Kohl’s _Discovery of Maine_; in some
of the editions of Irving’s _Columbus_; in Bryant and Gay’s _United
States_, i. 103; and in Maury’s paper in _Harper’s Monthly_, xlii.
(February, 1871).

2. Acquired from a friend in Laon in 1860 by M. Leroux, of the
Administration de la Marine at Paris, and represents the geographical
knowledge current at Lisbon, 1486-87, according to D’Avezac, who gives
a projection of it in the _Bulletin de la Société de Géographie de
Paris_, 4th series, viii. (1860). It is dated 1493. The first meridian
runs through Madeira.

3. A small copper globe in the Lenox Library, in New York, which is
said to be the earliest globe to show the American coast, and its date
is fixed at about 1510-12, but by some as early as 1506-7.

[Illustration: FROM THE MOLINEAUX GLOBE.

This extract is from a tracing by Dr. De Costa. The legends on it are
marked as follows: A, Nova Francia; B, Canada; C, Norumbega; D, India;
E, Virginia, primum lustrata et Culta ab Anglis inpensis D. Gualteri de
Ralegh Equitis Aurati, etc., annuente Elizabetha sev. Angliæ Regina.

   1. Hochelaga.         18. S. Cruz.           34. Claudia.
   2. Mont Royal.        19. De Breton.         35. Rio Grande.
   3. Estade.            20. Aredona.           36. De Lagus.
   4. Stadin flu.        21. C. de Breton.      37. Montagna.
   5. Saguinay.          22. S. Miguel.         38. B. S. Johan.
   6. I. de Orleans.     23. C. Real.           39. Buena Vista.
   7. R. Dulce.          24. C. S. Joan.        40. S. Samson.
   8. R. S. Laurens.     25. Sinus Laureti.     41. Chesapicke.
   9. S. Nicolas.        26. C. d’Esperance.    42. R. de Buelta.
  10. C. Tienot.         27. G. de Chalue.      43. C. de Arenas.
  11. Chasteaux.         28. Hunedo.            44. S. Christovall.
  12. Belle Ysle.        29. I. S. Joan.        45. Chiapanak.
  13. C. Blanco.         30. R. de la Pelaijo.  46. Trinitie Harbour.
  14. Isle des Oiseaux.  31. R. Vista.          47. P. Hatorack.
  15. C. de Bona Vista.  32. R. de Montagnas.   48. C. Hatoras.
  16. The Bacailo.       33. Rio Honda.         49. Ye C. of Fear.
  17. C. de Razo.]

It was bought in Paris about twenty-five years ago by R. M. Hunt, the
architect, and was given by him to Mr. Lenox. It is about five inches
in diameter. Dr. De Costa has described it and given a draught of
its geography in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Sept. 1879. This paper,
translated by M. Gravier, appeared in the _Bulletin de la Société
normande de Géographie_, 1880. A projection of it is said to have
been made in the Coast Survey Bureau in 1869, at the instance of Mr.
Henry Stevens, and a reduction of this is given in the _Encyclopædia
Britannica_, 9th edition, x. 681, of which the Western Hemisphere is
herewith reproduced. The globe opens on the line of the equator, and
was probably used as a pyx. It may be said to be the oldest globe
showing any part of the New World.

4. Brought to light in a _Catalogue de Livres rares appartenant à M. H.
Tross, année 1881_, no. xiv. 4924, where a fac-simile by S. Pilinski is
given. The gores composing it are found in a copy of the _Cosmographiæ
Introductio_, supposed to have been printed at Lugduni, 1514. This is
the claim of the _Catalogue_; but if it belonged to the tract it could
hardly have been earlier than 1518. It is understood that the book has
been added to an American collection. The plate is styled _Universalis
Cosmographie Descriptio tam in solido quem_ [sic] _plano_, and is given
in twelve sections. The delineation of South America is marked “America
noviter reperta.” It is claimed that this gives this copperplate,
“essentiellement française,” the honor of being the earliest to bear
the name of America,—that credit having been claimed for the woodcut
map in Camer’s edition of Solinus, 1520. The manuscript delineation by
Leonardo da Vinci, also giving the name, and preserved at Windsor in
the Queen’s collection, probably antedates it.

5. Made by Johann Schoner at Bamberg in 1520, preserved in the library
at Nuremberg, and thought, until the discovery of the Lenox globe,
to be the earliest showing the discoveries in America. The northern
section is still broken up into islands large and small; but South
America is delineated with approximate correctness. Dr. Ghillany gave
a representation of the American hemisphere in the _Jahresbericht der
technischen Anstalten in Nürnberg für 1842_; also see his _Erdglobus
von Behaim vom Jahre 1492, und der des Joh. Schoner von 1520_,
Nürnberg, 1842, p. 18, two plates. Humboldt examines this Schoner
globe in his _Examen critique_, and in his Appendix to Ghillany’s
_Ritter Behaim_, where a reproduction is given. There are also
delineations or sections in Lelewel’s _Moyen Age_; in Kohl’s _Discovery
of Maine_; in Santarem’s _Atlas_; and in Maury’s paper in _Harper’s
Monthly_, February, 1871. Schoner published, in 1515, a _Terræ totius
descriptio_, without a map, of which there are copies in Harvard
College Library and the Carter-Brown Collection at Providence.

6. Preserved at Frankfort-on-the-Main; of unknown origin. It is figured
in Jomard’s _Monuments de la Géographie_. See also the _Journal of
the Royal Geographical Society_, xviii. 45. It resembles Schoner’s,
and Wieser ascribes it to that maker, and dates it 1515. It is 10½
inches in diameter, and by some the date is fixed at 1520.

7. Given by Duke Charles V. of Lorraine to the church at Nancy, and
opening in the middle, long used there as a pyx, is now preserved in
the Public Library in that town, and was described (with an engraving)
by M. Blau in the _Mémoires de la Société royale de Nancy_, in 1836,
and again in the _Compte-Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_, 1877, p.
359, and from a photograph by Dr. DeCosta, in the _Magazine of American
History_, March, 1881. It makes North America the eastern part of Asia,
and transforms Norumbega into Anorombega. It is made of silver, gilt,
and is six inches in diameter.

8. Supposed to be of Spanish origin; preserved in the Bibliothèque
Nationale, at Paris, and formerly belonged to the brothers De Bure. It
bears a close resemblance to the Frankfort globe.

9. In the custody of the successors of Canon L’Ecuy of Prémontré. It is
without date, and D’Avezac fixed it before 1524; others put it about
1540. It is the first globe to show North America disconnected from
Asia. It is said to be now in the Bibliothèque Nationale, at Paris. Cf.
Raemdonck, _Les Sphères de Mercator_, p. 28.

10. What was thought to be the only copy known of one of Gerard
Mercator’s engraved globes was bought at the sale of M. Benoni-Verelst,
at Ghent, in May, 1868, by the Royal Library at Brussels. In 1875 it
was reproduced in twelve plane gores at Brussels, in folio, as a part
of _Sphère terrestre et sphère céleste de Gerard Mercator, éditées
à Louvain en 1541 et 1551_, and one of the sections is inscribed,
“EDEBAT GERARDUS MERCATOR RUPELMUNDANUS CUM PRIVILEGIO CES: MAIESTATIS
AD AN SEX LOVANII AN 1541.” Only two hundred copies of the fac-simile
were printed. There are copies in the Library of the State Department
at Washington, of Harvard College, and of the American Geographical
Society, New York. The outline of the eastern coast of America is
shown with tolerable accuracy, though there is no indication of the
discoveries of Cartier in the St. Lawrence Gulf and River, made a few
years earlier. In 1875 a second original was discovered in the Imperial
Court Library at Vienna; and a third is said to exist at Weimar.

11. Of copper, made apparently in Italy,—at Rome, or Venice,—by
Euphrosynus Ulpius in 1542, is fifteen and one half inches in
diameter, was bought in 1859 out of a collection of a dealer in
Spain by Buckingham Smith, and is now in the Cabinet of the New York
Historical Society. The first meridian runs through the Canaries, and
it shows the demarcation line of Pope Alexander VI. It is described in
the _Historical Magazine_, 1862, p. 302, and the American parts are
engraved in B. Smith’s _Inquiry into the Authenticity of Verrazano’s
Claims_, and Henry C. Murphy’s _Verrazzano_, p. 114. See Harrisse,
_Notes sur la Nouvelle France_, no. 291. The fullest description,
accompanied by engravings of it, is given by B. F. De Costa in the
_Magazine of American History_, January, 1879; and in his _Verrazano
the Explorer_, New York, 1881, p. 64.

[Illustration: SKETCH FROM THE FRANKFORT GLOBE.

The Legends of this Globe are these: 1. Parias. 2. C. San til. 3.
Isabelle. 4. Jamaica. 5. Spagnolla. 6. Lit. incognita [The Baccalaos
region]. The passage to the west by the Central America isthmus will be
observed.]

Mr. C. H. Coote, in his paper on “Globes” in the new edition of the
_Encyclopædia Britannica_, x. 680, mentions two other globes of the
sixteenth century, which may antedate that of Molineaux, both by A.
F. van Langren,—one in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, and the
other, discovered in 1855, in the Bibliothèque de Grenoble.

The globe-makers immediately succeeding Molineaux were W. J. Blaeu
(1571-1638) and his son John Blaeu, and their work is rare at this day.
Mr. P. J. H. Baudet, in his _Leven en werken van W. J. Blaeu_, Utrecht,
1871, reports finding but two pair of his (Blaeu’s) globes (terrestrial
and celestial) in Holland. His first editions bore date 1599, but he
constantly corrected the copper plates, from which he struck the gores.
Muller, of Amsterdam, offered a pair, in 1877, for five hundred Dutch
florins, and in his _Books on America_, iii. 164, another at seven
hundred and fifty florins. (_Catalogue_, 1877, no. 329.) A pair, dated
1606, was in the Stevens sale, 1881. _Hist. Coll._, i., no. 1335.

I find no trace of the globe of Hondius, 1597, which gives the American
discoveries up to that date. See _Davis’s Voyages_ (Hakluyt Society),
p. 351. Hondius and Langeren were rivals.


[Illustration: SKETCH FROM THE MOLINEAUX MAP.

The Legends are as follows:—

   1. This land was discovered by John and Sebastian Cabot for Kinge
      Henry y^e 7, 1497.
   2. Bacalaos.
   3. C. Bonavista.
   4. C. Raso.
   5. C. Britton.
   6. I. Sables.
   7. I. S. John.
   8. Claudia.
   9. Comokee.
  10. C. Chesepick.
  11. Hotorast.
  12. La Bermudas.
  13. Bahama.
  14. La Florida.
  15. The Gulfe of Mexico.
  16. Virginia.
  17. The lacke of Tadenac, the bounds whereof are unknowne.
  18. Canada.
  19. Hochelague.]

=F.= MOLINEAUX MAP, 1600.—Emeric Molineaux, the alleged maker of this
map, belonged to Lambeth, “a rare gentleman in his profession, being
therein for divers years greatly supported by the purse and liberality
of the worshipful merchant, Mr. William Sanderson.” Captain Markham
(_Davis’s Voyages_, Hakluyt Society, London, 1880, pp. xxxiii, lxi,
also p. lxxxviii) is of the opinion that the true author is Edward
Wright, the mathematician, who perfected and rendered practicable what
we know to-day as Mercator’s projection,—first demonstrating it in his
Certain Errors in Navigation Detected, 1599, and first introducing its
formulæ accurately in the 1600 map. Hakluyt had spoken of the globe
by Molineaux in his 1589 edition, but it was not got ready in time
for his use. The map followed the globe, but was not issued till about
1600, the discoveries of Barentz in 1596 being the last indicated on
it. It measures 16½ × 25 inches. Quaritch in 1875 advanced the
theory that the globe of Molineaux was referred to in Shakespeare’s
_Twelfth Night_ (act iii. sc. 2), as the “new map.” (Quaritch’s 1879
_Catalogue_, no. 321, book no. 11919),—a theory made applicable to the
map and sustained by C. H. Coote in 1878, in _Shakespeare’s “new map”
in Twelfth Night_ (also in _Transactions_ of the New Shakspere Society,
1877-79, i. 88-100), and reasserted in the Hakluyt Society’s edition
of _Davis’s Voyages_, p. lxxxv. Henry Stevens (_Hist. Coll._ i. 200),
however, is inclined to refer Shakespeare’s reference (“the new map
with the augmentation of the Indies”) to the “curious little round-face
shaped map” in Wytfliet’s _Ptolemæum Augmentum_, 1597.

The Molineaux-Wright map has gained reputation from Hallam’s reference
to it in his _Literature of Europe_ as “the best map of the sixteenth
century.” It is now accessible in the autotype reproduction which was
made by Mr. Quaritch from the Grenville copy of Hakluyt’s _Principall
Navigations_ in the British Museum, and which accompanies the Hakluyt
Society’s edition of _Davis’s Voyages_. There are nine copies of the
map known, as follows: 1. King’s Library. 2. Grenville Library. 3.
Cracherode Copy. (These three are in the British Museum.) 4. Admiralty
Office. 5. Lenox Library, New York. 6. University of Cambridge. 7.
Christie Miller’s Collection. 8. Middle Temple. 9. A copy in Quaritch’s
Catalogue, 1881, no. 340, title-number, 6235, which had previously
appeared in the Stevens sale, _Hist. Collections_, i. 199. Quaritch
held the Hakluyt (3 vols.) with this genuine map at £156, and it is
said no other copy had been sold since the Bright sale.

It may be noted that Blundeville, who in his _Exercises_, pp. 204-42,
describes the Mercator and Molineaux globes, also, pp. 245-78, gives a
long account of a mappamundi by Peter Plancius, dated 1592, of which
Linschoten, in 1594, gives a reduction.


=G.= MODERN COLLECTIONS OF EARLY MAPS.—The collections of
reproductions of the older maps, showing portions of the American
coast, and representing what may be termed the beginnings of modern
cartography, are the following:—

JOMARD, E. F. _Les Monuments de la Géographie._ Paris, 1866. The death
of Jomard in 1862 (see Memoir by M. de la Roquette, in _Bulletin de
la Soc. Géog._ February, 1863, or 5th ser. v. 81, with a portrait;
Cortambert’s _Vie et Œuvres de Jomard_, Paris, 1868, 20 pages; and
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iv. 232, vi. 334) prevented the completion
by him of the text which he intended should accompany the plates. M.
D’Avezac’s intention to supply it was likewise stayed by his death, in
1875. It proved, however, that Jomard had left behind what he had meant
for an introduction to the text; and this was printed in a pamphlet
at Paris in 1879, as _Introduction à l’Atlas des Monuments de la
Géographie_, edited by E. Cortambert. It is a succinct account of the
progress of cartography before the times of Mercator and Ortelius. The
atlas contains five maps, of great interest in connection with American
discovery:—

The Frankfort Globe, _circa_ 1520.

Juan de la Cosa’s map, 1500.

The Cabot map of 1544.

A French map, made for Henri II.

Behaim’s Globe, 1492.

These reproductions are of the size of the original. Good copies are
worth £10 10_s._

SANTAREM, VISCONDE DE. _Atlas Composé de Cartes des XIV^e XV^e XVI^e
et XVII^e siècles_, Paris. 1841-53. This was published at the charge
of the Portuguese Government, and is the most extensive of modern
fac-similes. Copies, which are rarely found complete, owing to its
irregular publication over a long period, are worth from $175 to $200.
A list of the maps in it is given in Leclerc, _Bibliotheca Americana_,
1878, no. 529; and of them the following are of interest to students of
American history:—

51. Mappemonde de Ruysch. This appeared in the Ptolemy of 1508 at Rome,
the earliest engraved map of America.

52. Globe of Schoner, and the map in Camer’s edition of Solinus, each
of 1520.

53. Mappemonde par F. Roselli, Florence, 1532, and the maps of
Sebastian Munster, 1544, and Vadianus, 1546.

The atlas should be accompanied by _Essai sur l’histoire de la
Cosmographie et de la Cartographie pendant le Moyen Age, et sur les
progrès de la Géographie après les grandes découvertes du XV^e siècle_.
3 vols. Paris. 1849-52.

KUNSTMANN, F. _Entdeckung Amerikas nach den ältesten Quellen
geschichtlich dargestellt._ Munich, 1859. This was published under
the auspices of the Royal Bavarian Academy of Sciences, and is
accompanied by a large atlas, giving fac-similes of the principal
Spanish and Portuguese maps of the sixteenth century, including one of
the California coast, and that of the east coast of North America, by
Thomas Hood, 1592. Copies are worth from $15 to $20.

LELEWEL, J. _Géographie du Moyen Age étudiée._ Bruxelles. 1852. 3
vols. 8º. With a small folio atlas, of thirty-five plates, containing
fifty-two maps. The text is useful; but, as a rule, the maps are on too
small a scale for easy study.

A series of photographic reproductions of early maps is now appearing
at Venice, under the title of _Raccolta di Mappamondi e Carte nautiche
del XIII al XVI secolo_. There are two which have a particular interest
in connection with the earliest explorations in America; namely,—

 16. _Carta da navigare._ Attributed to ALBERTO CANTINO, supposed to
 be A.D. 1501-03, and to illustrate the third voyage of Columbus. The
 original is in the Bibl. Estense at Modena. [Not yet published.]

 17. AGNESE, BATTISTA. _Fac-simile delle Carte nautiche dell’ anno
 1554, illustrate da Teobaldo Fischer._ Venezia. 1881.

The editor, Fischer, is Professor of Geography at Kiel. The original is
in the Bibliotheca Marciana, at Venice. The sheets which throw light
upon the historical geography of America are these:—

XVII. 4. North America northward to the Penobscot and the Gulf of
California; and the west coast of South America to 15° south; then
blank, till the region of Magellan’s Straits is reached.

XVII. 5. North America, east coast from Labrador south; Central
America; South America, all of east coast, and west coast, as in XVII.
4.

XVII. 33. The World,—the American continent much as in XVII. 4 and 5.

We note the following other maps of Agnese:—

_a._ Portolano in the British Museum, bearing date 1536. _Index to MSS.
in British Museum_, 19,927. If this is the one Kohl (_Discovery of
Maine_, p. 293) refers to as no. 5,463, MS. Department British Museum,
it is signed and dated by the author.

_b._ Portolano, dated 1536, in the royal library at Dresden, of ten
plates,—one being the World, the western half of which, showing
America, is given reduced by Kohl, p. 292. It resembles XVII. 33,
above, but is not so well advanced, and retains a trace of Verrazano’s
Sea, which makes New England an isthmus. It wants the California
peninsula, a knowledge of whose discovery had hardly yet reached Venice.

_c._ Portolano, in the Bodleian Library, Oxford; thought by Kohl,
who gives a sketch (pl. xv. c), to be the work of Agnese, since it
closely resembles, in its delineations of the American continent, that
Venetian’s notions. This, perhaps, is earlier than the previous map;
for it puts a strait leading to the Western sea, where Cartier had just
before supposed he had found such in the St. Lawrence.

_d._ Map in the archives of the Duke of Coburg-Gotha, marked “Baptista
Agnes fecit, Venetiis, 1543, die 18 Febr.” Kohl (pl. xvii. 3) gives
from it a draft of the eastern coast of the United States.

_e._ Map, like _d_, in the Huth Library at London.

_f._ Portolano in the Royal Library, Dresden. It shows California.
Kohl, p. 294.

_g._ Portolano in the British Museum, dated 1564. _Index to MSS._
25,442.

Kohl says (p. 293) there are other MS. maps of Agnese in London, Paris,
Gotha, and Dresden, not here enumerated.

A few other books, less extensive and more accessible, deserve
attention in connection with the study of comparative early American
cartography.

HENRY STEVENS. _History and Geographical Notes of the Early Discoveries
in America, 1453-1530_, New Haven, 1869, with five folding plates of
photographic fac-similes of sixteen of the most important maps.

DR. J. G. KOHL. _Discovery of Maine_ (_Documentary History of Maine_,
1), with reduced sketches, not in fac-simile, of many early charts of
our eastern seaboard.

CHARLES P. DALY. _Early History of Cartography, or what we know of
Maps and Map-making before the time of Mercator_,—being his annual
address, 1879, before the American Geographical Society. The maps are
unfortunately on a very much reduced scale.

       *       *       *       *       *

NOTE.—Since this chapter was completed Henry Harrisse’s _Jean et
Sébastien Cabot_, Paris, 1882, has given us the fullest account of
Agnese’s cartographical labors, with much other useful information
about the maps from 1497 to 1550; and George Bancroft (_Magazine of
American History_, 1883, pp. 459, 460), in defence of his latest
revision, has controverted Dr. De Costa’s statement (Ibid., 1883, p.
300), that Gosnold had no permission from Ralegh, and has set forth his
reasons for believing that Waymouth ascended the George’s River. De
Costa replied to Bancroft in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Aug., 1883, p.
143.




CHAPTER VII.

 THE RELIGIOUS ELEMENT IN THE SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND.—PURITANS AND
 SEPARATISTS IN ENGLAND.

BY GEORGE EDWARD ELLIS,

_Vice-President of the Massachusetts Historical Society._


THERE is no occasion to offer any elaborate plea for making this theme
the subject of a chapter of American history, however extended into
detail or compressed in its dealing with general themes that history
might be. In the origin and development, the strengthening and the
triumph, of those agencies which transferred from the Old World to the
New the trial of fresh ideas and the experiment with free institutions,
the colonists of New England had the leading part. The influence and
the institutions which have gone forth from them have had a prevailing
sway on the northern half of this continent. Their enterprise—in
its seemingly feeble, but from the first earnest and resolute,
purpose—took its spring from religious dissension following upon the
earlier stages of the Protestant Reformation in England. The grounds,
occasions, and results of that dissension thus become the proper
subject of a chapter in American history. It is certain that in tracing
the early assertion in England of what may be called the principles of
dissent from ecclesiastical authority, we are dealing with forces which
have wrought effectively on this continent.

The well-established and familiar fact, that the first successful and
effective colonial enterprises of Englishmen in New England found their
motive and purpose in religious variances within the English communion,
is illustrated by an incident anticipatory by several years of the
period which realized that result. A scheme was devised and entered
upon in England in the interest of substantially the same class of
men known as Separatists and Nonconformists, who twenty-three years
afterward established themselves at Plymouth, and ten years later in
Massachusetts Bay. In the year 1597, there were confined in London
prisons a considerable number of men known confusedly as Barrowists or
Brownists, who had been seized in the conventicles of the Separatists,
or had made themselves obnoxious by disaffection with the government,
the forms, or the discipline of the English hierarchy. In that year a
scheme was proposed, apparently by the Government, for planting some
permanent colonists somewhere in the northern parts of North America.
Some of these Separatists petitioned the Council for leave to transport
themselves for this purpose, promising fidelity to the Queen and her
realm. Three merchants at the time were planning a voyage for fishing
and discovery, with a view to a settlement on an island variously
called Rainea, Rainée, and Ramees, in a group of the Magdalen Islands,
in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and they were to furnish two ships for the
enterprise. Reinforcing the petition of the Separatists, they asked
permission to transport with them “divers artificers and other persons
that are noted to be Sectaries, whose minds are continually in an
ecclesiastical ferment.” Permission was granted for the removal of two
such persons in each of the two ships, the merchants giving bonds that
the exiles should not return unless willing to obey the ecclesiastical
laws. The four prisoners who embarked for the voyage, April 8, 1597,
were Francis and George Johnson, brothers, who had been educated at
Cambridge, and Daniel Studley and John Clarke, who shared with them
their Separatist principles. One of the vessels was wrecked when near
its destination, and the company took refuge on the other, which,
proving unseaworthy and scantily provisioned, returned to England,
arriving in the Channel, September 1. The four exiles found their way
stealthily to a hiding-place in London, and by the middle of the month
were in Amsterdam. Their history there connects with the subsequent
fortunes of the Separatists in England, and with those of the Pilgrims
at Plymouth.[443]

The facts, persons, and incidents with which we have to deal in
treating of this special matter of religious contention within the
English Church, give us simply the opening in series and course of
what under various modifications is known as the history of Dissent.
The strife then engendered has continued essentially the same down to
our own times, turning upon the same points of controversy and upon
contested principles, rights, and methods. The present relations of
the parties to this entailed dissension may throw some light back upon
the working of the elements in it when it was first opened. The result
which has been reached, after the processes engaged in it for nearly
four centuries, shows itself to us in a still existing National Church
establishment in England, with authority and vested rights, privileges,
and prerogatives, yet nevertheless repudiated by nearly, if not quite,
half of the subjects of the realm. The reason or the right, the
grounds or the justification, of the original workings of Dissent have
certainly been suspended long enough for discussion and judgment upon
their merits to help us to reach a fair decision upon them.

The indifference, even the strong distaste, which writers and readers
alike feel to a rehearsal in our days of the embittered and aggravated
strife,—often concerned too, with what seem to us petty, trivial,
and perverse elements of scruple, temper, and passion,—in the early
Puritan controversy in the Church of England, may be sensibly relieved
by the spirit of fairness and consideration in which the subject is
treated in the most recent dealing with it by able and judicious
writers. There are even now in the utterances of pulpit and platform,
and in the voluminous pages of pamphlet, essay, and so-called history,
survivals and renewals of all the sharpness and acrimoniousness of
the original passions of the controversy. And where this spirit has
license, the lengthening lapse of time will more or less falsify
the truth of the relation of either side of the strife. One whose
sympathies are with either party may rightly claim that it be fairly
presented, its limitations, excesses, and even its perversities being
excused or palliated, where reasons can be shown. Nor is one who for
any fair purpose undertakes a statement or exposition of the views
and course of either of those parties to be regarded as also its
champion and vindicator. But no rehearsal of the controversy will
have much value or interest for readers of our day which does assume
such championship of one party. As the Puritans, Nonconformists, or
Dissenters, from the beginning up to this day, were substantially
defeated, disabled, and made the losers of the object for which they
contended, they may fairly claim the allowance of making the best
possible statement of their cause.

Those who at this distance of time accede in their lineage and
principles to the heritage of the first Dissenters from the English
Church system, might naturally eulogize them for their noble service
in laying the foundations of religious and civil liberty in the realm.
But there are not lacking in these days Royalists and Churchmen alike
who in the pages of history and in essays equally extol the English
Nonconformists as the foremost champions, the most effective agents,
in bringing to trial and triumph the free institutions of the realm.
Making the fullest allowances for all the perversities and fanaticisms
wrought in with the separating tenets and principles of individuals and
sects, their protests and assertions, their sufferings and constancy
under disabilities, all wrought together at last to insure a grand
result. Boldly is the assertion now maintained, that the Church of
England at several critical periods would have been unable to withstand
the recuperative forces of the Roman Church, had it not been for the
persistent action of the Nonconformists in holding the ground won
by the Reformation, and in demanding advance in the same line. The
partial schemes of toleration and comprehension which were hopefully or
mockingly entertained by parties in the Government down to the period
of the Revolution, were avowedly designed “to strengthen the Protestant
interest.” The strength of Dissent, in all its forms and stages, lay in
its demanding for the laity voice and influence in all ecclesiastical
affairs. It was this that restrained the dominance of priestly power.

There is a very important consideration to be had in view when we aim
to form a fair and impartial judgment of the spirit and course of those
earnest, if contentious, men, scholars, divines, heads and fellows
of universities, who in their Nonconforming or Separatist principles
originated dissensions in the English Church, and withdrew from it,
bearing various pains and penalties. Even in the calmer dealing with
them in the religious literature of our own times coming from Episcopal
writers, we find traces of the irritation, reproach, and contempt felt
and expressed for these original Dissenters when they first came into
notice, to be dealt with as mischief-makers and culprits. They were
then generally regarded as unreasonable, perverse, and contentious
spirits, exaggerating trifling matters, obtruding morbid scruples,
and keeping the realm in a ferment of petty squabbles on subjects in
themselves utterly indifferent. They withstood the hearty, harmonious
engagement of the rulers and the mass of the people of the realm in the
difficult task of securing the general principles and interests of the
Reformation, when perils and treacheries of a most formidable character
from the Papacy and from internal and external enemies threatened every
form of disaster. To this charge it might be replied, that the Puritans
believed that a thorough and consistent work of reformation within the
realm would be the best security for loyalty, internal harmony, and
protection from the plottings of all outside enemies.

The most interesting and significant fact underlying the origin and the
principles alike of Nonconformity and of Separatism in England at the
period of the Reformation, is this: the facility and acquiescence with
which changes were made in the English ecclesiastical system up to a
certain point, while further modifications in the same direction were
so stiffly resisted. It would seem as if it had been assumed at once
that there was a well-defined line of division which should sharply
distinguish between what must necessarily or might reasonably be made
a part of the new order of things when the Papacy was renounced, and
what must be conserved against all further innovation. The pivot of
all subsequent controversy, dissension, and alienation turned upon the
question whether this sharply drawn line was not wholly an arbitrary
one, not adjusted by a principle of consistency, but of the nature of
a compromise. This question was followed by another: Why should the
process of reformation in the Church, so resolute and revolutionary in
changing its institution and discipline and ritual, stop at the stage
which it has already reached? Could any other answer be given than that
the majority, or those who in office or prerogative had the power to
enforce a decision, had decided that the right point had been reached,
and that an arrest must be made there?

We must indicate in a summary way the stage which the Reformation had
reached in England when Puritanism, in its various forms, made itself
intrusive and obnoxious in demanding further changes. We need not open
and deal with the controverted point, about which English Churchmen are
by no means in accord, as to whether their Church had or did not have
an origin and jurisdiction independently of all agency, intrusion, or
intervention of the Bishop of Rome, or the Pope. It is enough to start
with the fact, that up to the reign of Henry VIII. the Pope asserted
and exercised a supremacy both in civil and in ecclesiastical affairs
in the realm. If there was a Church in England, it was allowed that
that Church must have a head. The Pope was acknowledged to be that
head. Henry VIII., with the support of his Parliament, renounced the
Papal supremacy, and himself acceded to that august dignity. The
year 600 is assigned as the date when Pope Gregory I. put Augustin,
or Austin, over the British Church. The headship of the Pope was
acknowledged in the line of monarchs till Henry VIII. became the
substitute of Clement VII. In the twenty-sixth year of Henry’s reign
his Parliament enacted that “whatsoever his Majesty should enjoin in
matters of religion should be obeyed by all his subjects.” Some of the
clergy, being startled at this exaltation of a layman to the highest
ecclesiastical office, demanded the insertion of the qualifying words
“as far as is agreeable to the laws of Christ.” The King for a time
accepted this qualification, but afterward obtained the consent of
Parliament for its omission. Whatever may be granted or denied to the
well-worn plea that the King’s reformatory zeal was inspired by his
feud with the Pope about his matrimonial infelicities, it is evident
that, notwithstanding the unrestrained royal prerogative, the monarch
could not have struck at the very basis of all ecclesiastical rule and
order in his kingdom, had there not been not only in his Council and
Parliament, but also working among all orders of the people, a spirit
and resolve against the Papal rule and discipline, ready to enter upon
the unsounded and perilous ventures of radical reformation. None as
yet knew where the opened way would lead them. The initiatory and each
onward step might yet have to be retraced. Not for many years afterward
did the threat and dread of the full restoration of the Papal power
cease to appal the people of the realm. The final and the impotent blow
which severed the Papacy from the realm came in the Bull of Pope Pius
V. in 1571, which denounced Elizabeth as a heretic, and, under pain of
curse, forbade her subjects to obey her laws. The measures of reform
under Henry were tentative and arbitrary on his part. They made no
recognition of any defined aim and stage to be reached. We must keep
this fact in view as showing that while the realm was ready for change,
it was as yet a process, not a mark.

It is necessary to start with a definition of terms which are
often confounded in their use. “Puritans,” “Separatists,” and
“Nonconformists” might in fact be terms equally applicable to many
individuals, but none the less they were distinctive, and in many cases
indicated very broad divergencies and characteristics in opinion,
belief, and conduct. Nonconformists and Separatists were alike
Puritans,—the latter intensively such. Puritanism developed alike
into Nonconformity and Separatism. The earliest Puritans came to be
Nonconformists, after trying in vain to retain a ministry and communion
in the English Church as established by royal and civil authority, and
after being driven from it because of their persistent demands for
further reform in it. As heartily as did those who remained in its
communion, they believed in the fitness of an established nationalized
Church. They wished to be members of such a Church themselves; and
not only so, but also to force upon others such membership. It was
not to destroy, but to purify; not to deny to the civil authority
a legislative and disciplinary power in religious matters, but to
limit the exercise of that right within Scriptural rules and methods.
They had sympathized in the processes of reform so far as these had
advanced, but complained that the work had been arbitrarily arrested,
was incomplete, was inconsistently pursued, was insecure in the stage
which it had reached, and so left without the warrant which Scripture
alone could furnish as a substitute for repudiated Rome.

Who were the Separatists, whose utterances, scruples, and conduct
seemed so whimsical, pertinacious, disloyal, and refractory in Old
England, and whose enterprise has been so successful and honorable in
its development in New England? When the unity of the Roman Church
was sundered at the Reformation, all those once in its communion who
parted from it were Separatists. It is an intricate but interesting
story, which has been often told, wearisomely and indeed exhaustively,
in explanation of the fact that this epithet came to designate a
comparatively small number of individuals in a nation to the mass
of whose population it equally belonged. The term “separatist” or
“sectary” carries with it a changing significance and association,
according to the circumstances of its application. It was first
used to designate the Christians. The Apostle Paul was called “a
ringleader of the _sect_ of the Nazarenes” (Acts xxiv. 5). The Roman
Jews described the Christians as a “_sect_” that was “everywhere
spoken against” (Acts xxviii. 22). The civil power gave a distinctive
limitation to the epithet. It is always to be remembered that every
national-church establishment existing among Protestants is the
creation of the civil authority. Its inclusion and its exclusion,
the privileges and disabilities which it gives or imposes, its
titles of honor or reproach, are the awards of secular magistrates.
All ecclesiastical polity, outside of Scriptural rule and sanction,
receives its authority, for those who accept and for those who reject
it, from the extension of the temporal power into the province of
religion. When King Henry VIII. and the English Parliament assumed the
ecclesiastical headship and prerogative previously exercised by Pope
Clement VII., all the loyal people of the realm became Separatists. All
the Reformed bodies of the Continent substantially regarded themselves
as coming under that designation, which might have been applied and
assumed with equal propriety as the epithet “protestants.” The Curia
of the hierarchy at Rome from the first until now regards English and
all other Protestants as Separatists. An archbishop or bishop of the
English Church is ranked by the Church of Rome in the same category of
unauthorized intruders upon sacred functions with the second-advent
exhorter and the field-preacher. The pages of English history, so
diligently wrought, and the developments of ecclesiastical polity in
the realm must be studied and traced by one who would fully understand
the occasion, the grounds, and the justice of the restriction which
confined the title of “separatists” to the outlawed and persecuted
and exiled class of persons, many of them graduates of English
universities, ordained and serving in the pulpits of the Church, who
were represented in and out of English jails by the four men whose
abortive scheme of planting a colony in North America has just been
referred to. However, justly or unjustly, the epithet “separatists”
came to be applied and accepted as designating those who would not only
not conform to the discipline of the Church, as still members of it,
but who utterly renounced all connection with it, kept away from it,
and organized assemblies, conventicles, or fellowships, subject only to
such discipline as they might agree upon among themselves.

A suggestion presents itself here, to which a candid view of facts
must attach much weight. Nonconformity, Separatism, Dissent, are not
to be regarded as factiously obtruding themselves upon a peaceful,
orderly, and well-established system, already tried and approved in
its general workings. The Reformation in England was then but in
progress, in its early stages; everything had been shaken, all was
still unsettled, unadjusted, not reduced to permanence and order. There
was an experiment to be tried, an institution to be recreated and
remodelled, a substitute Church to be provided for a repudiated Church.
The early Dissenters regarded themselves as simply taking part in an
unfinished reform. The Church in England, under entanglements of civil
policy and complications of State, gave tokens of stopping at a stage
in reform quite different from that reached, and allowed progressive
advance and unfettered conditions among Protestants on the Continent.
There the course was free. The French, Dutch, and Italian systems,
though not accordant, were all unlike the English ecclesiastical
system. In England it was impeded, leading to a kind of establishment
and institution in hierarchical and ritual administration which had
more regard for the old Church, and looked to more compromise with
it. It was not as if yielding to their own crotchets, self-willed
idiosyncrasies, and petty fancies that those who opened the line of
the Dissenters obtruded their variances, scruples, and contentions in
assailing what was already established and perfected. They meant to
come in at the beginning, at the first stage, the initiation of what
was to be the new order of things in the Church, which was then, as
they viewed it, in a state of formation and organization for time to
come. They took alarm at the simulation of the system and ritual of the
Roman Church, which the English, alone of all the Reformed Churches,
in their view evidently favored. They wished to have hand and voice
in initiating and planning the ecclesiastical institutions under
which they were to live as Christians. Individual conscience, too,
which heretofore had been a nullity, was thenceforward to stand for
something. It remained to be proved how much and what was to be allowed
to it, but it was not to be scornfully slighted. Then, also, with the
first manifestations of a Nonconforming and Separatist spirit, we note
the agitation of the question, which steadily strengthened in its
persistency and emphasis of treatment, as to what were to be the rights
and functions of lay people in the administration of a Christian
Church. Were they to continue, as under the Roman system, simply to
be led, governed, and disciplined, as sheep in a fold, by a clerical
order? Hallam gives it as his conclusion, that the party in the realm
during Elizabeth’s reign “adverse to any species of ecclesiastical
change,” was less numerous than either of the other parties, Catholic
or Puritan. According to this view, if one third of the people of the
realm would have consented to the restoration of the Roman system,
and less than one third were in accord with the Protestant prelatical
establishment, certainly the other third, the Puritanical party, might
assert their right to a hearing.

While claiming and pleading that the strict rule and example of
Scripture precedent and model should alone be followed in the
institution and discipline of the Christian Church, there was a
second very comprehensive and positive demand made by the Puritans,
which,—as we shall calmly view it in the retrospect, as taking its
impulse and purpose either from substantial and valid reasons of good
sense, discretion, and practical wisdom, or as starting from narrow
conceits, perversity, and eccentric judgments leading it on into
fanaticism,—put the Puritans into antagonism with the Church party.
From the first token of the breach with Rome under Henry VIII. through
the reigns of his three children and the four Stuarts, the Reformation
was neither accomplished in its process, nor secure of abiding in
the stage which it had reached. More than once during that period of
one and a half centuries there were not only reasonable fears, but
actual evidences, that a renewed subjection to the perfectly restored
thraldom of Rome might, in what seemed to be merely the cast of a
die, befall the distracted realm of England. The Court, Council, and
Parliament pulsated in regular or irregular beats between Romanism
and Protestantism. Henry VIII. left the work of reform embittered in
its spirit for both parties, unaccomplished, insecure, and with no
settlement by fixed principles. His three children, coming successively
to the crown, pursued each a policy which had all the elements of
confusion, antagonism, inconsistency, and extreme methods.

The spirit which vivified Puritanism had been working in England, and
had been defining and certifying its animating and leading principles,
before any formal measures of King and Parliament had opened the breach
with Rome. The elemental ferment began with the circulation and reading
of parts or the whole of the Scriptures in the English tongue. The
surprises and perils which accompanied the enjoyment of this fearful
privilege by private persons of acute intelligence and hearts sensitive
to the deepest religious emotions, were followed by profound effects.
The book was to them a direct, intelligible, and most authoritative
communication from God. To its first readers it did not seem to need
any help from an interpreter or commentator. It is a suggestive fact,
that for English readers the now mountainous heaps of literature
devoted to the exposition, illustration, and extended and comparative
elucidation of Scripture were produced only at a later period. The
first Scripture readers, antedating the actual era of the English
Reformation and the formal national rupture with the Roman Church, were
content with the simple text. They were impatient with any glosses or
criticisms. When afterward, in the interests of psalmody in worship,
the first attempts were made in constructing metrical versions of the
Psalms, the intensest opposition was raised against the introduction of
a single expletive word for which there was no answering original in
the text.

We must assign to this early engagedness of love and devoted regard
and fond estimate of the Bible the mainspring and the whole guiding
inspiration of all the protests and demands which animated the Puritan
movements. The degree in which afterward any individual within the
communion of the English Church was prompted to pursue what he regarded
as the work of reformation, whether he were prelate, noble, gentleman,
scholar, husbandman, or artisan, and whether it drove him to conformity
or to any phase of Puritanism, or even Separatism, depended mainly upon
the estimate which he assigned to the Scriptures, whether as the sole
or only the co-ordinate authority for the institution and discipline of
the Christian Church. The free and devout reading of the Scriptures,
when engaging the fresh curiosity and zeal of thoroughly earnest
men and women, roused them to an amazed surprise at the enormous
discordance between the matter and spirit of the sacred book and the
ecclesiastical institutions and discipline under which they had been
living,—“the simplicity that was in Christ,” constrasted with the
towering corruptions and the monstrous tyranny and thraldom of the
Papacy! This first surprise developed into all shades and degrees of
protest, resentment, indignation, and almost blinding passion. Those
who are conversant with the writings of either class of the Puritans
know well with what paramount distinctness and emphasis they use the
term, “the Word.” The significance attached to the expression gives
us the key to Puritanism. For its most forcible use was when, in a
representative championship, it was made to stand in bold antagonism
with the term “the Church,” as inclusive of what it carried with
it alike under the Roman or the English prelatical system. “The
Church,” “the Scriptures,” are the word-symbols of the issue between
Conformity and Puritanism. Christ did not leave Scriptures behind him,
said one party, but he did leave a Church. Yes, replied the other
party; he left apostles who both wrote the Scriptures and planted and
administered the Church. The extreme to which the famous “Se-Baptist,”
John Smyth, carried this insistency upon the sole authority of the
Scriptures, led him to repudiate the use of the English Bible in
worship, and to require that the originals in Greek and Hebrew should
be substituted.[444] The fundamental distinguishing principle which is
common to all the phases of Puritanism, Dissent, and Separatism in the
English Church is this,—of giving to the Scriptures sole authority,
especially over matters in which the Church claimed control and
jurisdiction. There was in the earlier stage of the struggle little,
if any, discordance as to doctrine. Discipline and ritual were the
matters in controversy. The rule and text of Scripture were to displace
canon law and the Church courts. The first representatives of the
sect of Baptists resolved, “by the grace of God, not to receive or
practise any piece of positive worship which had not precept or example
in the Word.”[445] Nor were the Baptists in this respect singular or
emphatic beyond any others of the Dissenting company. None of them
had any misgiving as to the resources and sole authority of Scripture
to furnish them with model, guide, and rule. It is remarkable that
in view of the positive and reiterated avowal of this principle by
all the Puritans, there should have been in recent times, as there
was not in the first era of the controversy, any misapprehension of
their frank adoption of it, their resolute standing by it. Archbishop
Whately repeatedly marked it as evidence of the inspired wisdom of the
New Testament writers, that they do not define the form or pattern
of a church institution for government, worship, or discipline. The
Puritans, however, believed that those writers did this very thing,
and had a purpose in doing it. It was to strike at the very roots
of this exclusive Scriptural theory of the Puritans that Hooker
wrought out his famous and noble classical production, _The Laws of
Ecclesiastical Polity_. He admitted in this elegant and elaborate work
that Scripture furnished the sole rule for doctrine, but argued with
consummate ability that it was not such an exclusive and sufficient
guide for government or discipline. The apostles did not, he said,
fix a rule for their successors. The Church was a divinely instituted
society; and, like every society, it had a full prerogative to make
laws for its government, ceremonial, and discipline. He argued that
a true Church polity must be taken not only from what the Scriptures
affirm distinctly, but also “from what the general rules and principles
of Scripture potentially contain.” Starting with his grand basis of
the sanctity and majesty of Law, as founded in natural order, he
insisted that the Church should establish such order in laws, rites,
and ceremonies within its fold, and that all who have been baptized
into it are bound to conform to its ecclesiastical laws. He would not
concede to the Puritans their position of denial, but he insisted that
Episcopacy was of apostolic institution. He was, however, at fault
in affirming that the Puritans admitted that they could not find all
the parts of the discipline which they stood for in the Scriptures.
Dean Stanley comes nearer to the truth, in what is for him a sharp
judgment, when he writes: “The Puritan idea that there was a Biblical
counterpart to every—the most trivial—incident or institution of
modern ecclesiastical life, has met with an unsparing criticism from
the hand of Hooker.”[446] Indeed, it was keenly argued as against these
Puritan sticklers for adhesion to Scripture rule and model, that they
by no means conformed rigidly to the pattern, as they dropped from
observance such matters as a community of goods, the love feast, the
kiss of peace, the Lord’s Supper in upper chambers, and baptism by
immersion.

It is, in fact, to this attempt of all Nonconformists to make the
Scriptures the sole and rigid guide alike in Church discipline as in
doctrine, that we are to trace their divergencies and dissensions
among themselves, their heated controversies, their discordant
factions, their constant parting up of their small conventicles
into smaller ones, even of only two or three members, and the real
origin of all modern sects. This was the common experience of such
Dissenters from the Church, alike in England before their exile and
then in all the places of their exile,—Holland, Frankfort, Geneva,
and elsewhere. It could not but follow on their keen, acute, and
concentrated searching and scanning of every sentence and word of
Scripture as bearing upon their contest with prelacy, that they should
be led beyond matters of mere discipline into those of doctrine. A
very small point was enough to open a new issue. It is vexing to the
spirit, while winning sometimes our admiration for the intense and
awful sincerity of the self-inflicting victims of their own scruples,
magnified into compunctions of conscience, to trace the quarrels and
leave-takings of those poor exiles on the Continent, struggling in
toil and sacrifice for a bare subsistence, but finding compensation
if not solace in their endless and ever-sharpening altercations. But
while all this saddens and oppresses us, we have to allow that it was
natural and inevitable. The Bible, the Holy Scriptures, will never
henceforward to any generation, in any part of the globe, be, or stand
for, to individuals or groups of men and women, what it was to the
early English Puritans. To it was intrusted all the honor, reverence,
obedience, and transcendent responsibility in the life, the hope,
and the salvation of men, which had but recently been given, in awe
and dread, to a now dishonored and repudiated Church, against which
scorn and contempt and hate could hardly enough embitter reproach and
invective. With that Book in hand, men and women, than whom there
have never lived those more earnest and sincere, sat down in absorbed
soul-devotion, to exercise their own thinking on the highest subjects,
to decide each for himself what he could make of it. Those who have
lived under a democracy, or a full civil, mental, and religious freedom
like our own, well know the crudity, the perversity, the persistency,
the conceits and idiosyncrasies into which individualism will run on
civil, social, and political matters of private and public interest.
How much more then will all exorbitant and eccentric, as well as all
ingenious and rational, manifestations of like sort present themselves,
when, instead of dealing with ballots, fashions, and social issues, men
and women take in hand a book which, so to speak, they have just seized
out of a descending cloud, as from the very hand of God. It was easy to
claim the right of private judgment; but to learn how wisely to use it
was quite a different matter. It was, however, in those earnest, keen
studies, those brooding musings, those searching and subtle processes
of speculation and dialectic argument engaged upon the Bible and upon
institutional religion, that the wit, the wisdom, the logic, and the
vigor of the understanding powers of people of the English race were
sharpened to an edge and a toughness known elsewhere in no other. The
aim of Prelatists, Conformists, and clerical and civil magistrates in
religion, to bring all into a common belief and ritual, was hopeless
from the start. It made no allowance for the rooted varieties and
divergencies in nature, taste, sensibility, judgment, and conscience
in individuals who were anything more than animated clods. How was it
possible for one born and furnished in the inner man to be a Quaker,
to be manufactured into a Churchman? It soon became very evident
that bringing such a people as the English into accord in belief and
observance under a hierarchical and parochial system would be no
work of dictation or persuasion, but would require authority, force,
penalties touching spiritual, mental, and bodily freedom, and resorting
to fines, violence, and prisons.

The consumptive boy-king, Edward VI., dying when sixteen years of age,
through his advisers, advanced the Reformation in some of its details
beyond the stage at which it was left by his father, and put the work
in the direction of further progress. But “Bloody Mary,” with her
spectral Spanish consort, Philip II., overset what had by no means
become a Protestant realm, and made it over to cardinal and pope.
Nearly three hundred martyrs, including an archbishop and four bishops,
perished at the stake, besides the uncounted victims in the dungeons.
No one had suffered to the death for religion in the preceding reign.
After her accession, Elizabeth stiffly held back from accepting even
that stage of reform reached by Edward. In the Convocation of 1562,
only a single vote, on a division, withstood the proposal to clear the
ritual of nearly every ceremony objectionable to the Puritans. The two
statutes of supremacy and uniformity, passed in the first year of the
reign of Elizabeth, brought the English Church under that subjection to
the temporal or civil jurisdiction which has continued to this day. The
firmness, not to say the obstinacy, with which the Queen stood for her
prerogative in this matter has been entailed upon Parliament; and the
ecclesiastical Convocation has in vain struggled to assert independency
of it. Elizabeth exhibited about an equal measure of zeal against
Catholics and Puritans. She frankly gave out her resolution that if
she should marry a Catholic prince, she should not allow him a private
chapel in her palace. About two hundred Catholics suffered death in her
reign.

An important episode in the development of Puritanism and Separatism
in the English Church brings to our notice the share which different
parties came to have in both those forms of dissent during a period of
temporary exile on the Continent in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Mary,
and afterward of Elizabeth. The results reached by the two classes
of those exiles were manifested respectively in the colonization,
first by Separatists, at Plymouth, and next by Nonconformists in the
Massachusetts Bay, and by other New England colonists.

In the thirty-first year of Henry’s reign, 1539, while the monarch was
vacillating between the old religion and the new, was enacted what
was called “The Bloody Statute.” This was of “six articles.” These
articles enforced the dogmas of Transubstantiation, of Communion in
One Element, of the Celibacy of the Clergy, of the Vows of Chastity,
of Private Masses, and of Auricular Confession. An infraction of these
articles in act or speech or writing was to be punished either by
burning, as heresy, or by execution, as felony. The articles were to
be publicly read by all the clergy quarterly. To escape the operation
of this statute, many of the clergy went to Geneva. Returning on the
accession of Edward, they had to exile themselves again when Mary came
to the throne, to venture home once more under Elizabeth, in 1559. As
early as 1528, there had been a small but earnest religious fellowship
of devout scholars in Cambridge, meeting for exercises of prayer and
reading. Three of its members—Bilney, Latimer, and Bradford—were
burned under Mary. Afterward Travers and Cartwright, both of them men
of eminent ability and religious fervor, had found refuge in Geneva;
and to them, on their return, is to be ascribed the strength and
prevalence of the spirit of Puritanism in Cambridge. The fact that so
many men of parts and scholarship and distinguished position were thus
principal agents in the first working of Puritanism, should qualify
the common notion that Nonconformity in England had its rise through
obscure and ordinary men. Some of the most eminent Puritans, and even
Separatists, were noted university men and scholars,—like Cartwright,
Perkins, Ames, Bradshaw, and Jacob, the last being of Oxford. Robinson,
the pastor at Leyden, has been pronounced to have been among the first
men of his time in learning and comprehensiveness of mind.[447] It
was really in the churches of the English exiles in Holland that the
ultimate principles of Independency and Congregationalism were wrought
out, to be asserted and so manfully stood for both in Old and in New
England. Indeed, the essential principles of largest toleration and
of equality, save in civil functions, had been established in Holland
in 1572, before the coming of the English exiles. Almost as real as
ideal was the recognition there of the one all-comprehensive church
represented by a multitude of independent elements. Greenwood and his
fellow-student at Cambridge,—Barrow, a layman,—joined the Separatists
in 1586. The Separatists in England might well, as they did, complain
to King James that he did not allow the same liberty to them, his own
subjects, as was enjoyed by the French and Walloon churches in London
and elsewhere in England.

On the accession of Queen Mary, who was crowned in 1553, more than
eight hundred of the English Reformers took refuge on the Continent.
Among them were five bishops, five deans, four archdeacons, fifty
doctors of divinity and famous preachers, with nobles, merchants,
traders, mechanics, etc. Among the “sundrie godly men” who went to
Frankfort, the Lutheran system gained much influence. Those who
found a refuge in Zurich and Geneva were more affected towards the
Calvinistic. Soon after a flourishing and harmonious church, with the
favor of the magistrates, had been established at Frankfort, dissension
about matters of discipline and the use of the Prayer-book of King
Edward VI., with or without a revision, was opened by some new-comers.
The advice of Knox, Calvin, and others, which was asked, did not
prevent an acrimonious strife, which ended in division.[448] Carrying
back their differences to England, we find them contributing to deepen
the alienation and the variances between Conformists, Nonconformists,
and Separatists. The intimacy and sympathy with Reformers on the
Continent naturally induced the exiles, even the English bishops
who had been among them, to lay but little stress on the exclusive
prerogatives of Episcopacy, including the theory of Apostolic
Succession.

The English bishops who were most earnest in the early measures of
reform,—such as Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer,—realizing that in the
minds of the common people the strong ties of association connected
with the emblems, forms, and vestments of the repudiated Church of
Rome would encourage lingering superstitions in their continued use,
would have had them wholly set aside. Especially would they have had
substituted in the chancels of churches tables instead of altars, as
the latter would always be identified with the Mass. The people also
associated the validity of clerical administrations with priestly
garments. The starting point of the Puritan agitation and protest as
to these matters may well be found, therefore, in the refusal of Dr.
Hooper to wear the clerical vestments for his consecration as Bishop of
Gloucester in 1550. Having exiled himself at Zurich during the latter
part of the reign of Henry VIII., Hooper had become more thoroughly
imbued with Reforming principles, and withstood the compromising
compliances which some of the Continental Reformers yielded. Even
Ridley insisted upon his putting on the vestments for his consecration;
and after being imprisoned for his recusancy, he was forced to a
partial concession. This matter of habits, tippets, caps, etc., may
be viewed either as a bugbear, or as representative of a very serious
principle.

In an early stage of the Puritan movement as working in the progress of
the Reformation in England, it thus appeared that what, as represented
in men and principles, might be called a third party, was to assert
itself. As the event proved, in the struggle for the years following,
and in the accomplished result still triumphant, this third party was
to hold the balance of power. There was a general accord in dispensing
with the Pope, renouncing his sway, and retaining within the realm the
exercise of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. A Romanizing party was
still in strength, with its hopes temporarily reviving, its agencies,
open and secret, on the alert, and its threats bold, if opportunity
should favor the execution of them. This Romanizing faction may
represent one extreme; the Puritans may represent another. A third, and
for a considerable space of time weaker, as already stated, than either
of them, intervened, to win at last the victory. In ridding themselves
of Rome, the Puritans aimed to rid the Church of everything that had
come into it from that source,—hierarchy, ceremonial, superstition,
discipline, and assumption of ecclesiastical prerogative,—reducing
the whole Church fabric to what they called gospel simplicity in rule
and order; the apostolic model. This, as we have noticed, was to be
sought full, sufficient, and authoritative in the Scriptures. But
neither of the Reforming monarchs, nor the majority of the prelates
successively exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction, were prepared
for this reversion to so-called first principles. They would not
allow the sufficiency nor the sole authority of the Scriptural model;
nor would they admit that all that was wrought into the hierarchy,
the ceremonial, the institution, and the discipline of the English
Church came into it through Popery, and had the taint or blemish of
Popery. The English Church now represents the principles then argued
out, maintained, and adopted. It followed a principle of selection,
sometimes called compromise, to some seeming arbitrary, to others
reasonable and right. It proceeded upon the recognition of an interval
between the close of the ministry of the apostles and the rise of the
Papacy, with its superstitious innovations and impositions, during
which certain principles and usages in the government and ceremonial
of the Church came into observance. Though these might not have the
express warrant of Scripture, they were in nowise inconsistent with
Scripture. They might claim to have the real warrant and approval of
the apostles, because they were “primitive,” and might even be regarded
as essential, as Hooker so earnestly tried to show, to the good order,
dignity, and efficiency of the Church of Christ. With exceeding ability
did the Puritan and the Church parties deal with this vital issue. The
Puritans brought to it no less of keen acumen, learning, and logic than
did their opponents. They thoroughly comprehended what the controversy
involved. When, fifty years ago, substantially the same issue was under
vigorous discussion in the Oxford or Tractarian agitation, so far were
the “Puseyites,” so-called, from bringing into it any new matter, that
the old arsenal was drawn upon largely for fresh use.

The Puritans held loyally to the fundamental position asserted by
their sturdy champion. Cartwright, in his _Admonition_, etc.,—“The
discipline of Christ’s Church that is necessary for all time is
delivered by Christ, and set down in the Holy Scripture.” The
objection, fatal in the eyes of the Puritans, to receiving, as
authoritative, customs and vouchers of the so-called “Primitive” Church
and of the Fathers, was that it compelled to the practice of a sort
of eclecticism in choosing or rejecting, by individual preference or
judgment, out of that mass of heterogeneous gathering which Milton
scornfully described as “the drag-net of antiquity.” Though the
pleaders on both sides of the controversy succeeded in showing that
“patristic” authority, and the usages and institutions which might be
traced out and verified in the dim past, were by no means in accord or
harmony as to what was “primitive,” both parties seem to have consented
to hide, gloss over, or palliate very much of the crudity, folly,
superstition, conceit, and discordancy so abounding in the writings of
the Fathers. Nothing could be more positive than the teaching of St.
Augustine,—not drawn from the New Testament, in which the rite was
for adults, but from the then universal practice of the Church,—that
baptism was to be for infants, and by immersion. That Father taught
that an unbaptized infant is forever lost; and that, besides baptism,
the infant’s salvation depends upon its receiving the Eucharist. Yet
this has not hindered but that the vast majority of Christians, Roman
Catholic and Protestant, save a single sect, administer the rite by
sprinkling infants. How, too, could the Prelatists approve a quotation
from Tertullian:[449] “Where there are only three, and they laics,
there is a church”?

In consistency with this their vital principle of the sole sufficiency
of the Scripture institution and pattern for a church, the work of
purification led its resolute asserters to press their protests and
demands against not only such superstitions and innovations as could
be traced directly to the Roman corruption and innovation, but to a
more thorough expurgation. Incident to the rupture with the Papacy,
and in the purpose to repel what seemed to be its vengeful and
spiteful devices for recovering its sway, there was developed among
the most impassioned of the Reformers an intense and scornful hate, a
bitter heaping of invectives, objurgations, and all-wrathful epithets
against the old Church as simply blasphemous,—the personification of
Antichrist. So they were resolute to rid themselves of all “the marks
of the Beast.” The scrapings, rags, tatters of Popery, and everything
left of such remnants, especially provoked their contempt. Having
adopted the conviction that the “Mass” was an idolatrous performance,
all its paraphernalia, associated in the minds of the common people
with it as a magical rite, the priestly and altar habits, the cap,
the tippet, the rochet, etc., were denounced and condemned. The very
word “priest,” with all the functionary and mediatorial offices going
with it, was repudiated. The New Testament knew only of ministers,
pastors, teachers. While, of course, recognizing that the apostles
exercised special and peculiar prerogatives in planting the Church,
the Puritans maintained that they had no successors in their full
authority. The Christian Church assembly they found to be based upon
and started from the Synagogue, with its free, popular methods, and
not upon the Temple, with its altar, priests, and ritual. It is an
interesting and significant fact, that while the Reformation in its
ferment was working as if all the elements of Church institution
were perfectly free for new combinations, the edition of the English
Bible called Cranmer’s, in 1539, translated the word _ecclesia_
by “congregation,” not “church,”—thus providing for that Puritan
principle of the province of the laity. Doctrine, discipline, and
ritual, or ceremony, being the natural order in which ecclesiastical
affairs should receive regard, there being at first an accord among
the Reformers as to doctrine, the other essentials engrossed all
minds. The equality of the ministers of religion, all of whom were
brethren, with no longer a master upon earth, struck at the very roots
of all hierarchical order. What would have been simply natural in
the objections of the Puritans when they saw that Rome was to leave
the prelatical element of its system fastened upon the realm, was
intensified by the assumption of dangerous and, as they believed,
unchristian and unscriptural power and sway by a class of the clergy
of lordly rank exercising functions in Church and State, and taking
titles from their baronial tenure of land. These lordly prelates had
recently been filling some of the highest administrative and executive
offices under the Crown, and holding places in diplomacy. In an early
stage of the Reformation, the mitred abbots had been dropped out of
the upper house of Parliament. While they were in it, they, with the
twenty-one “Lord Bishops,” preponderated over the temporal peers. As
their exclusion weakened the ecclesiastical power in the government,
the prelates who remained seemed to believe and to act as if it fell to
them to represent and exercise the full prerogative of sway which had
belonged to the old hierarchy. Very marked is the new phase assumed by
the spirit and course of the Nonconformists under this changed aspect
of the controversy. The Puritans had begun by objecting and protesting
against certain usages; they now set themselves resolutely against
the authority of those who enforced such usages. To a great extent,
the Roman Catholic prelates on those parts of the Continent where the
Reformation established itself, deserted their sees. This left the way
clear in those places for a church polity independent of prelacy. The
retention of their sees and functions by the English bishops, and the
addition to their number by the consecration of others as selected
by the Crown, thus made the struggle which the Puritans maintained
in England quite unlike that of their sympathizers on the Continent.
The issue thus raised on the single question of the Divine right and
the apostolic authority and succession of bishops was continuously in
agitation through the whole contention maintained by Dissenters. In
other elements of it, the controversy exhibited changing phases, as the
process of the reform seemed at intervals to be advanced or impeded,
while the kingdom, as we have noted, was pulsating between the old and
the new _régime_,—as Henry VIII. and his three children, in their
succession to his throne, sought to modify, to arrest, or to limit it.
The distribution among the people of the Scriptures in the English
tongue was favored and brought about by Thomas Cromwell and Cranmer.
The privilege, however, was soon revoked, as the people were thus
helped to take the matter of religion into their own hands. The mother
tongue was first used in worship with the translated litany in 1542,
which was revised in 1549. The new prayer-book, canons, and homilies
were brought into use. It was by royal authority, and not either by
Convocation or Parliament, that the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion
were imposed. On Elizabeth’s accession there were nine thousand four
hundred priests in England. About two hundred of these abandoned their
posts rather than comply with the conditions exacted by the stage in
innovation already reached. The more pronounced champions of the Church
of England are earnest in pleading that the rupture with Rome was not
the act of the King, but of what might be called the Church itself. The
as yet unreformed bishops, we are told, had in Convocation, in 1531,
denied the Papal supremacy; then Parliament, the universities, the
cathedral bodies, and the monastic societies had confirmed the denial.
But on all these points there are still open and contested questions of
fact and argument not requiring discussion here.

Another radical question concerned the rights and province of the laity
in all that entered into the institutional part of religion, and the
oversight and administration of discipline in religious assemblies.
There certainly could be no complaint that lay or civil power as
represented by the monarch had not exhibited sufficient potency in
fettering the ecclesiastical or clerical usurpation. An already quoted
Act in the twenty-sixth year of Henry’s reign affirmed that “whatsoever
his Majesty should enjoin in matters of religion should be obeyed by
all his subjects.” The Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity in the first
year of Elizabeth made the Church subordinate to, and dependent upon,
the civil power. Thus ecclesiastical authority was restrained by the
prerogative of the Crown, while ceremonial and discipline, as approved
by the monarch, were left at the dictation of Parliament.

But this substitution of the lay power as represented by King or Queen
and the Houses of Parliament for the Papal sway, by no means satisfied
the Puritan idea and conviction as to the rightful claims of the laity
in their membership of the reconstructed Church. Barrow described in
the following sharp sentence the summary way of proceeding so far as
the laity were concerned: “All these people, with all their manners,
were in one day, with the blast of Queen Elizabeth’s trumpet, of
ignorant <DW7>s and gross idolaters, made faithful Christians and
true professors.” It was said that the people, divided and classed in
local territorial parishes, were there treated like sheep in folds.
Illiterate, debauched, incompetent, “dumb” ministers or priests assumed
the pastorate in a most promiscuous way over these flocks. Membership
in the Church came through infancy in baptism. The Puritans wished
to sort out the draught of the Gospel net, which gathered of every
kind. They claimed that the laity should themselves be parties in
the administration of religion, in testing and approving discipline.
They believed, too, that ministers should be supported by their
congregations, and that the tithes and the landed privileges of the
clergy were bribes and lures to them, making them independent and
autocratical. Church lands and endowments, they insisted, should be
sequestered, as had been the abbeys, nunneries, and monasteries. As
soon as Separatist assemblies were associated in England or among the
exiles on the Continent, altercations and divisions occurred among them
as to the functions and the powers of the eldership, the responsibility
and the authority of pastor and covenanted members in discipline.

Our space will admit here of only a brief recognition, conformed
however to its slight intrinsic importance, of an element entering
into the Puritan agitation, which at the time introduced into it a
glow of excitement and a marvellously effective engagement of popular
sympathy. The controversy between the Puritans and the Prelatists
had in the main been pursued, however passionately, yet in a most
grave and serious spirit, with a profound sense of the dignity and
solemnity of its themes and interests. But from the time and occasion
when Aristophanes tossed the grotesque trifling of his _Clouds_ around
the sage and lofty Socrates, down to this day, when Mr. Punch finds
a weekly condiment of mischief and fun for the people of England in
their own doings and in their treatment by their governors, it would
seem as if no subject of human interest, however exalted its moment,
could escape the test of satire, sarcasm, and caricature. Experimental
ventures of this sort are naturally ephemeral, but they concentrate
their venom or their disdain upon their shrinking victims. Some of Ben
Jonson’s plays and Butler’s _Hudibras_ have now alone a currency, and
that a by no means extended one, out of a vast mass of the printed
ridicule which was turned upon the Puritans. But the matter now in hand
is the skill and jollity with which one or more Puritans, with the gift
of the comic in his stern make-up, plied that keen blade in his own
cause. Erasmus, though he never broke from the communion of the Papal
Church, engaged the most stinging power of satire and sarcasm, not
only against mean and humble monks, but against all the ranks of the
hierarchy, not sparing the loftiest. Helped out with Holbein’s cuts,
Erasmus’s _Encomium of Folly_ drew roars of mirth and glee from those
who winced under its mocking exposures. Even the grave Beza, in Geneva,
tried his hand in this trifling. But the venture of this sort which
cunningly and adroitly intruded itself at a peculiarly critical phase
of the Puritan agitation, was of the most daring and rasping character.
Under the happily chosen pseudonym of “Martin Mar-Prelate,” there
appeared in rapid succession, during seven months of the years 1588 and
1589, the same number of little, rudely printed tracts, the products of
ambulatory presses, which engaged the full power of satire, caricature,
and sarcasm, with fun and rollicking, invective and bitter reproach and
exposure against the hierarchy, especially against four of the most
odious of the bishops. The daring spirit of these productions was well
matched by the devices of caution and secrecy under which they were
put in print, and in the sly methods by which they were circulated, to
be caught up, concealed, and revelled over by thousands who would find
keen enjoyment in them, as in the partaking of the sweets of stolen
food and waters. They may be said to have stopped only at the very
edge of ribaldry, indecency, and even blasphemy. But they were free
and trenchant, coarse and virulent. As such, they testify to the smart
under the provocation of which they were written, and to the scorn and
contempt entertained for the men and measures to which were committed
for the time the transcendent interests of religion and piety. The more
dignified and serious of the Puritans, like Greenham and Cartwright,
frowned upon and repudiated these weapons of bitter gibe and contumely.
But there was a constituency from which they received the heartiest
welcome, and, as is usual in such cases, their circulation and
efficiency were vastly multiplied by equally bitter and malignant
replies to them from the pens or from the instigation of bishops. The
whole detective force of the kingdom was put on the search for the
writers and the printers. So adroit and cunning was the secret of their
authorship and production at the time, that up to this day it has not
been positively disclosed. Never has the investigation been so keenly
or intelligently pressed for clearing the mystery investing the Martin
Mar-Prelate tracts as by the indefatigable researches and the sharpened
inquisition of Dr. Dexter. In his _Congregationalism_ he gives his
readers an exhaustive sketch and summary, in detail and analysis, of
all the facts and documents. His conclusion, which cannot be hopefully
contested or invalidated, is that they were written by Barrow, a
prisoner in the Fleet, and carried through the press by the agency of
Penry. There is abundant evidence in the appearance, publication, and
circulation of tracts known to have come from the hands of imprisoned
Puritans, that the bars of jails and dungeons offered no sufficient
barriers to prevent the secret intercourse and interchange of
intelligence between those whom they enclosed and friends outside, who
dared all risks in their zeal and fidelity.

       *       *       *       *       *

We must now close this narration of the issues raised in the Puritan
controversy, whether by Nonconformists in the Church or by Separatists
withdrawing from it, that we may note the concentration of forces
and witnesses which were drawn together in assemblies or fellowships
prepared in Old England to transfer and establish their principles
in New England. Many of the clergy whose views and sympathies were
warmly engaged in the further work of reform and purification within
the Church, and who at the same time were moderate and conciliatory in
their spirit, contrived to remain in their parochial fields, perhaps
in this way accomplishing the most for all that was reasonable and
good in the cause which they had at heart. When occasionally molested
or challenged, they might contrive to make their peace. But the crisis
and its demands called—as has always been the case in such intense
agitations of religious passions—for patient, steadfast, and resolute
witnesses in suffering, for those who should be hounded and tracked by
judicial processes, who should be deprived of subsistence and liberty,
and be ready not only for being hidden away in prisons or exiled
beyond the seas, but for public execution as martyrs. The emergency
of time and occasion found such as these; and it was of such as these
that there were men and women in training for wilderness work on this
soil. And the combination of materials and persons was precisely
such as would meet the exactions of such an enterprise. There were
university men, scholars, doctors in divinity, practised disputants
in their cherished lore, and with gifts of zeal, fervor, and tender
eloquence in discourse and prayer. There were gentry likewise,—men
and women lifted in the social scale, with furnishings of mind and
worldly goods. To these were joined, in a fellowship which equalized
many distinctions, yeomen, small traders, artisans, and some of every
place and grade, save the low or mean or reckless, in the make-up of
the population of the realm. Governor Bradford says that the first
Separatist or Independent Church in England was that of which John
Rough, the minister, and Cuthbert Symson, the deacon, were burned alive
by Bonner, in the reign of Queen Mary. The laborious and faithful
pages of Dr. Dexter, in his _Congregationalism_, must be closely
studied for the results of the marvellous diligence and keen research
by which he has traced every vestige, memorial, and testimony that
can throw light on the little assemblies of those outlawed Puritans.
It is a curious and engaging occupation in our peaceful and lethargic
times of religious ease, to scan the make-up, the spirit, and methods
of those humble assemblies in their lurking-places, private houses,
barns, or the open fields, frequently changing their appointments under
risks from spies and tipstaves, with their secret code of signals
for communicating intelligence. Their religious exercises were of
the intensest earnestness, and above all things stimulating. Their
conferences about order and discipline bristled with individualisms
and scruples. Many of these assemblies might soon resolve themselves
into constituencies of single members. There was scarce one of those
assemblies, either in England or in exile on the Continent, that did
not part into two or three. There was a stern necessity which compelled
variance and dissension among the members. They had in hand the Bible,
and each was trying what he could draw out of it, as an oracle and
a rule. They had to devise, discuss, and if possible agree upon and
enforce ways of church order and discipline, a form of worship, rules
of initiation into church membership, of suspension, expulsion, and
restoration. It was brain work, heart work, and soul work with them.
It would be difficult to reduce to any exact statements the numbers of
persons, or even of what may in a loose sense be called assemblies, of
Nonconformists or Separatists who remained in England, or who were in
refuge on the Continent at the period just preceding the colonization
of New England. What was called the Millenary Petition, which was
presented to James I., as he came in from Scotland, was claimed to
represent at least eight hundred Nonconforming ministers.

The way is now open for connecting the principles and fortunes of the
earnest and proscribed class of religious men, whose course has been
thus traced in England and Holland, with the enterprise of colonization
in New England. It is but reasonable to suppose that, dating from the
time and the incident referred to in the opening of this chapter,
such an enterprise was latent in conception or desire in the thoughts
of many as a possible alternative for the near future. A resolve or
purpose or effort of such a nature as this involves much brooding over
by individuals, much private communing, balancing of circumstances,
conditions, gains, and losses, and an estimate of means and resources,
with an eye towards allowance by a governmental or noble patronage,
or at least to security in the venture. We have but fragmentary and
scattered information as to all these preliminaries to the emigration.
We must trace them backward from the completion to the initiation of
the enterprise.

And here is the point at which we should define to ourselves, as
intelligently and fairly as we can from our abounding authentic
sources of information, precisely what was the influence or agency of
religion in the first emigration to New England. We are familiar with
the oft-reiterated and positive statement, that the enterprise would
neither have been undertaken, nor persisted in, nor led on to success,
had not religion furnished its mainspring, its guiding motive, and the
end aimed at, to be in degree realized.

We may safely commit ourselves to these assertions, that religion was
the master-motive and object of the most earnest and ablest leaders of
the emigration; that they felt this motive more deeply and with more of
singleness of purpose than they always avowed, as their circumstances
compelled them to take into view sublunary objects of trade and
subsistence which would engage to them needful help and resources; and
that some of these secondary objects very soon qualified and impaired
the paramount importance of the primary one. I am led to make this
allowance of exception as to the occasional reserve in the avowal of
an exclusively religious motive, because of a fact which must impress
the careful student of their history and fortunes for the first hundred
years. That fact is, that in multitudes of occasional utterances,
sermons, journals, and historical sketches, many of the descendants of
the first comers laid more exclusive and emphatic stress upon the prime
agency of religion in the enterprise than did the first movers in it.
When ministers and magistrates in after years uttered their frequent
and sombre laments over the degeneracy of the times, the decay of zeal
and godliness, and the falling from the first love, the refrain always
was found in extolling the one, single, supreme aim of the fathers as
that of pure piety. The pages of Cotton Mather’s _Magnalia_ and of his
tracts of memorial, rebuke, and exhortation, and the _Century Sermon_
of Foxcroft, minister of the First Church, are specimens of masses of
such matter in our old cabinets pitched in that tone. Nor need we
conclude that, as a general rule, the most fervent of those laments or
the most positive of those statements were exaggerated. Only what such
writers and speakers recognized as the degeneracy of their own later
times, must be traced to seeds and agencies which came in with the most
select fellowship of the fathers themselves. We cannot go so far as to
claim that the whole aim, the all-including purpose of every member, or
of even of a majority of the colonists, was religion, after the pattern
of that of the leaders, or of any style of religion. But we have to
conclude that the smaller the number of those among whom we concentrate
the religious fervor in its supreme sway, the more intensified must
have been its power to have enabled them, as it did, to give direction
to the whole enterprise. And this was not only true at the first, but
proportionately so as the original centre of that enterprise for a long
period sent off its radii successively to new settlements in the woods.
There were always found men and women enough to copy the original
pattern and to keep the motive force in action. Sir Henry Maine does
not state the whole of the truth when he writes thus: “The earliest
English emigrants to North America, who belonged principally to the
class of yeomanry, organized themselves in village communities for
purposes of cultivation.”[450]

The stream of exile to New England in the interest of religion was
first parted into one small and one large rill, which, however, soon
flowed together and assimilated, as it appeared that they started
substantially from the same source, with similar elements, and found
more that was congenial than discordant in their qualities. The company
of exiles whom residence in Holland, with its attendant influences
and results, had confirmed and stiffened in their original principles
of rigid Separatism, had the start by nearly a decade of years in
transferring themselves to Plymouth. Their fortunes are traced in the
next chapter.

The colonists in Massachusetts Bay, and those who, in substantial
accord with them, struck into several other settlements in the
wilderness of New England, were mainly those who in the land of their
birth had remained steadfast to their principles of Nonconformity, and
who had borne the penalties of them when avowed and put in practice.
They had not turned in disdain and temper from the institution which
they called their “mother church.” Their divided relation to it they
regarded as rather caused by such harsh conditions as excluded them
from its privileges than by any wilfulness or hostility of their own.
They professed that they still clung to its breast, and wished to be
nourished from it. It was not strange, however, that partial alienation
should, under favoring opportunities, widen and stiffen into seeming
antagonism to it. They regarded themselves as having been subjected
to pains and penalties because of their protest against objectionable
and harmful, as well as unscriptural, exactions in its discipline and
ceremonial. So they were content to be known as Nonconformists, but
repelled the charge of being Separatists. They kept alive a lingering
tenderness, in a reminder of their early membership and later disturbed
affiliation with it. Some few of the sterner spirits among them—and
Roger Williams was such, as he appeared here in his youth—demanded a
penitential avowal of sin from Winthrop’s company, on account of their
having once been in fellowship with the English Church. An agitation
also arose upon the question whether the members of the Boston Church,
who on visits to the old home occasionally conformed, should not be put
under discipline on their return here. Happily the dispute was disposed
of by forbearance and charity.

Still, while there was a slight manifestation at first of an antipathy
or a jealousy on the part of the Nonconformists at the Bay of being
in any way confounded with the Separatists at Plymouth, there never
was a breach or even a controversy, beyond that of a friendly
discussion, between them; and there is something well-nigh amusing,
as well as interesting, in following the quaint narration[451] of the
establishment of immediate harmony and accord between their respective
church ways. Endicott’s little company at Salem, heralding the great
emigration to the Bay, “entered into church estate” in August, 1629,
having sought what we should now call the advice, help, and sympathy of
their Plymouth brethren. This fellowship was extended through Governor
Bradford and other delegates, and the example was afterward followed
in like recognition of other churches. The covenanted members of the
Salem Church _ordained_ their pastor and teacher, notwithstanding that
they had previously been under the hands of a bishop. It soon appeared,
however, that the church was to be emphatically Nonconformist. Two
brothers Brown, at Salem, set up separate worship by the Common
Prayer. On being “convented” before the Governor, his Council and
the ministers, and accusing the church of Separatism, they were told
that the members did not wish to be Separatists, but were simply
Nonconformists with the corruptions of the Church; and that having
suffered much for their principles, and being now in a free place, they
were determined to be rid of Common Prayer and ceremonial.[452]

The First Boston Church, in 1630, was organized under its covenant,
with its appointed and ordained teacher, ruling elder, and deacons. In
ten years after the landing at Plymouth there were five churches after
this pattern, and in twenty years thirty-five, in New England.

This instantaneous abandonment, as it may be called, of everything
in the institution of a church, followed by an immediate disuse of
everything in ceremonial and worship in the English usage which the
Nonconformists had scrupled at home, is of itself very suggestive,
even in the first aspect of it. Followed into detail, it presents some
surprises and very rich instruction. In full result, it exhibits to
us principles and institutions in the highest interests of religion,
in civil, social, and domestic life, which had been repudiated and
put under severe penalties in England, crossing the ocean to plant
themselves in a wilderness for the training and guidance of successive
generations of men and women in freedom, virtue, piety, worldly thrift,
and every form of prosperity. There must have been nobleness in those
principles, as well as in the men and women who suffered for them, put
them on trial, and led them to triumph.

The work of preference, of conviction and conscience, had been wrought
in behalf of those principles, in old English homes and byways, in
humble conventicles, in fireside and wayside musings and conferences.
Enough persons had been brought to be of one mind, purpose, and
resolve, in the spirit of a determined heroism, to make a beginning
of such a sort that it would be more than half of the accomplished
work. There may have been debates, warm variances, hesitations, and
conciliatory methods used among those who entered into covenant as the
First Church of Boston. If there were such, we know nothing of them.
There is no surviving record or intimation of them. The pattern and
model which the exiled colonists followed, needed no study or shaping
on the wilderness soil. It was an old-home product. What might seem to
be extemporized work was prepared work. It was as if they had brought
over timbers cut in their native woods all framed and matched for
setting up in their transferred home. Their initiated teachers had been
ordained by Episcopal hands. But this was neither help nor hindrance.
When they needed more and new ones, they had a method of qualifying
them. Surplice, tippet, cap, rochet, and prayer-book are not missed
or mourned over. Simply not a word is said about them. The fabric
which they set up was of a new and peculiar style. No! They would not
have owned it to be new; they regarded it as the oldest, because the
original,—that which was established by the first generation of the
disciples of Jesus Christ.

One hundred university men from the grand old nooks and shrines of
consecrated learning in Old England were the medium for the “Gospel
work” in New England, till it could supply its needs from its own
well-provided resources. But there was not a prelate among them.
English magistrates of various grades and authority, governors,
judges, spies, collectors, and commissionaries were here to represent
the mother country, till she became so stingy that we were forced
to wean ourselves from her; but never did an English bishop as a
functionary set foot on the soil of what is now the territory of the
United States. And when after our Revolution the virtue which comes
from episcopal hands was communicated to the possessors of it here,
it had parted with what was most offensive or objectionable in its
claim or efficacy to the Old and the New English Puritans. Town and
rural parishes, colleges and schools, had the faithful services of
that hundred of university men. For a long time, the books that were
imported here were almost exclusively the Puritan literature of the
old home, and had a perceptible influence in stiffening, rather than
relaxing, the stern spirit of Dissent, and throwing new vitality into
the hard work which it had to do in the wilderness. One consideration
of the highest practical weight is presented to us in the fact that
the Puritanism of New England originated and fostered the free and
radically working instrumentalities and forces which neutralized its
own errors, restrained its own bigotry and severity, and compelled it
to develop from its own best elements something better than itself.
There were other plantations on this virgin soil, of which religion was
in no sense the master-impulse, and others still in which the mother
church sought to direct the movement. New England was never affected
for evil or for good by them. But if over the whole land, in radiations
or percolations of influence, the leaven of any one section of the
country has wrought in the whole of it, it is that of the New England
Puritanism.

       *       *       *       *       *


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THE original authorities and sources of information, in manuscript and
print, relating to the agitations and controversies arising within
the real or assumed membership of the Church of England after the
Reformation, are to be distinguished into two great classes,—those
of a public character, as records of the proceedings of government,
of the courts, and of all bodies or individuals in office charged
with authority; and those of a private nature, coming from voluntary
bodies, or from single members of them, or from writers and authors
whose works were published after the usual method, or sent forth and
circulated surreptitiously. Both these classes of original authorities,
constituting together an enormous mass of an infinitely varied
elementary composition, are alike widely scattered, and, so far as
they have not been gathered into local repositories, could be directly
consulted only by one whose travel, investigation, and research were of
the most extended comprehensiveness. England, Holland, and Switzerland
have in keeping contemporary records and documents relating to minute
and trivial, or to most important and vital, points in one or another
stage, or concerning one or another prime party in the controversy.
Perhaps, even after all the keen investigation and diligent toil
of the most recent inquisitors, such original papers have not been
exhaustively detected and examined. But one who is familiar with the
stores already reported to us, unless his taste and interest in them
run to morbidness, will hardly desire more of them. It is certain
that whatever obscurity may still invest any incidental point in the
controversy, the matter is of such comparatively slight importance,
that the substance and details of any information as to persons or
events which may be lacking to us would hardly qualify the general
narratives of history.

The expense, diligence, and intelligent illustration which within the
last thirty or forty years have been devoted to the collection and
arrangement and calendaring of such masses of the State and other
public papers of Great Britain, have aided as well as prompted the
researches of those who have been zealous to trace out with fidelity
and accuracy every stage, and the character and course of each one,
lofty or obscure, as an actor in the larger and the lesser bearings
of the struggle of Nonconformity and Dissent. As a general statement,
it may be affirmed that the developments and the more full and minute
information concerning the substance and phases of early Puritanism,
as they have been studied in the mass of accumulated documents, have
set forth the controversy in a dignity of interest and in a disclosure
of its vital relations to all theories of civil government, church
establishments, and the institutional administration of religion, far
more fully and in a much more comprehensive view than was recognized by
contemporary actors.

There are two extensive and exceedingly rich collections of
tracts, books, and manuscript documents of a most varied character
well-preserved and easily accessible in London, which furnish
well-nigh inexhaustible materials for the study of the Puritan, the
Nonconformist, and the Separatist movements in all their phases. One of
these is in the British Museum, the other in Dr. Williams’s Library.
In the times with which we are now concerned, the motive, perhaps but
vaguely comprehended by himself, which led George Thomason to gather
his marvellous collection, now in the British Museum, would have been
called a _providential_ prompting. He was a modest man in private
life, and, so far as we know, took no part in public agitations. As a
Royalist bookseller, at “The Rose and Crown, in St. Paul’s Churchyard,”
he had opportunities favoring him in the scheme which he undertook. It
was in 1641 that he began a laborious enterprise, and one not without
very serious risks to himself, which he continued to pursue till
just before his death in 1666. This was to gather up, preserve, and
bind in volumes,—though without any system or order of arrangement
except chronological,—a copy of each of the publications in tract,
or pamphlet, or fly-leaf form which appeared from the press, licensed
or surreptitiously printed, during a period teeming with the issue,
like the dropping of forest leaves, of a most extraordinary series of
ephemeral works, quickened with all the vitality of those times. Though
he began his collection in 1641, he anticipated that date by gathering
similar publications previous to it. He copied during Cromwell’s time
nearly a hundred manuscripts, mainly “on the King’s side, which no
man durst venture to publish here without the danger of his ruin.”
He took pains to write upon most of the publications the date of its
appearance, and when anonymous, the name of its author if he could
ascertain it. Besides the risks of fire and the burden of such a mass
of materials filling his house from cellar to garret, this zealous
collector exposed himself to severe penalties from the authorities on
either side of the great civil and religious conflict. He was compelled
once at least to remove his collection to a safe hiding-place. It fills
now 2,220 volumes, and counts to 34,000 separate publications, from
folio downward. It is difficult to say what may not be found there,
and nearly as difficult to find exactly what one wishes. After various
exposures through which the collection passed safely, it now rests in
the British Museum, under the general title of the “King’s Pamphlets,”
having been purchased and presented by King George III. in 1762, at a
cost of £300. A mine of most curious matter is there ready for search
on every subject, serious or comic, sacred or secular, illustrative
of high and low life during the period. Probably the two most zealous
delvers in that mine for its best uses have been Professor Masson, for
the purpose of _The Life of John Milton: narrated in connexion with the
Political, Ecclesiastical, and Literary History of his Time_, in six
volumes; and Dr. H. M. Dexter, in his _Congregationalism of the Last
Three Hundred Years_, etc. Both authors have turned these pamphlets to
the best account in clearing obscurities or filling gaps in the history
or writings of men prominent in the cause of Nonconformity.

The other comprehensive and extensive collection of pamphlets, volumes,
and original papers for illustrating the whole history of Puritanism
and Dissent, is in what is known as Dr. Williams’s Library, in London.
Dr. Daniel Williams, an eminent Presbyterian divine, possessed of
means, had purchased the library of the famous Dr. William Bates.
Adding to it from his own resources, he founded in 1716 the library
which bears his name, committing it, with a sum of money for a building
(to which additions were made by a subscription), to the hands of
trustees in succession. The library edifice—long standing in Red-Cross
Street, now removed to Grafton Street—has been ever since a favorite
place for the assembling of meetings and committees in the Dissenting
interest (of late years Presbyterians and Unitarians acceding to their
trust), for the transaction of business, for preparing addresses to
successive sovereigns, and managing their cause in Parliament. Those
who in former years have sat in one of the ancient chairs of the
library in Red-Cross Street have hardly escaped feeling profoundly
the influence of the place and of its associations,—the walls hung
with the portraits of venerable divines and scholars learned in all
ancient lore; the cabinets filled with laboriously wrought manuscripts,
histories, diaries, and letters, some of them dating in the first
half of the sixteenth century; the crowded shelves of folios and
smaller tractates composed of brain-work and patient toil, without
the facilities of modern research and study, and the many relics and
memorials connected with the daily ministerial and domestic life of
men of self-denying and honorable service. Harvard College holds and
administers a fund of over sixteen thousand dollars, left by Dr.
Williams in 1711, as a trust for the benefit of the aborigines.

Here is the fitting place for appropriate and most grateful mention
of the results of a labor of devoted zeal and love given by the Rev.
Henry Martyn Dexter, D.D., to the historic memorial of a cause of which
he inherits the full spirit, and in the service of which he has spent
his mature life. It may safely be said that not a single person, at
least of those born on the soil of New England, of the lineage of the
Fathers has so “magnified” their cause and work as he has done. Holding
with such a rooted conviction, as is his, that the Congregational
polity of the Christian Church has the warrant of Scripture and of
the Primitive Church, and that it best serves the sacred interests of
soul-freedom and of associated religion in its institutions, works,
and influence, the earliest witnesses, confessors, and martyrs in its
behalf have seemed to him worthy of the most lavish labor for their
commemoration. Repeatedly has he crossed the seas and plied his most
diligent scrutiny of tracing and searching, as he got the scent of
some tract or record in its hiding-place of private cabinet or dim old
parchment. With hardly eye or thought for the usual attractions of
foreign travel, his valuable leisure has been spent in following any
clew which promised him even the slightest aid to clearing an obscure
point, or setting right a disputed fact, or completing our information
on any serious matter relating to the early history of what is now
represented by Congregationalism. The Introduction to his volume, _The
Congregationalism of the last Three Hundred Years, as seen in its
Literature, with Special Reference to Certain Recondite, Neglected, or
Disputed Passages_,[453] tells in a vigorous and hearty tone what was
his aim, his course, and its method.

The principal text of his volume disposes the treatment of his subject
under twelve lectures, delivered by the author in the Theological
Seminary at Andover, in 1876-1879. This text is elaborately illustrated
by notes, with references and extracts, largely drawn from the
recondite sources and the depositories already referred to. The author
is careful to authenticate all his statements from prime authorities;
and where obscurity or conflict of views or of evidence adduced makes
it necessary, his patience and candor give weight to his judgment or
decision. The extraordinary and unique element of his work is presented
in his _Collections towards a Bibliography of Congregationalism_,
which with the Index to its titles covers more than three hundred
royal octavo pages, in close type. This contains an enumeration of
7,250 titles of publications, from folios down to a few leaves, dating
between the years 1546 and 1879, which have even the slightest relation
in contents, authorship, or purpose with the most comprehensive
bearings of his subject in its historical development.

I have mentioned this elaborate work among the primary, instead of
classing it with the secondary, sources of information on the history
of Nonconformity, because it is something more than a link between the
two. It takes its flavor from the past. Its abounding extracts from the
quaint writings, and its portraitures and relations of the experiences,
of the old-time worthies transfer us to their presence, make us sharers
of their buffeted fortunes and listeners to their living speech. The
work may be regarded as a summary of monumental memorials, more frank
and true than are such generally on stone or brass of those who fought
a good fight and trusted in promises.

The natural desire of a dispassionate reader of the original documents
dealing with the heats of the Puritan controversy, or pursuing it in
the pages of historians who may relate it either with a partisan or
an impartial spirit, is that he might have before him the words and
impressions of some contemporary or observer of profound wisdom and
of well-balanced judgment, as he viewed this turmoil of affairs. The
nearest approach made to the gratification of this wish is found in
two brief but very comprehensive essays from the pen of the great
Lord Bacon, as with an evident serenity and poise of spirit he
studied the scenes before him, and the characters, aims, excesses,
and shortcomings of the various actors, monarchs, prelates, zealots,
enthusiasts, and earnest, however ill-judging, extremists on either
side. The first of these essays in publication, whenever it may have
been written, is entitled _Certain Considerations touching the better
Pacification and Edification of the Church of England_. The date of
its imprint is 1640. But in this reference is made, in the address to
King James, to an earlier essay, which appeared anonymously with the
imprint of 1641, under the title of _An Advertisement touching the
Controversies of the Church of England_. This was evidently written in
the time of Elizabeth. In it, Bacon sagaciously traces the origin of
the controversy to four main springs,—namely, the offering and the
accepting occasions for variance; the extending and multiplying them;
passionate and unbrotherly proceedings on both parts, and the recourse
on either side to a stiffer union among its members, heightening the
distraction. His most severe stricture is upon the Church, for its
harsh measures, as the strife advanced, in enforcing with penalties
what had previously been allowed to be matters of indifference, thus
driving some discontents into a banded sect. He regards it as a grave
error that some of the English Church zealots had spoken contemptuously
of foreign Protestant Churches. Though Bacon affirms that he is himself
no party to the strife, and aims only for an impartial arbitration in
it, his judgment and sympathy evidently incline him to the Puritan side
as against the bishops. A fair-minded Puritan of the time might well
have contented himself with this wise man’s statement of his side and
cause. Of the second of these essays, it being addressed to King James
on his accession, it may be said that it would be difficult to find any
piece of writing of equal compass, on the themes with which it deals,
more crowded with sound, solid good sense, better balanced in its
allowances and limitations, more moderate, judicious, and practical in
its principles, or more likely to harmonize all reasonable differences,
and to repress and discountenance extreme and perverse individualisms.
Bacon justifies innovations and reconstructions. He tells the King that
the opening of his reign is the opportune time for making them. He
protests against modelling all reformation after one pattern. Then he
utters words of eminent wisdom about the government of bishops, about
the liturgy, ceremonies, and subscription, about a preaching ministry,
the abuse of excommunication, and about non-residence, pluralities,
and the maintenance of the ministry. Here, again, moderate men of both
parties might well have been content with the great philosopher’s
judgment.


DOCUMENTS IN FOREIGN REPOSITORIES.—In connection with the exile of so
many prelates, clergy, and other members of the English Church on the
accession of Queen Mary in 1553, the relations established between them
and many eminent Reformers on the Continent resulted in the production
of a large number of documents of the highest historical authenticity
and value, as throwing light upon the aims and methods of the Puritans
in England during the whole period from 1553 to 1602. Several of these
exiles settled at Zurich, and there formed intimate friendships with
many magistrates and ministers of the Reformed religion. On the return
of the exiles, on the accession of Elizabeth, many of them kept up
a constant correspondence with their friends. The letters have been
preserved in the archives of Zurich, and it has been only within the
last forty years that the wealth of information in them has been
revealed in England. There are nearly two hundred folio volumes of
these letters. Strype and Burnet had obtained copies of some of them,
which they put to use in their histories.[454] A descendant of one of
the Swiss correspondents had before 1788 copied eighteen thousand of
the letters with his own hand, arranged chronologically. In 1845 and
1846, “The Parker Society” in England published,[455] in four octavo
volumes, a large number of these “Zurich Letters,” translated and
carefully edited, with annotations. The general titles are _The Zurich
Letters, comprising the Correspondence of Several English Bishops,
and Others, with Some of the Helvetian Reformers_, during the reigns
of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Queens Mary and Elizabeth. In the
collection are several letters to royal personages. One of these, by
Rodolph Gualter, who in his youth had resided at Oxford, to Queen
Elizabeth, dated Zurich, Jan. 16, 1559, is a long epistle, written in a
dignified, courteous and earnest strain, counselling the Queen to have
two things in her supreme regard: “First, that every reformation of the
Church and of religion be conducted agreeably to the Word of God;” and
second, that she restrain her counsellors from hindering or reversing
the good work. Better than from the best-digested pages of history,
one may learn from these fresh and admirable letters, down to the most
minute detail and incident, the cross-workings, the entanglements, the
progressive advance, the obstructions, the retrograde and opposing
forces and influences connected with the oscillations of the reform
in England. Nowhere else in our abounding literature on the subject
are the Puritans and Nonconformists presented more faithfully and
intelligently in their conscientious, scrupulous, and certainly
well-meant efforts, within the Church itself, to have its institutions,
ceremonial, and discipline disposed after a pattern which should have
regard equally to discountenance the impositions and superstitions of
the Papal system, which had been nominally renounced, and to make the
purified Church a power to advance the best interests of true religion.
The intelligent American visitor to Zurich, if his attention is drawn
to this highly valued and admirably arranged collection in its library,
can hardly fail of the impression that he has before him most sincere
evidences of the depth of thought and the nobleness of spirit of men
who were working out the principles of wisdom and righteousness.

Considering the influence exerted upon some of the English Puritans
by their residence on the Continent, and their frequent reference
afterward to the different ecclesiastical system and discipline adopted
there, an interesting phase of the controversy is presented in the
two following works. At the opening of the eighteenth century, Dr.
William Nichols,—as he says, at the prompting of others, though, it
was intimated, of his own motion,—wrote a _Defence of the Doctrine
and Discipline of the Church of England_, addressed especially to
foreign divines and churches. This was replied to by James Peirce in
his _Vindication of the Dissenters; or, an Appeal to Foreign Divines,
Professors, and all other Learned Men of the Reformed Religion_. In
this volume, originally written and published in Latin, afterward
translated by the author and published in English, there is in the main
a thorough and candid review of the rise and the conduct of the cause
of Nonconformity, and a searching examination of the principles of the
Church of England. Peirce quotes with care the original authorities,
and puts them to a good use. He follows the history into the fortunes
of those who had taken refuge and established their religion in New
England, and while he says he differs with Mr. Cotton, of Boston, “in
many of his opinions,” defends him and all the “Independents” from the
charge of being “Brownists.”

The historians Bancroft and Motley and Dr. H. M. Dexter have, after
diligent research in Holland, discovered many little scraps of curious
information relating to the residence, mode of life, social and
domestic experiences, and way of conducting their religious affairs,
of the earliest English exiles there associated in churches and
assemblies. These slight memorials indicate that the Puritans and
Separatists in refuge there, though their circumstances were modest, if
not obscure, were respected for their characters and for the sincerity
of their purposes. They found conveniences from the presses in Holland
for putting into print their own fertile productions in the setting
forth of their principles, while the busy commerce between the ports
of Holland and those of England and Scotland furnished ready means for
conveying these publications, as well as private letters, secretly and
surreptitiously if it were necessary, to the safe hands of friends.
Nor, if the occasion was urgent, would one of these refugees hesitate,
taking in his hands the risk of his liberty or life, to pass the
seas on some secret errand in his own behalf or in the interest of
his fellows. Such scraps of information from Dutch repositories as
the explorers above named have gathered have all been duly valued as
filling gaps in our previous knowledge, or clearing up some obscure
passages. The results have been so gratefully recognized and at once
incorporated in the many modern rehearsals of the old history, that
they need not be referred to more specifically here.[456]


ENGLISH AUTHORITIES.—All such periods of intense controversy and
struggle upon themes of the highest concern to man, as that of the
internal commotions in England immediately following and consequent
upon the Reformation, leave behind them some memorial in literature
of so conspicuous and rare an excellence as to insure perpetual
freshness, and to acquire interest and attractions even beyond that
of the particular subject with which it deals. When the Press in
such periods is pouring its outflow of ephemeral tracts and books,
vigorous, intense, effective, as they may be for a temporary end or
for the circle of a sect or party, genius or scholarly culture, or a
philosophical and comprehensive spirit, penetrating below the surface
and rising above the details of a controversy, will engage itself upon
the product of what we call an immortal work. Such a work[457] is
that which came from the pen of “the judicious Hooker,”—Richard by
baptismal name. His eight books constitute one of the richest classics
of the English tongue. It finds delighted readers among those who
care little, if at all, for the mere issues of the questions under
controversy. Its generally rich and stately style, its logic and
rhetoric, its wealth of learning, and its occasional play of satire
or contempt, engage the interest of many a reader who would turn
listlessly from most pages of polemics. There is so much in it of a
manly, free courage and self-asserting spirit, that at times it is
difficult to believe that it was written by one who, according to the
quaint biography of him by Isaack Walton, was so cowed and subjugated
by his domestic partner, the mother of his children. English Churchmen
may well boast themselves on this majestic work, dealing with the
nucleus of the whole Puritan controversy, the question of Church
authority. Of course, its argument in its whole sum and detail, in its
array and estimate of original vouchers, has been traversed and brought
under dispute by champions on the other side. But it will always hold
its supreme place while the cause which it upholds shall need a classic.

Hallam[458] says that, “though the reasonings of Hooker won for him the
surname of ‘the Judicious,’ they are not always safe or satisfactory,
nor, perhaps, can they be reckoned wholly clear or consistent. His
learning, though beyond that of most English writers in that age, is
necessarily uncritical; and his fundamental theory, the mutability of
ecclesiastical government, has as little pleased those for whom he
wrote, as those whom he repelled by its means.” The same writer, in
another work,[459] passes a high encomium upon Hooker’s _Polity_, as
finding a basis for its argument in natural law.

The first four of the books of Hooker’s work were published in 1594,
the fifth in 1597. As the other three had been left in manuscript,
and did not appear in print till many years after his death in 1600,
suspicions were raised that they might have been interpolated. As the
Narrative of this chapter has given place to an exposition of Hooker’s
fundamental position against the Nonconformists, it need not be
repeated here.

For a long period, the well-known work[460] of Daniel Neal, in its
successive editions, was the only one written from an historical point
of view by an author not contemporary with its whole subject, which had
appeared from the press, was widely circulated and generally accredited
for its fidelity, its ability, and its trustworthiness. Mr. Neal, born
in London in 1678, was a Dissenting minister in that city, and died
in 1743. His history was published in portions between 1731 and 1738.
The editions of it now in general circulation are those edited with
valuable notes by Dr. Toulmin, the first of which appeared in London in
1793, and the last in 1837. The editor continued the history after the
English Revolution. Mr. Neal made diligent research, in order to verify
his statements from all the original sources which were open to him. He
relied largely on the laborious _Memorials_ gathered by the painstaking
Strype, while owing much to Fuller and Burnet. Mosheim accepted Neal’s
work as of the highest authority. Dr. Kippis commends it highly in the
_Biographia Britannica_. After the publication of his first volume,
Neal made public his answer to an anonymous work by Dr. Maddox, Bishop
of St. Asaph, vindicating the Church of England “from the injurious
reflections cast upon it in that volume.” Similar animadversions were
cast upon the later volumes by Dr. Zachary Grey. Bishop Warburton, in
some _Notes_ to Mr. Neal’s history which he published in 1788, even
brings in question the author’s veracity. Dr. Toulmin meets and answers
such charges. Mr. Neal sought to give his pages authenticity by full
quotations, citations, and references to his original authorities.
In a few instances in which Burnet or others denied his fairness or
accuracy, Dr. Toulmin has vindicated him against all aspersions, if
not from all charges of error. The author wrote when the Dissenters
were relieved by legislation of the severe impositions, fines, and
inflictions of an earlier period, but were by no means brought into an
equality in social and civil rights and privileges with the favored and
patronized members of the Church Establishment. So Mr. Neal’s pages
are free from the asperity and bitterness provoked into indulgence by
his predecessors under the smart of humiliating wrongs. Still, he is
loyal to the memory and steadfastness of those earlier sufferers. There
was much on which the Dissenters of his time might pride themselves as
won by the constancy of those who had fought for them the battles with
lordly arrogance and hierarchical assumptions and prerogatives. There
was a palmy age for Dissent in England which Lord Macaulay describes
very felicitously, when, as he says, there were Dissenting ministers
whose standing and condition in life compared favorably with those of
all the clergy of the Establishment below those of the bishops. Among
the Dissenting laity were men of wealth and of commercial consequence,
as a high and honored social class, whose munificent endowments were
bestowed on some of the noblest institutions of the realm.

Mr. Hallam devotes the second, third, and fourth chapters of his
_Constitutional History of England_ to the development of the history
of Nonconformity, both among Roman Catholics and Protestants, during
the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth. Among
the many reviews and critical estimates of this history, that in the
_Edinburgh Review_, vol. xlviii., is especially able and satisfactory.
Mr. Hallam brought to the presentation of this part of his whole
subject, not only his habitually thorough and conscientious fulness of
research among authorities and documents, public and private, but also
that spirit of candor, moderation, and equitable impartiality which,
if not already cherished in the purposes and motives of one intending
the task of an historian, may or may not be acquired and exercised in
dealing with themes engaging so much of temper, strife, and intenseness
of polemical animosity. From his point of view, reading backwards
along the line of historical development, he recognized that the early
Nonconformists were dealing with fundamental principles in religious
affairs which, though not at the time fully apprehended, would
necessarily involve immunities and rights of a political character.
It is because of this, now clearly exposed and certified to us, that
such lofty tributes are rendered to the Puritans as the exponents and
champions of English liberty.

The _Inner Life_[461] of Robert Barclay, not completely, though
substantially, finished and supervised by its author, is an admirable
example of the more wise, just, and considerate tone and method
adopted in quite recent years for dealing with times and subjects of
once embittered religious agitation and controversy. It is calm and
judicial in its temper, inclusive and well-digested in its materials
and contents. The author’s research was most wide and comprehensive.
He spared no labor in the quest of original documents, in manuscript
or print, all over England and on the Continent, of prime use and
authority for his purpose, whether in public repositories or in private
cabinets. For some very important matters which entered into the full
treatment of his theme he has used for the first time many records that
had been lying in undisturbed repose, and he has enlisted the valuable
aid of many friends.

The author, after defining the idea and object of a visible church,
makes an elaborate effort to trace to its sources and in its course
the development of religious opinion in England previous to 1640.
He marks the rise of Barrowism, Brownism, of the Johnsonists, the
Separatists, the Presbyterians, the early Independents, the two parties
of Baptists, and the Friends, or Quakers. Some of the views, habits,
and principles adopted by these parties he traces in their connection
with the Mennonites on the Continent. He distinguishes, as far as
possible, the various shades of opinion, the introduction of new points
of controversy or discussion, the individualisms, extravagancies,
eccentricities, and erratic excesses of individuals or parties,
and he keeps distinct the two main currents of the development, as
they favored or rejected the connection of civil and ecclesiastical
authority. He draws the line distinctly between the Episcopalians
and Presbyterians, on the one side, as according in favoring a state
church and a national establishment, and the original ideas gradually
developed into positive principles of individuals and societies
among the Separatists, which involved the complete separation of the
administration of religion from the civil power.

The central subject of Mr. Barclay’s volume is the early history of the
Friends, or Quakers. Two chief points are specially dealt with: First,
many of the distinctive principles in their teaching and conduct which
have been generally regarded as original with them are traced as in
full recognition by other parties previous to the preaching of George
Fox. Second, the author presents many facts, new, or in a new light,
which disclose how earnest were the efforts of the early Friends for
a very careful and even elaborate inner organization and discipline
of their membership, after the manner of a visible Church,—the
appointment and oversight of a qualified ministry, the sending out of
authorized missionaries, and the inquisition into the private affairs,
the home life, habits, and business of members, carried out into very
minute and annoying details. He reveals to us the embarrassments met
by them in deciding upon the question of “birthright membership.”
Manuscript documents, records, minute-books, etc., preserved in many
places where the early Friends had their meetings, are found very
communicative.[462]

Mr. Skeats, in his _Free Churches_[463] has in view as his general
purpose, to trace “the part which English Dissent has played in
the history of England.” Following this comprehensive design, he
presents the various phases of Nonconformity and Separatism through
denominational organizations among Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers,
Independents, and Congregationalists, noting the attitude of opposition
assumed towards them by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. He
regards the Toleration Act, passed in 1689,—which even then excluded
the Unitarians from its terms,—as drawing the line between the
efforts which had been made up to that time to extinguish Dissent,
and the leaving it simply under a stigma, as lacking social standing
and Government recognition. Only the first chapter, covering a
hundred of the six hundred pages of the volume, is concerned with the
subject directly in our hands. The author is in full sympathy with
the principles and the cause, the attitude and the persistency, of
the resolute and buffeted men whose views he sets forth, as developed
from the earliest stage of the Reformation in England. He cites and
quotes original authorities to authenticate his statements and his
judgments. In some instances, where they bear hard upon the conduct
of the archbishops of Canterbury under Queen Elizabeth, Curteis, in
his _Bampton Lectures_, challenges their fairness. More than four
hundred Dissenting societies, Congregationalist and Baptist, are now
existing in England, which date their origin before the passage of
the Toleration Act under William.[464] To these are to be added many
societies of Presbyterians and Quakers.

The Congregational Union of England and Wales is an organized body
devoted to the interests of the fellowship to which it succeeds as
representing the original single and associated Nonconformists from the
date of the English Reformation. Its magazines, its annual reports,
and various publications issued under its patronage, keep in living
interest and advocacy the principles first stood for by faithful
witnesses, sufferers, and martyrs. One of these publications, of
especial importance, bears the following title: _Historical Memorials
relating to the Independents, or Congregationalists, from their Rise to
the Restoration of the Monarchy_, 1660, London, 1839. The distinctive
value and authority of this work, which is in four octavo volumes,
attach to its being almost exclusively composed of the original
writings, of various kinds, from the pens of the first Nonconformists,
and the answers or arguments brought against them. These have been
gathered by keen and extended investigation, carefully authenticated,
and, where it is necessary, annotated. The motive which inspired
this undertaking was to remove the obscurity and contumely which had
been threatening to settle over the memory and principles of men
whose own writings prove them to have been equal in learning, acumen,
argumentative power, and heroic constancy of purpose to defend a cause
by them thought worthy of their devotion. Many important papers which
elsewhere are found only in quotations, extracts, or fragments, are
here given in full.

The Bi-Centennial commemoration of the ejectment of all Nonconforming
ministers from the parish churches of England, on St. Bartholomew’s
Day, 1662, was made the occasion, after modern usage for such
observances, of the delivery of a multitude of addresses, and the
preparation and publication of numerous pamphlets and volumes, of
local or general interest, with historical retrospect and review of
the origin and development of English Nonconformity. Curteis[465] has
a very pregnant note on the “bicentenary rhetoric” connected with this
occasion. He alleges that “incredible exaggerations” were exposed, as
founded upon the lists given in Calamy’s famous Nonconformist Memorial
(edited by Palmer) of the ejected ministers, as being in number two
thousand. Curteis says it was proved that instead of there being 293
such in London parishes, there were by count only 127, and that from
the whole alleged number of two thousand, there should be struck off no
less than twelve hundred.[466]

There are three very admirable works[467] covering much of the matter
of this chapter, from the pen of John Tulloch, D.D., Principal of St.
Mary’s College in the University of St. Andrew’s.

Though these three works are from the pen of a clergyman of the
Church of Scotland, they are written in a spirit of the most broad
and comprehensive catholicity. They set forth with keen discernment
and with generous appreciation the advances made by highly gifted
individual minds in the several stages and phases of the development of
a protracted controversy upon the principles involved in an attempted
adjustment of the rights of conscience and free thought, in asserting
themselves against traditional and ecclesiastical proscriptions. It
required the contributions from many such minds and spirits, with their
fragments of certified truth, to insure the substitution of reason for
authority.


CHURCH OF ENGLAND AUTHORITIES.—Among the recently published works, the
authors of which have aimed with moderation and impartiality to treat a
theme of embittered relations and rehearsals so as to present readers
with information of facts and the means of judging fairly between
violent contestants in their once angry issues, is one already referred
to as Curteis’s _Bampton Lectures_.[468] Assuming that the English
Church had an origin and existence independent of the ecclesiastical
authority of the Pope, the author relates the process by which it
reformed itself, by renouncing his interference and impositions, and
establishing its own discipline and ritual. After this he regards and
treats the Romanists as but one class of Dissenters, taking their
place as such with the Independents, the Baptists, the Quakers, the
Unitarians, and the Wesleyans. Of these divided elements of the common
Christian fold, the author traces the rise, the leading principles, and
the distinct institutions and methods which they adopted. His treatment
of his large and tangled subject is as fair, considerate, and judicious
as could be expected from an earnest and heartily loyal minister of the
English Church. He makes many strong statements to commend and urge a
national establishment of religion as far more dignified, consistent,
and desirable than the scattering and fragmentary multiplication,
indefinitely increasing under petty variances, of independent religious
organizations. But he does not work out a practicable method for his
suggested scheme when those concerned in it prefer their own ways. Mr.
Curteis is very severe (p. 62) in his rebuke upon the harshness of
terms in which Mr. Skeats[469] deals with Archbishop Parker, in the
course pursued by him towards the Puritans. But the view presented by
Mr. Skeats is more than justified by Hallam,[470] in his calm dealing
with the original documents.

In the same connection may be mentioned _The Church and Puritans_,[471]
a small and compact volume, written in the best spirit of moderation
and candor. In but little more than two hundred open pages, the author
traces the whole course of Dissent,—its rise, aims, principles,
and methods, and its struggles, buffetings, and discomfitures, from
its manifestations under Elizabeth to the failure of “a glorious
opportunity of reconciling all moderate Dissenters to the communion
of the Church of England, under William and Mary.” By the judicious
restraint upon what might naturally be his promptings, as a clergyman
of the Church of England, to criticise with some sharpness what has so
generally been represented as the perversity and weak scrupulosity of
the Puritans, he is eminently fair and considerate in presenting their
side of the controversy, and in dealing with their more conspicuous
men. The abounding citation of original authorities on both sides in
his notes authenticates, for nearly every sentence of the work, the
statement made in it.

Two works of a remarkably liberal and scholarly character which have
quite recently appeared from the pens of eminent divines of the English
Church, would have been gratefully welcomed by the Nonconformists in
the period of their sharpest conflict, on account of their generous
spirit and their contents. They would have been especially noteworthy
in the liberal concessions which they make upon all the points
involved in the controversy, as to the simple authority and pattern of
Scripture in the constitution and discipline of the Christian Church,
as against the hierarchical claims based upon traditions and usages
subsequent to the age of the apostles, and traceable in the so-called
Primitive Church. These books are Mr. Edwin Hatch’s _Organization of
the Early Christian Churches_,[472] and Dean Stanley’s _Christian
Institutions_.[473]

Mr. Hatch has also published articles of a similar tenor to the
contents of his Bampton Lectures, in the _Dictionary of Christian
Antiquities_. In these lectures, the author aims to trace the facts
of ecclesiastical history in the same way as those of civil history
are usually dealt with. His aim is to investigate the framework of
the earliest Christian societies. He says these societies in their
formation adjusted themselves to previously existing methods of
association. The philanthropic element in them suggested the sort
of officers needed, their provinces and functions. A president of
the society and one or more distributors of alms were the requisite
officers. Then as increasing numbers in a society, and of societies,
made necessary a distribution of functions, with centralization and
subordination of duty and authority, an ecclesiastical system was
developed by like methods to those of a civil or political system.
Convenience and adaptation thus originated the elements of a hierarchy,
the regulation of which was watched over and disposed by a system of
councils.

Dean Stanley’s volume is a collection of essays, previously published
separately. They are liberal in tone and tenor, and by no means
in harmony with, or even quite respectful toward, any high-church
principles, or any demands of “divine right” for ecclesiastical
authority. He adopts a rational point of view for marking the
accumulation of sentiments and usages around the original substance of
Christianity. He exhibits the entire unlikeness of conditions and needs
between the early days of the religion and our own. He recognizes the
vast superstructure of fable reared upon original simple verities, and,
like Mr. Hatch, identifies the development of ecclesiastical with that
of civil forms and usages.

An _Essay on the Christian Ministry_, by Bishop Lightfoot, treats after
a like unconventional method, the themes which in the days of early
Nonconformity were dealt with in so different a tone and method.


NEW ENGLAND AUTHORITIES.[474]—The authorities concerning every detail
in the institution and disposing of church affairs in New England are
abundant and well-nigh exhaustive. They may be consulted as digested
and set in order in the more recently published works to be here
named by title, or they may be traced fragmentarily in chronological
order in the writings of the Fathers themselves. The organization of
the New England churches came to be best described under the term
“Congregational.” It was in substance a modification of Barrowism.
While there seems to have been but little discordancy here among those
who followed the pattern, they were soon challenged by some of their
brethren in England most nearly in sympathy with them, as to doubtful
or debated principles and methods in their institution and discipline
of churches. There were two chief points which came under discussion:
first, the respective rights of all the brethren composing a church
fellowship in administering discipline, and those of the pastor,
teacher, and elders. Should the whole church, or only its officers, be
primarily and ultimately invested with executive and administrative
power? The second point covered all the considerations which would
come into prominence in deciding upon the relations of churches to
each other,—whether each should maintain an absolute independency, or
qualify it in any way by seeking sympathy, fellowship, and advice, and
heeding remonstrances or interference from “sister churches,” through
their teachers and elders.

Contemporary references to these matters as they presented themselves
to the attention of those who here first entered into a “church
estate,” are scattered over Governor Winthrop’s journal. John Cotton,
minister of the First Church of Boston, diligently and earnestly,
in successive writings and publications, set himself to answering
all questioning and challenging friends abroad. He evidently had to
work out clear and consistent views of his own on a subject which,
besides being novel in many of its relations, was embarrassed by local
difficulties, and by some conscientious or practical diversities of
judgment among his associates. Richard Mather, of Dorchester, also
contributed his help in the exposition of the Congregational polity,
which was to be defended alike from extreme Barrowism and from
Presbyterianism, which was soon found to have some sympathizers in the
colony. By a sort of general consent, recourse was had to a succession
of “synods,” or councils of the representatives of the churches, first
those of the Bay Colony alone, then with some of the other New England
colonies. These synods resulted in the formation of a “Platform,” which
laid out in form and detail the system of the Congregational polity.

It is not necessary here to indicate the titles, contents, and authors
of the several publications, preserved in our cabinets of relics, which
contributed either to the dissension or to the pacification of the
sometimes eccentric and heated, and of the always scrupulous, earnest,
and independent parties in this work of ecclesiastical reconstruction.
They have been so faithfully, admirably, and impartially digested by
Dr. Dexter in the eighth of the lectures in his _Congregationalism_,
as to present to the reader a full and intelligent view of the whole
subject in its development and its results, while relieving him of
what save to the fewest possible of historical students would be
a repelling task. If, however, zeal or curiosity should dispose
any one to peer through those dried and withered relics of the old
polemics of a generation that drew its honey from the rocks, he will
find much occasion to respect the acuteness and the persistency of
men who, having taken the interests of their creed and piety into
their own hands, determined to build on what was to them the only
sure foundation. That foundation was “the Word.” If the Scriptures,
as their prelatical foes insisted, were not intended to afford, and
would not afford, a complete pattern of a method of institution and
government of a Christian Church, the reader of those patiently wrought
tractates will often be amazed as he notes how rich and fertile, how
apt and facile, the contents of the sacred books were found to be, in
furnishing the requisite material for argument and authority.

A controversial discussion was opened in 1861 by Hon. D. A. White, of
Salem, by the publication of his _New England Congregationalism in its
Origin and Purity, illustrated by the Foundation and Early Records
of the First Church in Salem, and Various Discussions pertaining to
the Subject_. To this work Rev. J. B. Felt, in the same year, made
an answer: _Reply to the New England Congregationalism of Hon. D. A.
White_. The principal interest of the matter of these two publications
consists in their arguments upon the question whether Congregationalism
as a system of polity in the constitution and government of churches
carries with it, as an essential organic part, the doctrinal creed
held by those who first adopted it. Dr. Dexter offers some suggestions
on this point, arguing that the creed of the first Congregationalists
belongs continuously to their system of polity. Of course, only
constructive and inferential arguments can be brought to bear on this
point. As we have seen, from the first manifestations of Nonconformity
and Dissent in England, doctrinal themes did not at all enter into the
controversy, it being taken for granted that there was accord upon
them. But there certainly is no absolute, vital connection between a
form of polity and a doctrinal system. There have come to be very many
organizations and fellowships among Protestants which are substantially
Congregational in their order, while widely diverse in their creeds.

In 1862, Mr. Felt published _The Ecclesiastical History of New England_.

Very full and curiously interesting information about the principles,
persons, and events connecting the Puritan controversy in the Old
World with the settlement of New England, may be found in the now
well-nigh innumerable volumes containing the history of our oldest
towns and churches. In their earlier pages or chapters these histories
find the town and the church a common theme. Grateful occasions have
been found in commemorations of bi-centennial or longer periods, from
the settlement of municipalities or the foundation of parishes, to
review the past, and to trace in the old land the men who brought
here in their exile, for free and successful enjoyment, principles
for which they had there suffered. The history of the Reformation and
of Nonconformity might indeed be largely written from the pamphlets
and the volumes called out by these local commemorations, so numerous
during the last decade of years. Traces of matter of a similar
character may also be found in the personal and historical references,
in text or note, of the first volume of the _Biographical Sketches
of the Graduates of Harvard University_, by John Langdon Sibley. In
connection with the public and formal observance of the Two Hundred and
Fiftieth Anniversary of the Founding of the First Church of Boston,—in
the fifth in order of the edifices in which it had worshipped,—a son
of the present pastor (the seventeenth in the line of succession)
prepared and published a work with the following title: _History of
the First Church in Boston. 1630-1880. By Arthur B. Ellis. With an
Introduction by George E. Ellis. Illustrated._ Boston, 1881. Pages
lxxxviii + 356.

[Illustration]




CHAPTER VIII.

THE PILGRIM CHURCH AND PLYMOUTH COLONY.

BY FRANKLIN B. DEXTER,

_Professor of American History in Yale College._


THE preceding chapter has outlined the growth of Separatism in England,
and prepared the way for the story of the fortunes of that remarkable
congregation which has given a new significance to the name “Pilgrim.”

[Illustration]

Elizabeth’s policy of Uniformity, so sternly pursued by her last
Archbishop of Canterbury, Whitgift (1583-1604), was ostentatiously
adopted by her successor, James I., at the Hampton Court Conference
held in his presence by learned men of the Puritan and High Church
parties in the first year of his reign; and when this conference
was quickly followed by the elevation of Bancroft, a more arbitrary
Whitgift, to Whitgift’s vacant place, those who were earnest in the
opposite opinions were forced to choose between persecution and exile.

[Illustration: SITE OF THE MANOR-HOUSE.

[This cut follows an engraving in Bartlett’s _Pilgrim Fathers_, p.
40, representing the scene about thirty years ago. Raine, _Parish of
Blyth_, p. 129, referring to the time of Edwin Sandys, raised to the
archiepiscopal throne of York in 1576, says: “Under him a family of
the name of Brewster occupied the manor-house, which had gradually and
insensibly dwindled down from a large mansion to a moderately sized
farmhouse;” and Raine gives for a frontispiece a view of the remaining
fragment, which is copied by Dr. Dexter in _Sabbath at Home_, 1867, p.
135. Mr. Deane says of it, “It may have been originally connected with
the manor-house, which has long since passed away.” (_Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._ xi. 404.) Dr. Dexter gives a plan of the neighborhood.—ED.]]

[Illustration: SCROOBY AND AUSTERFIELD.]

There were doubtless other neighborhoods where the Separatists
maintained thriving congregations for a longer or shorter time after
the King’s policy became known; but by far the most zealous company of
which accounts remain was one formed by residents “of sundry towns and
villages, some in Nottinghamshire, some of Lincolnshire, and some of
Yorkshire, where they border nearest together.” In 1602, or thereabout,
these people, from places at least eight or ten miles apart, gathered
themselves into a church,—probably at Gainsborough, a market-town in
Lincolnshire, on the Trent; at least we know that when the original
congregation divided, in 1605 or 1606, into two,—perhaps for greater
security, as well as for local convenience,—it was at Gainsborough
that one branch remained, which soon chose John Smyth, a Cambridge
graduate, who had been some time with them, to be its pastor, and that
with him many of this portion of the parent stock migrated in 1606 to
Amsterdam.

The western division of the original company appears to have been
formed into a distinct church in the summer of 1606, and, according to
the testimony of Governor Bradford, in his notice of Elder Brewster,
“they ordinarily met at his [Brewster’s] house on the Lord’s day
(which was a manor [_i. e._ manor-house] of the Bishop’s), and with
great love he entertained them when they came, making provision for
them, to his great charge.”

[Illustration: AUTOGRAPHS OF JOHN ROBINSON.

[No wholly authenticated signature of Robinson is known. Dr. Dexter, in
his _Congregationalism as seen in its Literature_, pp. xx, 359, gives
the upper of these two, as from a book in the British Museum, “believed
by the experts of that institution to have belonged to him.” It is
evidently by the same hand as the lower of the two, which, with another
very like it, is upon the title of Sir Edwin Sandys’s _Relation of the
State of Religion_, London, 1605, belonging to Charles Deane, Esq., of
Cambridge. Hunter, _Founders of New Plymouth_, p. 155, has pointed out
how parts of this book show its author to have been “much in advance
of his time,” and that there is “a correspondency in some parts with
the celebrated Farewell Address of Robinson.” It is easy to suppose,
therefore, that Robinson once owned the little treatise. Hunter errs
in assigning 1687 as the date of its first edition. That of 1605 is
called in the 1629 edition a surreptitious one, and there is a copy in
the Boston Athenæum, with MS. annotations said to be by the author. Dr.
Dexter points out 1629 as the year of the first authorized edition, and
there were others in 1632, 1633, 1638, and 1673. (_Congregationalism_,
App. nos. 299, 568; Palfrey, _New England_, i. 191.)—Ed.]]

William Brewster, the chief layman of this congregation, was
postmaster, or “post,” as the usual term was, at Scrooby, a small
village in the northern part of Nottinghamshire, ten miles west
of Gainsborough. Though Scrooby was a mere hamlet, its station on
the London and Edinburgh post-road gave Brewster full occupation,
especially after the two capitals were united under one king, as it
was his duty to provide food and lodging for all travellers by post on
Government business, as well as relays of horses for them and for the
conveyance of Government despatches. He was a native of the village,
and had matriculated in 1580 at the University of Cambridge, where he
came under Puritan influence; he soon, however, quitted his books to
enter the service of William Davison, Elizabeth’s upright and Puritan
Secretary of State, whose promising career was sacrificed to her
duplicity in the matter of the execution of Mary Stuart. Under Davison,
Brewster had experience both at court and in foreign embassies; he
remained with his master for a year or two after the fall of the
latter in 1587, and then retired to his native village. There he
assisted his father, who was then postmaster, until the latter’s death
in 1590; and after a brief interval the son, then about twenty-three
years of age,[475] succeeded to the father’s place through the
intercession of his old patron, Davison.[476]

In 1603 his annual stipend from the Government was raised from £30 to
£36, the two sums corresponding in present values to perhaps six and
seven hundred dollars respectively. The manor-house of Scrooby, built
originally as a hunting-seat for the Archbishops of York, though in
Brewster’s time “much decayed,”[477] had been occupied for many years
by his father as bailiff for the archbishops, and as representative of
their vested interests in the surrounding property, which was leased to
Sir Samuel Sandys, of London.

The clerical leaders of the church, meeting in the great hall or chapel
under Brewster’s roof, were Richard Clyfton and John Robinson. The
former had been instituted in 1586, at the age of thirty-three, rector
of Babworth, a village six or seven miles southeast of Scrooby, and
had continued there until the undisguised Puritanism of his teachings
caused his removal, probably in connection with Archbishop Bancroft’s
summary proceedings against Nonconformist ministers at the end of 1604.
His associate, Robinson, apparently a native of the neighborhood, had
entered Cambridge University in 1592, and after gaining a Fellowship
had spent some years in the ministry in or near Norwich; but about 1604
he threw up his cure on conscientious grounds, and returning to the
North, allied himself with Separatists in Gainsborough. He was, by the
testimony of an opponent (Robert Baillie), “the most learned, polished,
and modest spirit among the Brownists.”

[Illustration: AUSTERFIELD CHURCH.

[This cut follows a photograph owned by Mr. Charles Deane, who also
furnished a photograph, after which the accompanying fac-simile of the
registry of the baptism of Bradford, preserved in this church, is made;
see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ x. 39. The view of the church given in the
title of Bartlett’s _Pilgrim Fathers_ is the one followed by Dexter
in _Sabbath at Home_, 1867, p. 131, and in _Harper’s Magazine_, 1877,
p. 183. Raine, in his _Parish of Blyth_, Westminster, 1860, gives a
larger view; and Bartlett, p. 36, gives the old Norman door within the
porch.—ED.]]

The other members of the Scrooby congregation were of humble station,
and have left little trace even of their names; most notable to us is
young William Bradford, born in 1590 in Austerfield, a hamlet two and a
half miles to the northward, within the limits of Yorkshire.

[Illustration]

After they had covenanted together in church relations, “they could
not long continue in any peaceable condition, but were hunted and
persecuted on every side.... For some were taken and clapped up in
prison; others had their houses beset and watched night and day, and
hardly escaped their hands; and the most were fain to fly and leave
their houses and habitations. ... Seeing themselves thus molested, and
that there was no hope of their continuance there, by a joint consent
they resolved to go into the Low Countries, where they heard was
freedom of religion for all men.”

[Illustration]

The remedy of exile was not new to a generation that could remember
the emigration of Robert Browne’s followers from Norwich to Zealand in
1581, and had witnessed the transfer of their Gainsborough neighbors
to Holland shortly after their own organization. “So, after they had
continued together about a year, and kept their meetings every Sabbath
in one place or other, ... seeing they could no longer continue in
that condition, they resolved to get over into Holland as they could.”
A large number attempted, in the latter part of the year 1607, to
embark at Boston in Lincolnshire, the most convenient seaport for them,
though fifty miles distant from Scrooby. But emigration, except with a
license, was in general prohibited by an early statute (A. D. 1389),
and the ship’s captain, who had engaged to take them, found it to his
interest to betray them in the act of embarking; so that the only
result for most of them was a month’s detention in Boston jail, and
the confiscation of their goods, while seven of the leaders, including
Brewster, were kept in prison still longer. In a new attempt the
following spring, an unfrequented strip of sea-coast in northeastern
Lincolnshire, above Great Grimsby, was selected, and a bargain made
with a Dutch captain to convey the party thence to Holland; then,
perhaps, taking advantage of the Idle, a sluggish stream flowing
near their doors, tributary to the Trent, and so to the Humber, the
women and children, with all the household goods, were in that case
despatched by water, while the men marched some forty miles across
country to the rendezvous. But after a part of the men (who arrived
first) had embarked, on the appearance of armed representatives of the
law the captain took alarm and departed; some of those left on shore
fled, and reached their destination by other means; but the women and
children, with a few of the men and all their valuables, were captured.
Another season of suspense followed; but at length the absurdity of
detaining such a helpless group began to be felt, the magistrates were
glad to be rid of them, and by August, 1608, the last of the straggling
unfortunates got safely over to Amsterdam.

[Illustration]

They found there the church of English Separatists transplanted under
Francis Johnson upwards of twenty years before, as well as that of
John Smyth and his Gainsborough people; but the church from Scrooby
appears to have kept its separate organization, and their experience
is calmly recounted by their historian, Bradford, as follows: “When
they had lived at Amsterdam about a year, Mr. Robinson, their pastor,
and some others of best discerning, seeing how Mr. John Smyth and his
company was already fallen into contention with the church that was
there before them, and no means they could use would do any good to
cure the same; and also that the flames of contention were like to
break out in the ancient church itself (as afterwards lamentably came
to pass),—which things they prudently foreseeing, thought it was best
to remove, before they were anyway engaged with the same; though they
well knew it would be much to the prejudice of their outward estates,
both at present and in likelihood in the future,—as, indeed, it proved
to be.”

For these, with other reasons, in the winter after their arrival
they asked the authorities of Leyden, an inland city, twenty miles
or more southwest from Amsterdam, and the next in size to it in the
province, to allow their congregation, of about one hundred English
men and women, to remove thither by May 1, 1609.[478] The application
was granted, and the removal to that beautiful city was accomplished,
probably in May; but their senior pastor, Clyfton, being oppressed with
premature infirmity, preferred to remain in Amsterdam.

[Illustration: LEYDEN.

[This little cut is a fac-simile of one given by Mr. Murphy in the
_Historical Magazine_, iii. 332, following a bird’s-eye map of the
city, dated 1670, when this part of the town was unchanged from its
condition in the Pilgrims’ time. More of the same plan is given by
Dr. Dexter in _Hours at Home_, i. 198. No. 1 is the bell turret, no
longer standing, of the cathedral which stood at 2, and beneath which
Robinson was buried. No. 10 is the house in which Robinson lived,
with a garden on the hither side, the front being at the other end of
the building, on the Klog-steeg, or Clock-alley, marked 5; a building
now on the spot, bearing the date 1683 as that of its erection, has
also borne since 1866 another tablet, placed there by the care of Dr.
Dexter, which reads: “_On this spot lived, taught, and died_ JOHN
ROBINSON, 1611-1625.” See Dexter in _Hours at Home_ i. 201-2, and in
_Congregationalism as seen in its Literature_, p. 387.—ED.]]

In Leyden they were forced to adapt themselves, as they had begun to
do hitherto, to conditions of life very unlike those to which they had
been trained in their own country; and so far as we can trace them, a
majority of the flock seem to have found employment in the manufacture
of the woollen goods for which the city was famous. Upon the public
records the church appears as an organized body early in 1611, when
Robinson with three others purchased for 8,000 guilders (corresponding
in our currency to perhaps $10,000 or $12,000) a valuable estate in the
centre of the city, including a spacious house for the pastor, used
also for Sunday worship, and at the back of the garden an area large
enough for the subsequent erection of twenty-one small residences for
church members.

Among additional reasons which had led the studious Robinson to favor
the removal to Leyden, may be counted the fact that it was the site
of a university already famous, and so furnished ample opportunities
of intercourse with learned men and of access to valuable libraries.
The sharp controversy between the occupants of the chair of
theology, Gomarus and Arminius, involving no personal risk to the
English spectators, was an added attraction; and before long Robinson
himself appeared as a disputant on the Calvinist side in the public
discussions, and so successfully that by Bradford’s testimony “the
Arminians stood more in fear of him than [of] any of the University.”
This perhaps opened the way for his admission to membership of the
University, which took place in September, 1615, and secured him
valuable civil as well as literary privileges. Such an honor was
justified also by the activity of his pen while in exile. Between
1610 and 1615 he published four controversial pieces, of nearly seven
hundred quarto pages, the most important being a popularly written
Justification of Separation from the Church of England. In the same
field of argument were the other treatises; while in 1619, when public
attention was absorbed with the Synod of Dort, he brought out in
Latin a brief but telling _Apologia_, or Defence of the views of the
Separatists, in distinction from those of the Dutch churches.

[Illustration: PLAN OF LEYDEN.

[This follows a plan given by Bartlett in his _Pilgrim Fathers_, p.
79. No. 1 is Saint Peter’s Church, where Robinson was buried in 1625.
Bartlett also gives, p. 88, a view of the interior. No. 2 is Saint
Pancras church. No. 3 is the Town Hall. Bartlett also gives a view, p.
83. from the tower of this building.—ED.]]

These outside discussions, in which their pastor took such interest,
left undisturbed the steady growth of the Pilgrim church, in the
government of which Brewster, as ruling elder, was associated with
Robinson, after the removal to Leyden. In these years “many came
unto them from divers parts of England, so as they grew a great
congregation,” numbering at times nearly three hundred communicants.
Among these new-comers were some who ranked thenceforth among their
principal men: John Carver, an early deacon of the church, and leader
of the first migrating colony; Robert Cushman, Carver’s adjutant in
effecting that migration; Miles Standish, the soldier of the company;
and Edward Winslow, a young man probably of higher social position than
the rest, who shared with Bradford, after Carver’s death, the main
burden of sustaining the infant colony.

But though some recruits were attracted by Robinson’s gifts and by a
prospect of freedom from prelatical oppression, yet the condition of
the Leyden people was in general one of struggling poverty, with little
hope of amendment. It were vain to expect that their language or their
peculiarities of religious order could gain a secure foothold on Dutch
soil, or that a Government on friendly terms with England could show
active good-will to a nest of outcasts which England was anxious to
break up. The increase of numbers had come in spite of the hardships
attending the struggle for a livelihood in a foreign city; but as
the conditions of the struggle were better understood, the numbers
fell off. Time was also bringing a new danger with the approaching
expiration of the twelve years’ truce (April, 1609-April, 1621) between
Spain and the Netherlands.

As years passed, the older generation among the exiles who clung
loyally to the English name and tongue began to realize that a great
part of their aims would be frustrated if their children should, by
intermarriage with the Dutch and other outside influences, wander
from their fathers’ principles, and be absorbed in the Dutch people.
These dangers being recognized, and the major part of the company
being agreed that it was best to avoid them by a removal, it became
necessary to select a new asylum, where Englishmen might preserve their
nationality undisturbed. To the new continent of America, which best
satisfied the conditions, all thoughts turned as early as the summer of
1617; and the respective claims were weighed of tropical Guiana on the
one hand, which Raleigh had described in 1595 as the true Eldorado, and
Virginia on the other, conspicuous as the seat of the first successful
English colony. A little consideration excluded Guiana, with its
supposed wealth of gold tempting the jealousy of the Spaniard; and
so the choice was limited to the territory somewhat vaguely known as
Virginia, within the bounds assigned to the two companies chartered by
King James in 1606. The objection was duly weighed “that if they lived
among the English which were there planted [_i.e._ on the James River],
or so near them as to be under their government, they should be in as
great danger to be troubled or persecuted for the cause of religion as
if they lived in England; and it might be worse. And if they lived too
far off, they should neither have succor nor defence from them.”

There were risks either way; but they decided, under the advice of some
persons of rank and quality at home,—friends, perhaps, of Brewster’s
when at court, or of Winslow’s,—to dare the dangers from wild beasts
and savages in the unsettled parts of Virginia, rather than the dangers
from their own bigoted countrymen, and to ask the King boldly for leave
to continue as they were in church matters.

Their first care was for the regular sanction of the Virginia Company
in London to the settlement of the proposed colony on their territory;
and with this object Carver and Cushman were despatched to England as
agents, apparently in September, 1617. They took with them, for use in
conciliating the sentiments which any petition from a community with
their history would awaken at court, a memorable declaration in seven
articles, signed by the pastor and elder, which professed their full
assent to the doctrines of the Church of England, as well as their
acknowledgment of the King’s supremacy and of the obedience due to him,
“either active, if the thing commanded be not against God’s Word, or
passive [_i.e._ undergoing the appointed penalties], if it be.” The
same articles, in carefully guarded language, recognized as lawful
the existing relations of Church and State in England, and disavowed
the notion of authority inhering in any assembly of ecclesiastical
officers, except as conferred by the civil magistrate. In any estimate
of the Pilgrims, it is necessary to give full weight to this deliberate
record of their readiness to tolerate other opinions.

The two messengers found the Virginia Company in general well disposed,
and gained an active friend in Sir Edwin Sandys (a prominent member of
the Company and brother of Sir Samuel Sandys, the lessee of Scrooby
Manor), who, though no Puritan, was a firm advocate of toleration; but
as he was also a leader of the Parliamentary Opposition, his friendship
was a doubtful recommendation to royal favor. Their report, on their
return in November, was so encouraging that Carver and another were
sent over the next month for further negotiations with the Virginia
Company and with the King. But the former business still halted,
because of the prejudice in official minds against their independent
practices in church government. Sir Edwin Sandys, Sir Robert Naunton
(one of the Secretaries of State), and other friends labored early in
1618 with the King for a guarantee of liberty of religion; but the
ecclesiastical authorities were strong in their opposition, there
was a suspicion abroad that the design was “to make a free popular
State there,”[479] and the delegates returned to Leyden to propose
that a patent be taken on the indirect assurance of the King “that
he would connive at them and not molest them, provided they carried
themselves peaceably.” It seemed wisest to proceed, and Brewster
(now fifty-two years of age, one of the oldest and most experienced
of the congregation) and Cushman were commissioned in the spring of
1619 to procure a patent from the Virginia Company, and to complete
an arrangement with some London merchants who had partially agreed to
advance funds for the undertaking. The business was delayed by a crisis
in the Virginia Company’s affairs, connected with the excited canvass
attending the election (April 28 [May 8], 1619) of Sir Edwin Sandys as
Governor; but at length the patent was granted (June 9/19, 1619), being
taken by the advice of friends, not in their own names, but in that of
Mr. John Wincob (or Whincop), described by Bradford as “a religious
gentleman then belonging to the Countess of Lincoln, who intended to go
with them.”[480]

When the patent was secured, Brewster appears to have returned to
Leyden at once, leaving Cushman for a time to negotiate with the
merchants; but so little was done or perhaps hoped for in this
direction, that an entirely new project was started the next winter
under Robinson’s auspices. Certain Amsterdam merchants, already
interested in the rich fur-trade on and near the Hudson River,
presented a memorial to the States-General, Feb. 2/12, 1620, from which
it appears that Robinson had signified his readiness to lead a colony
of over four hundred English families to settle under the Dutch in New
Netherland, if assured of protection. The memorial asked for assurances
on this last head, and for the immediate despatch of two ships of war
to take formal possession of the lands to be reserved for such a colony.

While this memorial was awaiting its (unfavorable) answer, Thomas
Weston, one of those London merchants with whom there had already
been consultations, came to Leyden as their agent, to propose a new
arrangement for a settlement in North Virginia. For some reason, not
now clear, the Pilgrims showed peculiar deference to his advice;
and accordingly the negotiations with the Dutch were broken off and
articles of agreement with the London merchants drawn up, embodying the
conditions propounded by Weston. By these conditions a common stock was
formed, with shares of ten pounds each, which might be taken up either
by a deposit of money or of goods necessary for the undertaking; and
Carver and Cushman were sent to England to collect subscriptions and
to make purchases and preparations for the voyage. In this service,
while Carver was busy with the ship in Southampton, Cushman took the
responsibility of conceding certain alterations in the agreement, to
please the “merchant adventurers,” as they were styled, whose part in
the scheme was indispensable. The original plan was for a seven years’
partnership, during which all the colonists’ labor—except for two days
a week—was to be for the common benefit; and at the end of the time,
when the resulting profits were divided, the houses and improved lands
in the colony were to go to the planters: but the changes sanctioned
by Cushman did away with the reservation of two days in the week for
each man’s private use, and arranged for an equal division, after seven
years, of houses, lands, and goods between the “merchant adventurers”
and the planters. Dr. Palfrey has well observed that “the hardship
of the terms to which the Pilgrims were reduced shows at once the
slenderness of their means and the constancy of their purpose.” About
seventy merchants joined in the enterprise, of whom only three—William
Collier, Timothy Hatherly, and William Thomas—became sufficiently
interested to settle in the colony.

Notwithstanding discouragements, the removal was pressed forward,
but the means at command provided only for sending a portion of the
company; and “those that stayed, being the greater number, required the
pastor to stay with them,” while Elder Brewster accompanied, in the
pastor’s stead, the almost as numerous minority who were to constitute
a church by themselves; and in every church, by Robinson’s theories,
the “governing elder,” next in rank to the pastor and the teacher, must
be “apt to teach.”

A small ship,—the “Speedwell,”—of some sixty tons burden, was bought
and fitted out in Holland, and early in July those who were ready for
the formidable voyage, being “the youngest and strongest part,” left
Leyden for embarkation at Delft-Haven, nearly twenty miles to the
southward,—sad at the parting, “but,” says Bradford, “they knew that
they were pilgrims.” About the middle of the second week of the month
the vessel sailed for Southampton, England. On the arrival there,
they found the “Mayflower,” a ship of about one hundred and eighty
tons burden, which had been hired in London, awaiting them with their
fellow-passengers,—partly laborers employed by the merchants, partly
Englishmen like-minded with themselves, who were disposed to join the
colony. Mr. Weston, also, was there, to represent the merchants; but
when discussion arose about the terms of the contract, he went off in
anger, leaving the contract unsigned and the arrangements so incomplete
that the Pilgrims were forced to dispose of sixty pounds’ worth of
their not abundant stock of provisions to meet absolutely necessary
charges.

The ships, with perhaps one hundred and twenty passengers, put to sea
about August 5/15, with hopes of the colony being well settled before
winter; but the “Speedwell” was soon pronounced too leaky to proceed
without being overhauled, and so both ships put in at Dartmouth, after
eight days’ sail. Repairs were made, and before the end of another week
they started again; but when above a hundred leagues beyond Land’s
End, Reynolds, the master of the “Speedwell,” declared her in imminent
danger of sinking, so that both ships again put about. On reaching
Plymouth Harbor it was decided to abandon the smaller vessel, and thus
to send back those of the company whom such a succession of mishaps
had disheartened. Those who withdrew were chiefly such as from their
own weakness or from the weakness of their families were likely to be
least useful in the hard labor of colonization; the most conspicuous
desertion was that of Cushman, smarting under criticism and despairing
of success. The unexpected parting between those who disembarked and
those who crowded into the “Mayflower” was sad enough. It was not
known till later that the alarm over the “Speedwell’s” condition was
owing to deception practised by the master and crew, who repented of
their bargain to remain a year with the colony, and took this means of
dissolving it.

At length, on Wednesday, September 6/16, the “Mayflower” left Plymouth,
and nine weeks from the following day, on November 9/19, sighted
the eastern coast of the flat, but at that time well-wooded, shores
of Cape Cod. She took from Plymouth one hundred and two passengers,
besides the master and crew; on the voyage one man-servant died and
one child was born making 102 (73 males and 29 females) who reached
their destination. Of these, the colony proper consisted of 34 adult
males, 18 of them accompanied by their wives and 14 by minor children
(20 boys and 8 girls); besides these, there were 3 maid-servants and
19 men-servants, sailors, and craftsmen,—5 of them only half-grown
boys,—who were hired for temporary service.

[Illustration: AUTOGRAPHS OF THE “MAYFLOWER” PILGRIMS.

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

It is thought that the autographs of all who came in the “Mayflower,”
whose signatures are known, are included in this group, except that of
Dorothy May, who at this time was the wife of William Bradford, and
whose maiden signature Dr. Dexter found in Holland, as well as the
earliest one known of Bradford, attached to his marriage application at
Amsterdam, in 1613, when he was twenty-four years old.

(See Dexter’s _Congregationalism_, p. 381.) Resolved White was then
but a child, and his brother Peregrine was not born till the ship had
reached Cape Cod Harbor.

John Cooke, son of Francis Cooke, was the last male survivor of the
“Mayflower” passengers.—ED.]

Of the thirty-four men who were the nucleus of the colony, more than
half are known to have come from Leyden; in fact, but four of the
thirty-four are certainly known to be of the Southampton accessions.
The ruling motive of the majority was, therefore, that which had
impelled the church in Leyden to this step, modified, perhaps, to
some small extent by their knowledge of the chief reason, as Bradford
alleges, in the minds of Weston and the others who had advanced them
money, “for the hope of present profit to be made by the fishing that
was found in that country” whither they were bound.

And whither were they bound? As we have seen, a patent was secured
in 1619 in Mr. Wincob’s name; but “God so disposed as he never went
nor they ever made use of this patent,” says Bradford,—not however
making it clear when the intention of colonizing under this instrument
was abandoned. The “merchant adventurers” while negotiating at Leyden
seem to have taken out another patent from the Virginia Company, in
February, 1620, in the names of John Peirce and of his associates;
and this was more probably the authority under which the “Mayflower”
voyage was undertaken. As the Pilgrims had known before leaving
Holland of an intended grant of the northern parts of Virginia to a
new company,—the Council for New England,—when they found themselves
off Cape Cod, “the patent they had being for Virginia and not for
New England, which belonged to another Government, with which the
Virginia Company had nothing to do,” they changed the ship’s course,
with intent, says Bradford, “to find some place about Hudson’s River
for their habitation,” and so fulfil the conditions of their patent;
but difficulties of navigation and opposition from the master and crew
caused the exiles, after half a day’s voyage, to retrace their course
and seek a resting-place on the nearest shore. Near half a century
after, a charge of treachery was brought against Mr. Jones, the master
of the “Mayflower,” for bringing the vessel so far out of her course;
but the alleged cause, collusion with the Dutch, who desired to keep
the English away from the neighborhood of New Netherland, is incredible.

But their radical change of destination exposed the colonists to a new
danger. As soon as it was known, some of the hired laborers threatened
to break loose (upon landing) from their engagements, and to enjoy full
license, as a result of the loss of the authority delegated in the
Virginia Company’s patent.

The necessity of some mode of civil government had been enjoined on the
Pilgrims in the farewell letter from their pastor, and was now availed
of to restrain these insurgents and to unite visibly the well-affected.
A compact, which has often been eulogized as the first written
constitution in the world, was drawn up, as follows:—

 “In the name of God, amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal
 subjects of our dread sovereign lord King James, by the grace of God
 of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith,
 etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God and advancement of
 the Christian faith, and honor of our King and country, a voyage to
 plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these
 presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one of
 another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body
 politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance
 of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute,
 and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions,
 and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and
 convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise
 all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have
 hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in
 the year of the reign of our sovereign lord King James, of England,
 France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth.
 Anno Dom. 1620.”

[Illustration: CAPE COD HARBOR.

[This is a reduction of part of a map, which is given by Dr. H.
M. Dexter in his edition of _Mourt’s Relation_. He has carefully
studied the topography of the region in connection with the record,
and he possessed certain advantages in such study over Dr. Young,
who has similarly investigated the matter in his _Chronicles of the
Pilgrims_. There were three expeditions from the ship, and Dr. Dexter’s
interpretation is followed. The women were set ashore to wash at
_a_, and while the carpenter was repairing their shallop, Standish
and sixteen men started on the 15th November (O. S.) on the first
expedition. At _b_ they saw some Indians and a dog, who disappeared
in the woods at _c_, and later ran up the hill at _d_. The explorers
encamped for the night at _e_, and the next day, where they turned the
head of the creek, they drank their first New England water. Then at
_g_ they built a fire as a signal to those on the ship. At _h_ they
spent their second night; at _j_ they found plain ground fit to plough;
at _k_ they opened a grave; at _l_ dug up some corn; at Pamet River
they found an old palisade and saw two canoes. They then retraced their
steps, and at _i_ Bradford was caught in a deer-trap. They reached
the ship on the 17th. When the shallop was ready, ten days later, a
party of thirty-four started in her with Jones, the captain of the
“Mayflower,” as leader, and the expedition, called the second on the
map, lasted from the 27th to the 30th November. The third expedition,
likewise in the shallop, started on the 6th of December. Farther
south than the map carries the dotted line, they landed at the modern
Eastham, and had their first encounter with the natives on the 8th, and
the same day reached Plymouth Harbor in the evening, as narrated in the
text. On the 12th the shallop, sailing directly east across the bay,
returned to the “Mayflower,” which on Saturday, the 16th, reached the
anchorage depicted on the map on the following page.—ED.]]

Of the forty-one signers to this compact, thirty-four were the adults
called above the nucleus of the colony, and seven were servants or
hired workmen; the seven remaining adult males of the latter sort were
perhaps too ill to sign with the rest (all of them soon died), or the
list of signers may be imperfect.[481]

This needful preliminary step was taken on Saturday, November 11/21,
by which time the “Mayflower” had rounded the Cape and found shelter
in the quiet harbor on which now lies the village of Provincetown;
and probably on the same day they “chose, or rather confirmed,” as
Bradford has it (as though the choice were the foregone conclusion of
long previous deliberation), Mr. John Carver governor for the ensuing
year. On the same day an armed delegation visited the neighboring
shore, finding no inhabitants. There were no attractions, however,
for a permanent settlement, nor even accommodations for a comfortable
encampment while such a place was being sought. After briefer
explorations, an expedition started on Wednesday, December 6/16, to
circumnavigate Cape Cod Bay in search of a good harbor, and by Friday
night was safely landed on Clark’s Island (so called from the ship’s
mate, who was of the party), just within what is since known as
Plymouth Bay. On Saturday they explored the island, on the Sabbath day
they rested, and on Monday, the 11th,[482] they sounded the harbor and
“marched also into the land, and found divers cornfields and little
running brooks, a place very good for situation.”[483]

[Illustration: PLYMOUTH HARBOR.

[This is reduced from a map given in Dr. Dexter’s edition of _Mourt’s
Relation_. The Common House of the first comers was situated on
Leyden Street, which left the shore just south of the rock and ran
to the top of Burial Hill, and it is the lots on the south side of
this street that Bradford marked out in the fac-simile of the first
page of the record given on another page. The “highway” as marked on
that plan led to the south to the Town Brook. The Common House, if it
had been designated on that draft, would have been put next “Peter
Brown;” on the plan here given it would be on the north side of the
brook, about where the meridian crosses it, though the engraver has
put the designation on the opposite side of the water. It was not
till about 1630, or ten years after their landing, that the Plymouth
settlers began to spread around the bay, beyond the circuit of mutual
protection. Still for a year or two they scattered merely for summer
sojourns, to work lands which had been granted them. About 1632 Duxbury
began to receive as permanent residents several of the “Mayflower”
people. Standish settled on the shore southeast of Captain’s Hill, thus
attaching his military title to the neighboring eminence, and though
his grave is not known, it is probable that he was buried, in 1656, on
his farm. His house stood, it is supposed, nearly ten years longer, and
was probably enlarged by his son, Alexander Standish, who was, there
is some reason to believe, a trader, and he may have been the town
clerk of Duxbury. Its records begin in 1666, and the tradition that
connects the destruction of the earlier records with that of this house
derives some color from the traces of fire which have been discovered
about its site. (_Sabbath at Home_, May, 1867.) The house now known as
the Standish house was built afterwards by Alexander, the son. Elder
Brewster became Standish’s neighbor a little later, and lived east of
the hill.

[Illustration]

Alden settled near the arm of the sea just west of Powder Point, and
George Soule on the Point itself; Peter Brown also settled in Duxbury.
Still farther to the north, beyond the scope of the map, Edward Winslow
established his estate of Careswell, where in our day Daniel Webster
lived and died, in Marshfield. John Howland found a home at Rocky Nook.
Isaac Allerton removed to New Haven, and Governor Bradford during his
last years was almost the only one of those who came in the first ship
who still lived in the village about the rock. (Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._ xi. 478.)—ED.]]

Prepared to report favorably, the explorers returned to the ship, which
by the end of the week was safely anchored in the chosen haven. The
selection of a site and the preparation of materials, in uncertain
weather, delayed till Monday, the 25th, the beginning of “the first
house, for common use, to receive them and their goods.” Before the
new year, house-lots were assigned to families, and by the middle of
January most of the company had left the ship for a home on land.
But the exposures incident to founding a colony in the dead of a
New England winter (though later experience showed that this was a
comparatively mild one) told severely on all; and before summer came
one half of the number, most of them adult males, had fallen by the
way.[484] Yet when the “Mayflower” sailed homewards in April, not one
of the colonists went in her, so sweet was the taste of freedom, even
under the shadow of death.

An avowed motive of the emigration was the hope of converting the
natives; but more than three months elapsed before any intercourse with
the Indians began. Traces of their propinquity had been numerous, and
at length, on March 16/26, a savage visited the settlement, announcing
himself in broken English as Samoset, a native of “the eastern parts,”
or the coast of Maine, where contact with English fishermen had led
to some knowledge of their language. From Samoset the colonists
learned that the Indian name of their settlement was Patuxet, and
that about four years before a kind of plague had destroyed most of
the inhabitants of that region, so that there were now none to hinder
their taking possession or to assert a claim to the territory. They
learned also that their nearest neighbors were the Wampanoags, the
headquarters of whose chief sachem, Massasoit, were some thirty miles
to the southwestward, near the eastern shore of Narragansett Bay. The
next week Samoset brought in Squanto, formerly of Patuxet, who had
been taken to England in 1614 by Hunt, and who was now willing to act
as interpreter in a visit from Massasoit; the latter followed an hour
later and contracted unhesitatingly a treaty of peace and alliance,
which was observed for fifty-four years.

[Illustration: THE SWORDS.

[This group is preserved in the cabinet of the Massachusetts Historical
Society, and all but two of the swords are associated with Plymouth
history. The middle sword is that of Governor Carver. On the left,
descending, are those of General John Winslow, Captain Miles Standish,
and Governor Brooks of Massachusetts. On the right are those, in a
like descending order, of Sir William Pepperrell, Elder Brewster,
and Colonel Benjamin Church, the Plymouth hero of Philip’s War.
Another Standish sword is preserved in Pilgrim Hall in Plymouth, and
is figured in the group of Pilgrim relics on another page, as well
as in Bartlett’s _Pilgrim Fathers_, p. 177. Concerning those above
represented, see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, i. 88, 114.—ED.]]

With the beginning of a new civil year (March 25) Carver was re-elected
governor, and some simple necessary laws were established; on Carver’s
sudden death the following month, Bradford was chosen his successor,
under whose mild and wise direction the colony went on as before. As
Bradford was then enfeebled by illness, Isaac Allerton was at the same
time appointed Assistant to the Governor.

After a summer and autumn of prosperous labor and harvest, they were
cheered, November 11/21, by the arrival of the “Fortune” from London,
bringing as a visitor Robert Cushman, their former associate, and
thirty-five additions to their feeble number, twenty-five of them adult
males,—the majority, however, not from Leyden. The ship brought also
a patent, granted June 1/11,[485] by the President and Council of New
England—within whose territory the new settlement lay—to the same
John Peirce and his associates in whose names the merchants fathering
this venture had secured a patent the year before from the Virginia
Company for the use of the “Mayflower” colonists. Without fixing
territorial limits, the new grant allowed a hundred acres to be taken
up for every emigrant, with fifteen hundred acres for public buildings,
and empowered the grantees to make laws and set up a government.

[Illustration: SIGNERS OF THE PATENT, 1621.]

By the delivery of this patent a sufficient show of authority was
conferred for immediate need and for eight and a half years to come.
It is true that in April, 1622, Peirce obtained surreptitiously for
his private use a new grant with additional privileges, to be valid in
place of the grant just described; but the trick was soon discovered,
and the associates were reinstated by the Plymouth Company in their
rights.

Taking these eight and a half years under the first patent as a
separate period, the progress made in them may be briefly stated.

The settlement is first called “New Plymouth” in a letter sent back to
England by the “Fortune” in December, 1621, and printed in the second
edition of Captain John Smith’s _New England’s Trials_, in 1622. That
it was so called may have been suggested as much by the name Plymouth
on Smith’s map of this region (1614) as by the departure of the
“Mayflower” from Plymouth, England, or by the knowledge that the colony
was the first within the limits of the newly incorporated Plymouth
Company. Later, the town was called simply Plymouth, while the colony
retained the name New Plymouth.

In numbers they increased from less than fifty at the arrival of the
“Fortune,” to near three hundred on the reception of the second charter
in May, 1630. The most important accessions were in July, 1623,—about
sixty persons, a few of them from Leyden; and about as many more—all
from Leyden—in 1629-30.

In the second year at New Plymouth, because of threats from the
Narragansett tribe of Indians about Narragansett Bay, the town was
enclosed with a strong palisade, and a substantial fort (used also
on Sundays as a meeting-house) was erected on the hill which formed
so conspicuous a feature of the enclosure. The mode of life which
John Smith described in his _Generall Historie_ in 1624,—that “the
most of them live together as one family or household, yet every man
followeth his trade and profession both by sea and land, and all for
a general stock, out of which they have all their maintenance,”—was
modified the same year, to the great advantage of all, by the
assignment to each head of a family of an acre of ground for planting,
to be held as his own till the division of profits with the London
merchants. While this taste of proprietorship tended to increase the
restlessness of the planters, the vanishing prospect of large returns
was simultaneously disheartening the “merchant adventurers,” so that
many withdrew, and the remainder agreed to a termination of the
partnership, in consideration of the payment of £1,800, in nine equal
annual instalments, beginning in 1628. This arrangement was effected in
London in November, 1626, through Isaac Allerton, one of the younger
of the original Leyden emigrants, who had been commissioned for the
purpose; and to meet the new financial situation, the resident adult
males (except a few thought unworthy of confidence) were constituted
stockholders, each one being allowed shares up to the number of his
family. Then followed an allotment of land to each shareholder, the
settlement of the title of each to the house he occupied, and a
distribution of the few cattle on hand among groups of families,—all
these possessions having hitherto been the joint, undivided stock of
the “merchant adventurers” and the planters. At the same time eight
leading planters (Bradford, Standish, Allerton, Winslow, Brewster,
Howland, Alden, and Prince), with the help of four London friends,
undertook to meet the outstanding obligations of the colony and the
first six annual payments on the new basis, obtaining in return a
monopoly of the foreign trade.

[Illustration: GOVERNOR EDWARD WINSLOW.

[This is the only authentic likeness of any of the “Mayflower”
Pilgrims. It was painted in England in 1651, when Winslow was
fifty-six. It has been several times engraved before, as may be seen in
the _Winslow Memorial_, in Young’s _Chronicles_, in Bartlett’s _Pilgrim
Fathers_, and in Morton’s _Memorial_, Boston edition, 1855. The
original, once the property of Isaac Winslow, Esq., is now deposited
in the gallery of the Pilgrim Society at Plymouth. (Cf. 3 _Mass. Hist.
Coll._, vii. 286, and _Proc._, x. 36.) Various relics of the Governor
are also preserved in Pilgrim Hall at Plymouth. There are biographies
of him in Belknap’s _American Biography_, and in J. B. Moore’s
_American Governors_. A record of Governor Winslow’s descendants will
be found in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1850, 297 (by Lemuel
Shattuck); 1863, p. 159 (by J. H. Sheppard). Of the descendants of his
brother Kenelm, see L. R. Paige’s account in the _Register_, 1871, p.
355, and 1872, p. 69. An extensive _Winslow Memorial_ has been begun
by David P. Holton, 1877, the first volume of which is given to all
descendants (of all names) of Kenelm. See _Register_, 1877, p. 454;
1878, p. 94, by W. S. Appleton, who in the _Register_, 1867, p. 209,
has a note on the English ancestry; and Colonel Chester has a similar
note in 1870, p. 329. There is in Harvard College Library a manuscript
on Careswell and the Winslows by the late Dr. James Thacher.—ED.]]

In these arrangements, which proved eminently wise for the public
interests, one object was to facilitate further emigration from Leyden.
The management of the London merchants had been unfavorable to this
end, and it was a special grief that during this period of delay the
beloved pastor, Robinson, had ended his life in Leyden,—Feb. 19 (March
1), 1625. The heavy expenses of transporting and providing for such as
came over in 1629-30 were cheerfully borne by the new management.

The same temper in the London merchants which had hindered Robinson’s
coming,—a conviction that the religious peculiarities of the Pilgrims
interfered with the attractiveness and financial success of the
colony,—led them to send over in 1624 a minister of their own choosing
(John Lyford), who was not merely not in sympathy with the wants of the
Plymouth men, but even tried to serve his patrons by false accusations
and by attempting to set up the Church of England form of worship. He
was expelled from the colony within a year from his arrival, and the
church continued under Elder Brewster’s teaching. In 1628 Mr. Allerton
on a voyage from England, without direction from the church, brought
over another minister, but mental derangement quickly ended his career.

The colony began within these first years to enlarge its outlook. In
1627, to further their maritime interests, an outpost was established
on Buzzard’s Bay, twenty miles to the southward; in the same year
relations of friendly commerce were entered into with the Dutch of New
Amsterdam, and as soon as the nearer plantations of the Massachusetts
Company were begun, Plymouth was prompt to aid and counsel as occasion
offered. In 1628 the attempt was made to establish more firmly the
existing trade with the Eastern Indians, by obtaining a patent for a
parcel of land on the River Kennebec.

[Illustration: GOVERNORS OF PLYMOUTH COLONY.

[Of John Carver, the first governor, no signature is known. This group
shows the autographs of all his successors, who held the office for the
years annexed to their names:—

William Bradford, 1621-32, 1635, 1637, 1639-43, 1645-56.

Edward Winslow, 1633, 1636, 1644.

Thomas Prince, 1634, 1638, 1657-72.

Josiah Winslow, 1673-80.

Thomas Hinckley, 1681 to the union, except during the Andros
interregnum.—ED.]]

These outside experiences were all in the way of encouragements:
the most serious annoyances came, not directly from the savages,
but from neighbors of their own blood. Thus in 1623 the wretched
colonists sent out the year before by Thomas Weston to Weymouth, twenty
miles northwest from Plymouth, had to be protected from their own
mismanagement and the hostility of the natives, by which means came
about the first shedding of Indian blood by the Pilgrims; and thus
again, five years later, the unruly nest of Morton’s followers at Merry
Mount, just beyond Weymouth, had to be broken up by force.

Of the progress of civil government in this first period we have scanty
memorials. Few laws and few officials answered the simple needs of
the colony. Bradford was annually elected governor, and in 1624, at
his desire, a board of five Assistants was substituted for the single
Assistant who had hitherto shared the executive responsibility. The
people met from time to time in General Court for the transaction
of public business, and in 1623 a book of laws was begun; but three
pages sufficed to contain the half-dozen simple enactments of the next
half-dozen years.

The next period of the colony history extends from Jan. 13/23,
1629-30, when the Council for New England granted to Bradford, his
heirs, associates, and assigns, a useful enlargement of the patent for
Plymouth and Kennebec, to March 2/12, 1640-41, when Bradford in the
name of the grantees conveyed the rights thus bestowed to the freemen
of New Plymouth in their corporate capacity.

[Illustration: PILGRIM RELICS.

[The chest of drawers is an ancient one, which there is some reason
to believe belonged to Peregrine White. (_N. E. Hist._ and _Geneal.
Reg._ 1873, p. 398.) The sword and vessels belonged to Standish. The
cradle belonged to Dr. Samuel Fuller, the physician of the Pilgrims.
(Russell’s _Pilgrim Memorials_, p. 55; Bartlett’s _Pilgrim Fathers_,
p. 201.) Chair No. 1 belonged to Governor Carver; No. 2 was Elder
Brewster’s; No. 3 is said to have been Governor Edward Winslow’s;
and this with a table, which was until recently in the hall of the
Massachusetts Historical Society, has lately been reclaimed by
its owner, Mr. Isaac Winslow. (See 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._ v. 293.;
_Proceedings_, ii. 1, 284; iv. 142; xix. 124; Young’s _Chronicles_, p.
238; Bartlett’s _Pilgrim Fathers_, p. 197.) There are other groupings
of Pilgrim relics in Dr. Dexter’s papers; C. W. Elliott’s “Good Old
Times at Plymouth” in _Harper’s Monthly_, 1877, p. 180; Bartlett’s
_Pilgrim Fathers_.—ED.]]

The most striking feature of this period was the growth from a single
plantation to a province of eight towns, seven of them stretching
for fifty miles along the shore of Cape Cod Bay, from Scituate
to Yarmouth, and Taunton lying twenty-five miles inland,—in all
containing about twenty-five hundred souls. With this growth there
was also some extension of trade on the Kennebec and Penobscot, and
in 1632 a beginning of exploration, and in 1633 of settlement, in
the Connecticut Valley; but the appearance of numerous emigrants from
Massachusetts Bay defeated the contemplated removal of the entire
colony to the last-named location.

The establishment of towns led necessarily to a more elaborate
system of civil government, and in 1636 it was found expedient to
revise and codify the previous enactments of the General Court, and
to prescribe the duties of the various public officers. In 1638 the
inconveniences of governing by mass-meeting led to the introduction of
the representative system already familiar to Massachusetts Bay. The
number of Assistants had been increased in 1633 from five to seven.

In 1629 an acceptable minister of the gospel—Ralph Smith, a Cambridge
graduate—for the first time took charge of the church in Plymouth;
and by 1641 the eight towns of the colony were all (except Marshfield,
which was but just settled) supplied with educated clergy, of whom
perhaps the most influential was Ralph Partridge, of Duxbury.

The half-century (1641-91) which completed the separate existence of
Plymouth Colony, witnessed no radical changes, but a steady development
under the existing patent, though repeated but unsuccessful attempts
were made to obtain a charter direct from the English Government. At
the outset (in 1641), by a purchase of the remaining interests of the
English partners of 1627, the last trace of dependence on foreign
capital was wiped out.

Notwithstanding the discontinuance of English emigration after 1640,
and the enormous devastation of Philip’s war in 1675-76, the population
of the colony increased to about eight thousand in these fifty years,
being distributed through twenty towns, of which Scituate had probably
the largest numbers and certainly the most wealth, the town of Plymouth
having lost, even as early as 1643, its former prominence. That this
growth was no greater, and that expansion beyond the strict colony
limits was completely checked, resulted inevitably from the more
favorable situation of the neighboring colony of the Bay.

The civil administration continued as before, the Governor’s Assistants
and the Deputies sitting in General Court as one body. Deputies were
elected in each town by the resident freemen, the freemen being
the original signers of the compact on board the “Mayflower,” with
such persons as had been added to their number by a majority vote
of the general court. Public sentiment was so trustworthy that no
qualifications were named for the estate of freemen until 1656, when
it was merely provided that a candidate must have been approved by
the freemen of his own town. Two years later, when the colony was
overrun by Quaker propagandists, persons of that faith, as well as all
others who similarly opposed the laws and the established worship,
were distinctly excluded from the privileges of freemen, and in the
new revision of the laws in 1671 freemen were obliged to be at least
twenty-one years of age, “of sober and peaceable conversation,
orthodox in the fundamentals of religion,” and possessed of at least
£20 worth of ratable estate in the colony. By the Code of 1671 a Court
of Assistants was created to exercise the judicial functions hitherto
retained by the General Court; but in 1685, with the constitution of
three counties, most of these duties were transferred to county courts.

Two interdependent circumstances conspired with the poverty of the
settlers and the unattractiveness of the soil,—even as compared with
Massachusetts Bay,—to <DW44> seriously the progress of the colony;
and these were, their inability to keep up a learned ministry, and the
enforced delay in providing for public education. The first of these
facts was so patent as to call forth public rebukes from Massachusetts,
and it may be enough to recall that in 1641 seven of the eight
townships constituting the colony were served by ministers of English
education; but in the next half-century these same pulpits stood vacant
on the average upwards of ten years each, and the new towns which were
formed in the colony had no larger amount of ministerial service. As to
the other point, it is sufficient to note that neither from tradition
nor from public records is there evidence of any opportunity or
provision for education before 1670,—except, of course, in the private
family. Their poverty no doubt chiefly occasioned this.

Yet while the resources of Plymouth and the education of her public
men were distinctly inferior to those of the Bay, she bore herself in
her relations with the other colonies with a certain simple dignity
and straightforward reasonableness which won respect; and in matters
of general interest she was content to share the sentiments of her
comrades without controlling them. She joined in the New England
Confederation of 1643; and though the idea sprang from another quarter,
it is probable that the form was influenced by suggestions from the
Plymouth men, derived from their experience in the United Netherlands.

Plymouth’s treatment of the Quakers, in 1656 and the following years,
illustrated in part the contrast with Massachusetts Bay. At the outset
public sentiment was much the same in the two colonies, in view of
the extravagances and indecencies of these intruders; but the greater
mildness of administration in Plymouth bore its appropriate fruit in
lessening the evil characteristics which developed by opposition, and
gradually the dreaded sectaries gained a foothold, until finally their
principles were widely adopted in certain localities with only good
results.

Plymouth’s treatment of the Royal Commissioners in 1665 indicated
fairly her consistent attitude towards the mother country; in receiving
the King’s mandates with respect, and in promising conformity, she held
the course which had produced the seven articles at Leyden in 1617.

The most serious misfortune to visit the colony was the Indian war
which broke out early in 1675. Up to that time the Plymouth men had
been careful to acquire by _bonâ fide_ purchase a title to all new
lands as they were occupied; they had endeavored also (with fair
success, as compared with like efforts in Massachusetts Bay) to spread
the knowledge of Christianity; and in 1675 there were perhaps six or
seven hundred “praying Indians” within the colony bounds.

[Illustration: GOVERNOR JOSIAH WINSLOW.

[This canvas is likewise the property of Isaac Winslow, Esq., and is
now in the Pilgrim Hall, at Plymouth. This portrait, and that of the
father, the elder Governor Winslow, are the only likenesses of the
Plymouth governors extant; and Josiah Winslow was the first governor of
native birth, having been born in Marshfield in 1629; dying there in
1680.—ED.]]

But Wamsutta and Metacomet (otherwise Alexander and Philip), the sons
and successors of the sachem Massasoit, were hostile to the whites
and unaffected by Christian influences; and after Alexander’s death,
in 1662, the colonists found that only by constant watchfulness could
they prevent a breach with the savages. Finally under Philip’s lead
they rose and began a war of extermination. The exciting cause and the
earliest operations were within the territory claimed by Plymouth;
on her fell successively the heaviest blows (in proportion to her
population) and the most pressing responsibilities for defence. When
the war ended with Philip’s death, in August, 1676, more than half
her towns had been partially or wholly destroyed, and the colony’s
share (about £15,000) of the expense incurred by the New England
Confederacy in suppressing the Indians was a very serious burden on
a feeble agricultural community. Before the slow process of recovery
from these desolations could be accomplished, the ancient customs of
self-government were invaded by James II.; and when the arbitrary
exactions under Andros, as Governor of all New England, were ended
in the Revolution of 1689, the return to the old conditions of
freedom was but temporary; the new monarchs followed James’s policy
of consolidation, and Plymouth found herself fated to be included
either in the charter of New York or in that of Massachusetts. Better
a known than an unknown evil; and accordingly the London agent of
Plymouth was authorized to express a preference for union with Boston,
and the provincial charter of Massachusetts in October, 1691, put an
end to the separate existence of the colony of New Plymouth. Of the
original “Mayflower” company but two members survived,—John Cooke, of
Dartmouth, who died in 1695, and Mary (Allerton) Cushman, of Plymouth,
who died in 1699. The younger generation were accustomed to the
leadership of Massachusetts Bay, and accepted the union as a natural
and fitting step.


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THE earliest printed volume treating of the origin of Plymouth Colony
was _New England’s Memorial; ... with special Reference to the first
Colony thereof_, published by Nathaniel Morton in 1669. As he states
in his “Epistle Dedicatory,” the most of his intelligence concerning
the beginnings of the settlement came from manuscripts left by his
“much-honored uncle, Mr. William Bradford.” Morton’s parents had
emigrated in 1623, when he was a boy of ten, from Leyden to Plymouth,
with a younger sister of Mrs. Morton, who had been sent for to become
the wife of Governor Bradford. This connection and his own position as
secretary of the General Court of the Colony from 1645, gave peculiar
opportunities for gathering information; but his book preserves nothing
on the earliest portion of the Pilgrim history, beyond the date (1602)
and the place (“the North of England”) of their entering into a church
covenant together.

The manuscripts of Governor Bradford passed at his death (1657) to
his eldest son, Major William Bradford, of Plymouth, and while in his
possession a few particulars were extracted for Cotton Mather’s use in
his _Magnalia_ (1702), especially in the “Life of Bradford” (book ii.
chap. i.). A minute, but very efficient typographical error, however
(A_n_sterfield for A_u_sterfield), kept students for the next century
and a half out of the knowledge of Governor Bradford’s birthplace,
and of the exact neighborhood whence came the Leyden migration. From
Major William Bradford, who died in 1704, the manuscripts descended to
his son, Major John, of Kingston (originally a part of Plymouth), by
whom the most precious were lent or given, in 1728, to the Rev. Thomas
Prince, of Boston.[486] Prince made a careful use of this material in
the first volume of his _Annals_ (1736), fixing the locality whence
the Pilgrims came as “near the joining borders of Nottinghamshire,
Linconshire, and Yorkshire,” and lodged the originals in the library
which he bequeathed, in 1758, to the Old South Church in Boston.
Governor Thomas Hutchinson, while writing his _History of Massachusetts
Bay_, found these manuscripts in the Prince Library, and printed in the
Appendix to his second volume (1767) a valuable extract describing the
exodus to Holland. In the troublous times which followed, the Bradford
papers disappeared.

Another extract from Bradford, however, soon after came to light in the
records of the First Church in Plymouth, where Secretary Morton had
transcribed, in 1680, most of his uncle’s account of the transatlantic
history of the Pilgrims. This was printed, in part and somewhat
inaccurately, by Ebenezer Hazard, in vol. i. of his _Historical
Collections_ (1792), and in full by the Rev. Alexander Young, in his
_Chronicles of the Pilgrims_ (1841).

The clews furnished by Mather and Prince to the Pilgrim cradle-land
attracted no special attention until 1842, when the Hon. James Savage,
during a visit to England,[487] submitted the problem to the Rev.
Joseph Hunter, author of a history of South Yorkshire, of which region
he was also a native. Mr. Hunter, though the evidence was incomplete,
suggested that Austerfield was the place wanted; and the attention of
this accomplished antiquary being thus enlisted, the result appeared
in a tract, published by him in 1849, entitled _Collections concerning
the Founders of New Plymouth_, which identified the meeting-place of
the Separatist Church before their removal to Holland. This tract
was reissued, in 1852, in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, vol. xxxi.,
and again in London, in an enlarged form, in 1854.[488] The author’s
careful examination of local records made plain the position of the
Brewsters in Scrooby, and of the Bradfords in Austerfield (with the
entry of Governor Bradford’s baptism), and traced their families, as
well as the families of other early members of the Scrooby flock, in
the neighboring parishes. The importance of Mr. Hunter’s labors may
be seen in the fact, that, besides Brewster and Bradford, none of the
“Mayflower” passengers (except the two Winslows) have even yet been
surely traced to an English birthplace.[489]

Mr. Hunter’s success soon attracted the attention of other
investigators. The earliest visit to Scrooby which has received notice
in print was one made in July, 1851, by the Rev. Henry M. Dexter, of
Boston, described by him in _The Congregationalist_ of Aug. 8, 1851.
Mr. W. H. Bartlett’s _Pilgrim Fathers_, p. 35, published in 1853, added
nothing to Hunter’s researches, except some interesting engravings of
the church in which Bradford was baptized, and of Scrooby village.
In his enlarged edition of 1854, Hunter gave a better view of the
remains of the palace inhabited by Brewster. Mr. Palfrey visited the
neighborhood in 1856, and records his impressions in a note on p. 134
of vol. i. (1858) of his _History of New England_. In 1860 the Rev.
John Raine, vicar of the parish of Blyth, in which these hamlets were
formerly included, printed a valuable account of that parish’s history
and antiquities.[490]

In January, 1862, the Rev. H. M. Dexter published, in the
_Congregational Quarterly_, an article on “Recent Discoveries
concerning the Plymouth Pilgrims,” summarizing conveniently what had
been learned regarding the place where, and the time when, the church
was gathered. In March, 1867, he contributed to the _Sabbath at Home_
magazine an illustrated article on the “Footprints of the Pilgrims in
England,” which is still the most vivid and the fullest description
extant of the Scrooby neighborhood. With this should be compared,
for additional facts, a letter from Dr. Dexter in the _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._ (xii. 129) for July, 1871; the early pages of the chapter
on Robinson, in the same author’s _Congregationalism as seen in its
Literature_ (1880); and the record of a visit in 1860, in Professor
James M. Hoppin’s _Old England_. The Scrooby episode is also told, more
or less fully, in the Rev. Ashbel Steele’s _Life of Elder Brewster_
(1857), in Dr. John Waddington’s _Track of the Hidden Church_ (1863),
and in chap. vi. of the second volume of his _Congregational History_
(1874), in the Rev. George Punchard’s _History of Congregationalism_,
vol. iii. chap. xi. (1867), in chap. vii. of vol. ii. of S. R.
Gardiner’s _Prince Charles and the Spanish Marriage_ (1869), and in
chap. x. of Dr. Leonard Bacon’s _Genesis of the New England Churches_
(1874).[491]

Scrooby village is about one hundred and forty miles N.N.W. from
London, and eighty miles due east from Liverpool. It lies on the Great
Northern Railway; but as its population numbers only some two hundred,
it is practically a mere suburb of Bawtry, a small market-town a
mile and a quarter to the north, of perhaps a thousand inhabitants.
Austerfield, a little larger than Scrooby, and at about the same
distance from Bawtry in a northeasterly direction, is included, as well
as much of the other two localities, in the patrimony of Lord Houghton
(Richard Monckton Milnes), whose family have held it since 1779.

       *       *       *       *       *

Of the life in Holland and the preparations for removal to America,
the first connected account in print was that appended by Edward
Winslow (who had joined the company at Leyden in 1617, at the age of
twenty-two) to his _Hypocrisy Unmasked_, in 1646, which was reprinted
in 1841, in Dr. Young’s _Chronicles of the Pilgrims_. Winslow’s object
in this brief appendix was to refute an unjust charge of schism in
the Leyden church, and to explain the reasons for the removal and the
course of the accompanying negotiations; he also reviewed Robinson’s
doctrinal position, and incidentally preserved the substance of the
pastor’s farewell address to the departing portion of his flock.[492]
Morton’s _Memorial_, in 1669, gave from Bradford’s manuscripts a fuller
account of the events in question; and Mather’s _Magnalia_ (1702), and
Prince’s _Annals_ (1736), added a few touches to the picture. Prince
has also the distinction of being the first of those who have retraced
the steps of the Pilgrims on Dutch soil, his _Annals_ (vol. i. p. 160)
recording his visit to Leyden in 1714, and his supposed identification
of the church which Robinson’s congregation used, and in which he was
buried.[493]

The extracts from Bradford published by Hazard in 1792, with those
included in the notes to Judge John Davis’s edition of Morton’s
_Memorial_ in 1826, all of which were reprinted by Dr. Young in 1841,
set forth in a more orderly way the story of the removal. But there was
no inquiry in Holland until Leyden was visited by Mr. George Sumner,
a younger brother of Senator Sumner, who communicated the results
of his researches to the Massachusetts Historical Society, in 1843,
in a paper which was published separately at Cambridge in 1845, and
in the Society’s _Collections_, vol. xxix. (1846). Mr. Sumner threw
much light on the actual condition of the Pilgrims in Holland, while
investigating Prince’s report of a church lent them by the city, and
Winslow’s account of the respect paid Robinson at his funeral. He
showed that Prince had confused this congregation with one founded
contemporaneously by English Presbyterians in Leyden, for whose use a
chapel was granted, while Robinson’s company received no such favor. He
also printed the record of Robinson’s admission to the University,—a
fact not before recovered,—and the entry of his burial in St. Peter’s
cathedral, just across the way from his house.[494]

In 1848 another item of interest,—the application of Robinson and his
people for leave to come to Leyden,—was printed for the first time
in a _Memoir of Robinson_, by Professor Kist, in vol. viii. of the
_Nederlandsch Archief voor Kerkelijke Geschiedenis_.[495] A fuller
memoir, prefixed to a collected edition of his writings, was published
in London three years later (1851), by the Rev. Robert Ashton, and
reprinted in the _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vol. xli. (1852).

Next in chronological order comes the publication of the most important
of all known sources of information respecting the Pilgrims from 1608
to 1646,—the _History of Plymouth Plantation_, by William Bradford,
second governor of the colony. We have seen that this history was
used, in manuscript, by various writers, but disappeared after 1767.
In 1844 a _History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America_,
by the Bishop of Oxford (Dr. Samuel Wilberforce), was published in
London, in which quotations embodying new information were made from an
otherwise unknown “Manuscript History of the Plantation of Plymouth,
etc., in the Fulham Library.” The Bishop’s volume passed to a second
edition in 1846, and was reprinted in New York in 1849; while in
1848 there appeared in London the Rev. J. S. M. Anderson’s _History
of the Colonial Church_, in which reference was distinctly made to
“Bradford’s MS. History of Plymouth Colony ... now in the possession
of the Bishop of London.” But the significance of these allusions was
ignored by American students, until February, 1855, when Mr. John
Wingate Thornton, of Boston, called the attention of the Rev. John S.
Barry, who was then engaged on the first volume of his _History of
Massachusetts_, to the Bishop of Oxford’s book. Taking up the clew thus
given, Mr. Barry conferred with Mr. Charles Deane, who sent at once
to London for information, and by the replies received, was enabled
to announce at the meeting of the Massachusetts Historical Society,
April 12, 1855, that the complete manuscript of Governor Bradford’s
history had been found in the Library of the Bishop of London’s Palace
at Fulham, and that an accurate copy had been ordered for the Society’s
use. This transcript reached Boston in August, and was issued, under
Mr. Deane’s able editorship, in the spring of 1856, both as a separate
publication and as volume xxxiii. of the Society’s _Collections_.[496]

How the manuscript came to be in the Fulham Library is uncertain; most
probably it was taken from the Prince Library, upon the evacuation of
Boston by the British in March, 1776, and was preserved and finally
deposited in a public collection by those who perceived it to be of
value. The desirability of its return to America has been repeatedly
suggested; but as an individual bishop has no power to alienate the
property of his See, nothing has yet been accomplished.

The next special contribution to the history of the Pilgrims in Holland
was the publication of the “Seven Articles which the church of Leyden
sent [in September, 1617] to the Council of England, to be considered
of in respect of their judgments occasioned about their going to
Virginia, anno 1618.” A contemporary transcript of this paper was
found in the British State-Paper Office by the Hon. George Bancroft,
and communicated by him, with an introductory letter, to the New York
Historical Society, in October, 1856. It was included, in 1857, in vol.
iii. of the second series of their _Collections_.[497]

In 1859-60 the Hon. Henry C. Murphy, of Brooklyn, N. Y., United States
Minister at the Hague from 1857 to 1861, published in the _Hist. Mag._
(iii. 261, 335, 357; iv. 4) a series of four “Contributions to the
History of the Pilgrim Fathers, from the Records at Leyden.” These
valuable papers presented much new information (derived especially
from the marriage records) as to the full names, ages, occupations,
and English homes of Robinson’s congregation; they determined also the
site and dimensions of his house, and the details of its purchase.
Another fact, which was already known, that Elder Brewster during the
last three years of his stay in Leyden was a printer and publisher,
especially of books on ecclesiastical matters, both in Latin and
English,[498] which it would not have been safe to print at home,
received new illustration from Mr. Murphy.

The labors of Sumner and Murphy in Holland have been supplemented by
the diligent researches of Dr. H. M. Dexter, whose work at Scrooby
was mentioned above. In the _Congregational Quarterly_ for January,
1862 (vol. iv.), he gave an account of the recent additions to our
knowledge; and in the notes to his invaluable addition of _Mourt’s
Relation_, in 1865, he traced the personal history of the Pilgrims,
so far as an exhaustive examination of the Leyden records made that
possible. In 1866, in company with Professor George E. Day, of Yale
College, who had shared in the previous investigations, Dr. Dexter
superintended the erection of a marble tablet, with appropriate
inscription, on the front of the Home for Aged Walloons, which now
occupies the site of Robinson’s house. In the _Sabbath at Home_ for
April, 1867, he published a graphic account of the “Footprints of the
Pilgrims in Holland,” and in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ for January,
1872 (xii. 184), suggested some valuable corrections of Mr. Sumner’s
Memoirs, respecting Robinson’s death and burial. The Leyden pastor’s
influence and doctrinal position may be best studied in Dr. Dexter’s
_Congregationalism as seen in its Literature_ (1880), and in vol. iii.
of the Rev. George Punchard’s _History of Congregationalism_ (2d ed.
1867).[499]

For various contributions to fuller knowledge than Bradford affords of
the negotiations in London, after removal to America had been decided
on, great credit is due to the researches of the Rev. Edward D. Neill,
especially in his _History of the Virginia Company_ (1869) and his
_English Colonization of America_ (1871). Cf. _Hist. Mag._, xiii.
278. The same writer has investigated the personal history of Captain
Thomas Jones, master of the “Mayflower,” in the _Historical Magazine_
(January, 1869), xv. 31-33, and in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._
(1874), xxviii. 314-17. The charge that Jones was bribed by the Dutch
in 1620, is considered by Mr. William Brigham in the volume of lectures
published by the Massachusetts Historical Society on the _Early History
of Massachusetts_, and in the Society’s _Proceedings_ for December,
1868.[500]

For the colony’s affairs from the sailing of the “Mayflower” to 1646,
the prime source of knowledge is Bradford’s _History_. At the time
of emigrating, the author was in his thirty-first year, and his book
was written at various dates, from 1630 to 1650, when he was from
forty to sixty years of age. Less than four months after landing he
became Governor, and for the remaining quarter-century covered by his
_History_ he held the same office, except during five years, when
excused at his own urgent request. The foremost man in the colony for
this long period, nature and opportunity equally fitted him to be its
chronicler from the beginning. No one could speak with more authority
than he of the inner motives and guiding policy of the original
colonists,—fortunately, also, no one could exemplify more clearly in
written words the ideal Pilgrim than does Bradford, with his grave,
homely, earnest style, not unsuggestive of the English of the Bible.
Between his style and that of Winthrop, the contemporary historian
of the Bay, there is something of the same difference that existed
between the two emigrations; and yet Bradford’s simple story, standing
as it does as the earliest piece of American historical composition,
possesses a peculiar charm which the broader, more philosophic page of
Winthrop cannot rival.[501]

[Illustration: BRADFORD’S WRITING,—FROM HIS “HISTORY.”]

       *       *       *       *       *

The special contributions by others to the history of Bradford’s period
began in 1622 with the publication of _Mourt’s Relation_, a daily
journal of the first twelve months (Sept. 1620, to Dec. 11, 1621),
so called from the name, “G. Mourt,” subscribed to the preface, but
doubtless written by Bradford and Winslow. The standard edition is that
of 1865, with notes by Dr. H. M. Dexter.[502] A few facts may also be
gleaned from a _Sermon_ (by Robert Cushman) preached at Plymouth, Dec.
9, 1621,[503] and from the second edition of Captain John Smith’s _New
England’s Trials_,—both published in London in 1622. Winslow’s _Good
News from New England_ appeared in 1624, continuing the narrative of
events from November, 1621, to September 10, 1623.[504] Next came,
after a long interval, _New England’s Memorial_, by Nathaniel Morton,
printed at Cambridge in 1669, which professed to give the annals of New
England to 1668; beyond the part supplied from Bradford and Winslow,
however, there was little of value. Judge John Davis’s[505] edition of
1826 is still the best.[506]

[Illustration]

To these materials the next sensible addition was in the “Summary of
the Affairs of the Colony of New-Plimouth,” appended, in 1767, to
vol. ii. of Governor Hutchinson’s _History of Massachusetts Bay_, and
containing some personal items not before collected. In 1794 a fragment
of a letter-book, preserving copies of important letters written and
received by Governor Bradford from 1624 to 1630, having lately been
found in Nova Scotia, was printed in the _Massachusetts Historical
Collections_, vol. iii.[507] In 1798 Dr. Jeremy Belknap included in
vol. ii. of his _American Biography_ sketches of the leading Pilgrims
(Robinson, Carver, Bradford, Brewster, Cushman, Winslow, and Standish),
which put in admirable form all then known of early Plymouth history.

The next quarter of a century added nothing to the existing stock of
knowledge, unless by the publication in 1815 of the _General History
of New England_ to 1680, by the Rev. William Hubbard (born 1621, died
1704), which, so far as Plymouth was concerned, was little more than a
compilation from sources already named. But with the issue, in 1826,
of a new edition of _Morton_, and in 1830 of _An Historical Memoir of
the Colony of New Plymouth_, by the Hon. Francis Baylies,[508] and in
1832 of a _History of the Town of Plymouth_, by Dr. James Thacher, was
introduced the new era of modern research.[509]

[Illustration: FIRST PAGE, PLYMOUTH RECORDS.

[This is in the handwriting of Governor Bradford; it is also in Hazard,
i. 100, and in the State edition, xii. 2. It is not clear when the
entry was made. Pulsifer, _Records_, xii. p. iv., holds it was written
in 1620; Shurtleff, _Ibid._, i. Introd., says that all entries dated
before 1627 were made in this last year. Beside the account of the
records in this introduction, there is another in 3 _Mass. Hist.
Coll._, ii. Also see _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1858, p. 358.
The State edition is in twelve volumes, usually bound in ten; and was
originally sold for $75, but is now obtainable at a much less price.

The patents under which the colony governed itself have been defined
in the preceding narrative, and in a note the first one is traced.
(Cf. also Neill’s notes on it in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1876,
p. 413, and Poor’s _Vindication of Gorges_.) The second patent, of
April 20, 1622, is not extant. The third, of Jan. 13, 1629-30, is at
Plymouth in the Registry of Deeds, and is printed in Brigham’s edition
of the _Laws_, Hazard’s _Collections_, etc. Cf. _Mass. Archives,
Miscellanies_, i. 123.—ED.]]

The Legislature of Massachusetts gave fresh impulse to this spirit
of investigation by publishing in 1836, under the editorship of Mr.
William Brigham, the _Laws passed in Plymouth Colony from 1623 to
1691_, with a selection of other permanent documents. In 1841 the
Rev. Alexander Young[510] collected, under the title of _Chronicles
of the Pilgrim Fathers from 1602 to 1625_, the principal writings of
that period, and, enriching them with a body of useful notes, made
a volume which still retains a distinct value. In 1846 and 1851 a
local antiquary, Mr. William S. Russell,[511] brought out two small
volumes,—_A Guide to Plymouth_ and _Pilgrim Memorials_,—which are
not yet superseded; Mr. William H. Bartlett’s _Pilgrim Fathers_[512]
(1853) added something to these local touches. Between 1855 and 1861
the _Records of the Colony of New Plymouth_ were printed _in extenso_,
by order of the State Legislature, under the editorship of Dr. N. B.
Shurtleff[513] and Mr. David Pulsifer.

The year 1856 was made memorable by the printing of Bradford’s
manuscript, and two years later appeared the initial volume of Dr.
John G. Palfrey’s _History of New England_, which comprehends by far
the best of modern narratives of the complete career of Plymouth
Colony. Only in subsidiary literature have the more recent years added
anything. Valuable bibliographical notes on Pilgrim history, by the
editor of the present volume, were printed in the _Harvard College
Library Bulletin_ for 1878, nos. 7 and 8; and the “Collections toward
a Bibliography of Congregationalism,” appended to Dr. H. M. Dexter’s
_Congregationalism as seen in its Literature_ (1880), are indispensable
to future students. In 1881 General E. W. Peirce published a useful
volume of _Civil, Military, and Professional Lists of Plymouth and
Rhode Island Colonies_ to 1700.

Apart from strictly historical composition, the theme has inspired
some of the greatest oratorical efforts of the sons of New England in
the present century,—especially in connection with the stated annual
celebrations of the Pilgrim Society,[514] formed at Plymouth in 1820
(a successor of the earlier Old Colony Club,[515] founded in 1769).
Most deservedly conspicuous in this series are the orations delivered
in 1820 by Daniel Webster, in 1824 by Edward Everett, and in 1870 by
Robert C. Winthrop; of similar note are several of the orations before
the New England Society of New York, founded in 1805. The Pilgrim
Society has also fostered local sentiment by erecting (in 1824) Pilgrim
Hall in the town of Plymouth, and by gathering within it a valuable
collection of memorials of the early settlers and of portraits of
historical interest.[516]

A portrait of Edward Winslow (engraved on a previous page) is in
Pilgrim Hall at Plymouth, and is the only undoubted portrait of any
of the Pilgrims now existing.[517] Of the many attempts to depict
on canvas signal events of Pilgrim history, the most important is a
painting by Robert W. Weir of the embarkation at Delft Haven, executed
in 1846, and occupying one of the panels in the Rotunda of the Capitol
at Washington.[518] The most imposing works of architecture and
sculpture in commemoration of the same events are the canopy recently
erected over the rock in Plymouth on which the Pilgrims are believed to
have landed, and the monument on a neighboring hill-top.[519]

In poetical literature the most serious and sustained effort to
represent the Pilgrim spirit is in Longfellow’s “Courtship of Miles
Standish” (1859);[520] while in briefer compass Old England, through
Lord Houghton (Prefatory Stanzas to Hunter’s _Founders of New
Plymouth_) and Mrs. Hemans (“Landing of the Pilgrim Fathers”), and New
England through Pierpont (“The Pilgrim Fathers”) and Lowell (“Interview
with Miles Standish”), have vied in celebrating the character and deeds
of the exiles of 1620.[521]

[Illustration]




CHAPTER IX.

NEW ENGLAND.

BY CHARLES DEANE, LL.D.,

_Vice-President of the Massachusetts Historical Society._


THE COUNCIL FOR NEW ENGLAND.—This body was incorporated in the
eighteenth year of the reign of James I., on the 3d of November, 1620,
under the name of the “Council established at Plymouth, in the County
of Devon, for the planting, ruling, ordering, and governing of New
England, in America.” The corporation consisted of forty patentees, the
most of whom were persons of distinction: thirteen were peers, some
of the highest rank. The patentees were empowered to hold territory
in America extending from the fortieth to the forty-eighth degree of
north latitude, and westward from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and
they were authorized to settle and govern the same. This charter is
the foundation of most of the grants which were afterward made of the
territory of New England.

This Company was substantially a reincorporation of the adventurers
or associates of the Northern Colony of Virginia, with additional
privileges, placing them on a footing with their rivals of the Southern
Colony, whose franchise had been twice enlarged since the issuing
of the original charter of April 10, 1606, which incorporated both
companies. A notice of this earlier enterprise will but briefly detain
us.

While the Southern Colony had attracted the wealth and influence of
leading adventurers who represented the more liberal party in the
government, and were enabled to prosecute their plans of colonization
with vigor to a good degree of success, the Northern Colony had
signally failed from the beginning. The former had established at
Jamestown, in 1607, the first permanent English Colony in America.
The latter produced no greater results than the abortive settlement
at Sabino, known as the Popham Colony.[522] The discouragement
following upon its abandonment prompted the withdrawal of many of the
adventurers, though the organization of the patentees still survived;
but of their meetings and records we have no trace. Sir Ferdinando
Gorges himself would not despair, but engaged his private fortune in
fishing, trading, and exploring expeditions, and in making attempts at
settlement. Many of these enterprises he speaks of as private ventures,
while the Council for New England, in their _Briefe Relation_, of 1622,
which I have sometimes thought was written by Gorges himself, speaks of
them in the name of the Company. The probability is that Gorges was the
principal person who kept alive the cherished scheme of settling the
country, and by his influence a few other persons were engaged, and the
name of the Council covered many of these enterprises.

       *       *       *       *       *

Gorges now conceived the scheme of a great monopoly. King James had
reigned since 1614 without a parliament, and during the following
years down to the meeting of the next parliament, in January, 1620/21,
a large part of the business of the country had been monopolized by
individuals or by associations that had secured special privileges from
the Crown. Gorges was a friend of the King and of the “prerogative.”
Under the plea of desiring a new incorporation of the adventurers
of the Northern Colony, in order to place them on an equality of
privileges with the Southern Colony, Gorges had devised the plan of
securing a monoply of the fishing in the waters of New England for the
patentees of the new corporation, and for those who held or purchased
license from them. He had the adroitness to enlist in his favor a
large number of the principal noblemen and gentlemen. Relative to
his proceedings, Gorges himself says: “Of this, my resolution, I was
bold to offer the sounder considerations to divers of his Majesty’s
honorable Privy Council, who had so good liking thereunto as they
willingly became interested themselves therein as patentees and
councillors for the managing of the business, by whose favors I had
the easier passage in the obtaining his Majesty’s royal charter to be
granted us according to his warrant to the then solicitor-general,”
etc. The petition for the new charter was dated March 3, 1619/20; the
warrant for its preparation, July 23; and it passed the seals Nov. 3,
1620.

An inspection of the several patents granted by King James will show
that, in those of 1606 and 1609, among the privileges conferred is that
of “fishings.” But the word is there used in connection with other
privileges appertaining to and within the precincts conveyed, such as
“mines, minerals, marshes,” etc., and probably meant “fishings” in
rivers and ponds, and not in the seas. In the patent of Nov. 3, 1620,
a similar clause ends, “and seas adjoining,” which may be intended to
cover the alleged privilege. In this patent, as in the others, there is
no clause forbidding free fishing within the seas of New England; but
all persons without license first obtained from the Council are, in the
patent of Nov. 3, 1620, forbidden to visit the coast, and the clause of
forfeiture of vessel and cargo is inserted. This prevented fishermen
from landing and procuring wood for constructing stages to dry their
fish.

A few days after the petition of Gorges and his associates had been
presented to the King for a new charter, with minutes indicating the
nature of the privileges asked for, the Southern Colony took the
alarm, and the subject was brought before its members by the treasurer,
Sir Edwin Sandys, at a meeting on the 15th of March, 1619/20, at which
a committee was appointed to appear before the Privy Council the next
day, to protest against the fishing monopoly asked for by the Northern
Colony. The result of the conference, at which Gorges was present, was
a reference to two members of the Council,—the Duke of Lenox and the
Earl of Arundell, both patentees in the new patent; and they decided
or recommended that each colony should fish within the bounds of the
other, with this limitation,—“that it be only for the sustentation of
the people of the colonies there, and for the transportation of people
into either colony.” This order gave satisfaction to neither party.
The Southern Colony protested against being deprived of privileges
which they had always enjoyed. Gorges contended that the Northern
Colony had been excluded from the limits of the rival company, and he
only desired the same privilege of excluding them in turn. The matter
came again before the Privy Council on the 21st of July following, and
that board confirmed the recommendation of the 16th of March. Two days
later, on the 23d of July, the warrant to the solicitor-general for
the preparation of the patent was issued, and it passed the seals, as
already stated, on the 3d of November.

On the following day, November 4, Sir Edwin Sandys announced at a
meeting of the Southern Colony, or what was now known as the Virginia
Company, that the patent of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, containing certain
words which contradicted a former order of the Lords of the Council,
had passed the seals, and that the adventurers of the Northern Colony
by this grant had utterly excluded the Southern Colony from fishing on
that coast without their leave and license first sought and obtained.
By a general consent it was resolved to supplicate his Majesty for
redress, and Sir Thomas Roe was desired to present the petition which
had been drawn.

On the 13th Sir Thomas Roe reported that he had attended to that
duty, and that the King had said that if anything was passed in
the New England patent prejudicial to the Southern Colony, it was
surreptitiously done, and without his knowledge, and that he had been
abused thereby by those who pretended otherwise unto him. This was
confirmed by the Earl of Southampton, who further said that the King
gave command to the Lord Chamberlain, then present, that if this new
patent were not sealed, to forbear the seal; and if it were sealed and
not delivered, to keep it in hand till they were better informed. His
Lordship further signified that on Saturday last they had been with
the Lord Chancellor about it, when were present the Duke of Lenox, the
Earl of Arundell, and others, who, after hearing the allegations on
both sides, ordered that the patent should be delivered to be perused
by some of the Southern Colony, who were to report what exceptions
they found thereunto against the next meeting. Two days later it was
announced through the Earl of Southampton that, at a recent conference
with Gorges, it was agreed that for the present “the patent of Sir
Ferdinando Gorges should be sequestered and deposited in my Lord
Chancellor’s hands according to his Majesty’s express command.”

The Council for New England, in their _Briefe Relation_ (1622) of these
proceedings, recounting the opposition of the Virginia Company, say
that “lastly, the patent being passed the seal, it was stopped, upon
new suggestions to the King, and by his Majesty referred to the Council
to be settled, by whom the former orders were confirmed, the difference
cleared, and we ordered to have our patent delivered us.”

The modifications suggested or directed by the Privy Council appear
not to have been embodied in the instrument itself as it passed the
seals. Gorges’ friends were very strong in the council board, some of
the members being patentees in the grant, and they carried matters
with a high hand. But before the order came for the final delivery of
the patent, Gorges and his patentees were called to encounter a still
more formidable opposition. Gorges himself tells us that his rivals had
plainly told him that “howsoever I had sped before the Lords, I should
hear more of it the next Parliament;” and that this body was no sooner
assembled than he found it too true wherewith he had been formerly
threatened.

The Parliament met Jan. 16, 1620/21, it being the first time for more
than seven years, and at once adjourned to the 30th of that month. On
its assembling, the House of Commons immediately proceeded to present
the public grievances of the kingdom, prominent among which were the
monopolies that had sprung up like hydras during the last few years
under the royal prerogative. On the 17th of April “An Act for the freer
liberty of fishing voyages, to be made and performed on the sea-coast
and places of Newfoundland, Virginia, New England, and other the
sea-coasts and parts of America,” was introduced. On the 25th this was
repeated, and a debate followed, opened by Sir Edwin Sandys, who called
attention to the new grant obtained for what had now come to be called
New England, with a sole privilege of fishing; also to the fact that
the King, who had been made acquainted with it, had stayed the patent;
that the Virginia Company desired no appropriation of this fishing to
them; that it was worth one hundred thousand pounds per annum in coin;
that the English “little frequent this, in respect of this prohibition,
but the Dutch and French.” He therefore moved for “a free liberty for
all the King’s subjects for fishing there,” saying it was pitiful that
any of the King’s subjects should be prohibited, since the French and
Dutch were at liberty to come and fish there notwithstanding the colony.

The debate was continued. Secretary Calvert “doubteth the fishermen the
hinderers of the plantation; that they burn great store of woods, and
choke the havens;” that he “never will strain the King’s prerogative
against the good of the commonwealth;” and that it was “not fit to
make any laws here for those countries which not as yet annexed to the
Crown.”

The bill was committed to Sir Edwin Sandys, and a full hearing
advertized to all burgesses of London, York, and the port towns, who
might wish to testify, that day seven-night, in the Exchequer Chamber.

On the 4th of June Parliament adjourned to the 14th of November, and in
the intermission Sir Edwin Sandys was arrested and thrown into prison.
It is significant that, notwithstanding this opposition in the House of
Commons, the Privy Council, on the 18th, ordered that the sequestered
patent be delivered to Gorges, in terms which provided that each colony
(the Northern and the Southern) should have the additional freedom
of the shore for the drying of their nets and the taking and saving
of their fish, and to have wood for their necessary uses, etc.; also
that the patent of the Northern plantation be renewed according to the
premises, while those of the Southern plantation were to have a sight
thereof before it be engrossed, and that the former patent be delivered
to the patentees.

I have already remarked that the orders of the Privy Council early
directed certain modifications to be made in the proposed patent which
were not embodied in it when first drawn; nor were they ultimately
included, although Gorges himself admitted, when afterward summoned
before the Committee of the House of Commons, that the patent yet
remained in the Crown office, “where it was left since the last
Parliament” (he meant, since the last session of Parliament), “for
that it was resolved to be renewed for the amendment of some faults
contained therein.”

No doubt the intention was that a new patent should be drawn, and that
the delivery of the existing parchment was provisional only.[523] The
patent, however, never was renewed, though a scheme for a renewal of
a most radical character was seriously contemplated all through the
year following the dissolution of the Parliament in 1622; and Sir Henry
Spelman and John Selden were consulted in regard to land tenures, the
rights of the Crown, and the like, in reference thereto.

On the reassembling of Parliament in November, the subject was once
again approached in the Commons. It was charged that since the recess
Gorges had executed a patent. One had been issued, dated June 1, 1621,
to John Peirce for the Plymouth people. He had also, by patent or
by verbal agreement, by the King’s request, released to Sir William
Alexander all the land east of St. Croix, known as Nova Scotia,
confirmed to him by a royal charter September 10 of this year.[524]
It was also charged that Gorges was threatening to use force in
restricting the right to fish; and accordingly on the 20th an order
was passed directing his patent to be brought in to the Committee on
Grievances.[525]

The result was that on the 21st of December an Act for freer liberty
of fishing passed the Commons, while previously, on the 18th, “Sir
Ferdinando Gorges and Sir Jo. Bowcer, the patentees for fishing in and
about New England, to be warned to appear here the first day of next
Access, and to bring their patent, or a copy thereof.” Parliament then
adjourned to the 8th of February; but it was subsequently prorogued
and dissolved. Before the adjournment, in the afternoon, the Commons,
foreseeing their dissolution, entered on their records a protestation
in vindication of their rights and privileges; but the record is
here mutilated by having the obnoxious passage torn out by the hands
of the King, who sent for the Journal of the House and placed this
mark of his tyranny upon it. Gorges himself, at this session of the
Parliament, twice appeared before the Committee of the House, and had
a preliminary examination without his counsel. He was questioned by
Sir Edward Coke about his patent, which Coke called a grievance of
the commonwealth, and complained of as “a monopoly, and the color of
planting a colony put upon it for particular ends and private gain.”
Gorges says he was treated with great courtesy, but was told that “the
Public was to be respected before all particulars,” and that the patent
must be brought into the House. Gorges replied by defending the plan
of the adventurers, which he said was undertaken for the advancement
of religion, the enlargement of the bounds of the nation, the increase
of trade, and the employment of many thousands of people. He rehearsed
what had already been done in the discovery and seizure of the coast,
told of the failures and discouragements encountered, and explained the
present scheme of regulating the affairs of the intended plantation
for the public good. As for the delivery of the patent, he had not the
power to do it himself, as he was but a particular person, and inferior
to many. Besides, the patent still remained, for aught he knew, in the
Crown Office, where it was left for amendment. He was then told to be
prepared to attend further at a future day, and with counsel. In the
end, also, the breaking up of Parliament prevented the bill for free
fishing, which had passed the Commons, from becoming a law.

Of course, the opposition encountered—first from the Virginia Company
and then from the House of Commons, the latter representing largely the
popular sentiment—was a serious hindrance to the operations of the
Council for New England. The disputes with the former, the Council
themselves say, “held them almost two years, so as all men were afraid
to join with them.”

The records of the Council, so far as they are extant, begin on
“Saturday, the last of May, 1622,” at “Whitehall,” at which there were
seven persons present, “the Lord Duke of Lenox” heading the list. Some
business was transacted before this date, as the first day’s record
here refers to it. The record of the organization of the Council is
wanting; and two persons named as present at this meeting—Captain
Samuel Argall and Dr. Barnabe Goche—were not included in the list of
the forty patentees. They must have been elected since, in the place
of others who had resigned. Goche was now elected treasurer in the
place of Sir Ferdinando Gorges. I think that the Duke of Lenox was the
first president of the Council. In the patent granted to John Peirce,
mentioned above as taken out on behalf of the Pilgrims, dated June
1, 1621,—which, I may add, was nearly a year before the date of any
known record of the Council,—purporting to be signed by “the President
and Counsell,” who have “set their seals” to the same, were the names
of Lenox, Hamilton, Ro. Warwick, Sheffield, Ferd. Gorges, in the
order here given, and one other name indistinct, with their separate
seals.[526]

It is not improbable, therefore, that the business transactions of the
Council, in this inchoate and uncertain period of its existence, were
so few that they were preserved only in loose minutes, or files of
papers, which were never recorded, and are now lost.

After they had freed their patent, they first considered how they
should raise the means to advance the plantation, and two methods were
suggested. One contemplated a voluntary contribution by the patentees;
and the other, the ransoming the freedoms of those who were willing
to partake of present profits arising by the trade or fishing on the
coast. The patentees, in the one case, agreed to pay one hundred pounds
apiece (the records say £110); in the other, inducements were offered
to the western cities and towns to form joint-stock associations
for trade and fishing, from which a revenue in the shape of royalty
might be derived to the Council: and, in order to further this latter
project, letters were to be issued to those cities, by the Privy
Council, prohibiting any not free of that business from visiting the
coast, upon pain of confiscation of ship and goods. This last scheme
was not favorably received. The letters produced an effect contrary to
what was expected, since the restraining of the liberty of free fishing
gave alarm; and, as the Parliament of 1621 was about to meet, every
possible influence was brought to bear against this great monopoly,
with what effect we have already seen.

While the plan of voluntary associations failed, the business of
exacting a tax from individual fishermen was prosecuted with vigor,
and probably; in some instances with success. A proclamation against
disorderly trading, or visiting the coasts of New England without a
license from the Council, was issued. A grand scheme for settling the
coast of New England by a local government was marked out, and the
_Platform of the Government_ was put into print.[527]

The project of laying out a county on the Kennebec River; forty
miles square, for general purposes, and building a great city at the
junction of the Kennebec and Androscoggin Rivers, was part of the
great plan. A ship and pinnace had been built at Whitby, a seaport in
Yorkshire, at large expense, for use in the colony; and others were
contemplated. They were to lie on the coast for the defence of the
merchants and fishermen, and to convoy the fleets as they went to and
from their markets. Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who had been treasurer of
the Council, was now chosen governor, and was destined for New England;
but the Company were seriously embarrassed for funds, and finally were
obliged to mortgage the ship to some of their individual members. The
assessments of £110 each were not all paid in, and patentees who did
not intend to pay were asked to resign, so that others might take their
places. Constant complaints were made of merchants who were violating
the privileges of the Company by sending out vessels for fishing and
trading on the coast; and orders were passed for applying remedies. The
plan for the new patent is constantly referred to in the records, and
the present patentees are to be warned that they will have no place
in it, unless they pay up their past dues. The inducement to be held
out is, that all who actually pay £110 may have a place in the new
grant, provided they “be persons of honor or gentlemen of blood, except
only six merchants to be admitted by us for the service, and especial
employments of the said Council in the course of trade and commerce,”
etc. But their schemes were not realized.

In the Council’s prospectus already cited, issued in the summer of
1622, they say, “We have settled, at this present, several plantations
along the coast, and have granted patents to many more that are in
preparation to be gone with all conveniency.” The bare fact, however,
is that the Pilgrims at Plymouth were the only actual settlers, and
they had landed within the patent limits by the merest chance. There
may have been some other bodies of men, in small numbers, living on
the coast, such as Gorges used to hire, at large expense, to spend the
winter there. His servant, Richard Vines, a highly respectable man,
was sent out to the coast for trade and discovery, and spent some time
in the country; and he is supposed to have passed one winter during a
great plague among the Indians,—perhaps that of 1616-17,—at the mouth
of the Saco River.[528] Vines and John Oldham afterward had a patent of
Biddeford, on that river. Several scattering plantations were begun in
the following year.

[Illustration: FROM DUDLEY’S ARCANO DEL MARE.]

The complaints to the Council of abuses committed by fishermen and
other interlopers, who without license visited the coast, and by their
conduct caused the overthrow of the trade and the dishonor of the
government, led to the selection of Robert Gorges, the younger son of
Sir Ferdinando Gorges, and who was recently returned from the Venetian
wars, to be sent to New England for the correction of these abuses. He
was commissioned as lieutenant-general, and there were appointed for
his council and assistants Captain Francis West as admiral, Christopher
Levett, and the governor of Plymouth for the time being. Robert Gorges
had but recently become a shareholder in the grand patent, and he
had also a personal grant of a tract of land on the northeast side of
Massachusetts Bay, ten miles along the coast, and extending thirty
miles into the interior. This was made to him partly in consideration
of his father’s services to the Company.

West was commissioned in November, 1622; and his arrival at Plymouth,
in New England, is noticed by Bradford “as about the latter end of
June.” He had probably been for some time on the Eastern coast as he
related his experiences to Bradford, who says he “had a commission to
be admiral of New England, to restrain interlopers and such fishing
ships as came to fish and trade without a license from the Council
of New England, for which they should pay a round sum of money.
But he could do no good of them, for they were too strong for him,
and he found the fishermen to be stubborn fellows.... So they went
from hence to Virginia.” West returned from Virginia in August, and
probably joined Captain Gorges, who made his appearance in the Bay
of Massachusetts in August or September of this year, having “sundry
passengers and families, intending there to begin a plantation,
and pitched upon the place Mr. Weston’s people had forsaken,” at
Wessagusset. By his commission he and his council had full power “to
do and execute what to them should seem good, in all cases, capital,
criminal, and civil.”

This sending out of young Gorges with authority was probably a
temporary expedient for the present emergency, preparatory to the great
scheme of government set forth, a few months before he sailed, in the
Council’s _Briefe Relation_. Captain Gorges had a private enterprise to
look after while charged with these public duties. The patent which he
brought over, issued to himself personally, provided for a government
to be administered “acording to the great charter of England, and such
Lawes as shall be hereafter established by public authority of the
State assembled in Parliament in New England,” all decisions being
subject to appeal to the Council for New England, “and to the court of
Parliament hereafter to be in New England aforesaid.”

Gorges remained here but a short time,—probably not quite a
year,—having during his stay a sharp conflict with the notorious
Thomas Weston, whom Governor Bradford, in pity to the man, attempted
to shield from punishment. In speaking of Gorges’ return to England,
Bradford says that he “scarcely saluted the country in his government,
not finding the state of things here to answer his quality and
condition.” His people dispersed: some went to England, and some to
Virginia. Sir Ferdinando Gorges himself assigns another reason for
his son’s speedy abandoning the country. He says that Robert was sent
out by Lord Gorges and himself,—meaning, I suppose, that he came at
their personal charge,—and that he was disappointed in not receiving
supplies from “divers his familiar friends who had promised as much;
but they, hearing how I sped in the House of Parliament, withdrew
themselves, and myself and friends were wholly disabled to do anything
to purpose.” The report of these proceedings coming to his son’s ears,
he was advised to return home till better occasion should serve.

The records of the Council show that for the space of one year their
business was pursued with considerable vigor by the few members who
were interested.[529] Sir Ferdinando Gorges, of course, was the
mainstay of the enterprise. The principal business was to prepare to
put their plans into operation. The money did not come in, and a large
number of the patentees fell off. Much time was spent in inducing new
members to engage, and pay in their money; and the efforts to bring the
merchant fishermen to acknowledge the claims of the Council, and to
take out licenses for traffic and fishing, were untiring.

Finally, in the summer of 1623, the Council resolved to divide the
whole territory of New England among the patentees, “in the plot
remaining with Dr. Goche,” the treasurer. The reasons given for this
step are, “For that some of the adventurers excuse their non-payment
in of their adventures because they know not their shares for which
they are to pay, which much prejudiceth the proceedings, it is thought
fit that the land of New England be divided in this manner; viz., by
20 lots, and each lot to contain 2 shares. And for that there are not
full 40 and above 20 adventurers, that only 20 shall draw those lots.”
Provision was accordingly made that each person drawing two shares
should part with one share to some member who might not have drawn, or
some one else who shall thereafter become an adventurer, to the end
that the full “number of forty may be complete.” The meeting for the
drawing was held on Sunday, June 29, 1623, at Greenwich, at which the
King was present.[530]

The “plot” of New England, on which this division is shown, with the
names set down according as the lots were drawn, was published the
next year in Sir William Alexander’s _Encouragement to Colonies_; and
on page 31 of his book the writer speaks of hearing that “out of a
generous desire by his example to encourage others for the advancement
of so brave an enterprise he [Sir Ferdinando Gorges] is resolved
shortly to go himself in person, and to carry with him a great number
well fitted for such a purpose; and many noblemen in England (whose
names and proportions as they were marshalled by lot may appear upon
the map), having interested themselves in that bounds, are to send
several colonies, who may quickly make this to exceed all other
plantations.”

Alexander must have been well informed of the intentions of the
Company, certainly familiar with those of Gorges himself; and it must
have been with their knowledge and approbation that the act above
recorded was thus published.

[Illustration: ALEXANDER’S MAP, 1624.

[This is a fac-simile of a part of the map, as reproduced in Purchas’s
_Pilgrims_.—ED.]]

The meeting at which the division was made is the last of which we
have any record for a number of years, and the history of the Company
during these years must be gathered from other sources. The grand
colonial scheme intended to be put in operation never went into effect;
and at a late period the Council say, concerning this division, that
hitherto they have never been confirmed in the lands so allotted.

A new Parliament was summoned to meet February 12, 1623/24, and on
the 24th we find this minute: “Mr. Neale delivereth in the bill for
free liberty of fishing upon the coasts of America.” “Five ships of
Plymouth under arrest, and two of Dartmouth, because they went to
fish in New England. This done by warrant from the Admiralty. To have
these suits staid till this bill have had its passage. This done by
Sir Ferdinando Gorges his Patent. Ordered, that this patent be brought
into the Committee of Grievances upon Friday next.” March 15, 1623/24,
an Act for freer liberty of fishing, as previously introduced, was
committed to a large committee, of which Sir Edward Coke was chairman.
On the 17th, Sir Edward reported from this committee that they had
condemned one grievance, namely, “Sir Ferdinand Gorges his patent for
a plantation in New England. Their council heard, the exceptions being
first delivered them. Resolved by consent, that, notwithstanding the
clause in the patent dated 3d November, 18th Jac., that no subject
of England shall visit the coast upon pain of forfeiture of ship and
goods, the patentees have yielded that the Englishmen shall visit, and
that they will not interrupt any fisherman to fish there.” Finally it
was enacted by the House that the clause of forfeiture, being only by
patent and not by act of Parliament, was void.

Gorges himself gives a graphic picture of the scene when he, with
his counsel, was before the Committee of the House, and he spoke so
unavailingly in defence of his patent. This patent was the first
presented from the Committee of Grievances. “This their public
declaration of the Houses ... shook off all my adventurers for
plantation, and made many of the patentees to quit their interest;”
so that in all likelihood he would have fallen under the weight of
so heavy a burden, had he not been supported by the King, who would
not be drawn to overthrow the corporation he so much approved of, and
Gorges was advised to persevere. Still he thought it better to forbear
for the present, though the bill did not become a law of the realm.
Soon afterward the French ambassador made a challenge of all those
territories as belonging of right to the King of France, and Gorges was
called to make answer to him; and his reply was so full that “no more
was heard of that their claim.”

Being unable to enforce the claim whence was to come the principal
source of its income, and the larger part of the patentees having
abandoned the enterprise, the Great Council for New England, whose
patent had been denounced by the House of Commons as a monopoly and
opposed to the public policy and the general good, became a dead body.
In the following year, 1625, we hear of Gorges as commander of one of
the vessels in the squadron ordered by Buckingham to Dieppe for the
service of the King of France. Finding on his arrival that the vessels
were destined to serve against Rochelle, which was then sustaining a
siege, Gorges broke through the squadron, and returned to England with
his ship.

In the summer of 1625 the Plymouth people were in great trouble by
reason of their unhappy relations to the Adventurers in London, and
Captain Standish was sent over to seek some accommodation with them. At
the same time he bore a letter from Governor Bradford to the Council of
New England, urging their intervention in behalf of the colony “under
your government.” But Bradford says that, by reason of the plague which
that year raged in London, Standish could do nothing with the Council
for New England, for there were no courts kept or scarce any commerce
held.

Two years later, in the summer of 1627, Governor Bradford again wrote
to the Council for New England, under whose government he acknowledged
themselves to be, and also to Sir Ferdinando Gorges himself, advising
them of the encroachments of the Dutch, and also making complaints of
the disorderly fishermen and interlopers, who, with no intent to plant,
and with no license, foraged the country and were off again, to the
great annoyance of the Plymouth settlers.

After a patent to Christopher Levett, of May 5, 1623, the Council
appear to have made no grants of land till, in 1628, two patents
were issued,—one to the Plymouth people of land on the Kennebec
River, and one to Rosewell, Young, Endicott, and others, patentees of
Massachusetts. These were followed by a grant to John Mason, of Nov. 7,
1629, the Laconia grant of Nov. 17, 1629, that to Plymouth Colony of
Jan. 13, 1629/30, and sundry grants of territory in the present States
of Maine and New Hampshire.

The records of the Council, of which there is a hiatus of over eight
years in the parts now extant (and the latter portion is a transcript
with probably many omissions), begin on the 4th of November, 1631,
with the Earl of Warwick as president, and contain entries of sundry
patents granted, and of the final transactions of the Company during
its existence. Precisely when the Earl of Warwick was chosen president
we do not know. His name appears in the Plymouth patent of Jan. 13,
1629/30, as holding that office, and it is quite likely that he was
president when the Massachusetts patent was issued, he being chiefly
instrumental in passing that grant. The Council seem now to have
revived their hopes as they did their activity. As late as Nov. 6,
1634, divers matters of moment were propounded: “First, that the number
of the Council be with all convenient speed filled. [It appears by a
previous meeting that there were now but twenty-one members in all,
whereas the patent called for no less than forty.] Second, that a new
patent from his Majesty be obtained.” Also, that no ships, passengers,
nor goods be permitted to go to New England without license from the
President and Council; and that fishermen should not be allowed to
trade with savages, nor with the servants of planters, nor to cut
timber for stages, without license. This, surely, is a revival of the
old odious policy. We do not know if any of these orders were adopted.

There seems at this time to have arisen a serious misunderstanding or
quarrel between the Council and their President, the Earl of Warwick.
It first appears at a meeting held June 29, 1632. The President was
not present at this meeting, though it was held, as the meetings had
been held for some years past, at “Warwick House.” An order was adopted
“that the Earl of Warwick should be entreated to direct a course for
finding out what patents have been granted for New England.” At the
same meeting the clerk was sent to the Earl for the Council’s great
seal, which was in his lordship’s keeping; and word came back that
he would send it when his man came in. It was also ordered that the
future meetings of the Council be held at the house of Captain Mason,
in Fenchurch Street. But the seal was not sent, and two more formal
requests were made for it during the next six months. Captain John
Mason was chosen vice-president Nov. 26, 1632. The records for 1633
and 1634 are wanting. Early in 1635 the Council resolved to resign
their patent into the hands of the King; preparatory to which they
made a new partition of the territory of New England, dividing it
among themselves, or, according to the records, among eight of their
number. Of what precise number the Council consisted at this time we
have no means of knowing. The division was made at a meeting held
Feb. 3, 1634/35, and to the description of each particular grant the
members on the 14th of April affixed their signatures, each person
withholding his signature to his own share. In making this division it
was ordered that every one who had lawful grants of land, or lawfully
settled plantations, should enjoy the same, laying down his _jura
regalia_ to the proprietor of this division, and paying him some small
acknowledgment. A memorandum is also made that “the 22d day of April
several deeds of feoffment were made unto the several proprietors.”

The act of surrender passed June 7, 1635. Lord Gorges had been chosen
president April 18. The Company seem to have been kept alive till some
years later, as there is an entry as late as Nov. 1, 1638, at which
it was agreed to augment the grants of the Earl of Sterling and Lord
Gorges and Sir F. Gorges, the two latter to have “sixty miles more
added to their proportions further up into the main land.” Of course,
in making this division the whole patent of Nov. 3, 1620, was not
divided, for that ran from sea to sea. It was a division on the New
England coast, running back generally sixty miles inland. It was part
of the plan to procure from the King, under the great seal of England,
a confirmation of these several grants. Lord Sterling’s grant included
also Long Island, near Hudson’s River.

The intention in this division was to ride over the Massachusetts
patent of 1628, which had been confirmed the following year by a
charter of incorporation from the King, and legal proceedings were soon
afterward instituted by a writ of _quo warranto_ for vacating their
franchises. The notorious Thomas Morton was retained as a solicitor
to prosecute this suit. The grants issued in this division to Sir
Ferdinando Gorges and to John Mason are the only ones with which
subsequent history largely deals.[531]

The King, in accepting the resignation of the Grand Patent, resolved
to take the management of the affairs of New England into his own
hands, and to appoint as his general governor Sir Ferdinando Gorges,
who himself, or by deputy, was to reside in the country. But “the best
laid schemes o’ mice and men gang aft a-gley.” The attempt to vacate
the charter of Massachusetts Bay, a fundamental thing to be done, was
not accomplished. The patentees to whom several of the divisions of the
territory of New England were assigned appear to have wholly neglected
their interest, and, except in the case of Sir Ferdinando Gorges,
before referred to, royal charters were granted to none.

Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Connecticut were settled under
grants, or alleged grants, from the Council for New England. The grant
of the territory of Massachusetts Bay of March 19, 1627/28, was in the
following year confirmed by the Crown, with powers of government. The
grant to Sir Ferdinando Gorges in the general division of February,
1634/35, with an additional sixty miles into the interior subsequently
added, was confirmed by the Crown April 3, 1639, with a charter
constituting him Lord Proprietor of the Province of Maine, and giving
him extraordinary powers of government. The territory issued to John
Mason at the general division, which was to be called New Hampshire,
the parchment bearing date April 22, 1635, was never confirmed by the
King, nor were any powers of government granted. The first settlements
in Connecticut,—namely, those of the three towns on the river of
that name, in 1635 and 1636,—were made under the protection of
Massachusetts, as though the territory had been part of that colony.
But the inhabitants subsequently acquired a _quasi_ claim to this
territory, under what is known as the “old patent of Connecticut,”
impliedly proceeding from the Council for New England, through the
Earl of Warwick, to Lord Say and Sele and his associates. The settlers
of Quinnipiack, afterward called New Haven, in 1638 and 1639, had no
patent for lands, but made a number of purchases from the Indians.
Plymouth Colony, of which an account is given here by another hand,
received a roving patent from the Council, dated June 1, 1621, with no
boundaries; and another patent, dated Jan. 13, 1629/30, defining their
limits, but with no powers of government. The territory of Rhode Island
was not a grant from the Council to the settlers.


MASSACHUSETTS.—There were scattered settlements in Massachusetts Bay
prior to the emigration under the patent of 1627/28. Thomas Weston
began a settlement at what is now Weymouth Fore-River, in the summer
of 1622, which lasted scarcely one year. Robert Gorges, as we have
seen, took possession of the same place, in September, 1623, for his
experimental government, but the colony broke up the next spring,
leaving, it is thought, a few remnants behind, which proved a seed for
a continuous settlement. Persons are found temporarily at Nantasket
in 1625, and perhaps earlier; at Mount Wollaston the same year, and
at Thompson’s Island in 1626. The solitary William Blaxton, clerk, is
traced to Shawmut, (Boston) in 1625 or 1626, and the equally solitary
Samuel Maverick, at Noddles’ Island, about the same time; while
Walford, the blacksmith, is found at Charlestown in 1629. The last
three named are reasonably conjectured to have formed part of Robert
Gorges’ company at Weymouth, in 1623/24.

[Illustration]

The Dorchester Fishing Company, in England, of which the Rev. John
White, a zealous Puritan minister of that town, was a member, resolved
to make the experiment of planting a small colony somewhere upon the
coast, so that the fishing vessels might leave behind in the country
all the spare men not required to navigate their vessels home, who
might in the mean time employ themselves in planting, building, etc.,
and be ready to join the ships again on their return to the coast at
the next fishing season. Cape Ann was selected as the site of this
experiment, and in the autumn of 1623 fourteen men were left there to
pass the winter. In the latter part of the year 1625 Roger Conant,
who had been living at Plymouth and at Nantasket, was invited to join
this community as its superintendent, and he remained there one year.
The scheme proving a financial failure, the settlement broke up in the
autumn of 1626, most of the men returning home; but Conant and a few
others removed to Naumkeag (Salem), where they were found by Endicott,
who, under the authority of the Massachusetts patentees, arrived there
Sept. 6, 1628. These old settlers joined the new community.

Endicott was sent out as agent or superintendent of a large land
company, of which he was one of the proprietors, colonization being,
of course, a prominent feature in their plans. In the following year,
March 4, 1628-29, the patentees and their associates received a charter
of incorporation, with powers of government, and with authority to
establish a subordinate government on the soil, and appoint officers
of the same. This local government, entitled “London’s Plantation
in Massachusetts Bay in New England,” was accordingly established,
and Endicott was appointed the first resident governor. The charter
evidently contemplated that the government of the Company should
be administered in England. In a few months, however, the Company
resolved to transfer the charter and government from London to
Massachusetts Bay; and Matthew Cradock, who had been the first charter
governor, resigned his place, and John Winthrop, who had resolved to
emigrate to the colony, was chosen governor of the Company in his
stead. On the transfer of the Company to Massachusetts by the arrival
of Winthrop, the subordinate government, of which Endicott was the
head, was silently abolished, and its duties were assumed by its
principal, the corporation itself, which took immediate direction of
affairs. As the successor of Cradock, Winthrop was the second governor
of the Massachusetts Company, yet he was the first who exercised his
functions in New England.

[Illustration]

The Massachusetts charter was not adapted for the constitution of
a commonwealth; therefore, as the colony grew in numbers it became
necessary for it to assume powers not granted in that instrument.
Between the years 1630 and 1640 about twenty thousand persons arrived
in the colony, after which, for many years, it is supposed that more
went back to England than came thence hither. Previous to the year last
named the colony had furnished emigrants to settle the colonies of
Connecticut, New Haven, and Rhode Island.

The charter gave power to the freemen to elect annually a governor,
deputy-governor, and eighteen assistants, who should make laws for
their own benefit and for the government of the colony; and provision
was made for general courts and courts of assistants, which exercised
judicial as well as legislative powers. But at the first meeting of
the general court in Boston, in October, 1630, it was ordered that the
governor and deputy-governor should be chosen by the assistants out of
their own number. This rule was of short duration, as in May, 1632, the
freemen resumed the right of election, and the basis of a second house
of legislature was laid.

The colonists, though Puritans, were Church of England men, and were
fearful of rigid separation; but Winthrop and his party,—among whom
was John Wilson, a graduate of King’s College, Cambridge, and destined
to become their first minister,—found on their arrival a church
already established at Salem on the basis of separation. Thenceforward,
following that example, the Massachusetts colony became a colony of
congregational churches. It has been a favorite saying with eulogists
of Massachusetts, that the pious founders of the colony came over
to this wilderness to establish here the principle of civil and
religious liberty, and to transmit the same inviolate to their remotest
posterity. Probably nothing was further from their purpose, which was
simply to find a place where they themselves, and all who agreed with
them, could enjoy such liberty. This was a desirable object to attain,
and they made many sacrifices for it, and felt that they had a right to
enjoy it.

The banishment of Roger Williams, and of Mrs. Hutchinson and her
sympathizers, was no doubt largely due to the feeling that the peace
of the community was endangered by their presence. In the unhappy
episode of the Quakers, at a later period, the colonial authorities
were wrought into a frenzy by these “persistent intruders.” It seemed
to be a struggle on both sides for victory; but though four Quakers
were hanged on Boston Common, the Quakers finally conquered. In the
second year of the settlement, in order to keep the government in
their own hands, or, in the language of the Act, “to the end the body
of the commons may be preserved of honest and good men,” the Court
ordered that thenceforward no one should be elected a freeman unless
he was a member of one of the churches of the colony. Probably there
were as good men outside the churches as there were inside, and by and
by a clamor was raised by those who felt aggrieved at being denied
the rights of freemen; but the rule was not modified till after the
Restoration.

[Illustration:

[This portrait of the first minister of Boston hangs in the gallery
of the Massachusetts Historical Society. Its authenticity has been in
turn questioned and maintained. Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ September,
1867, and December, 1880.—ED.]]

A few unsavory persons whom Winthrop and his company found here
and speedily sent away, on their arrival home failed not to make
representations injurious to the Puritan settlement, and they were
seconded by the influence of Sir Ferdinando Gorges and John Mason.
Attempts were made in 1632 to vacate the colony’s charter; but these
attempts proved unsuccessful. A more serious effort was made a few
years later, when the Council for New England resigned its franchises
into the hands of the King; but owing to the trouble which environed
the government in England, and to other causes not fully explained, the
colony then escaped, as it also escaped at the same time the impending
infliction of a general governor for New England.

In 1640 some of the colony’s friends in England wrote to the
authorities here advising them to send some one to England to solicit
favors of the Parliament. “But, consulting about it,” says Winthrop,
“we declined the motion, for this consideration,—that if we should put
ourselves under the protection of Parliament, we must then be subject
to all such laws as they should make, or at least such as they might
impose upon us; in which course, though they should intend our good,
yet it might prove very prejudicial to us.” From 1640 to 1660 the
colony was substantially an independent commonwealth, and during this
period they completed a system of laws and government which, taken as
a whole, was well adapted to their wants. Their “Body of Liberties”
was established in 1641, and three editions of Laws were published by
authority, and put in print in 1649, in 1660, and in 1672. The first
law establishing public schools was passed in October, 1647. Harvard
College had already, in 1637, been established at Cambridge.

[Illustration: QUAKER AUTOGRAPHS.

[This group gives the names of some of the victims of the judicial
extremities practised in Boston. See Bowden’s _Friends in America_, and
the _Memorial History of Boston_. Cf. the note on the treatment of the
early Quakers in New England, in chapter xii.—ED.]]

The ecclesiastical polity of the churches, embodied in the “Cambridge
Platform,” was drawn up in 1648, and printed in the following year, and
was finally approved by the General Court in 1651.

The community was obliged to feel its way, and adapt its legislation
rather to its exigencies than to its charter. The aristocratical
element in the society early cropped out in the institution of a
Council for life, which may have had its origin in suggestions from
England; but it met with little favor.

The confederation of the United Colonies, first proposed by
Connecticut, was an act of great wisdom, foreshadowing the more
celebrated political unions of the English race on this continent, for
they all have recognized the common maxim, that “Union is strength.”
The colonists were surrounded by “people of several nations and
strange language,” and the existence of the Indian tribes within the
boundaries of the New England settlements was the source of ceaseless
anxiety and alarm. The Pequot War had but recently ended, and it had
left its warning. It would have been an act of grace to admit the
Maine and Narragansett settlements to this union, but it was probably
impracticable.

[Illustration: DR. JOHN CLARK.

[This portrait of a leading physician of the colony hangs in the
gallery of the Massachusetts Historical Society, and is inscribed
“Ætatis suæ 66 ann. suo,” and purports to be a Dr. John Clark, and is
probably the physician of that name of Newbury and Boston, who died in
1664. His son John, likewise a physician, was also a prominent public
man in Boston, and died in 1690. That it is the former is believed by
Dr. Thacher in his _American Medical Biography_, and by Coffin in his
_History of Newbury_, both of whom give lithographs of the picture.
Dr. Appleton, who printed an account of the Society’s portrait in
its _Proceedings_, September, 1867, also took this view; while the
Rev. Dr. Harris, in the Society’s _Collections_, third series, vii.
287, finds the year 1675 in the inscription, which is not there, and
identifies the subject of the picture with another Dr. John Clark, who
was prominent in Rhode Island history. There was still a third Dr. John
Clark, son of John, and of Boston, who died in 1728. It is not probably
determinable beyond doubt which of the earlier two this is; and Savage,
in his _Genealogical Dictionary_, gives twenty-five John Clarks as
belonging to New England before the end of the first century; but of
these only four are physicians, as above named. Cf. _Massachusetts
Historical Society’s Proceedings_, July, 1844, p. 287.—ED.]]

The conversion of the Indian tribes to Christianity was a subject which
the colony had much at heart, and a number of its ministers had fitted
themselves for the work: the special labors of the Apostle Eliot need
only be mentioned. Through the instrumentality of Edward Winslow, a
society for propagating the gospel among the Indians was incorporated
in England in 1649, and the Commissioners of the United Colonies were
made the agents of its corporation as long as the union of the colonies
lasted.

The Massachusetts colonists were at first seriously tasked for the
means of subsistence; but these anxieties soon passed away. Industry
took the most natural forms. Agriculture gave back good returns. To
the invaluable Indian maize were added all kinds of English grain,
as well as vegetables and fruits. Some were indigenous to the soil.
English seeds of hay and of grain returned bountiful crops. All animals
with which New England farms are now stocked then well repaid in
increase the care bestowed upon them. The manufacture of clothing was
of slower growth. Thread and yarn were spun and knit by the women at
home; but in a few years weaving and fulling mills were set up, and
became remunerative. The manufacture of salt, saltpetre, gunpowder, and
glassware gave employment to many, while the brickmaker, the mason, the
carpenter, and indeed all kindred trades found occupation. The forests
were a source of income. Boards, clapboards, shingles, staves, and,
at a later period, masts had a ready sale. Furs and peltry, received
in barter from the Indians, became features of an export trade. The
fisheries should be specially enumerated as a source of wealth, and
this industry led to the building of ships, which were the medium of
commerce with the neighboring colonies, the West Indies, and even with
Spain.[532]

After the coin brought over by the settlers had gone back to England to
pay for supplies, the colony was greatly embarrassed for a circulating
medium, and Indian corn and beaver-skins were early used as currency,
while wampum was employed in trade with the Indians. The colony,
however, in 1652 established a mint, where was coined, from the Spanish
silver which had been introduced from the West Indies, and from
whatever bullion and plate might be sent in from any quarter, the New
England money so well known in our histories of American coinage.[533]
The relation of the colony to the surrounding New England plantations
is noticed further on in the brief accounts given of those settlements.

Events in England moved rapidly onward. The execution of King Charles
occurred about two months before the death of Winthrop, which happened
on the 26th of March, 1648/49, and it is certain that the latter never
heard of the tragic end of his old master. The colonists prudently
acknowledged their subjection to the Parliament, and afterward to
Cromwell, so far as was necessary to keep upon terms with both.
Hutchinson says that he had nowhere met with any marks of disrespect
to the memory of the late king, and that there was no room to suppose
they bore any disaffection to his son; and if they feared his
restoration, it was because they expected a change in religion, and
that a persecution of all Nonconformists would follow. Charles II. was
tardily proclaimed in the colony, owing, perhaps, to a lack of definite
information as to the state of politics in England, and to rumors that
the people there were in an unsettled condition.

[Illustration

[See note on this portrait in the _Memorial History of Boston_, i.
309.—ED.]]

A loyal address was finally agreed upon and sent; but he was not
proclaimed till August of the following year, 1661. The Restoration
brought trouble to the colony. Among those who laid their grievances
before the King in Council were Mason and Gorges, each a grandson
and heir of a more distinguished proprietor of lands in New England.
They alleged that the colony had, in violation of the rights of the
petitioners, extended its jurisdiction over the provinces of New
Hampshire and Maine. The Quakers and some of the Eastern people also
had their complaints to make against the colony.

To the humble address made to the King a benignant answer was received;
but an order soon afterward came that persons be sent over authorized
to make answer for the colony to all complaints alleged against it.
These agents on their return brought a letter from the King to the
colony, in which he promised to preserve its patent and privileges;
but he also required of the colony that its laws should be reviewed,
and such as were against the King’s authority repealed; that the oath
of allegiance and the forms of justice be administered in the King’s
name; that no one who desired to use the book of Common Prayer should
be prejudiced thereby as to the baptism of his children or admission to
the sacrament or to civil privilege.

These requirements were grievous to the people of Massachusetts; but
worse was to come. In the spring of 1664 intelligence was brought
that several men-of-war were coming from England with some gentlemen
of distinction on board, and preparations were made to receive them.
At the next meeting of the General Court a day of fasting and prayer
was appointed, and their patent and its duplicate were brought into
Court and committed to the charge of four trusty men for safe-keeping.
The ships arrived in July, with four commissioners having authority
for reducing the Dutch at Manhados, and for visiting the several New
England colonies, and hearing and determining all matters of complaint,
and settling the peace and security of the country. Proceeding on their
errand to the Manhados, the Dutch surrendered on articles.[534] In the
mean time an address was agreed upon by the Court to be sent to the
King, in which was recounted the sacrifices and early struggles of the
colonists, while they prayed for the preservation of their liberties.
Colonel Nichols remaining in New York, the other commissioners returned
to New England, and, having despatched their business elswhere, came
to Boston in May, 1665, after they had been joined by Colonel Nichols.
Governor Endicott had died the preceding March, and Mr. Bellingham,
the deputy-governor, stood in his place. The commissioners laid their
claim before the Court, and demanded an answer. There was skirmishing
on both sides. It is a long story, filling many pages of the colony
records. The envoys asked to have their commission acknowledged by
the government; but this would have overridden the charter of the
colony, and placed the inhabitants at the mercy of their enemies. In
short, the authorities refused to yield, and the commissioners, after
being defeated in other attempts to effect their purpose, were called
home. Several letters and addresses followed. Thus ended for a time
the contest with the Crown. For nearly ten years there was an almost
entire suspension of political relations between New England and the
mother country. But the projects of the Home Government were not given
over. Gorges and Mason persisted in their claims. In the mean time
New England was ravaged by an Indian war, known as Philip’s War. The
distress was great, and the loss of life fearful. During its progress
Edward Randolph, the evil genius of New England, appeared on the scene,
prepared for mischief.

[Illustration: MEETING-HOUSE AT HINGHAM.

[This is considered the oldest meeting-house in present use in New
England. It was erected in 1681. Cf. _The Commemorative Services of
the First Parish in Hingham on the Two Hundredth Anniversary of the
Building of its Meeting-House, Aug. 8, 1881_ (Hingham, 1882), with
another view of the building,—a photograph; also E. A. Horton’s
_Discourse_, Jan. 8, 1882. A meeting-house of similar type, erected
in Lynn in 1682, is represented in _Lynn, Her First Two Hundred and
Fifty Years_, p. 117.

[Illustration]

The annexed autographs, taken from a document in the _Trumbull
Manuscripts_, in the Massachusetts Historical Society’s Cabinet, and
dated 1690, represent some of the leading ministers of the colony
at the close of the colonial period. Morton was of Charlestown;
Allen of Boston; Wigglesworth, the author of the _Day of Doom_, a
sulphurous poem greatly famous in its day, was of Malden; Moodey was of
Portsmouth; Willard and Mather of Boston; and Walter of Roxbury.—ED.]]

He arrived in July, 1676, with a letter from the King and with
complaints from Mason and Gorges, and armed with a royal order for
agents to be sent to England to make answer. This was but the
beginning of the end. The legal authorities in England, before whom
the case was brought, decided that neither Maine nor New Hampshire was
within the chartered limits of Massachusetts, and that the title of the
former was in the grandson of the original proprietor. Whereupon the
agent of Massachusetts bought the patent of Maine from its proprietor
for £1,250, and stood in his shoes as lord paramount.

[Illustration]

This greatly displeased the King, and the hostility to the colony
continued. Additional charges, such as illegal coining of money,
violations of the laws of trade and navigation, and legislative
provisions repugnant to the laws of England and contrary to the power
of the charter, were now alleged against the colony. The agents of
the colony and the emissaries of the Crown crossed and recrossed the
ocean with apologies on the one hand and requisitions on the other;
but nothing would satisfy the Crown but the subjugation of the colony.
A _quo warranto_ against the Governor and Company was issued in 1683;
and finally, by a new suit of _scire facias_ brought in the Court of
Chancery, judgment against the Company was entered up Oct. 23, 1684.
Intelligence of this was not officially received till the following
summer. Meantime the new king, James II., was proclaimed, April 20,
1685. The government of the colony was expiring. The “Rose” frigate
arrived in Boston May 14, 1686, bringing a commission for Joseph Dudley
as President of the Council for Massachusetts Bay, New Hampshire,
and Maine, and the Narraganset country, or King’s Province. There
was no House of Deputies to oppose him. Dudley was succeeded by Sir
Edmund Andros on the 19th of December, who had arrived in the frigate
“Kingfisher,” with a commission for the government of New England. He
was detested by the colony, and the people only needed a rumor of the
revolution in England, which reached Boston in the spring of 1689, to
provoke a rising, and he was thrown into prison.[535] A provisional
government, with the old charter-officers, was instituted, and
continued till the new charter of 1691 was inaugurated.


MAINE.—There were many settlements on the coast of Maine prior to
the grant to Gorges from the Council in 1635, and consequently before
his subsequent charter from the King. Indeed, very little was done
by Gorges as Lord Proprietor of Maine. The patents from the Council
to the year 1633 had embraced the whole territory from Piscataqua to
Penobscot, thus including the territory on both sides the Kennebec,
which was claimed by the Pilgrims of Plymouth under their patent of
Jan. 13, 1629/30. In various places settlements had already been begun.
In the royal charter to Gorges, whose grant extended from Piscataqua to
Sagadahoc, the rights of previous grantees were reserved to them, they
relinquishing or laying down their _jura regalia_.

[Illustration]

The earliest permanent settlement in this State, on the mainland,
would seem to have been made at Pemaquid. One John Brown, of New
Harbor, bought land in that quarter of the Indians as early as July
15, 1625, the acknowledgment of the deed being taken by Abraham Shurt,
of Pemaquid, in the same month in the following year, if there is no
error in Shurt’s deposition. Shurt says that he came over as the agent
of the subsequent proprietors, Aldsworth and Elbridge, who had a grant
of Pemaquid from the Council, issued Feb. 29, 1631/32, and that he
bought for them the Island of Monhegan, on which a fishing settlement,
temporarily broken up in 1626, was made three years before.

The settlement at the mouth of the Saco River must have begun soon
after Richard Vines took possession of his grant there in 1630.
During the same year Cleeves and Tucker settled near the mouth of
the Spurwink; but in two years they removed to the neck of land on
which Portland now stands, and laid the foundation of that city. In
applications to the Council for grants of land made respectively to
Walter Bagnall and John Stratton, Dec. 2, 1631, the former represents
himself to have lived in New England “for the space of seven years,”
and the latter “three years last past.” Bagnall’s patent included
Richmond Island, where he had lived some three years at least. He was
killed by the Indians two months before the Council acted upon his
application. Stratton’s grant was located at Cape Porpoise. Bagnall
probably had been one of Thomas Morton’s unruly crew at Mt. Wollaston,
in Boston Harbor.

In 1630 what is known as the “Plough Patent” was issued by the Council.
The original parchment is lost, and it is nowhere recorded. The grant
was bounded on the east by Cape Elizabeth, and on the west by Cape
Porpoise, a distance of some thirty miles on the sea-coast. This
included the patents on the Saco River previously granted, against
which Vines protested. There was early a dispute as to its extent. The
holders of it came over in the ship “Plough,” in 1631. They went to the
eastward; but not liking the place, came to Boston. They subsequently
fell out among themselves, and, as Winthrop says, “vanished away.”
Afterward the patent fell into the hands of others, and played an
important part for a number of years in the history of Maine, of which
notice will be taken further on.

On Dec. 2, 1631, a grant of land of twenty-four thousand acres in
extent was made to a number of persons, including Ferdinando Gorges,
a grandson of Sir Ferdinando, then some three years of age. This
territory was on both sides of the Acomenticus River. Some settlements
were made here about this time, and April 10, 1641, after the
Gorges government was established, the borough of Acomenticus was
incorporated, and in the following March the place was chartered as the
city of “Gorgeana.”

There were other early settlements on the coast of Maine, but we have
no space for their enumeration. The inhabitants, really or nominally,
for the most part sympathized with the Loyalist party as well in
politics as in religion, and it was the policy of the proprietor of
Maine to foster no opposing views. They were subjected to no external
government until the arrival of Captain William Gorges, in 1636, as
deputy-governor, with commissions to Richard Vines and others as
councillors of the province, to which the name of “New Somersetshire”
was given. The first meeting of the commissioners was held at Saco,
March 25, 1636, where the first provincial jurisdiction in this section
of New England was exercised. The records of this province do not
extend beyond 1637, and it is uncertain whether the courts continued
to be held until the new organization of the government of Maine in
1640. In 1636 George Cleeves, a disaffected person who lived at Casco,
went to England, and next year returned with a commission from Sir
Ferdinando Gorges, authorizing several persons in Massachusetts Bay to
govern his province of New Somersetshire, and to oversee his servants,
etc. The authorities of the Bay declined the service, and the matter
“passed in silence.” Winthrop says they did not see what authority
Gorges had to grant such commissions.

The charter of Maine, which covered the same territory as New
Somersetshire, having been granted to Sir Ferdinando Gorges, he issued
a commission for its government. This included a number of his kinsmen,
with Thomas Gorges as deputy-governor. The first General Court under
this government was held at Saco, June 25, 1640, under an earlier
commission and before the arrival of the deputy-governor. This Court
exercised the powers of an executive and legislative, as well as of a
judicial, body, in the name of “Sir Ferdinando Gorges, Knight, Lord
Proprietor of the Province of Maine.” The second term of the Court was
held in September, when the Deputy-Governor was present. He made his
headquarters at Gorgeana. The records of the courts between 1641 and
1644, inclusive, are not preserved. Deputy-Governor Gorges sailed for
England in 1643, leaving Richard Vines at the head of the government.
At a meeting held at Saco in 1645, the Court, not having heard from
the proprietor, appointed Richard Vines deputy-governor for one year,
and if he departed within the year, Henry Josselyn was to take his
place. The civil war was raging in England at this time, and Sir
Ferdinando Gorges was active for the King, and was in Prince Rupert’s
army at the siege of Bristol. When that city was retaken by the
Parliamentary forces, in 1645, he was plundered and imprisoned. Under
these circumstances he had no time to give to his distant province.
In 1645 the Court ordered that Richard Vines shall have power to take
possession of all goods and chattels of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, and to
pay such debts as Gorges may owe.

But Gorges’ authority was not, meanwhile, without its rival. Not long
after the government under the charter of 1639 had been organized,
George Cleeves, of Casco, again went to England, and induced Alexander
Rigby, “a lawyer and Parliament-man,” from Wigan, Lancashire, to
purchase the abandoned Plough patent before mentioned, which he
did, April 7, 1643; and Cleeves received a commission from him,
as deputy, to administer its affairs. By the following January he
had returned, and, landing at Boston, he solicited the aid of the
Massachusetts Government against the authority of Gorges; but that
Government declined to interfere. Cleeves claimed that Casco was within
the bounds of his patent, and he immediately set up his authority
as “Deputy-President of the Province of Lygonia,” extending his
jurisdiction over a large part of the Province of Maine, which was
then under the administration of Richard Vines, as deputy for Gorges.
This produced a collision, and both parties appealed to Massachusetts,
which declined, as before, to act; but finally, in 1646, after Vines
had left the country, the Bay Government consented to serve as umpire;
but no conclusion was reached. Winthrop says that both parties failed
of proof; and as a joint appeal had been made to the Commissioners for
Foreign Plantations in England, they were advised in the mean time to
live peaceably together. Rigby’s position and influence in Parliament
secured a decision in his favor, while Gorges at that time was in no
position to protect his interests. The decision of the Commissioners,
which was given in 1646, terminated Gorges’ jurisdiction over that part
of Maine included in the Province of Lygonia, embracing the settlements
from Casco to Cape Porpoise, and including both. The last General Court
under the authority of Gorges, of which any record exists, was held at
Wells, in July of this year.

At length, in 1649, the inhabitants of the western part of this
province, between Cape Porpoise and Piscataqua River,—including
Wells, Gorgeana, and Piscataqua,—having had intelligence in 1647 of
the death of the proprietor (Gorges died in May of that year, and was
buried on the fourteenth of the month), and finding no one in authority
there, and having in vain written to his heirs to ascertain their
wishes, formed a combination among themselves. Mr. Edward Godfrey was
chosen governor, the style of the “Province of Maine” being still
retained. This state of things continued till 1652/53, when the towns
were annexed to Massachusetts. The inhabitants then living between
Casco and the Kennebec were few in number. Thomas Purchase, one of the
proprietors of the Pejepscot patent, had, in 1639, conveyed a large
tract to Massachusetts with alleged powers of government over it. The
people living within the Kennebec patent were regarded as belonging to
the jurisdiction of New Plymouth.

In the mean time the inhabitants under the Lygonia government quietly
submitted to its authority. Alexander Rigby died in August, 1650, and
the proprietorship of Lygonia fell to his son Edward. In brief, the
government was soon at an end. The inhabitants of Cape Porpoise and
Saco submitted to Massachusetts in 1652, and the remaining settlements
in 1658. Thus was accomplished what the Bay Colony had for some time
been aiming to effect,—the bringing of these eastern settlements under
her jurisdiction. Having decided that the northern boundary of her
patent extended three miles above the northernmost head of the Merrimac
River, the commissioners appointed on a recent survey showed that the
northern line, as run by them, terminated at Clapboard Island (about
three miles eastward of Casco peninsula); and this brought the Maine
settlements within the bounds of the Massachusetts charter. This state
of things continued till after the restoration of Charles II., when
the hopes of those favorable to the Gorges interest began to revive.
Young Ferdinando Gorges, the grandson and heir of the old proprietor,
petitioned the Crown to be restored to his inheritance. His agent,
Mr. Archdale, came into the province, and appointed magistrates to
act under his authority, but the Government of Massachusetts speedily
repressed all such movements. Charles II., however, soon directed his
attention to New England. He appointed four commissioners to proceed
thither, charged with important duties and clothed with large powers.
They, or three of them, visited the province in the summer of 1665, and
at York issued a proclamation to the inhabitants of Maine, requiring
them to submit to the immediate protection and government of the
King; and in his Majesty’s name forbidding the magistrates either
of Massachusetts or of the claimant to exercise jurisdiction there,
until his Majesty’s pleasure should be further known. A provisional
government was therefore established, and the revival of the Church of
England was encouraged.

In the previous year the Duke of York received a charter of the
Province of New York, and, embraced within the same document, was a
grant of the territories between the St. Croix and Pemaquid, which was
interpreted to include Pemaquid and its dependencies; and a government
was subsequently erected there under the name of Cornwall County.
After the Duke became King it was a royal province. This was beyond
the eastern bounds of the Province of Maine. There had scarcely been
even a pretence of a civil government here under the old patents. The
Royal Commissioners speak of the low moral condition of the people of
this region. “For the most part,” they say, “they are fishermen, and
share in their wives as they do in their boats.” The government under
the Duke of York was of an uncertain character, and was subject to
the contingencies of political changes; and in 1674 the Government of
Massachusetts, on the petition of the inhabitants, took them for a time
under its protection. During the Indian wars which scourged the eastern
settlements, in the latter part of that century, the Pemaquid country
was wholly depopulated.

[Illustration]

The Government established by the Royal Commissioners in the Province
of Maine never possessed any permanent principle or power to give
sanction to its authority, and in 1668 it had nearly died out; at this
time the inhabitants there looked to the wise and stable Government of
Massachusetts for relief, and so petitioned to be again taken under its
jurisdiction. Four commissioners, therefore, accompanied by a military
escort were sent from the Bay, and reaching York in July, 1668, assumed
jurisdiction “by virtue of their charter.” There were a few prominent
individuals who did not quietly submit, but they were summarily dealt
with. Renewed exertions were now made by the proprietor and his friends
for a recognition of his title, and at length they so far prevailed as
to obtain letters from the King, dated March 10, 1675/76, requiring
the Massachusetts Colony to send over agents with full instructions to
answer all complaints. The agents appeared within the time specified,
and after a full hearing the authorities decided that neither Maine nor
New Hampshire was within the chartered limits of Massachusetts, and
that the government of Maine belonged to the heir of Sir Ferdinando
Gorges. Soon after this decision an agent of Massachusetts made a
proposition for the purchase of the province, which was accepted; and
in March, 1677/78, Ferdinando Gorges transferred his title for £1,250,
and Massachusetts became lord-paramount of Maine. This proceeding was
a surprise to the inhabitants of the province, and, as might have been
expected, gave offence to the King, who ineffectually demanded that the
bargain should be cancelled. Massachusetts, as the lawful assign of
Ferdinando Gorges, now took possession of the province. A proclamation
to that effect was issued March 17, 1679/80; and a government was set
up at York, of which Thomas Danforth was deputed to be president for
one year. This state of things continued till the accession of James
II., when the events in Maine were shaped by the revolution which took
place in Massachusetts, and Danforth was in the end provisionally
restored, as Bradstreet had been in the Bay.


NEW HAMPSHIRE.—The first settlement in New Hampshire was made by David
Thomson, a Scotchman, in the spring of 1623, at Little Harbor, on the
south side of the mouth of Piscataqua River. He had received a patent
from the Council of New England the year before, and came over in the
ship “Jonathan,” of Plymouth, under an indentured agreement with three
merchants of Plymouth in England. He lived at Little Harbor till 1626,
when he removed to an island in Boston Harbor, which now bears his
name. By 1628 he had died, leaving a wife and child. There is reason
to believe that the settlement at Little Harbor was continued after
Thomson left the place.

Following Thomson,—perhaps about 1627,—came Edward Hilton, a
fishmonger of London, who settled six miles up the river, on a place
afterward called Hilton’s Point, or Dover Neck. Here he was joined by a
few others, including his brother William and his family, who had been
at New Plymouth. In 1630 Hilton and his associates received from the
Council a patent of the place on which he was settled. This was dated
March 12, 1629 (O. S.), and the whole or part of it they soon sold to
some merchants of Bristol in England. Two years later the patent, or a
large interest in it, was purchased by Lord Say, Lord Brook, and other
gentlemen friendly to Massachusetts. This latter agreement was effected
through the agency of Thomas Wiggin, who had gone over to England in
1632, and who in the following year returned, bringing with him a large
accession to the settlement, which included a “worthy Puritan divine,”
who soon left for want of adequate support. Other ministers came, and
some laymen, all of whom had been in bad repute in Massachusetts.
Although the inhabitants went through the form of electing magistrates,
there was no authorized government. The original proprietor of the
patent had left the place, and scenes of confusion, both civil and
ecclesiastical, sometimes highly amusing, characterized the settlement
for a number of years. In 1637 the people combined into a body politic,
which seems not to have received general sanction, and the notorious
George Burdett supplanted Wiggin, the former governor; but the troubles
which subsequently ensued led to a new combination, Oct. 22, 1640,
signed by forty-two persons, or nearly every resident. Massachusetts
had for some years desired to bring the several governments on the
Piscataqua and its branches under her jurisdiction, and had, by an
early revision of the northern boundary of her patent, decided that
it included them. The inhabitants here desired to be under a stable
government, and on June 14, 1641, they submitted to the Massachusetts
authorities, and the Act of Union was passed by that Government, Oct. 9
following.[536]

The next independent settlement was made by the Laconia Company in
1630. This company was formed soon after the Laconia patent of Nov.
17, 1629, was granted to Sir Ferdinando Gorges and John Mason. It was
an unincorporated association of nine persons, most of whose names
appear in a subsequent grant of land, to be presently mentioned. Some
of these associates had been members of the Canada Company, of which
Sir William Alexander was the head, who had undertaken the conquest of
Canada as a private enterprise, under the command of Sir David Kirke.
The fur-trade of that province was the tempting prize. The sudden peace
which followed the conquest, with the stipulation that all articles
captured should be restored, brought the Canada Company to grief. Ten
days after the return of the expedition, Sir Ferdinando Gorges and John
Mason took out the patent above mentioned. The purpose of the Company
was to engage in the fur-trade; to send cargoes of Indian truck-goods
to the Piscataqua and unlade them at their factories near the mouth of
the river, and thence to transport them in boats or canoes up the river
to Lake Champlain, to be bartered there for peltries for the European
market. Their patent was a grant of a vaguely bounded territory on
the lakes of the Iroquois, which they named Laconia. The first vessel
despatched to Piscataqua was the barque “Warwick,” which sailed from
London the last of March, 1630, and which by the first of June had
arrived, with Walter Neal, governor, and Ambrose Gibbons, factor, and
some others. They took possession of the house and land at Odiorne’s
Point, Little Harbor, which Thomson had left in 1626,—perhaps by
an agreement with his associates. In the following year others were
sent. Stations for the Company’s operations were also established at
Strawberry Bank (Portsmouth), and at Newichwaneck (South Berwick), on
the eastern side of the river. Captain Neal was charged with the duty
of penetrating into the interior of the country in search of the lakes
of Laconia. This he finally attempted, but without success. Hubbard
says that “after three years spent in labor and travel for that end,
or other fruitless endeavors, and expense of too much estate, they
returned back to England with a _non est inventa Provincia_.” The
Company also attempted to carry on, in connection with the peltry
business, the manufacture of clapboards and pipe-staves, and the making
of salt from sea-water. A fishing station was also set up at the Isles
of Shoals. Large quantities of truck-goods were sent over, which were
put off to advantage for furs brought to the factories by the Indians.
In order to afford the Company greater facilities, and to secure to
themselves what they had already gained, they had, on Nov. 3, 1631,
procured a grant from the Council of a tract of land on each side of
the Piscataqua River, in which the Isles of Shoals were included.

But success did not attend their operations. The returns were
inadequate to the outlay, and there was bad management and alleged bad
faith on the part of the employés; the larger part of the associates
became discouraged, and at the end of the third year they decided to
proceed no further till Captain Neal should return and report upon the
condition of affairs. Neal left Piscataqua July 15, 1633, and sailed
from Boston in August. His report was probably not encouraging, for
the Company proceeded later to wind up its affairs, and in December
following they divided their lands on the east side of the river. In
May, 1634, a further division was made, by which it appears that Gorges
and Mason, by purchase from their partners, had acquired one half
of the shares; and of this part Mason owned three fourths. Gibbons,
their factor, was now directed to discharge all the servants and pay
them off in beaver. Mason next sent over a new supply of men, and set
up two saw-mills on his own portion of the lands; but after this we
have no account of anything being done by him or by any other of the
adventurers on the west side. Neither have we seen evidence of any
division of lands having been made on the west side. Hubbard says that
in some “after division” Little Harbor fell to Mason, who mentions it
in his will. But Mason in that instrument claims and bequeaths his
whole grant of New Hampshire of April 22, 1635, which included the
part mentioned by Hubbard. Mason died before the close of the year
1635. What course was taken by his late partners or by the heirs of
Mason during the two following years, there are but few contemporary
documents to tell us. In 1638 Mrs. Mason, the executrix of John Mason’s
estate, appointed Francis Norton her general attorney to look after her
interests in those parts. But the expenses were found to be so great
and the income so small, and the servants were so clamorous for their
arrears of pay, that she was obliged to relinquish the care of the
plantation, and tell the servants to shift for themselves. Upon this
they shared the goods and cattle, while some kept possession of the
buildings and improvements, claiming them as their own. Charges were
afterward brought against her agents and servants for embezzling the
estate. Some years later suits were brought in her name and in that
of the other proprietors in the courts of Massachusetts against the
inhabitants of Strawberry Bank and of Newichwaneck, for encroaching
upon the lands in the Laconia patent. As a conclusion of this summary
sketch of the Laconia Company, it may be added that the records of the
old Court of Requests of London show that, on the dissolution of the
Company, suits sprang up among the adventurers themselves, which were
for a long time in litigation.

After Captain Neal went to England the Company appointed Francis
Williams to be governor in his place. As Strawberry Bank (the place was
not called Portsmouth till 1653) had no efficient government during
all this time, the inhabitants now by a written instrument, signed by
forty-one persons, formed a combination among themselves, as Dover had
done, and Francis Williams was continued governor. The people belonged
principally to the Church of England, and during this combination they
set apart fifty acres of land for a glebe, committing it in trust
to two church wardens.[537] Reference has already been made to the
successful attempts of the Massachusetts Government to bring all the
Piscataqua settlements under her jurisdiction. The people of Strawberry
Bank were as successfully wrought upon as those of Dover were, and the
same agreement of June 14, 1641, included the submission of both, and
certain proprietors named, in behalf of themselves and of the other
partners of the two patents, subscribed to the paper.

Of no one of the grants issued to John Mason, or in which he had a
joint interest, covering the territory of New Hampshire (except those
connected with the Laconia Company) did he make any improvement,—and
these grants were that of Aug. 10, 1622, with Gorges, between the
Merrimac and Sagadahoc; that of Nov. 7, 1629, between the Merrimac
and the Piscataqua; and that of April 22, 1635, between Naumkeag and
the Piscataqua. The territory now known as New Hampshire was never
called by that name, except by Mason in his last will, till 1661, when,
through the discussions consequent upon the claims of the heir of
Mason, this designation was introduced for the first time.

The independent settlement at Exeter was made in 1638 by John
Wheelwright and others; and of these pioneers Wheelwright himself with
some companions had been banished from Massachusetts in the previous
year. They bought their lands in April of that year from the Indians.
On the 5th of June, 1639, they formed a combination as a church and
as subjects of King Charles, promising to submit to all laws to be
made. It was signed by thirty-one persons, of whom fourteen made
their marks. In 1643 they came under Massachusetts. The order of the
General Court of that colony recites, under date of September 7, that,
finding themselves within the bounds of Massachusetts, the inhabitants
petitioned to be taken under her jurisdiction. Wheelwright then removed
to Wells, in the Province of Maine.

Hampton, where the “bound-house” was built by Massachusetts in 1636,
was considered from the first as belonging to the jurisdiction
of Massachusetts. A union having been thus formed between the
settlements on the Piscataqua River and its branches and the colony of
Massachusetts, their history for the next forty years is substantially
the same. These plantations were governed by the general laws of
Massachusetts, and the terms of union were strictly observed.[538]

But Massachusetts was destined to be arraigned by the heir of the old
patentee of New Hampshire, Robert Tufton Mason, who at the Restoration
pressed his claim on the attention of the Crown. Finally, after a long
struggle, the judges in 1677 advised that Mason had no right to the
government of New Hampshire, but that the four towns of Portsmouth,
Dover, Exeter, and Hampton were beyond the bounds of Massachusetts,
whose northern boundary was thereby driven back to its old limits,
while its charter of 1629 was held to be valid. In 1679 a revised
opinion was given by the attorney, Jones, to the effect that Mason’s
title to the soil must be tried on the spot, where the ter-tenants
could be summoned. A new government was now instituted by the Crown for
New Hampshire, and a commission was issued to John Cutt as president
for one year.

This form of government, the administration of which was arbitrary and
very unpopular throughout the province, continued till the time of
Dudley and Andros, whose commissions rode over all others preceding. On
the downfall of Andros New Hampshire was for a short time again united
to Massachusetts.


CONNECTICUT.—Connecticut was settled in 1635 and 1636 by emigrants
from three towns in Massachusetts,—namely, Dorchester, Watertown,
and Newtown (Cambridge); those from Newtown arriving in 1636. Their
places of settlement on the Connecticut River bore for a while the
names of the towns in Massachusetts whence the emigrants came; but
in February, 1637, the names of Windsor, Wethersfield, and Hartford
were substituted.

[Illustration]

The Rev. Thomas Hooker and the Rev. Samuel Stone accompanied the
people from Newtown. The Rev. John Warham joined his people at
Windsor, and the Rev. Henry Smith was chosen pastor of the church at
Wethersfield. These several communities, though beyond the borders
of Massachusetts, were instituted under her protection, and for one
year they were governed by a commission issuing from the General Court
of that colony. Springfield, settled in 1636, was in this commission
united with the lower plantations. This provisional arrangement was
found to be inconvenient, and at the end of the year the several
towns took the government into their own hands, and a General Court
was held at Hartford, May 1, 1637. Preparations were now made for the
impending Pequot war, which called out all the strength of the feeble
settlements. On its conclusion, after arrangements had been made for
future security from savage foes, and for the purchase of food till
the new fields should become productive, the inhabitants of these
towns—Springfield, now suspected, and soon afterward declared, to be
within the bounds of Massachusetts, excepted—formed a constitution
among themselves, bearing date Jan. 14, 1638/39. This instrument has
been called “the first example in history of a written constitution,—a
distinct organic law constituting a government and defining its
powers.”[539] It contained no recognition of any external authority,
and provided that all persons should be freemen, who should be admitted
as such by the freemen of the towns, and should take the oath of
allegiance. It continued in force, with little alteration, for one
hundred and eighty years.

[Illustration]

John Haynes[540] was the first governor; and he and Edward Hopkins
held the office during most of the time for the next fifteen years. In
1657 John Winthrop, son of the Massachusetts governor, was chosen, and
continued to serve till the acceptance of the new charter by New Haven,
when he was continued in that office.

[Illustration: J Winthrop

[This portrait hangs in the gallery of the Massachusetts Historical
Society. A heliotype of it will be found in the _Winthrop Papers_, Part
iv., and in Bowen’s _Boundary Disputes of Connecticut_.—ED.]]

Meanwhile, in October, 1635, this same John Winthrop, Jr., had returned
from England with a commission from Lord Say and Sele, Lord Brook, and
others, their associates, patentees of Connecticut, constituting him
“governor of the River Connecticut, with the places adjoining,” for
the space of one whole year. He was instructed to build a fort near
the mouth of the river, and to erect habitations; and he was supplied
with means to carry out this purpose. He brought over with him one
Lion Gardiner, an expert engineer, who planned the fortifications,
and was appointed lieutenant-governor of the fort. It was expected
that a number of “gentlemen of quality” would come over to the colony,
and some disposition was at first shown to remove the settlers of the
towns on the river who had “squatted” on the lands of the Connecticut
patentees.

In the summer of 1639 George Fenwick, who was interested in the
patent, and his family came over in behalf of the patentees, and took
possession of the place, intending to build a town near the mouth of
the river. A settlement was made, and named Saybrook, in honor of
the two principal patentees. The government of the town was entirely
independent of Connecticut till 1644/45, when Fenwick, as agent of the
proprietors, transferred by contract to that government the fort at
Saybrook and its appurtenances, and the land upon the river, with a
pledge to convey all the land thence to Narragansett River, if it came
into his power to convey it.

[illustration: John Davenport

[The editor is indebted to Professor F. B. Dexter, of Yale College, for
a photograph of the original picture, which is in New Haven, painted on
panel, and bears the inscription, “J. D. obiit, 1670.” Davenport left
Connecticut in 1668 to become the successor of John Wilson in Boston,
and died as the pastor of the First Church in Boston, March 11, 1670.
Cf. _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 193, and the important paper on
Davenport by Professor Dexter, printed in the _New Haven Historical
Society’s Papers_, vol. ii.—ED.]]

In 1638 a settlement was made at Quinnipiack, afterward called New
Haven, under the lead of John Davenport. The emigrants, principally
from Massachusetts,—like those of the river towns,—had no patent or
title to the land on which they planted, but made a number of purchases
from the Indians. Here, in April, under the shelter of an oak, they
listened to a sermon by Davenport, and a few days afterward formed a
“plantation covenant,” as preliminary to a more formal engagement,—all
agreeing to be ordered by the rule of Scripture. This colony, as well
as that just described, sympathized substantially in religious views
with Massachusetts.

On the 4th of June, 1639, all the free planters met in a barn “to
consult about settling civil government according to God.” Mr.
Davenport prayed and preached, and they then proceeded, by his advice,
to form a government. They first decided that none but church members
should be free burgesses. Twelve men were then chosen, who out of
their own number chose seven to constitute a church and on the “seven
pillars” thus chosen rested also the responsibility of forming the
civil government. On October 29 these seven persons met, and, after
a solemn address to the Supreme Being, proceeded to form the body of
freemen, and to elect their civil officers. Theophilus Eaton was chosen
to be governor for that year; indeed, he continued to be rechosen
to the office for nearly twenty years, till his death. This was the
original, fundamental constitution of New Haven. A few general rules
were adopted, but no code of laws established. The Word of God was to
be taken as the rule in all things.

[Illustration: CONNECTICUT RIVER, 1661.

[This is taken from a Dutch map which appeared at Middleburgh and the
Hague in 1666, in a tract belonging to the controversy between Sir
George Downing and the States General. It follows the fac-simile given
in the Lenox edition of Mr. H. C. Murphy’s translation of the _Vertoogh
van Nieu Nederland_. It also is found as a marginal map in the _Pas
Kaart van de Zee Kusten van Nieu Nederland_, published at Amsterdam
by Van Keulen, which shows the coast from Narragansett Bay to Sandy
Hook, where is also a portion of the map of the Hudson given in the
notes following Mr. Fernow’s chapter in Vol. IV. The _Pas Kaart_ is in
Harvard College Library (Atlas 700, No. 9). No. 10 of the same atlas is
_Pas Kaart van de Zee Kusten inde Boght van Nieu Engeland_, which shows
the coast from Nantucket to Nova Scotia.—ED.]]

This year settlements were made at Milford and at Guilford, each for a
time being independent of any other plantation. Connecticut had also
interposed two new settlements between New Haven and the Dutch, at
Fairfield and at Stratford.

In 1642 the capital laws of Connecticut were completed and put upon
record; and in May, 1650, a code of laws known as “Mr. Ludlow’s Code”
was adopted. In 1643 Connecticut and New Haven were both included in
the New England Confederation, as mentioned on an earlier page, and the
articles of union were printed in 1656, with the code of laws which was
adopted by New Haven, as drawn up by Governor Eaton, the manuscript
having been sent to England to be printed.

The old patent of Connecticut mentioned in the agreement with Fenwick
seems never to have been made over to the colony; and they were very
anxious, on the restoration of Charles II. in 1660, for a royal
charter, which would secure to them a continuance and confirmation
of their rights and privileges. Governor John Winthrop was appointed
as agent to represent the colony in England, for this purpose; and
in April, 1662, he succeeded in procuring a charter, which included
the colony of New Haven. The charter conveyed most ample powers and
privileges for colonial government, and confirmed or conveyed the
whole tract of country which had been granted to Lord Say and Sele
and others. Mr. Davenport and other leading men of that colony were
entirely opposed to a union with Connecticut; and the acceptance of the
new charter was resisted till 1665, when the opposition was overcome,
and the colonies became united, and at the general election in May of
that year John Winthrop was elected to be governor.

It is needless to say that the church polity of Connecticut and New
Haven, from the beginning, was substantially that of Massachusetts.
Their clergymen assisted in framing the Cambridge Platform in 1648,
which was the guide of the churches for many years. Hooker’s _Survey_
and Cotton’s _Way of the Churches Cleared_ (London, 1648) were
published under one general titlepage covering both works. After a few
years the harmony of the churches was seriously disturbed by a set
of new opinions which sprang up in the church at Hartford, and which
finally culminated in the adoption by a general council of Connecticut
and Massachusetts churches, held in Boston in 1657, of the “Half-Way
Covenant.” New Haven held aloof. Political motives lent their influence
in the spread of the new views; and while the government of Connecticut
attempted to enforce the resolutions of the synod, the churches long
refused to comply.[541]

The union of the two communities under one charter gave strength to
both, and the colony prospered, while Winthrop felt the strong control
of a robust spirit in John Allyn, the secretary of the colony.[542]
There were of course constant occasions of annoyance and dissension,
both civil and religious. Their wily foe, the Indian, did not cease
wholly to disturb their repose. But during Philip’s War, which was so
disastrous to Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Rhode Island, there was
less suffering in Connecticut. Conflicts of jurisdiction, both east
and west, growing out of the uncertain boundaries of its grant, though
it ran west to the South Sea, were of long duration. No sooner had the
commissioners, appointed by the King in 1683, made a favorable decision
for Connecticut in her controversy with Rhode Island in regard to the
Narragansett country, than a new claimant arose. At the division of
the grand patent in 1635, James, Marquis of Hamilton, had assigned
to him the country between the Connecticut and the Narragansett
rivers; but his claim slumbered only to be revived by his heirs at
the Restoration,—and now a second time, through Edward Randolph, the
watchful and untiring enemy of New England. The prior grant to Lord
Say and Sele, confirmed by the charter of April 23, 1662, and the
settlement of the country under it, was cited by Connecticut in their
answer; and, in an opinion on the case a few years later, Sir Francis
Pemberton said that the answer was a good one.

[Illustration]

When James II. continued the attacks on the New England charters begun
by the late king, with a view to bring all the colonies under the
crown, Connecticut did not escape. A _quo warranto_ was issued against
the Governor and Company in July, 1685, and this was followed by
notices to appear and defend; but the colony resisted, and petitioned,
and final judgment was never entered. The colony’s language to the King
in one of its addresses to him was, however, construed as a surrender.
Andros went from Boston to Hartford in October, 1687, and at a meeting
of the Assembly, which was prolonged till midnight, demanded its
charter. The story goes, that, by a bold legerdemain, the parchment,
after the lights were blown out, was spirited away and hidden in the
hollow of an oak-tree; nevertheless Andros assumed the government of
the colony, under his commission. Thus matters continued till the
Revolution of 1689, when the colony resumed its charter.


RHODE ISLAND.—Rhode Island was settled by Roger Williams in 1636, he
having been banished from Massachusetts the year before. Professor
George Washington Greene, in his _Short History of Rhode Island_,
remarks, that in the settlement of the New England colonies the
religious idea lay at the root of their foundation and development;
that in Plymouth it took the form of separation, or a simple severance
from the Church of England; in Massachusetts Bay it aimed at the
establishment of a theocracy and the enforcement of a vigorous
uniformity of creed and discipline; and that from the resistance to
this uniformity came Rhode Island and the doctrine of soul-liberty.

Williams was banished from Massachusetts principally for political
reasons. His peculiar opinions relating to soul-liberty were not fully
developed until after he had taken up his residence in Rhode Island.
Five persons accompanied him to the banks of the Mooshausic, and
there they planted the town of Providence. Williams here purchased,
or received by gift, a tract of land from the Indians, and he had
no patent or other title to the soil. Additions were soon made to
the little settlement, and he divided the land with twelve of his
companions, reserving for them and himself the right of extending the
grant to others who might be admitted to fellowship. An association
of civil government was formed among the householders or masters of
families, who agreed to be governed by the orders of the greater
number. This was followed by another agreement of non-householders or
single persons, who agreed to subject themselves to such orders as
should be made by the householders, but “only in civil things.” This
latter is the earliest agreement on the records of the colony. In
1639, to meet the wants of an increasing community, five disposers or
selectmen were chosen, charged with political duties,—their actions
being subject to revision by the superior authority of the town
meetings.

[Illustration]

Meanwhile two other colonies had been planted on the shores of
Narragansett Bay. The first, partly from the ranks of the Antinomians
of Massachusetts, led by William Coddington and John Clarke, who
settled at Pocasset (Portsmouth), in the northern part of the Island
of Aquedneck in March, 1637/38; and their number so increased that in
the following year, 1639, a portion of them moved to the south part
of the island, and settled the town of Newport. Like Roger Williams,
the settlers had no other title to the land than what was obtained
from the natives. Another colony was planted at Shawomet (Warwick),
in January, 1642/43, by Samuel Gorton,—a notorious disturber of the
peace,—with about a dozen followers, who also secured an Indian title
to their lands. Gorton had been in Boston, Plymouth, Portsmouth, and in
Providence, and was an unwelcome resident in all, and at Portsmouth he
had been whipped.

[Illustration]

About 1640, with some followers, he came to Pawtuxet, in the south
part of Providence, and, taking sides in some previous land quarrel
there, prevailed. The weaker party appealed to Massachusetts for
protection, and finally subjected themselves and their lands to that
government; upon which Gorton and his followers fled south to Shawomet.
Soon afterward, by the surrender to Massachusetts of a subordinate
Indian chief, who claimed the territory there, purchased by Gorton of
Miantonomi, that Government made a demand of jurisdiction there also;
and as Gorton refused their summons to appear at Boston, Massachusetts
sent soldiers, and captured the inhabitants in their homes, took them
to Boston, tried them, and sentenced the greater part of them to
imprisonment for blasphemous language to the Massachusetts authorities.
They were finally liberated, and banished; and as Warwick was included
in the forbidden territory, they went to Rhode Island. Gorton and two
of his friends soon afterward went to England.

The inhabitants on the island formed themselves into a voluntary
association of government, as they had done at Providence. The
community at Warwick was at first without any form of government.

Feeling a sense of a common danger, the little settlements of
Providence and Rhode Island sent Roger Williams to England, in 1643, to
apply for a charter. He found the King at open war with the Parliament;
but from the Parliamentary commissioners, with the Earl of Warwick
at their head, he procured a charter of “Incorporation of Providence
Plantations in the Narragansett Bay in New England,” dated March 14,
1643; that is, 1644 (N. S.). Three years were allowed to pass before
the charter was formally accepted by the plantations; but in May,
1647, the corporators met at Portsmouth, and organized a government;
and Warwick, whither Gorton and his followers had now returned,
though not named in the charter, was admitted to its privileges. This
franchise was a charter of incorporation, as its title indicates; but
it contained no grant of land. It recites the purchase of lands from
the natives; and the Government under it claimed the exclusive right to
extinguish the Indian title to lands still owned by the tribes within
its boundaries. The code of laws adopted when the charter was accepted
is an attempt to codify the common and statute laws of England, or such
parts as were thought binding or would suit their condition.

Williams’s principle of liberty of conscience was sometimes interpreted
in the community to mean freedom from civil restraint, and harmony did
not always prevail. This gave cause to his enemies to exult, while his
friends feared lest their hope of reconciling liberty and law should
fail.

The attempt of Massachusetts to bring the territory of the colony under
her jurisdiction was a source of great annoyance. During this contest
an appeal to the authorities in England resulted in the triumph of the
weaker colony. Then came the “Coddington usurpation,”—an unexplained
episode in the history of Rhode Island, by which the island towns in
1651 were severed from the government of the colony; and Coddington, by
a commission from the Council of State in England, was made governor
for life. This revolution seemed for a time successful; but the friends
of the colony did not despair. Williams and John Clarke were sent to
England as agents,—the one in behalf of the former charter, and the
other to ask for a revocation of Coddington’s commission. They were
both successful; and in the following year the old civil _status_ was
fully restored.

As civil dissensions ceased, there was danger of another Indian
war, which for the time was arrested by the sagacity of Williams.
The refusal of the United Colonies to admit Rhode Island to their
confederacy placed her at great disadvantage. Yet though causes of
dissension remained, the colony grew in industry and strength. Newport
especially increased in population and in wealth. Not every inhabitant,
however, was a freeman. The suffrage was restricted to ownership in
land, and there was a long process of initiation to be passed through
before a candidate could be admitted to full citizenship.

Changes were taking place in England. Cromwell died, and his son
Richard soon afterward resigned the Protectorship. The restoration of
Charles II. followed by acclamation. The colony hastened to acknowledge
the new King; the acts of the Long Parliament were abrogated, and a
new charter was applied for through John Clarke, who still remained in
England. This instrument, dated Nov. 24, 1663, was evidently drawn up
by Clarke, or was prepared under his supervision. It confirmed to the
inhabitants freedom of conscience in matters of religion. It recounted
the purchase of the land from the natives, but it equally asserted
the royal prerogative and the ultimate dominion of the lands in the
Crown,—a provision which Williams had strenuously objected to and
preached against in the Massachusetts charter. The holding was from
the King, as of the manner of East Greenwich. This gave the colony, in
English law, an absolute title to the soil as against any foreign State
or its subjects. It operated practically as a pre-emptive right to
extinguish the Indian title. The charter created a corporation by the
name of “The Governor and Company of the English Colony of Rhode Island
and Providence Plantations in New England in America.”

[Illustration: THE MASSACHUSETTS PROPRIETORS OF THE NARRAGANSETT
COUNTRY.]

This charter gave the whole of the Narragansett country to the colony,
which the year before had been given to Connecticut; but it did not
bring peace. That colony still clamored for her charter boundary;
while a body of land speculators from Massachusetts, known as the
Atherton Company, who had, in violation of Rhode Island law, bought
lands at Quidnesett and Namcook, now insisted upon being placed under
Connecticut jurisdiction. The King’s commissioners, who arrived in the
country in 1664, charged with the duty of settling all disputes, came
into Rhode Island. They received the submission of the Narragansett
chiefs to the King, confirmatory of the same act performed in 1644, and
they set apart the Narragansett country, extending from the bay to the
Pawcatuck River, and named it King’s Province, and established a royal
government over it. Some other matters in dispute were happily settled.
The royal commissioners were well satisfied with the conduct of Rhode
Island.

The colony still grew, but it continued poor. About the year 1663
schools were established in Providence,—a tardy following of Newport,
which had employed a teacher in 1640. The colony was kept poor by the
great expense incurred in employing agents to defend itself from the
surrounding colonies, that wished to crush it. But another trouble
arose. A fearful war was impending, the bloodiest which the colony
had yet waged with the Indians. We have no space for the story; but
Philip’s War fell most heavily on Rhode Island, which furnished troops,
but was not consulted as to its management. Peace was at length
restored, and the Indians subdued; though they were still turbulent.

Connecticut had not yet renounced her claims on the Narragansett
country. Rhode Island set up her authority in the province, and
appointed officers for its government. Both colonies appealed to the
King. Within the colony itself now arose a most bitter controversy
respecting the limits and extent of the original Providence and
Pawtuxet purchase, which was not finally settled till the next century.
It grew out of the careless manner in which Roger Williams worded the
deeds to himself from the Indians, and also those which he himself gave
to the colony.

[Illustration]

The appeal of Connecticut and Rhode Island to the King resulted in a
commission, in 1683, headed by the notorious Cranfield, Governor of New
Hampshire, and including the no less notorious Edward Randolph. They
quarrelled with the authorities of Rhode Island, and decided in favor
of Connecticut.

In due time Rhode Island was a common sufferer with the rest of New
England, under the imposition of Andros and his commission. He came
into Rhode Island, and was kindly received. He broke the colony
seal, but the parchment charter was put beyond his reach. The colony
surrendered, and petitioned the King to preserve her charter, and then
fell back upon a provisional government of the towns. At the revolution
she resumed her charter, and later it was decided in England that it
had never been revoked and remained in full force.


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THE COUNCIL FOR NEW ENGLAND.—Chalmers, _Annals_, 1780, p. 99, says
concerning the great patent of Nov. 3, 1620, “This patent which has
never been printed because so early surrendered, is in the old entries
of New England in the Plant. off.” I saw the parchment enrolment of
this charter in her Majesty’s Public Record Office, in Fetter Lane,
London, and described it in full in _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, for
April, 1867, p. 54. It was first printed by Hazard, _Historical
Collections_, vol. i. 1792, pp. 103-118, probably from a manuscript
copy in the Superior Court files, N. H.[543]

The petition of the Northern Colony for a new charter, dated March
3, 1619/20, and the warrant to his Majesty’s Solicitor-General to
prepare such a patent, dated July 23, 1620, may be seen in Brodhead’s
_Documents_, etc., iii. 2-4. The warrant is also in Gorges’ _Briefe
Narration_, p. 21.

The opposition of the Virginia Company to the granting of this patent
may be seen in their records as published by Neill., _History of the
Virginia Company of London_, 1869, _passim_; also in Gorges’ _Briefe
Narration_, pp. 22-31; in the Council’s Briefe Relation,[544] pp.
18-22; and in Brodhead’s _Documents_, iii. 4. The opposition of the
House of Commons to the patent, after it had passed the seals, may be
best seen in the printed _Journals of the House_ for the sessions of
1621 and 1624. Chalmers’ extracts are to the point, but are not full.
See also Gorges, and the _Briefe Relation_, as above. For the answer
to the French ambassador, see also Sainsbury’s _Calendar, Colonial_,
p. 61. The history of the transactions of the Council may be largely
gathered from their extant records as published in _Amer. Antiq. Soc.
Proc._, for April, 1867, and for October, 1875; from Gorges, and from
the _Briefe Relation_. Cf. Palfrey, i. 193.

Probably no complete record exists of all the patents issued by the
Council; and of those known to have been granted, the originals, or
even copies of all of them, are not known to be extant. As full a list
of these as has been collected may be seen in a Lecture read before the
Massachusetts Historical Society, Jan. 15, 1869, by Samuel F. Haven,
LL. D., entitled _History of Grants under the Great Council for New
England_, etc.,—a valuable paper with comments and explanations, with
which compare Dr. Palfrey’s list in his _History of New England_, i.
397-99.[545] Since Dr. Palfrey wrote, new material has come to light
respecting some of these grants. The patent of Aug. 10, 1622, which
Dr. Belknap supposed was the Laconia patent, and which he erroneously
made the basis of the settlements of Thomson and of the Hiltons, and
of later operations on the Piscataqua, is found not to be the Laconia
patent, which was issued seven years later, namely, Nov. 17, 1629.[546]
Later writers have copied him. Again, Dr. Palfrey refers the early
division of the territory by the Council, from the Bay of Fundy to
Cape Cod, among twenty associates, to May 31, 1622. By the recovery of
another fragment of the records of the Council in 1875, we are able to
correct all previous errors respecting that division, which really took
place on Sunday, July 29, 1623. This fact has appeared since Dr. Haven
wrote.[547]

An object of interest would be the map of the country on which the
different patents granted were marked off. Some idea from it might
be formed of the geographical mistakes by which one grant overlapped
another, or swallowed it up entirely. I know of no published map
existing at that time that would have served the purpose. The names
of the places on the coast from Penobscot to Cape Cod, mentioned by
Captain Smith in his tract issued in 1616, were rarely indicated on
his map which accompanied the tract. They had been laid down on the
manuscript draft of the map, but were changed for English names by
Prince Charles.[548] Quite likely the Council had manuscript maps of
the coast. Of the division of 1623, the records say it was resolved
that the land “be divided according as the division is made in the plot
remaining with Dr. Goche.” Smith, speaking of this division, says that
the country was at last “engrossed by twenty patentees, that divided my
map into twenty parts, and cast lots for their shares,” etc. Smith’s
map was probably the best published map of the coast which existed at
that time; but the map on which the names were subsequently engrossed
and published was Alexander’s map of New England, New France, and New
Scotland, published in 1624, in his _Encouragement to Colonies_, and
also issued in the following year in Purchas, vol. iv. p. 1872. This
record, as the fac-simile shows,[549] is a mere huddling together of
names, with no indication as to a division of the country, as it was
not possible there should be on such a map as this, where the whole New
England coast, as laid down, is limited to three inches in extent, with
few natural features delineated upon it.

The greatest trouble existed among the smaller patents. A large
patent, like that to Gorges, for instance, at the grand division, with
well-defined natural boundaries on the coast, between the Piscataqua
and the Sagadahoc, or the Penobscot, would not be likely to be
contested for lack of description; but there had been many smaller
patents issued within these limits, which ran into and overlapped
each other, and some were so completely annihilated as to cause great
confusion.

Some of these smaller patents had alleged powers of government granted
to the settlers,—powers probably rarely exercised by virtue of
such a grant, and which the Council undoubtedly had no authority to
confer.[550] The people of Plymouth, for instance, in their patent of
1630, were authorized, in the language of the grant, to incorporate
themselves by some usual or fit name and title, with liberty to make
laws and ordinances for their government. They never had a royal
charter of incorporation during their separate existence, though they
strove hard to obtain one. The Council for New England might from
the first have taken the Pilgrims under their own government and
protection; and Governor Bradford, in letters to the Council and to
Sir Ferdinando Gorges, written in 1627 and 1628, acknowledges that
relation, and asks for their aid.[551]

[Illustration: SEAL OF THE COUNCIL FOR NEW ENGLAND.]

The records of the Council, so far as they are extant, contain no
notice of the adoption of a common seal, and we are ignorant as to the
time of its adoption. In the earliest patent known to have been issued
by the Council, which was an indenture between them and John Peirce
and his associates, dated June 1, 1621, the language is, “In witness
whereof the said President and Council have to the one part of this
present Indenture set their seals.” This is signed first by the Duke of
Lenox, who I think was the first President of the Council, and by five
other members of the Council, with the private seal of each appended to
his signature. But in a grant to Gorges and Mason, of Aug. 10, 1622,
which is also an indenture, the language is, that to one part “the said
President and Council have caused their _common seal_ to be affixed.”
Here we have a “common seal” used by the Council in issuing their
subsequent grants. But it is very singular, that of the many original
grants of the Council extant no one of them has the wax impression
of the seal intact or unbroken; usually it is wholly wanting. It is
believed, however, that the design of the seal has been discovered in
the engraving on the titlepage of Smith’s _Generall Historie_; and
the reasons for this opinion may be seen in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
March, 1867, pp. 469-472.[552] A delineation of it is given herewith.

In the absence of any record of the organization of the Council, or of
any rules or by-laws for the transaction of its business, we do not
know what officers, or what number of the Council, were required for
the issuing of patents, or for authorizing the use of the Company’s
seal. The only name signed to the Plymouth Patent of Jan. 13, 1629/30
is that of the Earl of Warwick, who was then the President of the
Council.


MASSACHUSETTS.[553]—The Massachusetts Colony had its origin in a grant
of land from the Council of New England, dated March 19, 1627, in old
style reckoning.[554] So far as is known, it is the first grant of
any moment made after the general division in 1623, but probably it
was preceded by the license to the Plymouth people of privileges on
the Kennebec. This patent to the Massachusetts Colony is not extant,
but it is recited in the subsequent charter. There is some mystery
attending the manner of its procurement, as well as about its extent.
The business was managed, in the absence of Sir Ferdinando Gorges,
by the Earl of Warwick, who was friendly to the patentees.[555] The
royal charter of Massachusetts was dated March 4, 1628 (O.S.). For
the forms used in issuing it, see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, December,
1869, pp. 167-196. A discussion of the charter itself as a frame
of government for a commonwealth is found in Hutchinson’s _History
of Massachusetts_, i. 414, 415; Judge Parker’s Lecture before the
Massachusetts Historical Society, Feb. 9, 1869, entitled _The First
Charter_, etc.; and _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 329-382, and the
authorities there cited. As to the right of the Company to transfer the
government and charter to the soil, see Judge Parker, as above; Dr.
Palfrey, _New England_, i. 301-308; Barry, _History of Massachusetts_,
i. 174-186, and the authorities cited by them. The original charter, on
parchment, is in the State House in Boston. A heliotype of a section
of it is given in the _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 329.[556] The
duplicate or exemplification of the charter, which was originally
sent over to Endicott in 1629, is now in the Library of the Salem
Athenæeum. The charter was first printed, and from the “_dupl._”
parchment, “by S. Green, for Benj. Harris, at the London Coffee-House,
near the Town-House, in Boston, 1689.” It is entitled _A Copy of the
Massachusetts Charter_.[557]

The archives of the State are rich in the materials of its history. The
records of the government from its first institution in England down
to the overthrow of the charter are almost a history in themselves.
The student is no longer required to decipher the ancient writing, for
in 1853-54 the Records were copied and printed under the editorial
care of Dr. N. B. Shurtleff.[558] A large mass of manuscripts remains
at the State House, and is known as the _Massachusetts Archives_.
The papers were classified by the late Joseph B. Felt.[559] They are
the constant resource of antiquaries and historians, few of whom,
however, but regret the too arbitrary arrangement given to them by that
painstaking scholar.[560] The City of Boston, by its Record Commission,
is making accessible in print most valuable material which has long
slumbered in manuscript. The Archives of the Massachusetts Historical
Society are specially rich in early manuscripts, a catalogue of which
is now preparing, and its publishing committees are constantly at work
converting their manuscripts into print, while the sixty-seven volumes
of its publications, as materials of history, are without a rival.[561]

The first general _History of Massachusetts Bay_ was written by Thomas
Hutchinson, afterward governor of the province, in two volumes, the
first of which, covering the period ending with the downfall of Andros,
was published in Boston in 1764. The second volume, bringing the
history down to 1750, was published in 1767. Each volume was issued in
London in the year following its publication here. The author had rich
materials for his work, and was judicious in the use of them. He had a
genius for history, and his book will always stand as of the highest
authority. A volume of _Original Papers_, which illustrate the first
volume of the history, was published in 1769.[562] Hutchinson died in
England in 1780. Among his manuscripts was found a continuation of his
history, vol. iii., bringing the events down to 1774, in which year he
left the country. This was printed in London in 1828.[563] Some copies
of vol. i., London ed., were wrongly dated MDCCLX.

In 1798 was published, in two volumes, a continuation of Hutchinson’s
second volume, by George Richards Minot,[564] bringing the history
down to 1764. The work was left unfinished, and Alden Bradford, in
1822-1829, published, in three volumes, a continuation of that to the
year 1820.

The next most considerable attempt at a general _History of
Massachusetts_ was by John Stetson Barry, who published three volumes
in 1855-1857. It is a valuable work, written from the best authorities,
and comes down to 1820.

Palfrey’s _History of New England_, the first three volumes of which
were published in 1858-1864, and cover the period ending with the
downfall of Andros, must be regarded altogether as the best history of
this section of our country yet written, as well for its luminous text
as for the authorities in its notes.[565]

[Illustration: The Rev’d Dr. Cotton Mather. p Sarah Moorhead]

I will now go back and mention a few other general histories of New
England, including those works in which the history of Massachusetts is
a prominent feature.

Cotton Mather’s _Ecclesiastical History of New England_, better known
as his _Magnalia_, from the head-line of the titlepage, _Magnalia
Christi Americana_, was published in London in 1702, in folio.
Although relating generally to New England, it principally concerns
Massachusetts. While the book is filled with the author’s conceits and
puns, and gives abundant evidence of his credulity, it contains a vast
amount of valuable historical material, and is indispensable in any
New England library. It is badly arranged for consultation, for it is
largely a compilation from the author’s previous publications, and it
lacks an index. It has been twice reprinted,—in 1820 and 1853.[566]

John Oldmixon, Collector of Customs at Bridgewater, England, compiled
and published at London, in 1708, his _British Empire in America_, in
two volumes. About one hundred pages of the first volume relate to New
England, and while admitting that he drew on Cotton Mather’s _Magnalia_
for most of his material, omitting the puns, anagrams, etc., the author
nevertheless vents his spleen on this book of the Boston divine. Mather
was deeply hurt by this indignity, and he devoted the principal part of
the Introduction to his _Parentator_, 1724, to this ill-natured writer.
He says he found in eighty-six pages of Oldmixon’s book eighty-seven
falsehoods. A second edition of _The British Empire in America_ was
published in 1741, with considerable additions and alterations. In the
mean time the Rev. Daniel Neal had published in London his _History of
New England_, which led Oldmixon to rewrite, for this new edition, his
chapters relating to New England. Oldmixon’s work is of little value.
He was careless and unscrupulous.[567]

Mr. Neal’s _History of New England_, already mentioned, first appeared
in 1720, in two volumes, but was republished with additions in
1747.[568] It contains a map “according to the latest observations,”
or, as he elsewhere observes, “done from the latest surveys,” in one
corner of which is an interesting miniature map of “The Harbour of
Boston.” This book must have supplied a great want at the time of
its appearance, and though Hutchinson says it is little more than an
abridgment of Dr. Mather’s history,—which is not quite true, as see
his authorities in the Preface,—it gave in an accessible form many
of the principal facts concerning the beginning of New England. It of
course relates principally to Plymouth and Massachusetts. Neal was an
independent thinker, and differed essentially from Cotton Mather on
many subjects.

The Rev. Thomas Prince published in Boston in 1736 A _Chronological
History of New England in the Form of Annals_, in one volume, 12º, of
about four hundred pages. The author begins with the creation of the
world, and devotes the last two hundred and fifty pages to New England,
coming down only to September, 1630, or to the settlement of Boston.
After an interval of about twenty years the work was resumed, and
three numbers, of thirty-two pages each, of vol. ii. were issued in
1755, bringing the chronology down to August, 1633, when for want of
sufficient encouragement the work ceased. Prince was very particular in
giving his authorities for every statement, and he professed to quote
the very language of his author.[569]

In 1749 was published the first volume of a _Summary, Historical
and Political, ... of the British Settlements in North America_, by
William Douglass, M.D. The book had been issued in numbers, beginning
in January, 1747. The titlepage of the second volume bears date 1751.
The author died suddenly Oct. 21, 1752, before his work was finished.
A large part of the book relates to New England. It contains a good
deal of valuable information from original sources, but it is put
together without system or order, and the whole work appears more like
a mass of notes hastily written than like a history. Dr. Douglass was a
Scotchman by birth, and coming to Boston while a young man, he attained
a reputable standing as a physician. In the small-pox episode in 1721
he took an active part as an opposer of inoculation. He was fond of
controversy, was thoroughly honest and fearless, and gave offence in
his _Summary_ by his freedom of speech. The _Summary_ was republished
in London in 1755 and in 1760, each edition with a large map.[570] The
Boston edition was reissued with a new title, dated 1753.

       *       *       *       *       *

For the origin of the brief settlement at Cape Ann, which drew after it
the planting at Salem and the final organization of the Massachusetts
Company, and for the narrative of those several events,—namely, the
formation in London of the subordinate government for the colony,
“London’s Plantation in Massachusetts Bay,” with Endicott as its first
governor, and his instructions; the emigration under Higginson in 1629;
the establishment of the church in Salem, and the difficulty with the
Browns; and the emigration under Winthrop in 1630,—see John White’s
_Planter’s Plea_,[571] Hubbard’s _New England_, chap. xviii.; the
_Colony Records_; Morton’s _Memorial_, under the year 1629; Higginson’s
_Journal_, and his _New England Plantation_;[572] Dudley’s _Letter
to the Countess of Lincoln_;[573] and Winthrop’s own Journal. For
the principal part of these documents and others of great value the
reader is referred to Dr. Alexander Young’s _Chronicles of the First
Planters of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay_,—a convenient manual for
reference, of the highest authority, containing ample bibliographical
notes and illustrations, which need not be repeated here. This book,
which was published in 1846, was unfortunately thrown into chapters as
of one narrative, as had been that relating to the Plymouth Colony,
published in 1841, whereby the original authorities, which should be
the prominent feature of the book, are subordinated to an editorial
plan.

For the original authorities of the history of the scattered
settlements in Massachusetts Bay, prior to the Winthrop emigration,
I cannot do better than refer to a paper on the “Old Planters,” so
called, about Boston Harbor, by Charles Francis Adams, Jr., in _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, June, 1878, p. 194; and to Mr. Adams’s chapter in
_Memorial History of Boston_, i. 63.

[Illustration: SHIP OF XVII^{TH} CENTURY.

[This fac-simile is from a map in Dudley’s _Arcano del Mare_,
1647.—ED.]]

In Captain John Smith’s _Advertisements for the unexperienced Planters
of New England, or anywhere_, London, 1631, he has two chapters (xi.
and xii.) on the settlement of Salem and Charlton (Charlestown), and
an account of the sad condition of the colony for months after the
Winthrop emigration. This is Smith’s last book, and his best in a
literary point of view, and was published the year of his death.[574]

The _New England’s Prospect_, by William Wood, London, 1634, is the
earliest topographical account of the Massachusetts Colony, so far
as the settlements then extended. It also has a full description of
its fauna and flora, and of the natives. It is a valuable book, and
is written in vigorous and idiomatic English. The writer lived here
four years, returning to England Aug. 15, 1633. His book is entered
in the Stationers’ Register, “7 Julii, 1634.” Alonzo Lewis, author
of the _History of Lynn_, thinks that he came over again to the
colony in 1635, as a person of that name arrived that year in the
“Hopewell.”[575]

The _New English Canaan_, by Thomas Morton, Amsterdam, 1637, “written
upon ten years’ knowledge and experiment of the country,” is a sort
of satire upon the Plymouth and Massachusetts people, who looked upon
the author as a reprobate and an outlaw. He came over, probably, with
Weston’s company in 1622, and on the breaking up of that settlement
may have gone back to England. In 1625 he is found here again with
Captain Wollaston’s company on a plantation at “Mount Wollaston,” where
he had his revels. He was twice banished the country, and before his
final return hither wrote this book. His description of the natural
features of the country, and his account of the native inhabitants are
of considerable interest and value, and the side-light which he throws
upon the Pilgrim and Puritan colonies will serve at least to amuse the
reader.[576] Morton’s book, though printed in Holland “in the yeare
1637,” was entered in the Stationers’ Register in London, “Nov. 18,
1633,” in the name of Charles Greene as publisher; and a copy of the
book is now (1882) in the library of the Society for the Propagation of
the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 19 Delahay Street, Westminster, London,
bearing this imprint: “Printed for Charles Greene, and are sold in
Paul’s Church-Yard;” no date, but “1632” written in with a pen. See
White Kennett’s _Bibliothecæ Americanæ Primordia_, p. 77, where this
copy is entered, and where the manuscript date is printed in the
margin. This date is, of course, an error.[577] Morton’s book was not
written till after the publication of Wood’s _New England’s Prospect_,
to which reference is frequently made in the _New English Canaan_. The
_New England’s Prospect_ was entered at the Stationers’, “7 Julii,
1634,” and was published the same year. Morton’s book is dedicated to
the Commissioners for Foreign Plantations,—a body not created till
April 28, 1634. The book must have been entered at the Stationers’ some
time in anticipation of its printing; and when printed, some copies
were struck off bearing the imprint of Charles Greene, though only one
copy is now known with his name on the titlepage.

[Illustration: AUTOGRAPHS OF LEADERS IN THE WAR.]

The first serious trouble with the Indians, which had been brewing for
some years, culminated in 1637, when the Pequots were annihilated.
This produced a number of narrations, two of which were published at
the time, and in London,—one by Philip Vincent,[578] in 1637, and
one by Captain John Underhill, in 1638.[579] The former is not known
to have been in New England at the time, but the minute particulars
of his narrative would lead one to suppose that he had been in close
communication with some persons who had been in the conflict. He could
hardly have been present himself. Captain John Underhill, the writer
of the second tract, was commander of the Massachusetts forces at the
storming of the fort, so that he narrates much of what he saw. He
prefaces his account with a description of the country, and of the
origin of the troubles with the Pequots. Both these narratives are
reprinted in 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vi.

I may add here that there were other narratives of the Pequot War
written by actors in it. A narrative by Major John Mason, the commander
of the Connecticut forces, was left by him on his death, in manuscript,
and was communicated by his grandson to the Rev. Thomas Prince, who
published it in 1736. It is the best account of the affair written.
Some two or three years after the death of Mason, Mr. Allyn, the
Secretary of the colony of Connecticut, sent a narrative of the Pequot
War to Increase Mather, who published it in his _Relation of the
Troubles_, etc., 1677, as of Allyn’s composition. Having no preface or
titlepage, Mather did not know that it was written by Major Mason, as
was afterward fully explained by Prince, who had the entire manuscript
from Mason’s grandson.[580]

Lyon Gardiner, commander of the Saybrook fort during the Pequot War,
also wrote an account of the action, prefacing it with a narrative of
recollections of earlier events. It was written in his old age. It was
first printed in 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, iii. 136-160.[581]

For the history of the Antinomian controversy which broke out about
this time and convulsed the whole of New England, see the examination
of Mrs. Hutchinson in Hutchinson’s _Massachusetts Bay_, ii. 482;
Welde’s _Short Story_, etc., London, 1644; Chandler’s _Criminal
Trials_, Boston, 1841, vol. i.[582]

A small quarto volume published in London in 1641, entitled _An
Abstract of the Lawes of New England as they are now Established_, was
one of the results of an attempt to form a body of standing laws for
the colony. I may premise, that, at the first meeting of the Court of
Assistants at Charlestown, certain rules of proceeding in civil actions
were established, and powers for punishing offenders instituted. In
the former case equity according to circumstances was the rule; and
in punishing offences they professed to be governed by the judicial
laws of Moses where such laws were of a moral nature.[583] But such
proceedings were arbitrary and uncertain, and the body of the people
were clamorous for a code of standing laws. John Cotton had been
requested to assist in framing such a code, and in October, 1636, he
handed in to the General Court a copy of a body of laws that he had
compiled “in an exact method,” called “Moses his Judicials,” which
the Court took into consideration till the next meeting. The subject
occupied attention from year to year, till in December, 1641, the
General Court established a body of one hundred laws, called the Body
of Liberties, which had been composed by the Rev. Nathaniel Ward,[584]
of Ipswich. No copy of these laws was known to have been preserved on
the records of the colony; and of the earliest printed digest of the
laws, in 1648, which no doubt substantially conformed to the Body of
Liberties, no copy is extant.

[Illustration]

The _Abstract_ above recited, published in 1641, was therefore for many
years regarded as the Body of Liberties, or an abstract of them, passed
in that year. About forty years ago Francis C. Gray, Esq., noticed in
the library of the Boston Athenæum a manuscript code of laws entitled
“A Copy of the Liberties of the Massachusetts Colonie in New England,”
which he caused to be printed in 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, viii. 216-237,
with a learned introduction, in which he showed conclusively that this
body of laws was the code of 1641, and that the _Abstract_ printed
that year in London was John Cotton’s code, _Moses his Judicials_,
which the General Court never adopted. A copy having found its way
to England, it was sent to the press under a misapprehension, and an
erroneous titlepage prefixed to it. Indeed, that John Cotton was the
author of the code published in London in 1641 had been evident from an
early period, by means of a second and enlarged edition published in
London by William Aspinwall in 1655, from a manuscript copy left by the
author. Aspinwall, then in England, in a long address to the reader,
says that Cotton collected out of the Scriptures, and digested this
_Abstract_, and commended it to the Court of Massachusetts, “which had
they then had the heart to have received, it might have been better
both with them there and us here than now it is.” The _Abstract_ of
1641, with Aspinwall’s preface to the edition of 1655, was reprinted
in 1 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, v. 173-192. Hutchinson, _Papers_, 1769, pp.
161-179, had already printed the former.[585]

The religious character of the colony was exemplified by the
publication, in 1640, of the first book issued from the Cambridge
press, set up by Stephen Daye the year before; namely, _The Whole
Booke of Psalmes Faithfully Translated into English Metre_, by Richard
Mather, Thomas Welde, and John Eliot. Prince, in the preface to his
revised edition of this book, 1758, says that it “had the honor of
being the _First Book_ printed in North America, and, as far as I can
find, in this _whole_ NEW WORLD.” Prince was not aware that a printing
press had existed in the City of Mexico one hundred years before.[586]
He was right, however, in the first part of his sentence. Eight copies
of the book are known to be extant, of which two are in Cambridge,
where it was printed. Within a year or two a copy has been sold for
fifteen hundred dollars.[587] The first thing printed by Daye was the
freeman’s oath, the next was an almanac made for New England by Mr.
William Peirce, mariner,—so says Winthrop. What enterprising explorer
of garrets and cellars will add copies of these to our collections of
Americana? Probably one of the last books printed by Daye was the first
digest of the laws of the colony, which was passing through the press
in 1648. Johnson says it was printed that year. Probably 1649 was the
date on the titlepage. Not a single copy is known to be in existence.
Daye was succeeded in 1649 by Samuel Green, who issued books from the
Cambridge press for nearly fifty years.[588]

One of the most interesting and authentic of the early narratives
relating to the colony is Thomas Lechford’s _Plain Dealing_, London,
1642. Lechford came over here in 1638, arriving June 27, and he
embarked for home Aug. 3, 1641. He was a lawyer by profession, and
he came here with friendly feelings toward the Puritan settlement.
But lawyers were not wanted in the colony. He was looked upon with
suspicion, and could barely earn a living for his family. He did some
writing for the magistrates, and transcribed some papers for Nathaniel
Ward, the supposed author of the Body of Liberties, to whom he may have
rendered professional aid in that work. He prepared his book for the
press soon after his return home. It is full of valuable information
relating to the manners and customs of the colony, written by an able
and impartial hand.[589]

To the leading men in the colony, religion, or their own notion
concerning religion, was the one absorbing theme; and they sought
to embody it in a union of Church and State. In this regard John
Cotton[590] seems to have been the mouthpiece of the community. He came
near losing his influence at the time of the Antinomian controversy
but by judicious management he recovered himself. He was not averse to
discussion, had a passion for writing, and his pen was ever active. The
present writer has nearly thirty of Cotton’s books,—the _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_ shows over forty,—written in New England, and sent to
London to be printed. Some of these were in answer to inquiries from
London concerning their church estate, etc., here, and were intended
to satisfy the curiosity of friends, as well as to influence public
opinion there. Cotton had a long controversy with Roger Williams
relating to the subject of Williams’s banishment from this colony.
Another discussion with him, which took a little different form, was
the “Bloudy Tenet” controversy, which had another origin, and in
which the question of persecution for conscience’ sake was discussed.
Williams, of course, here had the argument on the general principle.
Cotton was like a strong man struggling in the mire.[591] Cotton’s book
on the _Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven_ shows his idea of the true
church polity. His answer to Baylie’s _Dissuasive_ in _The Way of the
Congregational Churches Cleared_ is really a valuable historical book,
in which, incidentally, he introduces information concerning persons
and events which relate to Plymouth as well as to Massachusetts. This
book furnished to the present writer the clew to the fact that John
Winthrop was the author of the principal part of the contents of
Welde’s _Short Story_, published in London in 1644, relating to
the Antinomian troubles and Mrs. Hutchinson. The Rev. Thomas
Hooker, of Hartford, entered with Cotton into the church controversy.
His _Survey of the Summe of Church Discipline_, etc., written
in answer to Rutherford, Hudson, and Baylie, Presbyterian
controversialists, was published within the same cover with Cotton’s
book last cited, and one general titlepage covered both, with the
imprint of London, 1648.

[Illustration]

Well known among Cotton’s other productions is his _Milk for Babes,
drawn out of the Breasts of both Testaments, chiefly for the Spiritual
Nourishment of Boston Babes in either England, but may be of like Use
for any Children_, London, 1646.[592]

[Illustration]

The discussion of Cotton and others having confirmed the colony in its
church polity,—“From New England,” says Baylie, writing in London
in 1645, “came Independency of Churches hither, which hath spread
over all parts here,”—it was thought best to embody the system in a
platform. So a synod was called for May, 1646, which by sundry meetings
and adjournments completed the work in August, 1648. The result was
the famous “Cambridge Platform,” which continued the rule of our
ecclesiastical polity, with slight variations, till the adoption of the
constitution of 1780. It was printed at Cambridge, in 1649, by Samuel
Green,—probably his first book,—and was entitled _A Platform of
Church Discipline_, etc. A copy of the printed volume was sent over to
London by John Cotton (who probably had the largest agency in preparing
the work)[593] to Edward Winslow, then in England, who procured it to
be printed in 1653, with an explanatory preface by himself.[594]

The important political union of the New England colonies, or a
portion of them, in 1643, has been already referred to. The Articles
of Confederation were first printed in 1656 in London, prefixed to
Governor Eaton’s code of laws entitled _New Haven’s Settling in New
England_,[595] to be mentioned further on.

The trouble of Massachusetts with Samuel Gorton was brought about by
the unwarrantable conduct of the colony towards that eccentric person.
Gorton appealed to England, and Edward Winslow, the diplomatist of
Plymouth and Massachusetts, was sent over to defend the Bay colony.
Gorton’s _Simplicitie’s Defence_, published in London in 1646, was
answered by Winslow’s _Hypocrasie Unmasked_, issued the same year.
This was reissued in 1649, with a new titlepage, called _The Danger of
tolerating Levellers in a Civill State_, the Dedication to the Earl of
Warwick, in the former issue, being omitted.[596]

Winslow had his hands full, about this time, in defending
Massachusetts. The colony was never without a disturbing element in
its own population, and about the time of the trouble with Gorton a
number of influential persons who held Presbyterian views of church
government were clamorous for the right of suffrage, which was denied
them. The controversy of the Government with Dr. Robert Child, Samuel
Maverick, and others, in 1646, need not be repeated here. An appeal
was made to England. Child and some of his associates went thither,
and published a book in 1647, in London, called _New England’s Jonas
cast up at London_, edited by Child’s brother, Major John Child, whose
name appears upon the titlepage. A postscript comments unfavorably on
Winslow’s _Hypocrasie Unmasked_. This book was replied to by Winslow
in a tract called _New England’s Salamander Discovered_, etc., London,
1647. These books are important as illustrating Massachusetts history
at this period.[597]

[Illustration: SHEPARD’S AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

[A fac-simile of the opening of the little book, which contains Thomas
Shepard’s autobiography, now the property of the Shepard Memorial
Church in Cambridge.—ED.]]

During this visit of Winslow to England, from which he never returned
to New England, he performed a grateful service in behalf of the
natives. By his influence a corporation was created by Parliament,
in 1649, for propagating the gospel among the Indian tribes in New
England, and some of the accounts of the progress of the missions, sent
over from the colony, were published in London by the corporation.
The conversion of the natives was one object set forth in the
Massachusetts charter; and Roger Williams had, while a resident of
Massachusetts and Plymouth, taken a deep interest in them, and in 1643,
while on a voyage to England, he drew up _A Key unto the Language of
America_,[598] published that year in London. In that same year there
was also published in London a small tract called _New England’s
First-Fruits_, first in respect to the college, and second in respect
to the Indians.[599] Some hopeful instances of conversion among the
natives were briefly given in this tract. In 1647 a more full relation
of Eliot’s labors was sent over to Winslow, who the year before had
arrived in England as agent of Massachusetts, and printed under the
title, _The Day breaking, if not the Sun rising, of the Gospel with
the Indians in New England_. In the following year, 1648, a narrative
was published in London, written by Thomas Shepard, called _The Clear
Sunshine of the Gospel breaking forth upon the Indians_, etc., and this
in 1649 was followed by _The Glorious Progress of the Gospel amongst
the Indians in New England_, setting forth the labors of Eliot and
Mayhew. The Rev. Henry Whitfield, who had been pastor of a church in
Guilford, Conn., returned to England in 1650; and in the following year
he published in London _The Light appearing more and more towards the
Perfect Day_, and in 1652, _Strength out of Weakness_, both containing
accounts, written chiefly by Eliot, of the progress of his labors. This
last tract was the first of those published by the Corporation, which
continued thenceforth, for several years, to publish the record of
the missions as they were sent over from the colony. In 1653 a tract
appeared under the title of _Tears of Repentance_, etc.; in 1655, _A
late and further Manifestation of the Progress of the Gospel_, etc.;
in 1659, _A further Accompt_, etc.; and in 1660, _A further Account_
still.[600] Eliot’s literary labors in behalf of the Massachusetts
Indians culminated in the translation of the Bible into their dialect,
and its publication through the Cambridge press. The Testament was
printed in 1661, and the whole Bible in 1663; and second editions of
each appeared,—the former in 1680, and the latter in 1685.[601]

Eliot was imbued with the enthusiasm of the time. As John Cotton had
deduced a body of laws from the Scriptures, which he offered to the
General Court for the colony, so in like manner Eliot drew from the
Scriptures a frame of government for a commonwealth. It was entitled
_The Christian Commonwealth; or, the Civil Polity of the Rising Kingdom
of Jesus Christ_, which he sent to England during the interregnum, and
commended to the people there. He had drawn up a similar form for his
Indian community, and had put it in practice. His manuscript, after
slumbering for some years, was printed in London in 1659, and some
copies came over to the colony. The Restoration soon followed. Eliot
had in his treatise reflected on kingly government, and in May, 1661,
the General Court ordered the book to be totally suppressed; and all
persons having copies of it were commanded either to cancel or deface
the same, or deliver them to the next magistrate. Eliot acknowledged
his fault under his own hand, saying he sent the manuscript to England
some nine or ten years before. Hutchinson, commenting on this whole
proceeding, says, “When the times change, men generally suffer their
opinions to change with them, so far at least as is necessary to avoid
danger.” How many copies of the book were destroyed by this order of
the court, we cannot tell. A few years ago the only copy known was
owned by Colonel Thomas Aspinwall, then residing in London; and from
this copy a transcript was made, and it was printed in 1846 in 3 _Mass.
Hist. Coll._, ix. 129.[602]

Eliot was not the only distinguished citizen whose book came under the
ban of the Massachusetts authorities. William Pynchon, of Springfield,
wrote a book which was published in London in 1650, entitled _The
Meritorious price of our Redemption_, etc., copies of which arrived
in Boston during the session of the General Court in October of that
year. The Court immediately condemned it, and ordered it to be burned
the next day in the market-place, which was done; and Mr. Norton was
asked to answer it. Norton obeyed, and the book he wrote was ordered to
be sent to London to be published. It was _A Discussion of that Great
Point in Divinity, the Sufferings of Christ_, etc., 1653. Pynchon in
the mean time was brought before the Court, and was plied by several
orthodox divines. He admitted that some points in his book were
overstated, and his sentence was postponed. Not liking his treatment
here he went back to England in 1652, and published a reply to Norton
in a work with a title similar to that which gave the original offence,
London, 1655. Pynchon held that Christ did not suffer the torments of
hell for mankind, and that he bore not our sins by imputation. A more
full answer to Norton’s book was published by him in 1662, called the
_Covenant of Nature_.[603]

John Winthrop died March 26, 1649. No man in the colony was so well
qualified as he, either from opportunity or character, to write its
history. Yet he left no history. But he left what was more precious,—a
journal of events, recorded in chronological order, from the time of
his departure from England in the “Arbella,” to within two months of
his death. This Journal may be called the materials of history of
the most valuable character. The author himself calls it a “History
of New England.” From this, for the period which it covers, and from
the records of the General Court for the same period, a history of
the colony for the first twenty years could be written. For over
one hundred years from Winthrop’s death no mention is made of his
Journal. Although it was largely drawn upon by Hubbard in his _History_
(1680), and was used by Cotton Mather in his _Magnalia_, it was cited
by neither, and was first mentioned by Thomas Prince on the cover
of the first number of the second volume of his _Annals_, in 1755.
Among his list of authorities there given, he mentions “having lately
received” this Journal of Governor Winthrop. Prince made but little
use of this manuscript, as the three numbers only which he issued of
his second volume ended with Aug. 5, 1633. Prince probably procured
the Journal from the Winthrop family in Connecticut. It was in three
volumes. The first and second volumes were restored to the family,
and were published in Hartford in 1790, in one volume, edited by
Noah Webster.[604] The third volume was found in the Prince Library,
in the tower of the Old South Church, in 1816, and was given to the
Massachusetts Historical Society. It was published, together with
volumes one and two, in 1825 and 1826, in two volumes, edited by James
Savage.[605] Volume two of the manuscript was destroyed by a fire
which, Nov. 10, 1825, consumed the building in Court Street, Boston, in
which Mr. Savage had his office.[606]

[Illustration]

The earliest published narrative—we can hardly call it a
history—relating generally to Massachusetts, is Edward Johnson’s
“Wonder-Working Providence of Sion’s Saviour in New England,”—the
running title to the book, which on the titlepage is called a _History
of New England_, etc., London, 1654. The book does not profess to
give an orderly account of the settlement of New England, or even of
Massachusetts, to which it wholly relates, but describes what took
place in the colony under his own observation largely, and what would
illustrate “the goodness of God in the settlement of these colonies.”
The book is supposed to have been written two or three years only
before it was sent to England to be published. It is conjectured that
the titlepage was added by the publisher.[607] The book has a value,
for it contains many facts, but its composition and arrangement are
bad.[608]

The Quaker episode produced an abundant literature. Several Rhode
Island Baptists had previously received rough usage here; and Dr.
John Clarke, one of the founders of Rhode Island, who had a personal
experience to relate, published in London, in 1652,—whither he had
gone with Roger Williams the year before,—a book against the colony,
called _Ill-Newes from New-England, or a Narrative of New-England’s
Persecution_, etc.[609]

[Illustration]

In 1654, two years before the Quakers made their appearance, the
colony passed a law against any one having in his possession the books
of Reeve and Muggleton, “the two Last Witnesses and True Prophets of
Jesus Christ,” as they called themselves. Some of the books of these
fanatics had been printed in London in 1653, and had made their way
to the colony, and the executioner was ordered to burn all such books
in the market-place on the next Lecture day. In 1656 the Quakers
came and brought their books, which were at once seized and reserved
for the fire; while sentence of banishment was passed against those
who brought them. The Quakers continued to flock to the colony in
violation of the law now passed against them. They were imprisoned,
whipped, and two were hanged in Boston in October, 1659, one in June,
1660, and one in March, 1661. Some of the more important books which
the Quaker controversy brought forth must now be named. An account of
the reception which the Quakers met with here soon found its way to
London, and to the hands of Francis Howgill, who published it with
the title, _The Popish Inquisition Newly Erected in New England_,
etc., London, 1659. Another tract appeared there the same year as _The
Secret Works of a Cruel People Made Manifest_. In the following year
appeared _A Call from Death to Life_, letters written “from the common
goal of Boston” by Stephenson and Robinson (who were shortly after
executed); and one “written in Plymouth Prison” by Peter Pearson, a
few weeks later, giving an account of the execution of the two former.
In October, 1658, John Norton had been appointed by the Court to write
a treatise on the doctrines of the Quakers, which he did, and the
tract was printed in Cambridge in 1659, and in London in 1660, with
the title, _The Heart of New England Rent at the Blasphemies of the
Present Generation_. After three Quakers had been hanged, the colony,
under date of Dec. 19, 1660, sent an “Humble Petition and Address of
the General Court ... unto the High and Mighty Prince Charles the
Second,” defending their conduct. This was presented February 11, and
printed, and was replied to by Edward Burroughs in an elaborate volume,
which contains a full account of the first three martyrs. This was
followed this year, 1661, by a yet more important volume, by George
Bishope, called _New England Judged_, in which the story of the Quaker
persecution from the beginning is told. Bishope lived in England, and
published in a first volume the accounts and letters of the sufferers
sent over to him. A second volume was published in 1667, continuing the
narrative of the sufferings and of the hanging of William Leddra, in
March, 1661. A general _History of the Quakers_ was written by William
Sewel, a Dutch Quaker of Amsterdam, published there in his native
tongue, in 1717, folio. Sewel’s grandfather was an English Brownist,
who emigrated to Holland. The book was translated by the author himself
into English, and published in London in 1722.[610] Joseph Besse’s
book,—_A Collection of the Sufferings of the People called Quakers,
for the Testimony of a Good Conscience_, 1753,—contains a mass of
most valuable statistics about the Quakers. Hutchinson’s _History of
Massachusetts Bay_ has an excellent summarized account, as do the
histories of Dr. Palfrey and Mr. Barry.[611]

[Illustration]

The records of the colony, as I have frequently had occasion to
observe, afford the richest materials for the colony’s history, and
never more so than in regard to the trials which the colony experienced
from the period following the Restoration to the time of Dudley and
Andros. The story of the visit of the royal commissioners here in 1665
is no where so fully told as there. Indeed, the principal source of the
history of Maine and of New Hampshire while they were for many years a
component part of the colony of Massachusetts is told in the records of
the old Bay State.

During the trouble with the Quakers Massachusetts was afflicted by a
wordy controversy, imported from Connecticut, but which did not reach
its culminating point till 1662. I refer to the “Half-way Covenant,”
for the discussion of which a council of ministers from both colonies
was called in 1657, in Boston, which pronounced in favor of the system
in question. A synod of Massachusetts churches in 1662 confirmed
the judgment here given, and the Half-way Covenant system prevailed
extensively in New England for more than a century. After the synod
was dissolved, and the result was published by order of the General
Court, the discussion continued, and several tracts were issued from
the Cambridge press, _pro_ and _con_, in 1662, 1663, and 1664.[612]
Of Morton’s _New England’s Memorial_ mention has already been made in
the preceding chapter, as it concerns chiefly the Plymouth Colony.
It contains, however, many things of interest about Massachusetts;
recording the death of many of her worthies, and embalming their
memories in verse. It ends with the year 1668, with a notice of the
death of Jonathan Mitchel, the minister of Cambridge, and of that of
John Eliot, Jr., the son of the apostle, at the age of thirty-two
years. There are five unpaged leaves after “finis,” containing “A Brief
Chronological Table.”

There was printed in London in 1674 _An Account of Two Voyages to New
England_, by John Josselyn, Gent., a duodecimo volume of 279 pages.
This author and traveller was a brother of Henry Josselyn, of Black
Point, or Scarborough, in Maine, and they are said to have been sons of
Sir Thomas Josselyn, of Kent, knight. John came to New England in 1638,
and landed at Noddle’s Island, and was a guest of Samuel Maverick;
thence he went to Scarborough, stayed with his brother till the end of
1639, and then returned home. In 1663 he came over again, and stayed
till 1671; and then went home and wrote this book. His own observations
are valuable, but his history is often erroneous. He frequently cites
Johnson. At the end of his book is a chronological table running back
before the Christian era. His _New England’s Rarities_, published
in 1672, giving an account of the fauna and flora of the country,
has been reprinted with notes in the American Antiquarian Society’s
_Transactions_, vol. iv., edited by Edward Tuckerman.[613]

The interest of John Ogilby’s large folio on _America_ is almost solely
a borrowed one, so far as concerns New England history, arising from
the use he made of Wood, Johnson, and Gorges.[614]

The modern student will find a very interesting series of successive
bulletins, as it were, of the sensations engendered by the progress of
the Indian outbreak of 1675-76, known as “Philip’s War,” and of the
events as they occurred, in a number of tracts, mostly of few pages,
which one or more persons in Boston sent to London to be printed. They
are now among the choicest rarities of a New England library.[615] It
was to make an answer to one of these tracts that Increase Mather
hastily put together and printed in Boston,[616] in 1676, his _Brief
History of the War_, which was reprinted in London in the same
year.[617] The year after (1677) the war closed,[618] Foster, the
new Boston printer, also printed William Hubbard’s _Narrative of the
Troubles with the Indians_, which likewise came from the London press
the same year with a changed title, _The Present State of New England,
being a Narrative_, etc.,—a book not, however, confined to Philip’s
War, but going back, as the Boston title better showed, over the whole
series of the conflicts with the natives.[619]

In the year 1679 it became known to the members of the General Court
that the Rev. William Hubbard, of Ipswich, had compiled a _History of
New England_, and in June of that year they ordered that the Governor
and four other persons be a committee “to peruse the same,” and make
return of their opinion thereof by the next session, in order “that
the Court may then, as they shall then judge meet, take order for
the impression thereof.” Two years afterward, in October, the Court
thankfully acknowledged the services of Mr. Hubbard in compiling his
_History_, and voted him fifty pounds in money, “he transcribing it
fairly into a book that it may be the more easily perused.” There was
no further movement made for the printing of the volume. The transcript
made agreeably to this order is now in the Library of the Massachusetts
Historical Society. The preface and some leaves of the text are
wanting. This was by far the most important history of New England
which had then been written. The compiler had the benefit of Bradford’s
_History_ and Winthrop’s Journal, though, after the fashion of the
time, he makes no mention of them, only acknowledging in a general
way his indebtedness to “the original manuscripts of such as had the
managing of those affairs under their hands.” The manuscript was first
printed in 1815 by the Massachusetts Historical Society; and a second
edition, “collated with the original MS.,” was printed in 1848.[620]

[Illustration]

The history of the struggles of the colony to maintain its charter
during the period immediately preceding the loss of it is largely told
in the pages of its records, and in a large mass of documents published
in Hutchinson’s volume of Papers, and cited in Chalmers’ _Annals_ and
in Palfrey’s _New England_. Reference may also be made to a paper by
the present writer in vol. i. of _Memorial History of Boston_, on this
struggle to maintain the charter.

The history of the Dudley and Andros administrations may be gathered
from numerous publications which came from the press just after
the Revolution; and, without mentioning their titles, I cannot do
better than refer to them as published in three volumes by the Prince
Society of Boston, called the _Andros Tracts_, edited with abundant
notes by William H. Whitmore.[621] Palfrey’s _History_ should be
read in connection with these memorials. The original papers of the
“Inter-charter Period” are largely wanting, though some volumes of the
Massachusetts Archives are so entitled.[622]

As materials for the history of the State it should be remembered that
there are many town histories which contain matter of more than mere
local interest. The history of the town of Boston is in a great degree
the history of the colony and State, and the several histories of that
town, notably those by Caleb H. Snow (to 1825) and Samuel G. Drake (to
1770), and the _Description_ of N. B. Shurtleff,[623] may be specially
mentioned; while the recently published _Memorial History of Boston_,
edited by Mr. Justin Winsor, is indispensable to any student who wishes
to know a large part of the story of Massachusetts.[624] The _History
of Salem_, by Dr. J. B. Felt, gives many documents of the first
importance relating to the settlement of that ancient town, where the
colony had its birth; and the same writer’s _Customs of New England_,
Boston, 1853, has a distinctive value.

The _Bibliography of the Local History of Massachusetts_, by Jeremiah
Colburn, Boston, 1871, a volume of 119 pages, deserves a place in
every New England library,[625] and it may be supplemented by the
brief titles included in Mr. F. B. Perkins’s _Check List of American
History_.[626] There is a good list of local histories in the _Brinley
Catalogue_, no. 1,558, etc. The _Sketches of the Judicial History of
Massachusetts_, by the late Emory Washburn, is a most important book
for that phase of the subject.

MAINE.[627]—The documentary history of Maine properly begins with
the grant to Sir Ferdinando Gorges. The previous operations under the
Laconia Company were partly, as we have seen, on the territory of
Maine, while in part also their history is preserved in the archives of
New Hampshire.[628]

The patent issued to Gorges at the general division, in 1635, of
the territory which he named “New Somersetshire,” is not extant. An
organization, as we have already said, took place under this grant, and
a few records are extant in manuscript.[629]

The royal charter of Maine, dated April 3, 1639, was transcribed into
a book of records of the Court of Common Pleas and Sessions for the
county of York, and, with the commissions to the officers, has been
printed by Sullivan in his _History of Maine_, Boston, 1795, Appendix
No. 1.

The first government organized under the charter[630] was in 1640, and
the manuscript records are also at Alfred with the commissions to the
officers. Extracts from the records were made by Folsom, as above,
pp. 53-57. After the submission of Maine to Massachusetts in 1653,
courts were held at York under the authority of the latter. Afterward,
when the royal commissioners came over and went into Maine, a portion
of the inhabitants were encouraged to rebel against the authority of
Massachusetts, and courts were temporarily set up under a commission
from Sir Robert Carr. Some records of their doings exist.[631]

[Illustration: AUTOGRAPHS.

[Mason was the proprietor of New Hampshire. Mr. C. W. Tuttle was
engaged at his death on a memoir of Mason, upon whom he delivered
addresses, reported in the _Boston Advertiser_, June 22, 1871, and
_Boston Globe_, April 4, 1872. Garde was the mayor of Gorgeana. Thomas
Gorges was the deputy-governor of Maine.—ED.]]

The Records of Massachusetts for the years 1652-53 show the official
relations which existed between the two colonies. The State-paper
offices of England contain a large quantity of manuscripts illustrating
the claims of Ferdinando Gorges, the grandson of the original
proprietor; and the principal part of these may be seen either in
abstracts, or at full length in Folsom’s _Catalogue of Original
Documents_[632] relating to Maine (New York, 1858), prepared by the
late H. G. Somerby.[633] Many of these papers may also be found in
Chalmers’ _Annals_, 1780, who had great facilities for consulting the
public offices in England.[634]

       *       *       *       *       *

Of general histories of Maine, the earliest was that of James Sullivan,
entitled _The History of the District of Maine_, Boston, 1795, the
territory having been made a Federal district in 1779. Judge Sullivan
was too busy a man to write so complicated a history as that of
Maine; and he fell into some errors, and came short of what would be
expected of a writer at the present day. He was one of the founders
and at that time president of the Massachusetts Historical Society,
and doubtless felt the obligation to do some such work. The next
important _History of Maine_ is that of Judge William D. Williamson,
published at Hallowell, 1832, in two volumes. This contains a vast
amount of material indispensable to the student; but there are
serious errors in the work, made known by the discovery of new matter
since its publication. In 1830 there was published at Saco, Maine, a
small 12º volume, by George Folsom,[635] called _History of Saco and
Biddeford, with Notices of other Early Settlements_, etc. Although a
history of two comparatively small towns, now cities, yet they were
early settlements; and the author, who had a faculty for history,
made his work the occasion of writing a brief but authentic sketch of
the history of Maine under all her multiform governments and varying
fortunes. It was the best town history then written in New England, as
it was also the best history of the Province of Maine..

I might mention a volume of _Sketches of the Ecclesiastical History
of Maine from the Earliest Period_, by the Rev. Jonathan Greenleaf of
Wells, published at Portsmouth, 1821.

In 1831-33 William Willis published his _History of Portland_, in two
parts. The work embraced also sketches of several other towns, and it
was prefaced by an account of the early patents and settlements in
Maine; while the second edition, issued in 1865, is yet more full on
the general history of the province.

There are other valuable town histories, and I cannot do better than
refer the reader to Mr. William Willis’s “Descriptive Catalogue of
Books relating to Maine,” in _Norton’s Literary Letter_, No. 4, for
1859, and as enlarged in _Historical Magazine_, March, 1870.[636]

The _Collections_ of the Maine Historical Society,[637] in eight
volumes, contain a large amount of material which illustrates this
early period. The first volume was issued in 1831, and in fact forms
the first part of Willis’s _History of Portland_. The _Collections_ of
the Massachusetts Historical Society, and especially vol. vii. of the
fourth series, should be cited as of special interest here.

The _Relation_ of the Council for New England, the narratives in
Purchas, Winthrop’s Journal, Hubbard’s _Indian Wars_, and that
author’s _History of New England_ and the _Two Voyages_ of Josselyn,
have already been referred to, and they should be again noted in this
place, as should Dr. Palfrey’s _History of New England_ especially.
Gorges’ _Briefe Narration_, 1658, is most valuable as coming from the
original proprietor himself. Its value is seriously impaired by its
want of chronological order and of dates, and by its errors in date.
In what condition the manuscript was left by its author, and to what
extent the blemishes of the work are attributable to the editor or the
printer, can never be known. Sir Ferdinando died in May, 1647. The
work was written not long before his death, and was published some
twelve years afterward, with two compilations by his grandson and the
sheets of Johnson’s _Wonder-Working Providence_.[638] Notwithstanding
its blemishes, the tract has great value; but it should be read in
connection with other works which furnish unquestionable historical
data.

The _Memorial Volume of the Popham Celebration_, Aug. 20, 1862
(Portland, 1862), contains a good deal of historical material; but
a large part of it was, unfortunately, prepared under a strong
theological and partisan bias. In its connection with the settlement at
Sabino, it has been mentioned in an earlier chapter.

A valuable historical address was delivered at the Centennial
Exhibition at Philadelphia, Nov. 4, 1876, by Joshua L. Chamberlain,
President of Bowdoin College, entitled _Maine, Her Place in History_,
and was published in Augusta in 1877.


NEW HAMPSHIRE.—New Hampshire was probably first settled by David
Thomson, in the spring of 1623. The original sources of information
concerning him are the _Records_ of the Council for New England; a
contemporaneous indenture, 1622, recently found among the Winthrop
Papers, and since published; Winslow’s _Good News_, London, 1624, p.
50; Bradford’s _Plymouth Plantation_, p. 154; Hubbard’s _New England_,
pp. 89, 105, 214, 215; Levett’s Voyage[639] to New England in 1623/24;
Pratt’s Narrative, in 4 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, iv. 486, and Gorges’
_Briefe Narration_, p. 37. All these authorities are summarized by the
present writer in a note, on page 362 of _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, May,
1876, to a paper on “David Thomson and the Settlement of New Hampshire.”

For the settlement of the Hiltons on Dover Neck, and for the later
history of the town, see _Records_ of the Council; Hubbard; a Paper
on David Thomson in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, as above; 1 _Mass.
Hist. Coll._, iii. 63; _Provincial Papers of New Hampshire_, i. 118,
and the authorities (A. H. Quint and others) there cited; cf. Mr.
Hassam’s paper in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, January, 1882, p. 40;
Winthrop’s Journal, i. 276.

For the doings of the Laconia Company, and the settlement of
Portsmouth, see Belknap’s _New Hampshire_, who errs respecting the
Laconia patent and the date of the operations of the Company; Hubbard
as above; _Provincial Papers_, where the extant Laconia documents are
printed at length; Jenness’s _Isles of Shoals_, 2d ed., New York, 1875,
and his privately printed (1878) _Notes on the First Planting of New
Hampshire_; the paper on David Thomson, as above; Adams’s _Annals of
Portsmouth; N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, ii. 37.

For the history of the settlements of Exeter and Hampton see Belknap,
as above; and cf. Farmer’s edition, who holds to the forgery of the
Wheelwright deed of 1629; _Provincial Papers_ as above, pp. 128-153.
For a discussion of the genuineness of the Wheelwright deed, it will
be sufficient, perhaps, to refer to Mr. Savage’s argument against it
in Winthrop’s Journal, i. Appendix, which the present writer thinks
unanswerable, and Governor C. H. Bell’s able defence of it in the
volume of the Prince Society on John Wheelwright.[640]

Concerning the several patents issued by the Council to cover the
territory of New Hampshire, or parts of it, which afterward appeared
in history, one was made to John Mason, of Nov. 7, 1629, of territory
between the Merrimac and Piscataqua, which, “with consent of the
Council, he intends to name New Hampshire” (Mason was governor of
Portsmouth co. Hants). This grant[641] was printed in Hazard, vol. i.,
from “New Hampshire files,” and is in _Provincial Papers_, i. 21. The
Laconia grant of Nov. 17, 1629, to Gorges and Mason, was the basis of a
trading company, as we have already seen, and those associates took out
a new patent, Nov. 3, 1631, of land near the mouth of the Piscataqua.
The Laconia patent is in Massachusetts Archives, and is printed in
_Provincial Papers_, i. 38. The second grant is printed in Jenness’s
_Notes_, above cited, Appendix ii. Hilton’s patent of Dover Neck, or
wherever it may have extended, of March 12, 1629/30, is cited in the
Council _Records_, and is printed _in extenso_ in Jenness’s _Notes_,
Appendix i., which also should be read for a discussion relative to
its boundaries.[642] At the grand division in 1635 Mason had assigned
to him the territory between Naumkeag and Piscataqua, dated April
22, “all which lands, with the consent of the Counsell, shall from
henceforth be called New Hampshire.” Hazard (i. 384) printed the grant
from the “records of the Province of Maine,” and it is also printed in
_Provincial Papers_, i. 33. Mason never improved this grant. All his
operations in New Hampshire, or Piscataqua, as the place was called,
was as a member of the unfortunate Laconia Company. He died soon after
this last grant was issued, and bequeathed the property ultimately
to his grandchildren John and Robert Tufton, whose claims were used
to annoy the settlers on the soil who had acquired a right to their
homesteads by long undisputed possession.[643]

After the union of the New Hampshire towns with Massachusetts, their
history forms part of the history of that colony, and the _General
Court Records_ may be consulted for information. John S. Jenness’s
_Transcripts of Original Documents in the English Archives relating
to New Hampshire_, privately printed, New York, 1876, is a volume of
great value. An early map of Maine and New Hampshire, of about the
period of 1655, is prefixed to the book. The Appendix to Belknap’s _New
Hampshire_ also contains documents of great value. The _Collections_
of the New Hampshire Historical Society, consisting of eight volumes,
1824-1866, are rich in material relating to the State; and the three
volumes of _Collections_ published by Farmer and Moore,[644] 1822-1824,
in semi-monthly and then in monthly numbers, should not be overlooked;
nor should the _Collections_ of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

Of the general histories, that of Dr. Belknap is the first and the
only considerable _History of New Hampshire_, Philadelphia and Boston,
1784-92, 3 vols. The work early acquired the name of “the elegant
History of New Hampshire,” which it deserved. As a writer, Dr.
Belknap’s style was simple and “elegant.” Perhaps after Franklin he
was the best writer of English prose which New England had produced;
and there has been since little improvement upon him. He had the true
historical spirit, and was a good investigator.[645] He fell into an
error respecting some of the early grants of New Hampshire, and the
early part of his History needs revision. He probably never doubted the
genuineness of the Wheelwright deed; but John Farmer, the editor of a
new edition (1831) of his work, believed that document to be a forgery,
and made his book to conform to this idea, though other errors were not
corrected. Palfrey’s _New England_ is of the first authority here after
Belknap.[646]


CONNECTICUT.—“_Quinni-tuk-ut_, ‘on long river,’—now
_Connecticut_,—was the name of the valley, or lands on both sides
of the river. In one early deed (1636) I find the name written
_Quinetucquet_; in another of the same year, _Quenticutt_.”[647]

The name “Connecticut,” as designating the country or colony on the
river of that name, was used by Massachusetts in their commission of
March 3, 1635/36,[648] and it was early adopted by the colonists.[649]

_Quinnipiac_,—the Indian name of New Haven, written variously, and
by President Stiles, on the authority of an Indian of East Haven,
_Quinnepyooghq_,—is probably “longwater place.”[650] The name New
Haven was substituted by the Court Sept. 5, 1640.[651]

The first English settlement was made by the Plymouth people at Windsor
in October, 1633, when they sent out a barque with materials for a
trading-house, and set it up there against the remonstrances of the
Dutch, who had themselves established a trading-house at Hartford
some time before.[652] The history of this business is well told by
Bradford (pp. 311-314), with whose narrative compare Winthrop (pp.
105, 181) and Hubbard (pp. 170, 305 _et seq._).

The story of the settlement of the three towns on the Connecticut
River by emigrants from Massachusetts is told by Winthrop, _passim_,
and by Trumbull; and the _Records_ of Massachusetts show the orders
passed in relation to their removal, and define their political status
during the first year of the settlement, and indeed to a later period.
The Connecticut _Colonial Records_ give abundant information as to
their political relations until the arrival of the Winthrop charter
of 1662, when, after some demurring on the part of New Haven, the two
small jurisdictions were merged into one.[653] A spirited letter from
Mr. Hooker to Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts, written in 1638,
disclosing his suppressed feelings towards some in the Bay Colony for
alleged factious opposition to the emigration to Connecticut, may be
seen in _Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll._, i. 3-18. What is called the original
Constitution of Connecticut, adopted by the three towns Jan. 14,
1638/39, may be seen in the printed _Colonial Records_, i. 20-25.[654]

The story of John Winthrop’s second arrival from England, in October,
1635, with a commission from Lord Say and Sele, and Lord Brook and
others, and with £2,000 in money, to begin an independent settlement
and erect a fortification near the mouth of the Connecticut River, and
to be governor there for one year, is told in Winthrop’s Journal (i.
170, 173); and is repeated in full by Trumbull, vol. i. Possession
was taken in the following month. The patent to Lord Say and others,
which was the basis of this movement, is known as the “old patent
of Connecticut,” and may be seen, with Winthrop’s commission, in
Trumbull’s _History_, vol. i., both editions. It purports to be a
personal grant from the Earl of Warwick, then the President of the
Council for New England, bearing date March 19, 1631 (1632 N.S.).
Although the authority by which the grant is made is not given in
the document itself, as is usually the case, it has been confidently
asserted that the Earl of Warwick had received the previous year a
patent for the same territory from the Council for New England, which
was subsequently confirmed by the King.[655] The grant was interpreted
to convey all the territory lying west of the Narragansett River, one
hundred and twenty miles on the Sound, thence onward to the South
Sea.[656]

The first and second agreements with Fenwick, the agent of the
proprietors, dated Dec. 5, 1644, and Feb. 17, 1646, were first printed
by Trumbull.[657] The account of Fenwick’s arrival in the colony, in
1639, with his family, and his settlement, and the naming of Saybrook,
may be seen in Winthrop.[658]

The “Capital Laws,” established by Connecticut, Dec. 1, 1642, the first
“Code of Laws,” and the court orders, judgments, and sentences of
the General and Particular Courts, from 1636 to 1662, are printed in
_Connecticut Colonial Records_.[659]

The contemporaneous accounts of the Pequot War have already been
mentioned under “Massachusetts.” What relates specially to Connecticut
is largely told in the _Colonial Records_. Mason’s narrative is by
far the best of the original accounts which have been published. The
dispute with Massachusetts respecting the division of the conquered
territory; the allotments of the same to the soldiers; the account of
the younger Winthrop’s settlement in the Pequot country, and his claim
to the Nehantick country by an early gift of Sashions, not allowed by
the United Colonies,—may be seen in the records of Massachusetts and
Connecticut, and in the records of the United Colonies.[660]

The account of the settlement of New Haven by emigrants from
Massachusetts—indirectly from the city of London,—in 1638; of their
purchases of lands from the natives, and of the formation of their
government,—church and civil,—may be seen in Winthrop,[661] and in
_New Haven Colonial Records_.[662]

The Fundamental Articles, or Original Constitution, of the Colony
of New Haven, June 4, 1639, which continued in force till 1665, was
printed in Trumbull’s _History_, vol. i., in 1797, in Appendix, no.
iv., as also in the later edition, and in the _Colonial Records_, i.
11-17, in which volume the legislative and judicial history of the
colony is recorded for many years. The orders of the General Court,
the civil and criminal trials before the Court of Magistrates, with
the evidence spread out on the pages of the record, and the sentences
following, being, in criminal cases, based on the Laws of Moses,
furnish an unpleasant exhibition; perhaps not more so, however, than
other primitive colonies would have shown if their record of crimes had
been as well preserved. From April, 1644, to May, 1653, the _Records_
of New Haven jurisdiction are lost.

What is known as Governor Eaton’s[663] Code of Laws was sent to London
to be printed under the supervision of Governor Hopkins, who had
returned to England a few years before; and an edition of five hundred
copies appeared in 1656, under the title of _New Haven’s Settling
in New England_, etc. The code was first reprinted by Mr. Royal R.
Hinman, at Hartford, in 1838, in a volume entitled _The Blue Laws of
New Haven Colony, usually called Blue Laws of Connecticut, Quaker
Laws of Plymouth and Massachusetts_, etc.; and again, in 1858, at the
end of the second volume of _New Haven Records_, from a rare copy in
the Library of the American Antiquarian Society.[664] The “Articles
of Confederation” of the United Colonies of 1643, whose records are
a mine of history in themselves, were prefixed to this code, and were
here printed for the first time. The _Records_ were first printed by
Hazard in 1794, from the Plymouth copy, and they have more recently
been reprinted by the State of Massachusetts in a volume of the
_Plymouth Records_. Each colony had a copy of those records, but the
only ones preserved are those of Plymouth and of Connecticut. The
latter, containing some entries wanting in the former, are printed at
the end of vol. iii. of the _Connecticut Colonial Records_.

The Quakers gave little disturbance to either of these colonies. While
the people in Connecticut were divided with the “Half-Way Covenant”
controversy, the Quakers, in July, 1656, made their appearance in
Boston. The United Colonies recommended the several jurisdictions to
pass laws prohibiting their coming, and banishing those who should
come. Connecticut and New Haven took the alarm, and acted upon the
advice given. New Haven subsequently increased the penalties at first
prescribed, yet falling short in severity of the legislation of
Massachusetts.[665]

The territorial disputes of Connecticut and New Haven with the Dutch at
Manhados, which began early and were of long continuance, find abundant
illustration in Trumbull’s _History of Connecticut_, and in Brodhead’s
_History of New York_, and in the documentary history, of which the
materials were procured by Brodhead, but arranged by O’Callaghan.[666]

The records of the two colonies show the ample provision made for
public schools, and indicate a project entertained by New Haven as
early as 1648 to found a college,—a scheme not consummated, however,
till a later period.

The Winthrop charter of 1662, which united the two colonies, is in
Hazard, ii. 597, taken from a printed volume of _Charters_, London,
1766. It had been printed at New London in 1750, in a volume of _Acts
and Laws_, and is in a volume by Samuel Lucas, London, 1850. The
charter bears date April 23, 1662. In an almanac of John Winthrop,
the younger, for the year 1662, once temporarily in my possession,
and now belonging to the Hon. Robert C. Winthrop, I noticed this
manuscript note of the former owner, which I copied: “This day, May 10,
in the afternoon, the Patent for Connecticut was sealed.” The orders,
instructions, and correspondence relating to the procuring of this
charter are printed in the _Colonial Records_, text and Appendix, and
in Trumbull, vol. i., text and Appendix.[667]

The Restoration brought its anxieties as well as its blessings. The
story of the shelter afforded to the regicides Whalley and Goffe, by
New Haven, is an interesting episode. Dr. Stiles’s volume, _A History
of the Three Judges_ [including Colonel Dixwell] _of King Charles I._,
etc. (Hartford, 1794), is a minute collection of facts, though not
always carefully weighed and analyzed.[668]

The granting of the royal charter of 1662, which was followed next year
by that to Rhode Island, brought on the long controversy with that
colony as to the eastern boundary of Connecticut; and the revival of
the claim of the heirs of the Duke of Hamilton—a claim more easily
disposed of—added to the annoyances. The papers relating to these
controversies may be seen in the _Colonial Records_ of Connecticut, ii.
526-554, and of Rhode Island, ii. 70-75, 128.[669]

After the union, the earliest printed _Book of General Laws for the
People within the Jurisdiction of Connecticut_ was in 1673,—the code
established the year before. It was printed at Cambridge.[670]

[Illustration: COLONIAL SECRETARIES.

[These secretaries held office consecutively: Steele, 1636-39; Hopkins,
1639-40; Wells, 1640-48; Cullick, 1648-58; Clark, 1658-63; Allyn,
1663-65.—ED.]]

The authorities for the history of Philip’s War—so disastrous
to Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Rhode Island, but from which
“Connecticut,” says Trumbull, “had suffered nothing in comparison
with her sister colonies”—have already been given under the head of
“Massachusetts.” Without citing special documents, it may be said
that Trumbull’s _History of Connecticut_ and Palfrey’s _New England_
furnish abundant authority from this time down to the conclusion of
the government of New England under Andros, and the narrative of each
may be referred to as fitting, ample, and trustworthy. Trumbull’s
_History_, as an original authority, may well compare for Connecticut
with Hutchinson’s _History_ for Massachusetts. The first volume
(1630-1713) was published in 1797; and, although the titlepage to it
reads “Vol. I.,” the author says in the Preface to vol. ii., first
printed in 1818 (1713-1764), that he never had any design of publishing
another volume. The first volume was reprinted in 1818 as a companion
to vol. ii.[671]

The _Records_ of Connecticut for the period embraced in this chapter
are abundant, and are admirably edited, with explanatory notes, by Dr.
J. Hammond Trumbull, of Hartford, who has done so much to illustrate
the history of his State, and indeed of New England.[672] I might add
that Dr. Palfrey, in writing the _History of New England_, often had
the benefit of Dr. Trumbull’s learning in illustrating many obscure
points in Connecticut history.[673]

The _New Haven Colony Records_ end, of course, with the absorption
of that colony by Connecticut. These are well edited, in two volumes
(1638 to 1649, and 1653 to 1665), with abundant illustrations in the
Appendix, by Charles J. Hoadly, M.A., and were published at Hartford in
1857-58.

The _Collections_ of the Connecticut Historical Society have already
been referred to.[674]

The New Haven Colony Historical Society is a separate body, devoted to
preserving the memorials of that colony. It has issued three volumes of
_Papers_.[675]

Among the general histories of Connecticut was one by Theodore Dwight,
Jr., in Harper’s Family Library, 1840; also another by G. H. Hollister,
2 vols., 1855, and enlarged in 1857. A condensed _History of the
Colony of New Haven, before and after the Union_, by E. R. Lambert,
was published at New Haven in 1838; and a more extensive _History of
the Colony of New Haven to its Absorption into Connecticut_, by E. E.
Atwater, was published in New Haven in 1881.[676] There are some town
histories which, for the early period, have almost the character of
histories of the State,—like Caulkins’s _Norwich_ (originally 1845;
enlarged 1866, and again in 1874) and _New London_ (1852); Orcutt and
Beadsley’s _Derby_ (1642-1880); William Cothren’s _Ancient Woodbury_, 3
vols., published in 1854-79; H. R. Stiles’s _Ancient Windsor_, 2 vols.,
1859-63. Barber’s _Connecticut Historical Collections_ is a convenient
manual for ready reference.[677]


RHODE ISLAND.[678]—The first published history of the colony of Rhode
Island and Providence Plantations was an _Historical Discourse_,
delivered at Newport in 1738, on the centennial of the settlement of
Aquedneck, by John Callender, minister of that place, and printed at
Boston the next year.[679]

Twenty-seven years afterward,—that is, in 1765,—there appeared in
seven numbers of a newspaper (the _Providence Gazette_), from January
12 to March 30, “An Historical Account of the Planting and Growth of
Providence.” This sketch, written by the venerable Stephen Hopkins,
then governor of the State, interrupted by the disastrous occurrences
of the times, comes down only to 1645, and remains a fragment.[680]

_A Gazeteer of the States of Connecticut and Rhode Island_, with maps
of each State, was published at Hartford in 1819, in 8º, compiled
by John C. Pease and John M. Niles. It furnished for the time a
large amount of statistical and historical material. The work gives
a geographical sketch of each county, with details of each town,
and “embraces notices of population, business, etc., together with
biographical sketches of eminent men.”

“Memoirs of Rhode Island” were written by the late Henry Bull, of
Newport, in 1832, and published in the _Rhode Island Republican_
(newspaper) of that year.[681] _A Discourse embracing the Civil and
Religious History of Rhode Island, delivered at Newport_, April 4,
1838, by Arthur A. Ross, pastor of a Baptist church at Newport, was
published at Providence in the same year, and is full on the history of
Newport.

In 1853 there was published in New York an octavo volume of 370 pages,
entitled _History of Rhode Island_, by the Rev. Edward Peterson. “This
book abounds in errors, and is of no historical value. It is not a
continuous history, but is made up of scraps, without chronological
arrangement.”[682]

In 1859 and 1860 was published the _History of the State of Rhode
Island and Providence Plantations_, by Samuel Greene Arnold, in two
volumes,[683]—a work honorable alike to its author and to the State.
While Mr. Arnold was writing this history, Dr. Palfrey was engaged upon
his masterly _History of New England_. These writers differed somewhat
in their interpretation of historical events and in their estimate of
historical personages, and the student of New England history should
read them both. The value of these works consists not only in the text
or narrative parts, but also in the notes, which for the student,
particularly in Dr. Palfrey’s book, contain valuable information, in a
small compass, upon the authorities on which the narrative rests.

The late George Washington Greene prepared _A Short History of Rhode
Island_, published in 1877, in 348 pages, which formed an excellent
compendium, much needed. It is compiled largely from Mr. Arnold’s work.

“The Early History of Narragansett,” by Elisha R. Potter, was published
as vol. iii. of the _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._, in 1835. It is a valuable
collection of events, arranged in chronological order, and illustrated
by original documents in an appendix.

“The Annals of the Town of Providence from its First Settlement,” etc.,
to the year 1832, by William R. Staples, was published, in 1834, as
vol. v. of the _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._ The author says that the work
does not assume to be a “history;” but it is a valuable and authentic
record of events from the time of Roger Williams’s settlement on the
banks of the Mooshausic, in 1636, to the year 1832, illustrated by
original documents, the whole making 670 pages.

I ought not to omit the mention of several addresses and discourses
delivered before the Rhode Island Historical Society, some of which
have considerable historical interest, as illustrating the principles
on which it is claimed that Rhode Island was founded. Special mention
may be made of the Discourse of Judge Pitman, that of Chief Justice
Durfee, and that of the late Zachariah Allen.[684]

As Roger Williams is properly held to be the founder of the State of
Rhode Island; and as many of his writings had become quite rare, a
society was formed in 1865, called the “Narragansett Club,” for the
purpose of republishing all his known writings. Vol. i., containing
Williams’s _Key to the Indian Languages of America_, edited by Dr. J.
Hammond Trumbull,[685] was issued in 1866; and vol. vi., the concluding
volume, in which are collected all the known letters of Williams, in
1874. The volumes were published in quarto form, in antique style,
and edited by well-known historical scholars, and are a valuable
contribution to the personal history of Roger Williams and to the
history of the controversy on religious liberty, of which he was the
great advocate.[686]

The earliest publication of any of Williams’s letters was by Isaac
Backus, in his _History of New England_, etc., 1777, 1784, 1796, in
three volumes, written with particular reference to the Baptists.
It treats largely of Rhode Island history, and is a most authentic
work.[687]

A series of _Rhode Island Historical Tracts_, beginning in 1878, has
been issued by Sidney S. Rider, of Providence, each being a monograph
on some subject of Rhode Island history. No. 4, on _William Coddington
in Rhode Island Colonial Affairs_, is an unfavorable criticism on the
conduct of Coddington in the episode known as “the Usurpation,” by Dr.
Henry E. Turner.[688] No. 15, issued in 1882, is a tract of 267 pages,
on _The Planting and Growth of Providence_, by Henry C. Dorr. It is a
valuable monograph, and would have been more valuable if authorities
had been more freely cited.

One valuable source of the history of Rhode Island is the _Records_ of
the colony, and these have been made available for use by publication,
under the efficient editorship of the Hon. John Russell Bartlett, for
a number of years Secretary of State. To make up for the meagreness of
the records in some places, the editor has introduced from exterior
sources many official papers, which make good the deficiencies and
abundantly illustrate the history of the times. The first volume was
issued in 1856, and begins with the “Records of the Settlements at
Providence, Portsmouth, Newport, and Warwick, from their commencement
to their union under the Colony Charter, 1636 to 1647.”

The early history of Providence is so intimately interwoven with the
life of its founder, that some of the excellent memoirs of Roger
Williams may be read with profit as historical works. A _Memoir of
Williams_, by Professor James D. Knowles, was published in 1834, and is
a minute and conscientious biography of the man; but it is written with
a strong bias in favor of Williams where he comes in collision with the
authorities of Massachusetts.

A very pleasant memoir of Williams, by Professor William Gammell,
based on that of Knowles, was published in 1845, in Sparks’s _American
Biography_, reissued the next year in a volume by itself. This memoir
was followed in 1852 by _A Life of Roger Williams_, by Professor Romeo
Elton, published in England, where the author then lived, and in
Providence the next year. This is largely based on Knowles’s memoir,
but contains some new matter, notably the Sadlier Correspondence.

The original authorities for Williams’s career in Massachusetts and
Plymouth are Winthrop and Bradford and the controversial tracts of
Cotton and Williams, from which bits of history may be culled. For a
full presentation and discussion of the facts and principles involved
in Williams’s banishment from Massachusetts, and his alleged offence
to the authorities there, see the late Professor Diman’s Editorial
Preface to Cotton’s _Reply to Williams_, in the second volume of
the Narragansett Club, above cited; Dr. George E. Ellis’s Lecture
on “The Treatment of Intruders and Dissentients by the Founders of
Massachusetts,” in _Lowell Lectures_, Boston, Jan. 12, 1869; Dr. Henry
Martyn Dexter’s _As to Roger Williams_, etc., Boston, 1876;[689] _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, for February, 1873, pp. 341-358; _North American
Review_ for January, 1858, art. xiii. p. 673.

In Dr. John Clarke’s _Ill News from New England_, London, 1653,[690]
being a personal narrative of the treatment, the year before, by the
authorities of the Bay Colony, of Obadiah Holmes, John Crandall, and
John Clarke, and an account of the laws and ecclesiastical polity of
that colony, is a brief account of the settlement of Providence and of
the island of Rhode Island.

An important episode in the early history of Rhode Island was the
career of Samuel Gorton, who settled the town of Warwick. I have
already mentioned, under the head of Massachusetts, the original
books in which the story for and against him is told,—_Simplicitie’s
Defence_, written by Gorton, and _Hypocracie Unmasked_, by Edward
Winslow. The former was republished in the _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._,
vol. ii., in 1835, edited by W. R. Staples, with a preface, notes, and
appendix of original papers. Winslow’s book, now very rare, has never
been reprinted. A “Life of Samuel Gorton,” by John M. Mackie, was
published in 1845 in Sparks’s _American Biography_. After Nathaniel
Morton published his _New England’s Memorial_, in 1669, containing
some reflections on Gorton, the latter wrote a letter to Morton, dated
“Warwick, June 30, 1669,” in his own defence. Hutchinson had the
letter, and printed an abridgment of it in the Appendix to his first
volume. Some forty years ago or less, the original letter came into
the possession of the late Edward A. Crowninshield, of Boston, and he
allowed Peter Force to print it, and it appears entire in vol. iv. of
Force’s _Historical Tracts_, 1846.

The early settlers of Rhode Island had no patent-claim to lands on
which they planted. The consent of the natives only was obtained.
Williams’s deed, so called, from the Indians, may be seen in vols.
iv. and v. _R. I. Hist. Soc. Coll._; and that to Coddington and
his friends, of Aquedneck, is also in the Appendix to vol. iv. The
parchment charter which Williams obtained from the Parliamentary
Commissioners, dated March 14, 1643, is lost, but it had been copied
several times, and is printed in vols. ii., iii., and iv., _R. I. Hist.
Soc. Coll._ Some copies are dated erroneously March 17. See Arnold’s
_Rhode Island_, i. 114, note.

For a discussion of the “Narragansett Patent,” so called, issued to
Massachusetts, dated Dec. 10, 1643, see Arnold, i. 118-120; _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._ for February, 1862, pp. 401-406; and June, 1862; pp.
41-77.[691]

The original charter of Charles II., dated July 8, 1663, is extant. It
was first printed as prefixed to the earliest digest of laws (Boston,
1719), and has been often reprinted.

The incorporation of Providence plantations under the charter of
1643/44 was delayed for several years, and took place in 1647, when a
code of laws was adopted. This code was first printed in 1847, edited
by Judge William R. Staples, in a volume entitled _The Proceedings
of the First General Assembly of “the Incorporation of Providence
Plantations,” and the Code of Laws adopted by that Assembly in 1647,
with Notes, Historical and Explanatory_ (64 pages). The original
manuscript of these laws is in a volume of the early records in the
Secretary of State’s office.

The earliest printed digest of laws, entitled _Acts and Laws_, was in
1719,—printed at Boston “for John Allen and Nicholas Boone.”[692]
In this, the following clause appears as part of a law purporting to
have been enacted in March, 1663-64: “And that all men professing
Christianity, and of competent estates and of civil conversation,
who acknowledge and are obedient to the civil magistrate, though
of different judgments in religious affairs (_Roman Catholics only
excepted_), shall be admitted freemen, and shall have liberty to choose
and be chosen officers in the colony, both military and civil.” This
same clause appears in the four following printed digests named above,
and it remained a law of the colony till February, 1783, when the
General Assembly formally repealed so much of it as related to Roman
Catholics. Rhode Island writers consider it a serious reflection upon
the character of the founders of the colony to assert that this clause
was enacted at the time indicated; and one writer (Judge Eddy, in
_Walsh’s Appeal_, 2d ed., p. 433) thinks it possible that the clause
was inserted in a manuscript copy of the laws sent over to England in
1699, without, of course, being enacted into a law. The clause, it is
said, does not exist in manuscript in the archives of the colony, and
is not in the manuscript digest of 1708, though Mr. Arnold, _History_,
ii. 492, inadvertently says it is there. If the clause was originally
smuggled in among the statutes of Rhode Island at a later period than
the date assigned to it (see _R. I. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1872-73, p.
64), it was five times formally re-enacted when the several digests
named above were submitted by their revising committees, and passed the
General Assembly; and it remained a law till 1783.

In 1762, two persons professing the Jewish religion petitioned the
Superior Court of the colony to be made citizens. Their prayer was
rejected. The concluding part of the opinion of the court is as
follows: “Further, by the charter granted to this colony it appears
that the free and quiet enjoyment of the Christian religion and a
desire of propagating the same were the principal views with which this
colony was settled, and by a law made and passed in the year 1663,
no person who does not profess the Christian religion can be admitted
free of this colony. This Court, therefore, unanimously dismiss this
petition, as wholly inconsistent with the first principles upon which
the colony was founded and a law of the same now in force” (Arnold,
_History_, ii. 492-495). Arnold says that previous to this decision
several Jews and Roman Catholics had been naturalized as citizens by
special acts of the General Assembly.

Has there not been a misapprehension as to the bearing of this law
or clause disfranchising or refusing to admit to the franchise Roman
Catholics and persons not Christians, and as to Roger Williams’s
doctrine of religious liberty? The charter of Rhode Island declared
that no one should be “molested ... or called in question for any
differences of opinion in matters of religion.” The law in question
does not relate to religious liberty, but to the franchise. Rhode
Island has always granted liberty to persons of every religious
opinion, but has placed a hedge about the franchise; and this clause
does it. Was it not natural for the founders of Rhode Island to keep
the government in the hands of its friends while working out their
experiment, rather than to put it into the hands of the enemies of
religious liberty? How many shiploads of Roman Catholics would it have
taken to swamp the little colony in the days of its weakness? Chalmers
(_Annals_, p. 276) copied his extract of the law in question from
the digest of 1730, as per minutes formerly belonging to him in my
possession. As an historian where could he seek for higher authority?
Indeed, the clause had already been cited by Douglass in his _Summary_,
ii. 83, Boston, 1751; and by the authors of the _History of the British
Dominions in North America_, part i. p. 232, London, 1773. The latter
as well as Chalmers omitted the phrase “professing Christianity.” But
Chalmers was entirely wrong in his comments upon the clause where he
says that “a persecution was immediately commenced against the Roman
Catholics.”[693]

[Illustration]


EDITORIAL NOTES.

THE WINTHROP MAP (_Circa 1633_).

AMONG the Sloane manuscripts in the British Museum is one numbered
“Add: 5,415, G. 3,” whose peculiar interest to the American antiquary
escaped notice till Mr. Henry F. Waters sent photographs of it to the
Public Library in Boston in 1884, when one of them was laid before the
Massachusetts Historical Society by Judge Chamberlain, of that Library
(_Proceedings_, 1884, p. 211). It was of the size of the original,
somewhat obscure, and a little deficient on the line where its two
parts joined. At the Editor’s request, Mr. Richard Garnett, of the
British Museum, procured a negative on a single glass; and though
somewhat reduced, the result, as shown in the accompanying fac-simile,
is more distinct, and no part is lost.

The map is without date. The topography corresponds in the main
with that of the map which William Wood added to his _New England’s
Prospect_ (London, 1634), so far as its smaller field corresponds,
and suggests the common use of an earlier survey by the two
map-makers,—if, indeed, Wood did not depend in part on this present
survey. That its observations were the best then made would seem clear
from the fact that Governor Winthrop explained it by a marginal key,
and added in some places a further description to that given by the
draughtsman (as a change in the handwriting would seem to show,—for
instance, in the legend on the Merrimac River), if indeed all is not
Winthrop’s. Who the draughtsman was is not known. There had been in
the colony a man experienced in surveying,—Thomas Graves,—who laid
out Charlestown, before Winthrop’s arrival; but he is not known to
have remained till the period of the present survey, which, if there
has been nothing added to the original draught, was seemingly made as
early as that given by Wood. This last traveller left New England, Aug.
15, 1633; and his description of the plantations about Boston at that
time, which he professes to make complete, is almost identical with the
enumeration on this map, though he gives a few more local names. Wood’s
map is dated 1634; but it seems certain that he carried it with him
in August, 1633,—a date as late apparently as can be attached to the
present draught.

The key added by Winthrop to the north corner of the map reads as
follows:—

  A: _an Iland cont[aining] 100 acres,
  where the Gouven^r. hathe an orchard & a
  vineyarde._

  B: _M^r. Humfryes ferme [farm] house
  at Sagus [Saugus]._

  _Tenhills: the Gouern^{rs}. ferme [farm]
  house._

  _Meadford:  M^r. Cradock ferme [farm]
  house._

  C: the Wyndmill}

  D: the fforte  } at Boston.

  E: the Weere

_So far as the rivers are laid thus [shaded], they are navigable w^{th}
the Tide._

  [SCALE.]

  _Scale of 10: Italian miles
  320 pches [perches] to the mile,
  not taken by Instrument, but by estimate._

In the north the Merrimac is shown to be navigable to _a fall_. The
stream itself is marked _Merimack river; it runnes 100 miles up into
the Country, and falles out of a ponde 10 miles broad_. It receives
the _Musketaquit riuer_ [Concord] just south of the scale. The long
island near its mouth is Plum Island, but it is not named. The village
of _Agawam_ [Ipswich] is connected by roads [dotted lines] with
_Sagus_ [Saugus], _Salem_, _Winesemett_, and _Meadford_, which is
called “Misticke” in Wood’s text, but “Meadford” in his map. On _Cape
Anne_ peninsula _Anasquom_ is marked. The bay between Marblehead and
Marblehead Neck is called _Marble Harbour_, as by Wood in his map.
_Nahant_ is marked, as are also _Pulln Point_, _Deere I._, _Hogg I._,
_Nottles I._ Governor’s Island is marked _A._, referring to the key.
Charlestown is called _Char:towne_. _Spott Ponde_ flows properly
through Malden River, not named, into the Mystic; and _Mistick river_
takes the water of a number of ponds. The modern Horn Pond in Woburn is
not shown. The three small ponds near a hill appear to be Wedge Pond
and others in Winchester; the main water is _Mistick pond, 60 fathoms
deepe; horn ponde_ is the modern Spy Pond; Fresh Pond is called 40
_fathom deepe_. Their watershed is separated by the Belmont hills,
not named, from the valley of the Concord. The villages of _Waterton_
and _Newtowne_ [Cambridge] are marked on the _Charls River_. The
peninsula of _Boston_ shows Beacon Hill, not named, while _C_ and _D_
are explained in the key. _Muddy river_ [Muddy Brook in Brookline]
and _Stony river_ [Stony Brook in Roxbury] are correctly placed.
_Rocksbury_ and _Dorchester_ appear as villages. Hills are shown on
Dorchester Neck, or South Boston. _Naponsett river_ is placed with
tolerable correctness. The islands in Boston Harbor are all represented
as wooded. The _waye to Plimouth_, beginning at Dorchester, crosses
the Weymouth rivers above _Wessaguscus_ [Wessagussett]. Trees and
eminences are marked on _Nataskette_ [Hull], and Cohasset is called
_Conyhassett_. The same sign stands for rocks in the Bay and for Indian
villages on the land.

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

It may be well further to notice that since the printing of this volume
_A Briefe Discription of New England_, 1660, by Samuel Maverick, has
likewise been discovered in the British Museum by Mr. Waters, and is
printed in the _Proceedings_ of the Massachusetts Historical Society,
October, 1884, and in the _New England Historical and Genealogical
Register_, January, 1885.—ED.


EDITORIAL NOTES.

=A.= BIBLIOGRAPHICAL.—Rhode Island has been fortunate in its
bibliographer. Mr. John Russell Bartlett, the editor of the State’s
early _Records_, issued at Providence, in 1864, his _Bibliography of
Rhode Island, with Notes, Historical, Biographical, and Critical_
(150 copies printed). Mr. Bartlett began a “Naval History of Rhode
Island” in the _Historical Magazine_, January, 1870. As the adviser
of the late Mr. John Carter Brown in the forming of what is now so
widely known as the Carter-Brown Library, and as the cataloguer of
its almost unexampled treasures, not only of Rhode Island, but of all
American history, Mr. Bartlett has also conferred upon the student of
American history benefits equalled in the labors of few other scholars
in this department. Mr. Brown erected for himself in his Library a
splendid monument. There may exist in the Lenox Library a rival in
some departments of Americana, but Mr. Bartlett’s Catalogue of the
Providence Collection makes its richness better known. Mr. Brown began
his collections early, and was enabled to buy from the catalogues of
Rich and Ternaux. The Library is now so complete, and its _desiderata_
are so few and so scarce, that it grows at present but slowly.
Mr. Brown, a son of Nicholas Brown, from whom the university in
Providence received its name, was born in 1797, and died June 10,
1874. But fifty copies of the two sumptuous volumes (1482-1700)
constituting the revised edition of the catalogue (there is a third
volume, 1700-1800, in a first edition) have been distributed,
and they are the Library’s best history; but those not fortunate
enough to have access to them will find accounts of it in the
 _Bibliotheca Sacra_, April, 1876; Rogers’s _Libraries of
Providence; N.E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, April, 1876; _American
Journal of Education_, xxvii. 237; _American Bibliopolist_, vi. 77,
vii. 91, 228.

The several volumes of the Rhode Island Historical Society, so far as
they relate to the period under examination, are noted in the preceding
text; but the Society has also issued a volume of _Proceedings_ for
the years 1872-1879. Two supplemental publications of the Rhode Island
antiquaries have been begun lately,—the _Newport Historical Magazine_,
July, 1880, and the _Narragansett Historical Register_, July, 1882,
James N. Arnold, editor, both devoted to southern Rhode Island.


=B.= EARLY MAPS OF NEW ENGLAND.—The cartography of New England in
the seventeenth century began with the map of Captain John Smith in
1614 (given in chap. vi.), for we must discard as of little value
the earlier maps of Lescarbot and Champlain. The Dutch were on the
coast at about the same time, and the best development of their work
is what is known as the “Figurative Map” of 1614, which was first
made known in the _Documents relating to the Colonial History of New
York_, i. 13, and in O’Callaghan’s _New Netherland_. The part showing
New England is figured in the _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 57. It
had certain features which long remained on the maps, and its names
became in later maps curiously mixed with those derived from Smith’s
map. It gave the Cape Cod peninsula (here, however, made an island) a
peculiar triangular shape; it exaggerated Plymouth’s harbor; it ran
Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket into one, and divided Long Island into
several parts. The marked feature of the interior was the bringing
of the Iroquois (Champlain) Lake close down to the salt water, as
Champlain had done in his map of 1612, and as he continued to do in
his larger map of 1632. Blaeu, in his _Atlas_ of 1635, while he copied
the Figurative Map pretty closely, closed the channel which made Cape
Cod an island, and gave the “Lacus Irocociensis” a prolongation in
the direction of Narragansett Bay. De Laet, in 1630, had worked on
much better information in several respects. Cape Cod is much more
nearly its proper shape; and he had got such information from the
Dutch settlements up the Hudson as enabled him to place Lake Champlain
with fair accuracy. A fac-simile of De Laet’s map is given in Vol. IV.
chap. ix. Meanwhile the English had enlarged Smith’s plot, as the map
given on an earlier page from Alexander and Purchas (_Pilgrimes_, iii.
853) shows. Champlain’s plotting in 1632 of the great river of Canada
could not, of course, have been known to this map-maker of 1624, while
Lescarbot’s was.

[Illustration]

Pure local work came in with the map which accompanied Wood’s _New
England’s Prospect_, which is called “The south part of New England
as it is planted this yeare, 1634.” It only shows the coast from
Narragansett Bay to “Acomenticus,” on the Maine shore, with a
corresponding inland delineation. Buzzard’s Bay is greatly misshapen;
Cape Cod has something of the contemporary Dutch drawing; and, in a
rude way, the watercourses lie like huge snakes in contortions upon
the land. There are fac-similes of the map in Palfrey, i. 360; Young’s
_Chronicles of Massachusetts_, p. 389, and in other places noted in
the _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 524. Two years later (1636), in
Saltonstall’s English version of the atlas of Mercator and Hondius, the
English public practically got De Laet’s map; and indeed so late as
1670, the map “Novi Belgii et Novæ Angliæ Delineatio,” which is given
alike in Montanus’s _De Nieuwe en Onbekende Weereld_ and in Ogilby’s
_America_, hardly embodied more exact information. The Hexham English
version of the Mercator-Hondius Atlas, intended for the English market,
but published in Amsterdam by Hondius and Jannson in 1636 (of which
there is a fine copy in the library of the Massachusetts Historical
Society), in its map of “Nova Anglia,” etc., kept up the commingling
of Smith’s plot and names with the present Dutch ones. Blaeu’s of 1635
was the prototype of the chart in Dudley’s _Arcano del Mare_ (1646), of
which a fac-simile is given in the preceding chapter.

[Illustration: NEW ENGLAND, 1650.

This is a reduction of a sketch of a part of a manuscript Map of North
America, dated 1650, of which a drawing is given in the _Massachusetts
Archives; Documents Collected in France_, ii. 61. The key is as
follows:—

  1. Sauvages Hurons.
  2. Lac des Iroquois [Lake Champlain].
  3. Sauvages Iroquois.
  4. Sauvages Malectites.
  5. Sauvages Etechemins.
  6. Pemicuit [Pemaquid].
  7. Pentagouet.
  8. Isle des Monts Deserts.
  9. Baye de Kinibequi.
  10. Sauvages Kanibas.
  11. Caskobé [Casco Bay].
  12. Pescadoué [Piscataqua].
  13. Selem [Salem].
  14. Baston [Boston].
  15. NOVA ANGLIA.
  16. Sauvages Pequatis [Pequods].
  17. Plymuth.
  18. Cap Malabar.
  19. Sauvages Narhicans [Narragansetts].
  20. Isle de Bloque [Block Island].
  21. Isle de Nantochyte [Nantucket].]

For the next twenty years the Dutch plotting was the one in vogue.
Visscher, in 1652, disjoined the two principal islands south of
Cape Cod, and gave a better shape to that peninsula; but Crane Bay
(Plymouth) continued to be more prominent than Boston. The French
map of Sanson (1656) so far followed the Dutch as to recognize the
claims of “Nouveau Pays Bas” to stretch through Connecticut, Rhode
Island, and Plymouth Colony, as shown in the sketch in chap. xi. The
old Dutch mistakes and the Dutch names characterize Hendrick Doncker’s
_Paskaert_, in 1659, and other of the Hollanders’ sea-charts of this
time. In 1660, François du Creux’s (Creuxius) _Historia Canadensis_
converts into a Latin nomenclature, in a curious jumble, the names of
the English, Dutch, and French. This map is given in fac-simile in
Shea’s _Mississippi_, p. 50, and also in Vol. IV. of the present work.
The next year (1661) Van Loon’s _Pascaerte_ was based on Blaeu and De
Laet, and his _Zee-Atlas_, though not recognized by Asher, represents
the best knowledge of the time. There is a copy in Harvard College
Library. There are other maps of Visscher of about this same time, in
which Cape Cod becomes as excessively attenuated as it had been too
large before.

[Illustration: NEW ENGLAND, 1680.

This follows a manuscript French map preserved in the Depot des
Cartes et Plans at Paris, as shown in a sketch by Mr. Poore in the
_Massachusetts Archives; Documents Collected in France_, iii. 11.]

Of the later Dutch charts or maps, the chief place must be given to
that in Roggeveen’s Sea-Atlas, which is called in the English version
_The Burning Fen_, and which still insists in calling the Cape Cod
peninsula in 1675 a part of “Nieuw Holland,” as does one of Jannson’s
of about the same date, in which Smith’s names survive marvellously
when those of other towns had long taken their places. A map, _La
Nouvelle Belgique_, covering also New England, and fashioned on one
of Jannson’s, is annexed to an article, “Une Colonie Néerlandaise,”
by Colonel H. Wauwermans, in the _Bulletin de la Société Géographique
d’Anvers_, iv. 173. The Blaeu map, “Nova Belgica et Anglia Nova,”
found in the Atlas of 1685, still preserves most of the older
Dutch falsities; and that geographer made no one of these errors
so conspicuous as he did in making still nearer than before the
approach of “Lacus Irocociensis” to Narragansett Bay. A short dotted
boundary-line is made to connect them, and he dispelled the old Dutch
claim to southeastern New England, by putting “Nieu Engelland” east of
this line, and “Nieu Nederlandt” west of it. This map was substantially
followed in Allard’s _Minor Atlas_, of a few years later. A new English
cartography sprang up when there came a demand for geographical
knowledge, as the events of Philip’s War engaged general attention.
The royal geographer Speed issued in 1676 a map of New England and New
York in his _Prospect_; but he seems to have followed Visscher and the
other Dutch authorities implicitly, as did Coronelli and Tillemon in
the New England parts of their map of Canada issued in 1688. Stevens,
in his _Bibliotheca Geographica_, p. 229, notes an English map of New
England and New York, which he supposes to belong to 1690, “sold by T.
Bassett, in Fleet Street,” which is seemingly enlarged from so early a
Dutch map as De Laet’s of 1625. The text of Josselyn’s _Voyages_ was
used as the basis of _A Description of New England_, which accompanied
in folio a folded plate, entitled “Mapp of New England, by John Seller,
Hydrographer to the King.” It is without date, but is mentioned in the
_London Gazette_ in 1676, and could not have appeared earlier than
1674, when Josselyn’s book was printed. There is a copy in Harvard
College Library; and it shows the coast from Casco Bay to New York,
with a corresponding interior. These are precisely the bounds in the
map which is given in Mather’s _Magnalia_ in 1702, and which seems, in
parts at least, to have been drawn from Seller’s. Sabin (_Dictionary_,
vol. xiii. no. 52,629) gives _A Description of New England in
general, with a Description of the Town of Boston in particular_,
London, John Seller, 1682, 4º. Seller is also known to have issued a
small sketch map in his _New England Almanac_, 1685 (copy in Harvard
College Library); and still another, of which a fac-simile is given in
Palfrey’s _New England_, iii. 489. There is a map (5 x 4½ inches)
of New England by Robert Morden in R. Blome’s _Present State of his
Majesty’s Isles and Territories in America_, 1687, p. 210, which is
based on Seller’s, and which has been reproduced by the Bradford Club
in their _Papers concerning the Attack on Hatfield and Deerfield_, New
York, 1859. A different map, extending to New France and Greenland, is
given in the Amsterdam editions of Blome, 1688 and 1715. Hubbard’s map,
accompanying his _Narrative of the Troubles in New England_, 1677, a
rude woodcut,—the first attempt at such work in the colony,—extends
only to the Connecticut westerly; but northerly it goes far enough to
take in the White Hills, which in the London reissue of the map are
called “Wine Hills.” This is also given by Palfrey, iii. 155, after the
London plate, and further notes upon it will be found in the _Memorial
History of Boston_, i. 328. There is also a detailed delineation of the
New England coast in John Thornton’s _Atlas Maritimus_, 1701-21.

In this enumeration of the maps or charts which give New England, or
any considerable part of it, on a scale sufficient for detail, it
is thought that every significant draft is mentioned, though some
repetitions, particularly by the Dutch, have been purposely omitted.

Modern maps of New England, which indicate the condition of this
period, will be found in Palfrey’s _New England_, vol. i., showing
the geography of 1644, and in vol. iii. that of 1689; and in Uhden’s
_Geschichte der Congregationalisten, Leipsic_, 1840.




CHAPTER X.

THE ENGLISH IN NEW YORK, 1664-1689.

BY JOHN AUSTIN STEVENS.


THE trading spirit is not of itself sufficient to establish successful
settlement, and monopolies cannot safely be intrusted with the
government of colonies. The experience of the Dutch in the New
Netherland established this truth, which later experience has fully
confirmed.

Toward the middle of the seventeenth century Holland controlled the
carrying trade of the world. Nearly one half of the tonnage of Europe
was under her flag. Java was the centre of her East Indian enterprise,
Brazil the seat of her West Indian possessions; and the seas between,
over which were wafted her fleets, freighted with the rich products of
these tropical lands, were patrolled by a navy hardy and brave. Yet it
was at the very zenith of her power that her North American colony,
which proudly bore the name of the Fatherland, was stripped from the
home government at one trenchant blow.

The cause of this misfortune may be found in the weakness of the Dutch
settlement compared with the more populous New England communities,
which pressed, threatening and aggressive, on its eastern borders.
Under the Dutch rule, New Netherland was never in a true sense a
colony. Begun as a trading-post in 1621, and managed by the Dutch
West India Company, it cannot be said ever to have got beyond
leading-strings, and at the time when it fell into the hands of the
English its entire population did not exceed seven thousand souls,
while the English on its borders numbered not less than fifteen times
as many.

Nor did the West India Company seem ever to comprehend that their hold
upon the new continent could be maintained only by well-ordered and
continuous colonization. Rapidly enriched by their intercourse with
the natives of the sunny climes in which they established their strong
posts for trade, they seem to have looked for no more from their posts
on the North American coast, or to have had further ambition than to
secure their share of the trade in furs, in which they were met by the
active rivalry and greater enterprise of the French settlers on the
Canadian frontier.

Yet the territory of New Netherland was by natural configuration the
key of the northern frontier of the American colonies, and indeed,
it may be said, of the continent. The courses of the Hudson and
Mohawk form the sides of a natural strategic triangle, and with the
system of northern lakes and streams connect the several parts of
the broad surface which stretches from the mouth of the St. Lawrence
on the Atlantic to the headwaters of the Columbia at the continental
divide. This vantage-ground at the head of the great valleys through
which water-ways give access to the regions on the <DW72> below, was
the chosen site of the formidable confederacy of the Iroquois, the
acknowledged masters of the native tribes.

The English jealousy of the Dutch did not spring from national
antipathy, but from the rivalry of trade. The insular position of
England forced her to protect herself abroad, and when Protestant
Holland, by enterprise and skill, drew to herself the commerce of
both the Indies, her success aroused in England the same spirit of
opposition, the same animosity, which had, the century before, been
awakened by the aggrandizement of Catholic Spain. It was the Protestant
Commonwealth of England which passed the Navigation Act of 1660,
especially directed against the foreign trade of her growing rival of
the same religious faith. In this act may be found the germ of the
policy of England not only toward her neighbors, but also toward her
colonies. This act was maintained in active force after the restoration
of Charles II. to the throne. Strictly enforced at home, it was
openly or secretly evaded only in the British American colonies and
plantations. The arm of England was long, but her hand lay lightly
on the American continent. The extent of coast and frontier was too
great to be successfully watched, and the necessities of the colonies
too many and imperious for them to resist the temptation to a trade
which, though illicit, was hardly held immoral except by the strictest
constructionists of statute law; and it was with the Dutch that this
trade was actively continued by their English neighbors of Maryland
and Virginia, as well as by those of New England. In 1663 the losses
to the revenue were so extensive that the farmers of the customs, who,
after the fashion of the period, enjoyed a monopoly from the King at
a large annual personal cost, complained of the great abuses which,
they claimed, defrauded the revenue of ten thousand pounds a year.
The interest of the kingdom was at stake, and the conquest of the New
Netherland was resolved upon.

This was no new policy. It had been that of Cromwell, the most
sagacious of English rulers, and was only abandoned by him because of
the more immediate advantages secured by his treaty with the Grand
Pensionary, a statesman only second to Oliver himself. The expedition
which Cromwell had ordered was countermanded, and the Dutch title to
the New Netherland was formally recognized by the treaty of 1654.
It seems rational to suppose that the English Protector foresaw the
inevitable future fall of the Dutch-American settlement, hemmed in by
growing English colonies fostered by religious zeal, and that he was
willing to wait till the fruit was ripe and of easy grasp to England.

It is the fashion of historians to ascribe the seizure of the New
Netherland to the perfidy of Charles; but the policy of kingdoms
through successive administrations is more homogeneous than appears
on the surface. The diplomacy of ministers is usually traditional;
the opportunity which seems to mark a change is often but an incident
in the chain. That which presented itself to Clarendon, Charles’s
Lord Chancellor, was the demand made by the States-General that the
boundary line should be established between the Dutch and English
possessions in America. Consent on the part of Charles would have been
a ratification of Cromwell’s recognition of 1654. This demand of the
Dutch Government, made in January, 1664, close upon the petition of
the farmers of the customs of December, 1663, precipitated the crisis.
The seizure of New Amsterdam and the reduction of New Netherland was
resolved upon. Three Americans who happened to be in London,—Scott,
Baker, and Maverick,—were summoned before the Council Board, when
they presented a statement of the title of the King, the intrusion
of the Dutch, and of the condition of the settlement. The Chancellor
held their arguments to be well grounded, and on the 29th of February
an expedition was ordered “against the Dutch in America.” The demand
of the Holland Government was no doubt stimulated by the intrigues of
Sir George Downing, who had been Cromwell’s ambassador at the Hague,
and was retained by Charles as an adroit servant. A nephew of the
elder Winthrop and a graduate from Harvard, Downing appears to have
determined upon the acquisition by England of the Dutch provinces,
which were held by the New England party to be a thorn in the side of
English American colonization. The expedition determined upon, Scott
was sent back to New England with a royal commission to enforce the
Navigation Laws. The next concern of the Chancellor was to secure to
the Crown the full benefit of the proposed conquest. He was as little
satisfied with the self-rule of the New England colonies as with the
presence of Dutch sovereignty on American soil; and in the conquest
of the foreigner he found the means to bring the English subject into
closer dependence on the King.

James Duke of York, Lord High Admiral, was the heir to the crown. He
had married the daughter of Edward Hyde, the Chancellor of the kingdom,
who now controlled its foreign policy. A patent to James as presumptive
heir to the crown, from the King his brother, would merge in the
crown; and a central authority strongly established over the territory
covered by it might well, under favorable circumstances, be extended
over the colonies on either side which were governed under limitations
and with privileges directly secured by charter from the King. In this
adroit scheme may be found the beginning in America of that policy of
personal rule, which, begun under the Catholic Stuart, culminated under
the Protestant Hanoverian, a century later, in the oppression which
aroused the American Revolution. The first step taken by Clarendon
was the purchase of the title conveyed to the Earl of Stirling in 1635
by the grantees of the New England patent. This covered the territory
of Pemaquid, between the Saint Croix and the Kennebec, in Maine, and
the Island of Matowack, or Long Island. The Stirling claim had been
opposed and resisted by the Dutch; but Stuyvesant, the Director of New
Netherland, had in 1650 formally surrendered to the English all the
territory south of Oyster Bay on Long Island and east of Greenwich
on the continent. A title being thus acquired by the adroitness of
Clarendon, a patent was, on the 12th of March, 1664, issued by Charles
II. to the Duke of York, granting him the Maine territory of Pemaquid,
all the islands between Cape Cod and the Narrows, the Hudson River, and
all the lands from the west side of the Connecticut to the east side
of Delaware Bay, together with the islands of Martha’s Vineyard and
Nantucket. The inland boundary was “a line from the head of Connecticut
River to the source of Hudson River, thence to the head of the Mohawk
branch of Hudson River, and thence to the east side of Delaware Bay.”
The patent gave to the Duke of York, his heirs, deputies, and assigns,
“absolute power to govern within this domain according to his own rules
and discretions consistent with the statutes of England.” In this
patent the charter granted by the King to the younger John Winthrop in
1662 for Connecticut, in which it was stipulated that commissioners
should be sent to New England to settle the boundaries of each colony,
was entirely disregarded. The idea of commissioners for boundaries
now developed with larger scope, and the King established a royal
commission, consisting of four persons recommended by the Duke of York,
whose private instructions were to reduce the Dutch to submission and
to increase the prerogatives of the Crown in the New England colonies,
which Clarendon considered to be “already well-nigh ripened to a
commonwealth.”

[Illustration]

Three of these commissioners were officers in the Royal army,—Colonel
Richard Nicolls, Sir Robert Carr, Colonel George Cartwright. The fourth
was Samuel Maverick, an earnest adherent of the Church of England and
bitter enemy of Massachusetts, in which colony he had passed his early
manhood. These commissioners, or any three or two of them,—Nicolls
always included,—were invested with full power in all matters,
military and civil, in the New England colonies. To Colonel Nicolls the
Duke of York entrusted the charge of taking possession of and governing
the vast territory covered by the King’s patent. To one more capable
and worthy the delicate trust could not have been confided. He was in
the fortieth year of a life full of experience, of a good Bedfordshire
family, his father a barrister of the Middle Temple. He had received an
excellent education. When, at the age of nineteen, the Civil War broke
out, he at once joined the King’s forces, and, obtaining command of a
troop of horse, clung persistently to the Royal cause. Later, he served
on the Continent with the Duke of York in the army of Turenne. At the
Restoration he was rewarded for his fidelity with the post of Groom
of the Bedchamber to the Duke, to whose interests he devoted himself
with loyalty, prudence, and untiring energy. His title under the new
commission was that of Deputy-Governor; the tenure of his office, the
Duke’s pleasure.[694]

The English Government has never been scrupulous as to method in the
attainment of its purposes, justification being a secondary matter.
When the news of the gathering of the fleet reached the Hague, and
explanation was demanded of Downing as to the truth of the reports that
it was intended for the reduction of the New Netherland, he boldly
insisted on the English right to the territory by first possession.
To a claim so flimsy and impudent only one response was possible,—a
declaration of war. But the Dutch people at large had little interest
in the remote settlement, which was held to be a trading-post rather
than a colony, and not a profitable post at best. The West India
Company saw the danger of the situation, but its appeals for assistance
were disregarded. Its own resources and credit were unequal to the
task of defence. Meanwhile the English fleet, composed of one ship
of thirty-six, one of thirty, a third of sixteen, and a transport of
ten guns, with three full companies of the King’s veterans,—in all
four hundred and fifty men, commanded by Colonels Nicolls, Carr, and
Cartwright,—sailed from Portsmouth for Gardiner’s Bay on the 15th
of May. On the 23d of July Nicolls and Cartwright reached Boston,
where they demanded military aid from the Governor and Council of the
Colony. Calling upon Winthrop for the assistance of Connecticut, and
appointing a rendezvous at the west end of Long Island, Nicolls set
sail with his ships and anchored in New Utrecht Bay, just outside of
Coney Island, a spot since historical as the landing-place of Lord
Howe’s troops in 1776. Here Nicolls was joined by militia from New
Haven and Long Island. The city of New Amsterdam was at once cut off
from all communication with the shores opposite, and a proclamation
was issued by the commissioners guaranteeing the inhabitants in their
possessions on condition of submission. The Hudson being in the
control of the English vessels, the little city was defenceless. The
Director, Stuyvesant, heard of the approach of the English at Fort
Orange (Albany), whither he had gone to quell disturbances with the
Indians. Returning in haste, he summoned his council together. The
folly of resistance was apparent to all, and after delays, by which the
Director-General sought to save something of his dignity, a commission
for a surrender was agreed upon between the Dutch authorities and
Colonel Nicolls. The capitulation confirmed the inhabitants in the
possession of their property, the exercise of their religion, and
their freedom as citizens. The municipal officers were continued in
their rule. On the 29th of August, 1664, the articles were ratified,
and Stuyvesant marched out from Fort Amsterdam, at the head of his
little band with the honors of war, and embarked the troops on one
of the West India Company’s ships for Holland. Stuyvesant himself
remained for a time in the city. The English entered the fort, the
Dutch flag was hauled down, the English colors hoisted in its place,
and the city passed under English rule. The first act of Nicolls on
taking possession of the fort, in which he was welcomed by the civic
authorities, was to order that the city of New Amsterdam be thereafter
known as New York, and the fort as Fort James, in honor of the title
and name of his lord and patron.

At the time of the surrender the city gave small promise of its
magnificent future. Its entire population, which did not exceed 1,500
souls, was housed within the triangle at the point of the island, the
easterly and westerly sides of which were the East and North Rivers,
and the northern boundary a wall stretching across the entire island
from river to river. Beyond this limit was an occasional plantation
and a small hamlet known as New Haarlem. The seat of government
was in the fort. Nicolls now established a new government for the
province. A force was sent up the Hudson under Captain Cartwright,
which took possession of Fort Orange, the name of which was changed
to Albany, in honor of a title of the Duke of York. On his return,
Cartwright took possession of Esopus in the same manner (the name of
this settlement was later changed to Kingston). The privileges granted
to the inhabitants of New Amsterdam were extended to these towns. The
volunteers from Long Island and New England were now discharged to
their homes.

The effect of the prudent and conciliatory measures of Nicolls, which
in the beginning had averted the shedding of a single drop of blood,
and now appealed directly to the good sense of the inhabitants, was
soon apparent. The fears of the Dutch were entirely allayed, and as
no inequality was imposed upon them, they had no reason to regret the
change of rule. Their pride was conciliated by the continuance of
their municipal authorities, and by the cordial manner in which the
new-comers arranged that the Dutch and English religious service should
be held consecutively under the same roof,—that of the Dutch church
in the fort. Hence when Nicolls, alive to the interests of his master,
which could be served only by maintaining the prosperity of the colony,
proposed to the chief citizens that instead of returning to Holland,
as had been arranged for in the capitulation, they should take the
oath of allegiance to the King of Great Britain and of obedience to
the Duke of York, they almost without exception, Stuyvesant himself
included, accepted the conditions. The King’s authority was thus
peaceably and firmly established in the metropolis and in the outlying
posts of the province of New York proper, which, by the King’s patent
to the Duke, included all the territory east of the Delaware. The
commissioners next proceeded to reduce the Dutch settlements on the
Delaware, and established their colleague, Carr, in command, always
however in subordination to the government of New York. The necessities
of their condition, dependent upon trade, brought the Dutch inhabitants
into easy subjection. Indeed it seems that though their attachment
to the mother country, its laws and its customs, was unabated, the
long neglect of their interests by the Holland Government had greatly
weakened if not destroyed any active sentiment of loyalty.

The southern boundary established, the commissioners turned to the
more difficult task of establishing that to the eastward. The Duke of
York’s patent covered all the territory claimed alike by the Dutch and
by the Connecticut colony under its charter of 1662,—involving an
unsettled controversy. A joint commission finally determined the matter
by assigning Long Island to New York, and establishing a dividing
line between New York and Connecticut, to run about twenty miles
distant eastwardly from the Hudson River. The superior topographical
information of the Connecticut commissioners secured the establishment
of this line in a manner not intended by the Board at large. The
boundary was not ratified by the royal authorities, and was later the
source of continual dispute and of endless bad feeling between the two
colonies.

Nicolls next settled the rules of the customs, which were to be paid
in beaver skins at fixed valuations. Courts were now established,—an
English modification of those already existing among the Dutch. These
new organizations consisted of a court of assizes, or high court of
law and equity. Long Island was divided, after the English manner,
into three districts or ridings, in which courts of sessions were held
at stated intervals. The justices, sitting with the Governor and his
Council once in each year in the Court of Assizes, formed the supreme
law-making power, wholly subordinate to the will of the Governor, and,
after him, to the approval of the Duke. To this body fell the duty of
establishing a code of laws for such parts of the province as still
remained under the Dutch forms of government. Carefully examining
the statutes of the New England colonies, Nicolls prepared from them
a code of laws, and summoning a convention of delegates of towns to
meet at Hempstead on Long Island, he submitted it for their approval.
These laws, though liberal in matters of conscience and religion,
did not permit of the election of magistrates. To this restriction
many of the delegates demurred; but Nicolls fell back upon the terms
of his commission, and the delegates submitted with good grace. The
code thus established is known in jurisprudence as the “Duke’s Laws.”
Its significant features were trial by jury; equal taxation; tenure
of lands from the Duke of York; no religious establishment, but
requirement of some church form; freedom of religion to all professing
Christianity; obligatory service in each parish every Sunday;
recognition of <DW64> slavery under certain restrictions; and general
liability to military duty.

Next in order came the conforming of the style and manner of the city
governments to the custom of England. The Dutch form was abolished,
and a mayor, aldermen, and sheriff appointed. The Dutch citizens
objected to this change from the habit of their forefathers, but
as the preponderance of numbers was given to citizens of their
nationality, the objection was not pressed, and the new authorities
were quietly inaugurated, if not with acquiescence, at least without
opposition or protest. These changes occurred in June, 1665. Thus in
less than a single year, in a population the Dutch element of which
outnumbered the English as three to one, by the moderation, tact,
energy, and remarkable administrative ability of Nicolls, was the
conquered settlement assimilated to the English body politic to which
it was henceforth to belong, and from the hour of transmutation it
was accustomed to look to Great Britain itself for government and
protection. Such was the first step in the transition of the seat of
the “armed commercial monopoly” of New Amsterdam, through various
modifications and changes, to the cosmopolitan city of the present day.

       *       *       *       *       *

The war which the violent seizure of New Netherland precipitated upon
Europe was little felt on the western shores of the Atlantic. There was
nothing in New York itself, independently of its territorial situation,
to tempt a _coup de main_. There were “no ships to lose, no goods to
plunder.” For nearly a year after the capture no vessel arrived from
England with supplies. In the interval the King’s troops slept upon
canvas and straw. The entire cost of maintaining the garrison fell
upon the faithful Nicolls, who nevertheless continued to build up
and strengthen his government, personally disposing of the disputes
between the soldiers and settlers at the posts, encouraging settlement
by liberal offers to planters, and cultivating friendly relations with
the powerful Indian confederacy on the western frontier. While thus
engaged in the great work of organizing into a harmonious whole the
imperial domain to his charge, which, extending from the Delaware to
the Connecticut, with the Hudson as its central artery, was of itself
a well rounded and perfect kingdom, he received the disagreeable
intelligence that his work of consolidation had been broken by the Duke
of York himself. James, deceived as to gravity of the transaction,
influenced by friendship, or because of more immediate personal
considerations, granted to Carteret and Berkeley the entire territory
between the Hudson River on the east, Cape May on the southward, and
the northern branch of the Delaware on the west, to which was given the
name of Nova Cæsarea or New Jersey. In this grant, however, the Duke
of York did not convey the right of jurisdiction; but the reservation
not being expressed in the document, the grantees claimed that it
also passed to them, an interpretation which received no definitive
settlement for a long period.[695]

While the Dutch Government showed no disposition to attempt the
recovery of their late American territory by immediate attack, they
did not tamely submit to the humiliation put upon them, but strained
every nerve to maintain the honor of their flag by sea and land. For
them as for the English race, the sea was the natural scene of strife.
The first successes were to the English fleet, which, under the command
of the Duke of York in person, defeated the Dutch at Lowestoffe, and
compelled them to withdraw to the cover of their forts. Alarmed at
the triumph of England and at the prospect of a general war, Louis
XIV. urged peace upon the States-General, and proposed to the English
King an exchange of the territory of New Netherland for the island of
Poleron, one of the Banda or Nutmeg Islands, recently taken from the
English,—a kingdom for a mess of pottage. But Clarendon rejected the
mediation, declining either exchange or restitution in a manner that
forced upon the French King a declaration of war. This declaration,
issued Jan. 29, 1666, was immediately replied to by England, and the
American colonies were directed to reduce the French possessions to the
English crown. Here was the beginning of the strife on the American
continent which culminated a century later in the conquest of Canada
and the final supremacy of the English race on the Western continent.

While the settlers of New England, cut off from the Western country by
the Hudson River and the Dutch settlements along its course, and alike
from Canada by pathless forests, and in a manner enclosed by races
whose foreign tongues rendered intercourse difficult, were rapidly
multiplying in number, redeeming and cultivating the soil and laying
the foundations of a compact and powerful commonwealth, divided perhaps
in form, but one in spirit and purpose, their northern neighbors were
no less active under totally different forms of polity. The primary
idea of French as of Spanish colonization was the conversion of the
heathen tribes. The first empire sought was that of the soul; the
priests were the pioneers of exploration. The natives of the soil
were to be first converted, then brought, if possible, through this
subtile influence into alliance with the home government. This peaceful
scheme failing, military posts were to be established at strategic
points to control the lakes and streams and places of portage, the
highways of Indian travel, and to hold the country subject to the King
of France. Unfortunately for the success of this comprehensive plan,
there was discord among the French themselves. The French military
authorities and the priests were not harmonious either in purpose
or in conduct. The Society of Jesus would not subordinate itself to
the royal authority. Moreover the Iroquois confederacy of the Five
Nations, which held the valley of the Mohawk and the lakes south of
Ontario, were not friendly at heart to the Europeans. They had not
forgotten nor forgiven the invasion by Champlain; yet, recognizing
the value of friendly relations with a power which could supply them
with firearms for their contests with the fierce tribes with whom
they were at perpetual war, they welcomed the French to dwell among
them. French policy had declared itself, even before England made
her first move for a consolidation of her power in America. In 1663
the Old Canada Company surrendered its rights to Louis XIV., who at
once sent over a Royal Commissary to organize a colonial government.
The new administration established by him was not content with the
uncertain relations existing with the Iroquois, which the fierce
hostility of the Mohawks, the most important and powerful of the
confederate tribes, constantly threatened to turn into direct enmity.
A policy of conquest was determined upon. An embassy sent by the
Iroquois to Montreal to treat for peace in 1664 was coldly received,
and the next year the instructions of the French King declared the Five
Nations to be “perpetual and irreconcilable enemies of the colony.”
Strong military assistance arrived to enforce the new policy, and
before the year closed, the Marquis de Tracy, the new viceroy, had
erected fortified posts which controlled the entire course of the St.
Lawrence. In December four of the confederate tribes,—the Onondagas,
Oneidas, Cayugas, and Senecas,—alarmed at this well-ordered progress
toward their territory, made submission, and entered into a treaty by
which Louis was acknowledged as their protector and sovereign. The
Mohawks alone were not a party to this arrangement. They refused to
acknowledge subjection. To punish their obstinacy the viceroy at once
despatched an expedition against their villages. Missing its way, it
was attacked near Schenectady by a party of Mohawks. The news of the
skirmish alarmed the English at Albany. From their pickets Courcelles,
the commander of the French expedition, first learned of the reduction
of the Dutch province to English rule, and, it is reported, said in
disturbed mind, “that the King of England did grasp at all America.”

Thus for the first time within the limits of the New York province the
English and French were confronted with each other on the territory
which was destined to become the scene of a century of strife; and thus
also were the Mohawks naturally inclined to the only power which could
protect them against the aggressions of the French. Nicolls induced
the Mohawks to treat for peace with the French. He also urged the
Connecticut authorities to arrange a peace between the Mohicans and
the Mohawks; and negotiations were opened in time to counteract the
French emissaries, who were already tampering with the former tribe.
Shortly after these successful mediations, instructions arrived from
King Charles to undertake hostilities against Canada; but Connecticut
refusing to join in an expedition, and Massachusetts, considering the
reduction of Canada as not at the time feasible, Nicolls changed his
tactics, and declared to the Canadian viceroy his purpose to maintain
peace, provided the bounds and limits of his Majesty’s dominions were
not invaded. Meanwhile, the Oneidas having ratified the treaty made by
their colleague tribes with the French, the Mohawks were left alone
in resistance, and committed outrages which the viceroy determined to
punish. Leading an expedition in person, he marched upon the Mohawks,
captured and destroyed their four villages, burned vast quantities
of stored provisions, devastated their territory, and took formal
possession of the country in the name of the King of France. Yet such
was the independent spirit of this proud tribe, that it required the
threat of another expedition to bring them to submission. A treaty was
made by which they consented to receive missionaries. This completed
the title of possession of the Western territory which the French
Government was preparing against a day of need.

The war in Europe was closed by the treaty of Breda, which allowed
the retention by each of the conflicting parties of the places it
occupied. This provision confirmed the English in peaceful and rightful
possession of their conquest of New Netherland. The intelligence was
proclaimed New Year’s Day, 1668. It enabled the Duke of York to accede
at last to the repeated requests of his faithful and able deputy, and
permission was granted to Nicolls to return to England. His successor,
Colonel Francis Lovelace, relieved him in his charge in August
following.

[Illustration]

Francis Lovelace, the successor of Nicolls, continued his policy with
prudence and moderation. To him the merchants of the city owed the
establishment of the first exchange or meeting-place for transaction
of business at fixed hours. He encouraged the fisheries and whaling,
promoted domestic trade with Virginia, Massachusetts, and the West
India Islands, and took personal interest in ship-building. By his
encouragement the first attempt toward a post-road or king’s highway
was made. During his administration the first seal was secured for
the province, and one also for the city. He appears to have concerned
himself also in the conversion to Christianity of the Indian tribes,—a
policy which Nicolls initiated; but as yet there was no printing press
in the province to second his efforts. Of more practical benefit was
his interference to arrest the sale of intoxicating liquors to the
savage tribes from the trading-post at Albany.

In 1668 the policy of the English Government again veered. A treaty,
known as the Triple Alliance, was signed between Great Britain, the
United Provinces, and Sweden, to arrest the growing power and ambitious
designs of France. Popular in the mother country, the alliance gave
peculiar satisfaction to the New York province, and somewhat allayed
the disappointment with which the cancellation of the order permitting
the Dutch freely to trade with New York was received by its citizens
of Holland descent. Throughout the Duke’s province there was entire
religious toleration. None were disturbed in the exercise of their
worship. At Albany the parochial Dutch church was maintained under his
authority, and in New York, he authorized the establishment of a branch
of the Dutch Reformed Church, and directed the payment of a sufficient
salary to the minister invited from Holland to undertake its charge.

The efforts begun by Nicolls and continued by Lovelace, to bring into
harmonious subjection the diverse elements of the Duke’s government
were not wholly successful. The inhabitants of eastern Long Island
clung tenaciously to the traditions of the Connecticut colony, and
petitioned the King directly for representation in the Government;
but the Council for Plantations denied the claim, on the ground that
the territory was in the limits of the Duke of York’s patent and
government. The unsettled boundaries again gave trouble, Massachusetts
renewing her claim to the navigation of the Hudson, which the Dutch
had, during their rule, successfully resisted. Massachusetts further
claimed the territory to the Pacific westward of the line of the Duke
of York’s patent. The contiguous territory was however held by the
Mohawks, who had never acknowledged other sovereignty than their own.
In 1672 this tribe made a considerable sale of lands on the Mohawk
River to the inhabitants of Schenectady, by which New York practically
acquired title to the soil as well as sovereignty.

In 1672 English politics again underwent a change. The Triple Alliance
was dissolved, and a secret treaty entered into with France. War was
declared against the Dutch. In a severe action at Solebay, the Dutch
won an advantage over the allied fleets of England and France. In
the engagement Nicolls, the late governor of the New York province,
fell, killed by a cannon ball, at the feet of his master, the Duke of
York, Lord High Admiral of England, who commanded the British fleet.
But while the Dutch maintained an equality at sea with the combined
fleets of the powers, their fortune on land was not as favorable.
Turenne and Condé led the armies of France to the soil of the Dutch
Republic, and to mark his advantage, Louis XIV. brought his court to
Utrecht. A revolution in Holland was the immediate consequence. The
Grand Pensionary, who in his alarm sought peace, lost the favor of the
people, resigned his office, and was quickly murdered by the excited
followers of William of Orange. William, having demanded and obtained
appointment as Stadtholder, at once placed himself at the head of the
war party, and active hostilities were prosecuted by sea and land,
both far and near. Among the rumors which reached the inhabitants
of the New York province, whose kinsmen were again at war with each
other, was one to the effect that a Dutch squadron which had been
despatched against the West India colonies was on its way along the
Atlantic coast. Lovelace discredited the information, and seems to
have made no immediate efforts to strengthen the forts. Troops were
called in, however, from the river garrisons and the posts on the
Delaware; but their number, with the volunteers, reached only three
hundred and thirty men. The alarm soon subsiding, the new-comers were
dismissed, and the garrison left in Fort James did not exceed eighty
men. Lovelace himself, in entire serenity of mind, left the city on a
visit to Governor Winthrop in Connecticut. The rumor, however, proved
true. The Dutch squadron, after capturing or destroying the Virginia
fleet of tobacco ships in the Chesapeake, sailed northward, and on
Aug. 7, 1673, anchored off Staten Island. Informed of the precise
state of the New York defences by the captain of a prize captured
at the mouth of James River, the Dutch commander made an immediate
demand for the surrender of the city. The Dutch fleet, commanded by
Evertsen, originally consisting of fifteen ships, had been reinforced
in its course by seven men-of-war, and with its prizes now numbered
twenty-seven sail, which carried sixteen hundred men. Against this
force no resistance was possible. On the morning of the 8th the fleet
moved up the bay, exchanged shots with the fort, and landed six hundred
men on the shore of the Hudson just above the city, where they were
joined by a body of the Dutch burghers. A storming party was advanced,
under command of Captain Anthony Colve, to whom Captain Manning, who
commanded in the Governor’s absence, surrendered the fort, the garrison
being permitted to march out with the honors of war. Thus New York was
again surrendered without the shedding of a drop of blood.

A few days later Lovelace, entrapped into a visit to the city, was
first courteously entertained, then arrested on a civil suit for debt
and detained. The river settlements of Esopus and Albany surrendered
without opposition; and those in the immediate neighborhood of the
city, where the Dutch population was in ascendency, made submission.
The eastern towns of Long Island, of English descent, came in with
reluctance. The commodores Evertsen and Binckes, who acted as council
of war of New Netherland, after confiscating the property of the
Duke of York and of his agent, by proclamation commissioned Captain
Anthony Colve Governor-General of the country, and set sail for
Holland,—Binckes taking Lovelace with him on his ship at his request.

New York had greatly changed in nine years of English rule. From a
sleepy Dutch settlement it had become the capital of a well-ordered
province. Colve, the new Dutch governor, went through the form of a
return to the old order of city government of the home pattern, and
prepared a provincial Instruction to which the outlying towns were to
conform. Massachusetts again asserted her old claim to run her southern
line to the Hudson, and Connecticut hankered once more after the
fertile towns of Long Island, settled by her sons. But Massachusetts
had no disposition to take up arms to restore the Duke of York to
his possessions. The refusal of the Duke to take the test oath of
conformity to the Protestant religion of the Established Church, and
the leaning of Charles to the French alliance, alarmed the Puritans,
and Connecticut was content, by volunteer reinforcements, to strengthen
the eastern towns in their resistance to Colve’s authority.

The news of the recapture of New York reached Holland in October,
when Joris Andringa was by the States-General appointed governor of
New Netherland under the instructions of the Board of Admiralty.
Notwithstanding the earnest request of the Dutch inhabitants of
the reconquered province and the petition of persons interested in
its trade in the mother country, the States-General recognized the
impossibility of holding their American possessions on the mainland,
surrounded as they were by a growing and aggressive English population.
The Prince of Orange, with true statesmanship, saw that the only
safety of the Republic was in a concentration of resources in order
to oppose the power of France. The offer of a restitution of New
Netherland was directly made to Charles II. as an evidence of the
desire for peace and a good understanding. Charles referred the subject
to Parliament, which instantly recommended acceptance, and within three
days a treaty was drawn up and signed at Westminster, which once more
and finally transferred the province of New York to the King of Great
Britain. Proclamation of the treaty was made at Guild Hall early in
July, 1674. The news came by way of Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Connecticut determined to make one more push for the control on Long
Island of Southampton, Easthampton, and Southold, and petitions were
addressed to the King. At the same time she sought again to include the
territory between the boundary line established in 1664 and the Hudson.
And it may be stated as a curious instance of the politics of the
time, that some friend of Massachusetts, urged by her agent in London,
actually contemplated the purchase of the entire province of New York
in her interest.

The new governor appointed by the King to receive the surrender of the
New Netherland was one Edmund Andros, major in a dragoon regiment. In
continuance of the liberal policy of 1664, all the inhabitants were by
his instructions confirmed in their rights and privileges, and in the
undisturbed possession of their property. By the treaty of Westminster,
the New Netherland, the rightful possession of which by the Dutch
was implied by its tenor, was ceded to the King. Although termed a
restitution, it was held that the rights of the Duke of York had been
extinguished by the conquest, and that restitution to the sovereign did
not convey restoration to the subject. The Duke of York, now better
informed as to the nature and value of the territory, on June 29, 1674,
obtained from his royal brother a new patent with enlarged authority.
To Andros, who bore the King’s authority to receive submission, the
Duke now conferred his commission to govern the province in his
name. Lieutenant Anthony Brockholls was named his successor in case
of death. Andros was a man of high character, well suited by nature
and experience to carry out the policy of his master,—the policy
skilfully inaugurated by Nicolls and loyally pursued by Lovelace,—the
institution of an autocratic government of the most arbitrary nature in
form, but of extreme mildness in practice; one which, insuring peace
and happiness to the subject, would best contribute to the authority
and revenue of the master. Colonization was encouraged, the customs
burdens lightened, the laws equally administered, and freedom of
conscience secured. Although the Duke of York, in his refusal to take
the test oath prescribed by the Act of 1673, had proclaimed himself an
adherent of the Church of Rome, and Brockholls was a professed <DW7>,
and neither master nor servant could hold office in England under that
Act, and although the British American colonies were not within its
provisions, yet it does not appear that any effort was made by the
Church of Rome to exercise its religion under the guarantee of the
King and of the Duke. There were doubtless few of that faith in the
Protestant colony of New York to claim the privilege. It was left to
the wise men who laid the foundations of the Empire State in 1777 to
put in practice the freedom of religion _to all_, which, strangely
enough, was first guaranteed in word by the Catholic prince.

The new patent of 1674 restored to the Duke his full authority over
the entire domain covered by the original grant, and brought New
Jersey again within his rule; yet he was persuaded to divest himself
of this proprietorship by a new release to Carteret. No grant of power
to govern being named in either the first or the second instrument,
this authority was held as reserved by the Duke. The cession was
nevertheless of extreme and lasting injury to the New York province,
as it impaired its control over the west bank of the mouth of the
Hudson and the waters of the bay. On the other hand, the Duke’s title
to Long Island and Pemaquid was strengthened by a release obtained
from Lord Stirling; and the assumption of Connecticut to govern the
eastern towns in the former territory was summarily disposed of. The
Duke’s authority in Pemaquid, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket, though
disturbed by some of the inhabitants who sought to bring them under the
government of Massachusetts, had been maintained during the period of
Colve’s administration. They had not been named in the commission of
the Dutch commanders to Colve. The claim of Connecticut to the strip of
land between the Mamaroneck line and the Hudson River was disallowed
by the Duke, and possession of the territory entered by Connecticut
was demanded by Andros. Connecticut held to the letter of her
charter; Andros to the letters-patent of the King. The rising of the
Narragansett tribes under King Philip afforded Andros an opportunity to
assert the Duke’s authority. Sailing with three sloops and a body of
soldiers, he landed at Saybrook, and read the Duke’s patent and his own
commission. The Connecticut officers replied by reading the protest of
the Hartford authorities. It is reasonable to suppose that had Andros
found the Saybrook fort unoccupied, he would have put in a garrison to
protect from the Indians the territory which he claimed to be within
his commission. Had he intended a surprise, he would not have given
notice to Winthrop that the object of his journey was “the Connecticut
River, his Royal Highness’s bounds there.” Neither Andros nor the
Connecticut authorities desired an armed collision. Andros, content
with the assertion of his claim, crossed the Sound, despatched aid to
his dependencies of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket, and returned,
after reviewing the militia and disarming the Indians. The course of
Andros was approved by the Duke, who, while insisting on his claim
to all the territory west of the Connecticut River, ordered that the
distance of twenty miles from the Hudson be observed for the dividing
line.

The northern frontier was also watched with jealous solicitude. The
increase of French influence through their missionaries now became the
occasion of an English policy of far-reaching significance,—a policy
felt throughout the American Revolution and in the later contest of
the States of the Union for Western territory. The friendship of the
Mohawks, the only tribe which did not acknowledge French supremacy, was
encouraged. Andros personally visited the stronghold of the Mohawks,
and on his return to Albany confirmed a close alliance with the
Iroquois and organized a board of Indian Commissioners. This sagacious
plan served in the future as an effectual check to the encroachments of
the French. The ministers of Louis XIV. were quick to feel the blow,
and in 1677 the counter claim was set up that the reception of the
Jesuit missionaries had given sovereignty to France over the Iroquois.
The future contest which was to shake the two continents was already
foreshadowed. The same year the supremacy of New York over the Iroquois
was tacitly admitted by Massachusetts in the treaty made with them
“under the advice” of Andros.

In the details of his administration Andros showed the same firmness.
The old contraband trade with the Dutch was arrested; no European goods
were admitted from any port that had not paid duties in England. This
strict enforcement of the Navigation Laws diminished the coastwise
trade with Massachusetts and promoted a direct intercourse with
England, which gradually brought the province into close relation with
the English commercial towns. Social and political alliance was the
natural result, and New York grew gradually to be the most English in
sentiment of the American colonies, notwithstanding the cosmopolitan
character of her population.

Increasing commerce requiring greater accommodation, a great mole or
dock was built on the East River, which afforded protection to vessels
in the rapid tide, and for a long period was the centre of the traffic
of the city of New York. The answer of Governor Andros to the inquiries
of the Council of Plantations as to the condition of the province
gives the best existing account of it in 1678. The following are the
principal points:—

 “Boundaries,—South, the Sea; West, Delaware; North, to ye Lakes or
 ffrench; East, Connecticut river, but most usurped and yett posse’d by
 s’d Connecticut. Some Islands Eastward and a Tract beyond Kennebeck
 River called Pemaquid.... Principall places of Trade are New Yorke
 and South’ton except Albany for the Indyans; our buildings most wood,
 some lately stone and brick; good country houses, and strong of their
 severall kindes. About twenty-four towns, villages, or parishes in
 six precincts, divisions, Rydeings, or Courts of Sessions. Produce is
 land provisions of all sorts, as of wheate exported yearly about sixty
 thousand bushells, pease, beefe, pork, and some Refuse fish, Tobacco,
 beavers’ peltry or furs from the Indians, Deale and oake timber,
 plankes, pipestavves, lumber, horses, and pitch and tarr lately begunn
 to be made. Comodityes imported are all sorts of English manufacture
 for Christians, and blanketts, Duffells, etc., for Indians, about
 50,000 pounds yearly. Pemaquid affords merchantable fish and masts.
 Our merchants are not many, but most inhabitants and planters, about
 two thousand able to beare armes, old inhabitants of the place or of
 England, Except in and neere New Yorke of Dutch Extraction, and some
 few of all nations, but few serv’ts much wanted, and but very few
 slaves. A merchant worth one thousand pounds or five hundred pounds
 is accompted a good substantiall merchant, and a planter worthe half
 that in moveables accompted [rich?]. With all the Estates may be
 valued at about £150,000. There may lately have trade to ye Colony
 in a yeare from ten to fifteen ships or vessels, of which togeather
 100 tunns each, English, New England, and our own built, of which
 5 small ships and a Ketch now belonging to New York, four of them
 built there. No privateers on the coast. Religions of all sorts,—one
 Church of England, several Presbyterians and Independents, Quakers
 and Anabaptists of severall sects, some Jews, but Presbyterians
 and Independents most numerous and substantial. There are about 20
 churches or meeting-places, of which about half vacant. Noe beggars,
 but all poor cared for.”

In 1678, the affairs of the province being everywhere in order, Andros
availed himself of the permission given him by the Duke to pay a
visit to England. He sailed from New York on the 12th of November,
leaving Brockholls to administer the government in his absence, with
the commission of commander-in-chief. On reaching London Andros was
knighted by the King. His administration was examined into by the
Privy Council and approved. In May he sailed for New York with the new
commission of vice-admiral throughout the government of the Duke of
York. He found the province in the same quiet as when he left it.

The marriage of William of Orange with Mary, daughter of the Duke of
York and heiress to the throne of England, in the autumn of 1677,
was of happy augury to the New York colony. It gave earnest of a
restoration of the natural alliance of the Protestant powers against
France, the common enemy. To the Dutch of New York it was peculiarly
grateful, allaying the last remains of the bitterness of submission to
alien rule. Andros wisely promoted this good feeling by interesting
himself in the formal establishment of their religion. Under his
direction a classis of the Reformed Church of Holland met in New York
for purposes of ordination, and its proceedings were approved by the
supreme ecclesiastical authority at Amsterdam. New points in law were
now decided and settled; strikes or combinations to raise the price of
labor were declared illegal; all Indians were declared to be free.

But Andros was on occasion as energetic and determined as he was
prudent and moderate. He dallied with no invasion of his master’s
rights or privileges, as he evinced when, in 1680, he arrested Carteret
in New Jersey and dragged him to trial[696] for having presumed to
exercise jurisdiction and collect duties within the limits of the
Duke’s patent.

The position of the Duke of York now became daily more difficult,
indeed almost untenable in his increasing divergence from the policy of
the kingdom. The elements of that personal opposition which was later
to drive him from the throne were rapidly concentrating. His adherents
and those who favored a Protestant succession were forming the historic
parties of Tories and of Whigs. To avoid angry controversy the Duke
ordered the question of his right to collect customs dues in New Jersey
to be submitted to Sir William Jones. Upon his adverse decision so far
as related to West Jersey, the Duke directed the necessary transfer
to be made; and when the widow of Carteret made complaint of his
dispossession from authority, the action of Andros was wholly disavowed
by the Duke, and his authority over East Jersey was relinquished in
the same form. Andros himself, against whom complaints of favoring the
Dutch trade had been made by his enemies, was ordered to return to
England, leaving Brockholls in charge of the government; at the same
time a special agent was sent over to examine into the administration.

[Illustration: SIR EDMUND ANDROS.

[Regarding this portrait, see _Memorial History of Boston_, ii.
5.—ED.]]

Conscious of the integrity of his service, Andros obeyed the summons
with alacrity, proclaimed the agent’s commission, called Brockholls
down from Albany to take charge of the government, and took ship for
England. The absence of his firm hand was soon felt. The term for the
levy of the customs rates under the Duke’s authority had expired just
before his sailing, and had not been renewed. Immediately after his
departure the merchants refused to pay duties, and the collector who
attempted the levy was held for high treason in the exercise of regal
authority without warrant. He pleaded his commission from the Duke,
and the case was referred to England. The resistance of the merchants
was stimulated by the free condition of the charter just granted to
Pennsylvania, which required that all laws should be assented to by
the freemen of the province, and that no taxes should be laid or
revenue raised except by provincial assembly. The Grand Jury of New
York presented the want of a provincial assembly as a grievance; a
petition was drafted to the Duke praying for a change in the form of
government, and calling for a governor, council, and assembly, the last
to be elected by the freeholders of the colony. On the arrival of the
Duke’s agent in London with his report upon the late administration,
Andros was examined by the Duke’s commissioners, whereupon he was
fully exonerated, his administration was complimented, and he was made
a gentleman of the King’s Privy Chamber. The Duke’s collector, after
waiting in vain for his prosecutors to appear, was discharged from
his bond, and soon after appointed surveyor-general of customs in the
American Plantations.

Notwithstanding his dislike to popular assemblies, the Duke of York
saw the need of some concession, and gave notice of his intention to
Brockholls. Thus by the accident of the non-renewal of the customs’
term, the people of New York were enabled, in the absence of the
governor, to assert the doctrine of no taxation without representation,
to which the Duke in his necessity was compelled to submit.

Great changes had taken place in the neighboring territory of New
Jersey, which the Duke had alienated from his original magnificent
domain, to its mutilation and lasting injury. Pennsylvania was formally
organized as a province, and Philadelphia was planned. East New Jersey
passed into the hands of twelve proprietors, who increased their number
by sale to twenty-four, selected a governor, summoned a legislature,
and organized the State.

While the English race, true to its instincts and traditions, was thus
organizing its settlements, bringing its population into homogeneity,
and preparing for a gradual but sure extension of its colonization from
a firm, well-ordered base, the more adventurous French were pushing
their voyages and posts along the lakes and down the Western streams,
until the discovery of the mouth of the Mississippi by La Salle
completed the chain and added to the nominal domain of the sovereign of
France the vast territory from the Illinois to the Gulf of Mexico, to
which he gave the name of Louisiana.

       *       *       *       *       *

The governor selected by the Duke of York to succeed Andros and to
inaugurate the new order of government in his province was Colonel
Thomas Dongan, an Irish officer who had commanded a regiment in the
French service. Though a Roman Catholic, an Irishman, and a soldier, he
proved himself an excellent and prudent magistrate. The instructions
of the Duke required the appointment of a council of ten eminent
citizens and the issue of writs for a general assembly, not to exceed
eighteen, to consult with the Governor and Council with regard to the
laws to be established, such laws to be subject to his approval,—the
general tenor of laws as to life and property to be in conformity with
the common law of England. No duties were to be levied except by the
Assembly. No allusion was made to religion. No more democratic form of
government existed in America, or was possible under kingly authority.

[Illustration]

Dongan reached the city of New York, Aug. 28, 1683, and assumed the
government. Installing his secretary and providing occupation for
Brockholls, he summoned an assembly, and then hastened to Albany to
check the attempt of Penn to extend the bounds of the territory of
Pennsylvania by a purchase of the valley of the Upper Susquehanna
from the Iroquois, who claimed the country by right of conquest from
the Andastes. In this Dongan was successful; the Cayugas settling the
question by a formal conveyance of the coveted territory to the New
York Government, a cession which was later confirmed by the Mohawks.
At the same time this tribe was instructed as to their behavior toward
the French. The claim of New York to all the land on the south side of
the lake was again renewed and assented to by the Mohawks. The astute
Iroquois already recognized that only through the friendship of the
English could their independence be maintained.

The New York Assembly met in October. Its first act bore the title of
“The Charter of Liberties and Privileges granted by his Royal Highness
to the Inhabitants of New York and its dependencies.” The supreme
legislative authority, under the King and the Duke, was vested in
a governor, council, and “the people met in general assembly;” the
sessions, triennial as in England; franchise, free to every freeholder;
the law, that of England in its most liberal provisions; freedom of
conscience and religion to all peaceable persons “which profess faith
in God by Jesus Christ.” In the words of the petition of right of 1628,
no tax or imposition was to be laid except by act of Assembly,—in
consideration of which privileges the Assembly was to grant the Duke
or his heirs certain specified impost duties. The province was divided
into twelve counties. Four tribunals of justice were established;
namely, town courts with monthly sessions for the trial of petty cases;
county or courts of sessions; a general court of oyer and terminer,
to meet twice in each year; and a court of chancery or supreme court
of the province, composed of the Governor and Council. An appeal to
the King was reserved in every case. In addition to these there was
a clause unusual in American statutes, naturalizing the foreign born
residents and those who should come to reside within the limits of
the province, which had already assumed the cosmopolitan character
which has never since ceased to mark the city of New York. The liberal
provisions of the statute gave security to all, and invited immigration
from Europe, where religious intoleration was again unsettling the
bases of society. It was not until the 4th of October, 1684, that
the Duke signed and sealed the amended instrument, “The Charter of
Franchises and Privileges to New Yorke in America,” and ordered it to
be registered and sent across sea.

Connecticut making complaint of the extension of New York law over the
territory within the contested boundary lines, Dongan brought the long
dispute to a summary close by giving notice to the Hartford authorities
that unless they withdrew their claims to territory within twenty miles
of the Hudson he should renew the old New York claim to the Connecticut
River as the eastern limit of the Duke’s patent, and refer the subject
directly to his Highness. In reply to an invitation from Dongan,
commissioners proceeded from Hartford to New York, who abandoned the
pretensions set up, and accepted the line proposed by Dongan, thus
finally closing the controversy.

The city of New York was now divided into six wards, certain
jurisdiction conferred upon its officers, and a recorder was appointed.

Dongan with the vision of a statesman recognized the value of the
friendship of the Indians. The Iroquois tribes he described as the
bulwark of New York against Canada. The policy of the Duke’s governors
from the time of Nicolls was unchanged. It consisted in a claim to all
the territory south and southwest of the Lake of Canada (Ontario), and
the confining of the French to the territory to the northward by the
help of Indian allies. The French officers by negotiation and threat
endeavored first to impose their authority on the several tribes of the
Iroquois confederacy, and failing in this to divide them. But Dongan,
carefully observing their manœuvres, obtained from a council of chiefs
a written submission to the King of England, which was recorded on
two white dressed deer-skins. The presence on the occasion at Albany
of Lord Howard of Effingham, the Governor of Virginia, added greatly
in the eyes of the Indians to this solemn engagement. Four nations
bound themselves to the covenant, and asked that the arms of the Duke
of York should be put upon their castles; and Dongan gave notice of
the same to the Canadian Government, in witness that they were within
his jurisdiction and under his protection. But in this submission
the Indians recognized no subjection. The Iroquois still claimed his
perfect freedom.

The claim of Massachusetts to territory westward of the Hudson was
another perplexing element in the Indian question. In answer to a
renewal of this demand, Dongan set up his claim as the Duke’s governor
to jurisdiction over the towns which Massachusetts had organized on
land covered by the Duke’s patent on the west side of the Connecticut
River; but the matter being soon disposed of by the cancelling, for
various offences, of the Massachusetts patent by the King, through
the operation of a writ of _quo warranto_, the Duke had no further
contestant to his claims. The New Jersey boundary was also matter of
dispute, but Dongan, at first of his own motion, and later by specific
instruction from the Duke, took care to prevent Penn from acquiring any
part of New Jersey or from interfering with the Indian trade.

The controversy with Canada as to the country south of the St. Lawrence
and Lake Ontario now drew to a head. Dongan clung persistently to
the claim asserted by Andros in 1677. Against this the Canadians set
up the sovereignty of France, acquired by war and treaties and the
planting of missionaries among the tribes. The question turned upon
the independence of the Iroquois, parts of which tribes had never
made submission, or had repudiated the interpretation set upon their
engagements. The new French governor, De la Barre, made ineffectual
menace, but not supporting his threat with arms, lost the respect
of the savages. The prestige of the English was increased, and the
coveted trade passed into their hands to such an extent that in 1684
the Senecas alone brought into Albany more than ten thousand beaver
skins. Nor was Denonville, who succeeded De la Barre in the government
of Canada, more fortunate in enforcing his policy. His wily effort to
engage the sympathies of his co-religionist Dongan in a support of
the French missionaries among the tribes, was foiled by the New York
governor, who at the same time secured the approbation of his Roman
Catholic master by proposing to replace them with English priests.

       *       *       *       *       *

The death of Charles II., early in the year 1685, and the accession
to the throne of the Duke of York as James II., were of momentous
influence upon European politics. They at once changed the political
position of New York. The condition of proprietorship or nominal
duchy altered with that of its master and proprietor. The Duke became
a King; the duchy a royal province. The change involved a change in
the New York charter, and afforded opportunity for a reconsideration
and rejection of the entire instrument. The words “the people” were
particularly objected to by the new King as unusual. The revocation of
the Massachusetts charter by the late King, the government of which
colony had not yet been settled, presented a favorable occasion for
an assimilation of all the constitutions of the American colonies as
preliminary to that consolidation of government and power at which
James aimed as his ideal of government. Nevertheless the existing New
York charter remained,—not confirmed, not repealed, but continued. The
Scotch risings and the Monmouth rebellion interfered with any immediate
action by the Government in American affairs. Yet the New York province
hailed with joy the accession of their Duke and Lord proprietor to the
throne. His rule had been just and temperate; his agents prudent and
discreet. The immediate Governor, Dongan, was thoroughly identified
with the interests of the province confided to his care, and aimed to
make of its capital the centre of English influence in America. In
1686 the city received a new charter, with a grant of all the vacant
land in and about the city. Albany, also, under an arrangement with the
landed proprietors, was incorporated and intrusted with the management
of the Indian trade. The suppression of the Monmouth rebellion enabling
James to turn his attention to America, he directed proceedings to
be instituted in the English courts to cancel the charters of the
Connecticut, Rhode Island, West Jersey, and Delaware colonies. In the
interim a temporary government was established for Massachusetts,
Plymouth, Maine, and New Hampshire, in accordance with the order of
Charles made in 1684. A board of councillors was appointed, of whom
Joseph Dudley was named president.

Weary of the trouble and expense of maintaining authority in
distant Pemaquid, Dongan urged the King to annex this dependency to
Massachusetts, and to add Connecticut to New York. Dudley pleaded the
claim of Massachusetts with the Connecticut authorities. They held
an even balance between the two demands, however, and resolved to
maintain the autonomy of the colony, if possible, against either the
machinations of her neighbors or the warrant of the King.

It has been seen that as Duke of York the policy of James in the
government of his American province was, with the exception of
the weakness shown in the case of Carteret and New Jersey, the
consolidation of power. His accession to the throne enabled him to
carry out this policy on a broader field. He determined to put an end
to the temporary charge by commissioners of the New England colonies,
and to unite them all under one government, the better to defend
themselves against invasion. The assigned reason was the policy of
aggression of the French on the frontiers. The person selected for the
delicate duty of harmonizing the colonies into one province was Sir
Edmund Andros, who, as the Duke’s deputy, had first suggested that a
strong royal government should be established in New England, and of
whose character and administrative abilities there was no question.
He was accordingly commissioned by the King “Captain-General and
Governor-in-Chief over his territory and dominions of New England in
America.” By the terms of his instructions, liberty of conscience was
granted to all, countenance promised to the Church of England, and
power conferred on the Assembly to make laws and levy taxes. Pemaquid
was annexed to the new government.

To assimilate the New York government to that of the new dominion a
new commission was issued to Dongan as King’s captain-general and
governor-in-chief over the province of New York. The charter of
liberties and privileges recently signed was repealed; the existing
laws, however, were to continue in force until others should be framed
and promulgated by the Governor and Council. The liberty of conscience
granted in 1674 and limited in 1683 to Christians, was now extended
to all persons without restriction. A censorship of the press was
established. The trade of the Hudson River was to be kept free from
intrusion by any.

While the King was thus strengthening his power and gathering into
one grasp the entire force of the colonies, his ministers allowed
themselves to be outwitted by the French in negotiation. A treaty
of neutrality inspired by France engaged non-interference by either
Government in the wars of the other against the savage tribes in
America, and struck a severe blow at the policy of the New York
governors. The announcement of the treaty was accompanied by the
arrival of reinforcements in Canada and the organization of an
expedition against the Iroquois. The treacherous seizure and despatch
to France of a number of chiefs, who had been invited to a conference
at Quebec, opened the campaign, at once ended the French missions among
the Five Nations, and consolidated their alliance with the English.
The expedition of Denonville was partially successful. The Seneca
country was occupied, sovereignty proclaimed, and a fort built on the
old site of La Salle’s Fort de Conty. But the power of the Iroquois
was not touched. Hampered by his instructions, Dongan could only lay
the situation before the King and suggest a comprehensive plan for the
fortification of the country and assistance of the friendly tribes.
Alarmed at the news from the frontier, he resolved to winter in Albany,
and ordered the Five Nations to send their old women and children to
Catskill, where they could be protected and cared for. A draft was
also made of every tenth militia man to strengthen the Albany post.
Denonville, despairing of conquering the fierce Iroquois, though they
were supported only by the tacit aid of the English, now urged upon
Louis XIV. the acquisition of the coveted territory by exchange or by
purchase, even of the entire province of New York, with the harbor of
the city.

Dongan’s messenger to James easily satisfied the King that the treaty
of neutrality was not for the interest of England, and that if the
independence of the Five Nations were not maintained, the sovereignty
over them must be English. Orders were sent to Dongan to defend and
protect them, and to Andros and the other governors to give them
aid. To the complaints of Louis, James opposed the submission made
at Albany in 1684 by the chiefs in the presence of the Governor of
Virginia. As a compromise between the Governments it was agreed
by treaty that until January, 1689, no act of hostility should be
committed or either territory invaded. The warlike defensive operations
against the French put the New York Government to extraordinary
charges, amounting to more than £8,000, to which the neighboring
colonies were invited to contribute under authority of the King’s
letter of November, 1687. The occasion to urge the importance of New
York as the bulwark of the colonies, and of strengthening her by the
annexation of Connecticut and New Jersey, was not forgotten by the
sagacious Dongan. Now that the Dutch pretension to rule in America was
definitively set at rest, it was evident to statesmen that a struggle
for the American continent would sooner or later arise between the
powers of France and England,—indeed the rivalry had already begun.
To James, who thoroughly understood the practice as well as the theory
of administration, and was as diligent in his cabinet as any of his
ministers, it was equally evident that the consolidated power of New
France in the single hand of a viceroy was more serviceable than the
discordant action of provinces so much at variance with each other
in principle and feeling as the American colonies. To the viceregal
government of New France he resolved to oppose a viceregal government
of British America. To New England he now determined to annex New York.
Dongan was recalled, gratified with military promotion and personal
honor, and Sir Edmund Andros was commissioned governor-general of the
entire territory. His commission gave him authority over

 “All that tract of land, circuit, continent, precincts, and limits
 in America lying and being in breadth from forty degrees of northern
 latitude from the equinoctial line to the River St. Croix eastward,
 and from thence directly northward to the River of Canada, and in
 length and longitude by all the breadth aforesaid throughout the main
 land, from the Atlantic or Western Sea or Ocean on the east part to
 the South Sea on the west part, with all the islands, seas, rivers,
 waters, rights, members, and appurtenances thereunto belonging (our
 province of Pennsylvania and country of Delaware only excepted), to be
 called and known, as formerly, by the name and title of our territory
 and dominion of New England in America.”

On the 11th of August, 1688, Andros assumed his viceregal authority
at Fort James in New York. A few days later the news arrived of the
birth of a son to King James. A proclamation of the viceroy ordered
a day of thanksgiving to be observed within the city of New York and
dependencies. Thus New York was formally recognized as the metropolis
and the seat of government in the Dominion of New England. By the
King’s instructions the seal of New York was broken in council, and the
great seal of New England thereafter used.

The Governor of Canada was notified that the Five Nations were the
subjects of the King of England, and would be protected as such. The
new governor visited Albany, and held a conference with the delegates
from the Five Nations, and renewed the old covenant of Corlaer. The
Indians showing signs of restlessness all along the frontier as far as
Casco Bay, the viceroy endeavored to settle the difficulties between
Canada and the New York tribes, and engaged his good offices to secure
the return of the prisoners from France. On his return to Boston
Andros left the affairs of the New York government in the charge of
Nicholson. Dongan retired to his farm at Hempstead on Long Island.
Though peaceful, the new dominion was not at rest. The liberty of
conscience declared by the King was not precisely that which each
dissenting denomination desired. Gradually men of each grew to believe
that James was indifferent to all religions that were not of the true
faith; and regarding the simple manner in which by legal form he had
stripped them of their chartered rights, began to fear that by an act
as legal he might strip them of their liberty of worship. The test Act
which he had refused to obey, to the loss of his dignities and honors
as Duke, might be altered to the ruin of its authors. A Roman Catholic
test might take the place of the Protestant form. The King reigned, and
a son was born to him, who doubtless would be educated in the <DW7>
faith of the Stuarts. William of Orange was only near the throne.

[Illustration: GREAT SEAL OF ANDROS.

[See authorities in _Memorial History of Boston_, ii. 9.—ED.]]

While the colonies were thus agitated, a spirit of quiet resistance was
spreading in England, where alarm was great at the arbitrary manner
in which charters were stricken down. Property was threatened. In the
American colonies the agitation was chiefly religious. Among their
inhabitants were Huguenot families whom the revocation of the Edict of
Nantes in 1685 had ruthlessly driven from their homes to a shelter on
the distant continent. The crisis was at hand. Strangely enough, it
was precipitated by the declaration of liberty of conscience and the
abrogation of the test oath against Dissenters which King James had
commissioned Andros to proclaim in America. This liberty of conscience
included liberty to Catholics, which the Protestants would have none
of. The abrogation of the test oath opened the way to preferment and
honor to Catholics, which the Protestants were equally averse to.
Ordered to read the proclamation in the churches, seven bishops,
headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, refused to obey the command.
The prelates were committed, tried, and acquitted. Encouraged by this
victory, the great Whig houses of England now addressed an invitation
to William of Orange, who was already, with naval and military force,
secretly prepared to cross the sea. On the 5th of November the great
Stadtholder landed on the shores of Devon, and proclaimed himself the
maintainer of English liberties. Thus a declaration of liberty of
conscience brought about the fall of a Catholic king. The news caused
great excitement in the colonies.

[Illustration]

Andros, who had but lately returned to Boston from an expedition to
the northeastern frontier of Maine, where he had established posts for
protection against the tribes who were threatening a second Indian
war, was seized and imprisoned by a popular uprising. In New York the
agitation was as intense. Nicholson, the lieutenant-governor, unequal
to the emergency, let slip the grasp of power from his hand; and on
the open revolt of Leisler, one of the militia captains, who seized
the fort, he determined to sail for England, and the control of the
province passed to a committee of safety. The revolt of Leisler forms
the opening of a new chapter in the story of the New York province.


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THERE are several comprehensive general histories of what is now the
State of New York. The first edition[697] of Smith’s History was
dedicated to the Earl of Halifax, First Lord Commissioner of Trade and
Plantations. The dedication bears date New York, June 15, 1756. It is
illustrated with a folding frontispiece plate, entitled “The South View
of Oswego on Lake Ontario.” In his Preface the author states that his
researches while engaged under appointment of the New York Assembly in
a review and digest of the laws of the province, a work in which he was
associated with William Livingston, induced the preparation of this
the first History of the colony. He excuses himself from an attention
to details, which he considered would not interest the British public,
and declares his purpose to confine himself to a “summary account of
the first rise and present state” of the colony. He presents it as a
“narrative or thread of simple facts,” rather than as a history.

A second edition of this work appeared at London in 1776, from the
press of J. Almon. It is a reprint in an octavo volume of three hundred
and thirty-four pages. The troubles with the colonies and the important
position of New York as the headquarters of the British army no doubt
prompted this venture.

An American edition next appeared, in April, 1792, from the press of
Mathew Carey, at Philadelphia, in an octavo volume of two hundred and
seventy-six pages. It was announced “to the citizens of the United
States as the first part of a plan undertaken at the desire of several
gentlemen of taste, who wish to supply their libraries with histories
of their native country.” The titlepage describes it as “The Second
Edition,” Almon’s reprint having been ignored by Carey. The copy in
the Library of the New York Historical Society is illustrated with a
“Frontispiece View of Columbia College, in the City of New York,” from
the plate originally engraved for the _New York Magazine_ of 1790.

Another edition appeared at Albany, from the press of Ryer
Schermerhorn, in 1814, an octavo volume of five hundred and twelve
pages. The anonymous editor, supposed to have been Mr. J. V. N. Yates,
states in his Advertisement, that in “copying Smith’s History few
deviations from his mode of spelling the names of places, particularly
such as are derived from the aboriginal tongues, have been made. It is
believed that he [Smith] adopted the mode of spelling which conveyed
most clearly the sound of Indian words.” Mr. Yates intended to add a
“Continuation from the year 1732 to the commencement of the year 1814,”
but these additions stopped at 1747.

A French translation of Smith’s History, by M. Eidous, appeared in
Paris in 1767, and bears the imprint “Londres.” It is a duodecimo of
four hundred and fifteen pages.

Smith, the historian, who died Chief-Justice of Canada, left behind him
a continuation of his _History of New York_, written by his own hand.
It covers the period from 1732 to 1762. This interesting manuscript
was communicated to the New York Historical Society in 1824 by William
Smith, son of the author, then a distinguished member of the King’s
Council in Canada, and also well known as the author of the History
of that province. In his note to the Society, Mr. Smith states that
“the Continuation of the History is as it was left by the author,
with only a few verbal alterations and corrections.” The manuscript
appeared in print for the first time in 1826, as the fourth volume of
the _Collections_ of the New York Historical Society, an octavo of
three hundred and eight pages. Copies of Smith’s original volume having
become rare, the Society determined to reprint it from the author’s
corrected and revised copy in a form similar to that in which they had
published the Continuation, and in 1829 the work appeared complete
for the first time. It was accompanied by a memoir of the author,
written by his son. In making up sets of the Society’s _Collections_,
the complete work is generally bound as vols. iv. and v. of the first
series.

The next year, 1830, the Society issued a second edition of the
complete work: also an octavo in two volumes, but printed in larger
type and on better paper. This edition bears the press-mark of
“Gratton, Printer.” Interesting sketches of the historian, with notices
of his family, prepared by Mr. Maturin L. Delafield, appeared in the
_Magazine of American History_, April and June, 1881. A small edition
was struck off for Mr. Delafield for private distribution, illustrated
with portraits.

Several criticisms on Smith’s History have appeared in print: “Remarks
on Smith’s History of New York, London Edition, 1757, in Letters
to John Pintard, Secretary of the New York Historical Society, by
Judge Samuel Jones,” written in 1817 and 1818, were printed in the
_Collections_ of the New York Historical Society, vol. iii., 1821;
“Correspondence between Lieutenant-Governor Cadwallader Colden and
William Smith, Jr., the Historian, respecting certain alleged Errors
and Misstatements contained in the _History of New York_, with sundry
other Papers relating to that Controversy,” printed in the _N. Y.
Hist. Soc. Coll._ (second series, vol. ii., 1849); “Letters on Smith’s
History of New York, by Cadwallader Colden,” printed in the _N. Y.
Hist. Soc. Coll._ (Fund series), in 1868; “Letter of Cadwallader Colden
on Smith’s History, July 5th, 1759,” _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._ (Fund
series), 1869.

The late Hon. Benjamin F. Butler, of New York, in an able discourse
before the Albany Institute, April, 1830, gives a fair and impartial
estimate of the value of Smith’s History. He notices the incomplete and
summary manner in which the earlier period was disposed of and ascribes
it to the insufficient information within the reach of the author
and his want of acquaintance with the Dutch language, in which the
ancient records of the colony were written.[698] The posthumous work
he condemns as “written in the spirit of a partisan,” and therefore to
be received with caution, if not distrust. Yet he freely acknowledges
the deep indebtedness of the State and of the friends of learning for
the mass of authentic information discovered by him. With this judgment
scholars generally concur. In reading the pages of this the first of
the historians of New York, it must be borne in mind that Smith was one
of the leaders of the Dissenting element in the New York colony, and at
a time when religious partisanship was at its height.[699]

The second general history of New York was that of Macauley.[700]
Its first volume treats “of the extent of the State, its mountains,
hills, champaigns, plains, vales, valleys, marshes, rivers, creeks,
lakes, seas, bays, springs, cataracts, and canals; its climate, winds,
zoology,” etc. The second, “of the counties, cities, towns, and
villages; antiquities of the west; origin of the Agoneaseah, their
manners, customs, laws, and other matters; discovery of America;
voyages of Cabot and Hudson; settlements of the New Netherlands by the
Dutch in 1614; location of the Indian tribes; controversies between the
Dutch and English; surrender in 1664, and thence to 1750.” The third
volume covers “the war between England and France for the conquest of
Canada, the war of the Revolution, and other matters which occurred,
etc.” The leaning of the author is, as these words imply, essentially
towards the physical features of the State. He himself calls it a
compendium, or abridged history. The reader will find little original
matter of an historical nature.[701]

The author of the next general history of the State[702] is well known
as the historian of the American Theatre and of the Arts of Design in
America, both commendable works. With the taste of an antiquary, Mr.
Dunlap has gathered some curious details; but _The History of the New
Netherlands_, etc., has little merit as historical authority. The first
volume passed through the press during the fatal illness of the author;
the second was supervised by a friend who apologized for his want of
“intimacy with the subject.” It appeared after the author’s death.
The main value of the work consists in the abstracts published as an
appendix to the second volume.[703]

A much more thorough work followed, a dozen years later, when Mr.
Brodhead began his History.[704] Its two volumes comprise all the
known information concerning the period they cover, up to the time
of publication. Mr. Brodhead by birth and education was eminently
qualified for his ponderous task. He united in his blood the English
and Dutch strains; on the father’s side being descended from one of
the English officers, who came out with Nicolls at the time of the
conquest. A lawyer by profession, he was attached to the legation at
the Hague, and was commissioned by the State of New York to procure
original materials relating to its early history. In this labor he
spent three years in the archives of England, Holland, and France. At
his death he left manuscript material for a third volume, which it is
the hope of students may yet be made accessible. He divides his work
into four marked periods: The first, from the discovery, in 1609, to
its conquest by the English in 1664; the second carries the story
down to 1691. The treatment is of the most exhaustive character, and
the work is a monument of literary industry and careful execution.
The authorities are in all cases given in foot-notes. The sympathies
of the author are plainly with Holland in the original struggle, and
later with New York in her occasional antagonism to the influence of
New England. While the reader may sometimes smile at his enthusiasm and
differ from his opinions, he will find no occasion to quarrel with
his candor. The tendency of his mind will be found legal rather than
judicial. His chief merit is his admirable co-ordination of an immense
mass of material, covering a vast circuit of investigation.[705]

[Illustration]


EDITORIAL NOTES.

=A.= SPECIFIC AUTHORITIES.—More particular mention of such sources as
pertain jointly to the Dutch and English rule in New York is made in
Mr. Fernow’s chapter on “New Netherland,” in Vol. IV.

Chalmers’ _Political Annals of the Present United Provinces_ reviews
the English rule; but Brodhead (i. 62) considers that Chalmers’s
treatment is biased, and grossly misrepresents the facts.

The documents in Hazard’s _Historical Collections of State Papers_
which relate to New York were reprinted in 1811 in the _N. Y. Hist.
Soc. Coll._, i. 189-303, and in the printed series published by the
State under the editing of Dr. O’Callaghan, an account of which can
better be made, unbroken between the Dutch and English portions, in
connection with Mr. Fernow’s chapter. Various papers of importance,
however, have appeared in the _Collections_ and _Proceedings_ of the
New York Historical Society, and others are in the _Manual of the City
of New York_, edited for thirty years, since 1841, successively by
Valentine and Shannon. The journals of the Council and Assembly of the
Colony of New York are rich in material.

Some original documents have appeared in connection with inquiries
into the history of the boundaries of the State: _Report to ascertain
and settle the Boundary Line between New York and Connecticut_, Feb.
8, 1861; _Report on the Boundaries of New York_, Albany, 1874; papers
of Dawson, Whitehead, etc., in _Historical Magazine_, xviii. 25, 82,
146, 211, 267, 321. Cf. also C. W. Bowen’s _Boundary Disputes of
Connecticut_, Boston, 1882, part iv.

At a commemoration of the English conquest of 1664, held by the New
York Historical Society in 1864, the oration was fitly made by Mr.
Brodhead. _Historical Magazine_, viii. 375. The first printed Dutch
report of the capture is given in the _Kort en bondigh Verhael_,
Amsterdam, 1667, p. 27; cf. Asher’s _Essay_, no. 354. The list of
those in New York city who took the oath, October, 1664, is given in
Valentine’s _Manual_, 1854. The patent of March 12, 1664, granted the
Duke of York, under whose authority the conquest was made, is given in
Brodhead’s _New York_, ii. 651; cf. also Learning and Spicer’s _Grants,
etc. of New Jersey_, p. 3, and _New York Colonial Documents_, ii. 295.
Charles E. Anthon, in the _Magazine of American History_, September,
1882, urges that a commemorative sculpture be placed in Central Park,
to preserve the memory of the royal Duke whose twin titles of York and
Albany are borne by the two chief cities of the State.

The Clarendon Papers, 1662-67, covering this early period of the
English rule, are in the _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._ (Fund series), vol.
ii. The important code known as the Duke’s Laws are also in the same
Society’s _Collections_. Mr. O. H. Marshall examines the charters of
1664 and 1674 in the _Magazine of American History_, viii. 24.

A few of the letters of Nicolls and Lovelace to the Secretary of State,
dated prior to 1674, are in the London State-Paper Office, but not till
that year does the regular record seem to begin. Brodhead, ii. 261.

[Illustration]

Of Thomas Willett, the first English mayor of the town, Brodhead gives
the best account, in his _History of New York_, ii. 76, which may be
supplemented by the account of his family given in the _N. E. Hist.
and Geneal. Reg._, ii. 376; xvii. 244. Cf. also Dr. John F. Jameson
on the origin and development of municipal government in New York
city, in _Magazine of American History_, 1882. The _Manual_ published
successively by Valentine and Shannon preserves much information
regarding the city’s history. Cf. General De Peyster on “New York and
its History,” in _International Review_, April, 1878, and Mrs. Lamb’s
_History of New York City_, and other local monographs, of which
further mention is made in the notes to Mr. Fernow’s chapter, in Vol.
IV.

The English occupation of New York was confirmed by the Treaty of
Breda, July 31, 1667. The original Latin and Dutch of its text appeared
at the Hague in 1667. (Muller, _Books on America_, 1872, p. 119;
Stevens, _Historical Collections_, vol. i. no. 31.) A contemporary
engraving of the signing is in the _Kort en bondigh Verhael_,
Amsterdam, 1667. (Stevens, no. 1079; Muller, _Books on America_, 1877,
nos. 1697, 2268.) There was a French edition published at Amsterdam in
1668. (_Recueil van de Tractaten_, Hague, 1684).

The Dutch bibliographies refer to scores of pamphlets launched
against Sir George Downing, the English diplomat who is charged with
instigating the war with England (1663-67), and not infrequently
assigning his animosity towards the Dutch to feelings engendered in his
early New England home, Downing being a nephew of Governor Winthrop,
and a graduate of Harvard College. (Sibley’s _Harvard Graduates_,
i. 28, with a list of authorities, p. 51, and the _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, ii. 959, 975. Cf. on Downing’s agency, O’Callaghan’s _New
Netherland_, ii. 515; Palfrey’s _New England_; Brodhead’s _New York_
and his _Colonial Documents of New York_; and R. C. Winthrop’s paper in
5 _Mass. Hist. Coll._ vol. i.)

On the Dutch side, Aitzema’s _Historie van Saken van Staet en Oorlogh_,
1621-1668, Hague, 1657-1671, is a vast repository of documentary
evidence, vol. iv. covering Downing’s period, and vol. vi. giving the
negotiations of Breda. The best edition, with a supplement by Sylvius,
was published in eleven volumes in 1669-1699. (Muller, _Books on
America_, 1877, no. 47.) Sabin, _Dictionary_, v. 20,783, etc., gives
various titles of Downingiana, and a full list of Downing’s works is
given by Sibley, _Harvard Graduates_, i. 48. The Dutch also charged
upon Downing the initiative in “curbing the progress and reducing the
power” of their State through the Navigation Acts of 1651 and 1660; cf.
Upham, in _Hunt’s Merchants’ Magazine_, iv. 407.

The relations of the new English province with the French and Indians
are particularly illustrated in the papers relating to De Courcelles
and De Tracy’s expedition against the Mohawks (1665), published in
the _Documentary History of New York_, vol. i., where will also be
found the documents concerning Denonville’s expedition against the
Senecas and into the Genesee country in 1687. Cf. also the narrative of
Denonville with O. H. Marshall’s notes, in 2 _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._,
ii. 149. For the expedition against Schenectady, 1689-90, see _N. Y.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1846, p. 137; cf. _Historical Magazine_, xiii. 263,
by J. G. Shea. A further treatment of the French and Indian wars is
made in Vol. IV.

The Hon. Henry C. Murphy found in Holland the _Relation de sa Captivité
parmi les Onneiouts en 1690-91_, by Father Millet, the Jesuit,
and it was edited by Mr. Shea in New York in 1864. Field, _Indian
Bibliography_, no. 1063, says that with the narrative of Jogues it
gives us nearly all we know from personal observation of the Five
Nations at this time. Further references to the literature of the
aboriginal occupation will be given in Mr. Fernow’s chapter.

Regarding the seals of the province, see _Documentary History of New
York_, vol. iv., for various engravings. (Cf. _Historical Magazine_,
ix. 177, and Valentine’s _Manual_, 1851.) Reports on the Province,
1668-1678, are in the _Documentary History of New York_, vol. i.;
and in vol. iii. the papers on Manning’s surrender in 1673, and the
subsequent restoration.

Of the Catholic Governor Dongan there are special treatments by R. H.
Clarke in the _Catholic World_, ix. 767, and by P. F. Dealy, S. J., in
_Magazine of American History_, February, 1882, p. 106. Dongan’s report
on the state of the province, 1687, is in the _Documentary History of
New York_, vol. i. A view of his house is given in Lamb’s _New York_,
i. 326.

Upon Andros’s rule, compare the general historians, and _Memorial
History of Boston_, vol. ii. chap. 1.

Something will be said of the more specific local histories, covering
both the Dutch and English periods, in connection with Mr. Fernow’s
chapter in Vol. IV.

The news of the movements in the province, both under the Dutch and
English rule, as it reached Europe, is recorded in _De Hollandsche
Mercurius_, 1650-1690, a periodical. Cf. Asher’s _Essay_, p. 220;
Muller’s _Catalogue_ (1872), p. 104 (1877), no. 2,100; Sabin’s
_Dictionary_, viii. p. 378.


=B.= VIEWS, MAPS, AND DESCRIPTIONS OF NEW YORK AND THE PROVINCE UNDER
ENGLISH RULE.—_Views._ The earliest views of New Amsterdam date back
to the Dutch period, the first being that in the _Beschrijvinghe van
Virginia_, etc., 1651, of which a fac-simile is given on the title of
Asher’s _List of Maps_, Amsterdam, 1851, and in the _Popular History of
the United States_. The next appeared on the several maps issued by N.
J. Visscher, Van der Donck, Allard (first map), Nicolas Visscher (first
map), and Danckers. It is seen in the heliotype of Van der Donck’s
map given in Vol. IV., and in the engraving of the Visscher map, in
Asher’s _List_.[706] A view very like this is that given on p. 124 of
Arnoldus Montanus’s _De Nieuwe en Onbekende Weereld of Beschryving van
America_, a sumptuous folio printed at Amsterdam, 1671, and at present
variously priced from $5 to $20. Cf. _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii.
1,066, with fac-simile of title.

The same picture is reproduced in the later, 1673, edition of Montanus,
p. 143, and in Ogilby’s _America_, 1671, p. 171, where the description
also follows Montanus, with aid from Denton. (_Carter-Brown Catalogue_,
ii. 1,067, 1,092.) Montanus’s account is translated in the _Documentary
History of New York_, iv. 75, 116, with a fac-simile of the view in
question. Cf. also Gay’s _Popular History of the United States_, iii.
1, and the fac-simile issued, with descriptive notes, by J. W. Moulton
in 1825 as _New York One Hundred and Seventy Years Ago_; and Watson’s
_Olden Times in New York_, 1832.

The picture is also given in fac-simile in Mr. Lenox’s edition of
Jogues’s _Novum Belgium_, edited by J. G. Shea, and in _N. E. Hist.
and Geneal. Reg._, July, 1882, with a paper by J. R. Stanwood on the
settlement of New Netherland. Muller, of Amsterdam in one of his
catalogues, of recent years, offered for 250 marks a water-color
drawing made in 1650, which he claimed as the original sketch upon
which the engraver in Montanus worked. Muller, _Catalogue of American
Portraits_, etc., no. 305. This view is now in the New York Historical
Society’s Library. It is inscribed “In ‘t schip Lydia door Laurens
Harmen Z^n Block, A^o 1650.” There is no record of any ship of such
name arriving at New Amsterdam, and this together with certain changes
in the picture, as compared with Montanus, have led good judges to
suspect that it is a copy of that view, by one who was never in New
Amsterdam, rather than its original. The paper and frame are old, at
all events.

A view purporting to represent the town in 1667 is given in Valentine’s
_New York City Manual_, 1851, p. 131, and in his _History of New York
City_, p. 71.

The view of which an engraving is herewith given is from a map entitled
_Totius Neobelgii nova et accuratissima tabula, ... Typis Caroli
Allard, Amstelodami_.

[Illustration: NEW YORK, OR NEW AMSTERDAM, 1673.]

The reference-key to the view is as follows:—

  A. Fort Orangiensche oft N. Albanische Jachten.
  B. Vlagge-spil, daer de Vlag wordt opgehaelt, alsercomen
  schepen in dese Haven.
  C. Fort Amsterdam, genaemt Jeams-fort bij de Engelsche.
  D. Gevangen-huijs.
  E. Gereformeede Kerck.
  F. Gouverneurs-Huijs.
  G. ’t magazijn.
  H. De Waeg.
  I. Heeren-gracht.
  K. Stadt huijs.
  L. Luthersche Kerck.
  M. Waterpoort.
  N. Smidts-vallij.
  O. Landtpoort.
  P. Weg na ’tversche Water.
  Q. Wint-molen.
  R. Ronduijten.
  S. Stuijvesants Huijs.
  T. Oost-Rivier, lopende tusschen ’t Eijlandt Manhatans,
  en Jorckshire, oft ‘t lange Eijlandt.

The view is inscribed: “Nieuw-Amsterdam, onlangs Nieuw jorck genamt,
ende hernomen bij de Nederlanders op den 24 Aug., 1673, eindelijk aan
de Engelse weder afgestaan.” It took the place of the engraved view,
already mentioned as appearing in the first edition of Allard’s map,
and was probably etched by Romeyn de Hooghe, a distinguished artist
of the day, when Hugo Allard retouched his old plate to produce an
engraved map to meet the interest raised by the recapture of the town.
It also did service in the later issues of the same plate by Carolus
Allard and the Ottens, and was reproduced in an inferior way by Lotter
on his map. See Asher’s _List of Maps and Views_, p. 20. A view of 1679
is given on a later page, with its history.

The annexed cut of the Strand follows a view in _The Manual of the
City of New York_, 1869, p. 738. The Central House, with three windows
in the roof, was the earliest brick house built in the town, and was
at one time the dwelling of Jacob Leisler, and had been built by his
father-in-law, Vanderveen; cf. the narrative in the _Manual_. It is
also engraved in Gay’s _Popular History of the United States_, iii. 14.
Other houses of this period are shown in the _Manual_, 1847, p. 371,
1858, p. 526, and 1862, p. 522; in Valentine’s _History of New York
City_, pp. 177, 214, 319; in Riker’s _Harlem_, p. 454 (Dutch Church of
1686), etc.

[Illustration: THE STRAND, NEW WHITEHALL STREET, NEW YORK.]

_Maps._ An account of the maps of the Dutch period is given in Vol.
IV. For the English period, the earliest of the town of New York was
probably that supposed to have been sent home by Nicoll (1664-68) after
his occupation, and of which a portion is herewith given.

Of about the same date is the original of the Hudson River Map (1666),
which will be found in the next volume. Then came the map of the
province by Nicolas Visscher, issued in the first edition of his _Atlas
Minor_ about 1670.[707] Not far from the same time (1671) appeared
the map which is common to Montanus’s _Nieuwe en Onbekende Weereld_
and to Ogilby’s great folio _America_, which shows the coast from
the Penobscot to the Chesapeake, and is entitled “Novi Belgii, etc.,
delineatio.” It closely resembles Jansson’s earlier map. The Allard map
of 1673, from which our engraved view is taken, was the second by that
cartographer of New Netherland, who retouched the plate of the earlier
one, which had been mainly a reproduction of N. J. Visscher’s, as the
later one of Schenk and Valch (1690) was. Asher says (nos. 13, 15, 16)
that Allard in this second map confined his additions to new names in
the Dutch regions. The same plate was later used by Carolus Allard, and
as late as 1740-50 by Ottens.

About 1680, in Danckers’ Atlas, published at Amsterdam, is found a map,
“Novi Belgii, etc., tabula, multis in locis emendata a J. Danckers,”
which, however, in Asher’s opinion was but a revamping of the earlier
Visscher plate.[708] The map which N. J. Visscher published about
1640 was reissued about 1690 by Nicolas Visscher, “Novi Belgii, etc.,
tabula, multis in locis emendata,” making use of the work of Montanus
and Allard, of which there were also later issues. (Asher’s _List_,
no. 14; Muller, no. 2,276.) An eclectic map, showing the province at
this period, was made up from Montanus, Roggeveen, and others, by J. P.
Bourjé, and appeared in Lambrechtsen’s _Korte Beschryving_, Middelburg,
1818. The maps of Nicolas Visscher in Sanson’s _Atlas Nouveau_ (1700),
and of Henry Hondius and Homan, belong to a later period.

[Illustration: SKETCH PLAN OF NEW YORK CITY, 1664-68.

This is a reduced reproduction of the fac-simile in Valentine’s
_New York City Manual_, 1863, of one of the sheets of Nicoll’s map
of Manhattan Island, preserved in the British Museum. It bears an
attestation of correct correspondence with the original, from Richard
Simms, of the Museum, who transmitted in 1862 the copy to George H.
Moore, then of the Historical Society. Cf. also another representation
in Valentine’s _Manual_, 1859, P. 548, and in his _History_, p. 226.]

Of the charts of the coast about New York, there were two standard
atlases of this period, the _Zee-Atlas_ of Pieter Goos, of which there
were editions in 1666, 1668, 1673, 1675, 1676,—some of them with
French text. (Asher’s _List_, no. 22-24; Muller’s _Catalogue_, 1877,
no. 1254.) Better executed are the charts in the special American
collection issued at Amsterdam by Arent Roggeveen under the title
of _Het Eerste Deel van het Brandende Veen_, 1675, and known in the
English edition as _The Burning Fen_. Asher also adds the charts of Van
Keulen, remarking, however, upon their inaccurate coast-lines.

[Illustration: THE STADTHUYS IN NEW YORK, 1679.—BREVOORT’S DRAWING.]

[Illustration: THE STADTHUYS, 1679.—ORIGINAL SKETCH.]

_Descriptions._ Edward Melton was in New York in 1668, and in his
_Zee-en Landreizen_, Amsterdam, 1681, and again 1702, he gives a
detailed description of the place, borrowing somewhat from Montanus.
(Asher’s _Essay_, no. 17; and _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. 1,221,
which says the later editions were issued in 1704-1705.) Though an
Englishman, his account was not published in the original, and we owe
the earliest one in English to Daniel Denton, whose _Brief Descriptions
of New York_ appeared in London in 1670. It is now very rare. (Sabin’s
_Dictionary_, v. 350.) It is a small quarto, and Rich priced it in 1832
at £1 12_s._ There are copies in Harvard College Library; in the State
Library, Albany; besides two copies in the Carter-Brown Library, with
different imprints. (_Catalogue_, ii. 1,038.) Sabin, in the _Menzies
Catalogue_, says he had sold a copy for $275, and at that sale it
brought $220. (Cf. _Brinley Catalogue_, no. 2,778.) It was reprinted by
the Pennsylvania Historical Society in 1845, 16 pp., and by Wm. Gowan
in New York the same year, with an Introduction by Gabriel Furman, 57
pp.

A few years later we have another description in the _Journal of a
Voyage to New York_, 1679-80, by Jasper Dankers and Peter Sluyter,
which was translated from the original Dutch manuscript by Henry C.
Murphy, and, enriched by an Introduction from the same hand, appeared
in 1867 as vol. i. of the _Memoirs_ of the Long Island Historical
Society, and also separately. Some particulars of Danckaerts or
Dankers are noted in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1874, p. 309. The
MS., when found by Mr. Frederick Muller, of Amsterdam, from whom Mr.
Murphy procured it, was accompanied by certain drawings of the town,
seemingly taken on the spot. These are given in Mr. Murphy’s volume
in fac-simile, with descriptions by Mr. J. Carson Brevoort, who has
also re-drawn certain parts of them with better perspective, and other
rectifications. The re-drawings are also engraved. The originals
consist: (1) of a view of the Narrows, looking out to sea; (2) of a
long panoramic view of the town as seen from the Brooklyn shore; (3)
the East River shore looking south; (4) a view down the island from the
northern edge of the settlement, with the Hudson River on the right,
and a supposable East River on the left. The views which Mr. Brevoort
has rectified are no. 4; the Stadthuys, with adjacent buildings and
half-moon battery, extracted from no. 2; and three parts of no. 3,
namely the Dock, the Water-gate (foot of Wall Street), and the shore
north of the Water-gate. A reduction of the Brevoort Stadthuys view and
the original, full size, are given herewith. This building stood on the
corner of Pearl Street and Coentys slip, was erected as a city tavern
in 1642, became a city hall in 1655, and was torn down in 1700. The
battery when built projected into the river. There are other views of
the Stadthuys given in Valentine’s _Manual_, (1655-56) p. 336, (1852)
p. 378, (1853) p. 472; his _History_, p. 52; Lamb’s _New York_, i. 106;
Gay’s _Popular History of the United States_, ii. 139, etc. Mr. J. W.
Gerard published a monograph in 1875, _Old Stadthuys of New Amsterdam_.

In the train of Andros, and as his chaplain, a Rev. Charles Wooley
came to New York in 1678, and his _Journal of Two Years_ was published
in 1701. (_Historical Magazine_, i. 371.) There is a copy in Harvard
College Library. It was edited in 1860, with notes by Dr. O’Callaghan,
as Gowan’s _Bibliotheca Americana_, no. 2; and no. 3 of the same
series, J. Miller’s _Description of the Province and City of New York_
(1695), though of a little later date, is best examined in the same
connection. It is edited by John G. Shea, as Gowan printed it in 1862.
Cf. also C. Lodwick’s “New York in 1692,” in 2 _N. Y. Hist. Coll._,
vol. ii.




CHAPTER XI.

THE ENGLISH IN EAST AND WEST JERSEY. 1664-1689.

BY WILLIAM A. WHITEHEAD.

_Corresponding Secretary of the New Jersey Historical Society._


ALTHOUGH that portion of the American Continent known as New
Netherland was within the limits claimed by England by virtue of
Cabot’s discovery, yet those in possession, from the comparatively
little interest taken in their proceedings, remained undisturbed until
1664.[709] There had been some attempts on the part of settlers in
Connecticut and on Long Island to encroach upon lands in the occupancy
of the Dutch, or to purchase tracts from the Indians otherwise than
through their intervention, yet nothing had resulted therefrom but
estrangement and animosity. An application for the aid of the Royal
government was the consequence, and Charles II. was induced to
countenance the complaints of his North American subjects, and to
enforce his right to the lands in question.

[Illustration]

To effect the ends in view, a charter was granted to James, Duke of
York,—Charles’s brother,—for all the lands lying between the western
side of Connecticut River and the east side of Delaware Bay, including
Long Island, Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard, and the islands in their
vicinity. This charter was dated March 12, 1663/4, and the following
month a fleet of four vessels, having on board a full complement of
sailors and soldiers, was despatched to eject the Dutch and put the
representatives of the Duke of York in possession.

[Illustration]

The fleet arrived in August, and articles of capitulation were signed
on the 19th (20th) of the same month. Colonel Richard Nicolls, who
commanded the expedition, received the surrender of the Province the
following day; and in October Sir Robert Carr secured the capitulation
of the settlements on the Delaware. By the treaty of Breda, in 1667,
the possession of the country was confirmed to the English.[710]

Although, as the pioneers of civilization, the Hollanders had
developed, to a considerable extent, the resources of what is now New
Jersey, yet the cultivation of the soil and the increase of population,
during the half century that had elapsed since their first occupancy,
were by no means commensurate with what might have been expected.
Settlements had been made on tracts known as Weehawken, Hoboken,
Ahasimus, Pavonia, Constable’s Hook, and Bergen, on the western banks
of the Hudson River, opposite New Amsterdam, but of their population
and other evidences of growth nothing definite is known. On the
Delaware, Cornelius Jacobsen Mey, in 1623, under the auspices of the
West India Company of Holland, and David Pieterson de Vries, in 1631,
attempted to colonize South Jersey at Fort Nassau; but to the Swedes
must be accorded the credit of making the first successful settlements,
though few in number and insignificant in extent.[711] These, in
August, 1655, were surrendered to the Dutch under Peter Stuyvesant,
and they had experienced very little growth or modification when
surrendered to Sir Robert Carr in 1664.

[Illustration]

Before the Duke of York was actually in possession of the territory, he
had executed deeds of lease and release to Lord John Berkeley, Baron
of Stratton, and Sir George Carteret, of Saltrum. The documents bore
the dates of June 23 and 24, 1664, and granted all that portion of his
American acquisition—

 “lying and being to the westward of Long Island and Manhitoes Island,
 and bounded on the east part by the main sea and part by Hudson’s
 river, and hath upon the west Delaware bay or river, and extending
 southward to the main ocean as far as Cape May at the mouth of
 Delaware bay, and to the northward as far as the northernmost branch
 of the said bay or river of Delaware, which is forty-one degrees and
 forty minutes of latitude, and crosseth over thence in a straight line
 to Hudson’s river in forty-one degrees of latitude; which said tract
 of land is hereafter to be called by the name or names of _New Cæsaria
 or New Jersey_.”

The two courtiers, placed in these important and interesting relations
to the people of New Jersey, were doubtless led to enter into them from
being already interested in the Province of Carolina, and from their
associations with the Duke of York.

[Illustration]

Sir John Berkeley had been the governor of the Duke in his youth, and
in subsequent years had retained great influence over him. He, as well
as Sir George Carteret, had been a firm adherent of Charles II.; and
Carteret, at the Restoration, was placed in several important positions
and was an intimate companion of James. Both Carteret and Berkeley were
connected with the Duke in the Admiralty Board, of which he was at
that time the head, and consequently enjoyed peculiar facilities for
influencing him. The name of “Cæsaria” was conferred upon the tract in
commemoration of the gallant defence of the Island of Jersey, in 1649,
against the Parliamentarians, by Sir George Carteret, then governor
of the island; but it was soon lost, the English appellation of “New
Jersey” being preferred.

The grant to the Duke of York, from the Crown, conferred upon him,
his heirs and assigns, among other rights and privileges, that of
government, subject to the approval by the King of all matters
submitted for his decision; differing therein from the Royal privileges
conceded to the proprietors of Maryland and Carolina, which were
unlimited. The Duke of York, consequently, ruled his territory in the
name of the King, and when it was transferred to Berkeley and Carteret,
they, “their heirs and assigns,” were invested with all the powers
conferred upon the Duke “in as full and ample manner” as he himself
possessed them, including, as was conceived, the right of government,
although it was not so stated expressly,—thus transferring with the
land the allegiance and obedience of the inhabitants.

[Illustration]

On Feb. 10, 1664/5, without having had any communication with the
inhabitants, or acquiring a knowledge by personal inspection of
the peculiarities of the country, Berkeley and Carteret signed an
instrument which they published under the title of “The Concessions
and Agreements of the Lords Proprietors of New Jersey, to and with all
and every of the adventurers and all such as shall settle and plant
there.” This, the first Constitution of New Jersey, was regarded by
the people as the great charter of their liberties, and respected
accordingly. By its provisions the government of the Province was
confided to a governor, a council of not less than six nor more than
twelve to be selected by the governor, and an assembly of twelve
representatives to be chosen annually by the freemen of the Province.
The governor and council were clothed with power to appoint and remove
all officers,—freeholders alone to be appointed to office unless
by consent of the assembly,—to exercise a general supervision over
all courts, and to be executors of the laws. They were to direct the
manner of laying out of lands, and were not to impose, nor permit to
be imposed, any tax upon the people not authorized by the general
assembly. That body was authorized to pass all laws for the government
of the Province, subject to the approval of the governor, to remain
in force one year, during which time they were to be submitted to the
Lords Proprietors. To encourage planters, every freeman who should
embark with the first governor, or meet him on his arrival, provided
with a “good musket, bore twelve bullets to the pound, with bandoliers
and match convenient, and with six months’ provisions for himself,”
was promised one hundred and fifty acres of land, and the like number
for every man-servant or slave brought with him similarly provided. To
females over the age of fourteen, seventy-five acres were promised,
and a similar number to every Christian servant at the expiration of
his or her term of service. Those going subsequently, but before Jan.
1, 1666, were to receive one hundred and twenty acres, if master,
mistress, or able man-servant or slave; and weaker servants, male or
female, sixty acres. Those going during the fourth year were to have
one half of these quantities.

In the laying out of towns and boroughs the proprietors reserved
one seventh of the land to themselves. To all who might become
entitled to any land, a warrant was to be obtained from the governor
directing the surveyor to lay out the several tracts, which being
done, a grant or patent was to be issued, signed by the governor and
the major part of the council, subject to a yearly quit-rent of not
less than one halfpenny per acre, the payment of which was to begin
in 1670. Each parish was to be allowed two hundred acres for the
use of its ministers. Liberty of conscience was guaranteed to all
becoming subjects of England, and swearing allegiance to the King and
fidelity to the Lords Proprietors; and the assembly of the Province
was authorized to appoint as many ministers as should be thought
proper, and to provide for their maintenance. Such were the principal
provisions of this fundamental Constitution of the Province.

[Illustration]

On the same day that the Concessions were signed, Philip Carteret, a
distant relative of Sir George, was commissioned governor, and received
his instructions. Preparations were at once made for his departure,
accompanied by all such as were willing to emigrate to New Jersey; and
in April he sailed, with about thirty adventurers and servants, in the
ship “Philip,” laden with suitable commodities. The vessel was first
heard of as being in Virginia in May, and she arrived at New York on
July 29. Here Carteret was informed that Governor Nicolls, in entire
ignorance of the transfer of New Jersey to Lords Berkeley and Carteret,
had authorized and confirmed a purchase made of the Indians, by a party
from Long Island, of a tract of land lying on the west side of the
strait between Staten Island and the main land, and that four families
had emigrated thither. Nicolls had also confirmed to other parties
a tract lying near to Sandy Hook, which they had purchased from the
Indians. This led to the settlement of Middletown and Shrewsbury, in
what is now Monmouth County,—the two grants laying the foundation for
much subsequent trouble in the administration of the public affairs of
the Province.

In consequence of these developments the prow of the “Philip” was
directed by Carteret towards the new settlement at what is now
Elizabeth; and arriving there early in August, he landed, as it is
said, with a hoe upon his shoulder, thereby indicating his intention
to become a planter with those already there, and conferring upon
the embryo town the name it now bears, after the lady of Sir George
Carteret.

Among Carteret’s first measures for the improvement of the Province
was the sending of messengers to New England and elsewhere, to publish
the Concessions and to invite settlers,—measures which resulted in a
considerable accession to the population. The ship “Philip” returned to
England in about six months, and brought out the next year “more people
and goods” on account of the Proprietors; and other vessels, similarly
laden, followed from time to time.

In 1666 a division of the Elizabethtown tract was effected,
leading to the settlement of Woodbridge and Piscataway. Another
settlement,—formed by immigrants from Milford, Guilford, Branford, and
New Haven, and having a desire, they said in their agreement, “to be of
one heart and consent, through God’s blessing, that with one hand they
may endeavor the carrying on of spiritual concernments, as also civil
and town affairs according to God and a godly government,”—became the
nucleus of Newark (now the most populous city in New Jersey), only such
planters as belonged to some one of the Congregational churches being
allowed to vote or hold office in the town. These, with the settlements
mentioned as having been begun under the Dutch administration,
comprised all which for some years attracted immigration from other
quarters. Thus gradually New Jersey obtained an enterprising,
industrious population sufficiently large to develop in no small degree
its varied capabilities.

The Indians were considered generally as beneficial to the new
settlements. The obtaining of furs, skins, and game, which added both
to the traffic of the Province and to the support of the inhabitants,
was thus secured with less difficulty than if they had been obliged
to depend upon their own exertions for the needed supply. The
different tribes were more or less connected with or subordinate to
the confederated Indians of New York, and the settlers in New Jersey
enjoyed, in consequence, peculiar protection. As the Proprietors
evinced no disposition to deprive them of their lands, but in all
cases made what was deemed an adequate remuneration for such as were
purchased, New Jersey was preserved from those unhappy collisions which
resulted in such vital injury to the settlements in other parts of the
country.

Governor Carteret did not think that any legislation was immediately
necessary for the government of the people or administration of the
affairs of the Province. The Concessions having been tried were found
quite adequate to the requirements of the new settlements, but on
April 7, 1668, he issued his proclamation ordering the election of two
freeholders from each town to meet in a general assembly the ensuing
month at Elizabethtown; and on May 26 the first Assembly in New Jersey
began a session which closed on the 30th. During the session a bill
of pains and penalties was passed, identical in some respects with
the Levitical law. Other subjects were considered; but “by reason of
the week so near spent and the resolution of some of the company to
depart,” definite action was postponed until the ensuing session, which
was held on November 3, in which deputies from the southern portion of
the Province on the Delaware took part. A few acts were passed relating
to weights and measures, fines, and dealings with the Indians; but on
the fourth day of the session the Assembly adjourned _sine die_, the
deputies excusing themselves therefor in a message to the Governor and
Council, in which they say:—

 “We, finding so many and great inconveniences by our not sitting
 together, and your apprehension so different to ours, and your
 expectations that things must go according to your opinions, they can
 see no reason for, much less warrant from the Concessions; wherefore
 we think it vain to spend much time in returning answers by meetings
 that are so exceeding dilatory, if not fruitless and endless, and
 therefore we think our way rather to break up our meeting, seeing the
 order of the Concessions cannot be attended to.”

A proposition by the Governor and Council, that a committee should be
appointed to consult with them upon the asserted deviations from the
Concessions, was not heeded, and the Assembly adjourned. Seven years
elapsed before another, of which there is any authentic record, met.
There are intimations of meetings of deputies on two occasions in 1671;
but what was done thereat is not known, excepting the establishing of a
Court of Oyer and Terminer.

This neglect to provide for the regular meeting of the General Assembly
of the Province was doubtless owing to the disaffection then existing
among the inhabitants of what was subsequently known as the Monmouth
Patent, including Middletown, Shrewsbury, and other settlements holding
their lands under the grant from Nicolls, which has been mentioned.
As they considered themselves authorized to pass such prudential laws
as they deemed advisable, they were led to hold a local assembly
for the purpose as early as June, 1667, at what is now called the
Highlands; and not being disposed to acknowledge fully the claims of
the Lords Proprietors, they refused to publish the laws passed at
the first session of the General Assembly and would not permit them
to be enforced within their limits, on the ground that the deputies,
professedly representing them, had not been lawfully elected. Certain
differences in the Nicolls grant, from the Concessions, were insisted
on before the deputies representing those towns could be allowed to
co-operate in any legislation affecting them.

These views were not acceded to, and the towns were consequently
not represented in the Assembly of November, 1668, and the first
open hostility to the government of Carteret was inaugurated. This,
however, did not interfere materially with his administration of the
affairs of the Province. In every other quarter harmony prevailed
until the time came when, by the provisions of the Concessions, the
first quit-rents became payable by those holding lands under the
Proprietors. The arrival of March 25, 1670, when their collection
was to begin, introduced decided and, in many quarters, violent
opposition. Information received from England of a probable change in
the proprietorship, which promised a reannexation of New Jersey to
New York, no doubt added to the apprehensions of the Governor and his
Council, and gave encouragement to the disaffected among the people.

The Elizabethtown settlers, asserting their right to the lands
confirmed to them by Governor Nicolls independent of the requisitions
of the Concessions, became the central instruments of action for the
disaffected. The claims of the Proprietors’ officers, the oaths of
allegiance which many of them had taken, as well as their duty to
those whose liberal concessions constituted the chief inducements for
settlement within their jurisdiction, were alike unheeded. The titles
acquired through Nicolls they attempted to uphold as of superior force,
and, following the example of Middletown and Shrewsbury, although on
less tenable grounds, they were disposed to question the authority of
the government in other matters. For two years there was a prevalent
state of confusion, anxiety, and doubt.

On March 26, 1672, there was a meeting of deputies from the different
towns; but the validity of such an Assembly, as it was called, the
governor and council did not recognize. The proceedings are presumed to
have had reference to the vexed question of titles; but the documents
connected with the meeting were all suppressed by the secretary,
who was also assistant-secretary of the council, and he acted, it
is presumed, under their instructions. Another meeting was held at
Elizabethtown on May 14, composed of representatives of Elizabethtown,
Newark, Woodbridge, Piscataway, and Bergen; but assembling “without
the knowledge, approbation, or consent” of the governor and council,
they of course did not co-operate. The Concessions stipulated that
the general assembly should consist of the “representatives, or the
majority of them, with the governor and council,” and their absence
afforded an excuse for another step toward independence of the
established authorities. The Concessions provided that, should the
governor refuse to be present in person or by deputy, the general
assembly might “appoint themselves a president during the absence
of the governor or the deputy-governor;” and the assembly proceeded
to do so (not, however, a president merely to preside over their
deliberations and give effect to their acts, but a “president of the
country,” to exercise the chief authority in the Province), finding a
ready co-operator in James Carteret, a son of Sir George, then in New
Jersey on his way to Carolina, of which he had been made a landgrave.

He appears to have been courteously received by the authorities of
the Province, from his near relationship to the proprietor, but his
course argues little consideration for them or for the interests of
his father. He did not hesitate to assume the chief authority; and,
although the governor issued a proclamation denouncing both him and
the body which had conferred authority upon him, yet power to enforce
obedience seems to have been with the usurper. Officers of the
government were seized and imprisoned, and in some instances their
property was confiscated.

[Illustration]

Governor Carteret had deemed it advisable to seek his safety by taking
up his residence in Bergen, where on May 28 he convened his council
for deliberation. They advised him to go to England, to explain to
the Lords Proprietors the situation of the Province, and to have his
authority confirmed. This he did, taking with him James Bollen, the
secretary of the council, and appointing John Berry deputy-governor in
his absence. Their reception by the Proprietors was all that they could
have expected or desired. Sir George Carteret sent directions to his
son to vacate his usurped authority at once and proceed to Carolina;
and the Duke of York wrote to Governor Lovelace, who had succeeded
Nicolls in the Province of New York, notifying him, and requiring him
to make the same known to the insurgents, that the claims they had
advanced would not be recognized by him; and King Charles II. himself
sent a missive to Deputy-Governor Berry confirming his authority and
commanding obedience to the government of the Lords Proprietors. Other
documents from the Proprietors expressed in temperate but decided
language their determination to support the rights which had been
conferred upon them, and some modifications of the Concessions were
made, which circumstances seemed to require, conferring additional
powers on the governor and council.

These various documents were published by Deputy-Governor Berry in May,
1673. They served to quiet the previous agitation, and to re-establish
his authority. A certain time was allowed the malecontents to comply
with the terms of the Proprietors; and the inhabitants of Middletown
and Shrewsbury placed themselves in a more favorable position than
those of other towns by asking for a suspension of proceedings against
them until they could communicate with the authorities in England.
This they did, throwing themselves upon their generous forbearance by
relinquishing any special privileges they had claimed under the Nicolls
patent, receiving individual grants of land in lieu thereof; and
thereafter the relations between them and the proprietary government
were always harmonious.

The government was resumed by the representatives of the Proprietors
without any exhibition of exultation; and further to insure
tranquillity and good conduct the deputy-governor and council issued
an order with the intent “to prevent deriding, or uttering words of
reproach, to any that had been guilty” of the insubordination.

In March, 1673, Charles II., in co-operation with Louis XIV. of France,
declared war against Holland; and before the time expired, within
which the proffered terms were to be acceded to by the inhabitants,
the Dutch were again in possession of the country. The manner in
which New Netherland had been subdued by the English prompted a like
retaliation, and a squadron of five vessels was at once despatched
against New York. The fleet was increased, by captures on the way,
to sixteen vessels, conveying sixteen hundred men; and on August 8
possession of the fort was obtained, and for more than a year the
authority of the States General was acknowledged. On the one hand, no
harshness or disposition to violate the just rights of the inhabitants
was manifested; while, on the other, imaginary injuries from the
proprietary government led to a ready recognition of what might prove
an advantageous change. The natural consequences were harmony and
good-will.

The inhabitants generally were confirmed in the possession of their
lawfully acquired lands, and placed on an equality, as to privileges,
with the Hollanders themselves. Local governments were established for
each town, consisting of six schepens, or magistrates, and two deputies
toward the constitution of a joint board, for the purpose of nominating
three persons for schouts and three for secretaries. From the
nominations thus made the council would select three magistrates for
each town, and for the six towns collectively a schout and secretary.
John Ogden and Samuel Hopkins were severally appointed to these offices
on the 1st of September.

On November 18 a code of laws was promulgated “by the schout and
magistrates of Achter Kol Assembly, held at Elizabethtown to make
laws and orders,” but it does not appear to have been framed with
any reference to the English laws in force, which it was intended to
subvert. It was singularly mild in the character and extent of the
punishments to be inflicted on transgressors, the principal aim of
the legislators apparently being the protection of the Province from
the demoralizing effects of sensual indulgence and other vicious
propensities; but the whole code soon became a nullity, through the
abrogation of the authority under which it was enacted.

On Feb. 9, 1674, a treaty of peace was signed at Westminster, the
eighth article of which restored the country to the English; and they
continued in undisturbed possession from the November following until
the war which secured the independence of the United States of America.

On the conclusion of peace the Duke of York obtained from the King a
new patent, dated June 29, 1674, similar in its privileges and extent
to the first; and on October 30 Edmund Andros arrived with a commission
as governor, clothing him with power to take possession of New York
and its dependencies, which, in the words of the commission included
“all the land from the west side of Connecticut River to the east side
of Delaware Bay.” On November 9 he issued a proclamation in which he
expressly declared that all former grants, privileges, or concessions,
and all estates legally possessed by and under His Royal Highness
before the late Dutch government, were thereby confirmed, and the
possessors by virtue thereof to remain in quiet possession of their
rights. King Charles on June 13, prior to the issuing of a new patent
by the Duke of York, wrote a circular letter confirming in all respects
the title and power of Carteret in East Jersey.

[Illustration]

On July 28 and 29, 1674, Sir George Carteret received a new grant from
the Duke of York, equally full as to rights and privileges, giving
him individually all of the Province north of a line drawn from a
certain “creek called Barnegat to a certain creek on Delaware River,
next adjoining to and below a certain creek on Delaware River called
Rankokus Kill,” a stream south of what is now Burlington,—the sale
of Berkeley’s interest in the Province being evidently considered as
leading to its division.

[Illustration]

This had taken place on March 18, 1673/4, Lord Berkeley disposing
of his portion of the Province to John Fenwicke,—Edward Byllynge
being interested in the transaction. As these two were members of the
Society of Quakers, or Friends, who had experienced much persecution in
England, it is thought that in making this purchase they had in view
the securing for themselves and their religious associates a place of
retreat.

[Illustration]

Some difficulty was experienced in determining the respective
interests of Fenwicke and Byllynge in the property they had acquired,
and the intervention of William Penn was secured. He awarded one tenth
of the Province, with a considerable sum of money, to Fenwicke, and the
remaining nine tenths to Byllynge. Not long after, Byllynge, who was a
merchant, met with misfortunes, which obliged him to make a conveyance
of his interest to others. It was therefore assigned to three of his
fellow associates among the Quakers,—William Penn, Gawen Lawrie, and
Nicholas Lucas. This conveyance was signed Feb. 10, 1674. The nine
undivided tenths were assigned to the three persons just mentioned, to
be held by them in trust for the benefit of Byllynge’s creditors; and
not long after Fenwicke’s tenth was also placed under their control,
although he had executed a lease to John Eldridge and Edmond Warner for
a thousand years, to secure the repayment of sums of money obtained
from them. A discretionary power to sell was conferred by the lease,
leading to complications of title and management.

[Illustration]

Philip Carteret had remained in England until the negotiations
subsequent to the surrender of the Dutch were completed and the
new grant for East Jersey obtained; and on July 31, 1674, he was
recommissioned as governor, and returned to the Province, bringing with
him further regulations respecting the laying out of lands, the payment
of quit-rents, and other obligations of the settlers. His return seems
to have greatly pleased the people of East Jersey. His commission, and
the other documents of which he was made the bearer, were published at
Bergen, Nov. 6, 1674, in the presence of his council and commissioners
from all the towns except Shrewsbury.

After the Governor’s return the assemblies met annually with
considerable regularity, the first at Elizabethtown on Nov. 5, 1675,
and the others either there or at Woodbridge or Middletown. Sufficient
unanimity seems to have prevailed among the different branches
of government, to secure legislation upon all subjects which the
advancement of the Province in population rendered essential.

As yet no material change in the condition of West Jersey as to
settlement had taken place; but in 1675 John Fenwicke, with many
others, came over in the ship “Griffith” from London and landed at what
is now Salem,—so called by them from the peaceful aspect which the
site then wore. No other settlers, however, arrived for two years.

Although the commission of Andros as governor of New York authorized
him to take possession of the Province “and its dependencies,” yet
having been conversant with the transactions in England affecting
New Jersey, which had taken place subsequent to its date, he did not
presume at first to assert his authority over that Province, otherwise
than to collect duties there similar to those constituting the Duke’s
revenue in New York. Soon after his arrival he took measures to collect
the same customs at Hoarkill, in West Jersey; and on the arrival of
Fenwicke with his settlers at Salem, a meeting of his council was held
Dec. 5, 1675, at which an order was issued prohibiting any privilege
or freedom of customs or trading on the eastern shore of the Delaware,
nor was Fenwicke to be recognized as owner or proprietor of any land.
As this prohibition was not regarded by Fenwicke, on Nov. 8, 1676,
directions were given to the council at Newcastle to arrest him and
send him to New York. This proceeding not being acquiesced in by
Fenwicke, a judicial and military force was despatched in December to
make the arrest. On producing, for the inspection of Andros, the King’s
Letters Patent, the Duke of York’s grant to Berkeley and Carteret, and
Lord Berkeley’s deed to himself, Fenwicke was allowed to return to West
Jersey, on condition that he should present himself again on or before
the 6th of October following,—the fact that the Duke was authorized
to, and did, transfer all his rights in New Jersey, “in as full and
ample manner” as he had received them, being an argument that Andros
could not readily refute. Fenwicke complied with the prescribed terms
of his release and, after some detention as a prisoner, was liberated
(as asserted by Andros) on his parole not to assume any authority in
West Jersey until further warrant should be given.

It being evident that the grant of the Duke of York to Sir George
Carteret in July, 1674, had not made an equitable division of the
Province between him and the assigns of Sir John Berkeley, the Duke
induced Sir George to relinquish that grant, and another deed of
division was executed on July 1, 1676, known as the Quintipartite Deed,
making the dividing line to run from Little Egg Harbor to what was
called the northernmost branch of the Delaware River, in 41° 40´ north
latitude; and from that time the measures adopted by the Proprietors of
the two provinces to advance the interests of their respective portions
were enforced separately and independently of each other.

The trustees of Byllynge effected sales of land to two companies of
Friends, one from Yorkshire and the other from London; and in 1677
commissioners were sent out with power to purchase lands of the
natives, to lay out the various patents that might be issued, and
otherwise administer the government. The ship “Kent” was sent over with
two hundred and thirty passengers, and after a long passage she arrived
in the Delaware in August (1677), and the following month a settlement
was made on the site of the present Burlington.

The commissioners came in the “Kent,” which, on her way to the
Delaware, anchored at Sandy Hook. Thence the commissioners proceeded to
New York to inform Governor Andros of their intentions; and, although
they failed to secure an absolute surrender of his authority over their
lands, he promised them his aid in getting their rights acknowledged,
they in the mean time acting as magistrates under him, and being
permitted to carry out the views of the Proprietors. During the
following months of 1677, and in 1678, several hundred more immigrants
arrived and located themselves on the Yorkshire and London tracts, or
tenths as they were called.

The settlers of West Jersey, as a body, were too intelligent for them
to remain long without an established form of government, and on March
3, 1677, a code of laws was adopted under the title of “The Concessions
and Agreements of the Proprietors, Freeholders, and Inhabitants of
the Province of West Jersey.” It was drawn up, as is presumed, by
William Penn and his immediate coadjutors, as his name heads the list
of signers, of whom there were one hundred and fifty-one. The chief
or executive authority was by these Concessions lodged in the hands
of commissioners to be appointed by the then Proprietors, and their
provisions cannot but meet with general approval. This code is to be
considered as the first example of Quaker legislation, and is marked
by great liberality. The framers, as a proprietary body, retained no
authority exclusively to themselves, but placed all power in the hands
of the people. The document was to be read at the beginning and close
of each general assembly; and, that all might know its provisions, four
times in a year it was to be read in a solemn manner in every hall of
justice in the Province.

The settlers on Fenwicke’s tenth did not participate in the privileges
of these Concessions. On returning to the Province, after his
confinement in New York, Fenwicke proceeded to make choice of officers
for his colony, demanding in the name of the King the submission of the
people, and directly afterward issued a proclamation in which he—as
“Lord and Chief Proprietor of the said Province [West Jersey], and in
particular Fenwicke’s colony within the same”—required all persons to
appear before him within one month and show their orders or warrants
for “their pretended titles,” assuming an independent authority
entirely at variance with the proprietary directions.

The commissioners of the Byllynge tenths, however, do not appear to
have made any attempt to interfere with him, confining their authority
to the limits of their own well defined tracts; but if Fenwicke escaped
annoyance from his near neighbors he was not so fortunate in his
relations with his former persecutor, Andros, as he is represented as
being, not long after his return, again at Newcastle under arrest,
waiting for some opportunity to be sent again to New York.

Although, as has been stated, general quietude prevailed in East
Jersey for some years after Carteret’s return from England, yet it
must be considered as resulting less from the desire of the people to
co-operate with him, than from the want of leaders willing to guide
and uphold them in ultra proceedings. The exaction of customs in New
York, by direction of the representatives of the Duke of York, operated
more to the annoyance of the inhabitants on the Delaware than to
those in the eastern portion of the Province, and it was with great
anxiety that the adventurers to West Jersey regarded the course of
Andros in relation thereto; but in East Jersey, the proximity to New
York rendered a direct trade with foreign lands less necessary. Andros
steadily opposed all projects of the Governor to render East Jersey
more independent of New York, and the death of Sir George Carteret in
January, 1680, seems to have inspired him with fresh vigor in asserting
the claims of the Duke of York. Recalling to mind that New Jersey was
within the limits of his jurisdiction according to his commission, he
addressed a letter to Governor Carteret in March, 1679/80, informing
him that, being advised of his acting without legal authority to the
great disturbance of His Majesty’s subjects, he required him to cease
exercising any authority whatever within the limits of the Duke of
York’s patent, unless his lawful power so to do was first recorded in
New York. To this unlooked for and unwarranted communication, Governor
Carteret replied on March 20, two days after its receipt, informing his
indignant correspondent that after consultation with his council he and
they were prepared to defend themselves and families against any and
all aggressions, having a perfect conviction of the validity of the
authority they exercised. Before this letter was received by Andros, or
even written, he had issued a proclamation abrogating the government of
Carteret and requiring all persons to submit to the King’s authority
as embodied in himself. Emissaries were despatched to East Jersey to
undermine the authority of Carteret, and every other means adopted to
estrange the people from their adhesion to the Proprietary government.

On April 7 Andros, accompanied by his council, presented himself at
Elizabethtown, and Carteret, finding that they were unattended by any
military force, dismissed a body of one hundred and fifty men gathered
for his defence; and, receiving his visitors with civility, a mutual
exposition was made of their respective claims to the government of
East Jersey. The conference ended as it had begun. Andros having
now, as he said, performed his duty by fully presenting his authority
and demanding the government in behalf of His Majesty, cautioned them
against refusal. “Then we went to dinner,” says Carteret in his account
of the interview, “and that done we accompanied him to the ship, and so
parted.”

Carteret’s hospitality, however, was lost upon Andros. On April 30 a
party of soldiers, sent by him, dragged the Governor from his bed and
carried him to New York, bruised and maltreated, where he was kept
in prison until May 27, when a special court was convened for his
trial for having “persisted and riotously and routously endeavored to
maintain the exercise of jurisdiction and government over His Majesty’s
subjects within the bounds of His Majesty’s letters-patent to His Royal
Highness.”

Carteret boldly maintained his independence under these trying
circumstances. He fully acknowledged before the court his refusal to
surrender his government to Andros without the special command of the
King, submitted the various documents bearing upon the subject, and
protested against the jurisdiction of a court where his accuser and
imprisoner was also his judge.

The jury brought in a verdict of “not guilty,” which Andros would not
receive, obliging them to reconsider their action, two or three times;
and it is somewhat singular that they should have held firm to their
first decision. They, however, gave in so far as to require Governor
Carteret to give security not to exercise any authority on his return
to East Jersey, until the matter could be referred to the authorities
in England.

Andros lost no time in profiting by Carteret’s violent deposition,
for although it is said that, attended by his whole retinue of ladies
and gentlemen, he escorted Carteret to his home in Elizabethtown, yet
on June 2 Andros met the Assembly at that place, presented again his
credentials, and recommended such enactments as would confirm all past
judicial proceedings, and the adoption of the laws in force in New
York. The representatives, while they treated Andros with respect,
were not unmindful of what was due to themselves as freemen. They
were not prepared to bow in submission even to His Majesty’s Letters
Patent, whenever at variance with their true rights. “What we have
formerly done,” said they, “we did in obedience to the authority that
was then established in this Province: these things, which have been
done according to law, require no confirmation.” They presented for
the approval of Andros the laws already in force as adapted to their
circumstances, and expressed their expectations that the privileges
conferred by the Concessions would be confirmed. It does not appear
that their views were dissented from by Andros, or that his visit was
productive of either good or evil results.

In consequence of the dilatoriness of the Proprietary in England,
Carteret was kept in suspense until the beginning of the next year; but
on March 2, 1681, he issued a proclamation announcing the receipt by
him of the gratifying intelligence that the Duke of York had disavowed
the acts of Andros and denied having conferred upon him any authority
that could in the least have derogated from that vested in the
Proprietary; and a letter from the Duke’s secretary, to Andros himself,
notified him that His Royal Highness had relinquished all right or
claim to the Province, except the reserved rent.

About this time Andros returned to England, leaving Anthony Brocholst,
president of the council, as his representative. There is some mystery
about his conduct towards New Jersey. He may have thought that the
party in East Jersey, inimical to the proprietary government, might
enable him to regain possession of it for the Duke, and thereby
increase the estimation in which he might be held by him. For Andros
had enemies in New York who had interested themselves adversely to his
interests, making such an impression upon the Duke that his voyage to
England at this time was taken in accordance with the express command
of his superior, to answer certain charges preferred against him.

The withdrawal of the common enemy soon reproduced the bickerings and
disputings which had characterized much of Carteret’s administration.
He convened an Assembly at Elizabethtown in October, 1681, at which
such violent altercations took place that the Governor, for the first
time in the history of New Jersey, dissolved the Assembly, contrary to
the wishes of the representatives. This was the last Assembly during
the administration of Carteret, for the ensuing year he resigned the
government into other hands.

Sir George Carteret died, as has been stated, in 1680, leaving his
widow, Lady Elizabeth, his executrix. He devised his interest in New
Jersey to eight trustees in trust for the benefit of his creditors;
and their attention was immediately given to finding a purchaser, by
private application or public advertisement. These modes of proceeding
proving unsuccessful it was offered at public sale to the highest
bidder, and William Penn and eleven associates, all thought to have
been Quakers, and some of whom were already interested in West Jersey,
became the purchasers for £3,400. Their deeds of lease and release
were dated Feb. 1 and 2, 1681/2, and subsequently each one sold one
half of his interest to a new associate, making in all twenty-four
proprietors. On March 14, 1681/2, the Duke of York confirmed the sale
of the Province to the Twenty-four by giving a new grant more full
and explicit than any previous one, in which their names are inserted
in the following order: James, Earl of Perth, John Drummond, Robert
Barclay, David Barclay, Robert Gordon, Arent Sonmans, _William Penn_,
_Robert West_, _Thomas Rudyard_, _Samuel Groom_, _Thomas Hart_,
_Richard Mew_, _Ambrose Rigg_, _John Heywood_, _Hugh Hartshorne_,
_Clement Plumstead_, _Thomas Cooper_, Gawen Lawrie, Edward Byllynge,
James Brain, William Gibson, Thomas Barker, Robert Turner, and Thomas
Warne,—those in italics being the names of eleven of the first twelve,
_Thomas Wilcox_, the twelfth, having parted with his entire interest.

There was a strange commingling of religions, professions, and
characters in these Proprietors, among them being, as the historian
Wynne observes, “High Prerogative men (especially those from
Scotland), Dissenters, <DW7>s, and Quakers.” This bringing together
such a diversity of political and religious ideas and habits was
doubtless with a view to harmonize any outside influences that it might
be deemed advisable to secure, in order to advance the interests of the
Province. A government composed entirely of Quakers or Dissenters or
Royalists might have failed to meet the co-operation desired, whereas a
combination of all might have been expected to unite all parties.

[Illustration]

Robert Barclay of Urie, a Scottish gentleman, a Quaker, and a personal
friend of William Penn, was selected to be governor. He occupied a
high position among those of his religion for the influence exerted
in their behalf, and for the numerous works written by him in defence
of their principles,—the most celebrated being _An Apology for the
True Christian Divinity as the same is preached and held forth by the
people, in scorn, called Quakers_,—and moreover he was equally capable
of excelling in worldly matters. He was subsequently commissioned
governor for life; and, as if his name alone were sufficient to
insure a successful administration of the affairs of the Province, he
was not required to visit East Jersey in person, but might exercise
his authority there by deputy. He selected for that position Thomas
Rudyard, an eminent lawyer of London, originally from the town of
Rudyard in Staffordshire. It was probably from his connection with the
trials of prominent Quakers, in 1670, that he became interested in the
East Jersey project. He took an active part in the preliminary measures
for advancing the designs of the Proprietors. The Concessions, their
plans for one or more towns, a map of the country, and other documents
were deposited at his residence in London for the inspection of all
adventurers.

The entire population of East Jersey at this time was estimated at
about five thousand, occupying Shrewsbury, Middletown, Piscataway,
Woodbridge, Elizabethtown, Newark, Bergen, and the country in their
respective vicinities.

Deputy-Governor Rudyard, accompanied by Samuel Groom as receiver
and surveyor-general, arrived in the Province in November 1682, and
both were favorably impressed by the condition and advantages of the
country. On December 10 following the council was appointed, consisting
of Colonel Lewis Morris, Captain John Berry, Captain William Sandford,
Lawrence Andress, and Benjamin Price, before whom, on December 20, the
deputy-governor took his oath of office, having previously on the 1st
been sworn as chief register of the Proprietors. The instructions with
which Rudyard was furnished by the Proprietors or Governor Barclay are
not on record, but they are presumed to have been in accordance with
the terms of a letter to the planters and inhabitants, with which he
was furnished, inculcating harmony and earnest endeavors to advance
their joint interests. The previous Concessions being confirmed,
Rudyard convened an Assembly at Elizabethtown, March 1, 1683; and
during the year two additional sessions were held and several acts of
importance passed. Among them was one establishing the bounds of four
counties into which the Province was divided. “Bergen” included the
settlements between the Hudson and Hackensack rivers, and extended to
the northern bounds of the Province; “Essex” included all the country
north of the dividing line between Woodbridge and Elizabethtown, and
west of the Hackensack; “Middlesex” took in all the lands from the
Woodbridge line on the north to Chesapeake Harbor on the southeast, and
back southwest and northwest to the Province bounds; and “Monmouth”
comprised the residue.

Although the administration of Rudyard appears to have been productive
of beneficial results, securing a great degree of harmony among the
varied interests prevailing in the Province, yet, differing from him in
opinion as to the policy of certain measures, the Proprietors, while
their confidence in him seems to have been unimpaired, thought proper
to put another in his place. The principal reason, therefore, appears
to have been that Rudyard and the surveyor-general Groom differed as
to the mode of laying out lands. The Concessions contemplated the
division of all large tracts into seven parts, one of which was to be
for the Proprietors and their heirs. Groom refused to obey the warrants
of survey for such tracts unless such an interest of the Proprietors
therein was recognized, but the governor and his council took the
position that the patents, not the surveys, determined the rights of
the parties; and, to have their views carried out, Groom was dismissed
and Philip Wells appointed to be his successor. The Proprietors in
England, regarding this measure as probably in some way lessening their
profits in the Province, sustained the surveyor-general’s views and
annulled all grants not made in accordance therewith, and appointed
as Rudyard’s successor Gawen Lawrie, a merchant of London,—the same
influential Quaker whom we have seen deeply interested already in West
Jersey as one of Byllynge’s trustees, and whose intelligence and active
business qualifications made his administration of affairs conspicuous.

His commission was dated at London in July 1683, but he did not take
his oath of office until February 28 following. Rudyard retained the
offices of secretary and register and performed their duties until the
close of 1685, when he left for Barbadoes, being succeeded as secretary
by James Emott. Lawrie retained Messrs. Morris, Berry, Sandford,
and Price of Rudyard’s council, and appointed four others, Richard
Hartshorne of Monmouth, Isaac Kingsland of New Barbadoes, Thomas
Codrington of Middlesex, Henry Lyon of Elizabeth, and Samuel Dennis of
Woodbridge.

The new deputy-governor brought out with him a code of general
laws—or fundamental constitutions as they were called, consisting
of twenty-four chapters, or articles, adopted by the Proprietors in
England—which was considered by its framers, for reasons not apparent,
as so superior to the Concessions, that only those who would submit
to a resurvey and approval of their several grants, arrange for the
payment of quit-rents, and agree to pass an act for the permanent
support of the government should enjoy its protection and privileges.
All others were to be ruled in accordance with the Concessions. This
virtually established two codes of laws for the Province. Lawrie,
however, seems to have been convinced of the impropriety of putting
the new code in force, although in his instructions he was directed as
soon as possible to “order it to be passed in an assembly and settle
the country according thereto.” Through his discretion, therefore, the
civil policy of the Province remained unchanged.

The country made a most favorable impression upon Lawrie. “There is
not a poor body in all the Province, nor that wants,” wrote he to the
Proprietors in England; and he urged them to hasten emigration as
rapidly as possible,—discovering in the sparseness of the population
one great cause of the difficulties his predecessors had encountered,
an increase in the number of inhabitants favorable to the Proprietors’
interests being essential.

The Proprietors, however, had not been so unmindful of their interests
as not to exert themselves to induce emigration to their newly acquired
territory. The first twelve associates directly after receiving the
deed for the Province published a _Brief Account of the Province of
East Jersey_, presenting it in a very favorable light, and in 1683 the
Scotch Proprietors issued a publication of a similar character. These
publications, aided by the personal influence of Governor Barclay over
their countrymen, who at that time were greatly dissatisfied with their
political condition, and suffering under religious persecution, excited
considerable interest for the Province, and a number of emigrants were
soon on their way across the Atlantic. Many of them were sent out in
the employ of different Proprietors, or under such agreements as would
afford their principals the benefits of headland grants, fifty acres
being allowed to each master of a family and twenty-five for each
person composing it, whether wife, child, or servant,—each servant to
be bound three years, at the expiration of which time he or she was to
be allowed to take up thirty acres on separate account.

Only a limited success, however, attended these exertions; national and
religious ties were not so easily severed. Notwithstanding the ills
that pressed so heavily upon them and their countrymen, the voluntary
and perpetual exile which they were asked to take upon them required
more earnest and pertinent appeals; and therefore, in 1685, a work
appeared entitled _The Model of the Government of the Province of East
New Jersey in America_, written by George Scot of Pitlochie at the
request of the Proprietors, in which the objections to emigration were
refuted, and the condition of the new country stated at length. Further
reference to this publication will be made hereafter; it is sufficient
to state at present that it led to the embarkation of nearly two
hundred persons for East Jersey on board a vessel named the “Henry and
Francis,”—a name which deserves as permanent a position in the annals
of New Jersey as does that of the “Mayflower” in those of Massachusetts.

The instructions of the Proprietors to Deputy-Governor Lawrie—while
firm in their requirements for the execution of all engagements
which justice to themselves and other settlers called upon them to
enforce—were calculated to restore tranquillity, and to quiet, for a
time at least, the opposition to their government. The claims under the
Indian purchases having been brought to their notice, and relief sought
from the evils to which the claimants had been subjected, elicited a
dignified letter in reply, upholding the proprietary authority, and
presenting in a forcible manner the difficulties which would inevitably
arise should that authority be subverted. In order to prevent further
difficulties from the acquisition of Indian titles by individuals the
right to purchase was continued in the deputy-governor, and he was
directed to make a requisition upon the Proprietors for the necessary
funds, as had been done in 1682, by shipping a cargo of goods valued at
about one hundred and fifty pounds, and expending the amount for that
purpose.

The necessity for the cultivation of good feelings with the Province
of New York was manifest. Having for its chief executive one whose
arbitrary temper and disposition led him to disregard solemn
engagements, the relations between the provinces were not likely to
be made more harmonious because he was heir-apparent to the throne of
England; and it was consequently in accordance both with the principles
of the Friends and the promptings of sound judgment and discretion,
that the Proprietors urged upon Lawrie the propriety of fostering a
friendly correspondence with New York, and avoiding everything that
might occasion misapprehension or cause aggressions upon their rights.

Lawrie conformed himself to the tenor of his instructions. He visited
Governor Dongan and remained with him two or three days, discussing
their mutual rights and privileges, and was treated by him with
kindness and respect; and being of a less grasping disposition than his
predecessor, there were no open acts of hostility to the proprietary
government manifested by him.

Immigration and a transfer of rights soon brought into the Province
a sufficient number of Proprietors to allow of the establishment
of a board of commissioners within its limits, authorized to act
with the deputy-governor in the temporary approval of laws passed
by the Assembly, the purchasing and laying out of lands, and other
matters,—thus avoiding the necessary and consequent unpleasant delay
attendant upon the transmission of such business details to the
Proprietors in England before putting them in operation. This body was
formed August 1, 1684, and became known as the “Board of Proprietors.”
To this board was intrusted the advancement of a new town to be called
Perth,—in honor of the Earl of Perth, one of the Proprietors,—for the
settlement of which proposals had been issued in 1682, immediately on
their obtaining possession of the Province.

[Illustration]

The advancement of this town was a favorite project, and at the time
of Lawrie’s arrival several houses were already erected, and others
in progress (Samuel Groom having surveyed and laid out the site);
and attention was immediately given to the execution of the plans
of the projectors, based upon the expectation that it would become
the chief town and seaport of the Province. Lawrie was particularly
cautious, in carrying out their views as regarded the seaport, not to
infringe any of the navigation laws respecting the payment of duties,
or otherwise,—going so far as to admit William Dyre, in April,
1685, to the discharge of his duties as collector of the customs in
New Jersey, which naturally led to difficulties. Previously vessels
had been permitted by Lawrie to proceed directly to and from the
Province, and the inhabitants valued the privilege; but Dyre had not
been in execution of his office more than two or three months before
he complained to the commissioners of the customs of the opposition
encountered in enforcing the regulations he had established for
entering at New York the vessels destined to East Jersey, and receiving
there the duties upon their cargoes. This state of affairs continued
for some months; for, although the authorities in England took the
subject into consideration, it was not until April, 1686, that a writ
of _quo warranto_ was issued against the Proprietors,—it being thought
of great prejudice to the country and His Majesty’s interest that such
rights as they claimed should be longer exercised.

James, Duke of York, by the death of Charles II. in May, 1685,
had been raised to the throne of England, and his assumption of
royalty simplified considerably the powers for ignoring all measures
conflicting with his private interests; and although he had thrice as
Duke of York, by different patents and by numerous other documents,
confirmed to others all the rights, powers, and privileges which he
himself had obtained, the increased revenue which was promised him
from the reacquisition of New Jersey could not admit of any hesitancy
in adopting measures to effect it. The Proprietors, however, were
firm in their expostulations, and made many suggestions calculated to
remove the pending difficulties; but all were of no avail except one,
looking to the appointment of a collector of the customs to reside at
Perth,—or Perth Amboy as it began to be called, by the addition of
Amboy, from _ambo_, an Indian appellation for point. The first session
of the Assembly was held there as the seat of government, April 6, 1686.

       *       *       *       *       *

The establishment of a local government in West Jersey in 1677 has
been noticed. The next step toward rendering it more perfect was
the election, by the Proprietors in England, of Edward Byllynge as
governor of the Province, and the appointment by him of Samuel Jenings
as his deputy. These events took place in 1680 and 1681, and Jenings
arrived in the Province to assume the government in September of the
latter year, the first West Jersey Assembly meeting at Burlington in
November. The representatives seem to have had a full sense of the
responsibilities resting upon them, and at once adopted such measures
as were deemed essential under the altered condition of affairs,
acknowledging the authority of the deputy-governor on condition that
he should accept certain proposals or fundamentals of government
affixed to the laws they enacted. This Jenings did, putting his hand
and seal thereto; as did also Thomas Olive, the Speaker, by order and
in the name of the Assembly.

Burlington was made the chief town of the Province, and the method of
settling and regulating the lands was relegated to the governor and
eight individuals. For greater convenience the Province was divided
into two districts, the courts of each to be held at Burlington and
Salem. The second Assembly met May 2, 1682, and a four days’ session
seems to have been sufficient to establish the affairs of the Province
on a firm basis. Thomas Olive, Robert Stacy, Mahlon Stacy, William
Biddle, Thomas Budd, John Chaffin, James Nevill, Daniel Wills, Mark
Newbie, and Elias Farre being chosen as the council.

Subsequent meetings of the Assembly were held in September, and in May,
1683. At this last some important measures were enacted contributing to
good government. For the despatch of business the governor and council
were authorized to prepare bills for the consideration of the Assembly,
which were to be promulgated twenty days before the meetings of that
body. The governor, council, and assembly were to constitute the
General Assembly, and have definite and decisive action upon all bills
so prepared. As John Fenwicke was one of the representatives to this
Assembly, it is evident that he recognized for his Tenth the general
jurisdiction which had been established. It is understood that Byllynge
at this time had resolved to relieve Jenings from his position, as his
own independent authority was thought to be endangered by Jenings’s
continuance in office.

At this Assembly the question was discussed whether the purchase at
first made was of land only or of land and government combined, and the
conclusion arrived at was that both were purchased; and also that an
instrument should be prepared and sent to London, there to be signed
by Byllynge, confirmatory of this view; and, carrying out a suggestion
of William Penn, Samuel Jenings was by vote of the Assembly elected
governor of the Province,—a proceeding which was satisfactory to the
people, as they desired a continuance of his administration. Thus again
did the representatives of the people assert their claim to entire
freedom from all authority not instituted by themselves.

As Byllynge did not acquiesce as promptly as was desired with the
views of the Assembly, it was determined at a session held in March,
1684, that, for the vindication of the people’s right to government,
Governor Jenings and Thomas Budd (George Hutchinson subsequently acted
with them) should go to England and discuss the matter with Byllynge in
person,—Thomas Olive being appointed deputy-governor until the next
Assembly should meet. This was in the May following, at which time
Olive was elected governor, and his council made to consist of Robert
Stacy, William Biddle, Robert Dusdale, John Gosling, Elias Farre,
Daniel Wills, Richard Guy, Robert Turner, William Emley and Christopher
White.

The mission of Jenings was only partially successful. The differences
between Byllynge and the people were referred to the “judgment and
determination” of George Fox, George Whitehead, and twelve other
prominent Friends; whose award was to the effect that the government
was rightfully in Byllynge, and that they could not find any authority
for a governor chosen by the people. This award was made in October,
1684, but was signed by only eight of the fourteen referees, George
Fox not being one of them. The document subsequently became the cause
of much discussion. As late as 1699 it was printed with the addition
of many severe reflections upon the action of Jenings and his friends,
drawing from him equally harsh animadversions upon those from whom they
emanated. In accordance with this award Byllynge asserted his claims
to the chief authority over the Province, and no important concessions
appear to have been made to the people.

In 1685 Byllynge appointed John Skene to be his deputy-governor; and
on September 25 the Assembly, expressly reserving “their just rights
and privileges,” recognized him as such, Olive continuing to act as
chairman, or speaker, of the Assembly.

Harmony to a great extent prevailed for some time, Skene not attempting
to exercise any authority not generally acknowledged by the people;
but in 1687 Byllynge died, and Dr. Daniel Coxe of London, already a
large proprietor, having purchased the whole of Byllynge’s interest
from his heirs, after consultation with the principal Proprietors in
England, decided to assume the government of the Province himself. But
while he thus assumed, in his own person, rights which the people had
claimed as theirs, he did not refrain from granting to them a liberal
exercise of power, giving assurances that all reasonable expectations
and requests would be complied with, and that the officers who had been
chosen by the people should be continued in their several positions.
It is somewhat more than doubtful if Coxe ever visited the Province at
all, and indeed he probably did not; meanwhile Byllynge’s deputy, John
Skene, acted for him till the death of the latter in December, 1687,
when Coxe appointed Edward Hunloke in his stead.

       *       *       *       *       *

It was during Lawrie’s administration in East Jersey that the first
steps were taken to settle the boundary line between that Province
and New York. The subject was discussed by him and Governor Dongan
at an early date; and on June 30, 1686, a council was held, composed
of the two deputy-governors and several gentlemen of both New York
and New Jersey, at which the course to be pursued in running the line
was agreed upon. The points on the Hudson and Delaware rivers were
subsequently determined; but nothing further was done for several
years, and nearly a century elapsed before the line was definitely
settled.

There are some allusions made to the fact that Lawrie was much
interested in West Jersey, as accounting for his dismissal by the
Proprietors from his position as their deputy-governor in East
Jersey; but so far as the records of the period give an insight into
the motives actuating him in the administration of the affairs of
the Province, there is no evidence afforded of any want of interest
in its prosperity. As the result of his administration did not meet
their expectations of profit, it is not surprising that they should
have regarded it as due to some mistaken policy on his part. In the
appointment of a successor they were evidently led by the large influx
of population from Scotland to look among the Proprietors residing
there for a suitable person; and they therefore selected Lord Neill
Campbell, a brother of the Earl of Argyle, who was obliged to flee from
Scotland in consequence of his connection with that nobleman, who had
been beheaded June 30, 1685, after the unfortunate termination of his
invasion of that country. He left for East Jersey with a large number
of emigrants not long after that event, and reached the Province in
December of the same year.

Lord Neill was appointed deputy-governor June 2, 1686, for two years,
but his commission did not reach him until October, on the 5th of which
month it was published; and on the 18th he announced as his council
Gawen Lawrie, John Berry of Bergen, Isaac Kingsland of New Barbadoes,
Andrew Hamilton of Amboy, Richard Townley of Elizabethtown, Samuel
Winder of Cheesequakes, David Mudie and John Johnstone of Amboy, and
Thomas Codrington of Raritan.

It is a remarkable circumstance that the great diversity existing in
the characters, religions, pursuits, and political relations of the
Proprietors of East Jersey should have been overcome to such an extent
as to allow of harmonious action in the appointment of Lord Neill
Campbell. The Earl of Perth, a prominent member of the body, was one
of the jury that found the Earl of Argyle guilty of high treason; and
yet, stanch adherent as he was of James, he could consent to have his
interests in East Jersey taken care of by that earl’s brother. Robert
Barclay, with all the peculiarities of his peaceful sect, the advocate
of gentleness and non-resistance, was willing to be associated with a
stanch Scotch Presbyterian soldier, and join in commissioning him as
his subordinate. It is evident that private prejudices and feelings
were not allowed to interfere with whatever was thought likely to
conduce to the advancement of their pecuniary interests in East Jersey.

Lord Neill’s administration, however, was very brief. On December 10
of the same year, “urgent necessity of some weighty matters” calling
him to England, he appointed Andrew Hamilton to be his substitute, and
sailed, it is presumed, the March following, Hamilton’s commission
being published on the 12th of that month.

Andrew Hamilton had been a merchant in London, and came to the Province
with his family in June, 1686, as an agent of the Proprietors in
London. He at first declined accepting the position tendered him,
and Lawrie, who was one of the council, openly protested against his
appointment, because of his unpopularity with the planters; but his
authority having been confirmed by a commission from Governor Barclay
in August, 1687, all open opposition thereto seems to have ceased.
Hamilton appears to have been a man of intelligence, and to have acted
in a manner which he conceived to be calculated to advance the best
interests of the Proprietors without involving them with the people,
but it is doubtful if any great cordiality existed between the governor
and the governed at that period.

Before his death Charles II. had been led to call for a surrender of
the charter of Massachusetts Bay, and, meeting with a refusal from
the General Assembly, a writ of _quo warranto_ was issued in 1684.
The death of the King left the proceedings to be consummated by his
successor, whose rapacity prompted him to subvert the liberties of all
the colonies; and his pliant servant Andros, whom he had knighted,
was sent over with a commission that covered all New England. Sir
Edmund took up his residence in Boston, assumed the supreme authority
of Massachusetts, and the following year dissolved in succession
the governments of Rhode Island and Connecticut, taking to himself
all power and dominion, even beyond the limits granted by his royal
master.[712]

The Proprietors, finding it impossible to overcome the determination of
James to unite New York and New Jersey to New England under the same
government, deemed it advisable to abandon the unavailing contest,
and by acceding to the King’s design to obtain from him an efficient
guarantee that he would respect their rights to the soil. A surrender
of their patent, so far as the government was concerned, was therefore
made in April, 1688, James having agreed to accept it; and, the
Proprietors of West Jersey having acceded also to the arrangement, a
new commission was issued to Sir Edmund Andros, annexing both provinces
and New York to his government, and Francis Nicholson was appointed his
lieutenant-governor.

The course of Andros in accepting the simple acknowledgment of his
authority as sufficient, without revolutionizing the government and
dismissing the functionaries in office in New Jersey, was doubtless in
a great measure owing to the fact that the surrender by the Proprietors
of their right to govern rendered necessary the issuing of a new grant
to them from the Crown, confirmatory of all the immunities of the
soil; and until that could be perfected, it may have been considered
expedient not to disturb the existing regulations. It is nevertheless
remarkable that any considerations of the kind should have had so
mollifying an effect upon one whose arrogance, disregard of the rights
of others, and impetuosity of temper were so intrusively manifest as in
Edmund Andros.

By the seizure of Andros in New England in April, 1689, in anticipation
of the successful revolution in England in favor of William and Mary,
which promised the subversion of his authority not only there but also
in the other colonies that had been placed within his jurisdiction,
an opportunity was afforded the Proprietors of New Jersey to resume
all the rights and privileges of which they had been despoiled. But
there were impediments in the way. They were not sure of the support of
the people, and being separated,—some in England, some in Scotland,
and some in New Jersey,—it was not possible that unanimity of action
could be secured. Many of them, having been closely allied to King
James, were probably disposed to cling to him in his misfortunes, and
had the deputy-governor thrown off the responsibilities he had so
recently resumed as the representative of the Crown, for the purpose of
re-establishing the authority of the Proprietors, it would have been
attended with great doubt and uncertainty as to his success, the people
having so definitely manifested their preference for a royal government.

In April Hamilton received a summons from the mayor of New York,
acting as lieutenant of Andros; and, attended by the justices of
Bergen, repaired thither to consult upon the proper course to be
pursued in the peculiar situation of affairs prevailing in the two
colonies, but nothing of consequence resulted from the conference.
The deputy-governor on subsequent occasions was invited to similar
consultations in New York, but does not seem to have compromised
himself in any way with any party; and, as so much doubt existed as to
what was the proper course for him to pursue, he resolved in August to
proceed to England in person to advise with the Proprietors there. On
his way thither he was taken prisoner by the French, and appears to
have been detained in France until the May following, when he, being
then in England, resigned his position as the deputy-governor. From the
time of Hamilton’s departure for England until 1692 the inhabitants
of East Jersey were left to the guardianship of their county and
town officers, who seemed to have possessed all necessary powers to
preserve the peace. So also in West Jersey. The course of events caused
but little alteration in the general condition of the Province after
the surrender of the government to Andros in April, 1688, and the
subsequent suspension of his authority.

In 1687 George Keith, surveyor-general of East Jersey, under orders
from the Proprietors there, attempted to run the dividing line between
the two provinces, in accordance with the terms of the Quintipartite
deed of 1676; but the result was unsatisfactory to West Jersey, as it
was thought too great a quantity of the best lands came thereby within
the bounds of East Jersey. In September, 1688, however, a consultation
took place in London, between Governor Coxe of West Jersey and Governor
Barclay of East Jersey, with the view of perfecting a settlement of
Keith’s line, resulting in a written agreement signed and sealed by
the two parties; but nevertheless no satisfactory termination of the
matter was arrived at for many years. It was in 1688 that the “Board of
Proprietors of West Jersey” was regularly organized.

       *       *       *       *       *

It would be very gratifying to be able to state clearly, upon good
authority, the condition of New Jersey at this eventful period in its
history, and note its progress since its surrender to the English
in 1664, but from the imperfection of the details, the information
obtainable is not sufficiently definite to give satisfactory results.

That the population of East Jersey had largely increased there can be
no doubt. It was a constant cause of complaint by the government of New
York that the freedom from taxation and various mercantile restrictions
had tended greatly to increase emigration to East Jersey, much to the
detriment of New York; and the first towns, Newark, Elizabethtown,
and Middletown, drew large numbers from New England and Long Island,
leading to their becoming centres for the development of other towns
and villages. The new capital, Perth Amboy, became in a very few years
an important settlement, and both from Scotland and England numerous
families had already arrived and settled in various parts of the
Province; so that it is probable the increase during the quarter of a
century had been more than a hundred-fold, making the total number of
souls in East Jersey nearly, if not quite, ten thousand. There are no
figures upon which any correct estimate can be based of the increase in
West Jersey, but it may be safely considered as coming far short of the
eastern Province.

Of the five counties recognized in 1670 Monmouth was the most populous;
and of its three towns, Shrewsbury, Middletown, and Freehold, the
first was the most important. Essex County came next; Elizabethtown,
Newark, Acquackanock, and New Barbadoes being its towns, ranking in the
order in which they are named. Middlesex followed, with Woodbridge,
Piscataway, and Perth Amboy as its towns. Bergen stood fourth, with
its towns of Bergen and Hackensack; and Somerset came last, having no
specific townships. There were, of course, in all the counties small
settlements not yet of sufficient importance to be recognized as
separate organizations. In 1683 Bergen County was third in importance,
and Middlesex fourth.

One great hindrance to the development of the agricultural and mineral
resources of the two provinces was the want of roads and conveniences
to promote intercourse between the different sections. The only Indian
path ran from Shrewsbury River to the northwest limits of the Province,
and the only road opened by the Dutch appears to have been that by
which intercourse was kept up with the settlements on the Delaware, in
what is now Maryland. From New Amsterdam a direct water communication
was had with Elizabethtown Point (now Elizabethport), and thence by
land to the Raritan River which was crossed by fording at Inian’s
Ferry, now New Brunswick. Thence the road ran in almost a straight
course to the Delaware River, above the site of the present Trenton,
where there was another ford. This was called the Upper Road; another,
called the Lower Road, branched off from the first about five or six
miles from the Raritan, and by a circuitous route reached the Delaware
at the site of what is now Burlington; but the whole country was a
wilderness between the towns in Monmouth County and the Delaware River
as late as 1675.

The first public measures for the establishment of roads was in 1675;
two men in each town being clothed with authority to lay out the common
highways; and in March, 1683, boards were created in the different
counties to lay out all necessary highways, bridges, landings, ferries,
etc., and by these boards the first effective intercommunication was
established. The present generation have in constant use many of
the roads laid out by them. In July, 1683, instructions were given
to Deputy-Governor Lawrie to open a road between the new capital,
Perthtown, and Burlington; but, although his instructions were complied
with, and the road opened in connection with water communication
between Perth and New York, the route by way of New Brunswick was the
most travelled.

The character of the legislation and laws for the punishment and
suppression of crime was very different in the two provinces. The penal
laws in East Jersey partook more of the severity of the Levitical
law, originating as they did with the settlers coming from Puritan
countries, while those in West Jersey were exceedingly humane and
forbearing. In the one there were thirteen classes of offences made
amenable to the death penalty, while in the other such a punishment was
unknown to the laws.

As might reasonably be expected from its proximity to New Amsterdam,
the first church erected in New Jersey soil, of which any mention is
made, was at Bergen. This was in 1680, the congregation having been
formed in 1662. The first clergyman heard of in Newark was in 1667,
a Congregationalist, and the first meeting-house was built in 1669.
Elizabethtown’s first congregation was formed in 1668. Woodbridge
succeeded in getting one established in 1670, and its first church was
built in 1681. The Quakers immediately after their arrival in West
Jersey, in 1675, organized a meeting at Salem (probably the one which
Edmondson says he attended), and in 1680 purchased a house and had
it fitted up for their religious services. It is said that the first
religious meetings of the Quakers in New Jersey were held at Shrewsbury
as early as 1670, the settlers there, about 1667, being principally of
that denomination. Edmondson mentions a meeting held at Middletown in
1675. The first General Yearly Meeting for regulating the affairs of
the Society was held at Burlington in August, 1681. Local meetings were
held there in tents before a house was erected. John Woolston’s was the
first, and its walls were consecrated by having worship within them.
The Friends at Cape May in 1676, Cohansey in 1683, and Lower Alloway
Creek in 1685 secured religious services.

Middletown, in Monmouth County, had an organized Baptist congregation
in 1688; and Piscataway in Middlesex County one in 1689.

To what extent education had been fostered up to this period it is
difficult to determine. The first schoolmaster mentioned in Newark
was there in 1676; but Bergen had a school established under the
Dutch administration in 1661. The first general law providing for the
establishment and support of school-masters in East Jersey was not
passed until 1693.

The currency of both East and West Jersey during the whole period of
their colonial existence, for reasons which are not very apparent,
was more stable than that of the neighboring colonies. The coins of
England and Holland, and their respective moneys of account, were used,
and Indian wampum afforded the means of exchange with the Aborigines.
Barter was naturally the mode of traffic most followed, and tables
are now found showing the value set upon the different productions
of the soil that were used in these business operations, marking the
diminution in value from year to year as compared with “old England
money.” In 1681 an act was passed in West Jersey for the enhancing, or
raising, the value of coins, which was extended also to New England
money. About that time an individual, named Mark Newbie, increased
the circulating medium by putting into circulation a large number of
Irish half-pence of less value than the standard coin, which he had
brought with him from Ireland; and, as thought by some, continued
the manufacture of them after his arrival. The act of 1681, however,
was repealed the following year, and another passed making Newbie’s
half-pence equal in value to the current money of the Province,
provided he gave security to exchange them “for pay equivalent on
demand,” and provided also that no person should be obliged to take
more than five shillings on one payment.[713] No repeal of this act
appears in the records. It became inoperative probably in 1684, when
Newbie disappears from the documentary history of the period. This
supposition is in some measure confirmed by the passage of an act in
May of that year, making three farthings “of the King’s coin to go
current for one penny,” in sums not exceeding five shillings.[714]

The only attempt to regulate the value of gold and silver in East
Jersey was in 1686. Its object was to prevent the transportation
of silver from the Province by raising it above its true value in
all business transactions. Its evil tendencies, however, were soon
developed, and before the end of the year, at a subsequent session of
the same Assembly, it was repealed.

The first grist-mill is mentioned in 1671, and was followed by another
in 1679, hand-mills being generally used. The first saw-mill was
erected in 1682. In 1683 Deputy-Governor Rudyard, in a letter to a
friend, says that at that time there were two saw-mills at work, and
five or six more projected, abating “the price of boards half in half,
and all other timber for building; for altho’ timber cost nothing, yet
workmanship by hand was London price or near upon it, and sometimes
more, which these mills abate.”

The cider produced at Newark was awarded the preference over that
brought from New England, Rhode Island, or Long Island. Clams, oysters,
and fish received well merited commendation for their plentifulness and
good qualities.

In 1685 the iron-mills in Monmouth County, belonging to Lewis Morris,
were in full operation; but it was not until some years had elapsed
that “the hills up in the country,” which were “said to be stony,”
were explored, and the mineral treasures of Morris County revealed.
Gabriel Thomas, in 1698, mentions rice among the products of West
Jersey, adding that large quantities of pitch, tar, and turpentine were
secured from the pine forests, and that the number of whales caught
yearly gave the settlers abundance of oil and whalebone.


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THE relations existing between New York and New Jersey, during the era
of discovery and settlement, necessarily led to their being jointly
noticed by all the early writers, and as they have been referred to
in what has preceded this chapter,[715] it is thought unnecessary to
comment further upon their revelations. Attention will therefore be
given to those whose object was the making known the peculiarities, the
advantages, and attractions of New Jersey independent of New York.

The first of these was an issue by John Fenwicke of a single folio
leaf, in 1675, containing his proposals for planting his colony of New
Cæsarea, or New Jersey. A copy was for sale in London in 1853,—perhaps
the same copy sold at the Brinley sale to the Pennsylvania Historical
Society. It is printed in _Penn. Mag. of Hist._, vi.

In 1682 the Proprietors of East Jersey published a small quarto
of eight pages, giving an account of their recently acquired
province.[716] This publication is not now obtainable, and it is
doubtful if any copies have been seen for several generations. It is
the basis of all the information respecting East Jersey contained in
_The Present State of His Majesty’s Isles and Territories in America_,
etc., by Richard Blome (London, 1687), which is frequently quoted,
though abounding in errors. Although the original edition may not now
be met with, the _Brief Account_ may be found reprinted in Smith’s
_History of New Jersey_, and in _East Jersey under the Proprietary
Governments_. It gives a very fair and interesting account of the
Province, and doubtless aided in inducing adventurers to embark for the
new Eldorado.

In 1683 a small quarto of fifteen pages, including the titlepage, was
published in Edinburgh for the Scotch Proprietors, of similar purport
to the foregoing.[717] The only copy of the original, known, is in the
possession of Samuel L. M. Barlow, Esq., of New York. This was used
when the work was reproduced in the New York _Historical Magazine_,
second series, vol. i.[718]

In 1684 a work of greater pretensions, comprising 73 pages, 12º, was
published in London, entitled _The Planter’s Speech to his neighbours
and countrymen of Pennsylvania, East and West Jersey; and to all
such as have transported themselves into new Colonies for the sake
of a quiet, retired life. To which is added the complaints of our
Supra-interior inhabitants_. The title and introduction of this volume
are all that have been met with. They will be found in Proud’s _History
of Pennsylvania_.[719] The author’s name is not known, but it would
seem that his object was more to impress upon his “dear friends and
countrymen” their moral and religious duties as immigrants, than to
portray the advantages of the section of country particularly referred
to.

The purport of the treatise is thus summarized by Proud: “Divers
particulars are proposed as fundamentals for future laws and customs,
tending principally to establish a higher degree of temperance and
original simplicity of manners,—more particularly against the use
of spirituous liquors,—than had been usual before. Everything of a
military nature, even the use of the instruments thereof, is not only
disapproved, and the destruction of the human species thereby condemned
in this _Speech_, but likewise all violence or cruelty towards, and
the wanton killing of, the inferior living creatures, and the eating
of animal food are also strongly advised against in those proposed
regulations, customs, or laws, with the reasons given, etc., to the
end that a higher degree of love, perfection, and happiness might more
universally be introduced and preserved among mankind.”

In 1685 the most interesting and valuable of all the early publications
was issued in Edinburgh,[720] reference to which has been made on a
preceding page. The author, George Scot, of Pitlochie, was connected
by descent and marriage with many distinguished families in Scotland,
which connection probably led the Proprietors to confide the
preparation of the work to him, as his extensive circle of friends
and acquaintances would be likely to insure for it a more general
acceptance, particularly as he was ready to add example to precept by
embarking himself and family for East Jersey. Accompanied by nearly two
hundred persons, he sailed from Scotland about Aug. 1, 1685, but before
the vessel reached her destination Scot and his wife and many of their
fellow-passengers were no longer living. One daughter, Eupham, became
the wife of John Johnstone the ensuing year. Mr. Johnstone was one of
her fellow-passengers. Their descendants became numerous, and for years
before the war of Independence, and since that period, they filled high
civil and military stations in East Jersey.

The author of _The Model_ begins his work with a learned disquisition
upon the manner in which America was first peopled, and then proceeds
to meet and overcome the various scruples that were presumed to operate
against its further settlement from Scotland, by arguments drawn
from sacred and profane history and from the consideration due their
families and the country; concluding with a portrayal of the advantages
to be secured by a residence in East Jersey, and the superiority
of that colony over others in America and the West Indies. In this
respect the value of the work to the historian is very great, as
numerous letters are given from the early settlers, presenting minute
descriptions of various localities and their individual experiences
in a manner calculated to produce a correct and, at the same time,
a favorable impression upon their readers. The original edition is
exceedingly rare, only ten copies being known, but the New Jersey
Historical Society has caused it to be reprinted as an appendix to the
first volume of its _Collections_, thus placing it within the reach of
all.[721]

The year 1685 gave also to the world the interesting book of Thomas
Budd, entitled _Good Order established in Pennsilvania and New
Jersey_.[722] Mr. Budd arrived at Burlington, in West Jersey, in
1678, and during his residence there held many important offices; was
associated with Jenings on the committee appointed in 1684 to confer
with Edward Byllynge, and it was while he was in England that his book
was printed. He probably removed to Philadelphia after his return
to New Jersey. He made another brief visit to England in 1689, but
continued to consider Philadelphia as his residence until his death
in 1698. Mr. Budd’s work exhibits the possession of intelligence and
public spirit to a remarkable degree. Some of his suggestions as to the
education which should be given to the young in various pursuits show
him to have been an early advocate of what are now termed Technical
Schools, and are deserving of consideration even at this late day.
The original work is seldom seen, but in 1865 a reprint was given to
the public by William Gowans, of New York, having an introduction and
copious notes by Mr. Edward Armstrong, of Philadelphia.

In 1698 Gabriel Thomas published a small octavo of forty-six pages on
West Jersey, in connection with a similar work on Pennsylvania, with a
map of both colonies. He was then, it is thought, a resident of London,
but he had resided in America about fifteen years, the information
contained in the book being the result of his own experiences
and observation.[723] The book was dedicated to the West Jersey
Proprietors, and its intent was to induce emigration of all who wished
to better their worldly condition, especially the poor, who might in
West Jersey “subsist very well without either begging or stealing.”
French refugees or Protestants would find it also to their interest
to remove thither where they might live “far better than in Germany,
Holland, Ireland, or England.” The modes of life among the Indians, and
the prevailing intercourse between them and the settlers were fully
discussed, as well as the natural productions of the country and the
improvements already introduced or in progress.

In 1699 two pamphlets were published in Philadelphia, referring to the
difficulties in West Jersey between the people of the Province and
Edward Byllynge in 1684, which led to the despatch, by the Assembly,
of Samuel Jenings and Thomas Budd to confer in person with Byllynge.
The first of these publications was aimed at Jenings, who was accused
of being the head of “some West Jersians” opposed to Byllynge, and
emanated from John Tatham, Thomas Revell, and Nathaniel Westland,
although published anonymously.[724] Jenings took exceptions to many
of its statements and answered it under his own name in a small quarto,
boldly asserting his innocence of the serious charges made against
him.[725] These publications throw considerable light upon a portion of
West Jersey history which is very obscure, and have been used in the
preparation of the foregoing narrative. They are both exceedingly rare,
and historians are indebted to Mr. Brinton Coxe, of Philadelphia, for
having them reprinted in 1881.

The Journal of William Edmundson has been referred to as furnishing
some interesting items respecting New Jersey during the period we
have had under review.[726] He visited the Province in 1676, and his
statements respecting the condition of the country and his interviews
with prominent Friends are valuable.

In addition to these publications, there are in the Secretary of
State’s office at Trenton the original records of both the East Jersey
and West Jersey Proprietors, which were transferred from Perth Amboy
and Burlington about the middle of the last century, copies only being
left in the original places of deposit.

The foregoing references include all the works published, prior to
the surrender of the government of New Jersey to the Crown in 1703,
relating to the history of the Province, previous to its separation
from New York; but others were published subsequently which throw
much light upon that early period, although not written for that
purpose exclusively. Thus in 1747 the renowned Elizabethtown Bill in
Chancery was drawn and put in print by subscription the same year,[727]
which will ever be acknowledged as a structure of valuable materials
illustrative of the conflicts between the Proprietors and their
government and the discontented settlers. The bill was principally
drawn by James Alexander, who during a long period was a prominent
lawyer in both provinces. A Scotchman by birth he came to America in
1715, and shortly after his arrival entered the Secretary’s office,
New York, and was deputy-clerk of the Court in 1719. Throughout his
life, which did not terminate until April 2, 1756, he held very highly
important positions in both New York and New Jersey, and was the owner
of large land tracts in both provinces.[728] This bill, notwithstanding
its great length and complicated nature, is drawn with much ability and
makes out a very strong case for the plaintiffs. The defendants’ claims
would seem to be, beyond controversy, invalid; but other matters were
introduced rendering the case one not easily disposed of.

The answer to the Bill in Chancery was filed in 1751 and printed in
1752,—the counsel for the defendants being William Livingston,
afterward Governor of New Jersey, and William Smith, Jr., who became
Chief-Justice of New York, and subsequently, after the war of
Independence, Chief-Justice of Canada. The copies now extant are very
rare.[729] Although not as voluminous it was fully as prolix as the
document which prompted it. Notwithstanding the great amount of labor
which this case required both in its preparation and argument, it was
never brought to a conclusion. The Revolution of 1776 effectually
interrupted the progress of the suit, and it was never afterward
revived. Both bill and answer, however, and other smaller publications
which resulted from the trial of the case, must ever be considered as
valuable historical documents, emanating as they all did from parties
more or less interested in the questions involved, and consequently
earnestly desirous of eliciting every fact that could throw any light
upon them.[730]

The first general history of New Jersey was that of Samuel Smith,
published in 1765.[731] It is valuable to all examining the early
history of the State, from the author’s having had access to, and
judiciously used, information obtained from various sources not now
accessible. He gives some interesting letters from early settlers,
elucidating the events comprehended in the period we have had under
review; and although, as might naturally be expected, errors are
occasionally found in it, Smith’s _History of New Jersey_ has ever
been deservedly considered a standard work.[732] Proud, whose _History
of Pennsylvania_ contains much matter referring to West Jersey that
is usefully arranged, acknowledges his indebtedness to Smith, and
gives him the credit of being “the person who took the most pains to
adjust and reduce these materials into nice order, as might be proper
for the public view,” previous to his own undertaking; and the old
historian, if cognizant of what is taking place in his native State at
this late day, must be gratified to find how freely modern writers have
transferred his pages to their books, even though no acknowledgment of
indebtedness to him has been made.

In 1748 the acts of the General Assembly of New Jersey, from the
time of the surrender of the government to the Crown in the second
year of Queen Anne, were published under the supervision of Samuel
Nevill, second Judge of the Supreme Court of the Province, and, in
consequence, the popular party were aroused into having the early
grants and concessions also arranged and published. About 1750 a
committee was appointed to collate the early manuscripts connected
with the proprietary grants, and subsequently Aaron Leaming and Jacob
Spicer were empowered to have them printed, and to them does the credit
belong of giving to their fellow-citizens the admirable compilation
that is generally quoted under their names.[733] It contains all the
agreements, deeds, concessions, and public acts from 1664 to 1702, and
the object in view by their compilation and the estimate in which they
were held are apparent from a remark of the compilers in their preface.
“If our present system of government,” say they, “should not be judged
so equal to the natural rights of a reasonable creature as the one that
raised us to the dignity of a colony, let it serve as a caution to
guard the cause of liberty.”

This volume has been of great value to members of the Bar and of the
Legislature, as well as to the historian, as it has preserved many
documents the original depository of which is not now to be found.[734]
At the present time, however, the State of New Jersey is publishing,
under the direction of a committee of the Historical Society, a series
of volumes entitled the _New Jersey Archives_, which is intended to
include all important documents referring to the colonial history of
the State, however widely the originals may be scattered in other
depositories,—including all of interest now preserved in the Public
Record Office of England,—and will probably be the authoritative
reference hereafter for documentary evidence relating to the whole
colonial period.[735]

The first volume issued by the New Jersey Historical Society as their
Collections was published in 1846, and contained “East Jersey under
the Proprietary Governments.”[736] The author wrote his work fully
sensible of the necessity for verifying much that had been allowed
to pass as history, by seeking for and using original sources of
information; and the volume elucidates many events that are alluded to
in the preceding chapter.

[Illustration]

       *       *       *       *       *

EDITORIAL NOTE.—The _New Jersey Archives_ will contain every essential
document noted in _An Analytical Index to the Colonial Documents
of New Jersey in the state-paper offices of England, compiled by
Henry Stevens, edited with notes and references to printed works and
manuscripts in other depositories_, by William A. Whitehead, New York,
1858.

In 1843 a movement was made in the State Legislature to emulate the
action of New York in securing from the English Archives copies of
its early historical documents; and in the next year the judiciary
committee made a report on the subject, which is printed in the preface
of this Index, p. vii. This, however, failed of effect, as did a
movement in 1845; but it made manifest the necessity of an historical
society, as a source of influence for such end; and the same year
the New Jersey Historical Society was formed, of which Mr. Whitehead
has been the corresponding secretary from the start. This society
reinforced the movement in the State Legislature; but no result being
reached, it undertook of its own action the desired work, and in 1849
gave a commission to Mr. Henry Stevens to make an analytical index of
the documents relating to New Jersey to be found in England. This being
furnished, the State legislature failing to respond in any co-operative
measures for the enlargement of it from the domestic records of the
State, Mr. Whitehead undertook the editing, as explained in the title,
and appended to the volume a bibliography of all the principal printed
works relating to New Jersey up to 1857. Mr. Stevens’s enumeration
began with 1663-64, the editor adding two earlier ones of 1649 and
1651. But a small part of the list, however (13 pp. out of 470),
refers to the period covered by the present chapter, and many of those
mentioned had already been printed.

The _Sparks Catalogue_ shows “Papers relating to New Jersey,
1683-1775,” collected by George Chalmers, which are now in Harvard
College Library.

Some of the later general histories of the State may be mentioned:—

_The History of New Jersey from its Discovery to the Adoption of the
Federal Constitution_, by Thomas F. Gordon, Trenton, 1834. There is a
companion volume, a Gazetteer.

_Civil and Political History of New Jersey_, by Isaac S. Mulford,
Camden, 1848. The author says “no claim is advanced for originality or
learning,” his object being to make accessible scattered information in
a “simple and compendious narrative,” which is not altogether carefully
set forth. A new edition was issued in 1851 in Philadelphia.

_The History of New Jersey_, by John O. Raum, 2 vols. Philadelphia,
1877, is simply, so far as the early chronicles are concerned, a
repetition mostly of Smith and Gordon, though no credit is given to
those authorities.

A few of the local histories also deserve some notice:—

_Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy and adjoining
Country_, by William A. Whitehead, New York, 1856. The author says,
“No attempt has been made to clothe with the importance of history
these desultory gleanings.” It has a map of the original laying-out,
following what is presumed to have been an original survey of 1684.

_An Historical Account of the First Settlement at Salem in West
Jersey_, by John Fenwicke, Esq., chief proprietor of the same; with R.
S. Johnson, Philadelphia, 1839, 24º. pp. 173. Mr. Johnson’s memoir of
Fenwicke is in the New Jersey Hist. Soc. Proc. iv.

[Illustration: COLONIAL BOUNDS, 1656.]

The Hon. John Clement, of Haddonfield, has prepared a _History of
Fenwicke’s Colony_.

The two hundredth anniversary of the settlement of Burlington was
celebrated Dec. 6, 1877, when the late Henry Armitt Brown delivered an
oration, presenting the early history in a rhetorical way.

_Reminiscences of Old Gloucester, ... New Jersey_, by Isaac Mickle,
Philadelphia, 1845.

_History of Elizabeth, New Jersey, including the Early History of Union
County_, by the Rev. Edwin F. Hatfield, New York, 1868. The author
differs from the writer of the present chapter with respect to the
merits of the conflict between the Proprietors and the people. The
foot-note references are ample.

_History of the County of Hudson from its Earliest Settlement_, by
Charles H. Winfield, New York, 1874.

_Historical Sketch of the County of Passaic, especially of the First
Settlements and Settlers._ Privately printed, by William Nelson,
Paterson, 1877.

_The History of Newark, New Jersey, being a Narrative of its Rise and
Progress from May, 1666_, by Joseph Atkinson, Newark, 1878; a book
giving, however, only in a new garb, the older chronicles of the place.
It gives a map of the town as laid out in 1666.

       *       *       *       *       *

The annexed sketch-map is an extract from a map entitled, _Le Canada,
ou Nouvelle France, etc., par N. Sanson d’Abbeville, geographe
ordinaire du Roy_, Paris, 1656, and by its dotted lines shows the
limits conceded by the French to the different colonies of the
northern seaboard of the present United States, a few years before
the establishment of New Caesaria. New England was defined on the
east by the height of land between the waters of the Penobscot and
the Kennebec, and on the northwest by a similar elevation that turned
the rainfall to the St. Lawrence. New Netherland stretched from Cape
Cod to the Delaware, where it met New Sweden, which lay between it
and Virginia,—the Maryland charter not being recognized; nor was the
absorption of the territory of the Swedes the year before (1655), by
the Dutch, made note of. The map-maker, in defining these limits,
pretends to have worked on English and Dutch authorities; but the
Plymouth colonists would have hardly allowed the annihilation to which
they were subjected, and the settlers of Massachusetts would scarcely
have recognized the names attached to their headlands and harbors,
and never having any existence but in Smith’s map, which the royal
geographer seems to have fallen in with.


NOTE ON NEW ALBION.

BY GREGORY B. KEEN.

_Late Professor of Mathematics in the Theological Seminary of St.
Charles Borromeo, Corresponding Secretary of the Historical Society of
Pennsylvania._


THE English did not attain supreme dominion in New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, or Delaware until the grant of King Charles II. to his
royal brother, the Duke of York, in 1664; yet the history of these
States and that of Maryland would not be complete without specific
mention of the antecedent attempt to settle this part of America, made
by the unsuccessful colonist Sir Edmund Plowden.

This person was a member of a Saxon family of Shropshire, England,
whose antiquity is sufficiently intimated by the meaning of its
surname, “Kill-Dane,”—being the second son of Francis Plowden, Esq.,
of Plowden, Salop, and grandson of the celebrated lawyer and author of
the _Commentaries_, Serjeant Edmund Plowden, a Catholic, who declined
the Lord-Chancellorship of England, offered him by Queen Elizabeth,
lest he should be forced to countenance her Majesty’s persecutions
of his Church.[737] In 1632, this gentleman, who like his ancestors
and other relatives was a Catholic,[738] and at that time resided in
Ireland,[739] in company with “Sir John Lawrence, Kt. and Bart., Sir
Boyer Worsley, Kt., John Trusler, Roger Pack, William Inwood, Thomas
Ryebread, Charles Barret, and George Noble, adventurers,” petitioned
King Charles I. for a patent, under his Majesty’s seal of Ireland, for
“Manitie, or Long Isle,” and “thirty miles square of the coast next
adjoining, to be erected into a County Palatine called Syon, to be
held of” his “Majesty’s Crown of Ireland, without appeal or subjection
to the Governor or Company of Virginia, and reserving the fifth of
all royal mines, and with the like title, dignity, and privileges to
Sir Edmund Plowden there as was granted to Sir George Calvert, Kt.,
in New Foundland by” his “Majesty’s royal father, and with the usual
grants and privileges to other colonies,” etc. And a modified form of
this prayer was subsequently presented to the monarch, in which the
island spoken of is called “Isle Plowden,” and the county palatine “New
Albion,” and the latter is enlarged to include “forty leagues square of
the adjoining continent,” the supplicants “promising therein to settle
five hundred inhabitants for the planting and civilizing thereof.”
The favor sought was immediately conceded, and the King’s warrant,
authorizing the issue of a patent to the petitioners, and appointing
Sir Edmund Plowden “first Governor of the Premises,” was given at
Oatlands, July 24, the same year;[740] in accordance with which, a
charter was granted to Plowden and his associates above mentioned,
by writ of Privy Seal, witnessed by the Deputy-General of Ireland,
at Dublin, June 21, 1634.[741] In this document the boundaries of
New Albion are so defined as to include all of New Jersey, Maryland,
Delaware, and Pennsylvania embraced in a square, the eastern side of
which, forty leagues in length, extended (along the coast) from Sandy
Hook to Cape May, together with Long Island, and all other “isles
and islands in the sea within ten leagues of the shores of the said
region.” The province is expressly erected into a county palatine,
under the jurisdiction of Sir Edmund Plowden as earl, depending upon
his Majesty’s “royal person and imperial crown, as King of Ireland;”
and the same extraordinary privileges are conferred upon the patentee
as had been bestowed two years before upon Lord Baltimore, to whose
charter for Maryland that for New Albion bears very close resemblance.

Two of the petitioners, Worsley and Barret, afterward dying, “the whole
estate and interest” in the grant became vested in the seven survivors,
and of these, Ryebread, Pack, Inwood, and Trusler, in consideration of
gifts of five hundred acres of land in the province, abandoned their
claims, Dec. 20, 1634, in favor of “Francis, Lord Plowden, son and
heir of Sir Edmund, Earl Palatine,” and George and Thomas Plowden, two
other of his sons, their heirs and assigns, forever. The same year,
apparently,[742] Plowden granted to Sir Thomas Danby a lease of ten
thousand acres of land, one hundred of which were “on the northeast end
or cape of Long Island,” and the rest in the vicinity of Watsessett,
presumed to be near the present Salem, New Jersey, with “full liberty
and jurisdiction of a court baron and court leet,” and other privileges
for a “Town and Manor of Danby Fort,” conditioned on the settlement
of one hundred “resident planters in the province,” not suffering
“any to live therein not believing or professing the three Christian
creeds commonly called the Apostolical, Athanasian, and Nicene.”

[Illustration]

The plans of the Earl Palatine were simultaneously advanced by the
independent voyages of Captain Thomas Yong, of a Yorkshire family, and
his nephew and lieutenant, Robert Evelin, of Wotton, Surrey, undertaken
in virtue of a special commission from the King, dated Sept. 23, 1633,
to discover parts of America not “actually in the possession of any
Christian Prince.”[743] These persons sailed from Falmouth, Friday, May
16, 1634, and arriving between Capes Charles and Henry the 3d of July,
left Virginia on the 20th to explore the Delaware for a “Mediterranean
Sea,” said by the Indians “to be four days’ journey beyond the
mountains,” from which they hoped to find an outlet to the Pacific
Ocean, affording a short passage to China and the East Indies. On the
25th they entered Delaware Bay and proceeded leisurely up the river
(which Yong named “Charles,” in honor of his sovereign), conversing and
trading with the savages, as far as the present Trenton Falls, which
they reached the 29th of August, and where they were obliged to stop,
on account of the rocks and the shallowness of the water. On the 1st
of September they were overtaken here by some “Hollanders of Hudson’s
River,” whom Yong entertained for a few days, but finally required to
depart under the escort of Evelin, who afterward explored the coast
from Cape May to Manhattan, and on his return made a second ineffectual
attempt to pass beyond the rocks in the Delaware.[744] Both Yong and
Evelin “resided several years” on this river, and undertook to build a
fort there at “Eriwomeck,” in the present State of New Jersey. Tidings
of their actions were frequently reported to Sir Edmund Plowden, and in
1641 was printed a _Direction for Adventurers and Description of New
Albion_,[745] in a letter addressed to Lady Plowden, written by Evelin.
Books concerning the province were likewise published, it is said,[746]
in 1637 and 1642.

About the close of 1641, the Earl Palatine at length visited America
in person, and, according to the testimony of Lord Baltimore,[747] “in
1642 sailed up Delaware River,” one of his men, named by Plantagenet
“Master Miles,” either then or about that time “swearing the
officers” of an English settlement of seventy persons, at “Watcessit”
(doubtless the New Haven colonists at Varkens Kil, now Salem Creek,
New Jersey[748]), to “obedience” to him “as governor.” Plowden’s
residence was chiefly in Virginia, where, it is recorded, he bought
a half-interest in a barque in 1643;[749] and it is probable that he
had communication with Governor Leonard Calvert, of Maryland, since a
maid-servant belonging to him accompanied Margaret Brent, the intimate
friend of the latter, on a visit to the Isle of Kent, in Chesapeake
Bay.[750] The longest notice of him during his sojourn on our continent
occurs in a report of Johan Printz, Governor of New Sweden, to the
Swedish West India Company, dated at Christina (now Wilmington,
Delaware), June 20, 1644,[751] the importance of which induces the
writer to translate the whole of it. Says Printz,—

 “In my former communications concerning the English knight, I have
 mentioned how last year, in Virginia, he desired to sail with
 his people, sixteen in number, in a barque, from Heckemak to
 Kikathans;[752] and when they came to the Bay of Virginia, the captain
 (who had previously conspired with the knight’s people to kill him)
 directed his course not to Kikethan, but to Cape Henry, passing which,
 they came to an isle in the high sea called Smith’s Island, when they
 took counsel in what way they should put him to death, and thought it
 best not to slay him with their hands, but to set him, without food,
 clothes, or arms, on the above-named island, which was inhabited by
 no man or other animal save wolves and bears; and this they did.
 Nevertheless, two young noble retainers, who had been brought up by
 the knight, and who knew nothing of that plot, when they beheld this
 evil fortune of their lord, leaped from the barque into the ocean,
 swam ashore, and remained with their master. The fourth day following,
 an English sloop sailed by Smith’s Island, coming so close that the
 young men were able to hail her, when the knight was taken aboard
 (half dead, and as black as the ground), and conveyed to Hackemak,
 where he recovered. The knight’s people, however, arrived with the
 barque May 6, 1643, at our Fort Elfsborg, and asked after ships to
 Old England. Hereupon I demanded their pass, and inquired from whence
 they came; and as soon as I perceived that they were not on a proper
 errand, I took them with me (though with their consent) to Christina,
 to bargain about flour and other provisions, and questioned them until
 a maid-servant (who had been the knight’s washerwoman) confessed the
 truth and betrayed them. I at once caused an inventory to be taken
 of their goods, in their presence, and held the people prisoners,
 until the very English sloop which had rescued the knight arrived
 with a letter from him concerning the matter, addressed not alone
 to me, but to all the governors and commandants of the whole coast
 of Florida. Thereupon I surrendered to him the people, barque, and
 goods (in precise accordance with the inventory), and he paid me 425
 riksdaler for my expenses. The chief of these traitors the knight has
 had executed. He himself is still in Virginia, and (as he constantly
 professes) expects vessels and people from Ireland and England. To all
 ships and barques that come from thence he grants free commission to
 trade here in the river with the savages; but I have not yet permitted
 any of them to pass, nor shall I do so until I receive order and
 command to that effect from my most gracious queen, her Royal Majesty
 of Sweden.”

Printz’s opposition to Plowden’s encroachment within his territory
was never relaxed, and was entirely successful. In the course of his
residence in America, the Earl Palatine of New Albion visited New
Amsterdam, “both in the time of Director Kieft and in that of General
Stuyvesant,” and, according to the _Vertoogh van Nieu Nederland_,[753]
“claimed that the land on the west side of the North River to Virginia
was his by gift of King James [Charles] of England, but said he did not
wish to have any strife with the Dutch, though he was very much piqued
at the Swedish governor, John Printz, at the South River, on account
of some affront given him, too long to relate; adding that when an
opportunity should offer, he would go there and take possession of the
river.” Before re-crossing the ocean, he went to Boston, his arrival
being recorded in the Journal of Governor John Winthrop, under date
of June 4, 1648, having “been in Virginia about seven years. He came
first,” says the Governor, “with a patent of a County Palatine for
Delaware Bay, but wanting a pilot for that place, went to Virginia,
and there having lost the estate he brought over, and all his people
scattered from him, he came hither to return to England for supply,
intending to return and plant Delaware, if he could get sufficient
strength to dispossess the Swedes.”

Immediately on reaching Europe, Plowden set about this task, and,
to obtain the greater credit for his title as “Earl Palatine of New
Albion,” both in and out of that province, as well as recognition of
the legality and completeness of his charter, submitted a copy of the
latter to Edward Bysshe, “Garter Principal King of Arms of Englishmen,”
who received favorable written opinions on the subject from several
serjeants and doctors of laws, which, with the letters patent, were
recorded by him Jan. 23, 1648/9, “in the office of arms, there to
remain in perpetual memory.”[754] At the same time (December, 1648)
there was published another advertisement of Plowden’s enterprise,
entitled _A Description of the Province of New Albion_,[755] by
“Beauchamp Plantagenet, of Belvil, in New Albion, Esquire,” purporting
to contain “a full abstract and collection” of what had already been
written on the theme, with additional information acquired by the Earl
Palatine during his residence in America.

[Illustration: Insignia of the Albion Knights]

The work is dedicated “To the Right Honourable and mighty Lord Edmund,
by Divine Providence Lord Proprietor, Earl Palatine, Governour, and
Captain-Generall of the Province of New Albion, and to the Right
Honourable the Lord Vicount Monson of Castlemain, the Lord Sherard,
Baron of Letrim, and to all other the Vicounts, Barons, Baronets,
Knights, Gentlemen, Merchants, Adventurers, and Planters of the
hopefull Company of New Albion, in all 44 undertakers and subscribers,
bound by Indenture to bring and settle 3,000 able trained men in our
said severall Plantations in the said Province,”—the author, himself
“one of the Company,” professing to “have had the honour to be admitted
as” the “familiar” of Plowden, and to “have marched, lodged, and
cabbined” with him, both “among the Indians and in Holland.”[756] It
opens with a short treatise “of Counts or Earls created, and County
Palatines,” followed by an adulatory account of the family of the
Proprietor, and a defence of his title to his province, comprising
some original statements with regard to the Dutch[757] and Swedes.
Specific mention is made of several tribes of Indians dwelling in New
Albion, and of numerous “choice seats for English,” some of which have
been approximately identified.[758] “For the Politique and Civill
Government, and Justice,” says the writer, “Virginia and New England
is our president: first, the Lord head Governour, a Deputy Governour,
Secretary of Estate, or Sealkeeper, and twelve of the Councell of
State or upper House; and these, or five of them, is also a Chancery
Court. Next, out of Counties and Towns, at a free election and day
prefixed, thirty Burgesses, or Commons. Once yearly these meet, as
at a Parliament or Grand Assembly, and make Laws.... and without
full consent of Lord, upper and lower House, nothing is done.” “For
Religion,” observes the author, “I conceive the Holland way now
practised best to content all parties: first, by Act of Parliament
or Grand Assembly, to settle and establish all the Fundamentals
necessary to salvation.... But no persecution to any dissenting, and
to all such, as to the Walloons, free Chapels; and to punish all as
seditious, and for contempt, as bitterly rail and condemn others of the
contrary: for this argument or perswasion of Religion, Ceremonies, or
Church-Discipline, should be acted in mildnesse, love, and charity, and
gentle language, not to disturb the peace or quiet of the Inhabitants,
but therein to obey the Civill Magistrate,”—the latter remarkable
programme of universal tolerance in matters of faith being probably
designed to protect Catholic colonists in the same manner as the famous
“Act concerning Religion” passed by the Maryland Assembly the following
year. The book closes with some practical advice to “Adventurers,” and
promises all such “of £500 to bring fifty men shall have 5,000 acres,
and a manor with Royalties, at 5_s._ rent; and whosoever is willing so
to transport himself or servant at £10 a man shall for each man have
100 acres freely granted forever.”

The only evidence we possess that any result flowed from this fresh
attempt to promote emigration to New Albion is derived from documents
in the Public Record Office at London,[759] stating that March 21,
1649-50, a “Petition of the Earl of New Albion relating to the
plantation there” was “referred to the consideration of the Committee
of Council;” that April 3, 1650, it was “referred to the Committee for
Plantations, or any three of them, to confer with the Earl of Albion
concerning the giving good security to Council, that the men, arms,
and ammunition, which he hath now shipped in order to his voyage to
New Albion, shall go thither, and shall not be employed either there
or elsewhere to the disservice of the public;” and that June 11, 1650,
“a pass” was “granted for Mr. Batt and Mr. Danby, themselves and seven
score persons, men, women, and children, to go to New Albion.” We have
no other proof of the sailing of these people, nor any knowledge of
their arrival in America.

In 1651, there was offered for sale in London, _A mapp of Virginia_,
compiled by “Domina Virginia Farrer,”[760] designating the territory
on the Delaware as “Nova Albion,” as well as “Sweeds’ Plantation,”
with a note: “This River the Lord Ployden hath a Patten of, and calls
it New Albion; but the Sweeds are planted in it, and have a great
trade of Furrs.” On the Jersey side of the stream are indicated the
sites of “Richnek Woods,” “Raritans,” “Mont Ployden,” “Eriwoms,” and
“Axion,” and on the sea-coast “Egg Bay,” all of which are mentioned in
Plantagenet’s _New Albion_.

At that time Plowden was still in England,[761] and we do not know
that he ever returned to his province. In his will, dated July 29,
1655, he styles himself “Sir Edmund Plowden, of Wansted, in the County
of Southton [Southampton], Knight, Lord, Earle Palatine, Governor and
Captain-Generall of the Province of New Albion in America,” and thinks
“it fit that” his “English lands and estates be settled and united
to” his “Honour, County Palatine, and Province of New Albion, for the
maintenance of the same.” In consequence of the “sinister and undue
practises” of his eldest son, Francis Plowden, by whom, he says, “he
had been damnified and hindered these eighteene yeares,” “his mother, a
mutable woman, being by him perverted,” he bequeaths all his titles and
property in England and America, including his “Peerage of Ireland,”
to his second son, Thomas Plowden, specially mentioning “the province
and County Palatine of New Albion,” whereof, he says, “I am seized as
of free principality, and held of the Crowne of Ireland, of which I
am a Peere, which Honor and title and province as Arundell, and many
other Earledomes and Baronies, is assignable and saleable with the
province and County Palatine as a locall Earledome.” He provides for
the occupation and cultivation of New Albion as follows: “I doe order
and will that my sonne Thomas Plowden, and after his decease his eldest
heire male, and if he be under age, then his guardian, with all speed
after my decease, doe imploy, by consent of Sir William Mason, of Greys
Inne, Knt., otherwise William Mason, Esquire, whom I make a Trustee
for this my Plantation, all the cleare rents and profits of my Lands,
underwoods, tythes, debts, stocks, and moneys, for full ten yeares
(excepted what is beqeathed aforesaid), for the planting, fortifying,
peopling, and stocking of my province of New Albion; and to summon and
enforce, according to Covenants in Indentures and subscriptions, all my
undertakers to transplant thither and there to settle their number of
men with such as my estate yearly can transplant,—namely, Lord Monson,
fifty; Lord Sherrard, a hundred; S^r Thomas Danby, a hundred; Captain
Batts, his heire, a hundred; Mr. Eltonhead, a Master in Chancery,
fifty; his eldest brother Eltonhead, fifty; Mr. Bowles, late Clerke of
the Crowne, forty; Captain Claybourne, in Virginia, fifty; Viscount
Muskery, fifty; and many others in England, Virginia, and New England,
subscribed as by direction in my manuscript bookes since I resided
six yeares there, and of policie a government there, and of the best
seates, profits, mines, rich trade of furrs, and wares, and fruites,
wine, worme silke and grasse silke, fish, and beasts there, rice, and
floatable grounds for rice, flax, maples, hempe, barly, and corne, two
crops yearely; to build Churches and Schooles there, and to indeavour
to convert the Indians there to Christianity, and to settle there my
family, kindred, and posterity.”

[Illustration: Farrer map of Virginia (1651)]

To each of eleven parishes in England, where he owned land, he left
forty pounds; and directs that he be buried in the chapel of the
Plowdens at Ledbury, in Salop, under a stone monument, with “brasse
plates” of his “eighteene children had affixed at thirty or fourty
powndes charges, together with” his “perfect pedigree as is drawne
at” his “house.” He “died,” says “Albion,” “at Wanstead, county of
Southampton, in 1659,” his will being admitted to probate in the
Prerogative Court of Canterbury, July 27 of that year.[762] Thomas
Plowden survived his father forty years, but what benefit he derived
from the inheritance of New Albion does not appear. His own will is
dated May 16, 1698, and was admitted to probate in the Prerogative
Court of Canterbury the 10th of the following September. In it he
describes himself as “Thomas Plowden, of Lasham, in the county of
Southton, Gent;” and after leaving all his children and grandchildren
“ten shillings a piece of lawfull English money,” proceeds: “I do give
and bequeath unto my son Francis Plowden the Letters Pattent and Title,
with all advantages and profitts thereunto belonging, And as it was
granted by our late Sovereign Lord King Charles the first over England,
under the great Seal of England, unto my ffather, Sir Edmund Plowden,
of Wansted, in the County of Southton, now deceased, The province and
County palatine of New Albion, in America, or in North Virginia and
America, which pattent is now in the custody of my son-in-law, Andrew
Wall, of Ludshott, in the said County of Southton, who has these
severall years wrongfully detained it, to my great Loss and hinderance.
And all the rest and residue of my goods, chattles, and personall
Estate, after my debts and Legacies be paid and funerall discharged, I
give and devise unto my wife, Thomazine Plowden, of Lasham.”[763]

That Plowden’s claim to the territory of New Albion was not forgotten
in America, appears from the following allusions to it. In a
conversation recorded by the Swedish engineer, Peter Lindström,[764]
as occurring in New Sweden, June 18, 1654, between the Swedes and
“Lawrence Lloyd, the English Commandant of Virginia,” concerning the
rights of their respective nations to jurisdiction over the Delaware,
the latter laid particular stress upon the fact that “Sir Edward Ployde
and Earl of Great Albion had a special grant of that river from King
James.” On the other hand, on occasion of the embassy of Augustine
Herman and Resolved Waldron on behalf of the Director-General of New
Netherland to the Governor of Maryland, in October, 1659, Plowden’s
title was spoken of by them as “subretively and fraudulently obtained”
and “invalid;” while Secretary Philip Calvert affirmed that “Ployten
had had no commission, and lay in jail in England on account of his
debts, relating that he had solicited a patent for _Novum Albium_ from
the King, but it was refused him, and he thereupon applied to the
Viceroy of Ireland, from whom he had obtained a patent, but that it
was of no value,”[765]—allegations, it is understood, of interested
parties, which therefore possess less weight as testimony against the
rights of Plowden. At the same time the title of the Earl Palatine
to his American province was recognized in the last edition of Peter
Heylin’s _Cosmographie_, which was revised by the author, and published
in London in 1669,[766] and in Philips’s enlarged edition of John
Speed’s _Theatre of the Empire of Great Britain_ and _Prospect of the
Most Famous Parts of the World_, printed in London in 1676.[767]

From this period the history of New Albion is more obscure. There is
proof, however, of the residence in Maryland, in May, 1684, of certain
Thomas and George Plowden, affirmed, on grounds of family tradition,
by persons who claim to be descended from one of them, to be sons of
a son of the original patentee, who had brought his wife and children
to America to take possession of his estates, but had been murdered
by the Indians. That the ancestral jurisdiction over the province was
never entirely lost sight of, is shown by the circumstance that the
title peculiar to it was constantly retained by later generations of
this race.[768] Just before the American Revolution, Charles Varlo,
Esq., of England, purchased the third part of the Charter of New
Albion, and in 1784 visited this country with his family, “invested
with proper power as Governor to the Province, ... not doubting,” as
he says, “the enjoyment of his property.” He made an extended tour
through Long Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland,
and distributed among the inhabitants a pamphlet,[769] comprising a
translation in English of the Latin charter enrolled at Dublin, copies
of the lease to Danby, and the release of Ryebread and others, before
referred to, an address of the “Earl Palatine of Albion” to the public,
and conditions for letting or selling land in New Albion. He likewise
issued “a proclamation, in form of a handbill, addressed to the people
of New Albion, in the name of the Earl of Albion,”[770] and published
in the papers of the day (July, 1785) “A Caution to the Good People of
the Province of New Albion, _alias_ corruptly called, at present, The
Jerseys,” not to buy or contract with any person for any land in said
province.[771] He formed the acquaintance of Edmund (called by him
Edward) Plowden, representative of St. Mary’s County in the Legislature
of Maryland, a member of the family already mentioned, and endeavored
to interest that gentleman in his schemes. Finding his land settled
under the grant to the Duke of York, he also sought counsel of William
Rawle, a distinguished lawyer of Philadelphia, and “took every step
possible,” he affirms, “to recover the estate by law in chancery, but
in vain, because judge and jury were landowners therein, consequently
parties concerned. Therefore, after much trouble and expense,” he
“returned to Europe.”[772] Varlo’s last act was to indite two letters
to the Prince of Wales, reciting his grievances and appealing for
redress, but conceived in such a tone as would seem to have precluded
a response.[773] Thus ended this curious episode in the history of
English colonization in America.[774]

[Illustration]




CHAPTER XII.

THE FOUNDING OF PENNSYLVANIA.

BY FREDERICK D. STONE,

_Librarian of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania._


THE founding of Pennsylvania was one of the immediate results of
Penn’s connection with West Jersey; but the causes which led to the
settlement of both colonies can be clearly traced to the rise of the
religious denomination of which he was a distinguished member. This
occurred in one of the most exciting periods of English history. The
Long Parliament was in session. Events were directly leading to the
execution of the King. All vestiges of the Church of Rome had been
well-nigh swept away in a country in which that Church had once held
undisputed sway, and its successor was faring but little better with
the armies of the Commonwealth. The conflict between Presbyterians and
Churchmen,—in the efforts of the former to change the Established
Church, and of the latter to maintain their position,—was scarcely
more bitter in spirit than the temper with which the Independents
denounced all connection between Church and State. Other dissenting
congregations at the same time availed themselves of a season of
unprecedented religious liberty to express their views, and religious
discussions became the daily talk of the people.

It was under these circumstances that the ministry of George Fox began.
Born in the year 1624, a native of Leicestershire, he was from his
youth noted for “a gravity and stayedness of mind and spirit not usual
in children.” As he approached manhood, he became troubled about the
condition of his soul, and passed through an experience similar to that
which tried his contemporary, John Bunyan, when he imagined that he had
sinned against the Holy Ghost. His friends had advised him to marry or
to join the army; but his immediate recourse was rather to spiritual
counsel. He naturally sought this from the clergymen of the Established
Church, in which he had been bred; but they failed to satisfy his mind.

[Illustration: GEORGE FOX.

[This follows Holmes’s engraving of the portrait of Fox, by Honthorst,
in 1654, when Fox was in his thirtieth year. This Dutch painter, if
Gerard Honthorst, was born in Utrecht in 1592, was at one time in
England, and died in 1660; if his brother William, he died in 1683,
aged 73. The original canvas was recently offered for sale in England.
A view of Swarthmore Hall, where Fox lived, is in Gay’s _Popular
History of the United States_, ii. 173.—ED.]]

The first whom he consulted repeated to his servants what George had
said, until the young man was distressed to find that his troubles were
the subjects of jests with the milk-maids. Another told him to sing
psalms and smoke a pipe. A third flew into a violent passion because,
as the talk turned upon the birth of Christ, Fox inadvertently placed
his foot upon the flower-bed. A fourth bled and physicked him. Such
consolations, presented while he was earnestly seeking to comprehend
the greatest question of life, disgusted him. He then turned for
comfort to the Dissenters; but they, as he tells us, were unable to
fathom his condition. From this time he avoided professors and teachers
of all kinds. He read the Scriptures diligently, and strove, by the
use of the faculties which God had given him, to understand their true
meaning. He was not a man of learning, and was obliged to settle all
questions as they arose by such reasonings as he could bring to bear
upon them. The anguish which he experienced was terrible, and at times
he was tempted to despair; but his strong mind held him to the truth,
and his wonderfully clear perception of right and wrong led him step by
step towards the goal of his desires. By degrees the ideas which had
been taught him in childhood were put aside. It became evident to him
that it was not necessary for a man to be bred at Oxford or Cambridge
to become a minister of Christ; and he felt as never before the meaning
of the words, “God dwelleth not in temples made with hands.” To one of
his understanding such convictions seemed as revelations from Heaven.
That all men are capable of receiving the same Light to guide them,
and that all who would follow this Light would be guided to the same
end, became his belief; and to preach this faith constituted his
mission. He also felt that they who were guided by this Inner Light
should be known by the simplicity of their speech and manners; that as
the temples of the Lord were the hearts of his people, the ceremonies
of the prevailing modes of worship were empty forms; that tithes for
the support of a ministry, and taxes for the promotion of war and like
measures, should not be paid by persons who could not approve of the
purposes for which they were collected; and that the taking of an oath,
even to add weight to testimony, was contrary to the teachings of the
Scriptures.

These, in brief, were the views of the people called Quakers. That
a movement so purely spiritual in its aims should have exercised a
political influence seems remarkable. But the principles upon which
the movement was founded claimed for the mind a perfect freedom; they
counted as nought the privileges of rank, and demanded an entire
separation of Church and State.

The first followers of George Fox were from the neighborhood of his own
home; but his views soon spread among the yeomanry of the adjoining
counties. His theology may have been crude, his grammar faulty, and his
appearance ludicrous; yet there was a personal magnetism about the man
which drew to him disciples from all classes.

Nothing could check the energy with which he labored, or silence the
voice which is yet spoken of as that of a prophet. In his enthusiasm
the people seemed to him like “fallow ground,” and the priests but
“lumps of clay,” unable to furnish the seed for a harvest. Jeered at
and beaten by cruel mobs, reviled as a fanatic and denounced as an
impostor, he travelled from place to place, sometimes to be driven
forth to sleep under haystacks, and at other times to be imprisoned as
a disturber of the peace. But through all trials his faith remained
unshaken, and he denounced what he believed to be the falsehoods of the
times, until, as he says, the priests fled when they heard that “the
man in leathern breeches is come.”

In 1654, but ten years after George Fox had begun to preach, his
followers were to be found in most parts of England, Ireland, and
Scotland. Notwithstanding the persecutions with which an avowal
of Quakerism was met, they adhered to their convictions with a
steadfastness equal to that of their leader. Imprisonment, starvation,
and the lash, as the penalties of their religion, had no fears for
them. Their estates were wasted for tithes and taxes which they felt
it wrong to pay. Their meetings were dispersed by armed men, and all
laws that could be so construed were interpreted against them. All such
persecution, however, was of no avail. “They were a people who could
not be won with either gifts, honors, offices, or place.” Nor is it
surprising that their desire to share equally such sufferings in the
cause of truth should have touched the heart of one educated in the
severe school of the Commonwealth. When Fox lay in Lanceston jail, one
of his people called upon Cromwell and asked to be imprisoned in his
stead. “Which of you,” said Cromwell, turning to his Council, “would do
so much for me if I were in the same condition?”

Satisfied in their hearts with the strength which their faith gave
them, the Quakers could not rest until they had carried the glad
tidings to others. In 1655, Fox tells us, “many went beyond the sea,
where truth also sprung up, and in 1656 it broke forth in America and
many other places.”

It has ever been one of the cardinal principles of the followers of
Fox to obey the laws under which they live, when doing so does not
interfere with their consciences. When this last is the case, their
convictions impel them to treat the oppressive measures as nullities,
not even so far recognizing the existence of such statutes as to cover
their violation of them with a shadow of secrecy. It was against what
Fox considered ecclesiastical tyranny that the weight of his ministry
was directed. Those who lived under church government he believed to be
in as utter spiritual darkness as it is the custom of Christendom to
regard the other three-fourths of mankind; and it was with a feeling
akin to that which will to-day prompt a missionary to carry the Bible
to the wildest tribes of Africa, that the Quakers of 1656 came to the
Puritan commonwealths of America.

The record of the first landing of the Quakers in this country belongs
to another chapter,[775] and the historians of New England must tell
the sad story, which began in 1656, of the intrusive daring for
conviction’s sake which characterized the conduct of these humble
preachers. In June, 1657, six of a party of eight Quakers who had
been sent back to England the year previous, re-embarked for America.
They were accompanied by five others, and on October 1 five of them
landed at New Amsterdam. The rest remained on the vessel, and on the 3d
instant arrived at Rhode Island. It was chiefly through the labors of
this little band that the doctrines of the Quakers were spread through
the British colonies of North America.

It was in 1661 that the first Yearly Meeting of Friends in America
was established in Rhode Island, and in 1672 the government of the
colony was in their hands. The Dutch of New Amsterdam did not hold as
broad views of religious liberty as were entertained by their kinsfolk
in Holland; but while the Quakers were severely dealt with in that
city, on Long Island they were allowed to live in comparative peace.
In Maryland the treatment of the Friends, severe at times, grew more
and more tolerant, and when Fox visited them in 1672 he found many to
welcome him; and probably the first letter from a Meeting in England
to one in America was directed to that of Maryland. In Virginia
the Episcopalians were less liberal than their neighbors in other
provinces. The intolerance with which Dissenters were met drove many
beyond her borders, and thus it was that some Friends gathered in the
Carolinas.

The outbreak of the Fifth Monarchy men in 1660, immediately after the
restoration of Charles II., dispelled any hopes which the Quakers
might have gathered from that monarch’s proclamation at Breda, since
they were suspected of being connected with that party. It is at this
time that we find the first evidence that Fox and his followers wished
to obtain a spot in America which they could call their own; and the
desire was obviously the result of the troubles which they encountered,
both in England and America. Before this was accomplished, however, the
Quakers experienced many trials. In 1661 Parliament passed an Act for
their punishment, denouncing them as a mischievous and dangerous people.

In 1672 Charles II. issued his second declaration regarding liberty of
conscience, and comparative quiet was for a few years enjoyed by his
Dissenting subjects. In 1673 Parliament censured the declaration of the
King as an undue use of the prerogative. The sufferings of the Quakers
were then renewed. It is unnecessary to repeat in detail the penalties
inflicted under the various Acts of Parliament. Fox was repeatedly
imprisoned, and many of his followers died in confinement from ill
usage. In 1675 West Jersey was offered for sale. The advantages its
possession would afford were at once appreciated by the men of broad
views who had obtained control of the Quaker affairs. Fox favored the
scheme. Some of his followers felt that to emigrate was to fly from
persecution and to desert a cause; but Fox, with more wisdom, had as
early as 1660 proposed the purchase of a tract of land in America.
Between 1656 and 1675 he and his devoted followers were from time to
time braving all kinds of danger in the propagation of their faith
throughout the English colonies in America. Their wanderings often
brought them into contact with the Indians, and this almost always led
to the friendliest of relations.[776]

William Penn possessed more influence with the ruling class of England
than did any other of the followers of Fox. His joining the Friends in
1668 is a memorable event in the history of their Society. The son of
Admiral Sir William Penn, the conqueror of Jamaica, and of his wife
Margaret, daughter of John Jasper, of Amsterdam, he was born in London
Oct. 14, 1644, the year in which Fox began to preach to his neighbors
in Leicestershire. The Admiral was active in bringing about the
restoration of the Stuarts, and this, together with his naval services,
gave him an influence at Court which would have enabled him to advance
the interests of his son.

[Illustration

[There are papers on the portraits of Penn in _Scribner’s Monthly_,
xii. 1, by F. M. Etting, and in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, October,
1882. Cf. also _Penn. Mag. of Hist._ vol. vi. pp. 174, 252. The above
cut represents him at twenty-two. It follows a large private steel
plate, engraved by S. A. Schoff, of Boston, with the aid of a crayon
reduction by William Hunt, and represents an original likeness painted
in oils in 1666 by an unknown artist, possibly Sir Peter Lely. It was
one of two preserved at Stoke Poges for a long time, and this one was
given in 1833 by Penn’s grandson, Granville Penn, to the Historical
Society of Pennsylvania. (_Catalogue of Paintings, etc., belonging to
the Historical Society_, 1872, no. 50.) There are other engravings
of it in the _Pennsylvania Magazine of History_, i. 361; in Janney’s
_Life of Penn_; in Stoughton’s _William Penn_; and in Watson’s _Annals
of Philadelphia_. A portrait by Francis Place, representing Penn at
fifty-two, is engraved from the National Museum copy of the original
in Gay’s _Popular History of the United States_, ii. 487. It was
discovered in England in 1874, and its story is told in Mr. Etting’s
paper. There is another engraving of it in Egle’s _Pennsylvania_.
Maria Webb’s _Penns and Peningtons_ (1867) gives an account of a
recently discovered crayon likeness. (Cf. _Catalogue of Paintings,
etc., belonging to the Historical Society_, 1872, p. 27.) A steel
engraving was issued in Germany some years since, purporting to be from
a portrait by Kneller,—which is quite possible,—and this engraving
is reproduced a little larger than the German one in the _Mag. of
Amer. Hist._, October, 1882. The likeness best known is probably the
one introduced by West in his well-known picture of the making of the
Treaty. In this, West, who never saw Penn, seemingly followed one of
the medallions or busts made by Sylvanus Bevan, a contemporary of Penn,
who had a natural skill in cutting likenesses in ivory. One of these
medallions is given in Smith and Watson’s _American Historical and
Literary Curiosities_, i. pl. xv., and in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._,
October, 1882. Bevan’s bust was also the original of the head of the
statue, with a broad-brim hat, which has stood in the grounds of the
Pennsylvania Hospital since John Penn, son of the Proprietary, bought
it from the estate of Lord Le Despenser at High Wycombe, and gave it to
the hospital. The same head was again used as the model of the wooden
bust which was in the Loganian Library, but was destroyed by fire in
1831. Proud’s _History of Pennsylvania_ (1797) gives an engraving of
it; and the likeness in Clarkson’s _Life of Penn_ is also credited to
one of Bevan’s busts. Inman’s picture, which appears in Janney’s _Penn_
and in Armor’s _Governors of Pennsylvania_, is to be traced to the same
source, as also is the engraving in the _Encyclopædia Londiniensis_.

Penn is buried in the graveyard at Jordan’s, twenty miles or so from
London; and the story of an unsuccessful effort by the State of
Pennsylvania to secure his remains, encased in a leaden casket, is told
in _The Remains of William Penn_, by George L. Harrison, privately
printed, Philadelphia, 1882, where is a view of the grave and an
account of the neighborhood. There is a picture of the grave in the
Pennsylvania Historical Society. Cf. _Catalogue of Paintings, etc.,
belonging to the Historical Society_ (1872), no. 151; and Mrs. S. C.
Halls article in _National Magazine_, viii. 109; and _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, October, 1882, p. 661.—ED.]]

But while a student at Oxford, the young Penn chanced to hear the
preaching of Thomas Loe, a Quaker, and so impressed was he by it that
he ceased to attend the religious services of his College. For this he
was expelled from the University. His father, after a brief impulse
of anger which this disgrace caused, sent him to Paris, and in that
gay capital the impressions made by the Quaker preacher were nearly
effaced. From Paris he went to Saumur and became a pupil of Moses
Amyrault, a learned professor of the French Reformed Church. At the
conclusion of his studies he travelled in France and Italy, and in
1664 returned to England,—a fashionable gentleman, with an “affected
manner of speech and gait.” The dreadful scenes which occurred the
next year in London during the Plague again turned his thoughts from
worldly affairs. To overcome this seriousness his father sent him to
Ireland. While there, an insurrection broke out among the soldiers at
Carrickfergus Castle, and he served as a volunteer under Lord Arran
in its suppression. The Viceroy of Ireland was willing to reward this
service by giving him a military command, but Admiral Penn refused
his consent. It was at this time that the accompanying portrait was
painted. While in Ireland, Penn again came under the influence of the
preaching of Loe, and in his heart became a Quaker. He was shortly
afterwards arrested with others at a Quaker meeting. His conduct
alienated his father from him, but a reconciliation followed when the
Admiral learned how sincere the young Quaker was in his views.

Penn wrote industriously in the cause, and endeavored by personal
solicitation at Court to obtain for the Quakers more liberal treatment.
Imprisoned in the Tower for heresy, he passed his time in writing _No
Cross, No Crown_. Released through his father’s influence with the
Duke of York, he was soon again arrested under the Conventicle Act for
having spoken at a Quaker meeting, and his trial for this offence is a
celebrated one in the annals of English law.

In September, 1670, his father died, leaving him an ample fortune,
besides large claims on the Government. But the temptations of wealth
had no influence on Penn. He continued to defend the faith he had
embraced, and in the latter part of the year was again in Newgate.
There he wrote _The Great Case of Liberty of Conscience debated_.
Had his services to humanity been no greater than those rendered by
the pen, they would have secured for him a lasting remembrance; but
the experience he gained in defending the principles of the Friends
was fitting him for higher responsibilities. His mind, which was
naturally bright, had been improved by study. In such rough schools
of statesmanship as the Old Bailey, Newgate, and the Tower, he
imbibed broad and liberal views of what was necessary for the welfare
of mankind, which in the end prompted him to attempt a practical
interpretation of the philosophy of More and Harrington. His interest
in West Jersey[777] led him to make extensive investments in the
enterprise; but notwithstanding the zeal and energy with which it was
pushed, the result was far from satisfactory. The disputes between
Fenwick and the creditors of Byllynge, and the transfer by the
former of a large portion of his interest to Eldridge and Warner in
security for a debt, left a cloud upon the title of land purchased
there, and naturally deterred people from emigrating. False reports
detrimental to the colony were also circulated in England, while the
claim of Byllynge, that his parting with an interest in the soil
did not affect his right to govern, and the continued assumption of
authority by Andros over East Jersey and the ports on the Delaware,
added to the feeling of dissatisfaction. This is clearly shown in a
pamphlet published in 1681, the preface of which says it was put forth
“to contradict the Disingenuous and False Reports of some men who
have made it their business to speak unjustly of New Jersey and our
Proceedings therein: As though the Methods of Settlement were confused
and Uncertain, no man Knowing his own Land, and several such idle Lying
Stories.”[778]

It was in this condition of affairs that Penn conceived the idea of
obtaining a grant of land in America in settlement of a debt of £16,000
due the estate of his father from the Crown. We have no evidence
showing when this thought first took form in his mind, but his words
and actions prove that it was not prompted in order to better his
worldly condition. Certain it is that the eyes of the Friends had long
been turned to what is now Pennsylvania as a spot upon which they might
find a refuge from persecution. In 1660, when George Fox first thought
of a Quaker settlement in America, he wrote on this subject to Josiah
Coale, who was then with the Susquehanna Indians north of Maryland. The
reply from Maryland is dated “eleventh month, 1660,” and reads,—

 “DEAR GEORGE,—As concerning Friends buying a piece of Land of the
 Susquehanna Indians, I have spoken of it to them, and told them what
 thou said concerning it; but their answer was that there is no land
 that is habitable or fit for situation beyond Baltimore’s liberty till
 they come to or near the Susquehanna’s fort.”

In 1681 Penn, in writing about his province, said: “This I can say,
that I had an opening of joy as to these parts in the year 1661 at
Oxford twenty years since.” The interest which centred in West Jersey
caused the scheme to slumber, until revived by Penn in 1680.

The petition to the King was presented about the 1st of June, 1680. It
asked for a tract of land “lying North of Maryland, on the East bounded
with Delaware River, on the West limited as Maryland is, and Northward
to extend as far as plantable, which is altogether Indian.” This,
“his Maj^{ty} being graciously disposed to gratify,” was referred to
the Lords of Trade and Plantations, and if it should meet with their
approval, they were to consider “such restrictions, limitations, and
other Clauses as were fitting to be inserted in the Grant.”

The proceedings which followed prevented the issue of the charter for
some time. “A caution was used,” says Chalmers, “in proportion to
the inattention with which former patents had been given, almost to
every petitioner. Twenty years had now taught circumspection, and the
recent refractoriness of Massachusetts had impressed the ministers
with a proper sense of danger, at least of inconvenience.” The agents
of the Duke of York and of Lord Baltimore were consulted about the
proposed boundaries, and the opinions of Chief-Justice North and the
Attorney-General were taken on the same subjects, as well as on the
powers that were to be conferred. The charter as granted gave to
Penn and his successors all the territory between the fortieth and
forty-second degrees of latitude, extending through five degrees of
longitude west from the Delaware River, with the exception of that
part which would fall within a circle drawn twelve miles around New
Castle, the northern segment of which was to form the boundary between
Penn’s province and the Duke of York’s colonies of Delaware. It was
supposed that such a circle would be intersected on the west by the
fortieth degree of latitude, the proposed boundary between Pennsylvania
and Maryland. This erroneous opinion was the cause of a prolonged
litigation. The allegiance of the Proprietary and of the inhabitants
was reserved to the Crown. The right to govern was vested in Penn.
He could appoint officers, and with the consent of the people make
such laws as were necessary; but to insure their unison with those of
England they were to be submitted to the Crown within five years for
approval. He could raise troops for the defence of his province, and
collect taxes and duties; but the latter were to be in addition to
those ordered by Parliament. He could pardon all crimes except treason
and wilful murder, and grant reprieves in such cases until the pleasure
of the King should be known. The Bishop of London had the power to
appoint a chaplain on the petition of twenty of the inhabitants, and
an agent was to reside near the Court to explain any misdemeanor that
might be committed.

The charter was signed March 4, 1681, and on the next day Penn wrote to
Robert Turner,—

 “After many waitings, watchings, solicitings, and disputes in
 Council, this day my country was confirmed to me under the Great
 Seal of England, with large powers and privileges, by the name of
 Pennsilvania, a name the King would have given in honor of my father.
 I chose New Wales, being as this a pretty hilly country, ... for I
 feared lest it should be looked as a vanity in me and not as a respect
 in the King, as it truly was, to my father, whom he often mentions
 with praise. Thou mayst communicate my graunt to friends, and expect
 shortly my proposals; ‘tis a clear and just thing; and my God, that
 has given it me through many difficulties, will, I believe, bless
 and make it the seed of a nation. I shall have a tender care to the
 government, that it will be well laid at first.”

On the 2d of April a royal proclamation, addressed to those who were
already settled within the province, informed them of the granting
of the patent, and its character. Six days afterwards Penn prepared
a letter to be read to the settlers by his representative, couched
in language of friendship and affection. He told them frankly that
government was a business he had never undertaken, but that it was his
wish to do it uprightly. You are “at the mercy of no governor,” he
said, “who comes to make his fortune great; you shall be governed by
laws of your own making, and live a free and, if you will, a sober and
industrious people.” On the same day he gave to his kinsman, William
Markham, whom he had selected to be his deputy-governor, and who was to
precede him to Pennsylvania, instructions regarding the first business
to be transacted. Two days afterwards he furnished him with his
commission and more explicit directions, and Markham shortly afterwards
sailed for America, and probably landed in Boston, where his commission
is recorded. By the 15th of June he had reached New York, and
Brockholls on the 21st issued an order addressed to the civil officers
within the limits of Pennsylvania, yielding to Markham his authority as
the representative of the Duke of York. Markham carried letters from
the King and from Penn to Lord Baltimore. The former recommended “the
infant colony and its leader to his friendly aid.” He also required
the patentee of Maryland “to make a true division of the two provinces
according to the boundaries and degrees expressed in their patents.”
The letter of Penn authorized Markham to settle the boundaries. Markham
met Lord Baltimore in August, 1681, and while at his house was taken so
ill that nothing was decided upon.

Soon after the confirmation of his charter, Penn issued a pamphlet,
in which the essential parts of that instrument were given, together
with an account of the country and the views he entertained for its
government. The conditions on which he proposed to dispose of land
were, a share of five thousand acres free from any Indian incumbrance
for £100, and one shilling English quit-rent for one hundred acres,
the quit-rent not to begin until after 1684. Those who hired were to
pay one penny per acre for lots not exceeding two hundred acres. Fifty
acres per head were allowed to the masters of servants, and the same
quantity was given to every servant when his time should expire. A plan
for building cities was also suggested, in which all should receive
lots in proportion to their investments.

The unselfishness and purity of Penn’s motives, and the religious
feelings with which he was inspired, are evident from his letters. On
the 12th of April, 1681, he wrote to three of his friends,—

 “Having published a paper with relation to my province in America
 (at least what I thought advisable to publish), I here inclose one
 that you may know and inform others of it. I have been these thirteen
 years the servant of truth and Friends, and for my testimony sake
 lost much, not only the greatness and preferments of this world, but
 £16,000 of my estate, that had I not been what I am I had long ago
 obtained. But I murmur not; the Lord is good to me, and the interest
 his truth has given me with his people may more than repair it;
 for many are drawn forth to be concerned with me: and perhaps this
 way of satisfaction has more the hand of God in it than a downright
 payment.... For the matter of liberty and privilege, I propose that
 which is extraordinary, and to leave myself and successors no power of
 doing mischief,—that the will of one man may not hinder the good of
 an whole country. But to publish those things now and here, as matters
 stand, would not be wise, and I was advised to reserve that until I
 came there.”

To another he wrote,—

 “And because I have been somewhat exercised at times about the
 nature and end of government among men, it is reasonable to expect
 that I should endeavor to establish a just and righteous one in this
 province, that others may take example by it,—truly this my heart
 desires. For the nations want a precedent.... I do, therefore, desire
 the Lord’s wisdom to guide me, and those that may be concerned with
 me, that we may do the thing that is truly wise and just.”

And again,—

 “For my country, I eyed the Lord in obtaining it, and more was I drawn
 inward to look to him, and to owe it to his hand and power than to any
 other way. I have so obtained it, and desire to keep it that I may
 not be unworthy of his love, but do that which may answer his kind
 Providence and serve his truth and people, that an example may be set
 up to the nations. There may be room there, though not here, for such
 an holy experiment.”

The scheme grew apace, and, as Penn says, “many were drawn forth to be
concerned with him.” His prominence as a Quaker attracted the attention
of Quakers in all quarters. He had travelled in their service in Wales,
and from thence some of the first settlers came. Two visits to Holland
and Germany had made him known to the Mennonites and like religious
bodies there. His pamphlet was reprinted at Amsterdam, and the seed
sown soon brought forth abundantly. By July 11, 1681, matters had so
far progressed that it was necessary to form a definite agreement
between Penn and the purchasers, and a paper known as “Certain
Conditions or Concessions” was executed.

By this time also (July, 1681) troubles with Lord Baltimore were
anticipated in England, and some of the adventurers were deterred from
purchasing. Penn at once began negotiations for the acquirement of the
Duke of York’s interests on the Delaware. Meanwhile, in the face of all
these rumors, Penn refused to part with any of his rights, except on
the terms and in the spirit which he had announced. Six thousand pounds
were offered for a monopoly of the Indian trade, but he declined it; “I
would not,” are his words, “so defile what came to me clean.”

William Crispin, John Bezar, and Nathaniel Allen were commissioned by
Penn (Sept. 30, 1681) to assist Markham. They were to select a site for
a town, and superintend its laying out. William Haige was subsequently
added to the number. By them he sent to the Indians a letter of an
affectionate character, and another to be read to the Swedes by their
ministers.

The first commissioners probably sailed on the “John Sarah,” which
cleared for Pennsylvania in October. She is supposed to have been the
first vessel to arrive there after Penn received his grant.

On August 24, 1682, Penn acquired from the Duke of York the town of New
Castle and the country twelve miles around it, and the same day the
Duke conveyed to him the territory lying south of New Castle, reserving
for himself one half the rents. The first of these gifts professed to
have been made on account of the Duke’s respect for the memory of Sir
William Penn. A deed was also obtained from the Duke (August 20) for
any right he might have to Pennsylvania as a part of New Netherland.

Having completed his business in England, Penn prepared to sail
for America. On the 4th of August, from his home at Worminghurst,
he addressed to his wife and children a letter of singular beauty,
manliness, and affection. It is evident from it that he appreciated
the dangers before him, as well as the responsibilities which he
had assumed. To his wife, who was the daughter of Sir William
Springett, he wrote: “Remember thy mother’s example when thy father’s
public-spiritedness had worsted his estate, which is my case.” To his
children, fearing he would see them no more, he said: “And as for you
who are likely to be concerned in the government of Pennsylvania and my
parts of East Jersey, especially the first, I do charge you before the
Lord God and His holy angels, that you be lowly, diligent, and tender,
fearing God, loving the people, and hating covetousness.” To both, in
closing, he wrote: “So farewell to my thrice-dearly beloved wife and
children. Yours as God pleaseth, in that which no waters can quench, no
time forget, nor distance wear away.”

On the 30th of August he wrote to all faithful friends in England,
and the next day there “sailed out of the Downs three ships bound for
Pennsylvania, on board of which was Mr. Pen, with a great many Quakers
who go to settle there.” Such was the announcement in the _London
Gazette_ of September 4, of the departure of those who were to found
one of the most prosperous of the British colonies in America.

With the exception of a narrow strip of land along the Delaware, on
which were scattered a few Swedish hamlets, the tract covered by the
royal grant to Penn was a wilderness. It contained, exclusive of
Indians, about five hundred souls. The settlements extended from the
southern limits of the province for a few miles above the mouth of the
Schuylkill, and then there was nothing until Crewcorne was reached,
opposite the Falls of Delaware. None of these settlements rose to the
dignity of a village, unless it was Upland, at which place the Court
was held. The territory acquired from the Duke of York contained about
the same number of persons as did Pennsylvania. Many, however, who
lived in either section were Swedes or Finns. A few Dutch had settled
among them, and some Quaker families had crossed from New Jersey and
taken up land.

Penn found the Swedes “a strong, industrious people,” who knew little
beside the rudiments of agriculture, and cared not to cultivate beyond
their needs.[779] The fertile country in which they dwelt yielded
adequate supply with moderate labor, and to the English settlers it
appeared to be a paradise. The reports which Penn’s people sent home
encouraged others to come, and although their accounts were highly
, none of the new-comers seem to have been disappointed. The
first descriptions we have of the country after it became Pennsylvania
are in the letters of Markham. To his wife he wrote, Dec. 7, 1681,—

 “It is a very fine Country, if it were not so overgrown with Woods,
 and very Healthy. Here people live to be above one hundred years of
 Age. Provisions of all sorts are indifferent plentiful, _Venison_
 especially; I have seen four _Bucks_ bought for less than 5_s._ The
 Indians kill them only for their Skins, and if the Christians will not
 buy the Flesh they let it hang and rot on a Tree. In the Winter there
 is mighty plenty of Wild Fowl of all sorts. Partridges I am cloyed
 with; we catch them by hundreds at a time. In the fall of the leaf, or
 after Harvest, here are abundance of wild Turkeys, which are mighty
 easie to be Shot; Duck, Mallard, Geese, and Swans in abundance, wild;
 Fish are in great plenty. In short, if a Country Life be liked by any,
 it might be here.”

Markham, after his arrival, had taken such steps as were necessary
to establish the authority of Penn. On the 3d of August nine of the
residents, selected by him, took the oath to act as his council. A
court was held at Upland September 13, the last court held there
under the authority of the Duke of York having adjourned until that
time. By Penn’s instructions, all was to be done “according to the
good laws of England. But the new court during the first year of
its existence failed to comply with these laws in a very essential
particular,—persons were put upon trial without the intervention of
a grand jury. No provision was made under the Duke’s laws for the
safeguard of the citizen, and the new justices acted for a time in
accordance with former usage. A petit jury, so rare under the former
court, now participated in every trial where facts were in dispute.
In criminal cases the old practice was adhered to, of making the
prosecutor plaintiff.”[780]

During 1681 at least two vessels arrived with settlers. Of the
commissioners who were sent out in October to assist Markham,
Crispin died at Barbadoes. April 23, 1682, Thomas Holme, bearing a
commission of surveyor-general, sailed from England, and arrived about
June. Already the site for Philadelphia had been selected, as James
Claypoole, who was in England, wrote, July 14, that he “had one hundred
acres where our capital city is to be, upon the river near Schuylkill.”
July 15, 1682, Markham purchased from the Indians a tract of land on
the Delaware below the Falls.

The first Welsh emigrants arrived on the 13th of August, 1682. They
were Quakers from Merionethshire who had felt the hand of persecution.
They had bought from Penn in England five thousand acres of unsurveyed
land, and had been promised by him the reservation of a large tract
exclusively for Welsh settlers, to the end that they might preserve
the customs of their native land, decide all debates “in a Gospel
order,” and not entangle themselves “with laws in an unknown tongue.”
At Philadelphia they found a crowd of people endeavoring to have
their farms surveyed, for although the site of the city was chosen,
the town lots were not laid out. In a few days the Welshmen had the
first part surveyed of what became known as the Welsh Barony. It lay
on the west side of the Schuylkill, north of Philadelphia. The warrant
for surveying the entire tract, which contained forty thousand acres,
was not issued until 1684. Special privileges appear to have been
accorded to these settlers. Township officers were not chosen for their
districts until 1690, and their Friends’ Meetings exercised authority
in civil affairs. From these facts it is possible that the intention
was to protect the Welsh in the rights of local self-government by
erecting the tract into a manor. By a clause in the royal charter, Penn
could erect “manors, to have and to hold a court baron, with all things
whatsoever to a court baron do belong.” To a company known as the “Free
Society of Traders” he had (March 20, 1682) granted these extraordinary
privileges, empowering them to hold courts of sessions and jail
deliveries, to constitute a court-leet, and to appoint certain civil
officers for their territory. This was known as the Manor of Frank. To
Nicholas More, the president of the Company, the Manor of Moreland was
granted, with like privileges; but neither More nor the Company seem
to have exercised their rights as rulers. Whatever special rights the
Welshmen had, were reserved until 1690, when regular township officers
were appointed. Goshen, Uwchlan, Tredyffren, Whiteland, Newtown,
Haverford, Radnor, and Merion,—the names these ancient Britons gave to
their townships—show what parts of the present counties of Delaware,
Chester, and Montgomery the Welsh tract covered. Some of these people
settled in Philadelphia and Bucks County. They were chiefly Quakers,
although Baptists were found among them.

The ship which bore Penn to America was the “Welcome.” The small-pox
made its appearance among the passengers when they had been out a short
time, and nearly one-third of them died. Two vessels which left England
after Penn had sailed, arrived before him; but at last, after a trying
voyage of nearly two months, the “Welcome” came within the Capes of
Delaware. Penn dated his arrival from the 24th of October, 1682, but
it was not until the 27th that the vessel lay opposite New Castle. The
next day he exhibited his deeds from the Duke of York, and took formal
possession of the town and surrounding country. He received a pledge of
submission from the inhabitants, issued commissions to six justices of
the peace, and empowered Markham to receive in his name possession of
the country below, which was done on November 7. The 29th of October
(O. S.) found him within the bounds of Pennsylvania, at the Swedish
village of Upland, the name of which, tradition says, he then changed
to Chester. From this point notices were sent out for the holding
of a court at New Castle on the 2d of November. At this meeting the
inhabitants of the counties of Delaware were told that their rights and
privileges should be the same as those of the citizens of Pennsylvania,
and that an assembly would be held as soon as convenient.

[Illustration: LETITIA COTTAGE.

A city residence for Penn was begun by his commissioners before he
arrived. Parts of it were prepared in England. A portion of it still
stands on the west side of Letitia Street, south of Market. The
above cut is a fac-simile of the view given in Watson’s _Annals of
Philadelphia_ (1845), p. 158. Cf. Gay’s _Popular History of the United
States_, ii. 492.]

The attention which Penn gave to the constitution of his province
was a duty which had for him a particular interest. His thoughts had
necessarily dwelt much on the subject, and his experience had made him
acquainted with the principles of law and the abuses of government. The
drafts of this paper which have been preserved show how deeply it was
considered. Henry Sidney, Sir William Jones, and Counsellor Bamfield
were consulted, and portions of it were framed in accordance with the
wishes of the Quakers. In the Introduction to this remarkable paper,
the ingenuousness of its author is clearly discernible. Recognizing
the necessity of government, and tracing it to a divine origin, Penn
continues,—

 “For particular frames and models, it will become me to say little,
 and comparatively I will say nothing. My reasons are, first, that the
 age is too nice and difficult for it, there being nothing the wits of
 men are more busy and divided upon.... Men side with their passions
 against their reason, and their sinister interests have so strong a
 bias upon their minds, that they lean to them against the good of the
 things they know.

 “I do not find a model in the world that time, place, and some
 singular emergencies have not necessarily altered, nor is it easy to
 frame a civil government that shall serve all places alike. I know
 what is said by the several admirers of monarchy, aristocracy, and
 democracy, which are the rule of one, a few, and many, and are the
 three common ideas of government when men discourse on that subject.
 But I choose to solve the controversy with this small distinction,
 and it belongs to all three,—any government is free to the people
 under it (whatever be the frame) where the laws rule and the people
 are a party to those laws; and more than this is tyranny, oligarchy,
 or confusion.... Liberty without obedience is confusion, and obedience
 without liberty is slavery.”

[Illustration: SEAL AND AND SIGNATURES TO THE FRAME OF GOVERNMENT.

[This is reduced from the fac-simile in Smith and Watson’s _American
Historical and Literary Curiosities_, pl. lvii.; and another reduction
will be found in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, October, 1882; cf. Lossing’s
_Fieldbook of the Revolution_, ii. 256.—ED.]]

The good men of a nation, he argues, should make and keep its
government, and laws should bind those who make laws necessary.
As wisdom and virtue are qualities that descend not with worldly
inheritances, care should be taken for the virtuous education of youth.

The Frame of Government which followed these remarks was signed by
Penn on the 25th of April, 1682. By this Act the government was vested
in the governor and freemen, in the form of a provincial council and
an assembly. The provincial council was to consist of seventy-two
members. The first election of councilmen was to be held on the 20th of
February, 1682-83, and they were to meet on the 10th of the following
month. One-third of the number were to retire each year when their
successors were chosen. An elaborate scheme was devised for forming the
council into committees to attend to various duties.

The assembly for the first year was to consist of all the freemen of
the province, and after that two hundred were to be annually chosen.
They were to meet on April 20; the governor was to preside over the
council. Laws were to originate with the latter, and the chief duty of
the assembly was to approve such legislation. The governor and council
were to see the laws executed, inspect the treasury, determine the
situation of cities and ports, and provide for public schools.

On May 5 forty laws were agreed upon by the purchasers in England as
freemen of the province. By these all Christians, with the exception
of bound servants and convicts, who should take up land or pay taxes
were declared freemen. The merits of this proposed form, which was to
be submitted for approval to the first legislative body assembling in
Pennsylvania, have been widely debated. Professor Ebeling says it “was
at first too highly praised, and afterwards too lightly depreciated.”
It was without doubt too elaborate in some of its details, and the
number proposed for the council and assembly were out of all proportion
to the wants of a new country.

Shortly after his arrival, Penn found circumstances to require that
the laws should be put in force with as little delay as possible. He
therefore decided to call an assembly before the time provided, and
extended to the inhabitants of the Delaware counties the right to
participate in it. Writs were issued to the sheriffs of those parts
to hold elections on the 20th of November for the choice of delegates
to meet at Chester on the 4th of December, and the inhabitants of
Pennsylvania were notified to attend.

The Assembly met at the appointed time. Upon petition from the lower
counties, an Act uniting them with Pennsylvania was passed, and at
the request of the Swedes a bill of naturalization became a law.
Penn submitted to the House the Frame of Government and the code of
laws agreed upon in England, together with a new series which he had
prepared. In doing this he acted without the advice of a provincial
council. The laws agreed upon in England, “more fully worded,” were
passed, together with such others as were thought to be necessary, and
the Assembly adjourned for twenty-one days. The members, however, do
not appear to have met again.

In January Penn issued writs for an election, to be held on the 20th
of February, of seventy-two members of the provincial council, and
gave notice that an assembly would be held as provided in the Frame
of Government. This was not strictly in accord with that document, as
it provided that the seventy-two councilmen should be chosen from the
province of Pennsylvania, and Penn made the passage apply equally to
the Delaware counties, over which he had had no jurisdiction at the
time the Frame was signed.

Before the election took place, it was discovered that the number
proposed for the council was much larger than could be selected, and
that a general gathering of the inhabitants would not furnish such
an assembly as the organization of the government demanded. On the
suggestion of Penn twelve persons, therefore, were elected from each
of the six counties; and through their respective sheriffs the freemen
petitioned the Governor that as the number of the people was yet small,
and but few were acquainted with public business, those chosen should
be accepted to represent them in both council and assembly,—three in
the former, and nine in the latter. The Council met at the appointed
time, the petitions of the freemen were duly presented by the sheriffs,
and the prayers granted by the Governor. It was then moved by one of
the members that, as the charter granted by the Governor had again
fallen into his hands by the negligence of the freemen to fulfil their
part, he should be asked that the alterations which had been made
should not affect their chartered rights. The Governor answered that
“they might amend, alter, or add for the Public good, and he was ready
to settle such foundations as might be for their happiness and the good
of their Posterities.” Those selected for the Assembly then withdrew,
and, although the time for them to meet had not arrived (March 12),
chose Thomas Wynne their Speaker, and proceeded to business. During
the session an “Act of Settlement,” reciting the circumstances which
made these changes necessary, and reducing the number of members of the
Provincial Council and Assembly, was passed by the House, having been
proposed by the Governor and Council. By the Frame of Government first
agreed upon, Penn had surrendered his right to have an overruling voice
in the government, reserving for himself or representative a triple
vote in the Council. Fearing that his charter might be invalidated by
some action of the majority of the Council and Assembly, he now asked
that the veto power should be restored to him, which was accordingly
done. The right to appoint officers, which by the first Frame had
been vested in the Governor and Council, was given to Penn for life.
Other laws necessary for good government were enacted, and to the
whole the Frame of Government was appended, with modifications and
such alterations as made it applicable to the Delaware counties. On
April 2, in the presence of the Council, Assembly, and some of the
citizens of Philadelphia, Penn signed and sealed this new charter,
solemnly assuring them that it was “solely by him intended for the good
and benefit of the freemen of the province, and prosecuted with much
earnestness in his spirit towards God at the time of its composure.” It
was received by the Speaker of the Assembly on behalf of the freemen;
and in their name that officer thanked the Governor for his great
kindness in granting them a charter “of more than was expected liberty.”

[Illustration]

All that had been irregularly done was thus in a manner legalized; but
the matter was not allowed to pass unquestioned. Nicholas More was
reprimanded by the Council for having spoken imprudently regarding the
course which had been taken, and for saying that hundreds in England
and their children after them would curse them for what they had done.

Under the constitution and laws thus formed, the government was
administered until 1696. The chief features of local government which
had existed under the Duke of York were lost sight of in the new order
of affairs, the authority being vested in the provincial or county
officers in place of those of the township. True to the doctrines
which they had preached, and to the demands which they had made of
others, the Quakers accorded to all a perfect liberty of conscience,
intending, however, “that looseness, irreligion, and Atheism” should
not creep in under pretence of conscience. The observance of the
Sabbath was provided for. On that day people were to “abstain from
their usual and common toil and labor, ... that they may better dispose
themselves to read the Scriptures of truth at home, or frequent such
meetings of religious worship abroad as may best suit their respective
persuasions.” Profanity, drunkenness, health-drinking, duelling,
stage-plays, masques, revels, bull-baiting, cock-fighting, cards, dice,
and lotteries were all prohibited. Clamorous scolding and railing were
finable offences. The property of thieves was liable for fourfold the
value of what they had taken; and if they should have no estates,
they were to labor in prison until the person they had injured was
satisfied. A humane treatment of prisoners was insured. The poor were
under the protection of the county courts. Peacemakers were chosen in
the several counties to decide differences of a minor character. Malt
liquors were not to be sold at above two pennies sterling for a full
Winchester quart. The court records were to be kept in plain English
characters, and laws were to be taught in the schools.

 “All judicial power, after Penn’s arrival, was vested in certain
 courts, the judges of which were appointed by the Proprietary,
 presiding in the Provincial Council.[781]

 “The practice in these courts was simple but regular. In criminal
 cases an indictment was regularly drawn up, and a trial by jury
 followed. In civil cases the complications of common-law pleading
 were disregarded. The filing of a simple statement and answer put
 each cause at issue, and upon the trial the rules of evidence were
 not observed. Juries were not always empanelled, the parties being
 frequently content to leave the decision of their causes to the Court.
 In equity proceedings the practice was substantially that in vogue
 in the Court of Chancery, simplified to suit the requirements of the
 province.

 “Large judicial powers were also vested in the Provincial Council,—a
 state of things not infrequently observed in the early stages of a
 country’s growth, before the executive and judicial functions of
 government have been clearly defined. Prior to the establishment of
 the Provincial Court, all cases of great importance, whether civil or
 criminal, were tried before the Council. The principal trials thus
 conducted were those of Pickering for coining, and of Margaret Mattson
 for witchcraft. The latter terminated in a verdict of ‘guilty of
 having the common fame of being a witch, but not guilty in manner and
 form as she stands indicted.’ This is the only regular prosecution for
 witchcraft which is found in the annals of Pennsylvania. Prior to the
 establishment of the Provincial Court, the Council also entertained
 appeals in certain cases from the inferior courts. Subsequent to 1684,
 however, the extent of its judicial power was limited to admiralty
 cases, to the administration of decedents’ estates, which, although
 more properly the business of the Orphans’ Courts, was often neglected
 by those tribunals, and to the general superintendence and control of
 the various courts, so as to insure justice to the suitors.[782]

 “The legal knowledge among the early settlers was scanty. The
 religious tenets of the Society of Friends rendered them very
 averse to lawyers, and distrustful of them. There was, therefore,
 comparatively little demand for skilled advocates or trained judges.
 John Moore and David Lloyd were almost the only professional lawyers
 of the seventeenth century. Nicholas More, Abraham Man, John White,
 Charles Pickering, Samuel Hersent, Patrick Robinson, and Samuel
 Jennings, with some others, however, practised in the courts with
 some success; but by insensible degrees, as population increased and
 the commercial interests of the community grew more extensive and
 complicated, a trained Bar came into existence.”[783]

Markham not having agreed with Baltimore, 1681, regarding the
boundaries of Pennsylvania and Maryland, the two met again in September
of the following year at Upland, and Penn visited the latter at West
River, Dec. 13, 1682. In May, 1683, Penn again met Lord Baltimore at
New Castle, on the same business, but nothing was decided upon. This
dispute was a consequence of the lack of geographical information
at the time their grants were made. Baltimore’s patent was for the
unoccupied land between the Potomac and the fortieth degree of
latitude, bounded on the east by Delaware Bay and the Atlantic Ocean,
with the exception of that part of the Delaware peninsula which was
south of a direct line drawn from Watkin’s Point on the Chesapeake to
the sea. The southern boundary of Penn’s province was the fortieth
degree and a circle of twelve miles around New Castle. When both
patents were issued, it was supposed that the fortieth degree would
fall near the head of Delaware Bay; but it was afterward found to be so
far to the northward as to cross the Delaware River at the mouth of the
Schuylkill. If the letter of the Maryland charter was to interpret its
meaning, Penn would be deprived of considerable river frontage, which
it was clearly the intention of the Lords of Trade to grant him; and
he insisted that the boundary-line should be where it was _supposed_
the fortieth degree would be found. This was resisted by Baltimore, who
claimed ownership also to that part of the peninsula on the Delaware
which Penn had received from the Duke of York. To enforce his claims,
Baltimore sent to the Lords of Plantation a statement of what had taken
place between Penn and himself. He also ran a line in his own interest
between the provinces, and offered to persons who would take up land
in the Delaware counties under his authority more advantageous terms
than Penn gave. In 1684 Baltimore sent Colonel Talbot into the disputed
territory to demand it in his name, and then sailed for England to look
after his interests in that quarter.

Penn, when he learned all that had been done, wrote to the Lords of
Trade, giving his version of the transaction; but before long he found
the business would require his presence in England. Having empowered
his Council to act in his absence, he sailed August, 1684.

The Lords of Trade rendered a decision Nov. 7, 1685, which secured to
Penn the portion claimed by him of the Delaware peninsula, but which
left undefined the southern boundary of Pennsylvania. The Maryland
boundary was finally settled in 1760, upon an agreement which had
been entered into in 1732 between the heirs of Lord Baltimore and
those of Penn.[784] By this a line was to be drawn westward from Cape
Henlopen[785] to a point half way between the bays of Delaware and
Chesapeake. From thence it was to run northward so as to touch the most
western portion of a circle of twelve miles radius around New Castle,
and continue in a due northerly course until it should reach the same
latitude as fifteen English statute miles directly south of the most
southern part of Philadelphia. From the point thus gained the line was
to extend due west. These lines were surveyed by Charles Mason and
Jeremiah Dixon. They commenced their work in 1763 and suspended it in
1767, when they had reached a point two hundred and forty-four miles
from the Delaware River.

[Illustration]

The Indians who inhabited Pennsylvania were of the tribe of the Lenni
Lenape. Some of them retained the noble characteristics of their
race, but the majority of them, through their intercourse with the
Dutch, the Swedes, and the English, had become thoroughly intemperate.
Penn desired that his dealings with them should be so just as to
preserve the confidence which Fox and Coale had inspired. Besides the
letter written by his commissioners, he had sent to them messages
of friendship through Holme and others. In all the agreements he
had entered into with purchasers, the interests of the Indians had
been protected; and he was far in advance of his time in hoping to
establish relations with them by which all differences between the
white men and the red should be settled by a tribunal wherein both
should be represented. The possibility of their civilization under such
circumstances was not absent from his mind, and in his first contract
with purchasers he stipulated that the Indians should have “the same
liberties to improve their grounds and provide for the sustenance of
their families as the planters.” Following the just precedent which had
been laid down by settlers in many parts of the country, and the advice
of the Bishop of London, he would allow no land to be occupied until
the Indian title had been extinguished. To obtain the land which was
required by the emigrants, a meeting with the principal Indian chiefs
was held at Shackamaxon June 23, 1683. The territory then purchased was
considerable; but what was of equal importance to the welfare of the
infant colony was the friendship then established with the aborigines.
Poetry, Art, and Oratory have pictured this scene with the elevating
thoughts which belong to each; but no more graphic representation of it
has been made than that which is suggested by the simple language of
Penn used in describing it. “When the purchase was agreed,” he writes,
“great promises passed between us of kindness and good neighborhood,
and that the Indians and English must live in love as long as the sun
gave light. Which done, another made a speech to the Indians in the
name of all the Sachamakers, or kings: first, to tell them what was
done; next, to charge and command them to love the Christians, and
particularly live in peace with me, and the people under my government;
that many governors had been in the river, but that no governor had
come himself to live and stay here before; and having now such an
one that had treated them well, they should never do him or his any
wrong,—at every sentence of which they shouted and said _amen_ in
their way.”[786]

 “On the 6th of October, 1683, there arrived in Philadelphia, from
 Crefeld and its neighborhood, a little colony of Germans. They were
 thirteen men with their families, in all thirty-three persons, and
 they constituted the advance-guard of that immense emigration which,
 confined at first to Pennsylvania, has since been spread over the
 whole country. They were Mennonites, some of whom soon after, if not
 before, their arrival, became identified with the Quakers. Most of
 them were linen-weavers.

 Among the first to purchase lands upon the organization of the
 province were several Crefeld merchants, headed by Jacob Telner,
 who secured fifteen thousand acres. The purchasers also included
 a number of distinguished persons in Holland and Germany, whose
 purchase amounted to twenty-five thousand acres, which became vested
 in the Frankfort Land Company, founded in 1686. The eleven members
 of this latter Company were chiefly Pietists and people of learning
 and influence, among whom was the celebrated Johanna Eleanora von
 Merlau. Their original purpose was to come to Pennsylvania themselves;
 but this plan was abandoned by all except Francis Daniel Pastorius,
 a young lawyer, son of a judge at Windsheim, skilled in the Greek,
 Latin, German, French, Dutch, English, and Italian languages, and
 carefully trained in all the learning of the day. On the 24th of
 October, 1683, Pastorius, as the agent for the Crefeld and Frankfort
 purchasers, began the location of Germantown. Other settlers soon
 followed, and among them, in 1685, were several families from the
 village of Krisheim, near Worms, where more than twenty years before
 the Quakers had made some converts among the Mennonites, and had
 established a meeting. In 1688 Gerhard Hendricks, Dirck op den Graeff,
 Francis Daniel Pastorius, and Abraham op den Graeff sent to the
 Friends’ Meeting a written protest against the buying and selling
 of slaves. It was the first public effort made in this direction in
 America, and is the subject of Whittier’s poem, _The Pennsylvania
 Pilgrim_.”[787]

The progress made in the settlement of the Province between 1681 and
1689 was remarkable, and was largely owing to Penn’s energy. On the
29th of December, 1682, he wrote from Chester: “I am very well, ...
yet busy enough, having much to do to please all.... I am casting the
country into townships.” On the 5th of the next month he wrote: “I
am day and night spending my life, my time, my money, and am not a
sixpence enriched by this greatness.... Had I sought greatness, I had
stayed at home.” The English were the most numerous among the settlers;
but in 1685, when the population numbered seven thousand two hundred,
in which French, Dutch, Germans, Swedes, Finns, and Scotch-Irish were
represented, Penn did not estimate his countrymen at above one half of
the whole.

Twenty-three ships bearing emigrants arrived during the fall of 1682
and the winter following, and trading-vessels soon began to frequent
the Delaware. The counties of Philadelphia, Chester, and Bucks were
organized in the latter part of 1682, but were not surveyed until
1685. Philadelphia, named before she was born, and first laid out in
August or September, 1682,[788] contained in the following July eighty
houses, such as they were, and by the end of the year this number had
increased to one hundred and fifty. The founders of the city lived in
caves dug out of the high embankment by the river, and the houses which
succeeded these primitive habitations were probably of the very simple
character described in Penn’s advice to settlers.[789] In July, 1683,
a weekly post was established. Letters were carried from Philadelphia
to the Falls of Delaware for 3_d._, to Chester 2_d._, to New Castle
4_d._, to Maryland 6_d._ Notices of its departure were posted on the
Meeting-House doors and in other public places.

On the 26th of December of the same year the Council arranged with
Enoch Flower, who had had twenty years’ experience as a teacher in
England, to open a school. Four shillings per quarter was the charge
for those who were taught to read English; six shillings, when reading
and writing were studied; and eight shillings, when the casting of
accounts was added. For boarding scholars and “scooling,” he was to
receive “Tenn” pounds per annum.

[Illustration: THE SLATE-ROOF HOUSE.

[This was the house in Philadelphia in which Penn lived after his
return to the colony in 1699. It stood on the southeast corner of
Second Street and Norris’s Alley, and was demolished in 1868. A view
of it taken just before its demolition is given in Gay’s _Popular
History of the United States_, iii. 171, with an earlier view, ii.
496. There is an account of it by Mr. Townsend Ward, with a view, in
the _Pennsylvania Magazine of History_, iv. 53; but the most extended
account is in _Lippincott’s Magazine_, vol. i. pp. 29, 191, 298, by
General John M. Read, Jr. For other views, see Egle’s _Pennsylvania_,
p. 1016, and Day’s _Historical Collections of Pennsylvania_, p. 556.
The above cut is a fac-simile of one given by Watson in his _Annals
of Philadelphia_, 1845 edition, p. 158; 1857 edition, p. 158. It is
lithographed in his 1830 edition, p. 151. Drawings of the interior are
in the possession of the Hist. Soc. of Pennsylvania.—ED.]]

The demand in trade at first was for articles of the greatest utility,
like mill and “grindle” stones, iron kettles, and hardware. One of
the women ordered shoes, and stipulated that they should be stout and
large. James Claypoole sent his silver-hafted knives to his brother
in Barbadoes, and consigned to him some beaver hats for which he
could find at home no sale. But in less than a year a trade sprang
up with some of the West India Islands, and rum, sugar, and <DW64>s
were ordered, in exchange for pipe-staves and horses. The silver
from a Spanish wreck and peltries furnished the means of an exchange
with Europe, and soon word was sent out to send “linnen, serges,
crape, and Bengall, and other slight stuffs; but send no more shoes,
gloves, stockings, nor hats.” Before Penn sailed for England in 1684,
Philadelphia contained three hundred and fifty-seven houses, many of
them three stories high, with cellars and balconies. Samuel Carpenter,
one of the most enterprising of the early merchants, had a quay at
which a ship of five hundred tons could lie. Trades of all kinds
flourished; vessels had been built; brick houses soon began to be seen;
and shop windows enlivened the streets.

In 1685 William Bradford established his printing-press in
Philadelphia, the first in the middle colonies of North America.
Its earliest issue was an almanac entitled the _Kalendarium
Pennsilvaniense_, printed in 1685 for the succeeding year.

By 1690 brick and stone houses were the kind usually erected, while
only the poorer classes built of wood. Manufactures also began to
flourish. That year William Ryttenhouse, Samuel Carpenter, William
Bradford, and others built a paper mill on the Schuylkill. The woollen
manufactures offered such encouragement that there was “a public
flock of sheep in the town, and a sheepheard or two to attend them.”
The rural districts were also prosperous. The counties were divided
into townships of about five thousand acres, in the centre of which
villages were laid out. In 1684 there were fifty such settlements in
the colony. At first the cattle were turned loose, and the ear-marks
of their respective owners were registered at the county courts. Roads
were surveyed and bridges built. The first mill was started in 1683
at Chester by Richard Townsend and others. The reports regarding the
crops show them to have been enormous for the labor bestowed, and the
development of the whole country seems to have been correspondent to
the increased wealth of Philadelphia, where, in 1685, the poorest lots
were worth four times what they cost, and the best forty-fold. At the
beginning of the year 1684 Penn wrote: “I have led the greatest colony
into America that ever any man did upon a private credit, and the most
prosperous beginnings that ever were in it are to be found among us.”

The early ecclesiastical annals of Pennsylvania are meagre. The wave
of religious excitement which swept over England during the days of
the Commonwealth spent itself on the banks of the Delaware. Men and
women with intellects too weak to grasp the questions which moved
them, or possibly instigated by cunning, wandered through the country
prophesying or disputing. One declared “that she was Mary the mother of
the Lord;” another, “that she was Mary Magdalen, and others that they
were Martha, John, etc.,—scandalizers,” wrote a traveller in 1679, “as
we heard them in a tavern, who not only called themselves, but claimed
to be, really such.”

The Swedish congregations, neglected by the churches in Sweden, were in
1682 falling into decay. The congregations at Tranhook, near Upland,
and at Tinnicum, were under the charge of Lars Lock, that at Wicaco
under Jacob Fabritius. The former was a <DW36>, the latter blind.
Their salaries were scantily paid, and they were miserably poor. The
Dutch had but one church, which was at New Castle.

The first meeting of Quakers for religious worship in Pennsylvania
was no doubt held at the house of Robert Wade, near Upland. William
Edmundson, the Quaker preacher, speaks of such meetings in 1675. It
was then that Wade came to America with Fenwick. In Bucks County
meetings are said to have been held as early as 1680 at the houses of
Quakers who had settled there. The first meeting near Philadelphia
was at Shackamaxon, at the house of Thomas Fairman, in 1682; but it
was soon removed to Philadelphia, where one was established in 1683.
Early in that year no less than nine established meetings existed in
Pennsylvania.

As early as 1684 or 1685 the Baptists established a church at Cold
Spring, in Bucks County, about three miles above Bristol. The pastor
was the Rev. Thomas Dungan. In 1687 they established a second
congregation at Pennepeck, in Philadelphia County, of which the Rev.
Elias Keach was the first minister. The Episcopalians and Presbyterians
did not own places of worship until a later date.

[Illustration]

The early political annals of the colony show a condition of
affairs perfectly consistent with the circumstances under which the
constitution was formed. While Penn remained in the country his
presence prevented any excess such as might be expected from men
inexperienced in self-government. In 1684, however, Penn was obliged to
return to England, and he empowered the Provincial Council to act in
his stead. Thomas Lloyd was the president of that body, and was also
commissioned Keeper of the Seal. He was a man of prudence, and seems
to have justified the confidence placed in him by Penn. Arrogance on
the part of some of the other officers of the government soon awakened
feelings of jealousy among the people, who were prompt to resent any
violation of their rights. Nicholas More, the Chief-Justice, was
impeached by the Assembly for gross partiality and overbearing conduct.
He was styled by the Speaker an “aspiring and corrupt minister of
state,” and the Council was requested to remove him from office. He was
expelled from the Assembly, of which he was a member, for having thrice
entered his protest against a single bill. Patrick Robinson, the clerk
of the Court, refused to submit to the House the records of the Court
in the case of More, and was restrained for his “divers insolences and
affronts.” When brought before the Assembly, he stretched himself at
full length on the ground, and refused to answer questions put to him,
telling the House that it “acted arbitrarily” and without authority.
The Council was also requested to remove him; but neither in his case
nor in that of More were the prayers granted. “I am sorry at heart
for your animosities,” wrote Penn, when he heard of these troubles;
“cannot more friendly and private courses be taken to set matters to
rights in an infant province whose steps are numbered and watched? For
the love of God, me, and the poor country, be not so _governmentish_,
so noisy and open in your dissatisfactions.” It was the love of
government, the seeds of which Penn had himself planted, which caused
these troubles, and he it was who was to suffer most in that period of
political growth. Hundreds, he said, had been prevented from emigrating
by these quarrels, and that they had been to him a loss of £10,000.
His quit-rents, which in 1686 should have amounted to £500 per annum,
were unpaid. They were looked upon as oppressive taxes, for which the
Proprietary had no need; but the year previous he wrote: “God is my
witness.... I am above six thousand pounds out of pocket more than ever
I saw by the province.”

The want of energy shown by the Council in managing his affairs caused
Penn to lessen the number in which the executive authority rested. In
1686 he commissioned five of the Council, three of whom were to be a
quorum, to attend to his proprietary affairs. By the slothful manner
in which the Council had conducted the public business, the charter,
he argued, had again fallen into his hands, and he threatened to
dissolve the Frame of Government “if further occasion be given.” Under
these commissioners but little improvement was made, and in 1688 Penn
appointed Captain John Blackwell his lieutenant-governor.

       *       *       *       *       *

CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.


THE EARLIEST TRACTS AND BOOKS.—During the first thirty years after
the granting of Penn’s charter (1681), there were various publications
of small and moderate extent, which are the chief source of our
information.

[Illustration: REDUCED FAC-SIMILE OF TITLE TO “SOME ACCOUNT.”]

The first of these is Penn’s own _Some Account_,[790] issued in 1681,
soon after he received his grant. “It is introduced by a preface of
some length, being an argument in favor of colonies,” which is followed
by a description of the country, gathered from such sources as he
considered reliable, and by the conditions on which he proposed to
settle it. Information for those desiring to emigrate, and extracts
from the royal charter, are also given.

This tract appeared at once in Dutch[791] and German[792] editions. The
latter edition contains also letters of Penn to Friends in Holland and
Germany prior to his receiving his grant, which fact tends to show that
the relations he had established by his travels there attracted the
attention of persons in Germany to his efforts in America.

In the same year (1681) appeared César de Rochefort’s account,[793]
which is usually found joined to his _Description des Antilles_. Next
year (1682) Penn published, under the title of _A Brief Account_,[794]
a short description of his province, giving additional information. Of
the same date is William Loddington’s _Plantation Work_,[795]—a tract,
however, by some attributed to George Fox. It was written in favor of
Quaker emigration at a time when many Quakers feared that such action
might be prompted by a desire to escape persecution. In it we have the
earliest descriptions preserved of Pennsylvania after it was given to
Penn. These are presented in letters of Markham, written soon after
his arrival, the date of which is also indicated. The extracts from
Markham’s letters are printed in _Pennsylvania Magazine of History_,
vi. 175.

[Illustration: REDUCED FAC-SIMILE OF TITLE OF “THE FRAME OF
GOVERNMENT.”]

The constitution which Penn proposed for his colony, together
with certain laws which were accepted by purchasers in England as
citizens of Pennsylvania, were issued the same year as _The Frame of
Government_.[796] Both constitution and laws underwent considerable
alteration before going into effect; although this fact has been
frequently overlooked. A little brochure, of probably a like date,
_Information and Direction_,[797] covers a description of the houses
which it was supposed would be the most convenient for settlers to
build.

The Free Society of Traders purchased of Penn twenty thousand acres.
The Society was formed for the purpose of developing this tract, which
was to be known as the Manor of Frank. Nicholas More was president,
and James Claypoole treasurer. The letter-book of the latter is in the
Historical Society of Pennsylvania. The charter of the Society will be
found in Hazard’s _Annals_ (p. 541), with other information regarding
the Society; and in the same volume (p. 552) a portion of a tract[798]
which is printed in full with a reduced fac-simile of titlepage in
_Pennsylvania Magazine of History_, v. 37.

_A Vindication of William Penn_, by Philip Ford, in two folio pages,
was published in London in 1683, to contradict stories which were
circulated after Penn had sailed, to the effect that he had died upon
reaching America, and had closed his career professing belief in the
Church of Rome. It contains abstracts of the first letters written by
Penn from America.[799]

[Illustration: RECEIPT AND SEAL OF THE FREE SOCIETY OF TRADERS.]

The most important of all the series is a _Letter from William
Penn_,[800] printed in 1683. It was written after Penn had been in
America over nine months (dated August 16), and may be considered as
a report from personal observation of what he found his colony to
be. It passed through at least two editions in London; one of which
contains a list of the property-holders in Philadelphia, with numbers
affixed to their names indicating the lots they held, as is shown on
a plan of that city which accompanies the publication, and of which a
heliotype is herewith given. The letter appeared the next year (1684)
in a Dutch translation[801] (two editions). Of the same date is a
new description of the province, of which we have a German[802] and
a French[803] text. The pamphlet contains an extended extract from
Penn’s letter to the Free Society of Traders, the letter of Thomas
Paschall from Philadelphia, dated Feb. 10, 1683 (N. S.), and other
interesting papers, many of which were published in _A Brief Account_.
All information in it that is not readily accessible has been lately
translated by Mr. Samuel W. Pennypacker from the French edition, and
is printed with fac-simile of title in the _Pennsylvania Magazine of
History_, vi. 311.

A small tract, giving letters from a Dutch and Swiss sojourner in
and near Philadelphia, was printed at Rotterdam, in 1684, as _Twee
Missiven_.[804] The only copy of this tract which we know of is in the
Library of Congress, and will be shortly published by the Historical
Society of Pennsylvania. The copy at Washington, we are told, contains
but one letter. Another, or possibly the same, copy is catalogued in
Trömel’s _Bibliotheca Americana_, Leipzig (1861), no. 390.

The _Planter’s Speech_[805] (1684) and Thomas Budd’s _Good Order
established in Pennsylvania, etc._ (1685),[806] which have been
referred to in another chapter, are of like importance to Pennsylvania
history. What is called “William Bradford’s Printed Letter” (1685) is
quoted in the first edition of Oldmixon’s _British Empire in America_,
p. 158. We have, however, never met with the original publication.

Another Dutch description of the country was printed the same year
(1685) at Rotterdam, _Missive van Cornelis Bom_,[807] and has become
very rare.

In 1685 Penn also printed _A Further Account_ of his grant, signing
his name to the tract, which appeared in quarto in separate editions
of twenty and sixteen pages, followed the same year by a Dutch
translation.[808] After Penn’s letter to the Free Society (1683) this
is the most important of these early tracts.

In 1686 the series only shows a brief Dutch tract;[809] but in 1687
we derive from _A Letter from Dr. More_,[810] _etc_., partly the work
of Nicholas More, president of the Free Society of Traders, an idea
of the growth of the province at that date. Of a similar character is
a tract printed four years later (1691), _Some Letters_, etc.[811] In
the following year (1692) we have a poetical description[812] of the
province, which contains many interesting facts. Little is known of the
author, Richard Frame. It is said that he was a teacher in the Friends’
School of Philadelphia. He was certainly a resident of Pennsylvania,
and the first of her citizens to give his thoughts to the public in the
form of verse. The first four lines will suffice to show its merits as
a poem:—

  “To all our Friends that do desire to know
  What Country ‘t is we live in—this will show.
  Attend to hear the Story I shall tell:
  No doubt but you will like this country well.”

The pamphlet was a colonial production. It appeared on paper which was
possibly made here, and was printed by William Bradford.

Soon after the appearance of Frame’s verses, the poetic fever seized
upon John Holme, and he wrote “A true Relation of the Flourishing State
of Pennsylvania.” The poetic taste of the community was either satiated
by the effort of Frame, or Holme shrank from the honors of authorship,
for his poem did not see the light until published by the Historical
Society of Pennsylvania in the thirteenth number of its _Bulletin_ in
1847.

In 1695 one of the party who emigrated with Kelpius gave the public an
account of his voyage and arrival,[813] under the pseudonym of “N. N.”
He dated his letter “from Germantown, in the Antipodes, Aug. 7, 1694.”

[Illustration: GABRIEL THOMAS’S MAP, 1698.]

In addition to Mr. Whitehead’s remarks regarding Gabriel Thomas’s
_Account of Pennsylvania_ (see chap. xi.), we will add that the portion
relating to Pennsylvania covers fifty-five pages, besides eight pages
which are devoted to the preface and title. A person by the name of
the author, probably the same, was in America in 1702, and was then
solicitous of a commission as collector of quit-rents, etc., within
the county of Newcastle. In 1698 he inveighed against George Keith and
his followers, and in 1702 sided with Colonel Quarry in his disputes
with Penn. Most of the statements in his book can be relied on, but
some passages are marked by exaggeration and others by satire. As some
of the buildings in Philadelphia mentioned by Thomas were not erected
until after he wrote, Mr. Westcott, in his _History of Philadelphia_,
suggests that possibly there was more than one edition of the work
bearing the same date.[814]

In 1700 was printed a _Beschreibung der Provintz Pennsylvaniæ_,[815]
the work of Francis Daniel Pastorius, agent of the Frankfort Land
Company, and the most active and intelligent of the first German
settlers, which is of great interest, as it contains the views of
one thoroughly identified with the German movement to America. The
descriptions of the country and of the form of government, the advice
to emigrants, etc., which it contains, are gathered from letters
written to his father. A translation of portions of the work by Lewis
H. Weiss is given in _Memoir of Historical Society of Pennsylvania_,
vol. iv. part ii. p. 83. The original edition is generally found
bound up with a German edition of Thomas’s _Pennsylvania_, printed in
1702, and the tract by Falkner hereafter mentioned. While the works
bear different dates, there appears to have been some connection in
the series. The information in Thomas, originally printed in 1698,
supplements to a great extent what will be found in Pastorius, printed
in 1700. The titlepage of the German edition of Thomas (1702) speaks
of it, therefore, as a continuation of Pastorius, and the same shows
Falkner’s tract to have appeared as a supplement to the German edition
of Thomas.

An agent of the Frankfort Company, who was in Pennsylvania in 1694
and 1700, issued at Frankfort in 1702 a little book, _Curieuse
Nachricht_,[816] which gives some information in the form of questions
and answers, one hundred and three in number. The subjects touched upon
are the country in general, its soil, climate, etc; the inhabitants,
their manners, customs, and religions; the Indians; how to go to
America, etc.

The last of the works to be considered as original authority is J.
Oldmixon’s _British Empire in America_, as it is known that the author
got some of his information from Penn himself.[817] It was first issued
at London in 1708, and again in 1741. The editions differ materially in
the sections on Pennsylvania, so that both need to be consulted.


THE RISE AND PROGRESS OF THE QUAKERS.—As we have traced the history
of Penn’s colony from the origin of the religious society which had
such an influence on the formation of his character, and to which
Pennsylvania owes its existence quite as much as to Penn himself, a
few references must be made to the chief sources of information from
which a history of the Quakers can be gathered. The most prominent
of these is the _Journal of George Fox_,[818] the founder of the
Quaker Church. It relates, in passages of alternate vividness and
ambiguity, the experiences of his life. So different, however,
are the opinions entertained, that while Macaulay says that “his
gibberish was translated into English, meanings which he would have
been unable to comprehend were put on his phrases, and his system
so much improved that he would not have known it again,” Sir James
Mackintosh, on the contrary, calls the _Journal_ “one of the most
extraordinary and instructive narratives in the world, which no reader
of competent judgment can peruse without revering the virtues of the
writer, pardoning his self-delusions, and ceasing to smile at his
peculiarities.”

W. Edmundson made three voyages to America before 1700, the first with
Fox, in 1671; his _Journal_[819] has been often printed.

Penn’s own statements about the sect’s origin were given in his _Brief
Account of the Rise and Progress of the People called Quakers_,
published at London in 1695, and in his _Primitive Christianity
Revived_, 1696 and 1699.

Robert Barclay is considered the most able exponent of the Quaker
belief among early writers of that sect, and his _Apology_[820] is his
chief work. He was the son of “Barclay of Ury,” of whom Whittier has
sung, and was governor of East Jersey (see chap. xi.).

_The Sufferings of the People called Quakers_,[821] by Joseph Besse,
is, as its title indicates, an account of their persecutions in various
parts of the world. It is written from a Quaker standpoint, but its
accuracy can seldom be questioned. It has passed through two editions.

Sewel’s _History of the Quakers_[822] is a work which possesses great
value, not only on account of its freedom from error, but because
it was written at an early period in the history of the Society of
Friends. Its author was a native of Amsterdam, and was born about 1650.
His history was written to correct the misrepresentations in _Historia
Quakeriana_,[823] by Gerard Croese, which had been largely circulated.
Sewel’s work was published in Dutch at Amsterdam in 1717, and a
translation by the author was issued in London, 1722. Gough’s _History
of the Quakers_ is a compilation of nearly all that was accessible at
the time of its publication. The _Portraiture of Quakerism_,[824] by
Clarkson, treats of the discipline and customs of the Society. The
_History of Friends in the Seventeenth Century_, by Dr. Charles Evans,
contains nearly everything that most readers will require. It is an
excellent compilation, and presents the subject in a compact, useful
form. The same can be said of a _History of the Religious Society of
Friends from its rise to the year 1828_,[825] by Samuel M. Janney. The
author was a follower of Elias Hicks, and his work contains a history
of the separation of the meetings caused by the doctrines preached by
the latter. In Barclay’s _Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the
Commonwealth_[826] the attempt has been made to trace the origin of
the Society of Friends to an earlier period than the preaching of Fox.
The author of the work was Robert Barclay, of the same family as “the
Apologist.” The work, which is an able one, was reviewed by Dr. Charles
Evans.[827] A terse criticism was lately made on the book by a Friend,
who in conversation remarked, “Robert Barclay seemed to know more of
what George Fox believed than George himself.”

The chief manuscript depository of the Friends is in Devonshire
House, Friends’ Meeting-House, 12 Bishopsgate Street Without, London,
E.C., England, where what is known as the Swarthmore manuscripts are
preserved. The collection was made under the direction of George Fox,
and many of the papers are indorsed in his handwriting. It consists “of
letters addressed to Swarthmore Hall from the Preachers in connection
with Fox, giving an account of their movements and success, to Margaret
Fell, and through her to Fox. Up to 1661 Swarthmore Hall was secure
from violation, and these letters range over the period from 1651 to
1661.”

John Whiting’s _Catalogue of Friends’ Books_, published in 1708, is the
earliest gathering of titles concerning the Quakers. The work, however,
has been fully done in our own day by Joseph Smith, who published, in
1867, at London, _A Descriptive Catalogue of Friends’ Books_, in two
volumes, with critical remarks and occasional biographical notices; and
in 1873, his _Bibliotheca Anti-Quakeriana; or, a Catalogue of Books
adverse to the Society of Friends; with Biographical Notices of the
Authors: with Answers_.[828]

In following the history of the Quakers, particularly in America,
the recorder of their career in Pennsylvania must leave unnamed some
of the most important books, because their contents concern chiefly
or solely the story of their persecutions and progress in the other
colonies, particularly New England.[829] Bowden’s _History of Friends
in America_, as it is the most important of the late works, must also
be mentioned. Its author enjoyed great advantages in preparing it,
having the manuscripts deposited in Devonshire House at his command.
In it many original documents of the greatest interest are printed for
the first time, among which we may mention a letter of Mary Fisher
to George Fox, from Barbadoes, dated Jan. 30, 1655, regarding Quaker
preachers coming to America, and of Josiah Coale to the same person,
in 1660, in relation to the purchase of a tract of land, now a portion
of Pennsylvania. The work is spirited and readable, and while it is
written in entire sympathy with the Quakers, its statements are so
carefully weighed that but little exception can be taken to them, and
then only in cases where the fundamental views of the author and of his
readers are at variance.

A defence of the early Friends in America will be found in _Colonial
History of the Eastern and some of the Southern States_, by Job R.
Tyson; see _Memoirs of Historical Society of Pennsylvania_, vol.
iv. part ii. p. 5. For the colonies other than New England, a few
references will suffice. For New York, O’Callaghan’s _History of New
Netherland_ and Brodhead’s _New York_ can be consulted. For those
at Perth Amboy, 1686-1688, see _Historical Magazine_, xvii. 234.
The _Annals of Hempstead_, by Henry Onderdonk, Jr., treats of the
Quakers on Long Island and in New York from 1657 to 1826; cf. also the
_American Historical Record_, i. 49; ii. 53, 73. _The Early Friends (or
Quakers) in Maryland_, by J. Saurin Norris, and _Wenlock Christison and
the Early Friends in Talbot County, Maryland_, by Samuel A. Harrison,
are the titles of instructive addresses delivered before the Maryland
Historical Society, and included in its Fund publications; compare
also E. D. Neill’s “Francis Howgill and the Early Quakers,” in his
_English Colonization in North America_, chap. xvii., and his _Terra
Mariæ_, chap. iv. Henning’s _Statutes at Large_ give the laws passed
in Virginia to punish the Quakers. The _Journals_ and _Travels_ of
Burnyeat, Edmundson, and Fox should also be consulted. A far from
flattering picture of the Quakers living on the Delaware shortly before
the settlement of Pennsylvania, will be found in the _Journal_ of
Dankers and Sluyter, two followers of John Labadie, who travelled in
America in 1679-1680. Their account of the condition of the country on
the Delaware at that time is very interesting.[830] _A Retrospect of
Early Quakerism: being Extracts from the Records of the Philadelphia
Yearly Meeting, etc._, by Ezra Michener, Philadelphia, 1860, is also a
useful work, as it gives the dates when meetings were established.


WILLIAM PENN.—The collected works of William Penn have passed through
four editions;[831] these contain but few of his letters in relation
to Pennsylvania.[832] The biographical sketch which accompanies the
edition of 1726 is attributed to Joseph Besse. It appeared but eight
years after Penn’s death, and has been the groundwork of nearly
everything which has since been written concerning him. The _Memoirs of
the Private and Public Life of William Penn_, by Thomas Clarkson,[833]
was for many years the standard Life. Later evidence has shown that in
some particulars the author erred; but it is generally accurate. It
however treats more of William Penn the Quaker than of William Penn the
founder of Pennsylvania. The same criticism is applicable to _The Life
of William Penn_ by Samuel M. Janney.[834] It also is a trustworthy
book. All that was in print at the time it was written was used in
its preparation, and it is to-day, historically, the best work on
the subject. It contains more of his letters regarding the settlement
of Pennsylvania than any other work we know of, and they are given in
full. The “Life of William Penn,” by George E. Ellis, D.D., in Sparks’s
_American Biography_, second series, vol. xii., is an important and
spirited production, the result of careful thought and study.

_William Penn: an Historical Biography_,[835] by William Hepworth
Dixon, is probably the most popular account that has appeared. Its
style is agreeable, and it is full of interesting facts picturesquely
grouped. In some cases, however, the authorities quoted do not
support the inferences which have been drawn from them, and the
historical value of the book has been sacrificed in order to add to its
attractiveness. Those chapters which speak of the interest taken by
Algernon Sidney in the formation of the constitution of Pennsylvania
are clearly erroneous. These views are based on the part which Penn
took in Sidney’s return to Parliament, and in a letter of Penn to
Sidney, Oct. 13, 1681. Without this last, the argument falls. No
reference is given to where the letter will be found. It was first
printed as addressed to Algernon Sidney, in vol. iii. part i. p. 285
of the _Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania_. In vol.
iv. ibid. (part i. pp. 167-212) other letters of Penn are printed,
one of which is addressed to Henry Sidney, the brother of Algernon.
To this a note is appended, stating that the letter in the former
volume was undoubtedly written to the same person. As Mr. Dixon used
extracts from these letters, it was, to say the least, unfortunate
that he should have overlooked the importance of the note. _La Vie de
Guillaume Penn_,[836] par J. Marsillac, is a meritorious compilation,
but its chief interest centres around its author, who styles himself
“Député extraordinaire des Amis de France à l’Assemblée Nationale,
etc.” He was of noble birth, and an officer in the French army. He
joined the Friends in 1778. Being convinced of the unlawfulness of
war by the arguments in Barclay’s _Apology_, he determined “to change
his condition of a destroyer to that of a preserver of mankind,” and
studied medicine. During the French Revolution he took refuge in
America, and resided in Philadelphia. He afterward returned to France,
“and threw off at the same time the garb and profession of a Friend.
He devoted himself in Paris to the practice of his profession, and
obtained under Napoleon a situation in one of the French hospitals.”

Chapters in Janney’s _Life of Penn_ and in Dixon’s _Biography_ are
devoted to a refutation of the charges of worldliness and insincerity
brought against Penn by Macaulay in his _History of England_. We
append below the titles of other publications of the same character,
as well as of additional works which can be consulted with profit by
students of his life.[837] The _Penn Papers_, or manuscripts in the
possession of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, relate chiefly
to the history of the province while under the governorship of Penn’s
descendants. There are, however, in the collection some papers of
personal interest in relation to Penn, and some of his controversial
writings and documents connected with the history of the province at
the time of its settlement. The history of this collection presents
another instance of the perils to which manuscripts are exposed. After
having been preserved for a number of years by one branch of the Penn
family with comparative care, subject only to the depredations of time,
they were sold to a papermaker, through whose discrimination they
were preserved. They were catalogued and offered for sale by Edward
G. Allen and James Coleman, of London, in 1870.[838] The collections
were purchased by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, but not until
some papers had been obtained by persons more favorably situated. The
general interest of the whole, however, was but little lessened by this
misfortune. From 1700 until the Revolution the series is remarkably
complete, and there are but few incidents in the colonial history of
Pennsylvania that cannot be elucidated by its examination. A portion
of the papers (about twenty thousand documents) have been bound and
arranged, and fill nearly seventy-five folio volumes.[839]


GENERAL HISTORIES OF PENNSYLVANIA.—The first historian of Pennsylvania
was Samuel Smith, author of the well-known _History of New Jersey_; but
his work up to the present time has not appeared in a complete form. It
is a history of the Society of Friends, or Quakers, in New Jersey and
Pennsylvania. Smith’s manuscripts are in the Library of the New Jersey
Historical Society. What appears to be a duplicate of the Pennsylvania
portion is in that of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Hazard
printed the latter in his _Register of Pennsylvania_, vols. vi. and
vii.[840]

Robert Proud’s _History of Pennsylvania_[841] has long enjoyed a high
reputation, but no more so than its merits entitle it to. For years it
was the only history of the State. In its preparation the manuscript
of Smith’s _History_ was used, and in it extracts are given from
pamphlets that have since been printed in full. Nevertheless, there is
much in it that cannot be found elsewhere. Passages are quoted from
letters of Penn which have never been printed entire, and the notes
regarding the early settlers are of especial value. The care taken in
the preparation of the book is so evident that its statements can as a
rule be accepted. The author, a native of England, was a teacher of the
classics in the Friends’ School, Philadelphia.[842]

Professor Ebeling’s volume on Pennsylvania in his _Erdbeschreibung
und Geschichte von America_, Hamburg, 1793-1799, in five volumes, is
another valuable contribution. Portions of it, translated by Duponceau,
will be found in Hazard’s _Register of Pennsylvania_, i. 340, 353, 369,
385, 401.

Thomas F. Gordon’s _History of Pennsylvania_[843] gives the history of
the colony down to the Declaration of Independence. That part which
treats of the eighteenth century does so more fully than any other
work. It has never enjoyed much popularity. Its style is labored. The
author was one who thought that “the names of the first settlers are
interesting to us only because they were first settlers,” and that
nothing could attract the public in men “whose chief, and perhaps
sole, merit consisted in the due fulfilment of the duties of private
life.” There is a tone of antagonism to Penn in some parts of the book
which lacks the spirit of impartiality. It was reviewed by Job R.
Tyson. See “Examination of the Various Charges brought by Historians
against William Penn,” etc.,—_Memoirs of the Historical Society of
Pennsylvania_, vol. ii. part ii. p. 127.

The second volume of Bowden’s _History of Friends in America_[844] is
the best Quaker history of Pennsylvania that has appeared.

Sherman Day’s _Historical Collections_ (1843) and _An Illustrated
History of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania_,[845] by William H. Egle,
M.D., both give the history of the State down to the time of their
respective publications. In them the histories of the counties are
treated in separate chapters, general histories of the State being
given by way of introductions,—that by Dr. Egle being very full.

_The Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of
Pennsylvania, from its Origin_, which is attributed to Franklin,
belongs properly to a later period of the history of the province than
we are now considering, and, as it was written to serve a political
purpose, has but slight historical claims. In it, however, the attempt
is made to trace some of the alleged abuses of power back to the
foundation of the colony. It was published in London in 1759, and is
included by both Duane and Sparks in their editions of Franklin’s
writings.

Bancroft’s chapters on the Quakers in the United States and on
Pennsylvania are excellent. Grahame’s _Colonial History of the United
States_ is less flattering in the estimate given of Penn and his
followers, although far from unappreciative of their efforts. Burke’s
_Account of the European Settlements in America_[846] gives nothing
that is new in connection with the settlement of Pennsylvania; but
the opinions of its distinguished author in regard to William Penn
as a legislator will be read with pleasure by Penn’s admirers. The
remarks on the settlement of Pennsylvania in Wynne’s _General History
of the British Empire in America_,[847] are copied bodily from Burke;
but no quotation marks are given, and nothing indicates their origin.
Douglass’s _Summary_ gives nothing on the subject that will not be
found in the charter and a few documents of similar character. From
William M. Cornell’s _History of Pennsylvania_, 1876, nothing new will
be gathered regarding the settlement of the province. It is a mere
compilation, in which Weems’s _Life of Penn_ is quoted as an authority.


LOCAL HISTORIES.—It is only in the history of the counties first
settled that information on the period treated of in this chapter can
be sought. John F. Watson’s _Annals of Philadelphia_[848] is one of the
chief authorities. The plan of the work is not one that can be approved
of at the present day, as sufficient care has not been taken in all
cases to follow the original language of documents quoted, or to give
references to authorities. Nevertheless, it is doubtful if any work in
America has done more to cultivate a taste for historical study. There
is a charm about its gossipy pages which has attracted to it thousands
of readers, and provoked more serious investigations. It contains much
regarding the domestic life of the first settlers and the building of
Philadelphia which has been universally accepted, and many traditions
gathered from old persons which there is no reason to question.
The most important History of Philadelphia is that by Mr. Thompson
Westcott, now printing in the columns of the _Sunday Despatch_. Eight
hundred and ten chapters have appeared up to the present time. It is
an encyclopædia on the subject. Some of the early chapters treat of
the period under review. _A History of the Townships of Byberry and
Moreland, in Philadelphia County_, by Joseph C. Martindale, M.D.,[849]
treats largely of the earliest settlers in that section of the State.
The present Montgomery County is formed of a portion of the original
County of Philadelphia, and the history of some of its sections treats
of the settlement of the colony. For such information, see _History of
Montgomery County, within Schuylkill Valley_,[850] by William J. Buck.
Mr. Buck prepared also the Historical Introduction to Scott’s _Atlas
of Montgomery County_, Philadelphia, 1877. The _History of Delaware
County_, by George Smith, M.D.,[851] is by far the best county history
of Pennsylvania yet published. It is thoroughly trustworthy, and treats
fully of the settlement of the county. Extracts from the records of
Markham’s court are given in it. _Chester and its Vicinity, Delaware
County, Pennsylvania_,[852] by John Hill Martin, is a meritorious work.

The history of Bucks County has been twice written; first by William
J. Buck, in 1855. His investigations were contributed to a county
paper, and were subsequently published in a volume of one hundred
and eighteen pages, to which was appended a _History of the Township
of Wrightstown_, by Charles W. Smith, M.D., contained in twenty-four
pages. A later _History of Bucks County_,[853] is that by General W. W.
H. Davis, an excellent work.

The _History of Chester County, Pennsylvania_,[854] by J. Smith Futhey
and Gilbert Cope, is a work of merit, being the production of two
thorough students, deeply imbued with the love of their subject. The
historical and genealogical portions of it are written with care and
judgment. It contains extracts from the records of the first courts
held in Pennsylvania.


CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.—Hazard’s _Annals of Pennsylvania_,[855]
1609-1682, _Votes of the Assembly_,[856] vol. i., _Colonial
Records_,[857] vol. i., _Pennsylvania Archives_,[858] vol. i.,
and _Duke of York’s Laws_[859] are the chief collections of
documents relating to the constitutional history of the colony.
The correspondence which preceded the issuing of the royal charter,
together with the Proceedings of the Lords of Trade, etc., is in the
_Votes of the Assembly_, vol. i. pp. vii-xiii; the same will be found
in chronological order in Hazard’s _Annals_. The royal charter is
given in _Votes of Assembly_, vol. i. p. xviii; Hazard’s _Annals_,
p. 488; _Colonial Records_, vol. i. (1st ed.) p. ix, (2d ed.) p. 17;
Hazard’s _Register_, i. 293. A fac-simile of the engrossed copy at
Harrisburg is also given as an Appendix to vol. vii., second series,
of _Pennsylvania Archives_, and is in the _Duke of York’s Laws_ in the
same form, as well as being printed in that volume on page 81. The
paper known as “Certain Conditions or Concessions,” agreed upon in
England between the purchasers of land and Penn, July 11, 1681, will be
found in Hazard’s _Annals_, p. 516, _Colonial Records_, vol. i. (1st
ed.), p. xvii (2d ed.), p. 26, _Votes of Assembly_, vol. i. p. xxiv,
and Proud’s _Pennsylvania_, vol. ii. Appendix. Penn’s instructions to
his commissioners—Crispin, Bezar, and Allen—are printed in Hazard’s
_Annals_, p. 527. The original paper is in the possession of the
Historical Society of Pennsylvania. His instructions to his fourth
commissioner, William Haige, are in Hazard’s _Annals of Pennsylvania_,
p. 637. The Frame of Government and laws agreed upon in England May
5, 1682, were printed at the time. They are also given in Hazard’s
_Annals_, p. 558, _Colonial Records_, vol. i. (1st ed.) p. xxi (2d
ed.) p. 29, _Votes of the Assembly_, vol. i. p. xxvii, _Duke of York’s
Laws_, p. 91, and Proud’s _Pennsylvania_, vol. ii. Appendix. There are
a number of rough drafts of the Frame of Government, etc., in the _Penn
Papers_ of the Historical Society. One of these is indorsed as the work
of Counsellor Bamfield; another bears the name of C. Darnall. Oldmixon
says (edition of 1708) that “the Frame” was the work of “Sir William
Jones and other famous men of the Long Robe.” Penn’s letter to Henry
Sidney (Oct. 13, 1681) shows that Sidney was consulted regarding it;
and Chalmers says (on the authority of Markham), that portions of it
were formed to suit the Quakers.

[Illustration: THE SEAL OF PENNSYLVANIA.]

The Frame of Government, passed in 1683, will be found in _Votes of
the Assembly_, vol. i. part i., Appendix 1, _Colonial Records_, vol.
i. (1st ed.) xxxiv, and (2d ed.) p. 42; _Duke of York’s Laws_, p. 155;
Proud’s _Pennsylvania_, vol. ii. Appendix 3. There was an edition of it
printed in 1689 at Philadelphia, entitled _The Frame of the Government
of the Province of Pennsilvania and Territories thereunto annexed in
America_, 8º, 16 pp. But one copy of this edition is known to have
been preserved,—it is in the Friends’ Library in Philadelphia. It
has no titlepage or printer’s name; but there can be no doubt that it
is from the press of William Bradford; and it was for printing this
that Bradford was summoned before the Council by Governor Blackwell,
on the 19th of April, 1689. Sabin gives an edition printed in London
in 1691, by Andrew Sowle. Cf. Sabin’s _Dictionary_, no. 59,697; also,
_Collection of Charters, etc., relating to Pennsylvania_, Philadelphia
(B. Franklin), 1740.


LITERATURE RELATING TO THE LAWS OF THE PROVINCE.—Under this head may
be classed various works, the titles of which as a rule indicate their
characters, and we note them below.[860]


LANDING OF PENN.—In 1824 a society was formed in Philadelphia
for the commemoration of the landing of William Penn. Its first
meeting was held November 4, in the house in which he had once lived,
in Letitia Court. An address was delivered by Peter S. Duponceau, and
the eighteen members of the Society dined together. In selecting the
day to be celebrated, the Society was guided by the passage in Penn’s
letter to the Lords of Plantation, dated August, 1683, in which he
states that he arrived on “the 24th of October last.” Ten days should
have been added to this date to correct the error in computing time by
the Julian calendar, which was in vogue when Penn landed, and November
3 should have been considered the anniversary. Through an erroneous
idea of the way in which such changes should be calculated, eleven days
were added, and November 4 was fixed upon. The next year, however,
the Society celebrated the 24th of October, and continued to do so
until 1836, the last year that we are able to trace the existence of
the organization.[861] Subsequent investigations have shown that Penn
did not arrive before Newcastle until October 27 (see Newcastle Court
Records in Hazard’s _Annals of Pennsylvania_, p. 596), and did not land
until the following day.[862] It is probable, therefore, that Penn
dated his arrival from the time he came in sight of land or passed the
Capes of Delaware. The first evidences we have of his being within the
bounds of the present State of Pennsylvania are letters dated Upland,
October 29, and this day, allowing ten days for the change of time,
bringing it to November 8, is the one that it is customary to celebrate.

Nov. 8, 1851, Edward Armstrong delivered before the Historical
Society of Pennsylvania, at Chester, an able address, which contains
nearly all that is known regarding the landing of Penn. In it will
be found the names of his fellow-passengers in the “Welcome;” but a
more extended list by the same writer is given in the Appendix to the
2d ed., _Memoirs of Historical Society of Pennsylvania_, vol. i. In
1852 an address was also delivered on the same anniversary before the
Historical Society by Robert T. Conrad.


PENN’S TREATY WITH THE INDIANS.—This was the subject of a report made
to the Historical Society of Pennsylvania by Peter S. Duponceau and J.
Francis Fisher. It will be found in _Memoirs of Historical Society_,
vol. iii. part ii. p. 141. In it the opinion is expressed that the
treaty which tradition says Penn held with the Indians at Shackamaxon
was not one for the purchase of land, but was a treaty of amity and
friendship, and was held in November, 1682. This report has been
followed by historians generally, and has been accepted by nearly all
the biographers of Penn. The subject, however, is one that will bear
further investigation. The writer of this chapter published in the
_Pennsylvania Magazine of History_, vi. 217, an article to show that
the treaty which has attracted so much attention was that described
in Penn’s _Letter to the Free Society of Traders_, dated August 16,
1683; that it was held on June 23 of that year; that not only “great
promises of friendship” passed between Penn and the Indians, but that
land was purchased, the records of which are in the Land Office at
Harrisburg.[863] In connection with this subject, Mr. John F. Watson’s
paper on the “Indian Treaty for Lands now the Site of Philadelphia”
(see _Memoirs of Historical Society of Pennsylvania_, vol. iii. part
ii. p. 129) should be read, as well as “Memoir of the Locality of the
Great Treaty between William Penn and the Indians,” by Roberts Vaux
(see Ibid., i. 79; 2d ed., p. 87). The proceedings of the Historical
Society upon the occasion of the presentation to it of a belt of wampum
by Granville John Penn, which is said to have been given to William
Penn by the Indians at the treaty at Shackamaxon,[864] will be found in
_Memoirs of Historical Society of Pennsylvania_, vi. 205, with a large
 lithograph of the belt. Cf. _Historical Magazine_, i. 177, and
Gay’s _Popular History of the United States_, ii. 498.


PENN-BALTIMORE CONTROVERSY, AND THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF
PENNSYLVANIA.—In the “Penn Papers” in the Library of the Historical
Society of Pennsylvania there are several volumes of documents
bearing upon this subject, being the copies of those used in the suit
between Lord Baltimore and John Thomas and Richard Penn, decided in
1750. Interesting papers are in the State Paper Office, London, giving
accounts of the meetings between Baltimore and Markham and Penn and
Baltimore in 1682 and 1683. Copies are in the Library of the Historical
Society of Pennsylvania, and will shortly be printed. The following
printed volumes and essays treat of the subject:[865]

_The Case of William Penn, Esq., as to the Proprietory Government
of Pennsylvania; which, together with Carolina, New York, etc., is
intended to be taken away by a bill in Parliament._ (London, 1685.)
Folio, 1 leaf. Cf. Sabin’s _Dictionary_, no. 59,686.

_The Case of William Penn, Proprietary and Governor-in-Chief of
the Province of Pennsylvania and Territories, against the Lord
Baltimore’s Pretentions to a Tract of Land in America, Granted to the
said William Penn in the year 1682, by his then Royal Highness James
Duke of York, adjoyning to the said Province, commonly called the
Territories thereof._ (n. p. 1682 to 1720.) Folio, 1 leaf. Cf. Sabin’s
_Dictionary_, no. 59,688.

_The Case of Hannah Penn, the Widow and Executrix of William Penn,
Esq., late Proprietor and Governor of Pennsylvania_ (against the
pretensions of Lord Sutherland, London, 1720). Folio, 1 leaf. Cf.
Sabin’s _Dictionary_, no. 59,672.

_Articles of Agreement made and concluded upon between the Right
Honourable the Lord Proprietary of Maryland and the Honourable the
Proprietary of Pennsylvania, etc., touching the Limits and Boundaries
of the Two Provinces, with the Commission constituting certain Persons
to execute the Same._ Philadelphia (B. Franklin), 1733, folio, 19 pp.
and map. In the Library of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

Another edition was issued from same press in 1736, with the Report of
the Commissioners. Cf. C. R. Hildeburn’s _List of the Issues of the
Press in Pennsylvania_, 1685-1759.

_The Case of Messieurs Penn and the People of Pennsilvania, and the
three lower Counties of Newcastle, Kent, and Sussex on Delaware, in
relation to a Series of Injuries and Hostilities made upon them for
several Years past by Thomas Cressap and others, by the Direction and
Authority of the Deputy-Governor of Maryland_ (London, 1737). Folio, 8
pp. Cf. Sabin’s _Dictionary_, no. 5,985.

_Penn against Lord Baltimore. In Chancery. Copy of Minutes on Hearing,
May 15, 1750._ 8º, 15 pp. n. t. p. In the Library of the Historical
Society of Pennsylvania.

_Breviate in the case of Penn_ vs. _Baltimore_. Cf. also the title,
with its two maps, given in Sabin’s _Dictionary_, ix. 34,416.

_Indenture of Agreement, 4th July, 1760, Between Lord Baltimore and
Thomas and Richard Penn, Esquires, settling the limits and boundaries
of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the Three Lower Counties of Newcastle,
Kent, and Sussex._ Philadelphia, 1851, folio, 31 pp. and map. Privately
printed for Edward D. Ingraham.

“Memoir of the Controversy between Penn and Lord Baltimore.” By James
Dunlop (read Nov. 10, 1825), in _Memoirs of Historical Society of
Pennsylvania_, i. 161, or 2d ed. p. 163.

_Lecture upon the Controversy between Pennsylvania and Virginia about
the Boundary Line._ By Neville B. Craig. Pittsburgh, 1843, 8º. 30 pp.

_Appendix to Case in the Circuit Court of the United States for the
Third Circuit, containing the Pea Patch, or Fort Delaware Case._
Reported by John William Wallace. Philadelphia, 1849, 8º, 161 pp. Cf.
U. S. Senate, Exec. doc., no. 21, 30th Congress, 1848.

_History of Mason and Dixon’s Line._ Contained in an address delivered
by John H. B. Latrobe before the Historical Society of Pennsylvania,
Nov. 8, 1854. Philadelphia, 1855, 8º, 52 pp.

Colonel Graham’s _Report on Mason and Dixon’s Line_. Chicago, 1859, 8º.
Cf. Pennsylvania Senate Journal, 1850, ii. 475.

_Mason and Dixon’s Line._ By James Veech, 1857.

One of the original manuscript reports of Mason and Dixon, signed by
them, is in the possession of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.


IMMIGRATIONS.—Independent of the Welsh and Germans, no large bodies
of emigrants came to Pennsylvania during the first decade of its
existence, except from England and some Quakers from Ireland. The
prosperity of the new colony attracted settlers from other parts of
British America and the West Indies; but nearly all, judging from the
religious annals of the community, were either Quakers or in sympathy
with them. In studying the Welsh emigration, _John ap Thomas and his
Friends: a Contribution to the Early History of Merion, Pa._, by
James J. Levick, M.D., should be read; see _Pennsylvania Magazine of
History_, iv. 301. It is a history of the first company which came from
Wales, in 1682. The _History of Delaware County_ by Dr. George Smith
contains much on the subject, with a map of the early settlements;
cf. B. H. Smith’s _Atlas of Delaware County, with a History of
Land-Titles_, Philadelphia, 1880. The agreement entered into between an
emigration party from Wales and the captain of a vessel in 1697-1698
will be found in the _Pennsylvania Magazine of History_, i. 330.

The German or Dutch emigration can be studied in _The Settlement of
Germantown, and the Causes which led to it_, by Samuel W. Pennypacker;
see _Pennsylvania Magazine of History_, iv. 1. It is a thorough
examination of the question, showing how the emigrants came from the
neighborhood of Crefeld, a city of the Lower Rhine, near Holland. The
several publications we have mentioned printed in Dutch and German must
also be consulted._ William Penn’s Travels in Holland and Germany_, by
Professor Oswald Seidensticker, already mentioned (see _Pennsylvania
Magazine of History_, ii. 237), shows how naturally the event came
about. Professor Seidensticker has also contributed “Pastorius und die
Grundung von Germantown” to the _Deutsche Pionier_, vol. iii. pp. 8,
56, 78, and “Francis Daniel Pastorius” to the _Penn Monthly_, vol. iii.
pp. 1, 51.


SPECIAL SUBJECTS.—There remain a few monographs worthy of mention.

_History of Manners and Customs of the Indian Nations who once
inhabited Pennsylvania and the Neighboring States_, by the Rev. John
Heckewelder, Philadelphia, 1819, 8º. This work was first published
as vol. i. of the _Transactions of the Historical and Literary
Committee of the American Philosophical Society_. It was reprinted
by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, with notes by the Rev.
William C. Reichel, in 1876, and forms vol. xii. of its _Memoirs_.
Opinions regarding this work differ widely. It was favorably reviewed
by Nathan Hale in the _North American Review_, ix. 178, and severely
criticised by General Lewis Cass in the same publication, xxvi. 366.
“A Vindication” of the _History_ by William Rawle will be found in the
_Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania_, i. 258; 2d ed. p.
268. There is a portrait of Heckewelder in the American Philosophical
Society, and a copy of it in the Historical Society; see _Catalogue of
Paintings, etc., belonging to the Historical Society_, no. 85. As a
further contribution to the aboriginal history, we may mention _Notes
respecting the Indians of Lancaster County, Pa._, by William Parker
Foulke; see _Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania_, vol.
iv. part ii. p. 189. This treats largely of the Susquehannocks.

_Contributions to the Medical History of Pennsylvania_, by Caspar
Morris, M.D.; see _Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania_,
i. 337, or 2d ed., p. 347.

_Notices of <DW64> Slavery as connected with Pennsylvania_, by Edward
Bittle; see Ibid., i. 351, or 2d ed., p. 365; cf. also Williams’s
_Negro Race in America_.

_Address delivered at the Celebration by the New York Historical
Society, May 20, 1863, of the Two Hundredth Birthday of William
Bradford, who introduced the Art of Printing into the Middle Colonies,
etc._, by John William Wallace. Albany, 1863, 8º, p. 114. Together with
the report made by Horatio Gates Jones at the same time. Cf. Thomas
I. Wharton’s “Notes on the Provincial Literature of Pennsylvania,” in
the _Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania_, i. 99, or 2d
ed., p. 107; and J. W. Wallace’s paper on the “Friends’ Press” in
_Pennsylvania Magazine of History_, iv. 432. The _Brinley Catalogue_,
no. 3,367, gives a considerable enumeration of the issues of Bradford’s
press.

“Historical Sketch of the Lower Dublin (or Pennepek) Baptist Church,
Philadelphia,” etc., by Horatio Gates Jones, in _Historical Magazine_,
August, 1868, p. 76.

“Local Self-Government in Pennsylvania,” by E. R. L. Gould, of Johns
Hopkins University, in _Pennsylvania Magazine of History_, vi. 156. It
is a comparison of present local administration in Pennsylvania with
that under the Duke of York’s government.


MAPS.—_A Portraiture of the City of Philadelphia, in the Province of
Pennsylvania, in America_, by Thomas Holme, Surveyor-General. Sold by
John Thornton in the Minories, and Andrew Sowle in Shoreditch, London.
18½ × 11¾ inches.

The original, of which a reduced heliotype is given in this chapter
will be found in Penn’s _Letter to the Free Society of Traders_,
printed in 1683, which also contains a description of Philadelphia,
in which the map is referred to. In one of the editions of the Letter
to the Free Society a list of the lot-owners in Philadelphia is
given, with numbers referring to property marked on the map. This is
the earliest map of Pennsylvania. All issued previous to it show the
country while under a different dominion.

_A Map of the Province of Pennsylvania, containing the three counties
of Chester, Philadelphia, and Bucks, as far as yet surveyed and laid
out. The divisions or distinctions made by the different coullers
respecting the settlements by way of townships._ By Thomas Holme,
Surveyor-General. Sold by Robert Green, at the Rose and Crown in Budge
Row, and by John Thornton at the Platt in the Minories, London.

This is the most important of all the early maps issued shortly after
1681. It contains the names of many of the early settlers, and shows
Penn’s idea of settling the country. In some cases the lots front on a
square, which it is presumed was dedicated to public uses. This feature
is still noticeable in one or two of the original settlements. It was
republished at Philadelphia by Lloyd P. Smith in 1846, and by Charles
L. Warner in 1870.

_A Mapp of ye Improved parts of Pennsilvania, in America, Divided
into Countyes, Townships, and Lotts. Surveyed by Tho. Holme._ It is
dedicated to William Penn by Jno. Harris, who, it is presumed, was the
publisher. It measures 16 × 21½ inches, and is a reduction of the
larger map by Holme.

A map to illustrate the successive purchases from the Indians was
published by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania in 1875. Cf. Egle’s
_Pennsylvania_, p. 208.


PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL SOCIETY.—[The chief instrumentality in
the fostering of historical studies in the State rests with the
Pennsylvania Historical Society, which dates from 1824; and in 1826 it
printed the first volume of its _Memoirs_, which was, under the editing
of Edward Armstrong, reprinted in 1864. The objects of the Society
were set forth by William B. Reed in a discourse in 1848; and again at
the dedication of its new hall in 1872, Mr. J. W. Wallace delivered an
address. Besides its occasional addresses and its Memoirs, and the work
it has done in prompting the State to the printing of its documentary
history, it has also supported the publication of the _Pennsylvania
Magazine of History_.—ED.]

[Illustration]

[Illustration: SECTION OF HOLME’S MAP OF PENNSYLVANIA.]




CHAPTER XIII.

THE ENGLISH IN MARYLAND, 1632-1691.

BY WILLIAM T. BRANTLY,

_Of the Maryland Historical Society._


MARYLAND was the first Proprietary colony established in America; and
its charter contained a more ample grant of power than was bestowed
upon any other English colony. To Maryland also belongs the honor
of having been the first government which proclaimed and practised
religious toleration. The charter was granted in 1632, by Charles I.,
to Cecilius, second Lord Baltimore. But the true founder of Maryland
was George Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, a man of singular merit,
whose influence upon the fortunes of the colony was such that his
character and career belong to its history.

George Calvert was descended from a Flemish family which had long been
settled in Yorkshire, where he was born in the year 1582. Graduating
Bachelor of Arts at Oxford, he travelled on the Continent, and then
entered public life under the patronage of Sir Robert Cecil. Calvert
filled various offices until Cecil became Lord High Treasurer, when
he was appointed clerk of the Privy Council. He was knighted in 1617,
and, upon the disgrace of Sir Thomas Lake, in February, 1619, he was
appointed by James I. one of the two principal secretaries of state.
He was selected for this important post because there was work to be
done, and he had made himself valued in public life for his industry
and ability. It is true, indeed, that his theory of the Constitution
was similar to that held by the King. He had always been allied with
the Court as distinguished from the Country party, and was a stanch
supporter of the prerogatives of the Crown. In the Parliament of
1621 he was the leader of the Government forces, and the immediate
representative of the King in the House of Commons. When he came to
draw the charter of Maryland he framed such a government as the Court,
during this period, conceived that England ought to be.

Calvert was not altogether friendly to Spain.[866] It is a mistake to
suppose that his political fortunes were so bound up with the success
of the Spanish match, that, upon its final rupture in 1623, his
position became untenable. He did not resign his secretaryship until
February, 1625; and there is no sufficient reason for believing that he
did not then do so voluntarily.

[Illustration

See an account of this picture of the first Lord Baltimore, in the
Critical Essay.]

Fuller, the chief contemporary authority, says that “he freely
confessed to the King that he was then become a Roman Catholic, so
that he must be wanting in his trust or violate his conscience in
discharging his office.” It is certain that he had not forfeited
the favor of the King, nor incurred the enmity of the all-powerful
Buckingham. He was allowed to sell his secretaryship to his successor
for £6,000, and was retained in the Privy Council. A few weeks
after his withdrawal from office he was created Baron of Baltimore
in the Irish peerage; and in 1627 Buckingham summoned him to a
special conference with Charles I. upon foreign affairs. The date of
his conversion to the Church of Rome has been the subject of much
discussion, but there is no satisfactory evidence that it preceded, for
any length of time, the open profession of his new faith.

From early manhood Sir George Calvert had been interested in schemes
of colonization. He was a member of the Virginia Company until its
dissolution, and was, as secretary of state, one of the committee of
the Council for Plantation Affairs. While secretary he determined
to become himself the founder of a colony, and in 1620 he purchased
from Sir William Vaughan the southeastern peninsula of Newfoundland.
In the following year he sent a body of settlers to this region, and
expended a large amount of money in establishing them at Ferryland.
James I. granted him in 1623 a patent constituting him the Proprietary
of this portion of Newfoundland which was called Avalon,—a patent
which afterwards became the model of the charter of Maryland. The
fertility and advantages of Avalon had been described to Lord Baltimore
with the usual exaggeration of discoverers. He made a short visit to
it in the summer of 1627, and in the following year he went there,
accompanied by several members of his family, with the intention of
remaining permanently; but the severity and long duration of the winter
convinced him that the attempt to plant an agricultural colony on that
inhospitable shore was doomed to failure. In August, 1629, he wrote to
the King that he found himself obliged to abandon Avalon to fishermen,
and to seek for himself some warmer climate in the New World. He also
announced his determination to go with some forty persons to Virginia,
and expressed the hope that the King would grant him there a precinct
of land, with privileges similar to those he enjoyed in Newfoundland.
Charles I., in reply, advised him to desist from further attempts and
to return to England, where he would be sure to enjoy such respect as
his former services merited,—“well weighing,” added the King, “that
men of your condition and breeding are fitter for other employments
than the framing of new plantations which commonly have rugged and
laborious beginnings.”

Without waiting for an answer to his letter Lord Baltimore sailed for
Virginia, where he arrived in October, 1629. To the Virginians he was
not a welcome visitor. They either honestly objected to receiving
Catholic settlers, being proud of their conformity to the Church of
England, or were apprehensive that he had designs upon their territory.
They tendered to him and his followers the oaths of allegiance and
supremacy. The latter was one which no Catholic could conscientiously
take, and it was therefore refused by Baltimore. His offer to take a
modified oath was rejected by the council, and they requested him to
leave the colony.

While in Virginia Lord Baltimore learned that the northern and southern
portions of the territory comprised within the old charter limits
of the colony had not been settled, and he determined to ask for an
independent grant of a part of this unsettled region. Upon his return
to England he learned that the King was willing to accede to his
request. Baltimore finally selected for his new colony the country
north of the Potomac, and prepared a charter to be submitted to the
King, modelled upon the Avalon patent. The name of the colony was left
to the choice of the King, who desired that it should be called Terra
Mariæ—in English, Maryland—in honor of his Queen Henrietta Maria.
This name was accordingly inserted in the patent; but before it passed
the seals Lord Baltimore died. His death took place April 15, 1632,
and he was buried beneath the chancel of St. Dunstan’s Church. But his
great scheme did not die with him. His rights were transmitted to his
son and heir Cecilius, second Lord Baltimore, to whom the charter was
finally issued, June 20, 1632.

[Illustration: THE BALTIMORE ARMS.

[This is a fac-simile of the arms as engraved on the map accompanying
the _Relation_ of 1635. The motto was also that of the great seal,
furnished to the Province in 1648 by the second Lord Baltimore, which,
by a vote of the legislature in 1876, was re-established on the seal of
the State. See the Critical Essay.

It is worthy of remark that when an agent of Virginia was sent to
London in 1860, to discover papers relating to the bounds between
that State and Maryland, he found the representative of the Calverts,
and possessor of their family papers, a prisoner in the Queen’s Bench
prison, in a confinement for debt which had then lasted twenty years.
Colonel McDonald’s _Report_, March, 1861.—ED.]]

The territory granted was defined with accuracy. The southern boundary
was the further bank of the Potomac, from its source to its mouth in
the Bay of Chesapeake, and ran thence to the promontory called Watkins
Point, and thence east to the ocean. The eastern boundary was the ocean
and Delaware Bay to the fortieth degree of latitude; and the northern
boundary was a right line, on the fortieth degree of latitude, to the
meridian of the fountain of the Potomac, where the southern boundary
began. It will be seen that Maryland, as originally defined, comprised
all of the present State of Delaware and a large part of what is now
Pennsylvania.

The country described in the charter was expressly erected into a
Province of the empire; and the Baron of Baltimore, his heirs and
assigns, were constituted the absolute lords and proprietaries of the
soil. Their tenure was the most liberal known to the law. They held the
Province directly of the kings of England, in free and common socage,
by fealty only, yielding therefor two Indian arrows, on the Tuesday of
Easter week, to the King at the Castle of Windsor. The Province was
made a county palatine; and the Proprietary was invested with all the
royal rights, privileges, and prerogatives which had ever been enjoyed
by any Bishop of Durham within his county palatine. To the Proprietary
was also given all the power that any captain-general of an army ever
had; and he was authorized to call out the whole fighting population,
to wage war against all enemies of the Province, to put captives to
death, and, in case of rebellion or sedition, to exercise martial
law in the most ample manner. He was empowered to establish courts
and appoint judges, and to pardon crimes. He had also the right to
constitute ports of entry and departure, to erect towns into boroughs
and boroughs into cities with suitable immunities, and to levy duties
and tolls upon ships and merchandise exported and imported. He could
make grants of land to be held directly of himself, and erect portions
of the land granted into manors with the right to hold courts baron
and leet. It was further provided that, lest in so remote a region
all access to honors might seem to be barred to men well born, the
Proprietary might confer rewards upon deserving provincials, and adorn
them with any titles and dignities except such as were then in use in
England. All laws were to be made by the Proprietary with the advice
and assent of the freemen, who should be called together, personally
or by their deputies, for the framing of laws in the manner chosen
by the Proprietary. In the event of sudden accidents the Proprietary
might make ordinances for the government of the Province, provided they
should not deprive offenders of life, limb, or property. Freedom of
trade to all English ports was guaranteed.

Liberty to emigrate to the Province and there settle was given to
all subjects of the Crown, and all colonists and their children were
to enjoy the rights and liberties of native-born liegemen. There
was an express covenant on the part of the Crown that at no time
should any tax or custom be imposed upon the inhabitants or their
property, or upon any merchandise to be laden or unladen within the
Province. The charter concluded by directing that, in case any doubt
should arise concerning the true sense of any word or clause, that
interpretation should always be made which would be most beneficial to
the Proprietary, “provided, always, that no interpretation thereof be
made whereby God’s holy and true Christian religion, or the allegiance
due to us, our heirs and successors, may in anywise suffer by change,
prejudice, or diminution.”

It is especially to be remarked that the charter contained no
provision requiring the provincial laws to be submitted to the Crown
for approval. Nothing was reserved to the Crown except the allegiance
of the inhabitants and the fifth part of all the gold and silver ore
which might be found within the limits of the Province. But the powers
conferred on the Proprietary were of a sovereign character; he was
lord of the soil, the fountain of honor, and the source of justice.
These privileges were the work of a friend of high prerogative; yet the
rights of the people were not neglected. The freemen of the Province
were entitled to participate in the law-making power, to enjoy freedom
of trade, exemption from Crown taxation, and all the rights and
liberties of native-born Englishmen. All the laws of the Province must
be consonant with reason and not repugnant to the laws of England. If
it be true that the powers given to the Proprietary were greater than
those ever conferred on any other Proprietary, it is equally true that
the rights secured to the inhabitants were greater than an in any other
charter which had then been granted.

The charter expressly separated the Province from Virginia and made it
immediately dependent on the Crown. The entire territory of Maryland
had been included in the grants made in 1609, and subsequently to the
London company for the first colony of Virginia. This company became
obnoxious both to the Crown and the colonists, and, in 1624, a writ of
_quo warranto_ was issued against its patents, the judgment upon which
revoked all the charters and restored to the Crown all the franchises
formerly granted. Virginia then became a royal colony, and there could
be no question of the right of the King to partition its territory
at pleasure. But the grant of Maryland nevertheless caused a great
discontent in Virginia. Although no permanent settlements had been
made north of the Potomac, the Virginians regarded all the territory
comprised within the old charter limits as still belonging to them, and
objected to having it partitioned.

One member of the Virginia company had, indeed, established stations
for traffic with the Indians on Kent Island, almost in the centre of
Maryland, and on Palmer’s Island, at the mouth of the Susquehanna
River. This man was William Clayborne, destined to become famous in the
early history of the Province. He had been Secretary of the Virginia
colony and one of the Council. Before the visit of the first Lord
Baltimore to Jamestown, Clayborne had been commissioned to explore
the great bay and to trade with the Indians. He may then have set up
trading stations upon Kent and Palmer’s islands. In May, 1631, he
obtained from Charles I. a license authorizing him to trade for furs
and other commodities in all the coasts “in or near about those parts
of America for which there is not already a patent granted to others
for sole trade.” This license, which was merely passed under the privy
signet of Scotland, could not be construed as granting any title to the
soil or government. In Baltimore’s charter Maryland was described as
hitherto unsettled,—_hactenus inculta_,—and this unlucky phrase was
afterwards the source of innumerable difficulties. At the time of his
visit to Virginia the region was probably unsettled so far as he could
learn.

When intelligence of the grant of Maryland reached Virginia the
planters were moved to sign a petition to the King, in which they
remonstrated against the grant of a portion of the lands of the colony
which would cause a “general disheartening” to them. The petition was
referred to the Privy Council, which, after hearing both parties,
decided, in July, 1633, that Lord Baltimore should be left to his
patent and the Virginians to the course of law; and that, in the mean
time, the two colonies should “assist each other on all occasions as
becometh fellow-subjects.”

There can be no doubt that, from the outset, Lord Baltimore intended
that Maryland should be a place of refuge for the English Catholics,
who had as much reason as the Puritans to flee from persecution. The
political and religious hatred with which the mass of the English
people regarded the Church of Rome was increasing in bitterness, and
the Parliament of 1625 had besought the King to enforce more strictly
the penal statutes against recusants. Soon after the grant of his
charter Lord Baltimore treated with the Provincial of the Society
of Jesus, in England, for his assistance in establishing a mission
in the new colony. At the same time he wrote to the General of the
Order asking him to designate certain priests to accompany the first
emigration, whose duty it should be to confirm the Catholics in their
faith, convert the Protestant colonists, and propagate the Roman
faith among the savages. These requests were granted, and the first
expedition was accompanied by two Jesuits.

But Maryland was to be something more than a Catholic colony. Lord
Baltimore had already determined that it should be a “free soil for
Christianity.” When the charter was granted, it was well known that
Baltimore purposed to settle Maryland with Catholics. How came it to
pass that, under these circumstances, a Protestant king made a grant
of such large powers to a Catholic nobleman? Different views have
been taken of the clauses of the charter relating to religion. One
view is that by the patent the Church of England was established, and
any other form of worship was unlawful; another that the glory of
Maryland toleration is due to the charter, and under it no persecution
of Christians was lawful; while a third view is that the charter left
the whole matter vague and undetermined, and therefore within the
control of the Proprietary and his colonists. The only references to
religion in the charter that need be considered are two: the first,
in the fourth section, giving the Proprietary the advowsons of all
churches which might happen to be built, together with the liberty of
erecting churches and causing the same to be consecrated according to
the ecclesiastical laws of England; the second, in the twenty-second
section, providing that no law should be made prejudicial to God’s holy
and true Christian religion.

These are the exact phrases used in the Avalon patent, which was issued
to Sir George Calvert while still a member of the Church of England. In
that case they probably operated as an establishment of that church.
But these phrases were not retained in the charter granted to a Roman
Catholic without good reason. The fourth section merely empowered the
Proprietary to dedicate the churches which might be built; it did not
compel him to build them: and the fact of being a Catholic did not then
disable one from presenting to Anglican churches. There is, moreover,
nothing in this section disabling the Proprietary from building
churches of other faiths. The proviso in the twenty-second section was
conveniently vague. It cannot be held either to establish the Church
of England or to prohibit the exercise of any other worship. No such
construction was ever placed upon it by the Crown, or the Proprietary,
or the people. It is certain that Baltimore would not have accepted
a charter requiring the establishment of a church from which he and
those whom he intended to be his colonists dissented. It is still more
certain that he would not have accepted a charter prohibiting the
exercise of the Catholic worship.

[Illustration]

The most plausible view of these provisions is that they covered a
secret understanding between the Proprietary and the King, to the
effect that both Catholics and members of the Established Church
should enjoy the same religious rights in Maryland.[867] The opinion
entertained by some that the charter itself enforced toleration is
altogether untenable. These provisions did not prevent the Church
of England from being afterwards established in Maryland nor avert
disabilities from Catholics and Dissenters. Apart from the supposed
agreement between Baltimore and the King, any persecution of
Conformists in the Province would have been extremely impolitic; it
would have resulted in the speedy loss of the patent. But Baltimore
could without danger have prohibited the immigration of Puritans, and
could have discouraged in many ways the settlement even of Conformists.
Not only did he not do any of these things, but he invited Christians
of every name to settle in Maryland. It is the glory of Lord Baltimore
and of the Province that, from the first, perfect freedom of Christian
worship was guaranteed to all comers. Because the event proved that
this magnanimity was the truest wisdom and resulted in populating the
Province, there have not been wanting those who declare that it was not
magnanimity at all, but only enlightened self-interest.

[Illustration]

By the decision of the Privy Council in July, 1633, upon the petition
of the Virginia planters, Lord Baltimore achieved his first victory
in the long struggle he was destined to wage with the enemies of his
colony. Regarding his title to the territory as unquestionable, he
now hastened his preparations for its colonization. He had purposed
to lead the colonists in person, but, finding it necessary to abandon
this intention, he confided the expedition to the care of his brother,
Leonard Calvert, whom he commissioned as Lieut.-General. Jerome Hawley
and Thomas Cornwallis were associated as councillors, and George
Calvert, another brother of the Proprietary, was one of the emigrants.
Lord Baltimore provided two vessels,—the “Ark,” of about three hundred
and fifty tons burden, and the “Dove,” a pinnace of about fifty tons.
In October, 1633, the colonists,—“gentlemen adventurers and their
servants,”—to the number of about two hundred, embarked at Gravesend.
The vessels stopped at the Isle of Wight, where Fathers White and
Altham (the Jesuits who had been designated for the service) and some
other emigrants were received on board. They finally set sail from
Cowes on the twenty-second day of November, 1633, and took the old
route by the Azores and West Indies.

Soon after their departure Lord Baltimore wrote to his own and his
father’s friend, the Earl of Strafford, that, after having overcome
many difficulties, he had sent a hopeful colony to Maryland with a fair
expectation of success. “There are two of my brothers gone,” he added,
“with very near twenty other gentlemen of very good fashion, and three
hundred laboring men well provided in all things.”

[Illustration: MAP OF MARYLAND, 1635.

This is a reduced fac-simile of the map accompanying _A Relation of
Maryland_, 1635. See Critical Essay. Compare the heliotype of Smith’s
map of Virginia, in chapter v.]

The vessels remained for some time at Barbadoes, and did not arrive
at Point Comfort until the 27th of February, 1634. Here the colonists
were received by Governor Harvey, of Virginia, “with much courtesy
and humanity,” in obedience to letters from the King. Fresh supplies
having been procured in Virginia, the “Ark” and “Dove” weighed anchor
and sailed up the bay to the mouth of the Potomac, which they entered
and proceeded up about fourteen leagues, to an island which they called
St. Clement’s. The emigrants landed here, and took formal possession
of Maryland “for our Saviour, and for our Sovereign Lord the King of
England.”

Governor Calvert left the “Ark” at the island and sailed up the river
with two pinnaces, in order to explore the country and conciliate the
Indian chieftains. He was accompanied by Captain Henry Fleet, of the
Virginia colony, who was versed in the Indian tongues and acquainted
with the country. They assured the chiefs that the strangers had not
come to make war upon them, but to impart the arts of civilization and
show their subjects the way to heaven. Not deeming it prudent to seat
the first colony so far in the interior, Calvert returned down the
river and was conducted by Captain Fleet up a tributary stream which
flows into the Potomac, from the north, a few miles above its mouth.
This river, which is now called the St. Mary’s, is a deep and wide
stream. Six or seven miles above its mouth the Governor’s exploring
party came to an Indian village, situate on a bluff on the left bank.
They determined to settle here, but, instead of forcibly dispossessing
the feeble tribe in possession, they purchased thirty miles of the land
from them for axes, hatchets, and cloth, and established the colony
with their consent. And thus the method of William Penn was antedated
by half a century. By the terms of the agreement the Indians were
to give up at once one half of the town to the English and part of
the growing crops, and at the end of the harvest to leave the place
altogether. The “Ark” was sent for, and on the 27th of March, 1634,
amid salvoes of artillery from the ships, the emigrants disembarked and
took possession of their new home, which they called St. Mary’s.

Attention was first given to building a guardhouse and a general
storehouse, their intercourse meanwhile with the natives being of the
most genial character. The Indian women taught them how to use corn
meal, and with the Indian men they hunted deer and were initiated into
the mysteries of woodcraft. They planted the cleared land, and in
the autumn of the same year were able to send a cargo of corn to New
England in exchange for salt fish and other provisions. From Virginia
the colonists procured swine and cattle; and, within a few months after
landing, the settlement was enjoying a high degree of prosperity. The
English race had now learned the art of colonization.

Although Governor Harvey visited St. Mary’s and seems always to have
been friendly to the new colony, the Virginians were bitterly hostile.
Captain Young wrote to Sir Tobie Matthew from Jamestown, in July, 1634,
that it was there “accounted a crime almost as heinous as treason to
favor, nay, to speak well of, that colony” of Lord Baltimore. Sympathy
with what they regarded as Clayborne’s wrongs increased their enmity.
Soon after the “Ark” and “Dove” left Point Comfort, Clayborne informed
the Governor and Council of Virginia that Calvert had notified him that
the settlement upon Kent Island would henceforth be deemed a part of
Maryland, and requested the opinion of the Board as to his duty in the
premises. The Board expressed surprise at the question. and said that
there was no more reason for surrendering Kent Island than any other
part of the colony; and that, the validity of Lord Baltimore’s patent
being yet undetermined, they were bound to maintain the rights of their
colony. It was probably on account of remonstrances from Virginia
that the committee of the Privy Council for plantations wrote to the
Virginians in July, 1634, that there was no intention to affect the
interests which had been settled when Virginia was under a corporation,
and that for the present they might enjoy their estates with the same
freedom as before the recalling of their patents. This letter, which
was merely designed to show that Baltimore’s charter should not invade
any individual right, appears to have been regarded by Clayborne as
justifying his resistance to Calvert’s claim of jurisdiction over his
trading stations.

Clayborne endeavored at once to incite the Indians to acts of hostility
against the colony. He told them that the new-comers were Spaniards,
enemies of the English, and had come to rob them. These insinuations
caused a change in the demeanor of the Indians, which greatly alarmed
the people of St. Mary’s. The suspicions of the natives, however, were
soon dispelled and friendly relations with them were renewed. Clayborne
now resolved to wage an open war against the colony. Early in 1635 a
_casus belli_ was found in the capture by the Maryland authorities
of a pinnace belonging to Clayborne, upon the ground that it was a
Virginia vessel trading in Maryland waters without a license. Clayborne
thereupon placed an armed vessel under the command of Lieutenant
Warren, with orders to seize any of the ships belonging to St. Mary’s.
Governor Calvert determined to show at once that this seditious
opposition would not be tolerated. He equipped two small vessels and
sent them against Kent Island. A naval engagement between the hostile
forces took place in April, 1635, which resulted in the killing of one
of the Maryland crew, and of Lieutenant Warren and two others of the
Kent Island crew. Clayborne’s men then surrendered and were carried to
St. Mary’s. Clayborne himself took refuge in Virginia, and Governor
Calvert demanded his surrender. This demand was not granted, and two
years later Clayborne went to England. He presented a petition to the
King, complaining that Baltimore’s agents had sought to dispossess him
of his plantations, killing some of his men and taking their boats. He
offered to pay the King £100 per annum for the two islands, and prayed
for a confirmation of his license and an order directing Lord Baltimore
not to interfere with him.

This petition was referred to a committee of the Privy Council, before
which Clayborne appeared in person, and arguments upon both sides
were heard. The committee decided, in April, 1638, that Clayborne’s
license to trade, under the signet of Scotland, gave him no right or
title to the Isle of Kent, or to any other place within the limits of
Baltimore’s patent, and did not warrant any plantation, and that no
trade with the Indians ought to be allowed within Maryland without
license from Lord Baltimore. As to the wrongs complained of, the
committee found no reason to remove them, but left both sides to the
ordinary course of justice. Clayborne returned to Virginia, postponing
but not abandoning his vengeance, and Kent Island was subjected to
the government of St. Mary’s, Captain George Evelyn being appointed
commander of the isle. In the same year Palmer’s Island was seized, and
Clayborne’s property there confiscated.

In February, 1635, the first legislative assembly of the Province
was convened. Owing to the destruction of most of the early records
during Ingle’s Rebellion, no account of the proceedings of this
Assembly has come down to us. The charter required the assent of the
Proprietary to the laws, and when the acts of this Assembly were laid
before Lord Baltimore he disallowed them. In April, 1637, he sent over
a new commission, constituting Leonard Calvert the lieut.-general,
admiral, and commander, and also the chancellor and chief-justice
of the Province. In certain cases, he was directed to consult the
council, which was composed of Jerome Hawley, Thomas Cornwallis, and
John Lewger. The governor was directed to assemble the freemen of the
Province, or their deputies, upon the 25th of January ensuing, and
signify the Proprietary’s dissent from the laws made at the previous
assembly, and at the same time to submit to them a body of laws which
he would himself send over. John Lewger, the new member of the council,
and secretary of the Province, came to St. Mary’s in November, 1637,
accompanied by his family and several servants. He was distinguished
as a scholar at Oxford, and had been converted to Catholicism by the
celebrated controversialist Chillingworth. His appointment is an
evidence of the solicitude shown by the Proprietary for the affairs of
his plantation. During the first years of the settlement he and his
friends expended above £40,000 in sending over colonists and providing
them with necessaries, of which sum at least £20,000 was out of
Baltimore’s own purse.

[Illustration]

There can be no doubt that the Proprietary contemplated the foundation
of an aristocratic State, with large tracts of land in the hands of
individuals who would be interested in upholding his authority. He
published, from time to time, certain “conditions of plantation,”
stating the quantity of land to which emigrants would be entitled.
In the conditions issued in 1636 he directs that to every first
adventurer, for every five men brought into the Province in 1634, there
should be granted two thousand acres of land for the yearly rent of
four hundred pounds of wheat; and to each bringing a less number, one
hundred acres for himself, and one hundred acres for his wife and each
servant, and fifty acres for every child, under the rent of ten pounds
of wheat for each fifty acres. The conditions offered to subsequent
adventurers were, naturally, less favorable. All these grants were
of fee-simple estates of inheritance, and the colonists received in
addition grants of small lots in the town of St. Mary’s. Each tract
of a thousand acres or more was erected into a manor, with the right
to hold courts baron and leet, and the other privileges belonging
to manors in England. A large number of manors were laid off in the
Province, and in some instances courts baron and leet were held.[868]

It was only in this regard that the design of transplanting the
institutions of expiring feudalism to the New World was carried out.
Political and social equality resulted from the conditions of the
environment. The “freemen,” who were entitled to make laws, were
early held to include all but indented servants, whether they owned
a freehold or not. The second Assembly, which met in January, 1638,
was a pure democracy. Writs of summons had been issued to every
freeman directing his personal attendance. The governor presided
as speaker, and the council sat as members. Those freemen who did
not choose to attend gave proxies. Proclamation was made that all
persons omitted in the writs should make their claim to a voice in
the Assembly, “whereupon claim was made by John Robinson, carpenter,
and was admitted.” Upon the question of the adoption of the body of
laws proposed by Lord Baltimore, the Speaker and Lewger (who counted
by proxies fourteen voices) were in the affirmative, and all the
rest of the Assembly, being thirty-seven voices, in the negative.
Thus was begun a constitutional struggle between the people and the
Proprietary. The latter held that, under the charter, the right of
originating legislation belonged exclusively to him. For this reason,
he had rejected the laws made in 1635, and had himself proposed a
number of bills. The colonists were unwilling to concede this claim,
and now rejected, in turn, the propositions of the Proprietary. This
early evidence of the persistence with which a handful of emigrants
maintained what they conceived to be their rights possesses a peculiar
interest. The immediate result of the contest was to leave the colony
without any laws under which criminal jurisdiction could be exercised.
This subject next occupied the attention of the House. Subsequently
a number of laws were made, but with the exception of an act of
attainder against Clayborne, their titles only remain. They were sent
to Lord Baltimore, who promptly exercised his veto power upon them.
In February, 1638, a county court was held at which Thomas Smith,
who had been captured in the naval engagement described above, and
subsequently held a prisoner, was indicted by a grand jury for murder
and piracy. There being no court legally constituted to try Smith, he
was arraigned and tried before the Assembly, Secretary Lewger acting
as the prosecuting attorney. The House found him guilty, with but one
dissenting voice, and he was sentenced to be hanged.

Soon after Lord Baltimore had for the second time rejected the acts of
the Assembly, he wisely determined to yield his claim of the right to
originate legislation. Accordingly he wrote to his brother in August,
1638, giving him power to assent to such laws as he might approve. The
assent of the governor was to give force to the laws till the dissent
of the Proprietary should be signified. This double veto power was
similar to that which existed in most of the royal colonies, where the
first negative was in the governor and the second in the king. In a
Palatinate government, like Maryland, the Proprietary exercised the
royal prerogative. There being no further obstacle to legislation an
Assembly was called to meet in February. 1639, which body was composed
partly of delegates elected by the people, and partly of freemen
specially summoned by the governor’s writ. It was also held that any
freeman, who had not participated in the election of deputies, might
sit in his individual right. The laws passed at this session provided
principally for the administration of justice in criminal and civil
cases. It was enacted that the inhabitants should have all their rights
and liberties according to the Great Charter.

One of the acts declared that “Holy Church within this Province shall
have all her rights and liberties.” A similar law was made in the
following year. Both are founded upon the first clause of Magna Charta
and must be held to apply to the Roman Church, since the phrase “Holy
Church” was never used in speaking of the Church of England. But these
acts can hardly be regarded as evidence of an intention to establish
the Roman Church. They do not seem to have had any practical effect
whatever. We have seen that Lord Baltimore purposed to make all creeds
equal in Maryland. Apart from this fixed purpose, from which he never
swerved, the impolicy of granting any peculiar privileges to the
Catholic Church, in a province subject to England, was so apparent
that it was recognized by the Jesuits themselves. Among the Stonyhurst
Manuscripts there is preserved the form of an agreement between the
Provincial of the Society of Jesus, and Lord Baltimore, in which, after
a statement of the manner in which Maryland had been obtained and
settled, it is recited that it is “evident that, as affairs now are,
those privileges, etc., usually granted to ecclesiastics of the Roman
Catholic Church by Catholic princes in their own countries, could not
possibly be granted here without grave offence to the King and State
of England (which offence may be called a hazard both to the Baron and
especially to the whole colony).” The agreement then binds the members
of the society in Maryland not to demand any such privileges except
those relating to corporal punishments.[869]

It is certain that, from the time the emigrants first landed at
St. Mary’s, religious toleration was the established custom of the
Province. The history of Maryland toleration does not begin with
the famous Act of 1649. That was merely a legislative confirmation
of the unwritten law. Long before that enactment, at a time when
intolerance and martyrdom was almost the law of Christendom, and
while the annals of the other colonies of the New World were being
stained with the record of crimes committed in the name of religion,
in Maryland the doctrine of religious liberty was clearly proclaimed
and practised. It is the imperishable glory of Lord Baltimore and of
the State. For the first time in the history of the world there was a
regularly constituted government under which all Christians possessed
equal rights. All churches were tolerated, none was established. To
this “land of the sanctuary” came the Puritans who were whipped and
imprisoned in Virginia, and the Prelatists who were persecuted in
New England. In 1638 one William Lewis was fined by the council five
hundred pounds of tobacco, and required to give security for his good
behavior, because he had abused Protestants and forbidden his servants
to read Protestant books. The Puritans were invited to settle in
Maryland. In 1643 Lord Baltimore wrote to Captain Gibbons of Boston,
offering land to any inhabitants of New England that would remove
to his province, with liberty in matter of religion, and all other
privileges.[870]

It appears from a case that came before the Assembly in 1642 that
there was at that time no Protestant clergyman in Maryland. The
only religious guides were the Jesuit missionaries, and they formed
the only Catholic mission ever established in any of the English
colonies in America. Two priests, as we have seen, accompanied the
first emigration. In 1636 the mission numbered four priests and one
coadjutor. They labored among the Indians in the spirit of Xavier,
establishing stations at points distant from St. Mary’s. Their efforts
to elevate the savage were not without success. One of their converts
was Tayac, the chief of the Piscataways. He and his wife were baptized
in 1640, when Governor Calvert and many of the principal men of the
colony were present at the ceremony. The Jesuits also succeeded in
converting many Protestants. The annual letter of 1638, as communicated
to their Superior, states that nearly all the Protestants who came from
England in that year, and many others, had been converted.

Although the missionaries did much towards conciliating the Indians,
and a fair and gentle treatment of them was the constant policy of the
colony, it was yet impossible to preserve a perfect peace with all the
tribes. The increase of the colonists began to alarm them, and they
were constantly committing petty depredations. All the inhabitants
capable of bearing arms were trained in military discipline, and a
certain quantity of arms and ammunition was required to be kept at
each dwelling-house. Expeditions were frequently made for the purpose
of punishing particular tribes which had committed “sundry insolencies
and rapines.” Scarcely anything is known of the details of these Indian
wars. It was made a penal offence for the colonists to supply any
Indian with arms, but the Swedes on the Delaware had no scruples in
this respect.

In 1640 another Assembly was held. St. Mary’s County had now been
divided into hundreds, and conservators of the peace appointed for
each hundred. In addition to the burgesses elected in each hundred,
the governor summoned certain freemen by special writ, as had been
previously done. The theory upon which this Assembly and those held in
the following years proceeded, in framing laws, was that justice should
be done according to the law of England, except in so far as changed
by provincial enactments.

The Civil War was now at its height in England, and that mighty
convulsion filled all the colonies with alarm and uncertainty. The
supremacy of the Puritans foreboded danger to the colony of a Catholic
nobleman, who still adhered to the cause of the King. Governor Calvert
determined to consult his brother personally in regard to the course
to be pursued in this crisis. Delegating his powers to Giles Brent, he
sailed for England and soon after joined his brother at Oxford. They
received from the King a commission to seize any London ships that
might come to St. Mary’s. Baltimore sent this commission to Maryland;
and in January, 1644, when one Richard Ingle appeared in the Province
with an armed ship from London, Governor Brent seized the vessel, and
issued a proclamation against Ingle, charging him with treason to the
King. Ingle was taken, but soon after made his escape and returned to
England. Governor Calvert arrived in September, 1644, and found the
Province torn with internal feuds and harassed by Indian incursions.
Many thought that the triumph of Parliament would put an end to the
Proprietary dominion. Clayborne availed himself of the confusion to
renew his designs upon Kent Island, and, by the end of the year, he had
regained his former possession. Ingle soon after arrived in another
ship, with parliamentary letters of marque. The Proprietary was as
powerless as the King with whose fortunes his own were thought to be
linked. Ingle landed his men, allied himself with the disaffected,
and easily took possession of the government. Governor Calvert fled
to Virginia, and the insurgents were undisturbed. The records of the
Province brand Ingle as a pirate. To plunder seems indeed to have been
his main purpose, and it is not clear that he even professed to act
on behalf of the Commonwealth. He afterwards alleged, in a petition
to Parliament, that, when he arrived in Maryland, he found that the
governor had received a commission from Oxford to seize all London
ships, and to execute a tyrannical power against Protestants; and that,
therefore, he felt himself to be conscientiously obliged to come to the
help of the Protestants against the <DW7>s and Malignants. His only
statement as to his proceedings in the Province is that “it pleased
God to enable him to take divers places from them, and to make him a
support to the well-affected.” It is, however, certain that the period
of Ingle’s usurpation was marked with much oppression and extortion.
The Jesuits were sent in chains to England, and most of those deemed
loyal to the Proprietary were deprived of their property and banished.

Towards the close of 1646 Governor Calvert, who had been watching the
progress of events from Virginia, deemed that the time was ripe for
a counter revolution. He appeared at St. Mary’s, at the head of a
small force levied in Virginia, and regained the government without
resistance. Ingle left the Province, and the body of the people
returned to their allegiance with marked alacrity. The most permanent
evil caused by this usurpation—commonly called Clayborne and Ingle’s
Rebellion, although they do not appear to have acted in concert—was
the destruction of the greater part of the then existing records.
The entire period is, consequently, involved in obscurity; and it is
impossible to determine why it was that so many of the inhabitants
were ready to join Ingle in what they afterwards called his “heinous
rebellion.” Kent Island alone held out, and Governor Calvert went
there in person, and brought back the island to subjection. The entire
Province was now tranquillized; but Leonard Calvert did not live to
enter upon his labors. On the 9th of June, 1647, he died at the little
capital of St. Mary’s, which he had founded seventeen years before, and
where he had long exercised, with wisdom and moderation, the highest
executive and judicial functions. He had led out the colony from
England when a young man of twenty-six years, and in the discharge of
various offices he had, in the language of his commission, displayed
“such wisdom, fidelity, industry, and other virtues as rendered him
capable and worthy of the trust reposed in him.” Upon his death-bed
he named Thomas Greene his successor, who now assumed the duties of
governor. Greene proclaimed a general pardon to those in the Province
who had “unfortunately run themselves into a rebellion,” and a pardon
to those who had fled the Province, “acknowledging sorrow for his
fault,” except “Richard Ingle, mariner.”[871]

[Illustration]

The cause of the monarchy was now prostrate in England, and in the
supremacy of Parliament Lord Baltimore saw great danger threatening
his colonial dominion. It was necessary to put it out of the power of
his enemies to say that Maryland was a Catholic colony, and at the
same time he felt bound to protect his co-religionists. He therefore
determined to pursue at once a policy of conciliation to the Puritans
and of protection to the Catholics. The course he adopted was one well
calculated to attain this double end. In August, 1648, he removed
Greene, who was a Catholic, and appointed William Stone governor. Stone
was a Virginian, and well known as a zealous Protestant and adherent of
the Parliament. Lord Baltimore at the same time issued a new commission
of the Council of State appointing five councillors, three of whom were
Protestants, and he also appointed a Protestant secretary. Accompanying
the commissions were oaths to be taken by the governor and councillors.
Each was required to swear that he would not trouble or molest any
person in the Province professing to believe in Jesus Christ, “and
in particular no Roman Catholick for, or in respect of, his or her
religion.” While the usual power to assent to laws in the name of the
Proprietary was given to Stone, his commission contained a proviso that
he should not assent to the _repeal_ of any law—already made or which
should thereafter be made—which might in any way concern matters of
religion, without special warrant under the seal of the Proprietary.
The object of this restriction was to prevent the repeal, by subsequent
legislatures, of the act of religious toleration which Lord Baltimore
purposed to have passed by the next Assembly. By this act he did not
design to have the custom of religious liberty, which had prevailed
from the settlement, at all enlarged, but only to be a law of the land
beyond the reach of alteration. This security was the more necessary
since Stone had agreed to procure five hundred settlers to reside in
Maryland, and these might create an overwhelming Protestant majority.

[Illustration]

The new governor and council entered upon their duties in the beginning
of 1649, and in April of that year the Assembly met. The first law made
was the famous “act concerning religion;” which, at least so far as it
related to toleration, was doubtless one of the sixteen proposed laws
which Lord Baltimore had sent over in the preceding year with the new
commissions. The memorable words of this act, the first law securing
religious liberty that ever passed a legally constituted legislature,
provide that—

 “Whereas, the inforcing of the conscience in matters of religion
 hath frequently fallen out to bee of dangerous consequence in those
 commonwealths where it hath beene practised, and for the more quiet
 and peaceable government of this province, and the better to preserve
 mutuall love and unity amongst the inhabitants here,” it was enacted
 that no person “professing to believe in Jesus Christ shall, from
 henceforth, be any waies troubled, molested, or discountenanced for,
 or in respect of, his or her religion, nor in the free exercise
 thereof within this province, ... nor any way compelled to the beleefe
 or exercise of any other religion, against his or her consent.”

The Assembly was composed of sixteen members, nine burgesses, the
governor, and six councillors. Their faith has been a matter of
dispute, but the most recent investigations make it certain that a
majority were Catholics. The governor, three of the council, and two of
the burgesses were, without doubt, Protestants. It is equally certain
that three of the council and five burgesses were Catholics. The faith
of the remaining two members is doubtful; and there is also doubt
whether the governor and council sat as a distinct upper house or not.

By the other sections of the “act of toleration,” blasphemy, and
denying the divinity of Christ, or the Trinity, were made punishable
with death; and those using reproachful words concerning the Virgin
Mary or the Apostles, or in matters of religion applying opprobrious
epithets to persons, were punishable by a fine, and in default of
payment by imprisonment or whipping. It does not appear that any of
these penalties were ever inflicted. The toleration established by
this act is so far in advance of all contemporary legislation, that it
would be invidious to reproach the law-givers because they were not
still more enlightened. It may have been that they regarded any broader
toleration as prohibited by the provision of the charter respecting the
Christian religion, or as likely to excite the animadversion of the
Puritans in England. Parliament had recently passed a law (Act of 1648,
chapter 114) for the preventing of the growth of heresy and blasphemy,
by which the “maintaining with obstinacy” of any one of a number of
enumerated heresies—such as that Christ is not ascended into heaven
bodily, or that the bodies of men shall not rise again after they are
dead—was made a felony punishable with death.

[Illustration: ENDORSEMENT OF THE TOLERATION ACT.]

In 1649 Governor Stone invited a body of Puritans who were banished
from Virginia, on account of their refusal to conform to the Church
of England, to settle in Maryland. These Puritans, the fruits of a
mission which had been sent from New England to “convert the ungodly
Virginians,” numbered over one hundred. Stone having promised them
liberty in the matter of religion and the privileges of English
subjects, they accepted the invitation, and in this year settled at a
place which they called Providence,—now the site of Annapolis. The
settlement was, at the next Assembly, erected into a county, and named
Anne Arundel, in honor of Lord Baltimore’s wife, recently deceased, who
was a daughter of the Earl of Arundel. The conditions of plantation
required every person taking up land in the Province to subscribe an
oath of fidelity to his lordship, acknowledging him to be “the true
and absolute lord and Proprietary of this province.” The Puritans
objected to this oath as being against their consciences, because it
required them to acknowledge an absolute power, and bound them to obey
a government which countenanced the Roman religion. It is clear that
these refugees from intolerance were eager to be intolerant themselves.
During a temporary absence of Stone in November, 1649, Greene, the
deputy-governor, foolishly proclaimed Charles II. king, and granted a
general pardon in furtherance of the common rejoicing. Although this
act was promptly disavowed, it afterwards became a formidable weapon
against Lord Baltimore.

Notwithstanding their scruples, the Providence Puritans sent two
burgesses to the Assembly of 1650, one of whom was elected speaker of
the lower house. At this session there was first made a permanent
division of the Assembly into two houses, which lasted till the
Revolution of 1776. The lower house consisted of the burgesses, and the
upper of the governor, secretary, and council. The majority of this
Assembly were Protestants; but they made a law enacting, as “a memorial
to all posterities” of their thankfulness, fidelity, and obedience
to the Proprietary, that, “being bound thereunto by the laws both
of God and man,” they acknowledged him “to be the true and absolute
lord and Proprietary of this province,” and declaring that they would
maintain his jurisdiction till “the last drop of our blood be spent.”
Another act was passed altering the oath of fidelity prescribed by the
conditions of plantation. The new oath afforded ample opportunity for
mental reservation. By it the subscribers bound themselves to maintain
“the just and lawful” right and dominion of the Proprietary, “not in
any wise understood to infringe or prejudice liberty of conscience in
point of religion.”

Lord Baltimore’s trimming at this crisis aroused the displeasure of
Charles II. Although a powerless exile, he deposed the Proprietary,
and appointed Sir William Davenant royal governor of Maryland, on the
ground that Baltimore “did visibly adhere to the rebels in England,
and admitted all kinds of sectaries and schismatics and ill affected
persons into the plantation.” Baltimore afterwards used this assertion
to prove his fidelity to Parliament. Sir William collected a force of
French and sailed for Maryland, but was captured in the channel.

Lord Baltimore was soon after threatened from a much more formidable
quarter. The revolt of the island of Barbadoes called the attention
of Parliament to the necessity of subjecting the colonies to its
power, and by an act passed Oct. 3, 1650, for reducing Barbadoes,
Antigua, “and other islands and places in America” to their due
obedience, the Council of State was authorized to send ships to any
of the plantations, and to commission officers “to enforce all such
to obedience as do or shall stand in opposition to Parliament.” When
the news of this act reached Maryland, the Puritans of Providence
thought that the days of the Proprietary dominion were numbered, and
they consequently refused to send burgesses to the Assembly which met
in March, 1651. Upon information of their conduct and of the perturbed
state of the Province being transmitted to Lord Baltimore, he sent in
August, 1651, a long message to the governor and Assembly. He declared
that the reports concerning the dissolution of his government were
unfounded, and directed that in case any of the inhabitants should
persist in their refusal to send burgesses to the Assembly, they should
be proceeded against as rebels. He also requested the governor and
council to use their best endeavors to suppress such false rumors, and
suggested that a law be made punishing those spreading false news.

But they who asserted that the Proprietary dominion was about to
fall, did not “spread false news.” That steps were not immediately
taken to execute the Act of 1650 was probably owing to the fact that
Scotland was now in arms under the banner of Charles II. But after
the “crowning mercy” of the battle of Worcester, the Council of State,
Sept. 20, 1651, appointed two officers of the navy, and Richard
Bennett and William Clayborne of Virginia, commissioners under the
act. They were directed to use their “best endeavors to reduce all the
plantations within the Bay of Chesapeake to their due obedience to the
Parliament and the Commonwealth of England.” Maryland was at first
expressly named in these instructions; but before they were issued,
Baltimore went before the committee of the Council and showed that
Governor Stone had always been well affected to Parliament; proved
by merchants, who traded to Maryland, that it was not in opposition,
and declared that when the friends of the Commonwealth had been
compelled to leave Virginia he had caused them to be well received in
his province. The name of Maryland was thereupon stricken out of the
instructions; but when they were finally issued, a term was used under
which the Province might be included.

Clayborne and Bennett were in Virginia; the other commissioners soon
after sailed with a fleet carrying a regiment of men, and one hundred
and fifty Scotch prisoners who were to be sold as servants in Virginia.
A part of the fleet finally reached Jamestown in March, 1652. The
commissioners speedily came to terms with Sir William Berkeley, and
then turned their attention to Maryland. They appeared at St. Mary’s
toward the last of March, and demanded submission in two particulars:
first, that all writs and proclamations should be issued in the name
of the Keepers of the Liberties of England, and not in that of the
Proprietary; and second, that all the inhabitants should subscribe
the test, called “the engagement,” which was an oath of allegiance to
Parliament. The instructions of the commissioners expressly authorized
them to insist upon these terms. The governor and council acceded to
the second demand, but refused the first on the ground that process in
Maryland had never run in the name of the king, and that it was not the
intention of Parliament to deprive Lord Baltimore of his rights in the
Province. The commissioners immediately removed Stone and appointed a
council of six to govern the Province independently of the Proprietary.
Bennett and Clayborne then returned to Virginia, where they appointed
themselves respectively governor and secretary of that colony. A few
months later Stone, deeming that he could best subserve the interests
of the Proprietary by temporizing, submitted to the terms of the
commissioners, who, finding that Stone was too popular a man to be
disregarded, reinstated him in his office June 28, 1652.

Now that Virginia and Maryland were both under the authority of the
same commissioners, the Virginians thought that the time had arrived
when an attempt to regain their lost territory was likely to prosper.
In August, 1652, a petition was presented to Parliament praying that
Virginia might have its ancient limits as granted by the charters
of former kings, and that Parliament would grant a new charter in
opposition to those intrenching upon these limits. This petition was
referred to the committee of the navy with directions to consider what
patent was proper to be granted to Virginia. The committee reported
Dec. 31, 1652. They found that Kent Island had been settled three years
before the settlement of Maryland; that Clayborne had been unlawfully
dispossessed of it; that Baltimore had exacted oaths of fealty to
himself; that several laws of Maryland were repugnant to the statutes
of England, such as the one protecting <DW7>s; that persons of Dutch,
French, and Italian descent enjoyed equal privileges with the English
in Maryland; and that in March, 1652, the governor and council of
Maryland had refused to issue writs in the name of the Keepers of the
Liberties of England. No action was taken upon this report. Baltimore
had previously presented a paper containing reasons of state why it
would be more advantageous for the Commonwealth to keep Maryland under
a separate government than to join it to Virginia. These reasons were
adapted to the existing condition of affairs, and are sufficiently
ingenious.

The Province seems to have been quiet during the year 1653. In
England, Cromwell turned Parliament out of doors, and the whole
strength of the nation was devoted to the Dutch War. Lord Baltimore
thought the time propitious for an attempt to recover his colony.
Accordingly, in the latter part of the year, he directed Stone to
cause all persons who had failed to sue out patents for their land,
or had not taken the amended oath of fidelity to the Proprietary,
to do so within three months upon pain of forfeiture of their land.
Stone was also directed to issue all writs and processes in the name
of the Proprietary. In pursuance of these instructions Stone issued a
proclamation in February, 1654, requiring those seated upon lands to
obtain patents, and swear allegiance to Lord Baltimore. A few weeks
later he commanded all officers of justice to issue their writs in
the name of the Proprietary, and showed that this change would not
infringe their “engagement” to the Commonwealth. In May he proclaimed
Cromwell Lord Protector. But the Puritans were not mollified by this
act. Before the proclamation of February had been issued, information
as to Baltimore’s instructions had reached the Puritans on the Severn
and Patuxent; and they had sent petitions to Bennett and Clayborne,
in which they complained that the oath of fidelity to be required of
them was “a very real grievance, and such an oppression as we are not
able to bear,” and prayed for relief according to the cause and power
wherewith the commissioners were intrusted. The open disaffection of
the Puritans caused Stone in July, 1654, to issue a proclamation in
which he charged Bennett and Clayborne, and the whole Puritan party,
with leading the people into “faction, sedition, and rebellion against
the Lord Baltimore.” The commissioners, still acting under their old
authority, resolved again to reduce Maryland. They put themselves at
the head of the Providence party, and advanced against St. Mary’s.
At the same time a force levied in Virginia, threatened an invasion
from the south. Stone, deeming resistance hopeless, submitted. The
commissioners deposed him, and by an order dated Aug. 1, 1654,
committed the government of the Province to Captain Fuller and a
Puritan council. An Assembly was called to meet in the ensuing October
for which Roman Catholics were disabled from voting or being elected
members. And thus the fugitives from oppression proceeded to oppress
those who had given them an asylum. “Ingratitude to benefactors is the
first of revolutionary virtues.” The new Assembly met at the house of
an adherent on the Patuxent River. Its first act was one denying the
right of Lord Baltimore to interfere in the affairs of the Province. An
act concerning religion was passed, declaring that none who professed
the Popish religion could be protected in the Province, “but to be
restrained from the exercise thereof.”

When the news of the deposition of his officers reached Lord Baltimore
he despatched a special messenger with letters to Stone, upbraiding him
for having yielded the Province without striking a blow, and directing
him to make every effort to re-establish the proprietary government.
Stone, thus commanded, resolved to dispute the possession of the
government with the Puritans. He armed the population of St. Mary’s,
and caused the records, which had been removed to the Patuxent, and
a quantity of ammunition to be seized. In March, 1655, he advanced
against Providence with about two hundred men and a small fleet of bay
craft. He sent ahead of him envoys with a demand for submission which
was rejected. The Puritans obtained the aid of Roger Heamans, master of
the “Golden Lion,” an armed merchantman lying in the port, and prepared
for resistance. Stone landed his men near the town on the evening of
the 24th of March, and on the next morning the hostile forces advanced
against each other. The battle-cry of the Puritans was, “In the name
of God fall on!” that of their opponents, “Hey for St. Mary’s!” The
fight was short and decisive. The Puritans were completely victorious.
About fifty of Stone’s men were killed or wounded, and nearly all the
rest, including Stone himself, who was wounded, were taken prisoners.
The loss of the Puritans was trifling, but they did not use their
victory with moderation. A drum-head court-martial condemned ten
prisoners to death, upon four of whom the sentence was executed. Among
those thus tried and condemned was Governor Stone, but the soldiers
themselves refused to take his life. It is said that the intercessions
of the women caused the lives of the others to be spared. They were
however kept in confinement, and the estates of the “delinquents” were
confiscated.

Each party was now anxious to find favor in the sight of the Protector.
Lord Baltimore presented the affidavit of certain Protestants in the
Province as to the high-handed proceedings of the Puritans; while
the commissioners transmitted documents to prove that he was hostile
to the Protector. In the course of the year several pamphlets were
published on either side of the controversy. Cromwell, however, does
not appear to have concerned himself about the dispute, since both
parties acknowledged his supremacy. In January, 1655, Baltimore
had obtained from him a letter to Bennett, directing the latter to
forbear disturbing the Proprietary or his people in Maryland. Soon
after the receipt of this letter Bennett abandoned the governorship
of Virginia and went to England. He there made such representations
to the Protector, that, in September, 1655, Cromwell wrote to the
“Commissioners of Maryland,” explaining that his former letter related
only to the boundary disputes between Maryland and Virginia. After the
battle of Providence, Cromwell referred the matter to the Commissioners
of the Great Seal, and declared his pleasure that in the mean time
the government of Maryland should remain as settled by Clayborne. The
Commissioners of the Great Seal reported to the council of state in
the following year. This report was not acted upon, but was itself
referred to the Commissioners for Trade. It was probably favorable to
Lord Baltimore, for he made another effort to wrest his Province from
the hands of the Puritans. In July, 1656, he appointed Josias Fendall
governor of the Province, with all the powers formerly exercised by
Stone. Fendall was in reality only a persistent and unscrupulous
revolutionist, but his activity had hitherto been exercised on behalf
of the Proprietary. Even before his appointment his conduct had excited
the suspicions of the Puritan council. He was arrested by them on the
charge of “dangerousness to the public peace,” and kept in confinement
till September, 1656, when he was released upon taking an oath not to
disturb the existing government until the matter was determined in
England.

[Illustration]

On the 16th of September, 1656, the Commissioners of Trade reported
to the Lord Protector entirely in favor of Baltimore. The report was
not acted upon, and Bennett and Matthews, the agents of the Puritans,
continued the contest. In October they sent to the Protector a paper
entitled, _Objections against Lord Baltimore’s patent, and reasons why
the government of Maryland should not be put into his hands_. These
objections merely recite the old grievances. Baltimore did not wait
for the report to be confirmed, but, confident that his province would
be restored to him, directed Fendall to assume the administration of
affairs. He also directed large grants of land to be made to those who
had been conspicuous for their fidelity to him, and instructed the
Council to make provision, out of his own rents, for the widows of
those who had lost their lives in his service. Towards the close of
the year the Proprietary sent his brother, Philip Calvert, to Maryland
as a member of the Council and secretary of the Province. Maryland was
now divided between the rival governments. The Puritans held undisputed
sway over Anne Arundel, Kent Island, and most of the settlements, while
Fendall’s authority seems to have been confined to St. Mary’s County.
But there were no acts of hostility between the opposing factions. In
September, 1657, the Puritans held another Assembly at Patuxent, at
which they again passed an act in recognition of their own authority,
and imposed taxes for the payment of the public charges.

Such was the posture of affairs when an agreement was reached by Lord
Baltimore and the Puritan agents in England. The favor with which
the Protector regarded the old nobility, and his failure to notice
the remonstrances which the Puritan agents had addressed to him,
caused the latter to despair of setting aside the adverse report of
the Commissioners of Trade. The new agent of Virginia, Digges, acted
as the intermediary between Baltimore and Bennett and Matthews, and
the articles of agreement were signed on the 30th of November, 1657.
After reciting the controversies and the “very sad, distracted, and
unsettled condition” of the Province, they provide for the submission
of those in opposition to the Proprietary and their surrender of the
records and great seal. Lord Baltimore, on his part, promised “upon
his honor” that he would punish no offenders, but would grant land to
all having claims under the conditions of plantation, and that any
persons desiring to leave the Province should have liberty to do so.
The Puritans now desired the protection of the Toleration Act, and
Lord Baltimore therefore stipulated that he would never assent to its
repeal. Fendall, who had gone to England for the purpose of consulting
the Proprietary, immediately returned to Maryland with a copy of this
agreement. At the same time Bennett wrote to Captain Fuller, apprising
him of the engagement which had been made on behalf of his party.
Fendall arrived in the Province in February, 1658; and the Providence
council were requested to meet the officers of Lord Baltimore in order
to treat for the performance of the agreement. A meeting of the rival
councillors accordingly took place in March. The Puritans, fatigued
by the long struggle, were not unwilling to submit, but insisted upon
making some changes in the articles of surrender. Fendall accepted
their terms, and the new agreement was signed on the 24th of March,
1658. It was stipulated that the oath of fidelity should not be pressed
upon the people then resident in the Province, but that, in its place,
each person should subscribe an engagement to submit to Lord Baltimore,
according to his patent, and not to obey any in opposition to him.
It was further agreed that no persons should be disarmed; that there
should be a general indemnity for all acts done since December, 1649,
and that the proceedings of the Puritan assemblies and courts, in cases
relating to property rights, should not be annulled. Proclamation was
then made of this agreement and of the governor’s commission, and writs
were issued for an Assembly to be held in the ensuing April. At this
Assembly the articles of surrender were confirmed. And thus, after six
years of civil broils, the Proprietary sway was re-established.

But the spirit of that revolutionary epoch was not yet extinct in
Maryland. Another attempt to subvert the authority of Lord Baltimore
was made in the following year. This time the leader was Fendall
himself, who, after having broken faith with the Puritans, now broke
faith with the Proprietary. Upon the confusion which followed the death
of Cromwell, Fendall thought that the opportune moment had come for
shaking off the rule of his feudal lord. At a session of the Assembly
held in March, 1660, the burgesses, in pursuance of Fendall’s scheme,
sent to the upper house a message, in which they claimed to be a lawful
assembly, without dependence on any other power, and the highest court
of judicature. “If any objection can be made to the contrary,” the
message concluded, “we desire to hear it.” A conference between the
houses was held, at which Fendall stated that he was only commissioned
to confirm laws till the Proprietary should declare his dissent, but
that in his opinion the true meaning of the charter was that the laws
made by the freemen and published by them in his lordship’s name should
at once be of full force. On the same day the lower house came in a
body to the upper, and declared that they would not permit the latter
to continue its sittings, but that its members might take seats among
them. Fendall then dissolved the upper house, and, surrendering the
powers he had received from the Proprietary, accepted a new commission
from the burgesses. Philip Calvert protested against the proceedings,
and left the house. The burgesses sought to fortify their authority by
making it a felony to disturb the government as established by them.

Lord Baltimore made short work of these treacherous proceedings. As
soon as the tidings reached him, in the following June, he appointed
Philip Calvert governor. Soon after he obtained from Charles II. a
letter commanding all the inhabitants of the Province to submit to
his authority. Philip Calvert was sworn in at the Provincial Court
held at Patuxent in December, 1660, and had no difficulty in obtaining
control of the Province. No one ventured to disobey the commands of
a monarch who had just been restored to the throne amid universal
enthusiasm. Fendall, indeed, attempted to excite an insurrection, but,
failing in this, surrendered himself voluntarily. Lord Baltimore had
instructed his deputy not to permit Fendall to escape with his life;
and subsequently, while proclaiming a general amnesty, he excepted
Hatch and “that perfidious and perjured fellow Fendall, whom we lately
entrusted to be our lieutenant of Maryland.” Notwithstanding these
instructions, Fendall was punished only by a fine and disfranchisement.

[Illustration]

Charles II. was duly proclaimed, and the power of King and Proprietary
permanently revived. The tranquillity which now came to the exhausted
colony was destined to last, without interruption, till the mighty wave
of another revolution in England proved fatal to the lord paramount
of Maryland. Clayborne, who has been called the evil genius of the
Province, now disappears from its history. His courage and energy have
won the admiration of some writers; but, according to the settled
principles of public law, his claim upon Kent Island was entirely
without foundation. Towards the close of 1661 Charles Calvert, the
eldest son of the Proprietary, was appointed governor, and remained
in that office till the death of his father. The history of the
Province becomes the record of peaceful progress under his wise and
just administration. The population, which in 1660 was 12,000, had
increased, five years later, to 16,000. In 1676 Lord Baltimore wrote
to the Privy Council that the population was 20,000. The provincial
assemblies continued to be held at St. Mary’s, and new counties were
from time to time erected.

[Illustration: THE BALTIMORE COINS.

[See a “Sketch of the Early Currency of Maryland and Virginia,” by S.
F. Streeter, in _Historical Magazine_, February, 1858, vol. ii. p.
42; and Crosby’s _Early Coins of America_, from which we have been
permitted to borrow our cuts. Specimens of the coins were given by the
late George Peabody to the Maryland Historical Society; but they have
been surreptitiously removed. Other originals are in the cabinet of
William S. Appleton, Esq., of Boston.—ED.]]

The cultivation of tobacco was, from the earliest period, the main
occupation of the colonists. Indeed, the prosperity of all the middle
colonies reposed chiefly upon this foundation. It was almost the sole
export of Maryland. There were no manufactures and no large towns in
the Province. It was an agricultural community, scattered along the
shores of the noble bay, and of the Potomac and other tributary streams
which intersected the country in every direction. The abundance of
these natural highways relieved the infant State from a large part of
the burden of maintaining roads. Every large planter had at his own
door a boat-landing, where he received his supplies, and from which
his tobacco was taken to be shipped upon foreign-bound vessels. The
high price of tobacco in the second quarter of the seventeenth century
(ten times its present value), and the large demand for it by Dutch
traders, led the colonists to devote themselves so exclusively to
its cultivation, that, on more than one occasion, they suffered from
a scarcity of food. Beginning in 1639, numerous acts were passed to
enforce the planting of cereals. In order to maintain the excellence
of the tobacco exported, the Assembly in 1640 enacted the first
tobacco-inspection law,—and thus began a system which has, in some
form, been maintained down to the present day. According to the Act of
1640, no tobacco could be exported till scaled by a sworn viewer; and
when a hogshead was found bad for the greater part, it was to be burned.

Tobacco was not only the great staple of the Province, but also its
chief currency. Taxes were assessed, fines imposed, and salaries
paid in tobacco. After the Restoration the restrictive measures, to
which we shall refer, and the overproduction of tobacco caused great
depreciation in the value of the article. The consequent inconvenience
was such that in 1661 the Assembly prayed the Proprietary to establish
a mint for the coining of money. Lord Baltimore, by a doubtful stretch
of his palatinate prerogatives, caused a large quantity of shillings,
sixpences, and groats to be coined for the Province. These coins
were put into circulation under an act, passed in 1662, requiring
every freeman to take up ten shillings’ worth of them per poll for
every taxable person in his custody, and to pay for the same in
tobacco at the rate of two pence per pound. But their introduction
did not give permanent relief, and tobacco continued to be the chief
medium of exchange. Its value decreased so much, that, early in 1663,
commissioners were appointed by Virginia and Maryland to consider
the evil and its remedy. They could only suggest a diminution of the
quantity raised. In the following year the Virginia agents represented
to the Privy Council the necessity of lessening the cultivation of
tobacco in Virginia and Maryland, and offered proposals for effecting
it. These proposals did not meet the approval of Lord Baltimore. The
Privy Council ordered that there should be no cessation of the planting
of tobacco; but, in order to encourage the planters in cultivating
other articles, directed that pitch, tar, and hemp, of the production
of those colonies, should be imported into England free of duty for
five years. In 1666 an agreement was made between delegates from
Virginia, Maryland, and Carolina, providing for a total cessation
in the planting of tobacco for one year. The legislatures of these
colonies passed acts to enforce this agreement; but the Maryland act
was vetoed by Lord Baltimore, upon the ground that it would work great
injury to the poorer sort of planters, as well as cause a loss of
revenue to the Crown. For various reasons these efforts to control the
market by limiting the supply never succeeded.

The colonists did not then fully perceive where the root of the evil
lay. There was not too much tobacco but too few buyers; and the number
of buyers had been artificially lessened. The real cause of this
colonial distress was the famous Navigation Act and the statutes which
had been made in pursuance of the policy then begun. The Navigation
Act, passed by the Long Parliament in October, 1651, provided that no
goods should be imported from Asia, Africa, or America but in English
vessels, under the penalty of the forfeiture of both goods and ship.
Originally designed as a blow at the commercial supremacy of the
Dutch, this Act became, to use the language of Burke, the corner-stone
of the policy of England with regard to the colonies. This Act was
supplemented by still more restrictive statutes passed in 1660 and in
1663 (15 Car. II. c. 7). The result of these regulations was that the
colonists could buy nothing except from English merchants, and could
sell nothing except to English merchants. They were not even permitted
to export their own goods in their own vessels. They suffered from
a triple monopoly of sale, of purchase, and of transportation. They
bought in the dearest and sold in the cheapest market.

The chief source of the revenue derived by the Proprietary from the
Province arose from the quit-rents which, from the earliest period,
had been charged on all grants of land. These rents were at first
payable in wheat. In later grants they were made payable in money or
the commodities of the country, at the option of the Proprietary, until
1671, when an export duty of two shillings per hogshead was imposed on
all tobacco, one half of which went to the support of the government,
and the other half was granted to the Proprietary in consideration of
his commuting his money quit-rents and alienation fines for tobacco,
at the rate of two pence per pound. After 1658 another source of
Proprietary revenue was an alienation fine of one year’s rent, which
was made a condition precedent to the validity of every conveyance. In
1661 there was given to the Proprietary a port and anchorage duty of
half a pound of powder and three pounds of shot on all foreign vessels
trading to the Province. The fines and forfeitures imposed in courts
of justice inured to the Proprietary as the fountain of justice and
standing _in loco regis_. The royal nature of the Proprietary dominion
was also shown in the use of his name in all writs and processes, as
the name of the king was used in England. Provincial laws were enacted
in his name, by and with the advice and consent of the upper and
lower houses. Indictments, including those upon the penal statutes of
England, charged the offences to be against his peace, good rule, and
government.

The first mention of <DW64> slaves occurs in an act passed in 1664; but
they had probably been previously introduced into the Province from
Virginia, where slavery existed before the settlement of Maryland. In
1671 an act was passed to encourage their importation, and slavery
was thenceforth established. It was long, however, before slaves
took the place of indented servants, who formed a large part of the
population down to the time of the Revolution. They at first consisted
of those who had signed an indenture of service for a limited number
of years and were brought into the Province by the masters themselves.
Subsequently the traffic in servants was taken up by shipowners and
others, who sold them for the remainder of their term to the highest
bidders. The term of service, which was at first five years, was
reduced by the Act of 1638 to four years. Upon the expiration of his
indenture a servant was entitled to fifty acres of land and a year’s
supply of necessaries. These servants were called “Redemptioners,”
and many of them became valuable citizens. After the Restoration the
practice of kidnapping men in English seaports and selling them as
servants in the colonies became very common. Among the Maryland papers
is the petition of one Mrs. Beale to the king, complaining that the
master of a ship had taken her brother as his apprentice on a voyage to
Maryland, and there sold him as a servant. The lord mayor and aldermen
of London complained to the Council that “certain persons, called
spirits, do inveigle, and, by lewd subtilities, entice away” youth to
be sold as servants in the plantations. Owing to its equable climate,
Maryland had more of these indented servants than any other colony, and
the statute book contains many acts relating to them. The practice of
sending convicts to America, however, was warmly resisted, and in 1676
an act was passed to prevent it.

A temporary exception to the universal religious toleration, which was
a capital principle of government in Maryland, occurred in the case
of the Quakers. The first Quaker missionaries appeared in Maryland
in 1657. Two years later other preachers of that sect visited the
Province and caused “considerable convincement.” Their refusal to bear
arms, or to subscribe the engagement of fidelity, or to give testimony,
or to serve as jurors, was mistaken for sedition.

[Illustration: CECIL, SECOND LORD BALTIMORE.

[See the Critical Essay for an account of this picture.—ED.]]

On July 23, 1659, under Fendall’s administration, an order was passed
directing that if “any of the vagabonds and idle persons known by the
name of Quakers” should again come into the Province, the justices
of the peace should arrest them and cause them to be whipped from
constable to constable out of the Province. There is no evidence that
this penalty was ever enforced. The most active Quaker missionary
simply received a sentence of banishment; and after the suppression of
Fendall’s rebellion there was no persecution of the Quakers. They found
a refuge in Maryland from the intolerance of New England and Virginia.
In 1672 George Fox arrived in the Province and attended two “general
meetings for all Maryland Friends,” which he describes in his journal
as having been largely attended, not only by Quakers but by “other
people, divers of whom were of considerable quality in the world’s
account.” Maryland was also sought by many French, Bohemian, and Dutch
families. In 1666 the first act of naturalization was passed admitting
certain French and Bohemians to the rights of citizenship, and from
that time forward numerous similar acts were passed.

On the 30th of November, 1675, died Cecilius, Lord Baltimore, after
having inscribed his name upon one of the fairest pages in the history
of America. The magnificent heritage left him by his father was
beset with difficulties; but his courage, perseverance, and skill
had triumphed over the hostility of Virginia and the intrigues of
Clayborne, over domestic insurrection and Puritan hatred. The first
ruler who established and maintained religious toleration is entitled
to enduring honor in the eyes of posterity. His name is that of one
of the most enlightened and magnanimous statesmen who ever founded a
commonwealth.

In the year following his death, Governor Charles Calvert, now the Lord
Proprietary, called an assembly at which a thorough revision of the
laws of the Province was made. Among the laws continued in force was
the Toleration Act of 1649. In the same year Lord Baltimore appointed
Thomas Notley deputy-governor, and then sailed for England, where he
remained three years. Upon his arrival he found that a clergyman of
the Church of England, named Yeo, residing in Maryland, had written
to the Archbishop of Canterbury, under the date of 25th May, 1676,
begging him to solicit from Lord Baltimore an established support
for the Protestant ministry. “Here are ten or twelve counties,” he
writes, “and in them at least twenty thousand souls, and but three
Protestant ministers of the Church of England. The priests are provided
for, and the Quakers take care of those that are speakers, but no
care is taken to build up churches in the Protestant religion. The
Lord’s day is profaned. Religion is despised, and all notorious vices
are committed, so that it is become a Sodom of uncleanness and a
pest-house of iniquity.” There is reason to believe that this letter
was an exaggerated libel. At any rate the writer considered it easy to
cure the evil. It would be sufficient to impose an established church
upon the Province. The Archbishop referred the letter to the Bishop
of London, who asked the Privy Council to “prevail with Baltimore to
settle a revenue for the ministry in his province.” The Privy Council
wrote to Baltimore communicating the unfavorable information with
regard to the dissolute life of the inhabitants of his province,
and desiring an account of the number of Established and Dissenting
ministers there. Lord Baltimore replied that in every county of
the Province there were a sufficient number of churches which were
supported by the voluntary contributions of those attending them, and
that there were, to his knowledge, four clergymen of the Church of
England in the Province. He also urged that at least three fourths
of the inhabitants were Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and
Quakers, the members both of the Church of England and of the Church
of Rome being the fewest, “so that it will be a most difficult task
to draw such persons to consent unto a law which shall compel them
to maintain ministers of a contrary persuasion to themselves, they
having already assurance by an Act for Religion that they shall have
all freedom in point of religion and divine worship, and no penalties
imposed upon them in that particular.” The Council, however, directed
that some provision should be made for the ministry of the Church of
England, and that the laws against vice should be enforced. Baltimore
returned to Maryland in 1680, but nothing was done to carry out the
orders of the Council.

Soon after his return the restless Fendall, in conjunction with John
Coode, attempted to stir up an insurrection of the Protestants against
the Proprietary. Baltimore, having early notice of the proceedings,
arrested Fendall. He was punished by fine and banishment, and the
enterprise ended almost as soon as it began. The great preponderance
of the Protestant population, and the course of affairs in England
were fast making the position of a Catholic Proprietary untenable.
Complaints of the favor shown to Catholics were constantly sent to
England. In October, 1681, the Privy Council wrote to Baltimore that
impartiality must be shown in admitting Catholics and Protestants
to the council and in the distribution of arms. In reply to these
complaints a declaration was issued in May, 1682, signed by twenty-five
Protestants of the Church of England residing in the Province. This
declaration certified that places of honor, trust, and profit were
conferred on the most qualified, without any regard to the religion
of the participants, and that in point of fact most of the offices
were filled with Protestants, one half of the council, and by far
the greater part of the justices of the peace and militia officers,
being Protestants. The subscribers published to the world the general
freedom and privilege which all the inhabitants of the Province enjoyed
in their lives, liberties, and estates, and in the free and public
exercise of their religion.

The first Proprietary had finally come off successful in the long
contest for his territory with Virginia and Clayborne. The second
Proprietary was now called upon to begin a longer and less successful
struggle with William Penn. The charter limits of Maryland included the
present State of Delaware and a large part of Pennsylvania. In 1638
a settlement of Swedes was made on the Delaware, which was brought
under subjection to the government of the States General in 1655.[872]
In 1659 the governor and council, in pursuance of Lord Baltimore’s
instructions, ordered Colonel Utie to “repair to the pretended governor
of a people seated on the Delaware Bay, within his lordship’s province,
and to require them to depart the province.” Utie had an interview with
the authorities of New Amstel, and threatened them with war in case
of a refusal to leave. They replied that the matter must be left to
their principals in England and Holland. Towards the close of the year
the Dutch sent Augustine Hermann and Resolved Waldron as ambassadors
to Maryland. They had an interview with the governor and council in
which the claim of Holland to the territory in question was formally
presented. The governor asserted the title of Lord Baltimore and
demanded the submission of the settlements. This demand was rejected
and the interview terminated. The Dutch power in America was soon
after brought to an end by the Duke of York, to whom Charles II. in
1664 granted all the territory between the Connecticut and Delaware
rivers.[873] In 1680 Penn asked for a grant of the territory west of
the Delaware and north of Maryland. In his patent, which passed the
seals in March, 1681, the southern boundary of his province was a
“circle of twelve miles drawn around New Castle to the beginning of
the forty degrees of latitude,”—a description which it was impossible
to gratify. In April, 1681, the King wrote to Baltimore notifying him
of Penn’s grant, and directing him to aid Penn in seating himself, and
to appoint some persons to make a division between the provinces, in
conjunction with Penn’s agents.[874] Lord Baltimore met Penn’s deputy,
in September, 1682, at Upland (now Chester), when it was found, by a
precise observation, that the fortieth degree of latitude was beyond
Upland itself. The knowledge of this fact caused Penn to be anxious to
obtain a grant of Delaware. Though the Duke of York’s grant did not
extend south of the Delaware, Penn, by dint of importunity, obtained
from him in August, 1682, a grant of the territory twelve miles around
New Castle, and southward, along the river, to Cape Henlopen. Penn
asked for that which he knew to be within the boundaries of Maryland,
and beyond the power of the Duke to grant. He also received a release
of the Duke’s claim to the territory of Pennsylvania, and soon
afterwards sailed for his province.

On August 19, 1682, he had procured from the King a letter to Baltimore
directing the latter to hasten the adjustment of the boundaries. An
interview between the two Proprietaries took place in December, when
Penn handed to Lord Baltimore the King’s letter. Baltimore insisted
upon the fortieth degree as his northern boundary, and the conference
was fruitless. They had another interview, at New Castle, in the
following year, which also made it apparent that no agreement between
the rival Proprietaries was possible. Penn now raised against the
Maryland charter an objection similar to that which had been urged by
Virginia and Clayborne,—that Delaware had been settled by the Dutch
before the grant of the charter, and that, if this were not the case,
Baltimore had forfeited his rights by failure to extend his settlements
there.

Both Penn and Lord Baltimore now resolved to go to England to
contest the matter before the King and Council. Baltimore called an
assembly—the last over which he presided in person—in April, 1684. He
acquainted them with the necessity he was under of going to England,
and assured them that his stay would be no longer than requisite for
the decision of the differences between Penn and himself. The Assembly
then proceeded to revise the laws of the Province; after which the
Proprietary appointed a council of nine, under the presidency of
William Joseph, to govern the Province during his absence, and sailed
for England. Baltimore found that he was no match in court influence
for Penn. In November, 1685, the Board of Trade decided that the
Maryland charter included only “lands uncultivated and inhabited by
savages, and that the territory along the Delaware had been settled by
Christians antecedently to his grant, and was therefore not included in
it;” and they directed that the peninsula between the two bays should
be divided equally by a line drawn from the latitude of Cape Henlopen
to the fortieth degree, and that the western portion was Baltimore’s
and the eastern Penn’s. The Revolution, however, came in time to
prevent the execution of this decision, and the vexed question was not
finally settled till the middle of the following century.

The accession of James II. brought increased danger to Lord Baltimore.
To a king who designed the subversion of the liberties of the colonies
as well as of England, the liberal charter of Maryland was especially
odious. In April, 1687, an order in Council was made directing the
prosecution of a writ of _quo warranto_ against the Maryland charter.
In that age the issuing of such a writ seldom failed to achieve its
object; but before judgment could be obtained against Baltimore the
Revolution of 1688 had occurred, and the Stuart dynasty was at an end.
The tidings that a writ had been issued against Baltimore’s charter
alarmed the imaginations of the provincials. When the Assembly met in
November, 1688, President Joseph sought to counteract this state of
feeling in a manner which only served to increase the anxiety. In his
opening speech he claimed his right to rule _jure divino_, tracing
it from God to the King, from the King to the Proprietary, and from
the Proprietary to himself. He then took the unprecedented step of
demanding an oath of fidelity from the Houses. The burgesses at first
refused, and were with difficulty persuaded to yield. The Assembly
showed its loyalty to the monarch, who was then a fugitive from his
kingdom, by passing an act for a perpetual thanksgiving for the birth
of the prince, and fixed a commemoration of it each succeeding tenth
day of June.

Upon the accession of William and Mary the Privy Council directed
Lord Baltimore to cause their majesties to be proclaimed in Maryland.
He immediately despatched a messenger with orders to his council to
proclaim the king and queen with the usual ceremonies. This messenger
unfortunately died at Plymouth, and, although William and Mary had
been acknowledged in the other colonies, the Maryland council shrank
from acting without orders from the Proprietary, while they alarmed
the inhabitants by collecting arms and ammunition. Information of
this delay was sent to the Board of Trade from Virginia. Baltimore
was consequently summoned before it, when he explained that he
had sent the required directions to Maryland, but that they had
failed to arrive. He was ordered to despatch duplicate instructions,
but before they reached the Province the Proprietary’s power was
overthrown. The absence of all colonial records from the close of the
session of 1688 to the year 1692 makes it difficult to understand the
exact cause of this revolution. Enough appears from other sources,
however, to show that it was a rebellion fostered by falsehood and
intimidation,—“a provincial Popish plot.” In April, 1689, John Coode
and other disaffected persons formed “An Association in arms for
the defence of the Protestant religion, and for asserting the right
of King William and Queen Mary to the Province of Maryland and all
the English dominions.” Early in July they began to gather in large
numbers on the Potomac. They alleged that the Catholics had invited the
northern Indians to join them in a general massacre of the Protestants
in the following month, and that they had taken arms to defeat this
conspiracy. When a similar rumor had been set on foot, in the preceding
March, a declaration had been published, signed by several of those
who were now Associators, asserting that the subscribers had examined
into all the circumstances of the pretended design, and “found it to be
nothing but a sleveless fear and imagination fomented by the artifice
of some ill-minded persons.” But in July the Association availed itself
of this baseless rumor to obtain the adherence of those who were
foolish enough to believe it; while to others they asserted that their
purpose was only to proclaim William and Mary.

By these means the neutrality or support of the greater part of the
population was secured, and the Associators moved upon St. Mary’s.
The council prepared for resistance, but, upon the approach of Coode
with greatly superior forces, they surrendered the State House and
the provincial records. The Association then published a “Declaration
of the reasons and motives for the present appearing in arms of their
Majesties’ Protestant subjects in the Province of Maryland.” This
Declaration, dated July 25, 1689, signed by Coode and many others, was
printed at St. Mary’s.[875] It is an ingenious and able paper, but
certainly an audacious calumny, which could only have found credence
in England. It set forth that, by the contrivances of Lord Baltimore
and his officers, “the tyranny under which we groan is palliated,” and
“our grievances shrouded from the eye of observation and the hand of
redress.” These grievances were then stated in general terms. In the
mean time Joseph and his council retired to a fort on the Patuxent.
When Coode marched against them with several hundred men they were
again compelled to surrender, and the Associators became masters of
the situation. On the third of August, 1689, they sent an address
to the king and queen congratulating them upon having restored the
laws and liberties of England to their “ancient lustre, purity, and
splendor,” and declaring that, without the expense of a drop of blood,
they had rescued the government of Maryland from the hands of their
enemies, and would hold it securely till a settlement thereof should
be made. A convention was called to meet on the 23d of August, to which
however several counties refused to send delegates. The convention
sent an address to the King asking that their rights and religion
might be secured under a Protestant government. The matter was now
to be determined in England, and addresses from all the counties and
from both parties poured in to the King. Many Protestants favored the
Proprietary, and, in their addresses, denounced the falsehoods of the
Associators. A number of the Protestants of Kent County declared in
their address that “we have here enjoyed many halcyon days under the
immediate government of Charles, Lord Baron of Baltimore, and his
honorable father, ... by charter of your royal progenitors, wherein our
rights and freedoms are so interwoven with his Lordship’s prerogative
that we have always had the same liberties and privileges secured to
us as other of your Majesty’s subjects in the Kingdom of England.” The
greater number of signers, however, sided with the revolutionists.
A friend of Lord Baltimore wrote that “people in debt think it the
bravest time that ever was. No courts open nor no law proceedings,
which they pray may continue as long as they live.” The same writer
asserted that the best men and the best Protestants stood stiffly up
for the Proprietary’s interest.

Those who had benefited by a Protestant Revolution in England were
naturally disposed to look with favor upon a similar Revolution in
America. And thus it came to pass that the Proprietary government “fell
without a crime.”

King William on Feb. 1, 1690, in pursuance of the recommendation of
the committee of the Council for Trade and Plantations, wrote to
those in the administration of Maryland, acknowledging the receipt of
their addresses and approving their motives for taking up arms. He
authorized them to continue in the administration, and in the mean
time to preserve the public peace. Lord Baltimore struggled hard to
retain his province, although his chance of obtaining justice was
desperate. He presented to the King and Council various affidavits and
narratives showing the falsity of the charges against his government.
In January, 1690, he petitioned the Board of Trade to grant a hearing
to such inhabitants and merchants as had lived in and dealt with
Maryland for upwards of twenty-five years, at the same time forwarding
a list of their names. A few days later he requested the Board to
hear his account of the disturbances, to the end that the government
might be restored to him. In August, however, the Council directed
the attorney-general to proceed by _scire facias_ against Baltimore’s
charter. Chief-Justice Holt had previously given an opinion that the
King could appoint a governor of Maryland whose authority would be
legal; and the attorney-general and solicitor-general were directed to
draft a commission of governor.

On the 12th of March, 1691, Queen Mary wrote to the Grand Committee
of Maryland that the Province was taken under the King’s immediate
superintendence, that Copley would be governor, and, until his
arrival, they were to administer the government in the names of their
Majesties. In the following August Sir Lionel Copley was commissioned
by the king and queen. He reached Maryland early in 1692, and the
Province became a royal colony for a quarter of a century. The
Proprietary was still allowed to receive his quit-rents and export
duty, but all his other prerogatives were at an end.


CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THE earliest publication relating to Maryland was a pamphlet which
appeared in London in 1634. It is entitled _A Relation of the
Successful Beginnings of the Lord Baltemore’s Plantation in Maryland:
being an extract of certaine Letters written from thence by some of the
Adventurers to their friends in England_.[876] The similarity of the
language of this relation with Father White’s _Relatio Itineris_ would
seem to show that he was its author. The relation describes the first
settlement and the products of the soil, and narrates the naïve wonder
of the Indians at the big ships and the thunder of the guns. It is
dated “From Saint Marie’s in Maryland, 27 May, 1634.”

The next publication was, _A Relation of Maryland_, London, Sept. 8,
1635,—a work of great value to the student. It was evidently prepared
under the direction of Lord Baltimore, and is an extensive colonizing
programme. It recounts the planting of the colony and their intercourse
with the Indians, and describes the commodities which the country
naturally afforded and those that might be procured by industry. It
also contains the “conditions propounded by the Lord Baltemore to
such as shall goe or adventure into Maryland,” and gives elaborate
instructions as to what the adventurers should take with them, together
with an estimate of the cost of transporting servants and providing
them with necessaries.[877]

A very full account of the voyage of the “Ark and Dove” to Maryland
is contained in a letter written by Father Andrew White, S. J., to
the General of the Order. The originals of this letter, as well as of
different letters from the Jesuit missionaries in Maryland from 1635
to 1677, were discovered, about fifty years ago, by the Rev. W. M.
Sherry, who was afterwards Provincial of the Jesuits in Maryland, in
the archives of the Society in Rome. The copy he then made of these
manuscripts is now in the possession of Loyola College, Baltimore. In
1874 and 1877 the Maryland Historical Society published this _Relatio
Itineris_, and extracts from the annual letters, in the original
Mediæval Latin, with a translation by Mr. Josiah Holmes Converse.
This publication also contains an account of the colony in which the
character of the country and its numerous sources of wealth are set
forth in the glowing colors of anticipation. The original of this
_Declaratio Coloniæ_ was also found at Rome. It was probably written
by Lord Baltimore soon after the grant of his patent, and sent to the
General of the Society at the time of his request that priests might be
sent out to the colony. These publications are enriched with the notes
of the late Rev. E. A. Dalrymple, S. T. D.[878] then Corresponding
Secretary of the Maryland Historical Society. The letters, which have
been frequently used in the preceding narrative, throw much light
upon the early days of the Province, and give a vivid picture of the
activity of the missionaries.[879]

The reduction of Maryland at the time of the Commonwealth caused
several pamphlets upon its affairs to be published in London. The first
of these was _The Lord Baltemore’s case concerning the Province of
Maryland, adjoyning to Virginia in America with full and clear answers
to all material objections touching his Rights, jurisdiction, and
Proceedings there_, etc. London, 1653. This tract was probably called
forth by the report of the committee of the Navy on Maryland affairs
in December, 1652. Although written by Lord Baltimore, or under his
direction, it is a temperate and reliable statement. It contains his
reasons of state why it would be more advantageous for the Commonwealth
to keep Maryland and Virginia separate.

An answer to this pamphlet was published in London in 1655, entitled,
_Virginia and Maryland, or The Lord Baltemore’s printed case uncased
and answered_, etc.[880] This work is of value in giving a full
statement of the Puritan side of the controversy down to 1655. It has
the proceedings in Parliament in 1652 relating to Maryland, copies of
the instructions of the commissioners for the reduction, and other
documents.

There are four pamphlets bearing upon the battle of Providence in
March, 1655. The first is called, _An additional brief narrative of a
late Bloody design against The Protestants in Ann Arundel County and
Severn in Maryland in the County of Virginia.... Set forth by Roger
Heaman, Commander of the Ship Golden Lyon, an eye-witness there_.
London, July 24, 1655. The author gives a detailed but unfair account
of the fight, and of his connection with it, and of the previous
proceedings of Governor Stone. Heamans was answered by John Hammond,
“a sufferer in these calamities,” in a tract, called _Hammond_ vs.
_Heamans; Or, an answer to an audacious pamphlet published by an
impudent and ridiculous fellow named Roger Heamans_, etc. The author
was the person despatched by Stone, early in 1655, to remove the
records from Patuxent. He declares that he “went unarmed amongst these
sons of Thunder, and myself alone seized and carried away the records
in defiance.” In the same year were published both _Babylon’s Fall in
Maryland_, etc., by Leonard Strong, and John Langford’s _Refutation of
Babylon’s Fall_, etc. Strong, the author of the former pamphlet, was
one of the leading Puritans of Providence, and afterwards their agent
in London, where he wrote the tract. It is a party work, containing a
garbled statement of the facts. Langford’s _Refutation_ has a letter
from Governor Stone’s wife to Lord Baltimore describing the conduct of
the Puritans and their treatment of her husband. Langford was rewarded
for this work by Lord Baltimore with a gift of fifteen hundred acres of
land in Maryland.[881]

In 1656 John Hammond published his _Leah and Rachel; or, the Two
fruitfull Sisters Virginia and Maryland_. _Their present condition
impartially stated and related_, etc.[882] This pamphlet is favorable
to Lord Baltimore and condemns the Puritans.

A highly curious production is, _A Character of the Province of
Maryland_, by George Alsop. London, 1666.[883] Alsop had been an
indented servant in Maryland, and gives a favorable account of the
condition of Maryland apprentices. The tract is written in a jocular
style, and was designed to encourage emigration to the Province. It
contains some interesting details concerning the Indian tribes.

Various causes, chief among which are Ingle’s Rebellion, time, and
negligence, have resulted in the destruction of a large part of the
early records of the Province. The principal portion of what now
remains relating to the period before the Protestant Revolution is
contained in the following manuscript folio volumes:—

 1. Liber Z. The Proprietary Record-book from 1637-1642. This is
 the oldest record-book extant. It contains a full account of the
 proceedings of the Assembly held in 1638, and of the process against
 William Lewis for his violation of the proclamation prohibiting
 religious disputes. This volume also has the records of the Council
 acting as a county court, and of proceedings in testamentary causes.
 Many of the original signatures of Leonard Calvert, Secretary Lewger,
 and others are scattered through the volume.

 2. A. 1647-1651. The original second Record-book of the Province. The
 first fifty-eight pages and several of the last are wanting. It has in
 it proceedings of assemblies, court records, appointments to office,
 demands and surveys of land, wills, etc.

 3. Y. 1649-1669. Journals and acts of different assemblies,
 commissions from the Proprietary, etc. This volume contains the
 Toleration Act of 1649[884] and the proceedings of Fendall’s
 revolutionary assembly in 1660.

 4. H. H. 1656-1668. Council proceedings. The original volume
 containing instructions from the Proprietary, commissions of Fendall
 and others, ordinances, and the proceedings against the Quakers.[885]

 5. A. M. 1669-1673. Council Proceedings. A copy probably made in the
 last century.

 6. F. 1637-1642. Council Proceedings and other documents in vol. i. of
 the Land-Office Records. This copy of the original, which is lost, was
 made in the first quarter of the eighteenth century, and is certified
 by a Judge of the Provincial Court to be correct. This volume contains
 Governor Leonard Calvert’s commission, Clayborne’s petition to the
 King, orders of the Privy Council, etc.


 7. A. 1647-1650. Council and Court Proceedings. Some part of the
 original is lost. A copy in vol. ii. of the Land-Office Records.

 8. B. 1648-1657. Council and Court Proceedings and Acts of Assembly.
 The original is lost. A copy is in vols. i. and iii. of the
 Land-Office Records. This volume contains the proceedings of Captain
 Fuller’s council and of the Puritan Assembly in 1654, lists of
 servants for whose importation land was demanded, etc.

 9. Vellum folio. 1636-1657. Council Proceedings. A copy made in the
 eighteenth century. This volume has Stone’s commission, the conditions
 of plantation in 1648 and 1649, the proceedings of Bennett and
 Clayborne in the reduction of Maryland, and of Stone and the Puritans.
 The documents in this volume are not arranged in chronological order.

 10. Vellum folio. 1637-1658. Proceedings of Assemblies. A copy.

 11. F. F. 1659-1699. Upper House Journals. A copy. Contains a full
 account of the proceedings.

 12. X. 1661-1663. Council-book. This original volume contains
 instructions from the Proprietary to Philip Calvert and Fendall,
 demands and grants of land, etc.

 13. 1676-1702. Votes and Proceedings of the Lower House. A copy made
 by the State Librarian in 1838 from the original papers, which are
 not now to be found. It has the proceedings of the Assemblies in
 1676,1683, and 1684.

 14. C. B. 1683-1684. The original Council-book for land.

The first five of the above volumes are in the possession of the
Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore, having been entrusted to its
guardianship by a resolution of the Legislature in 1847. The remaining
folios are in the Land Office at Annapolis.

The three following manuscript volumes are in the office of the Clerk
of the Court of Appeals, at Annapolis:—

 15. Liber W. H. Laws: erroneously lettered on the back 1676-1678.
 This volume contains laws made at different Assemblies from 1640 to
 1688. They are not placed in strict chronological order. These copies
 were made in the seventeenth century, and many of the transcripts are
 attested by Philip Calvert as _Cancellarius_.

 16. W. H. and L. 1640-1692. Laws made at some of the Assemblies held
 during these years.

 17. C. and W. H. 1638-1678. Laws. A copy from older books made in
 1726, and certified to be correct.

The two following original volumes are in the State Library at
Annapolis:—

 18. Proprietary, 1642-1644. Contains proceedings of the Council
 sitting as the Provincial Court, proclamations, commissions, etc. A
 part of this volume has been transcribed into one of the Land-Office
 Records.

 19. Provincial Court of Maryland. Records. March, 1658-November, 1662.
 This volume is in bad condition and several pages are wanting. It
 contains the records of the Council as a Court, oaths of officers,
 depositions, etc.

A calendar of the state papers contained in Nos. 1-13 of the above
volumes, and in some of a later date, was compiled in 1860 by the Rev.
Ethan Allen, under the direction of J. H. Alexander.[886] No systematic
publication of extracts from these records has ever been made. After
the death of Mr. S. F. Streeter, in 1864, his large collection of
manuscripts pertaining to the provincial history of Maryland was
placed in the hands of Henry Stockbridge Esq., who prepared them for
publication, and in 1876 some extracts from these with notes by Mr.
Stockbridge were published by the Maryland Historical Society in a
volume entitled, _Papers Relating to the Early History of Maryland_, by
S. F. Streeter. This volume contains the proceedings and acts of the
Assembly of 1638, with a list of the members and their occupations, the
record of the case against William Lewis, the first will, the first
marriage license and various court proceedings.

The Legislature of Maryland at its January session, 1882, passed an
act directing that all the records and state papers belonging to the
period prior to the Revolution be transferred to the custody of the
Maryland Historical Society, and appropriating the sum of two thousand
dollars to be expended by the Society in the publication of extracts
from these documents.

In 1694, when the capital was removed from St. Mary’s to
Annapolis,—then called Anne Arundel Town,—the Assembly directed that
the records should be transported on horses, and in bags sealed with
the great seal and covered with hides. The persons charged with this
duty afterward reported to the Assembly that they had safely delivered
the books to the sheriff of Anne Arundel County. There is a full list
of these volumes in the Journal of the Lower House, and one perceives
with regret that the greater part of them no longer exist. Many state
papers were greatly damaged during this removal, and others were
lost in the fire which destroyed the State House in 1704. When the
government of the Province was restored to Lord Baltimore in 1716, an
act was passed appointing commissioners to inspect the records and to
employ clerks to transcribe and bind them. The preamble to the act set
forth the loss of several important records, and that a great part of
what remained was “much worn and damnified;” which was partly owing to
the want of proper books at first. On such general revisions of the
laws as were made in 1676, 1692, and at other times, it was customary
to make transcripts in a “Book of Laws” only of those acts which were
continued in force. The record of the laws not re-enacted was then
neglected.

Very little care was bestowed upon the state papers generally. Many
of the volumes cited by Bacon in his _Laws of Maryland_, published in
1765, are not now to be found. In 1836 the State librarian (Ridgely)
made three reports to the governor and council upon the early records,
which contain a partial list of those then discovered. He says that in
the treasury department he found “the remains of two large sea-chests
and one box which had contained records and files of papers which were
in a state of total ruin.” He also discovered many early records, whose
existence had not been suspected, in different public offices, and some
“under the stairway as you ascend the dome.”[887]

Other original authorities for the history of the Province, second in
importance only to its own records, are the documents preserved in the
state-paper office in London. The peculiar nature of the palatinate
proprietorship of Maryland, and the fact that the Proprietary
generally resided in England, have caused the Maryland papers to be
more abundant than those of any other colony. It was customary to
send to the Proprietary documents concerning all the public affairs
of the Province. A large number of these, as well as of the papers
directly transmitted to the Privy Council or the Board of Trade, are
in the state-paper office.[888] In 1852 Mr. George Peabody gave to
the Maryland Historical Society a manuscript index, prepared by Henry
Stevens, to the Maryland papers, then accessible in that office. This
index contains abstracts of 1,729 documents relating to Maryland
affairs between the years 1626 and 1780; and the abstracts are somewhat
more full than those in Sainsbury’s _Calendars of State Papers_.[889]

Additional papers have been placed in the state-paper office since
the Peabody Index was made, and it is therefore necessary to consult
both calendars. There are other manuscripts relating to Maryland in
the British Museum, the Bodleian Library, and elsewhere in England, of
which no calendars have been published.[890]

[Illustration]

A letter of Captain Thomas Yong to Sir Tobie Matthew, written from
Virginia in July, 1634, describes his interviews with Clayborne and
Captain Cornwallis, and passes an unfavorable judgment upon the
former. Yong gives an account of various plots of Clayborne and other
Virginians against the colony at St. Mary’s, and of Clayborne’s refusal
to attend a conference which had been arranged for the adjustment of
the controversy. The letter is printed in _Documents connected with the
history of South Carolina_, edited by P. C. J. Weston, London, 1856,
p. 29, and in 4 _Mass. Hist. Coll._ ix. p. 81 (Aspinwall Papers), and
in the Appendix to Streeter’s _Papers Relating to the Early History of
Maryland_.

       *       *       *       *       *

There are scarcely any remains of the buildings erected in the Province
before 1688. Lord Baltimore wrote to the Lords of the Committee for
Trade and Plantations in 1678 that “the principal place or town is
called St. Mary’s where the General Assembly and provincial court are
kept, and whither all ships trading there do in the first place resort;
but it can hardly be called a town, it being in length by the water
about five miles, and in breadth upwards towards the land not above one
mile,—in all which space, excepting only my own house and buildings
wherein the said courts and offices are kept, there are not above
thirty houses, and those at considerable distance from each other, and
the buildings (as in all other parts of the Province), very mean and
little, and generally after the manner of the meanest farm-houses in
England. Other places we have none that are called or can be called
towns, the people there not affecting to build near each other, but
so as to have their houses near the water for convenience of trade,
and their lands on each side of and behind their houses, by which it
happens that in most places there are not above fifty houses in the
space of thirty miles.”[891]

The principal building at St. Mary’s was the State House, erected in
1674, at a cost of 330,000 pounds of tobacco. In 1720 it was given to
the parish of William and Mary to be used as a church; and in 1830,
being very much decayed, it was pulled down, and a new edifice built in
the neighborhood. Lord Baltimore’s house—called the Castle—stood on
the plain of St. Mary’s, at the head of St. John’s Creek. The spot is
marked by a few mouldering bricks and broken tiles, and a square pit
overgrown with bushes.[892] At St. Inigoe’s manor, near St. Mary’s,
there is preserved the original round table at which the first council
sat, besides a few other relics.[893]

The earliest historian of Maryland was George Chalmers, whose
_Political Annals of the present United Colonies_ was published in
London in 1780. Chalmers was a Maryland lawyer, who returned to England
at the outbreak of the Revolution. He had access to the English state
papers in writing his work, and his account of Maryland is fair and,
for the most part, accurate.[894]

The ablest man who has written upon the history of the Province was
John V. L. McMahon. He was born in Cumberland, Maryland, in 1800,
and, after graduating at Princeton, began the practice of the law in
Maryland, where he soon became one of the leaders of a very able bar.
The first volume of his _Historical view of the Government of Maryland
from its Colonization to the Present Day_ was published in 1831. Though
the author did not die till 1871, this volume was never followed by
its promised successor. The manuscript of the second volume is in the
possession of McMahon’s heirs. The volume published brings the history
of the Province down to the Revolution, but its strictly historical
part is less than one half of the whole, and treats the subject only
in outline. The remainder of the book is devoted to an examination of
the legal aspects of the charter, the sources of Maryland law, and the
distribution of legislative power under the State government. The work
is founded on an original study of the records, so far as was thought
necessary for its limited historical scope.[895]

_The History of Maryland from its first settlement in 1633 to the
Restoration in 1660_, in two volumes, by John Leeds Bozman, was
published in 1837. The manuscript of this work was offered to the State
in 1834, after the death of its author, on condition of its being
printed within two years. The offer was accepted by the Legislature,
and the book was published under its direction. The first volume is
introductory, and the history of the Province proper is contained in
the second volume. The work is based on an exact study of the original
records, and is a very careful and accurate summary in great detail.
Bozman did not have access to the papers preserved in the English
state-paper office, and much other material has been brought to light
since he wrote. His strict pursuance of the chronological order often
results in sacrificing the interest of the narrative. The appendix
to the second volume has a valuable collection of extracts from the
records. The work as a whole may be said to furnish materials for
the history of the Province rather than to be the finished history
itself.[896]

_The History of Maryland from its first Settlement, in 1634, to
the year 1848_, in one volume, by James McSherry, a lawyer of
Frederick City, Maryland, was first published in 1849. It is written
in an agreeable style, and, so far as relates to the period under
consideration, gives a clear summary of the leading occurrences, but
does not appear to have been founded on original investigation of the
sources.

In Burnap’s _Life of Leonard Calvert_, published in Sparks’s _American
Biography_,[897] there is an excellent history of the colony to the
death of Governor Calvert in 1647. Dr. Burnap was for many years pastor
of the Unitarian Church in Baltimore. His chief authorities were Bozman
and Father White’s _Relatio Itineris_.

To Mr. George Lynn-Lachlan Davis, a member of the Baltimore Bar, who
died a few years ago, is due the credit of having settled the vexed
question of the religious faith of the legislators who passed the
Toleration Act of 1649. His work was based on an examination of wills,
rent-rolls, and other records. His conclusions are those stated in the
preceding narrative. The result of his investigations was published in
1855 in a volume entitled, _The Day Star of American Freedom: or, The
Birth and Early Growth of Toleration in the Province of Maryland_. It
also contains a summary of all that is known of the entire personal
history of each member of the Assembly of 1649.[898]

The Rev. E. D. Neill’s _Terra Mariæ: or, Threads of Maryland Colonial
History_, published in 1867, is a digressive account of the career
of the first Lord Baltimore, with some notices of men more or less
connected with the Province in its early days. He quotes many letters
of the seventeenth century, but rarely refers to the source from which
he drew them.[899] What the volume contains relative to the internal
affairs of the Province is not always accurate. Mr. Neill has published
several pamphlets and articles on the early history of Maryland, in
which he endeavors to show that Maryland never was a Roman Catholic
colony, that a majority of the colonists were from the beginning
Protestants, and that the Church of England was established by the
charter.[900]

The latest and most comprehensive _History of Maryland_ is that by
Mr. J. T. Scharf, in three octavo volumes, published in 1879. This
work extends from the earliest period to the present day. Mr. Scharf
publishes in full many valuable documents from the English state-paper
office, among which is an English translation of the charter of
Avalon.[901]

Histories of Kent, Cecil, and some other counties in the State have
also been published.[902]

       *       *       *       *       *


The subject of religious toleration in Maryland—its causes and
significance—has given rise to much discussion both within and without
the State. We shall refer only to a few of the many pamphlets and
articles which have appeared on this topic. In 1845 the late John P.
Kennedy delivered a discourse before the Maryland Historical Society
on the _Life and Character of the first Lord Baltimore_. He maintained
that toleration was in the charter and not in the Act of 1649, and that
as much credit was due to the Protestant prince who granted as to the
Catholic nobleman who received the patent, and that the settlement of
the Province was mainly a commercial speculation. This discourse was
reviewed in 1846 by Mr. B. U. Campbell, who contended with so much show
of reason that the honor of the policy of toleration must be attributed
to the Proprietary and the first settlers, that Mr. Kennedy felt called
upon in the same year to reply to the review.[903] In 1855 the Rev.
Ethan Allen published a pamphlet on _Maryland Toleration_, in which he
upheld Clayborne’s side of the controversy with Lord Baltimore, denied
that Maryland was a Catholic colony, and asserted that protection to
all religions was guaranteed by the charter. This question was also
referred to in the discussion between Mr. Gladstone and Cardinal
Manning, concerning the Vatican decrees, in 1875. Cardinal Manning
had pointed to the toleration established by Catholics in Maryland to
refute Mr. Gladstone’s assertion that the Roman Church of this day
would, if she could, use torture and force in matters of religious
belief. Mr. Gladstone replied, in his _Vaticanism_, that toleration in
Maryland was really defensive, and its purpose was to secure the free
exercise of the Catholic religion, because it was apprehended that the
Puritans would flood the Province.[904]

Students of Maryland history are fortunate in possessing an admirable
edition of the laws of the Province, compiled in 1765 by Thomas Bacon,
chaplain to the last Lord Baltimore. It contains all the laws then in
force, and the titles of all the acts passed in the several assemblies
from the settlement. There are references to the books where the
different acts are recorded, and numerous notes upon historical and
legal points.

The chief impetus to the study of the history of Maryland and to the
preservation of its archives has been given by the Maryland Historical
Society, which was organized in 1844.[905] One of the originators of
this Society was Mr. Brantz Mayer, an accomplished man of letters, who
until his death, two years ago, was active and efficient in promoting
its welfare. The Society has a large membership and occupies a suitable
building in Baltimore. Its library contains about 20,000 volumes,
including nearly every book relating to the history of Maryland. The
collection of manuscripts bearing upon the Colonial and Revolutionary
history of the State is large and valuable. It has also many rare
American maps, coins, and pamphlets, and a large collection of Maryland
newspapers from the year 1728. The Society has published about eight
volumes, relating chiefly to the history of Maryland. It now has a
permanent publication fund, which it also owes to the generosity of
George Peabody.

Notwithstanding the loss of many original records, there is still
in the State archives an abundance of historical material which has
never been adequately worked up by any writer. This material is now
better known and more accessible than formerly. Many documents in the
state-paper office are now being made known for the first time by the
calendars published under the direction of the Master of the Rolls. It
is probable that the papers in the British Museum and Bodleian Library
will also be calendared. This varied treasure of interesting and
important material relating to the provincial history of Maryland has
never been thoroughly searched, and the history in which a satisfactory
use of it is made remains to be written.

[Illustration:

  Signature of W. T. Brantly.]




                                INDEX.

[Reference is commonly made but once to a book if repeatedly mentioned
in the text; but other references are made when additional information
about the book is conveyed.]


  AA, VAN DER, _Versameling_, 79, 188.

  Abelin, J. P, 167.

  Accomac, 147, 179.

  Achter Kol, 429.

  Acomenticus, charter of, 364;
    river, 322.
    _See_ Agamenticus.

  Acosta, map in (1598), 196.

  Acquines (Hawkins), 82.

  Adams, _Annals of Portsmouth_, 366.

  Adams, Charles-Francis, Jr., edits _Morton’s New English Canaan_, 348;
    on “old planters” about Boston Harbor, 347.

  Adams, Clement, 36, 41, 43, 44, 47.

  Adams, C. K., _Manual of Historical Literature_, 166, 368.

  Adams, Henry, on the Pocahontas story, 162.

  Adams, J. Q., on the New England Confederacy, 354.

  “Admiral”, ship, 171.

  Adventurers in Virginia, 127.

  Agamenticus, 190. _See_ Acomenticus.

  Aggoncy, 184.

  Agnese, Baptista, map (1554), 218;
    his portolanos, 218.

  Agostino, 77.

  Agriculture in New England, 316.

  Ahasimus, 422.

  Aitzema, _Histoire_, 415.

  Albany, 390, 407.

  Alcocke, John, autog., 338.

  Alden, John, in Duxbury, 272, 273;
    autog., 268;
    last survivor of the signers of the Pilgrims’ compact, 271.

  Aldsworth, 321.

  Alexander, James, 452;
    his Bill in Chancery, 452.

  Alexander, J. H., 556.

  Alexander, Sir William, 327;
    his map, 306, 341;
    his grant, 299;
    his _Encouragement to Colonies_, 305.

  Alexandria, province of, 306.

  Allard, C., view of New York, 416;
    map of New York, 417.

  Allard, _Minor Atlas_, 384,

  Allen, Rev. Ethan, 556, 557, 560;
    _St. Ann’s Parish_, 561;
    _Maryland Toleration_, 561.

  Allen, James, autog., 319.

  Allen, Nathaniel, 479.

  Allen, S. M., 562.

  Allen, Zachariah, 377;
    _Founding of Rhode Island_, 377.

  Allerton, Isaac, 273, 276, 277;
    autog., 268;
    assistant, 275.

  Allyn, John, 334;
    autog, 335, 374.

  Alsop, George, _Province of Maryland_, 555.

  Amadas, Philip, 108, 111, 122.

  Amazons, 118.

  America, part of Asia, 69;
    earliest English publications on, 199;
    earliest instance of the name on maps, 214.

  American Antiquarian Society, 344.

  Amsterdam, English Brownists in, 261.

  Amyrault, Moses, 474.

  Anderson, J. S. M., _History of the Church of England in the
      Colonies_, 155, 286.

  Andress, Lawrence, 436.

  Andringa, Joris, 397.

  Andros, Sir Edmund, his rule in Plymouth, 282;
    in Connecticut, 335;
    in Rhode Island, 339;
    governor of New York, 398, 429;
    administration, 400;
    knighted, 401;
    vice-admiral, 401;
    arrests Carteret, 401;
    portrait, 402;
    governor of New England, 407, 444;
    New York added, 409;
    in Massachusetts, 321;
    imprisoned, 411;
    interferes in New Jersey, 433, 434;
    collects duties in New Jersey, 431.

  _Andros Tracts_, 362.

  Andrus, Silas, 371.

  Anian straits, 68, 80, 203;
    sought by Drake, 69;
    gulf, 68;
    regnum, 68.

  “Ann”, ship, 292.

  Ann, Cape. _See_ Cape Ann.

  Annapolis in Maryland, 535, 561.

  Anne Arundel county in Maryland, 535;
    town, 557.

  Anonaebo, 77.

  Antillæ, 201.

  Antinomian controversy, literature of, 349, 351, 352;
    in Rhode Island, 336.

  _Antiquary_, a London periodical, 160.

  Apian’s map (1532), 199.

  Appleton, W. S., 543.

  Aquedneck, 336, 376, 377. _See_ Rhode Island.

  Arber’s _English Garner_, 346.

  Arboledo, Cape, 77.

  _Archæologia Americana_, or Transactions of the American Antiquarian
      Society, 123.

  “Archangel”, ship, 175, 191.

  Archdale, 324.

  Archer, Gabriel, 130;
    his Relation, 131;
    his account of Newport’s explorations, 154.

  Arctic regions, Cabot in, 36, 39;
    discoveries in 1586, 42;
    bibliographies, 97.
    _See_ Northwest Passage.

  Arembec, 170, 185. _See_ Norumbega.

  Arenas, C. de las, 197, 213.

  Argall, Samuel, 159, 301, 305;
    arrested, 142;
    expedition to Acadia, 140;
    elected deputy-governor of Virginia, 141;
    on the Maine coast, 178, 179, 193;
    at Jamestown, 134, 139.

  Arica, 67.

  “Ark”, ship, 524.

  Arlington, Lord, 150.

  Armor, _Governors of Pennsylvania_, 475.

  Armstrong, Edward, 510, 516;
    edits Budd’s _Good Order_, 451;
    edits the Penn Correspondence, 506;
    on Penn’s landing, 513.

  Arnold, James N., 381.

  Arnold, S. G., _History of Rhode Island_, 376.

  Arran, Earl of, 370.

  Arundell, Earl of, 297.

  Asher, G. M., _Hudson the Navigator_, 99, 104;
    _List of Maps and Views of New York_, 417.

  Ashley, Anthony, 207.

  Ashton, Robert, _Works and Life of Robinson_, 286.

  Aspinwall, Colonel Thomas, 350;
    his library, 159;
    on the Narragansett Patent, 379;
    Papers, 164.

  Assacumet, 180.

  Astrolabe, 207.

  Atherton Company, 338. _See_ Narragansett.

  Atkinson, Joseph, _History of Newark_, 456.

  Atlas, earliest marine, 207.

  Atwater, E. E., _History of New Haven Colony_, 375.

  Augusta (Me.), 365.

  Austerfield, 283, 284;
    map of vicinity, 259;
    church at, 260.

  Avalon, 519, 523;
    charter, 561.

  “Ayde”, ship, 87.


  Baccalaos, 3, 9, 10, 12, 14, 26, 27, 29,32, 37, 42, 56, 101, 185,
      203, 213, 215, 216.

  Backus, Isaac, 377;
    _History of New England_, 377;
    _Church History of New England_, 377.

  Bacon, Francis, aspersions on Ralegh, 120;
    his _Declaration_ about Ralegh, 121;
    autog., 121;
    his _Certain Considerations_, 247;
    _Controversies of the Church of England_, 217.

  Bacon, Leonard, _Genesis of the New England Churches_, 285;
    _Thirteen Historical Discourses_, 359, 371;
    on New Haven’s civil government, 375.

  Bacon, Nathaniel, Jr., 151.

  Bacon, Thomas, 561;
    _Laws of Maryland_, 561.

  Bacon’s laws (Virginia), 152.

  Bacon’s rebellion, 151;
    authorities, 164.

  Badajoz, junta at, 4, 48.

  Baffin, William, 93;
    autog., 94;
    authorities, 99.

  Baffin’s Bay, 99;
    Luke Fox’s map, 98.

  Bagaduce, 190.
    _See_ Pentagöet.

  Bagnall, Anthony, 131.

  Bagnall, Walter, 322.

  Baillie, R., _Anabaptism_, 288.

  Baker, _Northamptonshire_, 457.

  Balboa, 65.

  Ballard, Edward, 210.

  Baltimore, Lord. _See_ Calvert.

  Baltimore (town), histories of, 561.

  Bamfield, 483.

  Bancroft, George, 154, 160, 162;
    on the Cabots, 43;
    controversy with Josiah Quincy, 378;
    on the Quakers, 509.

  Baptists, 228, 377;
    in Pennsylvania, 494.

  Barber, _Connecticut Historical Collections_, 375.

  Barcia, _Ensayo Chronologico_, 48.

  Barclay, Alex., 199, 202.

  Barclay, David, 435.

  Barclay, Robert, 435, 443;
    governor of East Jersey, 436;
    autog., 436;
    his _Apology_, 436, 503.

  Barclay, Robert (of our day), _Inner Life_, 251, 504.

  Bardolo, G. G., 26.

  Barentz, 217.

  Barker, James N., _Settlements on the Delaware_, 463, 512.

  Barker, J. W., _History of New Haven_, 372.

  Barker, Thomas, 435; autog., 484.

  Barlow, S. L. M., _Bibliotheca Barlowiana_, 159.

  Barlow, William, _Navigator’s Supply_, 208.

  Barlowe, Arthur, 108, 122.

  Barney, C. G., 163.

  Barret, Charles, 457.

  Barrow, Sir John, _Chronological History of the Voyages to the Arctic
        Regions_, 97;
    _Life of Drake_, 79;
    _Naval Worthies_, 102.

  Barrowism, 219, 254.

  Barry, J. S., _History of Massachusetts_, 286, 344;
    and the Bradford MS., 286.

  Bartlett, John Russell, _Bibliography of Rhode Island_, 354, 380;
    _Naval History of Rhode Island_, 380;
    _Catalogue of the Library of John Carter Brown_, 380;
    edits _Rhode Island Records_, 377.

  Bartlett, W. H., _Pilgrim Fathers_, 258, 284, 292.

  Baudet, _Leven van Blaeu_, 216.

  Bay Psalm-book, 350.

  Baylie, _Dissuasive_, 351.

  Baylies, Francis, _Memoir of New Plymouth_, 291.

  Bayne, Peter, _English Puritanism_, 252.

  Beach, _Indian Miscellany_, 167.

  Beare, James, 102.

  Beauvois, Eugene, _La Norambegue_, 184.

  Becher on Frobisher, 103.

  Bedford, Cape, 90, 91.

  Beechey, _Voyage towards the North Pole_, 98.

  Behaim, Martin, his astrolabe, 207;
    globe, 212, 217;
    life by Ghillany, 8.

  Behring’s Straits, 69.

  Belknap, Jeremy, _American Biography_, 94, 188, 291;
    on Pilgrim history, 291;
    founder of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 344;
    his life, 344;
    papers, 344, 368;
    _History of New Hampshire_, 367.

  Bell, C. H., on the Wheelwright deed, 366.

  Belle isle, 213.

  Belleforest, _Cosmographie_, 36.

  Bellingham, Richard, governor of Massachusetts, 318.

  Bennet, Richard, 148, 149, 537.

  Bergen, 422, 428.

  Bergenroth, 57.

  Berkeley, John, 144, 145;
    in New Jersey, 422;
    autog., 422;
    sells his right, 430.

  Berkeley, Sir William, 147, 537;
    autog., 147;
    governor of Virginia, 149;
    _Discourse_, 157.

  Bermuda, 216;
    Gates wrecked at, 134, 135, 156.

  Bermuda in Virginia, 138.

  Bernard, _Recueil de voiages_, 188.

  Berry, John, 428, 436, 443.

  Berry, Leonard, 118.

  Bertius, Peter, 46.

  _Beschrijvinghe van Virginia_, 415.

  Besse, Joseph, on William Penn, 505;
    _Sufferings of the People called Quakers_, 359, 503.

  Beste, George, _True Discourse_, 36, 102, 204.

  Bevan, Sylvanus, 475.

  Beverley, Robert, _History of Virginia_,164.

  Bezar, John, 479.

  Bible, authority of the, 227, 229.

  Biddle, Craig, 507.

  Biddle, Richard, _Memoir of Sebastian Cabot_, 14, 43.

  Biddle, William, 441.

  Billings, Hammatt, 293.

  Billington Sea, 272.

  Binckes, 397.

  Birch, Thomas, _Lives of Bacon_, 121;
    General Dictionary, 121.

  Biscayan fishermen, 12.

  Bishop, George, _New England Judged_, 359.

  Bishop, _History of American Manufactures_, 166.

  Bittle, Edward, 515.

  Blackstone, William, autog., 311.

  Blackwell, Captain John, 495.

  Blaeu map (1685) of New England, 381, 384;
    atlas, 381;
    globes, 216.

  Blagrave, John, _Solace for Navigators_, 208.

  Blanco, Cape, 8, 213.

  Bland, Colonel Richard, 158.

  Blaxton. _See_ Blackstone.

  “Blessing”, ship, 134.

  Block, Adrian, 376;
    on the Connecticut River, 368.

  Block Island, 382.

  Blome, Richard, _Present State_, etc., 384, 449.

  Bloody Point (Maine), 367.

  Bloody Statute, The, 231.

  Blue Hills (Massachusetts), 198, 342.
    _See_ Cheviot Hills, Massachusetts Mount.

  Blue Laws, 371, 372.

  Blundeville, Thomas, _Universall Maps_, etc., 207;
    his _Exercises_, 207, 208, 217.

  Bodega Bay, 74, 75, 80.

  Body of Liberties, 314, 350, 371.

  Bollen, James, autog., 428.

  Bollero’s map, 200.

  Bolling, Robert, 141, 162.

  Bolling, Thomas, 163.

  Bonavista, Cape, 216.

  Booth’s Bay, 191.

  Bordone, _Libro_, 194.

  Boston, 282, 283;
    site of, visited by Smith, 179;
    by Dermer, 183;
    in Smith’s map, 198;
    publication of its Record Commissioners, 343;
    Harbor, old planters about, 347;
    histories of, 362.

  Boterus, _Welt-beschreibung_, 102.

  Bourchier, Sir John, 300.

  Bourje, T. P., map of New York, 418.

  Bourne, Edward E., 210.

  Bourne, William, _Regiment of the Sea_, 207, 208.

  Bouton, Nathaniel, 363, 366;
    edits _Provincial Papers_, 367.

  Bowden, _Friends in America_, 314, 504, 508.

  Bowen, C. W., _Boundary Disputes of Connecticut_, 374.

  Bowen, _Geography_, 185, 188.

  Boyle, Robert, 356;
    autog., 356.

  Bozman, J. L., 560;
    _History of Maryland_, 559.

  Bradford, Alden, _History of Massachusetts_, 344.

  Bradford Club, 384.

  Bradford, William, notices of him, 289;
    _Plymouth Plantation_, 286, 289;
    fac-simile of writing, 289, 292;
    will, 289;
    Bible, 289;
    descendants, 289;
    _Dialogues_, 289;
    letter to Winthrop, 289;
    his verses, 289;
    part author of _Mourt’s Relation_, 290;
    Letter-book, 291;
    fac-simile of record of his baptism, 260;
    autog., 268, 278;
    at Plymouth, 273;
    his manuscripts, 283;
    life by Cotton Mather, 283.

  Bradford, William, printer, 493, 515, 516.

  Bradstreet, Simon, autog., 338.

  Brain, James, 435.

  Brant, Sebastian, _Ship of Fools_, 199, 201, 202.

  Brantly, William T., “The English in Maryland”, 517.

  Brasil Island, 101.

  Brawnde, Edward, 181.

  Brayton, G. A., _Defence of Gorton_, 354.

  Brazil, Prisilia, 201;
    Brasiliam, 201.

  Breda, Treaty of, 395, 415, 421.

  Bremen (Maine), 365.

  Brent, Giles, 532.

  Brent, Margaret, 459;
    autog., 533.

  Brereton, John, _Brief and True Relation_, 187.

  Breton, Cape. _See_ Cape Breton.

  Brevoort, J. C., his _Verrazano_, 12;
    as an historical scholar, 20, 28, 41, 53;
    drawings of old New York, 419, 420.

  Brewster, Edward, 137.

  Brewster, Jonathan, autog, 349.

  Brewster, William, at Scrooby, 258;
    teaching Elder, 277;
    date of birth, 287;
    printer while in Holland, 287;
    life by Steele, 285, 287;
    autog., 268, 287;
    his library, 287;
    at Leyden, 263;
    in Duxbury, 273;
    his sword, 274;
    his chair, 278;
    _Brief Relation of New England_, 192.

  Brigham, William, on Jones of the “Mayflower”, 288;
    edits _Plymouth Laws_, 292.

  Brinley, George, 374;
    _Catalogue of his Library_, 211;
    rich in Connecticut history, 375.

  Bristol (England), 2, 5.

  Bristol (Maine), 365.

  Bristol manuscripts, 53.

  Brock, Robert A., “Virginia”, 127.

  Brockenbrough, W. H., _History of Virginia_, 165.

  Brockholls, Anthony, 398, 401, 402, 404, 435.

  Brodhead, J. R., _History of New York_, 413, 414;
    oration to commemorate the English Conquest, 414.

  Bronson, Henry, on early government of Connecticut, 375.

  Brook, Lord, 326, 331.

  Brooks, N. C., 554.

  Brown, Alexander, on Virginia history, 162.

  Brown, B. F., 560.

  Brown, G. W., _Civil Liberty in Maryland_, 559.

  Brown, Henry Armitt, 456.

  Brown, John, of Pemaquid, 321.

  Brown, John Carter, his library, 380;
    rich in Arctic books, 97; autog., 381.

  Brown, Nicholas, 381.

  Brown, Peter, 273.

  Brown University, 381.

  Browne, Fox, his _English Merchants_, 78.

  Browne, Robert, and Brownists, 261;
    his autog., 261.

  Browning, Charles, 559.

  Brownists, 219, 248, 261.

  Bruce, E. C., 123.

  Brun, Malte, _Histoire de la Géographie_, 195.

  Brunswick (Maine), 365.

  Brydges, Sir E., _Restituta_, 102.

  Buck, W. J., _Montgomery County_, 509;
    _Bucks County_, 510.

  Buckley, John, 341.

  Budd, Thomas, 441;
    _Good Order_, etc., 450, 499.

  Bugg, Francis, _Picture of Quakerism_, 503.

  Bulfinch, Thomas, _Oregon and El Dorado_, 126.

  Bulkley, Gershom, _People’s Right to Election_, 375.

  Bulkley, Peter, autog., 356.

  Bull, Henry, _Memoirs of Rhode Island_, 376.

  Bullock, William, _Virginia impartially examined_, 157.

  Burdett, George, 326.

  Burk, John, _History of Virginia_, 165.

  Burke, Edmund, _European Settlements_, 509.

  Burke, Bernard, _Commoners_, 457;
    _Landed Gentry_, 457.

  Burleigh, Lord, 86.

  Burlington (New Jersey), 432, 441, 456.

  Burnap, _Life of Leonard Calvert_, 560.

  Burnet, Gilbert, _Reformation_, 248.

  Burney, _Voyages in the South Sea_, 78.

  Burras, Anne, 132.

  Burrough, Edward, 359;
    autog., 359.

  Burrough, Stephen, 207.

  Burton, Robert, _English Hero_, 83.

  Burtsell, R. L., New Jersey colonized by Catholics, 457.

  Burwell, Nathaniel, 164.

  Butler, B. F. (of New York), on Smith’s _History of New York_, 412.

  Butler’s _Hudibras_, 237.

  Butrigarius, 26.

  Butten, William, 284.

  Button, Sir Thomas, 93.

  Button’s Bay, 96.

  Buzzard’s Bay, 278.

  Byllynge, Edward, 435, 440;
    in New Jersey, 430;
    autog., 430;
    trustees of, 432;
    dies, 442;
    difficulties with the Province, 451;
    tracts on the difficulty, 451.

  Bylot, Robert, 93.

  Byrd, Colonel William, 145, 148, 158, 159, 161.


  Cabell, N. F., _Agriculture in Virginia_, 166.

  Cabot, Anthony, 18.

  Cabot, John, maps now lost, 8, 24, 35, 36;
    license (1497-98), 43;
    date of his discovery, 44;
    career, 1, 52;
    family, 3;
    first voyage, 2, 8, 32, 33, 51, 216;
    second voyage, 3, 8, 57;
    first printed notice, 23;
    letters patent, 37;
    portrait, 58.

  Cabot, Sebastian, _mappe monde_, 6;
    described, 20, 217;
    fac-simile, 22;
    notices of, 24, 34, 43;
    rejected by Kohl, 45;
    career, 2, 12, 52;
    voyage with Pert, 4;
    in Spain, 4, 48;
    portrait, 5, 31, 47, 58;
    not a knight, 32;
    earliest notice of, in print, by Peter Martyr, 14, 15;
    life of, by Richard Biddle, 14, 43;
    voyage of 1516-7, 28;
    maps, 39, 41, 44, 45
    lives of, 43;
    intrigue with Venice, 49;
    refuses to return to Spain, 51;
    pension, 51, 56;
    on ascertaining longitude, 207.

  Cabot family, 58.

  Cabrillo, 68.

  “Cacafuego”, ship, 67.

  Cadwalader, John, 464.

  Cadwalader, R. M., _Law of Ground Rents_, 512.

  Cæsar, Sir Julius, 47;
    autog., 205.

  Caines, island, 68.

  Calamy’s _Nonconformist Memorial_, 252.

  Campbell, B. U., 554, 561.

  Campbell, Charles, _History of Virginia_, 164.

  Campbell, J. W., _History of Virginia_, 164.

  Campbell, Lord Neill, 443.

  Campbell’s _Lives of the Admirals_, 102.

  _Calendar of State-Papers_, 193, 343.
    _See_ Sainsbury, Noel.

  California, 67;
    visited by Portuguese, 68;
    gold, 72;
    Gulf of, called “Mare Vermeo”, 79.

  Callender, John, _Historical Discourse_, 376.

  Callender, _Voyages_, 79.

  Calvert, Cecilius, second Lord Baltimore, receives charter of
        Maryland, 520;
    his grants to settlers, 528;
    appoints Protestants to office, 533;
    deposed by Charles II, 536;
    struggles to preserve his province, 537, 539, 540;
    succeeds, 541;
    his quit-rents, 544;
    portrait, 546, 558;
    dies, 547;
    Papers, 558;
    tracts, 554.

  Calvert, Charles, third Lord Baltimore, 542, 547;
    contest with Penn, 548;
    struggles to preserve his province, 552;
    autog., 542.

  Calvert, George, first Lord Baltimore, 517;
    autog., 146, 518;
    portrait, 518, 558;
    made Baron Baltimore, 519;
    a Roman Catholic, 519;
    in Newfoundland, 519;
    in Virginia, 519;
    arms, 520, 558;
    dies, 520;
    his descendants, 520;
    tracts, 553, 554.

  Calvert, George, the younger, 524.

  Calvert, Leonard, 147, 459, 524, 555;
    autog., 524;
    dies, 533;
    life by Burnap, 560.

  Calvert, Philip, 556;
    autog., 535.

  Calvert, Philip, the younger, 540, 542.

  Calvert pedigree, 559.

  Cambridge Platform, 314, 334, 354.

  Cambridge, Press at, 350.

  Camden Hills (Maine), 176, 190, 191.

  Canada, 101, 213, 216;
    as an island, 203.

  Canada Company, 327.

  Canaries, islands, as the first meridian, 214.

  Candish. _See_ Cavendish.

  Cantino’s map, 218.

  Cape Ann, 311;
    settlement at, 346.

  Cape Breton discovered, 2;
    landfall of Cabot, 24, 56;
    mentioned, 101, 201, 213, 216.

  Cape Cod, 381;
    visited by Gosnold, 173;
    on the old maps, 197;
    Pilgrims at, 267;
    plan of the harbor, 270.

  Cape Fear, 213.

  Cape. _See_ the various names of capes.

  Captain’s Hill, 272, 273, 284.

  Captivities, a hobby of collectors, 361.

  Carey’s Swan’s Nest, 93.

  Carleill, J., _Discourse_, 205.

  Carpenter, Samuel, 493.

  Carr, Sir Robert, 421;
    in Maine, 364;
    autog., 388, 422.

  Cartagena, 63, 80.

  Cataya. _See_ Cathay.

  Cates, Thomas, _Summary_, 82.

  _Carter-Brown Catalogue_. _See_ Brown, John Carter.

  Carteret, Sir George, in New Jersey, 422;
    autog, 423;
    receives new grant, 430;
    dies, 433.

  Carteret, James, 427.

  Carteret, Philip, governor, 424, 430;
    autog., 424;
    hostility to his government, 426;
    relations with Andros, 433;
    imprisoned, 434.

  Cathay, 3, 88, 91.

  Cartier’s _Voyage_, 204.

  Cartwright, Colonel George, autog., 388.

  Cartwright’s _Admonition_, 233.

  Carver, John, 284;
    at Leyden, 263;
    governor, 271;
    his sword, 274;
    dies, 274;
    his chair, 278.

  Cary, Colonel Archibald, 145.

  Casco, 190, 382;
    Treaty of, 361.

  Cass, Lewis, 515.

  Castine (Maine), 190, 365.
    _See_ Bagaduce, Pentagöet.

  Caulkins, Miss, _History of Norwich_, 375;
    _History of New London_, 375.

  Cavendish, Thomas, 74, 77;
    in Virginia, 111;
    portrait, 83;
    voyages, 84.

  Cayley, Arthur, _Life of Ralegh_, 121.

  Cedri, island, 67, 68.

  Cecil, Sir Robert, 517;
    autog., 206.

  Ceely, Christopher, 82.

  Chaffin, John, 441.

  Challer’s Cape, 90.

  Chalmers, George, _Political Annals_, 159, 340, 414, 559;
    _Revolt of the American Colonies_, 559.

  Chamberlain, Joshua, _Maine, her Place in History_, 190, 210, 211,
      366.

  Champernoun, 365, 366.

  Champernoun, Henry, 105.

  Champernoun, Sir Philip, 105.

  Champlain on the New England coast, 174;
    On the Maine coast, 191, 193.

  Champlain, Lake, 327, 381, 382, 383, 384.

  Chandler, Peleg W., _Criminal Trials_, 349.

  Charles II. proclaimed in Massachusetts, 316;
    dies, 406.

  Charles City, 147.

  “Charles”, ship, 95.

  Charlton Island, 95.

  Charter Oak, 375.
    _See_ Connecticut.

  Chasteaux, 213.

  Chauveton, _Histoire Nouvelle du Nouveau Monde_, 36.

  Chaves, Alonzo de, 49.

  Cheever, _Journal of the Pilgrims_, 290.

  Chesapeake Bay, 213, 216;
    De Laet’s map (1630), 125;
    explored by John Smith, 131;
    maps of 167, 465, 501, 525;
    visited by Spaniards, 167.
    _See_ Virginia, maps of.

  Chester, Joseph L., 364.

  Chester (Pennsylvania), 483.

  Cheviot Hills (in Massachusetts), 198, 342.
    _See_ Blue Hills.

  Chiapanak, 213.

  Chicheley, Sir Henry, 151, 152.

  Child, Major John, 354.

  Child, Dr. Robert, 354;
    _New England’s Jonas_, 354, 355.

  Childley, Catharine, _Independent Churches_, 288.

  Chilton, Mary, 272.

  China, Gulf of, 67;
    routes through the continent to, 183.

  Christison, Wenlock, 505; autog., 314.

  “Christopher”, ship, 65.

  Church, Colonel Benjamin, his sword, 274;
    autog., 361;
    notes on Philip’s War, etc., 361;
    spurious portrait, 361.

  Church, Thomas, autog., 361;
    _Entertaining Passages_, 361;
    edited by Dr. H. M. Dexter, 361.

  Church members. _See_ Freemen.

  Churchill, Charles, his likeness passed off for Colonel Church’s, 361.

  Churchill’s _Voyages_, 96.

  Churchyard, Thomas, on _Frobisher’s Voyage_, 36, 204.

  Chytræus, _Variorum in Europa Itinerum Deliciæ_, 9, 21, 45, 46.

  Cibola, 80.

  Cimaronnes, 65.

  Cladera, _Investigaciones_, 212.

  Claesz, _Voyages_, 79.

  Claiborne. _See_ Clayborne.

  Clarendon, Lord, 310.

  _Clarendon Papers_, 414.

  Clark, Daniel, autog., 374.

  Clark, James S., _Congregational Churches_, 285.

  Clark, Dr. John, portrait, 315.

  Clark’s Island, 271, 272.

  Clarke, Dorus, 372.

  Clarke, John (sectary), 220.

  Clarke, John, of Rhode Island, 336, 337, 338.

  Clarke, Dr. John, 378;
    _Ill Newes from New England_, 358, 378.

  Clarke, Sir Richard, 187.

  Clarke, R. H., 415, 554, 561.

  Clarke, Samuel, _Life of Drake_, 83.

  Clarke, _Maritime Discovery_, 205.

  Clarkson, Thomas, _Life of Penn_, 505;
    _Portraiture of Quakerism_, 504.

  Claudia, island, 213, 216.

  Clayborne, William, 144, 146, 148, 458, 522, 526;
    incites the Indians, 527;
    war with Baltimore, 527;
    regains Kent Island, 532;
    his rebellion, 533;
    disappears, 542;
    commissioner, 537;
    in the archives, 556;
    Yong’s account of, 558;
    defended, 561, 562.

  Claypoole, James, 481, 492, 497;
    autog., 484;
    his letter-book, 497.

  Cleeves, George, 322, 323.

  Clement, John, _History of Fenwicke’s Colony_, 456.

  Clerk, Robert, 212.

  Cluverius, _Introductio_, etc., 184.

  Clyfton, Richard, 259, 262.

  Coale, James, autog., 273.

  Coale, Josiah, 473, 476, 505.

  Coast names in maps, 197.

  Cobbett, Thomas, _Civil Magistrate’s Power_, 378.

  Cod, Cape. _See_ Cape Cod.

  Coddington, William, 377;
    in Rhode Island, 336;
    autog., 336;
    portrait, 378;
    commission as governor revoked, 378;
    controversy with Massachusetts, 378;
    _Demonstration of True Love_, 378;
    deed to, 379.

  Coddington usurpation, 337, 377.
    _See_ Rhode Island.

  Codrington, Thomas, 437, 443.

  Coffin, Joshua, _History of Newbury_, 315.

  Coke, Sir Edward, 300, 307.

  Colburn, Jeremiah, _Bibliography of Massachusetts_, 292, 363.

  Colden, Cadwallader, on Smith’s _History of New York_, 412.

  Coleman, James, _Pedigree of Penn Family_, 507.

  Colliber, S., _Columna Restrata; or English Sea Affairs_, 84, 124.

  Collier, J. P., _Rarest Books in the English Language_, 154.

  Collier, William, 266.

  Collinson, Richard, _Voyages of Frobisher_, 99, 102.

  Columbia College, 411.

  Columbus’ third voyage, 218.

  Colve, Anthony, 397.

  Commelin, Isaac, _Begin en Voortgangh_, 79.

  Commerce of New England, 316.

  Comokee, 216.

  Compass (sea), 208.

  Conant, Roger, 311.

  “Concord”, ship, 172.

  Congregationalism a modification of Barrowism, 254;
    bibliography of, 246, 285, 293.

  Connecticut, first settled, 310;
    “Old Patent”, 310;
    history of, 330;
    first constitution, 330;
    secures a charter, 334, 374;
    _quo warranto_ against its charter, 335;
    charter concealed, 335;
    first book printed in, 334;
    sources of its history, 368;
    origin of name, 368;
    Indian names in, 368;
    the three towns, 368;
    original constitution of them, 368;
    Say patent, 369;
    notes on the constitutions, 369;
    royal letters to the governors, 369;
    laws, 334, 371, 374, 375;
    capital laws, 371;
    disputes with the Dutch, 373;
    education in, 373;
    charter uniting New Haven, 334, 373;
    colonial secretaries, 374;
    genealogies, 375;
    early constitutions, 375;
    quarrels with Rhode Island, 374;
    boundary disputes, 374;
    _Records_ published, 375;
    histories of, 375;
    laws under Andros, 375;
    local histories, 375;
    _Gazetteer_, 376;
    bounds with New York, 391, 398, 399, 405, 414;
    claims to land in Pennsylvania, 463.
    _See_ New Haven.

  Connecticut River explored, 368;
    rights of the Dutch to, 369;
    English settle on it, 369;
    map (1666), 333.

  Connecticut Valley Historical Society, 344.

  Conner, P. S. P., _Sir William Penn_, 506.

  Conrad, R. T., 513.

  Constable’s hook, 422.

  Constitution of Government, first written, 330.

  Contarini, 49.

  Converse, J. H., 533.

  Convicts sent to Virginia, 152, 160, 545.
    _See_ Virginia.

  Coode, John, 548;
    his rebellion, 551.

  Cooke, John, 283;
    autog., 268.

  Cooley, W. D., 82.

  Cooper, Captain Michael, 181.

  Cooper, Thomas, 435.

  Coote, C. H., 215.

  Cope, Gilbert, 510.

  Copiapo, 67.

  Copland, Rev. Patrick, 144, 166.

  Copley, Sir Lionel, 553.

  Copper in New England, 197.

  Cornelius, Cape, 489.

  Cornell, W. M., _History of Pennsylvania_, 509.

  Cornwall county, Maine, 325.

  Cornwallis, Thomas, 524, 528;
    autog., 524.

  Coronelli, map of New England, 384.

  Cortambert, E., 217.

  Cortereal, 56, 69;
    Terra Cortesia, 201;
    Cortereali, 201.

  Cortes, Martin, _Art of Navigation_, 207.

  Cortes’ conquest of New Spain, 204.

  Cosa, Juan de la, his map, 2, 8, 194, 217;
    fac-simile, 8.

  _Cosmographiæ Introductio_, 214.

  Cothren, W., _Ancient Woodbury_, 375.

  Cotton, John, writings, 255;
    _Way of the Churches Cleared_, 334, 351;
    _Moses, his Judicials_, 350;
    portrait, 351;
    his books, 351;
    controversy with Roger Williams, 351, 378;
    with Hooker, 352;
    _Bloudy Tenet_,351;
    _Keyes of Heaven_, 351;
    _Milk for Babes_, 352;
    and the Cambridge Platform, 354;
    tracts edited by Guild, 377.

  Cotton, John, of Plymouth, autog., 356.

  Cotton, Josiah, 291.

  Coxe, Brinton, 452.

  Coxe, Daniel, 442.

  Cozones, island, 79.

  Cradock, Mathew, 311;
    autog., 311.

  Craig, Neville B., 514.

  Crandall, John, 378.

  Crane Bay, 382.
    _See_ Plymouth.

  Craney Island, 111.

  Crashaw, Ralegh, 132.

  Crashaw, William, 136;
    sermon, 155.

  Cressap, Thomas, 514.

  Creuxius, map of New England, 382;
    _Historia Canadensis_, 382.

  Crispin, William, 479.

  Croatoan, 112.

  Croese, Gerard, _Historia Quakeriana_, 503, 504.

  Crosby, _Early Coins of America_, 543.

  Cross-staff, 207, 208.

  Croswell, Edwin, 372.

  Croswell, Rev. Harry, 372.

  Croswell, Sherman, 372.

  Croswell, Rev. William, 372.

  _Crowninshield Catalogue_, 206.

  Cruden, _History of Gravesend_, 207.

  Cuba, name applied to North America, 201.

  Cudworth, James, 359.

  Cullick, John, autog., 374.

  Culpepper, Lord, 150, 152.

  Cumberland Isles, 90, 91.

  Cunningham, William, _Cosmographicall Glasse_, 200.

  Curteis, G. H., Bampton Lectures,—_Dissent in its Relation to the
      Church of England_, 252, 253.

  Cushman, David Q., _History of Sheepscot_, 365.

  Cushman, Mary, 283.

  Cushman, Robert, at Leyden, 263;
    negotiates in London, 266;
    in Plymouth, 275;
    his _Sermon_, 290.

  Cushman, Thomas, autog., 271.

  _Cushman Genealogy_, 291.

  Cutt, John, 330.

  Cuttyhunk, 173, 188.

  Cyppo Bay, 67.


  Dale, Sir Thomas, 137;
    governor of Virginia, 138;
    sails for England, 141.

  Dalrymple, E. A., 554;
    dies, 554;
    his library, 554.

  Dalrymple, Sir John, 559.

  Daly, Charles P., _Early History of Cartography_, 9, 218.

  Damariscotta River, 190.

  Damariscove Islands, 191.

  Danby, Sir Thomas, 458.

  Danckaerts, _see_ Dankers.

  Danckers’ _Atlas_, 417;
    map of New York, 417.

  Danforth, Thomas, in Maine, 326;
    autog., 326.

  Dankers, Jasper, _Journal_, 420.

  Dankers’ and Sluyter’s _Journal_, 505, 558.

  Danvers, Sir John, 158.

  Dapper, _Die unbekante neue Welt_, 184.

  Dare, Virginia, 114.

  Darnall, C., 511.

  D’Avezac, 217.

  Davenant, Sir William, 536.

  Davenport, John, portrait, 332;
    autog., 332;
    _Civil Government in a New Plantation_, 371;
    memoir by Dexter, 375.

  Davies, James, _Voyage to Sagadahoc_, 192.

  Davies, Richard, autog, 484.

  Da Vinci, Leonardo, his map, 14, 214.

  Davis, G. L. L., _Daystar of American Freedom_, 560.

  Davis, J., _First Settlers of Virginia_, 162.

  Davis, Judge John, 291.

  Davis, John, of Sandridge, navigator, 73, 99;
    voyages, 89;
    autog., 89;
    authorities, 99;
    his _World’s Hydrographical Description_, 99, 205;
    his maps, 99;
    _Seaman’s Secrets_, 207.

  Davis, John, of Limehouse, 99.

  Davis, William T., on the Pilgrims, 284, 290.

  Davis, W. W. H., _Bucks County_, 510.
  Davis Straits, 89.

  Davis Island, 90.

  Davison, William, 258.

  _Day-breaking, The_, 355.

  Day, Sherman, _Historical Collections_, 508.

  Daye, Stephen, 350.

  Dealy, P. F., 415.

  Dean, John Ward, _Memoir of Nathaniel Ward_, 350.

  Deane, Charles, his library, _passim_;
    on the Cabots, 1;
    on Virginia history, 153-155, 158, 159, 167;
    on the Smith-Pocahontas story, 161;
    edits Hakluyt’s _Westerne Planting_, 208;
    notice of J. G. Kohl, 209;
    on the Popham question, 210;
    on Smith’s _New England Trials_, 211;
    on John Smith, 212;
    interest in Pilgrim _History_, 259, 260, 284, 285;
    edits _Plymouth Patent_, 275;
    edits Bradford’s _History_, 286;
    edits Bradford’s _Dialogue_, 289;
    on Roger Williams, 290;
    edits Cushman’s _Sermon_, 291;
    on “New England”, 295;
    on the Narragansett Patent, 379;
    on J. F. Watson, 509.

  De Bry, _Voyages_, 123, 167.

  De Bure globe, 214.

  De Costa, B. F., on “Norumbega”, 169;
    _Northmen in Maine_, 185;
    _Cabo de Baxos_, 188, 197;
    _Footprints of Miles Standish_, 290;
    edits _Voyage to Sagadahoc_, 190, 192;
    _Hudson’s Sailing Directions_, 193;
    _Mount Desert_, 194;
    _Verrazano the Explorer_, 199.

  Dee, Dr. John, 196;
    his map (1580), 196;
    diary, 171, 196.

  Deerfield, attack on, 384.

  De Forest, J. W., _Indians of Connecticut_, 368.

  De Laet, his map of Virginia, 125;
    map of the Chesapeake, 167;
    _Nieuwe Wereldt_, 184;
    map of New England, 381.

  Delafield, M. L., 412.

  Delaware Bay, 137, 423, 465.

  Delaware, northern bounds of, 477;
    bought by Penn, 480;
    confirmed to Penn, 489;
    mentioned, 548, 549.

  De la Warre, Lord, _Relation_, 81, 156;
    governor of Virginia, 133;
    autog., 133;
    goes to Virginia, 136;
    in Virginia, 142;
    portrait, 142;
    autog., 156.

  “Deliverance”, ship, 136.

  Delfthaven, 293;
    Pilgrims at, 267.

  Demarcation, papal line of, 4.

  Denison, Daniel, autog., 338.

  Denison, George, autog., 338.

  Dennis, Robert, 148.

  Dennis, Samuel, 437.

  Denonville, 415;
    and the Iroquois, 408.

  Denton, Daniel, _Brief Description of New York_, 419.

  De Peyster, General J. W., 415.

  De Quir, 104.

  Derby (Connecticut), 375.

  Dermer, Captain, 181-183, 194.

  Desolation, land, 91, 100.

  De Vries, David Pieterson, 422.

  Dexter, F. B., “The Pilgrim Church and Plymouth Colony”, 257;
    _Life of John Davenport_, 375;
    on Gotfe and Whalley, 375;
    on relations of New Netherland and New England, 375.

  Dexter, George, _First Voyage of Gilbert_, 187.

  Dexter, Henry M., _Congregationalism_, 238, 239, 245, 246, 293;
    his historical labors, 246;
    his bibliography of Congregationalism, 246;
    Visits to Scrooby, 284, 285;
    interest in Pilgrim history, 285;
    explores their Leyden life, 288;
    edits _Mourt’s Relation_, 288, 290;
    edits Church’s _Entertaining Passages_, 361;
    _As to Roger Williams_, 378;
    recovers a tract by Williams, 378.

  “Diamond”, ship, 134.

  _Diarium Europæum_, 496.

  Digges, Sir Dudley, 94, 103.

  Digges, Edward, 149.

  Diman J. L., edits Cotton’s Reply to Williams, 378.

  Dipping-needle, 207.

  “Discovery”, ship, 91-93, 128, 173, 289.

  Disraeli, Isaac, _Amenities of Literature_, 122.

  Dissenters, 221;
    in Virginia, 148.
    _See_ Nonconformists.

  Dixon, Jeremiah, autog., 489.

  Dixon, William Hepworth, _William Penn_, 306.

  Dixwell, Colonel John, 374.
    _See_ Regicides.

  “Dominus Vobiscum”, ship, 185.

  Doncker, Hendrick, New England in his _Paskaert_, 382.

  Dongan, Colonel Thomas, 439;
    governor of New York, 403, 407;
    autog., 403;
    checks Penn’s attempt to extend bounds of Pennsylvania, 404;
    retires, 409;
    references, 415.

  Doppelmayr, 212.

  Dorchester Antiquarian Society, 344.

  Dorchester Fishing Company, 311.

  Dort, Benjamin, 509.

  Dorr, H. C., _Planting of Providence_, 377.

  Doughty executed, 66.

  Douglass, William, 346;
    _Summary of British Settlements_, etc., 346.

  “Dove”, ship, 524.

  Dover (New Hampshire), 327;
    Neck, 326;
    Hilton patent of, 367.
    _See_ Hilton.

  Downing, Sir George, 333;
    intrigues of, 387, 389;
    pamphlets against, 415;
    his agency, 415;
    Downingiana, 415.

  Doyle, J. A., _The English in America_, 168.

  Drake, Francis, 207;
    with Hawkins, 63;
    called “The Dragon”, 64;
    voyages to West Indies, 64;
    autog., 65;
    sees the Pacific, 65;
    voyage round the world, 65;
    on northwest coast, 69;
    and the Indians, 70;
    takes possession of the country, 72;
    authorities, 79;
    _World Encompassed_, 74, 79;
    _Sir Francis Drake Revived_, 79, 82;
    discovers California coast, 465;
    at home, 73;
    knighted, 73;
    again with Hawkins, 73;
    dies, 73;
    crowned by the Indians, 80;
    _Le Voyage de Drack_, 79;
    _Le Voyage Curieux_, 79;
    _Expeditio Francisci Draki_, 80;
    portrait, 81, 84, 168, 465;
    his library, 81;
    Cates’s _Summary_, 82, 123;
    expedition with Norris, 82;
    his log-book, 82;
    Maynarde’s account, 82;
    lives of, 83;
    bibliography of, 84;
    _Journalen van drie Voyagien_, 84;
    latest notices, 84;
    at Roanoke Island, 112;
    on the New England coast, 188.

  Drake, S. G., _Researches among the British Archives_, 160;
    _Book of the Indians_, 290;
    editor of Baylies’ _New Plymouth_, 291;
    accounts of, 360;
    reprints tracts on Philip’s War, 360;
    _Old Indian Chronicle_, 360;
    _Narrative Remarks_, 361;
    _History of King Philip’s War_, 361;
    edits Increase Mather’s _Early History of New England_, 361;
    edits Hubbard’s _Narrative_, 361;
    edits Church’s _Entertaining Passages_, 361;
    _History of Boston_, 362;
    _Memoir of Prince_, 346.

  Drake’s Bay, 69;
    where was it? 74, 80.

  Dresser, Matthæus, _Historien von China_, 123.

  Drew, John, 91.

  Drogeo, 90, 101.

  Drummond, John, 435.

  Du Creux. _See_ Creuxius.

  Dudley, Joseph, portrait, 320;
    autog., 320, 356;
    president of the Council, 320, 407.

  Dudley, Robert, his maps, 74;
    _Arcano del Mare_, 74, 194, 196, 303;
    his Coast of New Albion map, 76, 77;
    map of New England, 381.

  Dudley, Thomas, 265;
    _Letter to Countess of Lincoln_, 346.

  Duke’s Laws, 391, 414, 510, 511.
    _See_ York, Duke of.

  Dungan, Rev. Thomas, 494.

  Dunlap, William. _History of New Netherlands and New York_, 413.

  Dunlop, James, on the Penn-Baltimore controversy, 514.

  Duponceau, P. S., 512, 513.

  Durfee, Job, 377.

  Durrie, D. S., _Index to American Genealogies_, 289.

  Dusdale, Robert, 441.

  Dutch, The, on the New England coast, 193;
    on the Connecticut, 369;
    in Pennsylvania, 494, 515;
    embassy to Maryland, 557.
    _See_ New Netherland.

  Dutch Gap, 138.

  Duxbury, map of harbor, 272;
    settlements at, 273.

  Dwight, Theo., Jr., _History of Connecticut_, 375.

  Dyer, Mary, 505.

  Dyre, William, 440.


  East India Company, 92, 103.

  East Jersey, population of, 436;
    laws, 437;
    Brief Account of, 438, 449;
    Board of Proprietors, 439;
    bounds with New York, 442;
    Records, 452.
    _See_ New Jersey.

  Easter Point, 90.

  Eastman, S. C., _Bibliography of New Hampshire_, 368.

  Easton, John, _Narrative of Philip’s War_, 360.

  Eaton, Cyrus, _History of Thomaston_, etc., 190.

  Eaton, Francis, autog., 268.

  Eaton, Theophilus, 333, 334;
    memoir, 371;
    code of laws, 371;
    _New Haven’s Settling in New England_, 354, 371.

  Ebeling, Professor, _Erdbeschreibung von America_, 508.

  Eden, Richard, 35;
    _Treatise of the Newe India_, 27, 199, 204;
    fac-simile of title, 200;
    _Decades_, 14, 29, 30, 35, 47, 200;
    acquaintance with Sebastian Cabot, 30;
    _A Brief Correction_, etc., 201;
    edits Cortes’ _Art of Navigation_, 207, 208;
    _Book concerning Navigation_, 207.

  Edmundson, William, 494;
    _Journal_, 452, 503.

  Education in Connecticut, 373;
    in Virginia, early efforts, 144;
    in Pennsylvania, 492

  Edward VI., autog., 6.

  Edwards, Edward, _Life of Ralegh_, 122.

  Egle, W. H., _History of Pennsylvania_, 508.

  Elbridge, 321.

  El Dorado, 116, 126.

  Eldridge, John, 430.

  Elephants, 186.

  Eliot, John, the Apostle, 315;
    his labors, 355;
    autog., 356;
    _Indian Bible_, 356;
    letters, 356;
    portrait, 356;
    _Christian Commonwealth_, 356;
    _Tracts_, 356;
    _Briefe Narrative_, 356;
    and the Bay Psalm-book, 350.

  Eliot, John, Jr., 360.

  Elizabeth, Queen, autog., 106.

  Elizabeth (New Jersey), 424;
    history of, 456.

  Elizabeth Islands (Tierra del Fuego), 66.

  Elizabeth city, 147.

  “Elizabeth”, ship, 65, 90, 139, 173.

  Elizabethtown, Bill in Chancery, 452;
    answers to, 452, 453.

  Ellis, Arthur B., _History of First Church in Boston_, 256, 354.

  Ellis, George E., “Religious Element in the Settlement of New
        England”, 219;
    on intruders and dissentients in Massachusetts, 378;
    _Life of William Penn_, 506.

  Ellis, Thomas, account of Frobisher’s voyage, 102.

  Elton, Romeo, edits _Callender’s Discourse_, 376;
    _Life of Roger Williams_, 378.

  Emley, William, 441.

  Emott, James, 437.

  Endicott, John, sent to New England, 311;
    portrait, 317;
    autog., 317;
    at Salem, 346.

  Endicott’s company at Salem, 242.

  Endicott Rock, 329.

  England, her title to North America, 1, 39, 40, 41;
    laggard in colonization, 184.

  English in New York, The, 385.

  English Public Record Office, 343.

  Engronelant. _See_ Greenland.

  Epenow, 180.

  Erasmus’s _Encomium of Folly_, 237.

  Eriwomeck, 467.

  Esopus, 390

  Essex Institute, 344.

  Estland, 101.

  Estotiland, 91, 101.

  Etechemins, 382.

  Etting, F.M., 474.

  _Evangelical and Literary Magazine_, 168.

  Evans, B., _Early English Baptists_, 252.

  Evans, Charles, 504;
    _Friends in the Seventeenth Century_, 504.

  Evelin, Robert, 458;
    _Directions for Adventurers_, 459;
    autog., 458.

  Evelyn, George, 562;
    at Kent Island, 528.

  Everett, Edward, on the Pilgrims, 293.

  Evertsen, 397.

  Exeter (New Hampshire), 329.


  Fabritius, Jacob, 494.

  Fairbairn, Henry, defence of Penn against Macaulay, 506.

  Fairfield (Connecticut), 333.

  Fairman, Thomas, 494.

  “Falcon”, ship, 106.

  Falkland Islands, 66.

  Falkner, David, 501, 502;
    _Curieuse Nachricht_, 502.

  Falling Creek, 145;
    massacre, 163.

  False Cape, 489.

  Farmer, John, 367;
    edits Belknap’s _History_, 368.

  Farmer and Moore, _Collections of New Hampshire_, 367.

  Farollones, 77.

  Farrar, Canon, on Ralegh, 126.

  Farrar’s Island, 138.

  Farre, Elias, 441.

  Farrer, John, _Discovery of New Britaine_, map in, 464.
    _See_ Ferrar.

  Fear, Cape. _See_ Cape Fear.

  Featherstone, Richard, 131.

  Fell, Margaret, 504.

  Felt, J. B., 343;
    _History of Salem_, 363;
    _Customs of New England_, 363;
    _Reply to White_, 255;
    _Ecclesiastical History of New England_, 256;
    arranged Massachusetts archives, 343.

  Fendall, Josias, 540, 541, 542;
    autog., 540;
    arrested, 548.

  Fenwick, George, 332.

  Fenwick, John, _Proposals_, 449;
    buys grant in New Jersey, 430;
    comes over, 431;
    a prisoner to Andros, 431;
    released, 432;
    representation, 441;
    memoir by Johnson, 456;
    _Historical Account of Salem_, 455;
    history of his colony by Clement, 456.

  Fenwick of Connecticut, 370.

  Ferdinando, Simon, 113;
    in Norumbega, 171, 186.

  Ferrar, Domina Virginia, her map of the Chesapeake, etc., 168.

  Ferrar, John, 168.
    _See_ Farrer.

  Ferryland, 519.

  Fessenden, _History of Warren, Rhode Island_, 290.

  Figurative map, 381.

  Finæus, Orontius and his map, 10, 11.

  “First-comers” to Plymouth, 292.

  Fisher, J, F., 513;
    on William Penn, 506.

  Fisher, Mary, 505;
    autog., 314.

  Fisheries, grant of, 296;
    act against monopolies of, 298, 299, 300, 301, 307.

  FitzGeffrey, _Life of Drake_, 83.

  FitzHugh, Colonel William, 161.

  Five Nations. _See_ Iroquois.

  Fleet, Henry, 526;
    his _Journal_, 561.

  Fletcher, Francis, in the _World Encompassed_, 79;
    Drake’s chaplain, 66.

  Florida, 25, 37, 42, 201;
    early described by the English, 60, 61;
    Indians, 78;
    account in English, following Ribault, 200.

  Florio, John, 204.

  Flower, Enoch, 492.

  Foley, Henry, _Records of the English Jesuits_, 457.

  Folsom, George, 210;
    _Catalogue of Documents relating to Maine_, 208;
    _Saco and Biddeford_, 364;
    _Catalogue of Original Documents_, 364;
    on Samuel Argall, 463.

  Forbes, Alexander, his _California_, 78.

  Force, Peter, _Historical Tracts_, _passim_.

  Ford, Philip, autog., 484;
    _Vindication of Penn_, 498.

  Forest, Mrs. Thomas, 132.

  Forster. W. E., _William Penn and T. B. Macaulay_, 506.

  Fort Nassau, 422.

  Fort Orange, 390.

  “Fortune”, ship, 275.

  Foster, John, printer, of Boston, 361.

  Foulke, W. P., 515.

  Fox, George, 442;
    letter from Roger Williams, 378;
    his ministry, 469;
    portrait, 470;
    plan of settlement in America, 476;
    tracts, 497;
    _Journal_, 503;
    Swathmore manuscripts, 504;
    in Maryland, 547.
    _See_ Quakers.

  Fox, Luke, 95;
    his _Northwest Foxe_, 95, 99.

  Fox, Richard, 148.

  Fox Channel, 94, 95.

  Fox Island, 190.

  Frame, Richard, _Short Description_, etc., 500.

  Frampton, John, _Joyfull Newes_, 204, 205;
    edits Medina’s _Arte de Navegar_, 207.

  Francisca, 201.
    _See_ New France.

  Frank, manor of, 497.

  Frankfort globe, 214, 215, 217.

  Frankfort Land Company, 490, 502;
    _Curieuse Nachricht_, 502.

  Franklin, Benjamin, _Historical Review_, 508.

  Frascator, 24, 25, 26.

  Free Society of Traders, 482, 497;
    receipt and seal of, 498;
    their articles, etc., 498.

  Freeman, _History of Cape Cod_, 290.

  Freemen to be church members, 313.

  French claim to the Iroquois country, 406.

  Friends. _See_ Quakers.

  Friesland, 100, 101.

  Frobisher, Martin, 35, 36;
    his voyages, 86;
    portrait, 87;
    autog., 87;
    relics of, 89;
    authorities, 99, 102;
    used the Zeno map, 100;
    Beste’s _True Discourse_, 102, 204;
    _De Forbisseri Navigatione_, 102;
    lives, 102;
    his Straits, 86, 91, 98;
    misplaced, 100;
    map of, 103;
    map, 195;
    Settle’s account of his _Voyage_, 203;
    Churchyard’s account of his _Voyage_, 204.

  Froude, _History of England_, 79;
    _Forgotten Worthies_, 99.

  Fuller, Samuel, 284;
    autog., 268;
    cradle, 278.

  Fuller, Thomas, _Holy and Prophane State_, 83;
    _Worthies of England_, 102, 161.

  Fundy Bay, visited, 176.

  Furlano’s map, 68.

  Furman, Gabriel, 420.

  Futhey, J. S., and Cope, Gilbert, _Chester County_, 510.


  “Gabriel”, ship, 86.

  “Gabryll Royall”, ship, 186.

  Gævara, Antonio de, 207.

  Gali. _See_ Gaulle.

  Galvano, Antonio, _Tradado_, 32.

  Gammelt, William, _Memoir of Roger Williams_, 378.

  Garde, Roger, autog., 364.

  Gardiner, Lion, 331, 349;
    autog., 348.

  Gardiner, R. H., 210, 291.

  Gardiner, S. R., _Prince Charles_, etc., 122, 285, 517;
    _Personal Government of Charles I._, 524.

  “Gargarine”, ship, 170.

  Garrett, J. W., 558.

  Gastaldi, 25.

  Gates, Sir Thomas, 133, 159;
    autog., 133;
    wrecked, 134;
    reaches Jamestown, 136;
    returns to England, 137;
    again comes over, 138.

  Gaulle, Francis, 80.

  Gay, Sidney Howard, on Pilgrims’ history, 290;
    _Popular History of the United States_, passim.

  Genealogies of New England, 363;
    of Virginia, 160.

  “George”, ship, 142.

  George, Staughton, 510.

  George’s River, 190, 191.

  Gerard, J. W., 420.

  Germans in Pennsylvania, 490, 502, 515.

  Germantown (Pennsylvania), 491, 501, 515.

  Gerritsz, H., on Hudson, 103.

  Ghillany, _Erdglobus von Behaim_, etc., 214;
    _Martin Behaim_, 8, 212.

  Giants, 201.

  Gibbons, Ambrose, 327, 328.

  Gibbons, Edward, 531.

  Gibson, William, 435; autog., 484.

  “Gift of God”, ship, 176.

  Gilbert, Bartholomew, 187.

  Gilbert, Sir Humphrey, 89, 105, 171, 187;
    _Discourse of Discovery_, 35, 200;
    his voyage, 39;
    his expeditions (1578), 106, 122;
    (1583), 107;
    at Newfoundland, 108;
    autog., 187;
    his _True Report_, 187;
    his charts lost, 196;
    his map (1576), 203.

  Gilbert, Sir John, 118.

  Gilbert, Otho, 105.

  Gilbert, Raleigh, 176.

  Gilbert family, 187.

  Gilbert’s Sound, 90.

  Gillett, E. H., _Civil Liberty in Connecticut_, 375.

  Girardin, L. H., 165.

  Gladstone, W. E., on Maryland toleration, 561, 562.

  Globes, early, 212;
    paper on, 215.

  _Glorious Progress of the Gospel_, 355.

  Goche, Dr. Barnabe, 301, 305.

  “Godspeed”, ship, 91, 128.

  Godfrey, Edward, 324.

  Godfrey, J. E., 291.

  Goffe and Whalley, 374, 375.
    _See_ Regicides.

  Gold, supposed to be found by Frobisher, 87;
    supposed to be in New England, 180, 181, 183.

  “Golden Hind”, ship, 187.

  “Golden Lion”, ship, 539.

  Gomara, _Historia General de las Indias_, 26, 27;
    account of Cortes, 204.

  Gomez, 16, 195.

  Gondomar, Count, 119.

  Goodell, A. C., 210.

  _Good Speed to Virginia_, 155.

  Gookin, Daniel, Sr., 145, 159.

  Gookin, Daniel, Jr., goes to New England, 145.

  Goos, Peter, _Zee-Atlas_, 418.

  Gordon, Robert, 435.

  Gordon, T. F., _History of New Jersey_, 455;
    _History of Pennsylvania_, 508.

  Gorgeana, 190, 322, 323, 324, 364.

  Gorges, Sir Ferdinando, 175;
    autog., 175, 275, 364;
    plans of colonization, 180, 184, 192, 296;
    grant to, 192;
    _Brief Narration_, 192, 193, 365;
    papers, 192;
    his fame, 210;
    fort named after him, 210;
    patent for New England, 297, 299, 300;
    his grants under it, 299;
    defends his patent, 307;
    attacks the Massachusetts Charter, 318;
    his province of New Somerset, 322, 323, 324;
    dies, 324, 365;
    tomb, 366;
    pedigree, 366;
    Laconia patent, 327, 328;
    his patent on the Maine coast, 341;
    grants to, in Maine, 310, 363;
    commission as governor of New England, 363;
    deed to Edgecomb, 363;
    chosen governor, 302, 310.
    _See_ New England.

  Gorges, Ferdinando, the younger, papers regarding him in
       the State-Paper Office, 364;
    patent, 322;
    seeks to recover his patrimony, 324;
    sells it to Massachusetts, 325;
    _America Painted to the Life_, 192, 365.

  Gorges, Robert, sent to New England, 303;
    at Wessagusset, 304, 311.

  Gorges, Thomas, 323; autog., 364.

  Gorges, William, in Maine, 322.

  Gorges and Mason Grant, 191.

  _Gorges Tracts_, 365.

  Gorton, Samuel, 336, 337;
    autog., 336;
    his trouble with Massachusetts, 354;
    _Simplicitie’s Defence_, 354, 378;
    edited by Staples, 354;
    defence of, by Brayton, 354;
    in Rhode Island, 378;
    letter to Morton, 378.

  Gosling, John, 441.

  Gosnold, Anthony, 132.

  Gosnold, Captain Bartholomew, 128;
    dies, 129;
    on the New England coast, 172;
    authorities, 187;
    his landfall, 188.

  Gottfried’s _Voyages_, 79;
    _Neue Welt_, 167.

  Gough, _History of the Quakers_, 504.

  Gould, E. R. L., 516.

  Gowans, William, 420.

  Graeff, A. op den, 491.

  Grahame, _Colonial History of United States_, 378, 509.

  Grande, Rio, 80.

  Granganimeo, 109.

  _Granite Monthly_, 368.

  Grantham, Sir Thomas, his _Historical Account of some Memorable
      Actions_, 151, 164.

  Grants from the English Crown, 153.

  Gray, Francis C., 350.

  “Great Galley”, ship, 186.

  Green, Samuel, printer, 351.

  Green, S. A., _Bibliography of Massachusetts Historical Society_, 343.

  Greene, G. W., _Short History of Rhode Island_, 335, 376.

  Greene, Thomas, 533; autog., 533.

  Greenhow, _Oregon and California_, 78.

  Greenland, 91, 100, 101;
    earliest map of, 101;
    Fox’s map, 98;
    Gronlandia, 203.

  Greenleaf, Jonathan, _Ecclesiastical History of Maine_, 365.

  Grenville, Sir Richard, 110, 114.

  Gresham, Sir Thomas, 86.

  Griffin, _Press in Maine_, 209.

  Griffith, T. W., _Early History of Maryland_, 561;
    _Annals of Baltimore_, 561.

  “Griffith”, ship, 431.

  Grigsby, H. B., 158, 163.

  Griswold, A. W., _Catalogue of Library_, 211.

  Grocland, 90, 101.

  Grolandia. _See_ Grocland.

  Gronland. _See_ Greenland.

  Groom, Samuel, 435, 436, 440.

  Grynæus, _Novus Orbis_, 10, 199.

  Gualter, Rodolph, 248.

  Guamas, R. das, 197.

  Guatulco, 68.

  Guiana, voyage to, 105;
    empire of, 117;
    Ralegh in, 124;
    Ralegh’s account, 124, 126;
    _Newes of Sir Walter Rawleigh_, 126.

  Guild, R. A., edits _Cotton Tracts_, 377.

  Guilford (Connecticut), 333.

  Guinea, 200; coast, 60.

  Gulf Stream, Dr. Kohl on, 209.

  Gurnet, 272.

  Guy, Richard, 441.


  Hacket, Thomas, 200;
    his version of Thevet, 32.

  Haies, Edward, 187.

  Haige, William, 479, 511.

  Hakluyt, Richard, 123, 204, 205;
    autog., 204;
    depreciated by Biddle, 29, 39;
    connection with colonization, 189;
    his life, 189;
    _Divers Voyages_, 37, 189, 204, 205;
    _Principal Navigations_, 41, 44, 46, 97, 185, 189, 205;
    _Virginia Richly Valued_, 189;
    _Westerne Planting_, 40, 108, 189, 208;
    map (1587), 196;
    encourages public lectures on navigation, 207.

  Hale, Edward E., “Hawkins and Drake”, 59.

  Hale, Nathan, 515;
    edits Prince’s _Annals_, 346.

  Half-way Covenant, 334;
    literature of, 359.

  Hall, Christopher, 102.

  Hall, James, in the Arctic seas, 92.

  Hallam, Henry, _Constitutional History of England_, 250.

  Hamilton, Andrew, 443.

  Hamilton, Duke of, 370;
    claim to Connecticut, 335, 374;
    autog., 275.

  Hammond, John, _Hammond vs. Heamans_, 554;
    _Leah and Rachel_, 166, 555.

  Hamor, Ralph, 139, 141, 146;
    _True Discourse_, 81, 157.

  Hampton (New Hampshire), 329.

  Hanam, Thomas, 175.

  Hanbury, _Historical Memorials_, 288.

  Hanson, George A., _Old Kent_, 561.

  Hariot, Thomas, 111, 113, 123;
    his Virginia, 81, 123, 205;
    on rhumbs, 208.

  Harlow on the Maine coast, 178;
    captures an Indian, 180.

  Harris, John, _Map of Pennsylvania_, 491, 516.

  Harris, J. Morrison, 122.

  Harris’s _Voyages_, 79.

  Harrison, George L., _Remains of William Penn_, 475.

  Harrison, S. A., _Wenlock Christison_, 505, 555.

  Harrisse, Henry, _Bibliotheca Americana Vetustissima_, 9;
    _Bibliotheca Barlowiana_, 159;
    _Jean et Sebastian Cabot_, 218.

  Hart, Thomas, 435.

  Hartford (Connecticut), 330.

  Hartop, 64.

  Hartshorne, Hugh, 435.

  Hartshorne, Richard, 437.

  Harvard College founded, 314.

  Harvey, Sir John, 140, 146;
    autog., 156.

  Hasty-pudding, 62.

  Hatch, Edwin, _Organization of the Early Christian Churches_, 254.

  Hatfield, E. F., _History of Elizabeth, New Jersey_, 456.

  Hatfield, attack on, 384.

  Hatherly, Timothy, 266.

  Hatorask, 112.

  Hatteras Indians, 116.

  Hatteras, Cape, 213, 216, 465.
    _See_ Hatorask.

  Haven, S. F., on the Popham Question, 210;
    _History of the Grants_, 209, 302, 340.

  Hawkes, _Ecclesiastical History of the United States_, 166.

  Hawkins, John, voyages, 60;
    autog., 61;
    portrait, 61;
    his coat armor, 63;
    defeated by Spaniards, 64;
    authorities, 78;
    his _Voyages to Guynea_, 78;
    lands sailors at Gulf of Mexico, 170;
    again with Drake, 73;
    dies, 73.

  Hawkins, Richard, his _Voyage to the South Sea_, 78;
    on the New England coast, 181, 182, 194.

  Hawkins, William, voyages, 59;
    authorities, 78.

  _Hawkins Voyages_, 79.

  Hawks, Francis L., 533;
    _History of North Carolina_, 124.

  Hawley, Jerome, 524, 528.

  Haynes, John, governor, 331;
    autog., 331;
    alleged portrait, 331.

  Hazard, Ebenezer, _Historical Collections_, 153, 283.

  Hazard, Samuel, _Annals of Pennsylvania_, 510;
    _Pennsylvania Archives_, 510;
    _Register of Pennsylvania_, 510.

  Hazard, Willis P., _Annals of Philadelphia_, 509.

  Hazlett, W. C., _Bibliographical Collections and Notes_, 204.

  Heamann, Roger, 539, 554.

  Heath, Sir Robert, 561.

  Heckewelder, John, _Indians in Pennsylvania_, 515.

  “Helen”, ship, 90.

  Hellowes, Edward, _Invention of Navigation_, 207.

  Hemans, _Landing of the Pilgrim Fathers_, 294.

  Hendricks, Gerhard, 491.

  Hening, _Statutes at large_, 164.

  Henlopen, Cape, 489.

  Hinman, R. R., _Royal Letters to the Governors of Connecticut_, 369;
    edits _New Haven Laws_, 371.

  Henri II. (Dauphin), map, 195, 217.

  Henrico, 138; college at, 141, 144.

  Henry VII., his sign-manual, 1.

  Henry VIII., autog., 4.

  Henry, M. S., 162.

  Henry, William Wirt, “Sir Walter Ralegh”, etc., 105;
    on the Pocahontas story, 162;
    champions Smith, 162.

  “Henry and Francis”, ship, 438.

  Herman, Augustine, 466, 549.

  Hermosa Bay, 80.

  Herrera, _Historia General_, 47;
    _Description_, etc., 185.

  Hersent, Samuel, 488.

  Heylin, Peter, _Cosmographie_, 466.

  Heywood, John, 435.

  Hicks, Elias, 504.

  Higginson, Francis, at Salem, 346;
    _Journal_, 346;
    _New England Plantation_, 211, 346.

  Hildeburn, C. R., _Press in Pennsylvania_, 514.

  Hildreth, Richard, _History of the United States_, 562.

  Hill, Edward, 147, 149.

  Hillard, George S., _Life of John Smith_, 211;
    _Memoir of James Savage_, 353.

  Hilton, Edward, 326.

  Hilton, William, 326.

  Hilton’s Point, 326, 327.
    _See_ Dover.

  Hiltons on Dover Neck, accounts of, 366;
    their patent, 367.

  Hinckley, Thomas, autog., 278, 356.

  Hingham Meeting-house, view of, 319.

  Hinman, R. R., _Early Puritan Settlers in Connecticut_, 375.

  Hispaniola, 201.
    _See_ San Domingo.

  Historical Commission (England), reports of, 159.

  _Historical Magazine_, passim.

  _Historical Memorials relating to Independents_, 252.

  Hixon, Ellis, 82.

  Hoadley, C. J., edits _Connecticut and New Haven Records_, 375.

  Hoboken, 422

  Hobson and Harlow, 193, 194.

  Hobson on the Maine coast, 178, 180.

  Hochelaga, 213, 216.
    _See_ Montreal.

  Hogenberg, 34.

  Holland, Henry, _Heroologia_, 81.

  Holland, English exiles in, 231.

  Hollanders, 193.
    _See_ Dutch.

  _Hollandsche Mercurius_, 415.

  Hollister, G. H., _History of Connecticut_, 375.

  Holme, John, _True Relation_, etc., 501.

  Holme, Thomas, 481;
    _Map of Philadelphia_, 516;
    _Map of Pennsylvania_, 516.

  Holmes, Abiel, 187.

  Holmes, Obadiah, 378.

  Holmes, O. W., 286.

  Honda, Rio, 213.

  Hondius, Jodocus, 46;
    map, 47, 75, 208;
    map of California coast, 79, 80;
    globe, 216.

  Hood, Thomas, on Jacob’s staff, 207;
    _Mariner’s Guide_, 207;
    _Use of Mathematical Instruments_, 208;
    his map, 196, 197, 217.

  Hooker, Richard, _Ecclesiastical Polity_, 228, 249;
    Walton’s life of him, 249.

  Hooker, Thomas, in Connecticut, 330;
    autog., 330;
    his _Survey of Church Discipline_, 334, 352;
    controverts Cotton, 352.

  Hope Sanderson, 90.

  Hope’s Check, 93.

  “Hopewell”, ship, 347.

  Hopkins, Edward, governor, 371;
    autog., 374.

  Hopkins, Samuel, 429;
    _Youth of the Old Dominion_, 162.

  Hopkins, Stephen, on Rhode Island history, 376.

  Hopkins, governor of Connecticut, dies, 371.

  Hoppin, James M., _Old England_, 285.

  Hortop, Job, _Rare Travailes_, 186, 205.

  Hotten, _Original Lists_, etc., 160.

  Hough, F. B., on Pemaquid, 365.

  Houghton, Lord, 285;
    poem on the Pilgrims, 294.

  Houses, early, in Pennsylvania, 491.

  Howe, _Historical Collections of Virginia_, 165.

  Howgill, Francis, _Popish Inquisitions in New England_, 358.

  Howison, R. R., _History of Virginia_, 165.

  Howland, John, 273;
    autog., 268;
    his marriage, 284;
    family, 284.

  Hoyt, A. H., on the laws of New Hampshire, 367.

  Hubbard, William, autog., 362;
    _Troubles with the Indians_, 361, 384;
    _Present State of New England_, 361;
    _History of New England_, 291, 362;
    map of New England, 384.

  Hudson, Henry, voyages, 92, 103;
    authorities, 99, 103, 104, 193;
    _Detectio Freti Hudsoni_, 104;
    on the New England coast, 178, 193.

  Hudson, William, autog., 338.

  Hudson Bay, Cabot in, 26, 28, 34;
    James’s map of, 96;
    Fox’s map, 98.

  Hudson River, connects with the St. Lawrence, 465.

  Hues, Robert, _Tractatus de Globis_, 208.

  Humboldt, Alexander, _Examen Critique_, 8, 214.

  Hume, David, _History of England_, attacks Ralegh, 122.

  Hunloke, Edward, 442.

  Hunnewell, J. F., 155.

  Hunt, Robert, 129.

  Hunter, Joseph, 284;
    on Pilgrim history, 283;
    _Founders of New Plymouth_, 284.

  Huston, Charles, _Land in Pennsylvania_, 512.

  Hutchinson, Edward, autog., 338.

  Hutchinson, George, 441.

  Hutchinson, Thomas, _History of Massachusetts Bay_, 283, 344;
    controversy over his papers, 344;
    publications, 344;
    _Original Papers_, 344;
    on the Pilgrims, 291.

  _Huth Catalogue_, 82.

  Hylacomylus. _See_ Waldseemüller.


  Icaria, 101.

  Iceland, 101.

  Independents, 248.

  Indian Bible, Eliot’s, 356;
    bibliography of, 356.

  Indian corn, 113.

  Indian languages, 355.

  Indian names in Virginia, 153.

  Indian trails, 186.

  Indian wars, books on, 361.

  Indians, the community-buildings of the southern tribes, 62;
    houses on the northwest coast, 69;
    in Virginia, 131;
    about Plymouth, 290;
    conversion of, 315, 355, 393;
    Society for Propagating the Gospel among them, 315, 316, 355, 356;
    their right to the soil, 341;
    in Connecticut, 368;
    books on, 368;
    in New Jersey, 425;
    and the Quakers, 473;
    in Pennsylvania, 489, 514, 515;
    in Maryland, 526, 527, 531, 555.
    _See_ Iroquois, and other names of tribes.

  Ingle, Richard, 147, 532, 533.

  Ingle’s rebellion, 555.

  Ingram, David, 64, 170, 186;
    his _Relation_, 186.

  Inter-charter period in Massachusetts, 362.

  _Interlude of Four Elements_, 16, 28.

  Inwood, William, 457.

  Iron manufactured in Jersey, 448;
    in Virginia, 163;
    first in America, 144, 145.

  Iroquois nations, 393;
    wars with the French, 394, 408, 415;
    Jesuits among, 400, 406;
    friends of the English, 404-406, 408.
    _See_ Mohawks.


  Jack’s Bay, 74, 75.

  Jacob’s staff, 207, 208.

  Jamaica, 201.

  James I., autog., 127.

  James II. proclaimed in Massachusetts, 321;
    on the throne, 406.

  James, Captain Thomas, 95;
    his map, 96;
    his _Strange and Dangerous Voyage_, 96.

  James River, 128.

  Jameson, J. F., 414.

  Jamestown founded, 129;
    view of, 130;
    early history of, 153.
    _See_ Virginia.

  Janney, S. M., _Religious Society of Friends_, 504;
    _Life of Penn_, 505.

  Jannson, map of New England, 384.

  Japan, 67, 68, 85;
    (Zipangri), 201;
    (Giapan), 203.

  Jasper, John, 473.

  Jeffrey, Lord, on William Penn, 505.

  Jeffreys, Herbert, 152.

  Jenings, Samuel, 440, 451, 488;
    governor of West Jersey, 441;
    _Truth Rescued_, 452.

  Jenkins, M. C., 561.

  Jenness, J. S., _Isles of Shoals_, 198;
    _New Hampshire_, 366;
    _Original Documents_, 367.

  Jerseys, the English in the, 421.
    _See_ New Jersey.

  Jesuit _Relations_, 193.

  Jesuits in Maryland, 523, 525, 531;
    their letters, 553.

  “Jesus”, ship, 60.

  Jews denied being freemen in Rhode Island, 379.

  Jogues, _Novum Belgium_, 416.

  “John and Francis”, ship, 139.

  “John Sarah”, ship, 480.

  Johnson, Edward, 358;
    autog., 358;
    _Wonder-working Providence_, 210, 358, 365.

  Johnson, Francis, 220, 261;
    autog., 261.

  Johnson, George, 220.

  Johnson, Isaac, 369.

  Johnson, Robert, his _New Life of Virginia_, 156.

  Johnson, R. S., _Memoir of Fenwicke_, 456.

  Johnson, Samuel, _Life of Drake_, 84.

  Johnston, John, _History of Bristol_, etc., 190, 365.

  Johnstone, George, Cecil County, 561.

  Johnstone, John, 443, 450.

  Jomard, _Monuments de la Géographie_, 8, 21, 217;
    notices of, 217.

  “Jonathan”, ship, 326.

  Jones, Edmund, 173.

  Jones, F., _Life of Frobisher_, 102.

  Jones, H. G., 500, 515, 516.

  Jones, Joel, _Land-office Titles_, 512.

  Jones, Samuel, criticises Smith’s _History of New York_, 412.

  Jones, Skelton, 165.

  Jones, Captain Thomas, of the “Mayflower”, 269, 271, 288;
    his alleged treachery, 289.

  Jones, Sir William, 483, 511.

  Jones, _Present State of Virginia_, 164.

  Joseph, William, 550.

  Josselyn, Henry, 360.

  Josselyn, John, 372;
    _Two Voyages_, 360, 384;
    _New England’s Rarities_, 360.

  Judæis, Cornelius de, _Speculum Orbis Terrarum_, 196;
    his map (1593), 196.

  “Judith”, ship, 63.

  Juet, companion of Hudson, 103.

  Jury trial, first in Virginia, 146.


  Kalendarium Pennsilvaniense, 493.

  Kanibas, 382.

  Keach, Elias, 494.

  Keen, Gregory B., “Note on New Albion”, 457.

  Keith, George, 445, 501, 503.

  Keith, Sir William, _History of Virginia_, 165.

  Kelpius, 501.

  Kemp, Richard, 147.

  Kendall, John, 128.

  Kennebec River, 190, 382, 383;
    Plymouth patent of it, 278, 291, 308, 324;
    projected settlement on, 302.

  Kennedy, J. P., _Life of Lord Baltimore_, 561.

  Kennett, White, _Bibliothecæ Americanæ Primordia_, 348.

  Kent Island, 522, 526, 527, 528, 532, 533, 538, 542, 562.

  “Kent”, ship, 432.

  Kerr, _Voyages_, 84.

  Kest, _Robinson, Prediker_, 286.

  Keymis, Lawrence, 118, 120;
    his account of Ralegh’s voyage, 124.

  Kidder, Frederic, 123;
    on the Popham Question, 210.

  King’s Province (Rhode Island), 339.

  “Kingfisher”, frigate, 321.

  Kingsland, Isaac, 437, 443.

  Kingsley, Charles, on Ralegh, 126;
    _Westward Ho!_, 78.

  Kingsley, J. L., _Historical Discourse_, 371.

  Kingston (New York), 390.

  Knight, John, 92.

  Knowles, J. D., _Life of Roger Williams_, 378.

  Kohl, J. G., his career and likeness, 209;
    his _Discovery of Maine_, or _Documentary History of Maine_, 8, 12,
        208, 209, 218;
    his _Die beiden ältesten General-Karten von America_, 16;
    his cartographical labors, 209;
    his maps in the State Department at Washington, 209;
    in the American Antiquarian Society, 209;
    on the name of Rhode Island, 376;
    _Maps in Hakluyt_, 80, 124.

  _Kort en bondigh Verhael_, 415.

  Kunstmann, F., _Entdeckung Amerikas_, 8, 82, 217.


  Labadists, 505.

  Labanoff, _Catalogue_, 200.

  Labrador, 90, 101;
    Cabot’s landfall, 34;
    as an island, 203.

  Laconia, 308;
    patent, 340, 367;
    Company, 327, 328, 363;
    sources of its history, 366, 367.

  La Cosa. _See_ Cosa.

  Lacour, Louis, 82.

  Lafreri, _Geografia_, 10.

  Lake, Sir Thomas, 517.

  Lakeman, Sijverts, _Treatyse_, etc., 208.

  Lamb, Joshua, 123.

  Lamb, Martha J., _History of New York City_, 415.

  Lambert, E. R., _History of New Haven Colony_, 375.

  Lambrechtsen, _Korte Beschryving_, 418.

  Lancaster Sound, 95.

  Lane, Ralph, 187;
    in Virginia, 110, 111;
    autog., 110;
    his narrative, 122;
    letters, 123, 124.

  Langford, John, _Refutation of Babylon’s Fall_, 555.

  Langren’s globes, 216.

  Laon globe (1493), 212.

  La Plata River, Cabot at, 4, 48.

  Larkham, Thomas, 327.

  La Roque, _Armorial_, 58.

  La Salle’s discoveries, 403.

  La Tour, 383.

  Las Casas, English translation, 205.

  Latitude, instruments for taking, 207.

  Latrobe, J. H. B., 514.

  Laudonuière’s colony, 61.

  Lawrence, Sir John, 457.

  Lawrie, Gawen, 430, 435, 437, 438, 443;
    autog., 430.

  Lawton on William Penn, 506.

  Lawyer, first, in Massachusetts, 351.

  Laydon, John, 132.

  Leaming, Aaron, 454.

  Leaming and Spicer, _Grants, etc., of New Jersey_, 454.

  Lechford, Thomas, 351;
    _Plain Dealing_, 351;
    its manuscript, 351;
    fac-simile of, 352;
    autog., 351, 353;
    note-book, 351.

  Leclerc, _Bibliotheca Americana_, 217.

  L’Ecuy globe, 214.

  Leddra, William, hanged, 359, 505.

  Lederer, John, _Discoveries_, 157.

  Lefroy, _History of Bermuda_, 156.

  Legislature, first, in America, 143.

  Leicester, Earl of, 64, 74.

  Leigh, Sir Thomas, 141.

  Leigh, William, 158.

  Leisler, Jacob, 411;
    autog., 411;
    his dwelling, 417.

  Lelewel, _Géographie du Moyen Âge_, 8, 217.

  Leng, Robert, 82.

  Lenox, Duke of, 297, 301, 341;
    autog., 275.

  Lenox globe, 14, 212.

  Lenox Library, 380.

  Leroux, 212.

  Lescarbot’s map (1609), 197.

  Levett, Christopher, 303, 308, 366.

  Levick, J. J., _John ap Thomas_, etc., 515.

  Lewger, John, 528;
    autog., 528.

  Lewis, Alonzo, _History of Lynn_, 347.

  Lewis, Lawrence, Jr., 488;
    _Land Titles_, 512;
    _Courts of Pennsylvania_, 512

  Lewis, William, 531, 555, 556.

  Leyden, Pilgrims in, 262;
    university, 262, 263;
    plan of the town, 263;
    Pilgrims leave, 267;
    later emigrations from, 276, 277;
    H. C. Murphy on the Pilgrims at, 287;
    George Sumner on the same, 286.
    _See_ Pilgrims.

  Libraries in Virginia, 153.

  Lightfoot, Bishop, _Christian Ministry_, 254.

  Lil, H. van, on William Penn, 506.

  Linn, J. B., 510.

  Linschoten, _Discours_, 205;
    portrait, 206.

  Lions, 186.

  “Little James”, ship, 292.

  Little Harbor (New Hampshire), 326.

  Livermore, George, 354.

  Livingston, William, 411, 453.

  Lloyd, Charles, autog., 484.

  Lloyd, David, 488.

  Lloyd, Lawrence, 466.

  Lloyd, Thomas, autog., 494.

  Local histories, 363.

  Lock, Lars, 494.

  Locke, John, and Churchill’s _Voyages_, 205.

  Locke or Lok, Michael, 86;
    his map, 39, 205;
    fac-simile, 40;
    _History of West Indies_, 47.

  Loddington, William, _Plantation Work_, 496.

  Lodge, H. C., _Life of George Cabot_, 58;
    _English Colonies_, 160;
    on the Pocahontas story, 162.

  Lodge, Thomas, with Cavendish, 84;
    his _Margarite of America_, 84.

  Lodwick, C., 420.

  Loe, Thomas, 473, 475.

  Log invented, 207.

  Logan and Penn correspondence, 506.

  Lok. _See_ Locke.

  London coast, 90.

  London Company, 127.

  _London Spy_, 373.

  Longfellow, H. W., _Courtship of Miles Standish_, 294.

  Long Island, 388, 457, 458;
    assigned to New York, 391.

  Longitude, methods of, 35, 41;
    first meridian of, 212, 214.

  “Lord Sturton”, ship, 186.

  Lorrencourt, 79.

  Lotteries, 141; in Virginia, 158.

  Lovelace, Francis, governor, 395;
    autog., 395;
    leaves, 397;
    letters, 414.

  Lucas, _Charters of the Old English Colonies_, 153.

  Lucas, Nicolas, autog., 430.

  Ludlow’s laws (Connecticut), 334.

  Ludwell, Thomas, 149.

  Lumley’s Inlet, 90.

  Lyford, John, 277.

  Lygonia, 191, 323, 324.

  Lyon, Henry, 437.


  Macaulay, T. B., on William Penn, 506;
    his views controverted, 506.

  Macauley, James, _History of New York_, 413.

  Mace, Captain Samuel, 115.

  Mackie, J. M., _Life of Samuel Gorton_, 378.

  Macock, Samuel, 143.

  Madison, Isaac, 141, 146.

  “Madre de Dios”, ship, 116.

  Maffeius, map (1593), 196;
    _Historiarum Indicarum libri_, 196.

  Magellan, 66; his straits, 201, 203.

  Magin, _Histoire Universelle_, 184.

  Magnetic pole first suggested, 207.

  Maine, documentary history, 208;
    grants and charters, 209;
    province of, 310, 324;
    bought by Massachusetts, 320, 324;
    her history, 321;
    patents, 321;
    Massachusetts again in possession, 325;
    authorities on the history of, 363;
    origin of name, 363;
    patent to Gorges, 363;
    royal charter, 363;
    records, 363, 364;
    royal commissioners in, 325, 363;
    histories of, 364;
    bibliography of, 209, 365;
    map of the coast, 190;
    English on the coast, 193.
    _See_ Gorges, Norumbega, Pemaquid, Popham.

  Maine Historical Society, 208;
    _Collections_, 365.

  Major, R. H., 191;
    on Cabot’s voyage, 45.

  Malabar, Cape, 382, 383.

  Malectites, 382.

  Malignants, 147.

  Man, Abraham, 488.

  Manchese, 110, 111.

  Mangi, sea, 67, 68;
    region, 68.

  Manning, Captain, 397.

  Manoa, 117.

  Manomet, 272.

  Manor of Frank (Pennsylvania), 482.

  Manteo, 110, 111, 114.

  Manufactures in Virginia, 166;
    in New England, 316.

  Marco, Cape, 101.

  “Maria”, ship, 95.

  Mariana, 367.

  “Marigold”, ship, 65, 187.

  _Mariner’s Mirrour_, 207.

  Markham, A. H., _Voyages of John Davis_, 99.

  Markham, C. R., 79;
    _Voyages of Baffin_, 99.

  Markham, William, 478;
    letters, 497.

  Maroons, 65.

  Marriage, first, in Virginia, 132.

  Marshall, O. H., on the charters of New York, 414;
    on Denonville’s expedition, 415.

  Marsillac, J., _Vie de Penn_, 506.

  Marston, _Eastward ho!_, 128.

  Martha’s Vineyard, 180.

  Martin, John, 128, 137, 143, 146.

  Martin, J. H., _Chester and its Vicinity_, 510.

  Martin, _Gazetteer of Virginia_, 165.

  _Martin Mar-Prelate Tracts_, 237, 238.

  Martindale, J. C., _Byberry and Moreland_, 509.

  Marvin, W. T. R., edits the _New England’s Jonas_, 355.

  Mary, Queen, autog., 7.

  “Mary and John”, ship, 176.

  “Mary of Guilford”, ship, 170, 185, 186.

  Maryland, history of, 517;
    charter, 517;
    name of, 520;
    bounds, 520;
    powers of the Proprietors, 520, 521;
    rights of the settlers, 522;
    controversy with Virginia, 522, 528;
    Jesuit missions, 523, 554;
    the charter’s significance of toleration, 523, 530, 562;
    map of, 465, 525;
    colonists arrive, 526;
    early assemblies, 527, 528, 530, 531;
    struggle of colonists with the Proprietor, 529;
    Ingle’s usurpation, 532;
    overthrown, 532;
    Toleration Act, 534, 541, 555, 560;
    passed by Catholics, 534;
    indorsement of, 535;
    Puritan settlers, 535;
    two houses of the Assembly formed, 536;
    commissioners’ demands, 537;
    second conquest, 538;
    victory of the Puritans of Providence, 539;
    the Proprietor reinstated, 541;
    population, 543;
    coinage, 543;
    boundary disputes with Pennsylvania, 478, 488, 489, 548;
    writ of _quo warranto_ against the charter, 550;
    Coode’s “Association”, 551;
    proprietary government ends, 552;
    a royal province, 553;
    sources of its history, 553;
    _Relation_ (of 1634), 553;
    (of 1635), 553;
    letters of Jesuit missionaries, 553;
    map, 553;
    boundary disputes with Virginia, 554;
    battle of Providence, authorities on, 554;
    archives of the State, 555-557;
    laws, 529, 556, 557, 562;
    calendar of State papers, 556;
    loss of records, 557;
    documents in State-Paper Office in London, 557;
    index to them, 557;
    other manuscript sources, 557;
    histories, 559;
    seal of the colony, 559;
    proportion of Catholics, 560;
    the question of toleration discussed, 561;
    source of charter, 561;
    bibliography of, 561;
    local histories, 561.
    _See_ Calvert, Kent Island, etc.

  Maryland Historical Society, 562; publications, 562.

  Mason, Charles, autog., 489.

  Mason, Captain John, of New Hampshire, on the Maine coast, 193;
    his will, 367;
    grant of Laconia, 308, 327, 328;
    vice-president of Council for New England, 309;
    grant of New Hampshire, 310, 367;
    his grants, 329;
    autog., 364;
    dies, 328;
    memoir by C. W. Tuttle, 364.

  Mason, John, of Connecticut, in Pequot war, 348;
    autog., 348;
    his narrative, 349.

  Mason, Robert Tufton, 329, 367.

  Mason and Dixon’s line, 489, 514, 515.

  Massa, 104.

  Massachusetts, 310;
    early meant Boston Harbor, 179, 183;
    patent, 309, 310, 342;
    charter, 311, 342, 343;
    government of, 312;
    objects of the founders, 312;
    charter attacked, 313;
    charter concealed, 318;
    her relations with the other colonies, 316;
    buys the patent of Maine, 320, 364;
    writ of _quo warranto_ against the charter, 321;
    origin of name of, 342;
    authorities for its history, 342;
    government transferred to the soil, 343;
    archives of, 343;
    records printed, 343, 359;
    manuscripts elsewhere, 343;
    histories of, 344;
    laws of, 314, 349-351, 373;
    struggle to maintain its charter, 362;
    authorities on the struggle, 362;
    bibliography of, 363;
    claims westward to the Pacific, 396;
    claim to lands west of the Hudson, 405.
    _See_ New England.

  Massachusetts Company, 342, 343.

  Massachusetts Historical Society, archives of, 343;
    publications, 343;
    _Collections_, 343;
    _Proceedings_, 343.

  Massachusetts Mount, 342.
    _See_ Blue Hills.

  Massachusetts River, 342.

  Masson, _Life of Milton_, 245.

  Massonia, 367.

  Massasoit, 274, 282;
    his family, 290.

  Mataoka. _See_ Pocahontas.

  Mather, Cotton, autog., 319;
    his library, 345;
    _Ecclesiastical History of New England_, or _Magnalia_, 240, 283,
        345;
    portrait, 345;
    _Diary_, 345;
    _Parentator_, 345;
    on the Wheelwright deed, 367;
    map of New England, 345, 384;
    forged letter of, 502.

  Mather, Increase, _Relation of the Troubles_, 340, 361;
    _Brief History of the War_, 361.

  Mather, Richard, 255, 350.

  _Mather Papers_, 374.

  Matowack, 388.

  Matthews, Samuel, 149.

  Mattson, Margaret, 488.

  Maverick, Samuel, 360;
    autog., 311, 388;
    controversy with Massachusetts, 354.

  Mavooshen, 363.

  Maxwell’s _Virginia Historical Register_, 168.

  May, Dorothy, autog., 268.

  May’s Arctic expedition, 104.

  Mayer, Brantz, 533, 559, 562;
    _Calvert and Penn_, 507.

  Mayer, Lewis, 557, 562.

  “Mayflower”, ship, 267;
    passengers on, 267, 292;
    their autographs, 268;
    last survivor, 271;
    passengers, origin of, 284;
    her history, 290.
    _See_ Pilgrims, Jones.

  Maynarde, Thomas, 82.

  McCall, Peter, 512.

  McCamant, Thomas, 510.

  McCormick, S. J., 372.

  McDonald, Colonel A. W., his report on Virginia bounds, 159.

  McMahon, J. V. L., _History of Maryland_, 559.

  McSherry, James, _History of Maryland_, 560.

  McSherry, Richard, 560;
    _Essays and Lectures_, 560.

  Meade, _Old Churches and Families of Virginia_, 160.

  Medina, _Arte de Navegar_, 207.

  Meeting-houses, old, in New England, 319.

  Megiser, _Septentrio novantiquus_, 104.

  Melton, Edward, _Zee- en Landreizen_, 419.

  Mendocino, Cape, 74-76, 80.

  _Menzies Catalogue_, passim.

  Mennonites, 251, 479, 490.

  Mercator, Gerard, his engraved gores of a globe, 214;
    Hondy’s edition, 167, 381;
    his projection improved by Wright, 208.

  Merchant adventurers, 266.

  Merlan, J. E. V., 491.

  “Mermaid”, ship, 89.

  Merrill, James C., 353.

  Merry Mount, 278.

  Metacomet, 282.

  Meta Incognita, 86, 89, 91.

  Meusel, _Bibliotheca Historica_, 124.

  Mew, Richard, 435.

  Mexico, press in, 350.

  Mey, Cornelius Jacobsen, 422.

  Miantonomo, 368.

  “Michael”, ship, 86.

  Michener, Ezra, _Early Quakerism_, 505.

  Mickle, Isaac, _Old Gloucester_, 456.

  Middletown (New Jersey), 424, 427.

  Milford (Connecticut), 333.

  Millard, F. J., 104.

  Millenary petition, 239.

  Miller, J., _Description of New York_, 420.

  Millet, Father, his _Relation_, 415.

  “Minion”, ship, 64.

  Minot, G. R., _History of Massachusetts_, 344.

  Mint in Boston, 316;
    illegal, 320;
    in Maryland, 543;
    in New Jersey, 447.

  Mitchell, Jonathan, 360.

  M’Kinney and Hall, _Indian Tribes_, 163.

  Mohawks, 394, 396;
    friendship with, 400;
    French expeditions against, 415.
    _See_ Iroquois.

  _Mohegan case_, 349.

  Molineaux, Emeric, map, 44, 46, 77, 91, 99, 197, 216, 217;
    of California coast, 80;
    his globe, 90, 196, 205, 207, 208, 212, 213.

  Moll, Herman, his maps, 345.

  Moluccas, 48;
    discovered, 68.

  Monardes, _Joyfull Newes_, 204.

  _Mondidier Catalogue_, 348.

  Monhegan, 176, 178, 179, 181-183, 190, 191, 321.

  Monmouth patent, 426.

  Montanus, Arnoldus, _De Nieuwe Weereld_, 184, 416;
    map of New York, 381, 417.

  Monterey, 74, 75.

  Montreal (Mont Royal), 213.
    _See_ Hochelaga.

  Moody, Joshua, autog., 319.

  “Moonshine”, ship, 89.

  Moore, George H., 368;
    on Poole’s edition of Johnson’s _Wonder-working Providence_, 358.

  Moore, J. B., 367;
    _Governors of New England_, 289.

  Moore, John, 488.

  Moorhead, Sarah, portrait of Cotton Mather, 345.

  Mooshausic, 377.

  Moravians’ (Bethlehem) library, 500.

  Morden, Robert, map of New England, 384.

  More, Caleb, 360.

  More, Nicholas, 482, 486, 488, 494, 497;
    autog., 484;
    _Letter from Dr. More_, 500.

  Moreland, manor of, 482.

  Morris, Caspar, 515.

  Morris, J. G., _Lord Baltimore_, 559;
    _Bibliography of Maryland_, 561.

  Morris, Colonel Lewis, 436.

  Morrison, Francis, 148, 149, 152.

  Morton, Charles, autog., 319.

  Morton, George, 290.

  Morton, Nathaniel, 283;
    _New England’s Memorial_, 283, 291, 359;
    autog., 291.

  Morton, Thomas, 278, 309, 322;
    _New English Canaan_, 348;
    edited by C. F. Adams, Jr., 348.

  Mount Desert, 178, 179, 190, 194, 382, 383.

  Mount Wollaston, 311.

  Mountfield, D., _The Church and Puritans_, 253.

  Moulton, J. W., _New York One Hundred and Seventy Years Ago_, 416.

  _Mourt’s Relation_, 288, 289;
    its authorship, 290.

  Mudie, David, 443.

  Mulford, I. S., _History of New Jersey_, 455.

  Muller, Frederick, _Catalogue of American Portraits_, 416;
    _Books on America_, passim.

  Muller, _Geschiedenis der noord Compagnie_, 98.

  Muller, _History of Doncaster_, 102.

  Munsell, Joel, 372.

  Munster, or Münster, Sebastian, _Cosmographia_, 27, 36, 199, 200;
    map (1532), 199, 201;
    edits Grynæus and Ptolemy, 199;
    in English by Eden, 200, 201;
    map (1540), 201, 217.

  Murphy, H. C., _Henry Hudson in Holland_, 104;
    _Verrazzano_, 214;
    on the Pilgrims in Leyden, 287;
    and Milet’s captivity, 415;
    edits Danker’s _Journal_, 420.

  Muscongus, 191.

  Muscovy Company, 6, 46, 103.

  Myritius, Johannes, _Opusculum Geographicum_, 10.


  “Nachen”, ship, 181.

  Nancy globe, 214.

  Nantasket, 311.

  Nantucket, 382.

  Napier, _Lord Bacon and Ralegh_, 126.

  Narragansett country, Connecticut’s claim, 335, 339;
    settled, 336;
    Massachusetts proprietors of, 338;
    townships, 361;
    histories of, 376;
    patent, 379.
    _See_ Rhode Island.

  Narragansett Club, 377.

  _Narragansett Historical Register_, 381.

  Narragansetts, 382.

  Naumkeag, 311.
    _See_ Salem.

  Naunton, Sir Robert, 265.

  Navigation, early books on, 206.

  Navigation Act, 150, 386, 387, 400, 415, 544.

  Nead, B. M., 510.

  Neal, Daniel, _History of the Puritans_, 250;
    _History of New England_, 345;
    its map, 345.

  Neale, Walter, 327, 328;
    autog., 363.

  Needle, variation of, 9, 23, 41.

  Nehantic country, 371.

  Neill, E. D., his _Virginia and Virginiola_, 154;
    _Notes on the Virginia Colonial Clergy_, 157;
    _History of the Virginia Company of London_, 158, 288, 340;
    _English Colonization in America_, 155, 158, 288, 561;
    his notes on Virginia history, 158, 160, 162, 163, 166;
    on Sir Edmund Plowden, 457;
    on Robert Evelyn, 459;
    _Francis Howgill_, 505;
    _Light thrown by the Jesuits_, etc., 554;
    _Terra Mariæ_, 560;
    _Lord Baltimore and Toleration_, 560;
    _Founders of Maryland_, 560;
    _Maryland not a Roman Catholic Colony_, 561.

  Nelson, Captain, at Jamestown, 131.

  Nelson, William, _History of Passaic County_, 456.

  Nelson River, 93.

  “Neptune”, ship, 142.

  Nevada, 67.

  Nevada River, 101.

  Nevill, James, 441.

  Nevill, Samuel, 454.

  New Albion (Drake’s), 80;
    under “Caput Draconis”, 69, 72.

  New Albion (Plowden’s), 457;
    bounds, 458, 463;
    medal and ribbon of the Albion knights, 461, 462.
    _See_ Plowden.

  New Amsterdam surrenders to the English, 389, 421;
    first reports of, 414;
    burghers take the oath, 414;
    early views, 415.
    _See_ New York.

  New Cæsaria. _See_ Nova Cæsaria.

  New England, name first given, 198;
    thought to be an island, 197;
    Cartography, 194, 381, 382, 383;
    Dudley’s map, 303;
    _Paskaart_, 333;
    Mather’s map, 345;
    Confederation (of 1643), 281, 315, 334, 338, 354;
    its records, 373;
    religious element in, 219;
    sources of her history, 340;
    relations with the Dutch, 375;
    dominion extends to the Pacific, 409;
    Andros seal, 410;
    bounds as allowed by the French, 456;
    Council for, 295;
    their _Briefe Relation_, 296;
    patent, 297;
    seal, 341, 342;
    _Platform_, 302;
    records, 301, 308, 340;
    partition the coast, 305;
    grants, 308, 340;
    surrenders patent, 309;
    authorities on, 340.

  _New England Almanac_, 384.

  New England Historic Genealogical Society, 344.

  _New England Historical and Genealogical Register_, 344.

  New England Society of New York, 293.

  New England’s _First Fruits_, 355.

  New France, 101.

  New Haarlem, 390.

  New Hampshire, grant of, 310;
    history of, 326;
    submits to Massachusetts, 327, 329;
    name first used, 329, 367;
    _Provincial Papers_, 363, 367;
    sources of her history, 366;
    Wheelwright deed, 366;
    patents, 367;
    map (1653), 367;
    laws, 367;
    histories of, 368;
    local histories, 368;
    bibliography, 368.

  New Hampshire Historical Society _Collections_, 367.

  New Haven, 310, 368;
    founded, 332, 371;
    united to Connecticut, 334;
    fundamental articles in original Constitution, 371;
    laws, 371;
    Blue Laws, 371;
    charter of union with Connecticut, 373;
    _Records_, 371, 375;
    histories of, 375;
    maritime interests, 375.
    _See_ Connecticut.

  New Haven Historical Society _Papers_, 375.

  _New Interlude_, 199.

  New Jersey, grants of, 392;
    boundary disputes, 406;
    named, 422, 423;
    _Concessions_, etc., 423, 425, 426, 427;
    government, 423;
    earliest Assembly, 425;
    lords proprietors, 428;
    laws, 429, 447;
    quintipartite deed, 431;
    under Andros’ government, 444;
    attempt to run the line between East and West Jersey, 445;
    _Planter’s Speech_, etc., 449;
    sources of its history, 449;
    counties and towns, 446;
    churches in, 447;
    education in, 447;
    coinage in, 447, 448;
    early tracts on, 453;
    histories of, 453, 455;
    _Archives_, 454;
    map by Van der Donck, 455;
    efforts to complete its archives, 455;
    Chalmers papers on its history, 455;
    _Testimonys from the Inhabitants_, 476.
    _See_ East _and_ West Jersey.

  New Jersey Historical Society, 454, 455.

  New London (Connecticut), 375.

  New Netherland, relations with New England, 375;
    taken by the English, 385;
    capture contemplated by Cromwell, 386;
    bounds of, 456.
    _See_ Dutch, New York.

  New Plymouth, 276.
    _See_ Plymouth.

  New Scotland, 306.

  New Somerset, 322, 363;
    records, 363.

  New Sweden, 456, 465;
    surrenders to the Dutch, 422.

  New York (city), 405, 407;
    view of the Strand, 417;
    Stadthuys, 419, 420;
    Water-gate, 420;
    first named, 390;
    taken by the Dutch, 397, 415, 429;
    restored to the English, 398;
    government, 414;
    early views, 415;
    maps, 417, 418;
    its history, 415.
    _See_ New Amsterdam.

  New York (province), described (in 1678), 400;
    boundary disputes with Connecticut, 405;
    sources of its history, 411;
    under English rule, 385;
    charter of liberties, 404;
    charter of franchises, 405;
    annexed to New England under Andros, 409;
    histories of, 411;
    literature of disputed boundaries, 414;
    charters, 414;
    seals, 415;
    maps, 417;
    descriptions, 419.
    _See_ New Netherland.

  Newark (New Jersey), 425;
    history of, 456.

  Newbie, Mark, 441, 448.

  Newce, Thomas, 144.

  Newfoundland, 519.
    _See_ Avalon, Baccalaos.

  Newichwaneck, 327, 328.

  Newport, Captain Christopher, 128, 132, 133, 139;
    his discoveries, 154.

  Newport (Rhode Island), founded, 336, 338.

  _Newport-Historical Magazine_, 381.

  Newport-News, origin of the name, 154.

  Nicholas, Thomas, his _Pleasant History_, 204, 205;
    his _Peru_, 204.

  Nicholls, Richard, 389;
    killed, 396;
    autog., 388. 421.

  Nichols, Philip, 83.

  Nichols, Dr. William, _Doctrine of the Church of England_, 248.

  Nicholson, Francis, 444.

  Nicholson, Joseph, autog., 314.

  Niles, T. M., 376

  Noble, George, 457.

  Noddle’s Island, 311.

  Nombre de Dios, 65.

  Nonconformists, 219, 223.
    _See_ Dissenters, Separatists.

  Norman, Robert, _Newe Attractive_, 207, 208;
    _Safeguard of Saylers_, 207.

  Norris, J. S., 555; _Early Friends in Maryland_, 505.

  North, J. W., _History of Augusta_, 365.

  North Carolina, Indians of, 109;
    map of, by John White, 124.

  Northeast Passage, 6, 30.

  “North Star”, ship, 90.

  Northwest explorations, 85;
    Passage, 203.
    _See_ Arctic.

  Northwest Territory, Virginia’s claims to, 153.

  Norton, Francis, 328.

  Norton, John, _Discussion of the Suffering of Christ_, 357;
    autog., 358;
    _Heart of New England Rent_, 358.

  Norton, _Literary Gazette_, 205.

  Norumbega, 101, 188;
    its English explorers, 169;
    bounds, 169;
    meaning of the name, 184;
    authorities, 184;
    varieties of the name, 195, 214.
    _See_ Arembec, Maine

  Norwich (Connecticut), 375.

  Norwood, Colonel Henry, 148.

  Norwood, _Voyage to Virginia_, 157.

  Notley, Thomas, 547.

  Nova Albion, 42.
    _See_ New Albion.

  _Nova Britannia_ (Virginia), 155, 156, 199.

  Nova Cæsaria, 422.
    _See_ New Jersey.

  Nova Francia. _See_ New France.

  Nova Scotia, 299.


  Oakwood Press, 500.

  O’Callaghan, E. B., on New York history, 414;
    _New Netherland_, 415;
    edits Wooley’s Journal, 420;
    his _Catalogue_, passim.

  Ocracoke Inlet, 111.

  Ogden, John, 429.

  Ogilby, John, _America_, 167, 184, 360, 416;
    map of New York, 417;
    map of New England, 381.

  Oiseaux, Isle des, 213.

  Olaus Magnus, 101.

  Old Colony Club, 293.

  Old Colony Historical Society, 291, 344.

  “Old Dominion”, name of, 153.

  Oldham, John, 303.

  Oldmixon, John, _British Empire in America_, 345, 499, 502.

  Oldys, William, _Life of Bacon_, 121;
    _British Librarian_, 205.

  Olive, Thomas, 441.

  Onderdonk, Henry, Jr., _Annals of Hempstead_, 505.

  Opecancanough, 131.

  Orcutt and Beadsley, _History of Derby_, 375.

  Oregon coast, 68.

  Orinoco River, 117;
    valley, map, 124.

  Orleans, Isle of, 213.

  Ortelius’s map in Hakluyt, 205;
    _Theatrum orbis terrarum_, 34.

  Oswego, 411.

  Otten’s map of New York, 417.

  Oviedo, _Historia de las Indias_, 49.

  _Oxford Tract_, 156.

  _Oxford Voyages_, 79.


  Pacific, passages to the, 183, 459;
    called Mare del Sur, 203.
    _See_ South Sea.

  Pack, Roger, 457.

  Paget, John, _Inquiry_, etc., 506.

  Paine, John, autog., 338.

  Palfrey, John G., his interest in Pilgrim history, 284;
    _History of New England_, 293, 344, 375, 376.

  Palmer, W. P., 161.

  Palmer’s Island, 522, 528.

  Pamunkey Indians, 131.

  Paper manufacture in Pennsylvania, 493.

  Parias, 201, 215.

  Parmenius, 171, 187.

  Partridge, Ralph, 280.

  Paschall, Thomas, 499.

  “Pasha”, ship, 65.

  Passao, island, 79.

  Passe, Simon, 212.

  Patterson, James W., 210.

  Pastorius, F. D., 491, 515;
    _Beschreibung_, etc., 502.

  “Patience”, ship, 136.

  Patowomekes, 135.

  Patuxet, 273.

  Pavonia, 422.

  Payne, _Elizabethan Seamen_, 78, 187.

  Peabody, George, 557, 562.

  Pearls sought for on the New England coast, 181.

  Pearson, Peter, 358;
    autog., 314.

  Pease, J. C., 376.

  Peckard, Peter, _Memoir of Nicholas Ferrar_, 158.

  Peckham, Sir George, 39, 196;
    his _True Report_, 187, 205.

  Peirce, E. W., _Indian History_, etc., 290;
    _Civil Lists_, etc., 293.

  Peirce, James, _Vindication of the Dissenters_, 248.

  Peirce, John, 269, 275, 299, 301, 341.

  Peirce, William, _Almanac_, 350.

  Pejepscot patent, 324.

  Pelham, Peter, 345.

  “Pelican”, Drake’s ship, 65;
    broken up, 73.

  Pemaquid, 190, 191, 193, 365, 382, 400, 407;
    Popham at, 176;
    map, 177;
    settled, 321;
    _Papers_, 365;
    books on, 365;
    purchased by Duke of York, 325, 388;
    grant of, 399.
    _See_ Maine.

  Pembroke, Earl of, 64, 86.

  Pemisapan, 112.

  Penhallow, _Indian Wars_, 349.

  Penington, John, on New Albion, 461.

  Penn, Granville, _Sir William Penn_, 506.

  Penn, Hannah, 514.

  Penn, Richard, 514.

  Penn, William, intervenes in New Jersey disputes, 430, 432;
    purchases Carteret’s interest in Jersey, 435;
    his _Letter_ (printed in 1683), 498, 499;
    _Further Account_, 500;
    Sir W. Popple’s _Letter to Penn_, 502;
    alleged plot to capture him, 502;
    _Brief Account_, etc., _of the Quakers_, 496, 503;
    _Primitive Christianity Revived_, 503;
    his _Works_, 505;
    lives of, 505, 506;
    connection with Algernon or Henry Sidney, 506;
    Papers, 506, 507;
    _Apology_, 506;
    correspondence with Logan, 506;
    his family, 507;
    travels in Holland, 507;
    deeds, grants, letters, etc., 507;
    his career, 473;
    portraits, 474, 475;
    autog., 474, 484;
    his burial-place, 475;
    _No Cross, no Crown_, 475;
    _Great Case of Liberty of Conscience_, 475;
    interest in West Jersey, 476;
    petitions for land east of the Delaware, 476;
    charter granted, 477
    _Some Account_, etc., 478, 479, 495, 496;
    arrives in America, 480, 482;
    Letitia Cottage, 483;
    at Shackamaxon, 490, 513;
    his country-house, 491;
    slate-roof house, 492;
    _Brief Account_, 496;
    vindicated by Ford, 498;
    his letters, 498;
    his landing, 512;
    treaty with the Indians, 513;
    belt of wampum, 513;
    Treaty Tree, 513;
    and the Indians, 513;
    controversy with Baltimore, 514, 548, 549;
    letter to Free Society of Traders, 516.
    _See_ Pennsylvania.

  Penn, Sir William, 506.

  Pennsbury manor, 491.

  Pennsylvania, origin of name, 477;
    founding of, 469;
    charter granted, 477;
    bounds with Maryland, 404, 473, 488, 513, 514, 548;
    country described, 481;
    _Frame of Government_, 497, 511;
    its seal and signers, 484;
    courts, 487;
    population, 491;
    Harris’s map, 491;
    education, 492;
    trade, 492;
    press in, 493;
    ecclesiastical affairs, 493;
    sources of its history, 495;
    early tracts on, 495, 496;
    _Twee Missiven_, 499;
    _Beschreibung der Pensylvanien_, 499;
    _Recüeil de pieces_, etc., 499;
    _Missive van Bom_, 500;
    _Nader Informatie_, 500;
    _Some Letters_, 500;
    _Copia eines Send-Schriebens_, 501;
    Gabriel Thomas’s map, 501;
    _Curieuse Nachricht_, 502;
    histories of, 507;
    constitutional history, 510;
    local histories, 509;
    seal, 511;
    documents in State-Paper Office, 510;
    _Votes of the Assembly_, 510;
    _Colonial Records_, 510;
    _Pennsylvania Archives_, 510;
    charter and laws, 485, 510, 511, 512;
    _Certain Conditions_, etc., 511;
    maps, 516;
    purchases from the Indians, 516.
    _See_ Penn, William.

  Pennsylvania Historical Society, 516;
    _Memoirs_, 516;
    _Pennsylvania Magazine of History_, 516.

  Pennypacker, S. W., 491, 499, 515.

  Penobscot River, 190;
    the Pilgrims on the, 291.

  Pentagöet (Castine), 190, 382, 383.

  Pentecost Harbor, 175, 190, 191.

  Pepperrell, Sir William, his sword, 274.

  Pequods, 382;
    war with, 348;
    literature of, 348, 349, 371.

  Percy, Abraham, 143, 146.

  Percy, George, 134, 136;
    portrait, 134, 154;
    his _Observations_, 154.

  _Perfect Description of Virginia_, 157.

  Perkins, F. B., _Check-List of American Local History_, 292, 363.

  Perle, island, 67.

  Pero, Cape, 197.

  Peru, 203.

  Perry, W. S., _The Church in Virginia_, 166.

  Pert, Sir Thomas, 4, 26, 28, 48.

  Perth Amboy, 439, 440, 446;
    history of, 455;
    Quakers at, 505.

  Perth, Earl of, 435;
    autog., 439.

  Peter Martyr, 10;
    his _Decades_, 15, 200;
    quoted, 18, 19, 20, 35;
    edited by Hakluyt, 42;
    map from, 42;
    translation by Locke, 47;
    his manuscript, 47.

  Peters, Samuel, his false _Blue Laws_, 372;
    _General History of Connecticut_, 372.

  Peterson, Edward, _History of Rhode Island_, 376.

  Petitot, _Mémoires_, 193.

  Pethedam, John, _Bibliographical Miscellany_, 99.

  Philadelphia founded, 481;
    laid out, 491;
    Holme’s plan, 491;
    growth of, 493;
    histories of, 509;
    map, 516.

  “Philip”, ship, 424.

  Philip, William, 205.

  Philip’s War, 281, 318, 374;
    in Rhode Island, 339;
    tracts on, 360;
    its end, 361.

  Phillipps, Sir Thomas, 208;
    library at Middlehill, 208;
    now at Cheltenham, 208.

  “Phœnix”, ship, 131.

  Pickering, Charles, 488.

  Pierpont, John, _Pilgrim Fathers_, 294.

  Pierse, Thomas, 143.

  Pigmies, 101.

  Pike, James S., _New Puritan_, 359.

  Pike, Robert, autog., 359.

  Pilgrim Society, 293.

  Pilgrims of Plymouth, 257;
    their relations with the Massachusetts Puritans, 242;
    at Leyden, 263;
    apply to the Virginia Company, 264, 265;
    their declaration in seven articles, 265, 281, 287;
    the Wincob patent, 265, 269;
    plans changed for New Netherland, 266;
    agree with Weston, 266;
    leave Leyden, 267;
    at Delfthaven, 267;
    sail from Southampton, 267;
    return to Dartmouth, 267;
    sail from Plymouth (Devon), 267;
    reach Cape Cod, 267;
    the Peirce patent, 269;
    seek Hudson River, 269;
    their compact, 269, 271;
    explorations from Cape Cod, with map, 270;
    choose Carver governor, 271;
    land at Plymouth, 271;
    date of landing, 290;
    the spot in dispute, 271, 290;
    Samoset visits them, 273;
    the “Fortune” arrive, 275;
    their new patent, 275;
    their common stock, 276;
    land allotted, 276;
    their governors, 278;
    new patent (1641), 279;
    relics of, 279;
    government of, 280;
    poverty of, 281;
    the ministry among, 281;
    education among, 281;
    authorities on their history, 283;
    and the Indians, 290;
    in Scrooby, authorities on, 285;
    in Holland, authorities on, 285, 286;
    genealogy of, 292;
    monuments to their memory, 293;
    their patents, 293;
    pictures representing their history, 293;
    poems, 294;
    landed within the patent of the Council for New England, 302.
    _See_ Leyden, Mayflower, Plymouth, Robinson, Scrooby.

  Pinkerton, _Voyages_, 102, 124.

  Piscataqua, 326, 327, 367, 382;
    patent, 367.

  Piscataway (New Jersey), 425.

  Pitman, John, 377.

  Place, Francis, 474.

  Plaia, R. de la, 197.

  Plancius, Peter, map, 217.

  Plantagenet, Beauchamp, _Description of New Albion_, 461.

  _Planter’s Speech_, 449, 499.

  Plastrier, 178, 193.

  “Plough”, ship, 322.

  Plough patent, 322, 323.

  Plowden, Sir Edmund, his grant of New Albion, 457;
    his origin, 457;
    his family, 457;
    his sons and descendants, 458, 467;
    in America, 459, 460;
    in Boston, 460;
    his will, 464.
    _See_ New Albion.

  Plowden, Francis, 466.

  Plowden, Thomas, 458, 466.

  Plumstead, Clement, 435.

  Plumstead, Francis, autog., 484.

  Plymouth Colony, 257, 382;
    character of colonists, 210;
    united to Massachusetts Bay, 282;
    authorities on its history, 283;
    laws, edited by Brigham, 292;
    Records printed, 292;
    fac-simile of first page, 292;
    patent, 310;
    has no charter, 341;
    sends emigrants to Windsor, on the Connecticut, 368;
    grant on the Kennebec, 191.
    _See_ Pilgrims.

  Plymouth Harbor, map, 272;
    visited by Pring, 174, 188;
    by Smith, 179;
    by Dermer, 183.

  Plymouth Rock, 272, 290, 293.

  Plymouth, town, palisade of, 276;
    fort, 276.

  Plymouth Company, 127.

  _Plymouth County Atlas_, 292.

  Pocahontas, 135, 157;
    in London, 119, 141;
    betrayed, 139;
    married, 139, 161, 162;
    dies, 141, 162;
    her descendants, 141, 162;
    doubtful story of, 154, 161;
    pictures of, 163, 211.

  Pocasset (Rhode Island), 336.

  Podalida, 101.

  Point Comfort, 128.

  Pontanus, _History of Amsterdam_, 103.

  Poole, W. F., on the Popham question, 210;
    edits Johnson’s _Wonder-working Providence_, 210, 358.

  Poor, John A., 210.

  Popellinière, _Les trois Mondes_, 37.

  Popham, Sir Francis, 178.

  Popham, George, 176.

  Popham, Sir John, 175; autog., 175.

  Popham Colony, 177, 190, 295;
    authorities, 192, 209;
    _Popham Memorial_, 192, 210, 366;
    rival views, 209;
    its relation to New England colonization, 210.

  Porpoise, Cape, 322.

  Port Nelson, 93, 96.

  Port St. Julian, 66.

  Portland (Maine), founded, 322;
    history of, 365.

  Portsmouth (New Hampshire), 328;
    treaty of, 361.

  Portuguese portolano (1514-1520), 56;
    discoveries, 56.

  Pory, John, 143, 159.

  Post service, early, in Pennsylvania, 491.

  Potatoes, found in Virginia, 113.

  Pott, Dr. John, 144, 146.

  Potter, C. E., _Military History of New Hampshire_, 368.

  Potter, E. R., _History of Narragansett_, 376.

  _Potter’s American Monthly_, 166.

  Powell, Nathaniel, 142, 143.

  Powhatan River, 128.

  Powhatan, Indian king, 131.

  Prato, Albert de, 185, 186.

  Prémontré globe, 214.

  Prence, Thomas, autog., 272.

  Presbyterianism in Massachusetts, 354.

  Press, early, in Philadelphia, 493;
    in Massachusetts, 350, 356.

  Pretty, Francis, _Famous Voyage of Drake_, 79;
    in Hakluyt, 79;
    with Cavendish, 84.

  Price, Benjamin, 436.

  Prichard, Edward, autog., 484.

  Pricket, Abacuk, with Hudson, 93.

  Priest, Degory, 284.

  Prince Edward Island, 24.

  Prince, John, _Worthies of Devon_, 121.

  Prince, Thomas, on Pilgrim history, 285;
    _Chronological History_, or _Annals_, 283, 346;
    publishes Mason’s _Narrative_, 349.
    _See_ Prence.

  Prince Society, 344.

  Pring, Martin, on the New England coast, 173, 175;
    in Plymouth Harbor, 174, 188;
    authorities, 188.

  Printer, James, autog., 356.

  Printz, Johan, governor of New Sweden, 459.

  Proud, Robert, _History of Pennsylvania_, 454, 508.

  Proude, Richard, 207.

  Providence (Maryland), 535.

  Providence (Rhode Island), founded, 336;
    history of, 377;
    its libraries, 381.

  _Providence Gazette_, 376.

  Providence Plantations, 337, 338.

  Pulsifer, David, edits _Plymouth Records_, 293;
    edits the _Simple Cobler_, 350.

  Punchard, George, _History of Congregationalism_, 285, 288.

  Punta de los Reyes, 75, 77.

  Purchas, Samuel, his _Pilgrimage_, 47;
    his _Pilgrimes_, 47, 97.

  Purchase, Thomas, in Maine, 324.

  Puritans, 219, 223;
    their agitation, 232;
    satires upon, 237;
    become Nonconformists in New England, 242;
    distinction between Puritans and Pilgrims, 288.
    _See_ Dissenters, Nonconformists, Pilgrims.

  Pynchon, William, _Meritorious Price of Our Redemption_, 357;
    _Covenant of Nature_, 357.


  Quakers, printing among, 516;
    Barclay’s _Inner Life_, 251;
    in Carolina, 472;
    in Connecticut, 373;
    in England, 473;
    and the Indians, 473;
    on Long Island, 505;
    in Maryland, 472, 505, 545, 555;
    in Massachusetts, 313, 317, 358, 472;
    autographs of, 314;
    in New England, 504;
    in New Jersey, 430, 447, 505;
    their legislation, 432;
    in New Netherland, 472;
    in New York, 505;
    in Pennsylvania, 469, 515;
    their views, 471;
    their meetings, 494;
    rise and progress of, 503;
    best exposition of their views, 503;
    _Historia Quakeriana_, 503;
    books on, 358, 503-505;
    Hicksites, 504;
    archives of the sect, 504;
    Swarthmore manuscripts, 504;
    in Plymouth, 280, 281;
    in Rhode Island, 378, 472;
    in Virginia, 166, 472, 505.

  Quarry, Colonel, 501.

  Quincy, Josiah, President, controversy with George Bancroft, 378.

  Quinnipiack, 310, 332, 368.

  Quisan, 68.

  Quivira, 67, 68, 76, 77.


  _Raccolta di Mappamondi_, 218.

  Race, Cape (Razo), 213;
    (Raso), 216.

  Raimundus, 54.

  Raine, _Parish of Blyth_, 258, 284.

  Ralegh, 105, 188, 193, 213;
    autog., 105;
    spelling of his name, 105;
    sails with Gilbert, 106;
    in favor with Elizabeth, 107;
    and Spenser, 107;
    plans of colonization, 108;
    his marriage, 116;
    at Trinidad, 117;
    arrested, 119;
    in the Tower, 119;
    wrote his _History of the World_, 119;
    his last voyage, 120;
    burns St. Thomas, 120;
    beheaded, 120, 122;
    authorities, 121;
    Bacon’s book, 121;
    lives of him, 121, 122;
    his works, 121;
    _Voyages_ edited by Schomburgk, 122;
    _Discoverie of Guiana_, etc., 124;
    his voyage criticised, 126;
    commemorated by a window at St. Margaret’s, 126;
    and Gosnold’s voyage, 173.

  Ralegh, Mount, 90, 91.

  Ramusio, 19, 20, 50;
    his _Navigationi_, etc., 24-26, 184.

  Randolph, Edward, 319, 335, 339.

  Randolph, Henry, 150.

  Randolph, John, 158.

  Randolph, Peyton, 158.

  Randolph, Richard, 163.

  Ratcliffe, John, 128;
    _Rational Theology_, 252.

  Raum, J. O., _History of New Jersey_, 455.

  Rawle, William, 467, 468, 512, 515.

  Rawliana, 465.

  Read, John M., Jr., 492.

  Real, Cape, 213.

  _Receuil d’ Arrests_, 104.

  _Recueil van de Tractaten_, 415.

  Redemptioners, 545.

  Reed, John, _Map of Philadelphia_, 491, 509.

  Reed, W. B., 516.

  Reformation in England, 222.

  Regicides in Connecticut, 374.
    _See_ Goffe and Whalley.

  Reichel, W. C., 515.

  “Resolution”, ship, 93.

  Revell, Thomas, 451.

  Reynel’s chart, 12.

  Rhode Island, History of, 335;
    doctrine of soul-liberty, 336, 337;
    Massachusetts seeks to govern, 337;
    excluded from the New England Confederacy, 338;
    Royal Commissioners in, 339;
    education in, 339;
    origin of name, 376;
    sources of her history, 376;
    _Gazetteer_, 376;
    histories of, 376;
    _Records_, 377;
    charter got by Williams, 337, 379;
    charter from Charles II., 338, 379;
    Laws, 337, 379;
    excludes Roman Catholics as freemen, 379;
    excludes Jews as freemen, 379;
    bibliography of, 380.
    _See_ Williams, Roger.

  Rhode Island Historical Society, _Proceedings_, 381;
    _Discourses_, 377.

  _Rhode Island Historical Tracts_, 377.

  _Rhode Island Republican_, 376.

  Rhumbs, 208.

  Ribault, _Terra Florida_, 33, 200.

  Ribero’s map (1529), 16, 24.

  Rice, John Holt, 168, 211.

  Rich, Obadiah, _Catalogues_, passim.

  Rich, R., _Newes from Virginia_, 81, 155.

  Rich, Robert, Lord, 370.

  Richardson, Amos, autog., 338.

  Richardson, W., _Granger’s Portraits_, 163.

  _Richmond Dispatch_, 162.

  Richmond, Duchess of, portrait, 211.

  Richmond Island, 190, 322.

  Rider, S. S., 377.

  Ridgeley, David, _Annals of Annapolis_, 561.

  Ridpath, _History of the United States_, 153.

  Rigby, Alexander, 323, 324.

  Rigby, Edward, 324.

  Rigg, Ambrose, 435.

  Riker, _History of Harlem_, 417.

  Rio de la Hacha, 63.

  Roanoke, Voyage to, 105;
    Island, 110, 111, 123;
    bird’s-eye view of, 124;
    colony, survivors, 129.
    _See_ Virginia.

  Robbins, Chandler, _The Regicides_, 374.

  Roberts, Thomas, 327.

  Robertson, William, 162.

  Robertson, Wyndham, _Descendants of Pocahontas_, 162.

  Robinson, Conway, 154;
    _Discoveries in the West_, 43, 167, 168;
    contributions to Virginia history, 158, 159.

  Robinson, Edward, _Memoir of William Robinson_, 286.

  Robinson, Rev. John, of Duxbury, 286.

  Robinson, John, of Leyden, 231;
    autog., 259;
    farewell address, 259, 285;
    in Amsterdam, 261;
    in Leyden, 262, 286;
    his house, 262, 288;
    his burial-place, 263;
    death of, 277, 288;
    his relation to the Pilgrims, 285;
    life by Kist, 286;
    by Ashton, 286;
    his family, 286;
    H. M. Dexter on, 285;
    his influence, 288;
    attempts to remove schisms among the Brownists, 288.
    _See_ Pilgrims.

  Robinson, John, of Maryland, 529.

  Robinson, Patrick, 488, 494.

  Robinson, William, autog., 314;
    hanged, 505.

  Rochefort, César de, _Description des Antilles_, 496;
    _Recit_, etc., 496.

  Rocroft, Captain, 182, 194.

  Roe, Sir Thomas, 297.

  Rogers, Horatio, Libraries of Providence, 381.

  Roggeveen, Arent, chart of New York coast, 419;
    _Brandende Veen_, 382, 419;
    _Burning Fen_, 383, 419.

  Rolfe, John, 135;
    begins tobacco culture, 139;
    marries Pocahontas, 139;
    secretary, 141;
    _Relation of Virginia_, 157.

  Roman Catholics excluded from being freemen in Rhode Island, 379;
    in Maryland, 560.

  “Rose”, frigate, 321.

  Roselli, mappemonde, 217.

  Rosier, James, _True Relation_, 81, 191.

  Rosignol, Port, 306.

  Ross, A. A., _Discourse on History of Rhode Island_, 376.

  Rotz, John, _Idrography_, 195.

  Rough, John, 239.

  Rous, John, autog., 314.

  Rowlandson, Mrs., her captivity, 361.

  Royal Commissioners, 388;
    in Boston, 318, 389.

  Royall, W. L., on Virginia colonial money, 166.

  Rudyard, George, autog., 484.

  Rudyard, Thomas, 435, 436.

  Ruggles, George, 159.

  Rundall, Thomas, _Narratives of Voyages_, etc., 98.

  Ruscelli, 25.

  Russell, Dr. Walter, 131.

  Russell, W. S., _Guide to Plymouth_, 292;
    _Pilgrim Memorials_, 292.

  Rut, John, 170, 185, 186.

  Rutherford, Samuel, _Due Rights_, etc., 288.

  Rutters, 207.

  Ruysch’s Ptolemy map (1508), 9, 217;
    fac-simile, 9.

  Ryebread, Thomas, 457.

  Ryttenhouse, William, 493.


  Sabin, Joseph, _American Bibliopolist_, passim;
    _Dictionary of Books relating to America_, passim;
    _Menzies’ Catalogue_, passim.

  Sabino, peninsula, 177, 190, 210.

  Sable Island, 216.

  Sablons, Cape, 195.

  Saco River settlement, 190, 321, 322, 323.

  Sadlier Correspondence, 378.

  Sagadahock River, 190, 191;
    settlement on, 177.

  Saguenay River, 101, 213, 383.

  Sainsbury, Noël, _Calendar of State Papers_, 159;
    and the English records, 343.

  Saint. _See_ St.

  Salado River, 77, 197.

  Salem (Massachusetts), 311;
    history of, 363.

  Salem (New Jersey), 431, 455.

  Salterne, Robert, 175.

  Samoset, 184, 273, 290.

  “Samson”, ship, 170, 183, 185, 186.

  San Domingo, 82.
    _See_ Hispaniola.

  San Francisco, 74;
    is it Drake’s Bay? 78;
    derived from Drake’s name, 84.

  San Juan d’Ulua, 63.

  San Lorenzo, bay, 80.

  San Miguel, 79, 213.

  San. _See_ St., Santa.

  Sanderson, William, 212, 216.

  Sanderson’s tower, 90, 91.

  Sandford, William, 436.

  Sandys, Sir Edwin, 142, 265, 297, 298;
    _State of Religion_, 259;
    arrested, 299.

  Sandys, George, 145, 146.

  Sandys, Sir Samuel, 259.

  Sanson, Nicholas, map of New England, 382;
    extract from his map of Canada, 456.

  Santa Barbara, 77.

  Santa Cruz, 213.

  Santa Maria, Cape, 197.

  Santa. _See_ San, St.

  Santarem’s _Atlas_, 9, 217;
    _Essai_, 217.

  Santiago, 197.

  Sanuto Livio, _Geographica distincta_, 41.

  Saquish, 272.

  “Sarah”, ship, 139.

  Sargeant, Thomas, _Land Laws of Pennsylvania_, 512.

  Sasanoa River, 193.

  Savage, James, _Genealogical Dictionary of New England_, 289;
    New England antiquary, 351;
    endorsement on Lechford’s book, 353;
    memoir by G. S. Hillard, 353;
    edits _Winthrop’s Journal_, 357;
    on the Wheelwright deed, 366;
    on Pilgrim history, 283.

  Savage, Thomas, in Virginia, 131.

  Savage Rock, 172, 173.

  Savile, Henry, _Libell of Spanish Lies_, 82.

  Say, Lord, 326, 331, 370;
    patent to, 369.

  Saybrook, 322;
    platform, 334.

  Schanck, George C., 463.

  Scharf, J. T., _Chronicles of Baltimore_, 561;
    _History of Maryland_, 561.

  Schele de Vere, _Romance of American History_, 162.

  Schenectady, 396.

  Schenk and Valch, map of New York, 417.

  Scrivener, Matthew, 130.

  Schomburgk, R. H., edits Ralegh’s _Voyage_, 122.

  Schondia, 18, 101.

  Schoner or Schöner, John, globe (1520), 214, 217;
    his _Terræ descriptio_, 214.

  Scrooby, in Nottinghamshire, 258;
    site of its manor-house, 258;
    map of vicinity, 259;
    visits to, 284, 285;
    described, 285.
    _See_ Pilgrims.

  Scot, George, _Model of the Government of East New Jersey_, 438, 450,
      454.

  Scott, Benjamin, on the Pilgrims, 288.

  Scull, G. D., _Memoir of Captain Evelyn_, 459;
    _The Evelyns in America_, 459, 562.

  Sea-manuals, 206.

  “Sea Venture”, ship, 134.

  Selden, John, 299.

  Seeskabinet, 8.

  Seidensticker, Oswald, 501;
    _Penn in Holland_, 507.

  Seller, John, _Description of New England_, 384;
    maps of New England, 384.

  Sellman, Edward, account of Frobisher’s voyage, 102.

  Separatists, 219, 223.
    _See_ Dissenters, Nonconformists.

  Settle, Dionysius, account of Frobisher’s voyage, 102, 203.

  Seven Cities, 53.

  Sewall, R. K., _Ancient Dominion of Maine_, 185;
    on Popham’s town, 210.

  Sewel, William, _History of the Quakers_, 359, 503, 504.

  Seymour, Richard, 176.

  Shackamaxon Conference, 490.

  Shakespeare’s “new map”, 217.

  Shannon, _Manual of the City of New York_, 414, 415.

  Sharswood, George, _Common Law of Pennsylvania_, 512.

  Shawmut, 311.
    _See_ Boston.

  Shawomet, 336.

  Shea, J. G., edits Millet’s _Relation_, 415;
    edits Jogues’ _Novum Belgium_, 416;
    edits Miller’s _Description of New York_, 420;
    edits Alsop’s _Maryland_, 555.

  Sheepscott River, 190;
    town, 365.

  Sheffield, Lord, autog., 275.

  Shepard, Thomas, _Clear Sunshine_, 355;
    _Autobiography_, 355;
    fac-simile of writing, 355.

  Sheppard, J. H., 361.

  Sherry, W. M., 533.

  Ship of the Seventeenth Century, 347.

  Shoals, isles of, 327.

  Shrewsbury (New Jersey), 424, 427.

  Shrigley, Nathaniel, _True Relation_, 157.

  Shurt, Abraham, autog., 321.

  Shurtleff, N. B., on the “Mayflower” passengers, 292;
    edits _Plymouth Records_, 293;
    edits _Massachusetts Records_, 343;
    death of, 362;
    his library, 362;
    _Description of Boston_, 362.

  Sibley, J. L., _Graduates of Harvard University_, 256, 415.

  Sidney, Henry, 483.

  Sidney, Sir Philip, 86.

  Silk-worms in Virginia, 158.

  Silva, Mina da, 79.

  Sir Thomas Roe’s Welcome, 95.

  Skeats, H. S., _Free Churches_, 251.

  Skeyne, John, 442.

  Slack, Dr. James, 500.

  Slaughter, _History of St. Mark’s, Culpepper_, etc., 160.

  Slave-trade begun by Hawkins, 60;
    how conducted, 62, 63;
    first public protest against, 491.

  Slavery in Virginia, 143, 166;
    in Pennsylvania, 515;
    in Maryland, 545.

  Sloane manuscripts, 557.

  Sluyter, Peter, _Journal_, 420.

  Smith, Buckingham, 214;
    his _Inquiry_, 214.

  Smith, B. H., 515.

  Smith, C. C., “Explorations to the Northwest”, 85.

  Smith, Charles, edits laws of Pennsylvania, 512.

  Smith, Charles W., _Wrightstown_, 510.

  Smith, George, _Delaware County_, 509.

  Smith, Rev. Henry, 330.

  Smith, Captain John, 128;
    at Jamestown, 129;
    explores the Chesapeake, 131, 132;
    his map of Virginia, 132, 167;
    elected president at Jamestown, 132;
    his services, 135;
    his _True Relation_, or _Newes from Virginia_, 153;
    his _Oxford Tract_, 156;
    _Map of Virginia_, 156, 211;
    account in Fuller’s _Worthies_, 161;
    credibility of the story of his rescue by Pocahontas, 161;
    on the New England coast, 179;
    his _Description of New England_, 179, 181, 194, 211;
    his _Map of New England_, 180, 197, 212, 341, 381;
    heliotype of, 198;
    used by Sanson, 456;
    captured by the French, 181;
    admiral for life, 182;
    _Generall Historie_, 194, 211;
    variety in copies, 163, 211;
    his portrait, 198, 211;
    autog., 211;
    his letter to Bacon, 211;
    _New England’s Trials_, 211, 290;
    life, by George S. Hillard, 211;
    by W. G. Simms, 212;
    by C. D. Warner, 162, 212;
    _True Travels_, 211;
    _Advertisements for Planters_, 147, 212;
    his character for truth, 212;
    tomb, 212.
    _See_ New England, Virginia.

  Smith, John Jay, 454;
    _Memoir of the Penn Family_, 507.

  Smith, Joseph, _Friends’ Books_, 359, 504;
    _Anti-Quakeriana_, 359, 504.

  Smith, Lloyd P., 516.

  Smith, Margaret, autog., 314.

  Smith, Ralph, 280.

  Smith, Roger, 146.

  Smith, Samuel, _History of New Jersey_, 453, 507;
    his manuscripts, 507;
    _History of the Quakers in Pennsylvania_, 507.

  Smith, Sir Thomas, 113;
    portrait, 94;
    treasurer of the Virginia Company, 127.

  Smith, Thomas, in Maryland, 529.

  Smith, William, 412;
    _History of New York_, 411, 412;
    criticised, 412.

  Smith, William, Jr., 453.

  Smith and Watson, _American Historical and Literary Curiosities_, 484.

  Smith’s Islands, 131.

  Smucker, S. W., 371.

  Smyth, John, the “Se-Baptist”, 227;
    autog., 257;
    in Amsterdam, 261.

  Snow, C. H., _History of Boston_, 362.

  Somerby, H. G., 208, 364.

  Somers, Sir George, 133, 137.

  Somers, Matthew, 137.

  Somers, Sir Thomas, 136.

  Somersetshire (Maine), 191.

  Sonmans, Arent, 435.

  Soule, George, 284;
    autog., 268;
    in Duxbury, 273.

  Soulé and others, _Annals of San Francisco_, 78.

  South America, earlier known than North, 85.

  South Sea, 88.
    _See_ Pacific.

  _Southern Literary Messenger_, 164, 168.

  Southey, Robert, _Life of Ralegh_, 122.

  Sowle, Andrew, autog., 484.

  Spain seizes Hawkins’s ships, 60.

  Spaniards on the Chesapeake, 167.

  Spanish Main ravaged by Drake, 65, 73.

  Sparks, Jared, his library, 211.

  Speed, John, _Prospect_, 384;
    map of New England, 384;
    _Theatre of Great Britain_, 467.

  “Speedwell”, ship, 173, 267.

  Spelman, Henry, 135;
    rescued, 137;
    his _Relation_, 155.

  Spelman, Sir Henry, 299.

  Spicer, Jacob, 454.

  Spooner, Z. H., _Poems of the Pilgrims_, 294.

  Springett, Harbt, autog., 484.

  Springett, Sir William, 480.

  Springfield (Massachusetts), settled, 330.

  Squamscott patent, 367.

  Squanto, 182, 194, 274.

  “Squirrel”, ship, 187.

  St. Anthoine Bay and River, 195.

  St. Augustine, 80.

  St. Brandon, 42.

  St. Brandon Island, 101.

  St. Christopher, Cape, 195;
    Bay, 197.

  St. Christoval, 213.

  St. Clement’s Island, 525.

  St. Inigoe’s manor, 558.

  St. Jacques, 82.

  St. James Island, 77.

  St. Joan Cape, 197.

  St. John, _Life of Ralegh_, 122.

  St. John River (New Brunswick), 186.

  St. John, 213.

  St. John Baptiste Bay, 195, 197.

  St. Lawrence Gulf, 101, 213;
    explored by Cabot, 55;
    River, 213.

  St. Mary’s River, 526;
    Town, 526;
    ruins of, 558.

  St. Nicholas, 213.

  St. Thomas, island, 79.

  St. See San, Santa.

  Stacy, Mahlon, 441.

  Stacy, Robert, 441.

  Stadin River, 213.

  Standish, Alexander, autog., 273.

  Standish, Miles, at Leyden, 263;
    autog., 268;
    at Cape Cod, 271;
    at Duxbury, 273;
    his swords, 274, 278;
    origin of, 284;
    his will, 284;
    monument to his memory, 284;
    his faith, 284;
    his books, 284;
    his descendants, 284;
    alleged portrait, 293;
    Longfellow’s _Courtship of_, 294;
    Lowell’s _Interview_, 294;
    sent to England, 308.

  Stanley, A. P., _Christian Institutions_, 254.

  Stanwood, J. R., 416.

  Staples, W. R., _Annals of Providence_, 377;
    edits _Rhode Island Laws_, 379;
    edits Gorton’s _Simplicitie’s Defence_, 378.

  “Star”, ship, 138.

  State-Paper Office, 343.

  Steel, John, autog., 374.

  Steele, Ashbel, _Elder Brewster; or, Chief of the Pilgrims_, 285, 287.

  Steg, Robert, 148.

  Stephenson, _Call from Death to Life_, 358.

  Stevens, Henry, rescues White’s drawings, 123;
    _Historical and Geographical Notes_, 8, 167, 218;
    _Bibliotheca Geographica_, 9;
    _Mondidier Catalogue_, 348;
    _Index to New Jersey Documents_, 455;
    _Index to Maryland Documents_, 557;
    _Historical Collections_, passim.

  Stevens, J. A., “The English in New York”, 385.

  Stevenson, Marmaduke, 505.

  Stevin, Simon, _De Haven-vinding_, 208.

  Stiles, Ezra, _History of the Judges_, 374.

  Stiles, H. R., _Ancient Windsor_, 375.

  Stillman, _Seeking the Golden Fleece_, 78.

  Stirling, Earl of, grant to, 310, 388.

  Stith, William, _History of Virginia_, 165.

  Stobnicza’s map, 10, 13;
    his _Introductio in Ptholomei Cosmographiam_, 10.

  Stockbridge, Henry, 556.

  Stone, Frederick D., “The Founding of Pennsylvania”, 469.

  Stone, Samuel, 330.

  Stone, William, 533;
    autog., 534.

  Stone, W. L., _Uncas and Miantonomo_, 368.

  Stonyhurst manuscripts, 530.

  Stoughton, Israel, autog., 348.

  Stoughton, J., _Church and State_, 252.

  Stoughton, John, _William Penn_, 507.

  Stoughton, William, autog., 356.

  Stow’s _Chronicle or Annals_, 37.

  Stowe, _Survey of London_, 211.

  Strachey, William, 156;
    in Virginia, 137;
    autog., 156;
    his _Lawes Divine_, 137, 156;
    _Historie of Travaile_, 156, 191, 192;
    _Map of Virginia_, 167.

  _Strange News from Virginia_, 164.

  Stratford (Connecticut), 333.

  Stratton, John, 322.

  Strawberry Bank, 327-329.
    _See_ Portsmouth (N. H.).

  Streeter, Sebastian F., 457, 543, 556, 562;
    _Early History of Maryland_, 556;
    his manuscripts, 556;
    _Maryland Two Hundred Years Ago_, 560;
    his manuscript history of Clayborne, 562;
    _First Commander of Kent Island_, 562;
    _Fall of the Susquehannocks_, 562.

  Strong, Leonard, _Babylon’s Fall_, 555.

  Strong, Richard, 172.

  Strype, John, his _Works_, 248.

  Studley, Daniel, 220.

  Studley, Thomas, 128.

  Stuyvesant, Peter, 389, 390.

  Sullivan, James, _Land Titles in Massachusetts_, 341;
    _History of Maine_, 364.

  Sumner, George, on the Pilgrims in Leyden, 286.

  “Sunshine”, ship, 89.

  “Susan Constant”, ship, 128.

  Susquehanna Indians, 131, 515, 562;
    lands, 490.

  Sutherland, Lord, 514.

  Sutliffe, Dean of Exeter, 198.

  “Swallow”, ship, 60, 134, 194.

  “Swan”, ship, 65.

  Swarthmore Hall, 470.

  Swedes on the Delaware, 480, 481, 548;
    their churches, 493.

  Symmes, Benjamin, 147.

  Symondes, William, sermon on Virginia, 155.

  Symson, Cuthbert, 239.

  Synods in New England, 354.

  Syon, County Palatine, 457.


  Tadenac, Lake, 216.

  Taisnierus, Joannes, on navigation, 35, 207.

  Talbot, Sir William, 157.

  Tanner, Robert, _Mirror for Mathematiques_, 207.

  Tarbox, I. N., on Pilgrim history, 288.

  Tatham, John, 451.

  Taylor, Christopher, autog., 484.

  Tazewell, L. W., 153.

  Telner, Jacob, 490.

  Terra Mariæ, 520.
    _See_ Maryland.

  Thacher, Dr., _American Medical Biography_, 315;
    manuscript on the Winslows, 277;
    _History of the Town of Plymouth_, 291.

  Thevet, André, 32;
    _New found Worlde_ (English translation), 200;
    _Cosmographie_, 184.

  Thomas, Gabriel, _Description of West New Jersey_, 451;
    map of Pennsylvania, 501;
    _Some Account_, etc., 501.

  Thomas, Isaiah, _History of Printing_, 351.

  Thomas, John, 514.

  Thomas, William, 266.

  Thomason, George, his collection of tracts, 245.

  Thompson, Mrs. A. T., _Life of Ralegh_, 121.

  Thompson, David, 326, 328;
    in New Hampshire, 366.

  Thompson’s Island, 311.

  Thompson, _Long Island_, 349.

  Thomson, C. W., 508.

  Thorne, Robert, his map in fac-simile, 17;
    described, 18.

  Thornton, John, _Atlas Maritimus_, 384.

  Thornton, J. Wingate, _First Records of Anglo-American Colonization_,
        158;
    on the Gosnold expedition, 188;
    on the Popham question, 210;
    and the Bradford manuscript, 286;
    _Ancient Pemaquid_, 365.

  Thorpe, George, 144, 145.

  Thurloe, _State Papers_, 555.

  Thurston, Thomas, 473.

  Tienot, Cape, 213.

  Tierra del Fuego, 66.

  Tigna River, 67.

  Tignes, 79.

  Tilley, Edward, 284.

  Tinker, Thomas, 284.

  Tobacco, 69, 166;
    in Florida, 60;
    in Virginia, 113, 139, 141, 146, 147, 149, 150;
    as currency, 143, 166;
    production of, 144;
    in Maryland, 543, 544, 558.

  Tobàh, 69.

  Tockwogh River, 131.

  Tontoneac River, 67.

  Torres, _Relacion_, 82.

  Town system of New England, 363.

  Townley, Richard, 443.

  Townsend, Richard, 493.

  Trask, Mary, autog., 314.

  Trask, W. B., 361.

  “Treasurer”, ship, 139, 193.

  Triple Alliance, 395, 396.

  Trinidad, 117;
    Ralegh’s map, 124.

  Trinity Harbor, 213.

  Trömel, _Bibliotheca Americana_, 499.

  Tross globe (gores), 214.

  Trowbridge, J. R., Jr., on New Haven’s maritime interests, 375.

  Trumbull, Rev. Benjamin, _History of Connecticut_, 374.

  Trumbull, Governor Jonathan, his papers, 374.

  Trumbull, J. H., edits _Brinley Catalogue_, passim;
    edits Lechford, 351;
    on the Indian languages, 355;
    on Indian names in Connecticut, 368;
    on the Constitutions of Connecticut, 369;
    _True Blue Laws_, etc., 372;
    edits _Connecticut Records_, 375;
    edits Williams’s _Key_, 377.

  Trusler, John, 457.

  Tucker, 322.

  Tucker, Daniel, 132.

  Tucker, St. George, _Hansford_, 164.

  Tuckerman, Edward, edits Josselyn’s _New England Rarities_, 360.

  Tulloch, John, _Leaders of the Reformation_, 252;
    _English Puritanism_, 252.

  Turner, H. E., on Coddington, 377;
    _Settlers of Aquedneck_, 377.

  Turner, Robert, 435, 441, 477.

  Tuttle, C. W., 153, 210;
    on John Mason, 364;
    on Champernoun, 366;
    on the Wheelwright deed, 366;
    on New Hampshire history, 367.

  Twine, John, 143.

  Tyler, M. C., _History of American Literature_, 154, 165.

  Tyson, Job R., 508;
    _Colonial History_, etc., 505.

  Tytler, P. F., _Life of Ralegh_, 122;
    _Historical View_, 43.


  Uhden, _Geschichte des Congregationalisten_, 384.

  Ulpius globe, 214.

  Uncas, 368;
    his pedigree, 368;
    and Miantinomo, 368.

  Underhill, Captain John, 327, 349;
    _Newes from America_, 348.

  Upham, _Ratio disciplinæ_, 359.

  Upland, 480, 481, 483.

  Upsall, Nicholas, autog., 314.

  Utie, Colonel, 548.


  Vadianus’ map, 217.

  Valentine, David, _History of New York City_, 417;
    _Manual of the City of New York_, 414, 415.

  Van der Aa’s _Voyages_, 79, 188.

  Van Heuvel, _El Dorado_, 126.

  Van Keulen, charts, 419.

  Van Loon’s _Pascærte_, 382;
    _Zee-Atlas_, 382.

  Van Meteren, 82.

  Varina Neck, 138.

  Varkens Kil, 459.

  Varlo, Charles, 467;
    _The Finest Part of America_, 467;
    _Nature Displayed_, 468;
    _Floating Ideas_, 468.

  Vaughan, R., _English Nonconformity_, 252.

  Vaughan, Sir William, 519.

  Vaux, Roberts, on Penn’s treaty, 513.

  Vaux, W. S. W., 79.

  Veech, James, 515.

  Venegas’ _California_, 75.

  Venetian calendars, 51.

  Verrazano, 185, 376;
    his sea, 183, 218;
    influence on Gosnold, 172;
    his map, 194.

  Vetromile, _History of the Abnakis_, 184.

  Vincent, C., _Vie de Penn_, 506.

  Vincent, Philip, 348;
    _Late Battell_, 348.

  Vines, Richard, 182, 303, 322, 323.

  Vinton, J. A., on the Wheelwright deed, 366;
    _Giles Memorial_, 365.

  Virginia, 127;
    (1580), 42;
    _True Declaration_, etc., 81;
    _Declaration of the State of the Colony_, 81;
    _Good Speed to_, 81;
    _New Life of_, 81;
    named by Elizabeth, 110, 153;
    map of, by White, 124;
    map of “Ould Virginia”, 124;
    earliest map, 124;
    De Laet’s map (1630), 125;
    Farrer map, 464, 465;
    other maps, 167;
    charter of 1609, 133;
    first legislature, 143;
    constitution (1621), 145;
    massacre (1622), 145, 163;
    massacre (1644), 147;
    under the Commonwealth, 148;
    Bacon’s Rebellion, 151;
    “convict” emigrants, 152, 160;
    Indian names in, 153;
    the early patents, 153;
    authorities on the history of, 153;
    _Laws Divine_, 156;
    bounds of, 159;
    _Colonial Records_, 159;
    lists of arrivals, 160;
    destruction of archives, 160;
    families, 160;
    county and parish records preserved, 161;
    _Calendar of State Papers_, 161;
    histories of, 164, 165;
    boundary disputes, 167;
    _in America Richly Valued_, 168;
    disputes with Maryland, 554;
    Northern Colony of, 295, 342;
    Southern Colony of, 295.
    _See_ Jamestown, Roanoke, Smith.

  “Virginia”, pinnace, 177.

  Virginia Company, 143;
    seal, 140, 143;
    charter annulled, 146;
    records, 158;
    silk-worm culture, 158.

  _Virginia Evangelical and Literary Magazine_, 164.

  _Virginia Historical Reporter_, 160, 162, 168.

  Virginia Historical Society, 168.

  “Virginia Merchant”, ship, 148.

  _Virginia’s Cure_, 157.

  Viscaino’s map, 75.

  Visscher, map of New England, 382;
    _Atlas Minor_, 417;
    map of New York, 418.

  Vitellus, 104.

  Vullieum, L., _William Penn_, 506.


  Waddington, John, _Track of the Hidden Church_, 285, 288;
    _Congregational History_, 285, 288.

  Wade, Robert, 494.

  Wagenaer, Luke, 207.

  Walckenaer’s _Catalogue_, 8.

  Waldo, Richard, 132.

  Waldo Patent, 191.

  Walford, Thomas, autog., 311.

  Waldron, Resolved, 466, 549.

  Waldseemüller map (1507-13), 14.

  Walker, John, 187;
    in Norumbega, 171.

  Wallace, J. W., 514, 516;
    on William Bradford, 515.

  Walsingham, Sir Francis, 86.

  Walter, Nehemiah, autog., 319.

  Waterhouse, Edward, his _Declaration_, 163.

  Wampanoags, 274.

  Wamsutta, 282.

  Ward, Edward, _Trip to New England_, 373.

  Ward, Nathaniel, autog., 350;
    _Body of Liberties_, 350;
    _Simple Cobler_, 350.

  Ward, Townsend, 492, 509.

  Ware, William, _Memoir of Nathaniel Bacon_, 164.

  Warham, Rev. John, 330.

  Warne, Thomas, 435.

  Warner, Charles D., _Study of John Smith_, 162.

  Warner, C. L., 516.

  Warner, Edmond, autog., 430.

  Warren, Henry, 365.

  Warrosquoyoke, 147.

  Warwick, Earl of, 86, 308, 309, 342, 354, 369;
    autog., 275;
    grants to, 370;
    and the Council for New England, 370.

  Warwick (Rhode Island), 337.

  “Warwick”, ship, 327, 363.

  Warwick’s foreland, 90, 91.

  Washburn, Emory, _Judicial History of Massachusetts_, 363.

  Washburn, John D., 75.

  Watson, J. F., _Annals of Philadelphia_, 509;
    on Penn’s treaty, 513;
    _Olden Times in New York_, 416.

  Watson, Thomas, 154.

  Wattes, John, 114.

  Waugh, Dorothy, autog., 314.

  Waymouth, Captain George, 91, 174, 189;
    autog., 91;
    authorities, 189.

  Webb, Maria, _The Penns and Peningtons_, 507.

  Webster, Daniel, on the Pilgrims, 293.

  Webster, Noah, edits _Winthrop’s Journal_, 357.

  Weehawken, 422.

  Weems’s _Life of Penn_, 509.

  Weir, R. W., picture of the Pilgrims at Delfthaven, 293.

  Weiss, L. H., 502.

  “Welcome”, ship, 482.

  Welde, Thomas, _Short Story_, etc., 349, 351;
    _Bay Psalm Book_, 350.

  Welles, Thomas, autog., 374.

  Wells (Maine), 324.

  Welsh Barony (Pennsylvania), 482.

  Welsh in Pennsylvania, 482, 515.

  Wenman, Sir Ferdinand, 136.

  Wessagusset, 304.

  West, Benjamin, picture of Penn’s Treaty, 513.

  West, Francis, 132, 134, 143, 146;
    admiral of New England, 303.

  West India Company, 385, 389, 422.

  West Jersey, 432;
    concessions, etc., 432;
    local government, 440;
    _Records_, 452;
    Quakers in, 473;
    Penn’s interest in, 476;
    map of, 501.
    _See_ New Jersey.

  West, John, 147;
    autog., 164.

  West, Robert, 435.

  West, Thomas, Lord De la Warre, 133.
    _See_ De la Warre.

  Westcott, _History of Philadelphia_, 502.

  Westcott, Thompson, 509.

  Westland, Nathaniel, 451.

  Westminster, Treaty of, 398.

  Weston, P. C. J., _Documents of South Carolina_, 186, 558.

  Weston, Thomas, 266, 267, 304;
    settles at Weymouth, 278, 311.

  Westover manuscripts, 159.

  Wethersfield (Connecticut), 330.

  Weymouth (Massachusetts), 278, 311.

  Wharton, Thomas I., 515.

  Whiddon, Jacob, 116.

  Wheeler, _History of North Carolina_, 124.

  Wheeler, G. A., _History of Brunswick_, 365;
    _History of Castine_, 365.

  Wheelwright, John, memoir of, 366;
    at Exeter, 329;
    deed of New Hampshire, controversy over, 366, 368.

  Whitaker, Alexander, 137, 138, 141;
    _Good Newes from Virginia_, 81, 157.

  White, Father Andrew, 554;
    _Relatio itineris_, 553, 554.

  White, Christopher, 441.

  White, D. A., _New England Congregationalism_, 255.

  White, Henry, on New Haven Colony, 375.

  White, John (governor), views in Virginia, 113;
    governor, 113;
    his drawings engraved by De Bry, 123, 164;
    his map of Virginia, 124, 183.

  White, Rev. John, 311.

  White, John, of Dorchester, _Planter’s Plea_, 346.

  White, John, of Pennsylvania, 488.

  White, Peregrine, autog., 268;
    his chest, 278.

  White, Resolved, autog., 268.

  Whitehead, George, 442.

  Whitehead, W. A., “The English in East and West Jersey”, 421;
    _East Jersey under the Proprietary Government_, 454;
    _Documents relating to New Jersey_, 454;
    _Index to Colonial Documents_, 455;
    _History of Perth Amboy_, 455.

  Whitfield, Rev. Henry, 355;
    _The Light Appearing_, 335;
    _Strength out of Weakness_, 355.

  Whiting, John, _Truth and Innocency Defended_, 359.

  Whiting, John, _Catalogue of Friends’ Books_, 504.

  Whitmore, William H., _American Genealogist_, 292;
    _Peter Pelham_, 345;
    edits _Andros Tracts_, 362;
    his chapter on Andros in the _Memorial History of Boston_, 362.

  Whitson Bay, 174.

  Whittier, J. G., _Pennsylvania Pilgrim_, 491.

  Wickham, Rev. William, 141, 143.

  Wiggin, Thomas, 326.

  Wigglesworth, Michael, autog., 319.

  Wilberforce, Samuel, _Episcopal Church in America_, 286.

  Wilcox, Thomas, 435.

  Wilkinson, William, 128.

  Willard, Samuel, autog., 319.

  Willes, Richard, 35;
    edits Eden’s Peter Martyr as _History of Travayle_, 204.

  Willett, Thomas, autog., 338, 414;
    mayor of New York, 414;
    his family, 414.

  William and Mary College founded, 144, 160.

  William of Orange, 396;
    invited to England, 410.

  Williams, Captain, on the Maine coast, 179.

  Williams, Dr. Daniel, his library, 245.

  Williams, Edward, _Virgo triumphans_, 168.

  Williams, Francis, 328, 329.

  Williams, George W., _Negro Race in America_, 168.

  Williams, John Foster, 190.

  Williams, Roger, in his youth, 242;
    at Plymouth, 290;
    views on civil polity, 290;
    settles Rhode Island, 335, 336;
    goes to England, 337;
    autog., 339;
    his _Key_, 355, 377;
    lives of, 378;
    deed from the Indians, 379;
    letters, 377, 378;
    letter to George Fox, 378;
    banished from Massachusetts, 378;
    _Christenings make not Christians_, 378;
    Charter obtained by, 379.
    _See_ Rhode Island.

  Williamson, _History of North Carolina_, 124.

  Williamson, W. D., historical labors, 208;
    _History of Maine_, 364.

  Willis, William, 209, 210;
    _History of Portland_, 365;
    _Bibliography of Maine_, 365.

  Willoughby’s expedition, 30.

  Wills, Daniel, 441.

  Wilson, John, first minister of Boston, 312;
    portrait, 313;
    autog., 313.

  Wincob, John, 265.

  Winder, Samuel, 443.

  Windmill, First, in America, 144.

  Windsor (Connecticut), 330, 375;
    settled, 368.

  Wine made early in Florida and Massachusetts, 61.

  Winfield, Charles H., _History of Hudson County_, 456.

  Wingfield, Edward Maria, 128;
    _Discourse_, 155.

  Wingina, 109, 153.

  Winslow, Edward, his chair and table, 278;
    part author of _Mourt’s Relation_, 290;
    _Good News from New England_, 291;
    portrait, 277, 293;
    at Leyden, 263;
    autog., 268, 278;
    settles in Marshfield, 273;
    his descendants, 277;
    accounts of, 277;
    _Hypocrasie Unmasked; or, Danger of Tolerating Levellers_, 285, 354;
    founds Society for Propagating the Gospel among the Indians, 315,
        355;
    _New England’s Salamander Discovered_, 355.

  Winslow, General John, his sword, 274.

  Winslow, Josiah, autog., 278;
    portrait, 282.

  Winsor, Justin, _The Bradford Manuscript_, 287;
    edits _Memorial History of Boston_, 362.

  Winter Harbor, 303.

  Winter, John, with Drake, 79.

  With, John. _See_ White, John.

  Winthrop, John, governor, goes to New England, 311;
    death, 316, 357;
    and the _Short Story_, 351;
    _Journal or History of New England_, 255, 357.

  Winthrop, John, Jr., governor of Connecticut, 331, 334;
    autog., 331;
    portrait, 331;
    in Connecticut, 369;
    charter procured by him, 388.

  Winthrop, R. C., on the Pilgrims, 293;
    on Sir George Downing, 415.

  Wisner, _Old South Church in Boston_, 359.

  Witchcraft trial in Pennsylvania, 488.

  Wolcott, Roger, 369;
    _Poetical Meditations_, 369.

  Wolfe, John, 208;
    editor of _Linschoten_, 101, 205;
    its map, 101.

  Wollaston, Captain, 348.

  Wolstenholme, Sir John, 94.

  Women sent to Virginia, 144, 158.

  Wood, Anthony, _Athenæ Oxoniensis_, 204.

  Wood, Leonard, his historical labors, 208;
    notices of him, 208.

  Wood, William, _New England’s Prospect_, 347, 348;
    map of New England, 381.

  Woodbridge (New Jersey), 425.

  Woodbury (Connecticut), 375.

  _Woodstock Letters_, 554.

  Wooley, Rev. Charles, _Journal_, 420.

  Woollen manufactures, 493.

  Woolston, John, 447.

  Worcester Society of Antiquity, 344.

  Worsley, Sir Boyer, 457.

  Worthington, William, 7, 31, 44, 51.

  Wotton, Thomas, 128.

  Wright, Edward, 207;
    _The Haven-finding Art_, 208;
    _Certain Errors_, 208, 216;
    and the Molineaux map, 216.

  Wyatt, Sir Francis, 144, 146, 147.

  Wyatt, Haut, 144.

  Wynne, _British Empire in America_, 509;
    _Historical Documents_, 162.

  Wynne, Peter, 132.

  Wynne, Thomas, autog., 486.

  Wynne, Thomas H., 159.

  Wytfliet, _Descript. Ptolemaicæ Augmentum_, 184.


  Yates, J. V. N., 412.

  Yeardley, George, 141, 146;
    governor, 142.

  Yeardley, Francis, 149.

  Yong, Captain Thomas, 458, 558;
    autog., 558.

  York, Duke of, 310;
    patent to, 387, 388;
    alienates East Jersey, 403;
    grants of New Jersey, 392, 399;
    new patent of New York, 399;
    becomes James II., 406;
    patent (1664), 414, 421, 423;
    proposed memorial of, 414;
    autog., 421;
    grants to Berkeley, etc., 422;
    grants to Penn, 480;
    Laws, 510, 511.

  York (Maine), 326.

  Young, Alexander, _Chronicles of the Pilgrims_, 283, 292;
    _Chronicles of Massachusetts Bay_, 347.

  Yucatan, 201.


  Zaltieri’s map (1566), 67.

  Zarate’s Peru, 204.

  Zeno map, 100;
    its influence, 100.

  Ziegler, James, on Cabot, 18;
    as geographer, 19;
    Schondia, 101.

  Zipangu, 85.

  Zürich archives, letters of the exiled Puritans in, 247.

  _Zürich Letters_, 248.




                              FOOTNOTES:

[1] An error in Eden’s translation of a passage in Peter Martyr,
written in 1515, makes him a member of the Council of the Indies.

[2] It will be understood that we now regard it as satisfactorily
settled that the voyage of discovery took place in 1497, followed by a
second voyage in 1498.

I have spoken of the map of the discoveries of the Cabots being made
known to rival courts. In a letter dated Dec. 18, 1497, written from
London by the Abbé Raimondo, envoy of the Duke of Milan to the Court
of Henry VII., recently brought to light, and printed on page 54,
the writer, speaking of the return of John Cabot from his voyage of
discovery, says: “This Master John has the description of the world in
a chart, and also in a solid globe, which he has made, and he shows
where he had landed.” Don Pedro de Ayala, the Spanish Minister, also
writes to Ferdinand and Isabella, in the following year, July 25, 1498,
after the second expedition had sailed: “I have seen the map which the
discoverer has made.”

In the year 1500, the Spanish navigator, Juan de la Cosa, who had
accompanied Columbus on his second voyage to the West in the years
1493-96, compiled a map of the world on which he delineated all he
knew of the Spanish and Portuguese discoveries in the New World.
He also depicted, undoubtedly from English sources, the northern
portion of the east coast of the continent, as is shown by a broad
legend or inscription running along the coast: “Mar descubierta por
Ingleses.” There was also placed at the eastern cape of the coast:
“Cavo de Ynglaterra.” It is the earliest map known on which the western
discoveries are depicted. A few copies of the map are supposed to have
been made soon after its compilation, one of which hung up in the
office of the Spanish Minister of Marine. The map afterwards fell into
neglect and was forgotten. In the year 1832 it was found and identified
by Humboldt, in the library of his friend the Baron Walckenaer, in
Paris. [It is on ox-hide, measuring five feet nine inches by three
feet two inches, drawn in colors, and was afterwards bought in 1850
for 4,020 francs (see Walckenaer _Catalogue_, no. 2,904) by the Queen
of Spain, and is now in the Royal Library at Madrid. See Humboldt’s
appendix to Ghillany’s _Geschichte des Seefahrers Ritter Martin
Behaim_, and the appendix to Kunstmann’s _Entdeckung Amerikas_; also
Kohl’s _Discovery of Maine_, 151, 179. This Cosa map is given in part
full-size and in part half-size, in Humboldt’s _Examen Critique_, vol.
v., 1839, but not accurately; and again in connection with Humboldt’s
essay in Ghillany’s _Behaim_, Nürnberg, 1853. This essay was also
issued at Amsterdam in the _Seeskabinet_, with the fac-simile of the
map. The only full-size fac-simile in colors is in three sheets in
Jomard’s _Monuments de la Géographie_, pl. 16; and there are reductions
of the American portion in Stevens’s _Hist. and Geog. Notes_, 1869,
pl. 1 (following Jomard’s delineation); in De la Sagra’s _Cuba_; in
Lelewel’s _Géog. du Moyen Age_, 1852, no. 41. A biographical study
of _Juan de la Cosa_, by Enrique de Leguina, was published at Madrid
in 1877. Cosa died while accompanying Ojedo in December, 1509. Peter
Martyr, in 1514, gave him a high rank as a cartographer. The American
(Asian) part of his map is given in phototype herewith, reduced from
Jomard’s fac-simile.—ED.]

Some have supposed that Cosa drew his whole eastern coast of North
America as a separate and independent continent, entirely distinct
from Asia, on the authority of the maps of the Cabots on which their
discoveries were delineated. Of course, in the absence of the maps or
globes of the Cabots, it is impossible for us to tell precisely what
was delineated upon them, or how much of Cosa’s coast-line was copied
from them; but from whatever source this line was drawn, it must be
evident that it was supposed by Cosa to be the eastern coast of Asia.
Cosa, so far as is observed from the fac-simile of his map,—which is
a map of the world,—drew no east coast of Asia at all, unless this be
it. (See Stevens’s _Notes_ as above, pp. 14, 17; Cf. Kohl, pp. 145,
152, 153.)

I have already said that the discoveries of the English on Cosa’s map
were noted on the northern portion of the east coast of the continent,
and if confined, as they appear to be, to that region, we have no
right to assert that the remaining portion of the east coast-line was
supplied from the Cabots, but rather that it was taken from well-known
existing representations of the east coast of Asia. The map and globe
of the Cabots, already referred to, had laid down upon them the results
of their experience on their first voyage, the voyage of discovery,
in 1497. Of the results of the voyage of 1498, with which Sebastian
Cabot is now more particularly associated, we know but little. Accounts
narrated by others, but originally proceeding many years after the
event from Sebastian Cabot himself, of a voyage to the new-found lands,
have been supposed by modern writers to refer more particularly to this
voyage; and these accounts, as we shall see further on, speak of a run
down the coast to a considerable extent. That the Cabots, or Sebastian
Cabot, should have prepared maps of the second voyage at the time of
its occurrence, as well as of the voyage of discovery, is in every
respect probable. But all these early maps are lost. Perhaps they are
yet slumbering in some dusty archive.

[The Editor cannot derive from the reasons expressed by Stevens (_Hist.
and Geog. Notes_, p. 15) that the coast where the legend is put,
represents the north shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence; for it is not
easy to account for the absence of the characteristics of a gulf, if
“mar,” unaccompanied by “oceanus,” signifies, as Stevens holds, an
enclosed sea; and if so, why is the genuine gulf between Cuba and the
Asian coast called “mar oceanus”?—ED.]

Cosa’s map not having been engraved, or to any extent copied, exercised
but little influence on the cartography of the period, and although the
information relating to the English discoveries depicted upon it could
have come from no other source than the Cabots themselves, their names
were not inscribed upon the map; neither was the legend already quoted
copied upon any one of the maps, relating to the new-found lands,
which soon followed. The enterprising Cortereals, who are supposed
to have seen Cabot’s or Cosa’s map, soon spread their sails for the
West, and the maps of their discoveries, in the regions visited by
them, contained a record of their own name, or inscriptions which have
perpetuated the memory of their exploits. (See vol. iv. of the present
work.) Not so with the Cabots unless we should adopt the improbable
statement of Peter Martyr, in 1515, that Sebastian Cabot gave the name
_Baccalaos_ to those lands because of the multitude of big fishes which
he saw there, and to which the natives gave that name. This subject is
considered in a later note.

Another important map will be briefly referred to here, as it may
possibly have some connection with the Cabots,—that of John Ruysch,
published in the Ptolemy of 1508, at Rome. It is the first engraved
map with the discoveries of the New World delineated upon it. [There
are accounts of this map (which measures twenty-one and a quarter by
sixteen inches) in Harrisse’s _Bibliotheca Americana Vetustissima_, p.
108; in the _Catalogue of the John Carter-Brown Library_, i. p. 39; in
Henry Stevens’s _Bibliotheca Geographica_, No. 3058; and reproductions
are given in Humboldt’s _Examen Critique_, v., in his essay on the
earliest maps appended to Ghillany’s _Martin Behaim_; in Stevens’s
_Historical and Geographical Notes_, pl. 2 (cf. _Historical Magazine_,
August, 1869, p. 107); in Santarem’s _Atlas composè de mappemondes
depuis le v^e jusqu’au_ xvii^e, _siècles_; in Lelewel’s _Moyen Age_;
in Judge Daly’s _Early History of Cartography_, p. 32 (much reduced);
and a section is given in Kohl’s _Discovery of Maine_, p. 156. A
copy of the original is in the Sumner Collection in Harvard College
Library, and has been used for the fac-simile herewith given.—ED.]
A northeastern coast similar to that on the Cosa map is drawn, but
there is no record on it that the English had visited it, and “Cabo
de Portogesi” takes the place of “Cavo de Ynglaterra,” on the point
of what is now called Cape Race. Concerning John Ruysch, the maker
of the map, who was a German geographer, Kunstmann (_Die Entdeckung
Amerikas_, p. 137) says that he accompanied some exploring expeditions
undertaken from England to the north. Marcus Beneventanus, an Italian
monk, who edited this edition of Ptolemy, and included in it “A new
Description of the World, and the new Navigation of the Ocean from
Lisbon to India,” says: “But John Ruysch of Germany, in my judgment a
most exact geographer, and a most painstaking one in delineating the
globe, to whose aid in this little work I am indebted, has told me
that he sailed from the South of England, and penetrated as far as the
fifty-third degree of north latitude, and on that parallel he sailed
west toward the shores of the East, bearing a little northward (_per
anglum noctis_), and observed many islands, the description of which
I have given below.” Mr. Henry Stevens, from whom I have taken this
extract, thinks that Ruysch may have sailed with the Cabots to the
new-found islands. We know that among the crew one was a Burgundian and
one a Genoese. Beneventanus professed to know of the discoveries of the
English as well as of those of the Spaniards and Portuguese: “Columbi
et Lusitanorum atque Britannorum quos Anglos nunc dicimus.” (Stevens’s
_Hist. and Geog. Notes_, p. 32; Biddle, p. 179.)

In his _Memoir of Sebastian Cabot_, p. 179, Mr. Biddle calls attention
to a remarkable inscription on this map, placed far at the north, some
twenty degrees above “I. Baccalauras,” namely, “Hic compassus navium
non tenet nec naves quæ ferrum tenent revertere valent” (“Here the
ship’s compass loses its property, and no vessel with iron on board is
able to get away”). Mr. Biddle cites this inscription as showing the
terror which this phenomenon of the variation of the magnetic needle,
particularly noticed by Cabot, had excited. (See Humboldt’s _Examen
Crit._ iii. 31, _et seq._; Chytrœus, _Variorum in Europa Itinerum
Delicicæ_, published at Herborn, in Nassau, 1594, pp. 791, 792.)
Columbus had noticed the declination of the magnetic needle in his
first voyage.

All these places in the new-found lands,—Terre Neuve, Baccalaos,
Labrador, etc.,—named by European visitors to these shores, were
supposed to be sections and projections of the Old World, and to belong
to the map of Asia; and this continued to be the opinion of navigators
and cartographers, advancing and receding in their views, for a number
of years afterward.

[Johannes Myritius in his _Opusculum Geographicum_, published at
Ingoldstadt in 1590, is accounted one of the last to hold to this view.
_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, i. 314. After the discovery by Balboa in
1513 of the South Sea, the new cartographical knowledge took two—in
the main—distinct phases, both of which recognized South America as
an independent continental region, sometimes joined and sometimes
disjoined from the northern continent; while in one, North America
remained a prolongation of Asia, as in the map of Orontius Finæus,
and in the other it presented a barrier to western sailing except
by a northern circuit. An oceanic passage, which seemed to make an
island of Baccalaos, or the Cabot region, nearly in its right latitude
and longitude, laid New England, and much more, beneath the sea. The
earliest specimen of this notion we find in the Polish Ptolemy of
1512, in what is known as the Stobnicza map, one of the evidences
that on the Continent the belief did not prevail that the Cabots had
coursed south along a continental shore. It was a year before Balboa
discovered the Pacific that this map was published at Cracow; and we
are forced to believe that divination, or more credible report, had
told John de Stobnicza what was beyond the land which the Spaniards
were searching. The map is striking, and, singular to say, it has not
been long known. The only copy known of the little book of less than
fifty leaves, which contains it, was printed at Cracow without date
as _Introductio in Ptholomei Cosmographiam_, and is in the Imperial
Library at Vienna; and though there are other copies known with dates
(1512), they all lack the maps, there being two sheets, one of the
Old World, the other of the New, including in this latter designation
the eastern shore of Asia, which is omitted in the fac-simile given
herewith. A full-size fac-simile of the New World was made by Muller of
Amsterdam (five copies only at twenty-five florins), and one is also
given in the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, i. 53. We note but a very few
other copies, all however, except one, without the map. One is in the
great library at Munich. A second (forty-three leaves and dated 1512)
was sold by Otto Harrassowitz, a dealer of Leipsic, in 1873, to Muller
of Amsterdam (we suppose it to be the copy described in the latter’s
_Books on America_, iii. 163, which was sold for 240 florins), from
whom it passed into the Carter-Brown Library in Providence. Harrisse,
_Bib. Amer. Vet._, no. 69, says there are two copies at Vienna, one in
the Imperial Library (which has the map, a woodcut), and the other in
the City Library, both without date. One or both of these copies are
said to have forty-two leaves,—Kunstmann, _Die Entdeckung Amerikas_,
p. 130. A fifth was advertised in 1876 by Harrassowitz, _Catalogue_
no. 29, as containing forty-six leaves, dated 1512, but without the
map, and priced at 500 marks. In the same dealer’s _Catalogue_ no. 61,
book-number 56, a copy of forty-six leaves is dated 1511, and priced
400 marks, which is perhaps the same copy with a corrected description.
See also Panzer, _Annales Typographici_, vi. 454. From this it would
appear, as from slight changes said to be in the text, that there were
three separate issues and perhaps editions about 1511-12. Mr. Henry
C. Murphy’s copy of 1513 has no map. A second edition was printed in
Cracow in 1519, but without the map,—_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, no. 60;
Harrisse, _Bib. Amer. Vet._ no. 95. The Finæus map, above referred to,
was a heart-shaped projection of the earth, which appeared in Grynæus’s
_Novus Orbis_, in the edition of Paris, 1532. A fac-simile of it has
been published by Muller, of Amsterdam, and in Stevens’s _Notes_, pl.
4. America occupies the extreme edge of the plate, and is greatly
distorted by the method of projecting. Mr. Brevoort reduced the lines
to Mercator’s projection for Stevens’s _Historical and Geographical
Notes_, 1869, pl. 3; and a fac-simile of this reduction, which shows
also the true Asian coast-line in its right longitude, and curiously
resembling the American (Asian) coast of the map, is given herewith.
See also Stevens’s _Bibliotheca Geographica_, p. 124; _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, i. 104; Harrisse, _Bibliographia Americana vet._ pp. 294,
297. There are copies of the map also found in the 1540 editions of
Pomponius Mela, and in the _Geografia_ of Lafreri and others, published
at Rome, 1554-72.—ED.]

[3] The first Decade, which was begun in 1493, and completed in 1510,
was printed at Seville in 1511.

[4] _Baccalaos_ is an old ante-columbian name for codfish, in
extensive use in the South of Europe. Humboldt says (Ghillany, p. 4),
“Stockfischland, von Bacallao, dem Spanischen Namen des stockfisches.”
Mr. Brevoort says it is the Iberian name for codfish; see his
_Verrazano the Navigator_, pp. 61, 137, where the etymology of the
word is given. The name is found on many of the early charts. On that
of Reynel, the Portuguese pilot, assigned by geographers to the year
1504 or 1505, it appears on the east coast as “Y dos Bocalhas” (Island
of Codfish). On the chart of Ruysch, 1508, it is seen as applied to a
small island, or cape, as “J. Baccalaurus.” On another Portuguese map
published by Kunstmann, assigned to the year 1514, or a little later,
the name “Bacalnaos” is applied to Newfoundland and Labrador, including
also Nova Scotia. After various fortunes the name became subject to
the limitations which overtook “Norumbega,” and has settled down on a
small island on the east coast of Newfoundland. There appears to be no
evidence, except Martyr’s statement, that Cabot gave the name to the
region he discovered; and it may well be asked on what book or map he
had caused it to be inscribed? There is no such name on Cosa’s map,
the only early record of the Cabots’ discoveries in the New World. The
name was probably applied by the Portuguese. Dr. John G. Kohl, the
distinguished geographer, says that the Portuguese originated the name
of Tierra de Bacalhas (“the stock-fish country”) and gave currency to
it, though the word, like the cod-fishery itself, appears to be of
Germanic origin. See his learned note in full in _Doc. Hist. of Maine_,
i. 188, 189, and compare Parkman’s _Pioneers of France_, pp. 170, 171.
Parkman says: “If, in the original Basque, _baccalaos_ is the word
for codfish, and if Cabot found it in use among the inhabitants of
Newfoundland, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Basques had been
there before him.” The affirmative of this proposition—that the Cabots
had been preceded by the fishermen—has been held by a few writers, but
it is generally believed that the evidence for it is insufficient. Dr.
Kohl says: “That the name should have been introduced by the Cabots is
for many reasons most improbable; and that they should have heard and
received the name from the Indians, is certainly not true; though both
these facts are asserted by Peter Martyr, _De Orbe Novo_, dec. iii.
ch. 6.” (Kohl, pp. 188, 189; and compare his statement on p. 481.) Dr.
Kohl had already said that the name, with some transposition of the
letters, had long been used, before the discoveries of the Cabots and
Cortereals, in many Flemish and German books and documents. It should
be added that the statement of Peter Martyr, that the savages on the
coast visited by Sebastian Cabot called a certain kind of fish found
there in abundance _baccalaos_, is repeated in the legend on Cabot’s
map, published in 1544, as rendered by Hakluyt in his folio of 1589,
p. 511. Indeed, much in the general description of the coast and the
inhabitants, both of the sea and the land, is similar in both accounts,
and indicates one origin.

[In a dispute with England so early as 1672, the Spaniards claimed
a right to fish at Newfoundland by reason of the prior discovery by
the Biscayan fishermen. _Papers relating to the rupture with Spain_,
London, 1672. The latest claim for the Basques’ antedating Cabot in
this region is in C. L. Woodbury’s _Relation of the Fisheries to the
Discovery of North America_, Boston, 1880.—ED.]

[5] This, the earliest notice of Cabot which I have seen in print,
and, written by one so distinguished as Peter Martyr, who had such
rare opportunities for information, is given almost entire. It is from
the quaint English version of Richard Eden, made some three hundred
and thirty years ago, and published in his _Decades_, fol. 118, 119.
The translation has been compared with the Latin text of Martyr, in
the _De Orbe Novo_ of 1516, “Tertie decadis liber sextus,” printed the
year after it was written, and a few redundances eliminated. See M.
D’Avezac’s criticism on some of Eden’s English renderings, in _Revue
Critique_, v. 265.

[6] When Mr. Biddle was issuing the second London edition of his
_Memoir of Sebastian Cabot_, in 1832, he cancelled one leaf in the
book, at pages 77, 78, that he might insert a notice of an early
dramatic poem cited by J. Payne Collier in his then recently published
_History of English Dramatic Poetry ... and Annals of the Stage_,
London, 1831, ii. 319. The play was entitled, _A new interlude and a
mery of the nature of the iiij elements declaryinge many proper poynts
of phylosophy naturall and of dyvers straunge landys and of dyvers
straunge effects and causis_, etc. Dr. Dibdin, in his _Typogr. Ant._,
iii. 105, inserts it among the works from Rastell’s press, and in a
manuscript note at the beginning of the copy in the British Museum,
it is said to have been printed by him in 1519. This copy, the only
one known, formerly belonged to Garrick. I saw it in London in 1866,
and collated it with the brief extracts in Collier. It is imperfect;
and, as the colophon is wanting, the imprint, including date, is gone.
Different years have been assigned to the book according as the reader
has interpreted the historical references in it. The citations from
the “Interlude” which follow are taken from the publications of the
Percy Society, vol. xxii. issued in 1848. Among the characters is one
_Experyens_ (Experience), who represents a practical navigator who had
been a great traveller:—

“Right farr, Syr, I have ridden and gone, And seen straunge thynges
many one In Affrick, Europe, and Ynde; Both est and west I have ben
farr, North also, and seen the sowth sterr Bothe by see and lande.

And, apparently pointing to a map, _Experience_ proceeds:—

“There lyeth Iselonde where men do fyshe, But beyonde that so colde
it is No man may there abyde. This see is called the Great Occyan;
So great it is that never man Coulde tell it sith the worlde began
Tyll nowe within this xx. yere, Westewarde be founde new landes That
we never harde tell of before this By wrytynge nor other meanys.
Yet many nowe have ben there; And that contrey is so large of rome,
Muche lenger then all Crestendome, Without fable or gyle; For dyvers
maryners had it tryed, And sayled streyght by the coste syde Above
V. thousande myle! But what commodytes be wythin, No man can tell
nor well imagin. But yet not long ago Some men of this contrey went,
By the Kynge’s noble consent, It for to search to that entent, And
coude not be brought thereto; But they that were they venteres Have
cause to curse their maryners, Fals of promys, and dissemblers, That
falsly them betrayed, Which wold take no paine to sail farther Than
their own lyst and pleasure; Wherfor that vyage, and dyvers other Such
kaytyffes have destroyed. O what a thinge had be than Yf that they that
be Englyschemen Myght have ben furst of all That there shulde have
take possessyon, And made furst buyldynge and habytacion, A memory
perpetuall! And also what an honorable thynge Bothe to the realme, and
to the Kynge, To have had his domynyon extendynge There into so farr a
grounde, Whiche the noble Kynge of late memory, The most wyse prynce,
the VII. Herry, Causyd furst for to be founde, ...”

Percy, in his essay on the Origin of the English Stage, 1767, supposed
this play to have been written about the year 1510, from the following
lines which he referred to Columbus:—

“... Within this xx. yeer Westewarde be founde new landes.”

But Columbus is not named in the play, and the finding of America is
attributed to Americus Vespucius, whose earliest alleged voyage was in
1497:—

“But this newe lands founde lately, Ben callyd America, bycause only
Americus dyd furst them fynde.”

The date ascribed to the play by the writer of the memorandum in it,
1519, would seem to be not far from the truth. But the verses which
speak of the discovery made for the late king, Henry VII., principally
interest us here. They would seem to refer to the Cabots, who made
the only authentic Western discovery for England in that reign. The
whole poem has been reprinted by the Percy Society. See Winsor’s
_Halliwelliana_, p. 8, and references there. Mr. J. F. Nicholls, in his
_Life of Sebastian Cabot_, London, 1869, p. 91, prints these lines,
and thinks “that the Experyens herein depicted was none other than
Sebastian Cabot himself.”

[7] [A sketch of a portion of the North American coast is given in
another chapter. It was reproduced in Sprengel’s translation of Muñoz’s
_Geschichte der neuen Welt_, Weimar, 1795, and separately in his _Ueber
J. Ribero’s älteste weltcharte_, size 50 by 65 centimetres, and shows
the coast from Labrador to Magellan’s Straits. Cf. Humboldt’s _Examen
Critique_, iii. 184. It is also given in Lelewel’s Atlas; in Murphy’s
_Verrazzano_, p. 129; and in De Costa’s _Verrazano the Explorer_, p.
43. The original is at Weimar, with a _replica_ at Rome.—ED.]

[8] I might mention here an interesting map composed by the English
merchant, Robert Thorne, while residing in Seville in Spain, in 1527,
and sent, with a long discourse on cosmography, to Dr. Ley, English
ambassador to Charles V. The map is very rude, and was first published
with the discourse by Hakluyt in his little quarto in 1582. Along the
line of the coast of Labrador is a Latin inscription of which the
following is the English reading: “This land was first discovered
by the English.” Thorne was very urgent—as well in his letter to
Dr. Ley as in a letter to the king, Henry VIII., also published by
Hakluyt—that the English should engage in those maritime discoveries
to the west which the Spaniards and the Portuguese were monopolizing.

[9] In Ziegler’s original work he begins this sentence thus: “Petrus
Martyr mediolanensis in hispanicis navigationibus scribit, _Antoninum
quendam Cabotum_ solventem a Britannia,” etc. This clerical or
typographical error as to Cabot’s Christian name probably arose from
a misreading of Martyr’s language in Dec. iii. lib. 6: “Scrutatus
est eas _Sebastianus quidam Cabotus_.” Eden did not hesitate to
substitute Sebastian for Anthony. As a mystification concerning the
name Antoninum (or Anthony) Cabot, I will add that Mr. Brevoort has
called my attention to the following entry in _Letters and Papers,
Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII._, vol. i. pt. 1, p. 939, doc. 5639,
Nov. 27, 1514: “Patent denization to _Anthony Chabo_, surgeon, native
of Savoy,” with another entry showing that in 1512 an annuity of twenty
pounds was granted to him; and Mr. Brevoort asks the question if
Anthony could have been another son of Jean Cabot, arriving in England
later; and also whether the Cabots might not have come originally from
Savoy? [Ziegler’s title reads: _Syria, Palestina, Arabia, Ægyptus,
Schondia, Holmia_,—the section on Schondia, as he calls the north,
takes folios 85-138; and the last of the eight maps in the book is of
Schondia. See Harrisse’s _Biblio. Amer. Vetus_, no. 170; F. Muller’s
_Catalogue_, 1877, no. 3595. The Schondia section was reprinted in
Krantzius’s _Regnorum Aquilonarium_, etc., Frankfort, 1583. F. Muller’s
_Catalogue_, 1872, no. 844.—ED.]

[10] [It is also so drawn in Ruscelli’s map of 1544.—ED.]

[11] Ziegler’s book is rare and curious; he was a geographer of great
repute. Such books often serve to perpetuate references to more
important works, and to show the erroneous geographical opinions of the
period. A second edition, under a different title, was published at
the same place in 1536. See Harrisse’s _Biblio. Amer. Vetus_, pp. 290,
291, 350, and the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, pp. 106, 120, where will be
found a notice of Ziegler. Biddle, p. 31.

[12] _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 110.

[13] See _Année Véritable de la Naissance de Christophe Colomb_, p. 10,
n. 8.

[14] See also _Relationi del S. Pietro Martira Milanese, Della cose
notabili della provincia dell’ Egitto_, etc., by Carlo Passi, Venetia,
1564.

[15] In a recent letter from Mr. J. Carson Brevoort, the distinguished
bibliographer and historical scholar, of Brooklyn, N. Y.,—who has
kindly communicated for my use his abundant materials relating to the
Cabots, and has laid me under great obligations for aid in preparing
this paper,—he says he has been collating the first part of the
_Summario_ of 1534 with the Latin _Decades_ of Peter Martyr, and he
finds them to differ in a way that no mere translator would have
ventured to effect; that in one instance two books of the Decades are
condensed into a few lines, and the whole worked over as an author
only could do it. The Italian Summary closes at the end of the ninth
book of the third Decade. He thinks that Ramusio, with the edition of
1516 before him, would not have omitted the tenth book. Mr. Brevoort
therefore is led to believe that Martyr himself rewrote in 1515, in
Italian, the three Decades (the last book not having yet been written)
and sent the MS. to a friend in Italy, where it slumbered until 1534,
when it fell into the hands of Ramusio, who committed it to the press.
This is a curious question in bibliography.

It should be added here that the statements of Martyr included in
the Latin Decades of 1516 (afterward published in the entire work
of 1530) are so often referred to by the author, in the course of
his correspondence, that we are bound to accept that edition as the
genuine work. It was published during his lifetime, and received his
_imprimatur_.

[16] The figures of men and animals on the map are . I have
recently received from my friend M. Letort, of the National Library in
Paris, a more particular description of the legends of this map than
has hitherto been published.

[17] It is supposed that a new edition of this map was published in
1549, the year after Sebastian Cabot returned to England. The only
evidence of this is contained in a thick duodecimo volume first
published in 1594, at Herborn, in Nassau, edited by Nathan Chytræus,
entitled _Variorum in Europa Itinerum Deliciæ_,—a work consisting of
monumental and other inscriptions, antique legends, and curious bits
of antiquity in prose and verse, picked up by the diligent compiler
in almost every country in Europe. He was in England in 1565; and
apparently at Oxford he saw a document, “a geographical table,” under
which he found several inscriptions in not very elegant Latin, which
he copied and printed in his volume, filling twenty-two pages of the
book. They are wholly in Latin, and correspond substantially with
the Latin inscriptions on the Paris map described above. There is
this difference. The inscriptions here are but nineteen in number,
whereas on the Paris map there are twenty-two, five of them in Spanish
only. No. xviii., of Chytræus, is in the body only of the map, and
in Spanish; and No. xix. appears only in Spanish. In Chytræus each
inscription has a title prefixed, wanting, as a rule, on the Paris
map. There are some verbal variations in the text, owing probably to
the contingencies of transcription and of printing. In the legend, No.
xvii., which has the title, “Inscriptio sev titulus Auctoris,” the date
1549 is inserted as the year in which the map to which the inscriptions
belonged was composed, instead of 1544, as in the Paris map.

[18] I copy here this legend entire, in the original Spanish as on the
Paris map:—

“No. 8. Esta tierra fue descubierta por Ioan Caboto Veneciano, y
Sebastian Caboto su hijo, anno del nascimiento de nuestro Saluador Iesu
Christo de M.CCCC.XCIIII. a ueinte y quarto de Junio por la mannana,
a la qual pusieron nôbre prima tierra uista, y a una isla grâde que
esta par la dha tierra, le pusieron nōbre sant Ioan, por auer sido
descubierta el mismo dia lagente della andan uestidos depieles de
animales, usan en sus guerras arcos, y flechas, lancas, y dardos, y
unas porras de palo, y hondas. Es tierra muy steril, ay enella muchos
orsos plancos, y cieruos muy grâdes como cauallos, y otras muchas
animales, y semeiantemête ay pescado infinito, sollos, salmōes,
lenguados, muy grandes de uara enlargo y otras muchas diversidades de
pescados, y la mayor multitud dellos se dizen baccallaos, y asi mismo
ay en la dha tierra Halcones prietos como cueruos Aquillas, Perdices,
Pardillas, y otras muchas aues de diuersas maneras.”

In the Latin inscription we read that the discovery was made “hora 5,
sub diluculo;” that is, at the hour of five, at daybreak. The Spanish
simply says that the discovery was made in the morning.

[19] [We give reduced a part of the North American coast. Other
representations will be found in Stevens’s _Hist. and Geog. Notes_,
pl. 4; Kohl’s _Discovery of Maine_, p. 358; Jurien de la Gravière’s
_Les Marins du XV^e et du XVI^e siècle_, Paris, 1879, with an essay on
the map,—papers originally printed in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_,
1876; Nicholl’s _Life of S. Cabot_, but inaccurate in the names;
_Hist. Mag._, March, 1868, in connection with Mr. Brevoort’s paper; F.
Kidder’s _Discovery of North America by John Cabot_; Bryant and Gay’s
_United States_, i. 193. Also in Augusto Zeri’s _Giovanni e. Sebastiano
Caboto_, Estratto dalla Rivista Marittima, Marzo, Roma, 1881. The whole
of the map is given, but on a much reduced scale, in Judge Daly’s
_Early History of Cartography_, N. Y., 1879.—ED.]

[20] The following extract of a letter from Sebastian Cabot to the
Emperor Charles V., dated London, Nov. 15, 1554, speaks of a sea-chart
intended for his Majesty, and refers also to the subject of the
variation of the needle, which interested Cabot in an especial manner:—

“With respect to laying down the position of the coast of Guinea
conformably with the variation made by the needle with the pole, if the
King of Portugal falls into an error, I give your Majesty a remedy.

“The same Francisco de Urista, whom I have named before, takes with
him to show to your Majesty two figures which are: a mappe monde
divided by the equator, from which your Majesty can see the causes of
the variation of the needle, and the reasons why it moves at one time
towards the north, at another towards the south pole; the second figure
shows how to take the longitude on whatever parallel a man happens to
be. The results of both these the said F. de U. will relate to your
Majesty as I have here instructed him fully about them, and as he is
himself skilled in the art of navigation. In regard to the sea-chart
(?) which the said F. de U. has, I have written to your Majesty before
about it, that it is of importance to your service, and also [have
written] about a relation in my own handwriting to Juan Esquefe, your
ambassador, to send it to your Majesty. From what I am told, it is in
the possession of the Secretary Eraso. To it I refer you, and I assert
that the chart will be of great service in reference to the division
line agreed upon between the royal crown of Spain and Portugal for the
reasons set forth in my relation.

“I beg you to receive my good will, etc. (Would come in person but
am ill, etc.).”

(_Col. de Doc. Ined_. Madrid, 1843, iii. 512.) Andrés Garcia de
Céspedes, in his _Regimiento de Navigation_, etc., 1606, speaking of
the longitude, p. 137, probably alludes to this very map: “Sebastian
Cabott de nacion Inglés, Pilóto bien conocido, in un Mapa que dio al
Rey de Castilla,” etc.

[21] Cf. the learned dissertations on this map, by Dr. Kohl and M.
D’Avezac, in _Doc. Hist. of Maine_, i. 358-77, 506, 507; and Mr.
Major’s review of the whole question in the _Archæologia_, xliii.
17-42, in 1870.

[Reference may also be made to D’Avezac’s paper in the _Bulletin de
la Société de Géographie_, 4th ser., iv. 266; Asher’s appendix to his
_Henry Hudson_, p. 260; and papers by Mr. Deane himself in _Amer.
Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1867, _Historical Magazine_, November, 1866,
p. 353; and his note in Hakluyt’s _Westerne Planting_, p. 225. Cf.
also Kohl’s _Descriptive Catalogue of those Maps relating to America,
mentioned in Hakluyt’s Third Volume_, p. 11.—ED.]

[22] The geographical designation here employed has been thought by
some to be very indefinite, inasmuch as the Spaniards, who discovered
Florida, subsequently gave that name to the whole country northward
and westward of the territory now bearing that name; but it must be
remembered that that designation was not accepted by geographers of
other nations. After the voyages of Verrazano and Cartier the name “La
Nouvelle France” was applied by French geographers to the territory as
far down as 40° N., and the name was sometimes applied to the whole of
North America. The maps of the Italian geographer, Gastaldi, who made
maps for Ramusio’s third volume, and of Ruscelli, his pupil, confined
Florida to more southern limits; and so did Sebastian Cabot himself,
if the map of 1544 was made by him. Indeed, in the conversation of
these Italian _savans_ at the house of Fracastor, that geographical
status was assumed; that is to say, the country of Cabot’s landfall,
and the land by which he sailed north and south, was not understood
to be Florida, for the statement is that “he sailed down the coast by
that land toward the equinoctial, and came to that part of this firm
land which is now called Florida.” Of course the point which he reached
is very indefinite. Peter Martyr had said, thirty-five years before,
that Cabot told him that he went south _almost_ to the latitude of the
strait of Gibraltar, which is in 36° N. Nobody knows whether these two
accounts relate to the same voyage. That to which the conversation
refers is assumed by the narrator to be the voyage of discovery.
Indeed, for two hundred years and more there was no suspicion that a
voyage by the Cabots followed immediately the voyage of discovery;
though some incidents are related which may have taken place in a
subsequent voyage, and others which never took place at all. Modern
critics, who accept the above story as to the latitude reached at the
south, generally agree that it was only on the second voyage that this
was accomplished.

[23] The conversation at Caphi, at the house of Fracastor, who was a
friend of Ramusio, took place a short time only before its publication.
Ramusio says, in his report, “a few months ago.” We do not know
precisely when he wrote his report, but there is a reference in it
to a book of Jacob Tevius, published in 1548. As I have said above,
we do not know the year of the interview with Cabot at Seville. The
narrator says that it was “some years ago,” and I should infer that
it was some years after Cabot’s return in August, 1530, from the La
Plata expedition, to which Cabot in the interview refers. He also
mentions that he is growing old, and retiring from active duties. In
1540 he would probably have been approaching seventy years of age,
and this date may safely be assumed as not far from the time when the
conversation took place. M. D’Avezac, in _Revue Crit._, v. 265, gives
1544 or 1545 as the probable date.

To the publication of this report relating to Cabot, Hakluyt, in 1589,
prefixed the name of Galeacius Butrigarius, the Pope’s legate in Spain,
as the distinguished person who reported the conversation with Cabot;
and ever since that time, down to the publication of Biddle’s _Memoir
of Sebastian Cabot_, in 1831, the statement passed without question.
Biddle, who regarded the matter as of little moment, said there was no
authority for that name in Ramusio, who says himself that he withholds
it from motives of delicacy; but Biddle did not say, perhaps he did
not observe, that Hakluyt got the name from Eden (_Decades_, _f._ 252,
_verso_), who made the original blunder. Martyr, in the beginning of
his second Decade, written in 1515, speaks of knowing Butrigarius of
Bologna, when the latter was of the Pope’s embassy in Spain; and I find
that he died in 1518, in the forty-third year of his age (see Zedler’s
_Universal Lexikon_, v. 4, Halle, 1733). M. D’Avezac had noted, as
early as 1869, that Butrigarius had died thirty years before the
conversation took place at the house of Fracastor, and also that the
editor of Ramusio, Tomaso Giunti, had added the word Mantuan to this
anonymous person’s name; and now, through the researches instituted
by Charles Bullo and by the mediation of the superintendent of the
archives of the state at Venice, it is ascertained that this unknown
person was Gian Giacomo Bardolo, of Mantua. See _Intorno a Giovanni
Caboto_, etc., by Cornelio Desimoni, Genova, 1881, pp. 26, 27; also, in
_Atti_, vol. xv., of the Società ligure di storia patria.

[24] Fracastor died Aug. 8, 1553, over seventy years of age. He was a
maker of globes. Humphrey Gilbert says that he was a traveller in the
northern parts of America. (Kohl, p. 229; Hakluyt, 1589, p. 602).

[25] Ramusio, ii. 4; Hakluyt, 1589, p. 513.

[26] Hakluyt, 1589, p. 602.

[27] Eden’s _Decades_, fol. 318, corrected by the original. [The first
edition of Gomara is a rare book, and a copy has been lately priced by
Quaritch at £36. It proved to be one of the most popular of all the
books of that century on the New World; and, as we count, including
varieties of titles, there were more than a score of editions in fifty
years, so that his statements became widely known. There were seven
such issues in Spanish, either in Spain or in Flanders, in two years,
when the demand for it seems to have failed in its original tongue,
and was transferred to Italy, where at Rome and Venice there were six
editions in twenty years (1556 to 1576). Sabin says eighteen in that
interval, but I fail to find them. There was a seventh near the end
of the century (1599). In 1568 or 1569 there seem to have been three
issues of the first French translation, and six others followed,
from 1577 to 1597. These statements are based chiefly on the lists
of editions given in Sabin, vii. 306 (said to have been drawn up by
Mr. Brevoort); in the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, i. 169; and Leclerc’s
_Bibliotheca Americana_, No. 143.—ED.]

[28] [See a later Editorial note on “The earliest English publications
on America.”—ED.]

[29] _Doc. Hist. of Maine_, i. 206.

[30] _Mem. of Sebastian Cabot_, 110-119.

[31] Vol. iii. p. 4, 1556.

[32] _Divers Voyages_, Hakluyt Soc., pp. 50, 51.

[33] _Doc. Hist. of Maine_, i. 208-210.

[34] Mr. Brevoort has submitted some notes to my attention, on this
voyage. Rejecting the year 1516-17 as impracticable, he adopts an
earlier date, before Cabot had left England, and finds some authority
for it in a book of George Beste, London, 1578, on the three voyages
of Frobisher, hereafter to be mentioned. The writer there gives 1508
as the year of Sebastian Cabot’s discovery of North America, probably
never having heard of any previous voyages. Mr. Brevoort thinks he had
authority for a voyage of Cabot about the year named. Thomas Pert, or
Spert, against whom the charge of “faint heart” is alleged by Eden, is
mentioned in vol. i. of _Letters and Papers Foreign and Domestic, Henry
VIII._, 1512, C. 1514, as master of the “Mary Rose,” and of the “Great
Harry.” In 1514 he is pensioned, and in 1517 is placed on shore duty.
There is no report of him in 1516, but as he was a veteran in 1514 it
is hardly probable that he would have been on a voyage of discovery
in 1516. He is usually mentioned as Thomas Spert; only once is he
called Pert. As evidence that an expedition left England on a voyage
of discovery some time during the last years of Henry VII., or during
the early years of his successor, the _Interlude of the Four Elements_,
of uncertain date, but probably written before 1519, cited above, is
adduced as showing that the incident related occurred “not long ago.”
And certain verses which speak of the disobedience of the mariners,
which put an end to the voyage, and to the hopes of the projector,
afford the earliest reference to the mutiny story. Mr. Brevoort is of
opinion that Eden’s vague reference to an event occurring in the reign
of Henry VIII., “about the same year of his reign,” was intended to
place it in the 8th year of the century. But that would bring it within
the reign of Henry VII.

[35] _Mem. of Sebastian Cabot_, pp. 62-66.

[36] Dedication of the book, folios 1, 2; _Biddle_, pp. 64, 65.

[37] Hakluyt’s _Divers Voyages_, 1582.

[38] He printed it on folios 316, and 317 of his _Decades_. See the
inscription in Latin in a work already cited, by Nathan Chytræus, pp.
779-781.

[39] See vol. iii, 807, and iv. 1812. See _Doc. Hist. of Maine_, ii.
224.

[40] Appendix to his _Mem. of Sebastian Cabot_. Mr. Biddle is said to
have paid £500 for the picture.

[41] See their _Proceedings_, ii. 101. 111.

[42] No. 103 in the Catalogue of its gallery. A copy of this picture,
painted in the year 1763, now hangs in the Sala della Scudo, in the
ducal palace in Venice, with a long Latin inscription composed probably
at the time the copy was made. _Notes and Queries_, 2d ser. vol. v. p.
2.

[43] See _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ Jan. 1865, pp. 91-96. _Hist. Mag._
Nov. 1869, pp. 306, 307.

[44] See the Appendix to the _Historical View of the progress of
Discovery on the more Northern Coasts of America_, by Patrick Fraser
Tytler, Esq.

[45] _Examen Crit._ iv. 232.

[46] iv. 1177.

[47] I might mention here that an English version of this book, made by
Thomas Hacket, was published in England in 1568, dedicated to Sir Henry
Sidney. The passage in question occurs in fol. 122 H. C. _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, p. 241. [This version is perhaps rarer than the two French
editions (Paris and Anvers) of 1558, and the Italian of 1561, and is
worth ten guineas or thereabout. A recent French catalogue prices the
original Paris edition at about the same sum. It has been recently,
1878, reprinted in Paris with notes by Paul Gaffarel.—ED.]

[48] _Memoir of Sebastian Cabot_, p. 89.

[49] See _La Historia General de las Indias_, 1554, cap. xxxix, fol. 31.

[50] [_Huth Catalogue_, ii. 572, _Brinley Catalogue_, i. no. 29. This
translation is also contained in J. S. Clarke’s _Progress of Maritime
Discovery_, London, 1803, Appendix. The _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, i.
224, says an English translation was printed in the _Oxford Collection
of Voyages_, ii.—ED.]

[51] Pages 87, 88.

[52] Or inlet.

[53] Under the year 1526 Galvano says: “In the year 1526 there went
out of Sevill one Sebastian Cabot, a Venetian, being chief Pilote to
the emperor,” etc. There is added to the old English version, not in
the Portuguese text, after “a Venetian,”—“by his father, but born at
Bristol in England.” Hakluyt Society’s volume, p. 169.

[54] Mr. J. Winter Jones, the editor of the _Divers Voyages_ for the
Hakluyt Society, says, concerning the original French edition of
this work, that it “is not known to exist, and it is doubtful if it
ever was printed.” Hakluyt, however, in his “Discourse on Westerne
Planting,” published as vol. ii., _Doc. Hist. of Maine_, p. 20, says
it is “extant in print, both in French and English”. [Sparks, in his
_Life of Ribault_, p. 147, says that he cannot find that the original
French was ever published; but Gaffarel, _Floride Francaise_, says it
was published in London, 1563, as _Histoire de l’Expédition Francaise
en Floride_, and soon became scarce.—ED.]

[55] Hakluyt Society’s _Divers Voyages_, p. 92.

[56] As the language of Hacket’s English version of Ribault was
accessible to me only through Richard Hakluyt’s _Divers Voyages_, 1582,
in which he reprinted it, I had an ungenerous suspicion that he might
have substituted that date for another, he having placed the year
1498 in the margin of the page on which he first prints the alleged
extract from Fabian. The only known copy of Hacket’s translation is
in the British Museum, and on an appeal to that, through a transcript
of it taken for Mr. John Carter-Brown, I find Ribault’s date to be
1498. [Hacket’s version as given by Hakluyt is also reprinted in B. F.
French’s _Hist. Coll. of Louisiana and Florida_, ii. 159.—ED.]

[57] [Ortelius was not far from thirty years old, when Sebastian
Cabot died. He had been in England, and possibly had seen the old
navigator. Felix Van Hulst’s account of Ortelius was published in a
second edition at Liege in 1846. Ortelius was the first to collect
contemporary maps and combine them into a collection, which became
the precursor of the modern atlas. His learning and integrity, with
a discrimination that kept his judgment careful, has made his book
valuable as a trustworthy record of the best geographical knowledge
of his time. His position at Antwerp was favorable for broadening his
research, and a disposition to better each succeeding issue, in which
he was not hampered by deficiency of pecuniary resources, served to
spread his work widely. The first Latin edition of 1570 was followed
by others in that language, and in Dutch, German, French, and Italian,
with an ever-increasing number of maps, and recasting of old ones.
These editions, including epitomes, numbered at least twenty-six, down
to 1606, when it was for the first time put into English, followed by
an epitome in the same language, with smaller maps, in 1610. There were
a few editions on the continent during the rest of that century (the
latest we note is an Italian one in 1697), but other geographers with
their new knowledge were then filling the field.—ED.]

[58] See Biddle’s _Cabot_, p. 56.

[59] _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, p. 255.

[60] _The Three Voyages of Martin Frobisher_, Hakluyt Soc. 1867, p. 22.
[This putting forth of energy by the English at this time in pursuit of
maritime discovery is reflected in the larger production of the English
press in this direction, as shown in a later Editorial note.—ED.]

[61] Biddle’s _Cabot_, p. 291.

[62] Vol. iii, p. 4.

[63] See also Hakluyt, 1589, p. 602.

[64] Richard Eden died about this time, perhaps in the previous year.
He left among his papers a translation, made “in the year of our
Lord, 1576,” and from the Latin of Lewis Vartomannus, which Willes
includes in his own edition. The last book published by Eden was an
English translation from the Latin of a book on navigation, by Joannes
Taisnierus, public professor in Rome and of several universities in
Italy. It bears no date, but it is supposed to have been issued in
1576 or 1577. See _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, pt. 1. p. 262, which puts
its date 1576; but it is given 1579 in Markham’s _Davis’s Voyages_. In
the Epistle Dedicatory, Eden speaks of attending “the good old man,”
Sebastian Cabot, “on his death-bed,” and listening to his flighty
utterances about a divine revelation of a new method for finding the
longitude. See Biddle, pp. 222, 223. Eden was also engaged in other
literary enterprises not mentioned by me.

[65] Willes’s _History of Travayle_, etc., fol. 232, 233; Biddle’s
_Cabot_, p. 292; Hakluyt, 1589, pp. 610-616.

[66] Kohl, p. 364.

[67] I quote from Biddle’s _Cabot_, p. 27; but Brunet, iii. 1945, and
_Supplement_, i. 1129, notice an edition in 1575, 3 vol. folio. See
also Stevens’s _Bibliotheca Historica_, 1870. p. 121.

[68] Tom. ii. p. 2175.

[69] Biddle, p. 28.

[70] [See _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, pt. i. p. 292, which shows there
were two editions the same year. The book is rare, and was priced by
Leclerc in 1878 at 650 francs. Stevens, _Hist. Coll._ i. 135, says he
has seen but two copies of the map which should accompany the book.
This is a folded woodcut, which in the main is a reduced copy of the
map in Ortelius’s first edition. The map is in the Harvard College
copy. The _Huth Catalogue_, iv. 1169, shows the map.—ED.]

[71] Hakluyt, in a _Discourse on Westerne Planting_, written in 1584,
which was printed for the first time by the Maine Hist. Soc. in 1877,
cites this book of Popellinière, and gives an English version from it
of the conversation in Ramusio. Hakluyt is here asserting the Queen
of England’s title to all the territory “from Florida to the Circle
Arctic,” and he enlarges upon the exploits of Sebastian Cabot, on which
the claim of England is based.

[72] _Memoir of Sebastian Cabot_, pp. 42-47.

[73] [They were subsequently reprinted in Rymer’s _Fœdera_, in
Chalmers’s and Hazard’s _Hist. Coll._ and in the Hakluyt Society’s ed.
of the _Divers Voyages_.—ED.]

[74] In the _Proceedings_ of the American Antiquarian Society for
October, 1881, Mr. George Dexter has traced the publication of this
alleged extract from Fabian to an earlier date than had usually
been assigned to it. It was published by Stow, in his _Annals_, in
1580, together with the paragraph relating to the savage men said
to have been brought home by Sebastian Cabot, and also printed by
Hakluyt in 1582. They were also printed in the second edition of
Holinshed, 1586-87. The Cotton manuscript, Vitellius, A. xvi., has been
re-examined, and proves not to be a Fabian. Mr. Dexter has printed the
two extracts from it, the latter, relating to the “savage men,” for
the first time. In the Cotton collection, Nero, C. xi., is a genuine
Fabian, but it contains nothing about Cabot. The conclusion to which I
have arrived from this examination by Mr. Dexter is, that the Vitellius
manuscript was not the original used by Stow and Hakluyt. They give
facts and details not to be found in that manuscript; and this remark
will particularly apply to the extract relating to the three savage
men, which in the Vitellius is brief and meagre. Both Stow and Hakluyt
must have used a genuine Fabian manuscript yet to be discovered. For
though neither would probably hesitate to add or change a name or a
date, if he thought he had sufficient authority for so doing, they
would not manufacture a narrative.

As regards the savage men referred to, Stow, under the date of
1502, says they were that year presented to the King, yet that they
were brought over by Sebastian Cabot in 1498, giving Fabian as his
authority. Hakluyt, in his quarto of 1582, repeats the same story, on
the same authority; yet in his folio of 1589 he changes the date in
his heading as to the year of their presentation to the King, making
it conform to the year in which they were brought over. Mr. Biddle
(_Memoir of Sebastian Cabot_, pp. 230, 231) has a labored argument to
show that the men were not brought over by Cabot, but by some one else,
in the year they were presented to the King, 1502, reflecting severely
on Hakluyt for changing this last date. It is not at all probable that
the name of either John Cabot or Sebastian Cabot was given in the
original manuscript used by Stow and Hakluyt. I will add that George
Beste, in his work on the voyages of Frobisher, cited above, says that
Sebastian Cabot brought home “sundry of the people” of the country
he visited, “and many other things, in token of possession taken,”
very oddly assigning the voyage, which he regarded as the voyage of
discovery, to the year 1508.

[75] I had called attention to this fact in some notes on Cabot’s
map in the _Proceedings_ of the Am. Antiq. Soc. for April, 1867, and
Dr. Kohl, p. 371, says that Locke is supposed to have copied the
inscription from a map of Cabot in England. The fact must have been
inscribed on some other map of Cabot than the recently recovered one in
Paris, for that certainly does not bear out the conjecture.

[76] Hakluyt, 1589, p. 680.

[77] Hakluyt, iii. 173.

[78] In the year 1584 Richard Hakluyt, at the request of Sir
Walter Raleigh, wrote a _Discourse on Westerne Planting_,—to which I
have already made a brief reference,—supposed to embody the opinions
of the statesmen of England at that period on the colonization of
North America. It is a remarkable paper, intended for the eye of the
Queen. After giving all the reasons why England should enter upon
this work speedily, he presents, in chapter xviii. “the Queen of
England’s title to all the West Indies, or at least to as much as is
from Florida to the circle Arctic,” as being “more lawful and right
than the Spaniards’, or any other Christian princes’;” and the claim
is based mainly on the discovery by Sebastian Cabot, in the year 1496,
as related in the first volume of Ramusio, which is cited. Hakluyt is
anxious to make it appear that Cabot discovered North America before
Columbus discovered the firm land of the Indies; yea, more than a year
before, and he recurs more than once to this date as showing the fact.
Indeed, he once goes so far as to cite the date on Clement Adams’s
map, 1494, as carrying the claim yet farther back. [The history of
this manuscript, published as vol. ii. of the _Documentary History of
Maine_, is traced in an Editorial note to Dr. De Costa’s chapter.—ED.]

[79] _Memoir of S. Cabot_, pp. 30, 178-180.

[80] _Ibid._ p. 31.

[81] This book of Mr. Biddle was published in London in two editions,
1831 and 1832, and in the United States, 1831, all without the name of
the author, an eminent jurist and statesman of Pittsburg, Penn., who
was born in 1795, and died in 1847. It is a work of great value for its
authorities, and displays much critical talent; and though composed
with little system and with a strong bias in favor of Sebastian Cabot,
whom the author makes his hero, it may be regarded as the best review
of the history of maritime discovery relating to the period of which he
treats, that had appeared.

[The most important notice of Mr. Biddle’s book occurred in Tytler’s
_Historical View of the Progress of Discovery on the more Northern
Coasts of America_, Biddle’s reflections upon Hakluyt being the
particular occasion of a vindication of that collector. George S.
Hillard also reviewed Biddle in the _North American Review_, xxxiv.
405, and it elicited other essays in contemporary journals. It supplied
largely the material for Hayward’s _Life of Cabot_ in Sparks’s
_American Biography_. The most recent treatment of the subject is in
a condensed and somewhat enthusiastic _Remarkable Life, Adventures
and Discoveries of Sebastian Cabot_, by J. F. Nicholls, the public
librarian of Bristol, London, 1869. This writer ascribes the chief
glory to Sebastian and not to the father, and rather grandly lauds
his achievements. This provoked Henry Stevens to putting a note in
his _Bibliotheca Historica_, 1870, no. 2519, in vindication of John
Cabot’s greater claim,—a view he again emphasized in a little tract,
with the expressive mathematical title, _Sebastian Cabot-John Cabot =
O_: Boston, 1870. Some of the later information has been embodied by
Bancroft in a paper on Cabot in the _New American Cyclopædia_, which
he has used again in vol. i. of his Centenary Ed. _History of the
United States_. A very good resumé of existing knowledge as it stood
forty-five years ago, is given in Conway Robinson’s _Discoveries in the
West and Voyages along the Atlantic Coast_, Richmond, 1848. A somewhat
similar treatment is given in Peschel’s _Geschichte des Zeitalters
der Entdeckungen_, book ii., ch. 6, and notice may also be taken of
the same author’s _Geschichte der Erdkunde_, vol. iv. Fox Bourne, in
his _English Seamen under the Tudors_, gives a summary of the Cabots’
career as explorers, and in his _English Merchants_ he treats of their
relation to British commerce and the enterprise of Bristol. Mr. Travers
Twiss communicated some papers on the relative influence of Columbus
and Cabot on American Discovery to the _Nautical Magazine_, July and
August, 1876; and a review of a somewhat similar kind will be found in
Admiral Jurien de la Gravière’s _Les Marins du xv^e et xvi^e Siècles_,
composed of papers which had originally appeared in the _Revue des deux
Mondes_, 1876, _et seq._ Among other views, reference may be made to
F. von Hellward’s _Sebastian Cabot_, 43 pp.; Malte-Brun’s _Annales des
Voyages_, xcix., p. 39.—ED.]

[82] Page 126.

[83] Vol. iii. p. 807.

[84] See D’Avezac in the _Bulletin de la Soc. Géog._, Quar. Ser., xvi.
272, 273.

[85] [The titles of these works in full, with some further account of
the instrumentality of Hakluyt in advancing discovery, are given in
Dr. De Costa’s chapter on “Norumbega,” and in the notes accompanying
it.—ED.]

[86] M. D’Avezac, in the _Bulletin de la Soc. Géog._, Quar. Ser., xiv.,
271, 272, 1857, and Dr. Asher in his _Henry Hudson_ (Hakluyt Soc.),
pp. lxviii, 261, 1860, both express the opinion that Clement Adams
deliberately altered the date from 1494 to 1497, the latter being the
date copied by Hakluyt into his extract from Adams’s map, as published
in the third volume of his fol. of 1600; neither of these writers being
aware of the fact that in Hakluyt’s first citation from Adams’s map, in
his folio of 1589, the date 1494 was given. All we know of Adams’s map
is derived from Hakluyt; and as an additional evidence that the extract
cited from it bore the date 1494, we have Hakluyt’s previous statement,
in his _Discourse on Westerne Planting_, cited above, where this fact
is clearly affirmed.

In the _Proceedings_ of the Am. Antiq. Soc. for April, 1867, I called
attention, in some notes on Cabot’s map, to the inadvertences of
these distinguished historians; and, in a later paper by M. D’Avezac,
printed in the _Bulletin de la Soc. Géog._, in Paris for 1869, and
translated in the _Doc. Hist. of Maine_, i. 506, 507, he revises his
opinion, and affirms his belief that the change of date from 1494,
in Hakluyt’s first folio, to 1497 in that of 1600 was caused by a
typographical error. [D’Avezac’s paper was entitled: _Les navigations
Terre-neuviennes de Jean et Sébastien Cabot—Lettre au Révérend Leonard
Woods_: and was also printed separately in Paris.—ED.]

[87] [See the note on Molyneaux’s map, with a sketch of it, appended to
the chapter on “Norumbega.”—ED.]

[88] It has been suggested that Hakluyt had access to Cabot’s papers
in possession of William Worthington, and that they revealed the true
date. It is a pity he did not “make note of it” among his authorities.
See R. H. Major’s _True Date of the English Discovery_, etc., London,
1870, originally printed in the _Archæologia_, xliii, 17.

The mention of the name of William Worthington, against whom Mr. Biddle
has emphasized a suspicion of unjust dealing with Sebastian Cabot,
reminds me of a remark of M. D’Avezac in speaking of the marriage
of Cabot to Catherine Medrano,—that he suspected that Worthington,
instead of being hostile to Cabot, was, on the contrary, bound to him
by family ties. See _Revue Critique_, v. 268, 269.

[89] Page 511.

[90] Page 128.

[91] Mr. Major concludes his paper by producing incontestable evidence
from the recently published Venetian and Spanish Calendars, to be
adduced farther on, that the true date of discovery was 1497.

[92] See a more full analysis of this subject in _Proceedings_ of the
Am. Antiq. Soc. for April, 1867.

[93] See vol. i. 226, 274; ii. 243, 267; iii. 10; cf. Biddle, 184-187,
311, who doubts as to Cabot’s appointment as “grand pilot,” as asserted
by Hakluyt. [Davis, in his _World’s Hydrographical Descriptions_, does
not give him any official title in 1595. “Sebastian Gabota, an expert
pilot, and a man reported of speciall judgment, who being that wayes
imployed returned without successe.” _Davis’s Voyages_ (Hakluyt Soc.),
p. 195.—ED.]

[94] The Legend no. xvii. of the map is copied from Chytræus into the
text of the _Tabularum Geog. Contractatrum_ of Peter Bertius, published
in Latin and in French. In the Latin edition of 1602 or 1603, the
second edition, the Legend is given on page 627, and in the French of
1617 on page 777. The text is ascribed to Jodocus Hondius, who died in
1612, says Lelewel, in his _Géographie du Moyen Age_. (_Letter of J.
Carson Brevoort._)

[95] Among the many works whose publication was inspired by Hakluyt,
was the issue in 1612 of an English version of the eight _Decades_
of Peter Martyr, translated by Michael Locke, thus laying before
the English reader whatever that industrious chronicler had written
concerning Sebastian Cabot. The first three Decades, as we have already
seen, had been translated by Richard Eden, many years before, and
those were now adopted by Locke into his completed version; the work
was entitled _De Novo Orbe, or the History of the West Indies_, etc.,
London, 1612. It contained a Latin dedication to Sir Julius Cæsar,
and an address in English to the reader. The same sheets were also
issued with another titlepage without date, and omitting the Latin
dedication, and also again in 1628 with a new title, calling the book
a second edition. [Copies of either issue are worth from £5 to £10,
and even more. Fifty years ago Rich (1832, no. 130) priced one at £1
16_s._ The text was reprinted in the supplement to the 1809 edition of
Hakluyt.—ED.]

Purchas has several notices of the Cabots taken from Hakluyt
principally, hereafter the great authority cited, and from Ramusio.
His is the earliest mention made, within my knowledge, of Sebastian
Cabot’s picture in Whitehall gallery, but he speaks of it as though it
were displayed on Clement Adams’s map hanging there. He probably never
took the trouble to visit the gallery himself, but wrote from wrong
information.

[Purchas’s _Pilgrimage_ gave his own form and language to the accounts
of the voyages which he collected, and those in his eighth and
ninth book concern America. It was published in 1613, when he was
thirty-six years old. There was a second edition in 1614, and a third
with additions in 1617, the year after Purchas inherited Hakluyt’s
manuscripts. He now set about his greater work,—_Hakluytus Posthumus,
or Purchas, his Pilgrimes_,—in which he changed his method, and
preserved the language of the narratives, which he brought together.
This was published in four volumes (part of the third and all of the
fourth volume pertaining to America), in 1625; and the next year a
new edition of his first work was brought out, which has ever since
constituted the fifth volume of the entire work. The set has nearly or
quite quadrupled in value during the last fifty and sixty years, and
superior copies are now worth £100; such a copy however must contain
the original engraved frontispiece with its little map of the world,
which is seldom found, and “Hondius his Map of the World,” which is
rarer still, on page 95, where ordinary copies show a reduplication
merely of the map properly belonging on page 115. Mr. Deane owns
Thomas Prince’s copy of the American portions, which are enriched with
Prince’s notes. Samuel Sewall’s copy is in Harvard College Library.
Purchas survived the publication but two years, and died in 1628.
His service to the cause in which he and Hakluyt were so conspicuous
workers, was great, but is not generally accounted as equal to that of
the elder chronicler. See Clarke’s _Maritime Discovery_, i. xiii., and
the references in Allibone’s _Dictionary_. Bohn’s Lowndes p. 2010, is
useful in determining the collation, which is confused.—ED.]

Bacon, in his _Life of Henry VII._ published in 1622, notices the
voyage of Sebastian Cabot, in which North America was discovered; but
mentioning no year implies that it took place in 1498. His principal
authority seems to have been Stowe’s _Chronicle_.

A valuable work was published at Madrid in 1629, by Pinello D. Ant. de
Leon, entitled an _Epitome de la bibliotheca oriental i occidental,
nautica i geographica_, etc. of which a second edition, edited by De
Barcia, was published in 1737-38. Particular mention is made in it
of the several editions of the writings of Peter Martyr, though the
information is not always correct. He says that Juan Pablo Martyr Rizo,
a descendant of Peter Martyr, had a manuscript translation in Spanish
of the Decades for printing, which we may well believe never appeared.

[96] In the _Foreign and Domestic Calendars of Henry VIII._, ii. pt.
ii. p. 1576, Sebastian Talbot (Cabot) is named as receiving twenty
shillings, in May, 1512, “for making a card of Gascoigne and Guyon.” He
left soon after for Spain.

[97] Dec. i. p. 254, Madrid, 1730; Biddle, p. 98.

[98] Navarrete, _Historica Nautica_, p. 138.

[99] Page 119.

[100] D’Avezac, in _Revue Critique_, v. 265.

[101] Herrera, Dec. ii. p. 18.

[102] Navarrete, _Coll._ iii. 319.

[103] Navarrete, _Bibl. Maritima_, tome ii. pp. 697-700; Herrera, Dec.
ii. p. 70; _Venetian Calendar_, vol. ii. no. 607.

[104] Herrera, Dec. ii. p. 226; Cf. Biddle, p. 121.

[105] Gomara, cap. xcix. Navarrete, _Coll._ iv. 339; _Bibl. Maritima_,
as above. Cf. Biddle, pp. 122, 123.

[106] Biddle’s _Cabot_, pp. 123-128, where will be found a good summary
of these events, with the original authorities cited; with which cf.
Peter Martyr, Dec. vii. cap. 6; Navarrete, _Bibl. Maritima_, as above.

[107] _Bibl. Maritima_, as above.

[108] Navarrete, _Bibl. Maritima_, ii. 697-700; Ibid. _Coll._ v. 333;
Herrera, Dec. iv. pp. 168, 169, 214; D’Avezac, _Bulletin Soc. Géog._
Quart. Ser. xiv. 268.

[109] Navarrete, _Nautica_, pp. 135, 136, 155.

[110] _Viage del Sutil y Mexicana_, in 1792; Madrid, 1802, Introduction
(by Don M. F. Navarrete, then a young man), p. xlii.

[111] Oviedo, _Historia general y natural de las Indias_, ii. p. 169,
1852.

[112] In a notice of the settlement of the estate of Sir Thomas Lovell,
who died May 25, 1524, among the debts unpaid and now, February
18, discharged, was one to John Goderyk of Cornwall, draper, for
conducting Sebastyan Cabot, master of the pilots in Spain, to London,
at testator’s request, 43_s._ 4_d._—_Letters and Papers_, Henry VIII.,
vol. iv. pt. i. p. 154.

[113] _Venetian Calendars_, vol. iii., nos. 557, 558, 589, 607, 634,
669, 670, 710, 1115; V. 711; _Foreign_, under date Sept. 12, 1551;
Hardy’s _Report upon Venetian Calendars_, pp. 7, 8.

[114] Strype, _Eccl. Mem_. Oxford, 1822, vol. ii. pt. i. p. 296;
Harleian MSS., quoted by Biddle, p. 175, where the story is told in
a letter dated April 21, 1550, from the Council to Sir Philip Hoby,
resident minister in Flanders. Bancroft, _American Cyclopædia_, iii.
530.

[115] Biddle, pp. 187, 217, 219; Rymer’s _Fœdera_, xv. 427, 466;
Bancroft, as above.

[116] [It is well known that in commemoration of the English discovery,
_Cabotia_ a has been urged as a name for North America; but if
_Sebastia_, urged by William Doyle in his _Acc. of the British Dominion
beyond the Atlantic_, 1770, had been adopted, we should have had a
misapplication, quite mating the mishap which gave the name of America
to the western hemisphere.—ED.]

[117] _Venetian Calendars_, vol. i. no. 453; D’Avezac, _Doc. Hist.
Maine_, i. 504, 505; S. Romanin, _Storia Documentata_, iv. 453.

[118] Mr. J. F. Nichols, in his _Life of Sebastian Cabot_, pp. 20, 21,
appears to misapprehend the terms of this privilege of naturalization,
supposing it was a grant of citizenship for fifteen years to come,
and not on account of fifteen years’ residence already passed. The
memorandum reads: “Quod fiat privilegium civilitatis de intus et extra
Joani Caboto per habitationem annorum xv. juxta consuetum,”—“That a
privilege of citizenship, within and without, be made for John Cabot,
as usual, _on account_ of a residence of fifteen years.” That such is
the proper interpretation of the grant is shown by the full document
itself, issued four years previously to another person, and referred
to in the Register, where the privilege to John Cabot is recorded. The
document recites that “Whereas, whoever shall have dwelt continuously
in Venice _for a space of fifteen years or more_, spending that time
in performing the duties of our kingdom, shall be our citizen and
Venetian, and shall enjoy the privilege of citizenship and other
benefits,” etc. Then follows the statement that the person applying had
offered satisfactory proofs that he _had dwelt continuously in Venice
for fifteen years_, and had faithfully performed the other duties
required, and he was thereupon declared to be a Venetian and citizen,
within and without, etc. (See _Intorno a Giovanni Caboto_, etc., by
Cornelio Desimoni, Genova, 1881, pp. 43-45.)

[119] Ramusio, i. 374.

[120] _Decades_, f. 255.

[121] M. D’Avezac believed that Sebastian Cabot was born in 1472 or
1473, and that John Cabot and his family removed to England not far
from the year 1477. He infers this last date from a conviction that
John Cabot early engaged in maritime voyages from Bristol, and that
the mention of a vessel sailing from that port in 1480, belonging to
John Jay the younger, conducted by “the most skilful mariner in all
England,” pointed to John Cabot as the real commander. And he thought
he derived some support for this opinion from some passages in the
letter of D’Ayala, the Spanish ambassador, mentioned farther on, in
regard to voyages made from Bristol to the west for several years
before the date of his letter. See Corry’s _History of Bristol_, i.
318, a work not accurate in relation to the Cabot voyages; cf. Botoner,
_alias_ William Wyrcestre, in _Antiquities of Bristol_, pp. 152, 153.

[122] _Spanish Calendars_, vol. i. no. 128.

[123] Strachey, in his _Historie of Travaile into Virginia_ (written
between the years 1612 and 1619), p. 6, says that John Cabot, to whom
and to his three sons letters patents were granted by Henry VII. in
1496, was “idenized his subject, and dwelling within the Blackfriers,”
etc.

[124] _History and Antiquities of Bristol_, 1789, p. 172.

[125] In vol. iv. of the new edition of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_,
now publishing, at p. 350, under the article Bristol, is the
following:—

“This year (1497), on St. John’s the Baptist’s Day, the land of America
was found by the merchants of Bristowe, in a ship of Bristol called the
‘Matthew,’ the which said ship departed from the port of Bristow the 2d
of May, and come home again 6th August following.”

Some of the dates are new. This statement is credited to an ancient
manuscript “in possession of the Fust Family of Hill Court,
Gloucestershire, the ‘collations’ of which are now, 1876, in the
keeping of Mr. William George, bookseller, Bristol.”

This memorandum, containing the name of “America,” must have been
written many years after the event described. Bristol manuscripts have
been subjected to much suspicion. See an article in the English _Notes
and Queries_, 2d series, vol. v. p. 154.

[126] Biddle’s _Cabot_, p. 80.

[127] _Venetian Calendars_, i. 262.

[128] _Venetian Calendars_, i. 260. These papers were for the first
time printed in America by the American Antiquarian Society, in their
_Proceedings_ for October, 1866, in an interesting communication from
the Rev. Edward E. Hale, D.D., principally relating to the Cabot
voyages. [Mr. Rawdon Brown, who calendared these papers, made his
discoveries the subject of a paper on the Cabots in the Philobiblion
Society’s _Collections_, ii. 1856; and in the preface to the first
volume of the _Venetian Calendars_, A.D. 1202 to 1509, he describes
the archives at Venice, which yield these early evidences. The late
Professor Eugenio Albèri edited at Florence _Le Relazioni degli
Ambasciatori Veneti al Senato durante il Seclo_ xvi^o, in fifteen
volumes, which contain numerous reports of English transactions at that
time.—ED.]

[129] And is copied by Cornelio Desimoni, in his _Giovanni Caboto_,
Genoa, 1881.

[130] “John Cabot’s Voyage of 1497,” in _Hist. Mag._ xiii. 131 (March,
1868), with a section of the Cabot (Paris) map. See also “The Discovery
of North America by John Cabot in 1497,” by Mr. Frederic Kidder, in the
_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._ (Oct. 1878), xxxii. 381 [who reproduces
also a part of the same map, and gives a sketch-map marking Cabot’s
track around the Gulf. He bases his argument partly on Pasqualigo’s
statement that Cabot found the tides “slack,” and shows that the
difference in their rise and fall in that region is small compared
with what Cabot had been used to, at Bristol. In the confusion of the
two Cabot voyages, which for a long while prevailed (see an instance
in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ x. 383, under date, 1663), the track of
his first voyage is often made to extend down the eastern seaboard
of the present United States, and it is thus laid down on the map in
Zurla’s _Di Marco Polo e degli viaggiatori Veneziani_, Venezia, 1818.
Stevens, _Hist. and Geog. Notes_, does not allow that on either voyage
the coast south of the St. Lawrence was seen; and urges that for some
years the coast-line farther south was drawn from Marco Polo’s Asiatic
coasts; and he contends for the “honesty” of the Portuguese Portolano
of 1514, which leaves the coast from Nova Scotia to Charleston a blank,
holding that this confirms his view. It may be a question whether it
was honesty or ignorance. Dr. Hale, _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._ Oct. 21,
1871, gives a sketch-map to show the curious correspondence of the
Asian and American coast lines. Observe it also in the Finæus map,
already given.—ED.]

[131] I am indebted to Professor Franklin B. Dexter, of Yale College,
for the privilege of using this paper, copied by him from the
collection of Privy Seals, no. 40, in her Majesty’s Public Record
Office in London. Other valuable memoranda, including a copy of the
renewal to Sebastian Cabot, in 1550, of the patent of 1495/6, were also
generously placed in my hands by Professor Dexter.

[132] Of course, neither John Cabot nor Sebastian could furnish ships
at his own charge, any more than Columbus could. Raimondo says that
John was “poor,” and the acceptance by him of small gifts from the King
proves it. He was probably aided by the wealthy men of Bristol, with
whom he may have taken up a credit.

Among the Privy Purse expenses under date of 22d March and 1st April,
1498, are sums of money, £20, £20, £30, £2, paid to several persons
in the way of loan, or of reward, for their “going towards the new
isle.” Three of these payments were to Lanslot Thirkill, of London, who
appears to have been an owner or master of a ship. (Biddle, p. 86.)

[133] _Calendar of Spanish State Papers_, i. 176-77. [This letter was
discovered by Bergenroth in 1860, the document being preserved at
Simancas. See also Bergenroth’s _Memoirs_, p. 77, and _Amer. Antiq.
Soc. Proc._ Oct. 21, 1865, p. 25.—ED.]

[134] Biddle, pp. 227-234, 312.

In a work entitled _Armorial de la Noblesse de Languedock_, by M. Louis
de la Roque, Paris, 1860, vol. ii. p. 163, there is an account of the
family of Cabot in that Province. The writer says that this family
derived its name and origin from Jean Cabot, a Venetian nobleman who
settled in Bristol in the reign of Henry VII.; was a distinguished
navigator, the discoverer of Terre Neuve, thence passing into the
service of Spain; that he had three sons,—Jean (who died in Venice),
Louis, and Sebastian (who continued in the service of England and died
in France without posterity); that Louis, here called the second son,
settled at Saint-Paul-le-Coste, in the Cévennes, had a son Pierre,
who died Dec. 27, 1552, leaving a will, by which is shown his descent
from Jean the navigator, through his father Louis. Through Pierre the
family is traced down to the present time. The arms of the family are
given: _Device_, “D’azur à trois chabots d’or;” motto, “Semper cor
cabot Cabot,”—the same as those of the ancient family of Cabot in the
island of Jersey, whence the New England family of Cabot sprung. Mr.
Henry Cabot Lodge, in the introduction to his _Life of George Cabot_,
has given reasons for believing that the French family was derived
from that of Jersey. The three sons of John Cabot named in the letters
patent of March 5, 1496, are Louis, Sebastian, and Sancius, the last of
whom is not named in the list here cited.

It may well be doubted if Jean Cabot is properly styled above “a
Venetian nobleman.” See the grant of denization to him in Venice, the
several letters patent to him of Henry VII., and the letter of Raimondo
on page 54. In the statement that he entered into the service of Spain,
he is evidently confounded with his son Sebastian, who, it may be
added, did not die in France, but in England. Whether Sebastian left
posterity is not known, but he had a wife and children while he was
living in Spain. Referring to the motto of the family here given, I may
add that the motto on Sebastian’s picture is “Spes mea in Deo est.”

Mention is made on page 31 of a portrait of Sebastian Cabot, till
recently attributed to Holbein, painted in England when Cabot was a
very old man, of which a copy taken in 1763 now hangs in the Ducal
Palace in Venice. At a meeting of the French Geographical Society,
April 16, 1869, M. D’Avezac stated that M. Valentinelli, of Venice,
had recently sent to him a photograph copy of a portrait of John
Cabot, and one of his son Sebastian Cabot, at the age of twenty years,
after the picture of Grizellini, belonging to the gallery of the Ducal
Palace. He proceeded to say that some guarantee for the authenticity
of the picture of Sebastian was afforded by some traces of resemblance
between it and the well-known portrait of him by Holbein at the age
of eighty-five years (_Bulletin de la Soc. de Géographie_, 5 ser. to.
17, p. 406). The existence of a portrait of Sebastian Cabot taken
at so early an age, before he left Venice to live in England, would
be an interesting fact if authentic. An authentic picture of John
Cabot, the real discoverer of North America, would have even higher
claims to our regard. Prefixed to a Memoir of “Giovanni Cabotto,” by
Carlo Barrera Pezzi, published at Venice in 1881, which has just come
under my notice, is a medallion portrait, inscribed “Giovanni Cabotto
Veneziano.” It is not referred to by the author in the book in which it
is inserted.

[135] [See Editorial Note, A, at end of chapter vi. of the present
volume.—ED.]

[136] In this narrative is an account of tobacco twenty years before
that luxury was introduced into England by Ralph Lane. The account is
in these words (the grammar is defective, but the copy is accurate):
“The Floridians, when they travel, have a kinde of herbe dryed, which
with a cane and an earthen cup in the end, with fire, and the dried
herbs put together, do sucke thoro the cane the smoke thereof, which
smoke satisfieth their hunger, and therewith they live foure or five
days without meat or drinke, and this all the Frenchmen vsed for this
purpose: yet do they holde opinion withall that it causeth water and
fleame to void from their stomacks.” It is a little curious that he
should thus connect tobacco with Florida, as if he had not observed its
use in the West Indies. It had, indeed, been used in Southern Europe
before this time.

[137] A recently discovered letter of Winthrop shows that the
Massachusetts colonists made wine of their grapes in the first summer.
The appetite for such wine does not seem perilous.

[138] [The story of this French colony is told in Vol. II.—ED.]

[139]

“Thy name is hasty pudding: how I blush To hear the Pennsylvanians call
thee mush!”

—BARLOW: _Hasty Pudding_.


[140] One hundred and forty years later, Daniel De Foe, a devoted
Christian man, wrote his celebrated biography of Robinson Crusoe, who,
when he had been long living in Brazil as a planter, met his critical
shipwreck in a voyage to the African coast for slaves. The romance
is intended by its author to be what we call a religious novel. The
religious experiences of the hero are those to which De Foe attached
most importance. In the relation of these experiences he enumerates and
repents his “manifold sins and wickedness.” But among these, although
he regrets his own folly in risking so much in the pursuit of wealth,
it is never intimated that there is anything wrong in dragging these
wretched <DW64>s unwilling from their homes: so slow had been the
development of the spirit of humanity in the sixteenth and even the
seventeenth century, and so ill defined were the rights of man!

[141] [See the note on Ingram’s and Hortop’s narratives in the critical
part of chap. vi. Since hat chapter was in type, Dr. De Costa has
examined anew the story of Ingram’s journey, and has printed Ingram’s
relation, from a manuscript in the Bodleian, in the _Magazine of
American History_, March, 1883.—ED.]

[142] By a play upon his name,—“Dracus,” or “Draco.” See the curious
coincidence of “Caput Draconis,” mentioned in a later note.

[143] Cortes was never “silent upon a peak in Darien,” except
in Keats’s poem.

[144] _The World Encompased._

[145] [It is to be observed, however, that the Portuguese, who
had made their way to the Moluccas by the Cape of Good Hope in 1512,—a
year before Balboa disclosed the great sea to the Spaniards,—claim
that in the very year (1520) when Magellan was finding a passage
by the straits, and Cortes was exploring the Gulf of Mexico in the
vain endeavor to find another, their ships from the Moluccas crossed
the ocean eastward and struck the coast of California. It is also
represented that the expedition conducted by Cabrillo, a Portuguese in
the King of Spain’s service, went up to 44° in 1542-43. This phase of
the subject is more particularly examined in Vol. II.—ED.]

[146] It should be remembered that all these dates are of old style, and
correspond to dates ten days later now.

[147] [It is a question how far north Drake went. Up to the middle
of the last century, the writers, except Davis in his _World’s
Hydrographical Discovery_, and perhaps Sir William Monson, had fixed
his northing at 43°,—these two exceptions placing it at 48°, and this
last opinion has been followed by Burney, Barrow, and the writer of
the Life of Drake in the 1750 edition of the _Biographia Britannica_.
Greenhow, _Oregon and California_, 2d edition, p. 74, doubts the later
view. Drake’s aim was to find the westerly end of what was for a long
time the conjectural Straits of Anian, or the northern passage to
the Atlantic, which, ever since Cortereal, in 1500, had found what
he supposed the easterly end of such a passage in Hudson’s Straits,
had been a dream of navigators and geographers. An examination of
the unstable views which were held regarding the shape and inlets of
the western coast of North America, from the time of Cortes’ first
expedition north, belongs to another volume of this work. A notion of
the continuity of Asia and America, which was temporarily dispelled by
Balboa’s discovery of the Pacific in 1513, was revived twenty years
later by a certain school of geographers, and continued to be held by
some for thirty or forty years. Before Drake’s time it had given place
to views which more distinctly prefigured the Straits of Behring,
not yet to be determined for a hundred and fifty years. The earlier
conjectural propinquity of America and Asia at the north—as shown in
the maps of Münster, Mercator, and others—was giving place to a more
minute configuration, as shown in the maps of Zaltieri and Furlano,
of which outlines are given in the text, indicating the kind of view
which was prevailing regarding this northern part of the Pacific,
which Drake was baffled in his attempt to explore. It is curious to
observe, moreover, that Mercator in his map in zones, dated 1541,
marks the region later to be called New Albion as having the star
_Caput Draconis_ in the zenith,—almost in strange anticipation of its
being the spot where the English “dragon” was first to contest Spanish
supremacy on the North American continent. Spain had as yet had no
sharer of this northern new world.—ED.]

[148] In the narrative in Hakluyt _tobàh_ is always called tobacco.
But Fletcher and Drake’s nephew in _The World Encompassed_ call it
_tobàh_ or _tabàh_; and they knew tobacco and its name perfectly well.
They speak of it as an herb new to them. There is no evidence that the
natives smoked _tobàh_.

[149] Alarcon’s account is in these words. He speaks of the winter
houses of which Nargarchato informed him. “He told me that these houses
were of wood covered with earth on the outside, and plastered with clay
within; that they were in form of a round room.” The reader should
remember that Fletcher alludes to the architectural device, still to be
seen in old New England churches, where the roof rises on all sides to
a spire in the middle.

[150] The fondness for feathers is observed by later voyagers; cf. La
Perouse.

[151] So in Shelvocke’s journal of his voyage in 1719. “The soil about
Puerto Seguro, and very likely in most of the valleys, is a rich
black mould, which, as you turn it up fresh to the sun, appears as if
intermixed with gold and dust.”

[152] [The Spanish minister, indeed, protested against Drake’s piracies
and his sailing in those waters; but the English Government made a
declaration denying such prescriptive right to the Spaniards, unless it
was enforced by possession. Cf. Camden’s _History of Elizabeth_, 1688,
p. 225; Purchas, iv. 1180; Deane’s edition of Hakluyt’s _Discourse_,
236.—ED.]

[153] “The course which Sir Francis Drake held to California,” etc.

[154] [Mr. Hale has written of Dudley and his atlas in the _American
Antiquarian Society’s Proceedings_, October 21, 1873. Cf. also the
chapter on “New England” in the present volume.—ED.]

[155] See Editorial Notes following this chapter.

[156] [See a later page.—ED.]

[157] Colonel John D. Washburn, in a very careful paper in the _Amer.
Antiq. Soc. Proc._, no. 58, 1872, suspects from Torquemada’s account
(1615, published at Seville), as cited in the English version of Father
Venegas’s _History of California_ (Field, _Indian Bibliography_, 1,599,
1,600), that the port visited by Viscaino was Jack’s Bay, as indeed the
original Spanish of Venegas (iii. III) distinctly says. Cf. also John
T. Doyle’s paper, with an introduction by Colonel Washburn in _Amer.
Antiq. Soc. Proc._, October, 1873.

[158] [They had learned by this time to avoid the head-winds that swept
westerly from Acapulco to Manila, by stretching northeastwardly on the
return voyage, making the coast above San Francisco, and so to follow
the shore south. Cf. the Key to a section of Molineaux’s map in the
Editorial Notes following this chapter.—ED.]

[159] Sayer and Bennett, 1774. [I find this twenty years earlier, as
shown in the annexed sketch from Jefferys’ _Chart of California, New
Albion_, etc., 1753. Key:—

1. C. das Navadas, or Snowy Cape, 2. Punta de los Reys. 3. Les
Farollones. 4. Isles of St. James. 5. Port S^r. Francis Drake, 1578,
not St. Francisco. 6. Pto. de Anno Novo.—ED. ]

[160] “He does smile his face into more lines than are in the new map,
with the augmentation of the Indies.”—_Act iii, sc. 2._ [The map
referred to is Molineaux’ map of 1600, and it has been disputed that it
was the map alluded to by Shakespeare. See chap. vi., Editorial Note,
F. A section showing the point referred to in the text is given further
on.—ED.]

[161] [The coast-survey authorities have usually favored San Francisco.
This was the opinion of Alexander Forbes in his _California_, 1839,
where he gives (p. 127) an interesting view of the bay before commerce
had marked it. Dr. Stillman, in the _Overland Monthly_ (October, 1868,
March, 1869), and later in his _Seeking the Golden Fleece_ (p. 295),
has advocated San Francisco. S. G. Drake, in the _American Historical
Record_, August, 1874, took the same view.

Greenhow, in the second edition (1845) of his _Oregon and California_,
p. 74, does not think the question can be definitely settled between
San Francisco and Bodega.

There have been many disputes over Jack’s Bay,—the Sir Francis
Drake Bay of the maps. Soulé and the writers of the _Annals of San
Francisco_ accept it as the spot; so does Kohl. Professor J. D. Whitney
(_Encyclopædia Britannica_, art. “California”) says the evidence points
strongly to Jack’s Bay.

Vancouver seems to have reported the story of the Spaniards calling it
Sir Francis Drake’s Bay. Captain Beechey thought it too exposed to have
deserved Drake’s description; and it has been held he could not have
graved his ship in it. It is claimed, however, that Limantour’s Bay,
which opens through an inlet westwardly from Jack’s Bay, answers the
required conditions of water and shelter.—ED.]

[162] There are copies in the Library of Congress, and in the New
York State, Harvard, Lenox, and Carter-Brown (ii. 263) libraries.
Cf. Sabin’s _Dictionary_, vol. viii. no. 30,957; Field’s _Indian
Bibliography_, no. 667. Hawkins’s voyage is also included in Purchas’s
_Pilgrimes_; and Charles Kingsley in his _Westward Ho!_ pictures
vividly the spirit of Hawkins’s day. Cf. also Burney’s _History of
Voyages in the South Seas_.

[163] It is reprinted by Vaux, later mentioned.

[164] They are in the Harvard College, Carter-Brown, and Charles Deane
copies, not to name others.

[165] _Brinley Catalogue_, no. 21; Stevens’s _Nuggets_, no. 921;
Sabin’s _Dictionary_, no. 20,853. S. G. Drake bought a copy in Boston
in 1844 for $4. It was priced by Vaux in 1853 at as many pounds, and is
worth much more now. The later editions are worth somewhat less. S. G.
Drake (_Genealogical Register_, i. 126) gives a partial list of those
who accompanied Drake, being about one-third of his one hundred and
sixty-four men. Among the fullest of the modern narratives are those
in Barrow’s _Life of Drake_, and in Froude’s _England_, vol. xi. chap.
29. [But Mr. Froude has used his valuable authorities carelessly. He
depends in part upon some reports of Spanish officers, which exist in
manuscript in Spain, and upon some which are in England, brought home
by English cruisers. One of the most interesting, which should still be
in the national library in Madrid, I found in 1882 had been cut from
the volume and carried away.—E. E. H.]

[166] _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. 423.

[167] Ibid., ii. 731.

[168] Hakluyt, vol. iii., or quarto edition, vol. iv.; Harris, vol. i.;
Oxford, vol. ii. Hakluyt also gives the relation of Nuna da Silva, a
Portuguese pilot whom Drake had captured, and who made his report to
the Viceroy of Spain, and John Winter’s account of his companionship
with Drake. Vaux collates his text with a manuscript preserved in the
British Museum, which may have been the collection of Fletcher’s notes
which the compiler of _The World Encompassed_ used. Several narratives
are also in the Callender collection of _Voyages_, Edinburgh, 1766.
There are German versions in Gottfried and Vander Aa (1727, vol.
xviii.), Cornelius Claesz (1598, 1603), etc. Appended to the _Begin
en Voortgangh_ (1645 and 1646) of Isaac Commelin, of Amsterdam, is
sometimes a Dutch narrative of the voyages of Candish, Drake, and
Hawkins, “described by one of the fleet,” and with an imprint of 1644,
which is very rare. Frederic Muller says, in his _Books on America_,
1872 (no. 1,871), that he had never seen but the one then described,
and another, sold to Stevens in 1867.

A French edition, _Le Voyage de François Drack alentour du Monde_, was
originally issued in Paris in 1613, and is now scarce, and sometimes
priced at 300 francs. There were other editions, with additions, in
1627 (Sabin, vol. v. no. 23,845), 1631, 1641, 1690. Bohn’s _Lowndes_,
p. 668. The Dedicatory Epistle is signed F. de Lorrencourt. Leclerc,
_Bibliotheca Americana_, no. 2,743. The title of the later edition
runs: _Le Voyage curieux faict autour du Monde_, etc. Muller’s
_Books on America_ (1877), no. 973. [This curious book affects in
the dedication to be an original narrative: “I dedicate it to you,
Monsieur, because you gave it to me, telling me that you received it
from one of your subjects of Courtomer, who had made the voyage with
this gentleman.” On examination, however, it proves that the narrative
is a rough translation, not very accurate, and generally abridged from
that in Hakluyt: generally, but not always; for in a few instances
details of local color are added, which I think important, and which
appear, so far as I know, in no other narrative. With no apparent
purpose but to make the book bigger, a second part is added, entitled
_Seconde Partie des Singvlaritez remarquees aux isles et terres fermes
du Midy et des Indes Orientales: par l’Illustre Seigneur et Chevalier
Francois Drach, Admiral d’ Angleterre_. It is a botch of travels in
Africa, the Indian Ocean, and America, in places mostly which Drake
never saw.—E. E. H.]

[169] _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, i. 374; _Brinley Catalogue_, no. 20;
Leclerc, _Bibliotheca Americana_ (205 francs); _Huth Catalogue_, ii.
442. Leclerc, no. 2,744, prices the maps alone at 400 francs; and
Quaritch, in 1877, advertised them for £50. The Lenox Library has a
copy with the four maps, and a second copy with different vignettes on
the title.

[170] Quaritch prices a copy at £10 10_s._; Stevens, Nuggets, puts one
at £5 15_s._ 6_d._ Hakluyt’s third volume (1600) gives the narrative.
In some copies of Hakluyt’s volume of 1589 there is found, before
page 644, a broadside, giving a journal from Drake’s log-book, Sept.
14, 1585, to July 22, 1586. (Sabin, vi. 543.) It was on this voyage
that Drake on his return visited the new settlement in Virginia, as
mentioned in chap. iv. of the present volume.

[171] Quaritch, in 1877, claimed that only three copies of this map
were known, and only four or five complete sets of the other four are
known. The mappemonde is in the Grenville copy, and was in a copy
possessed by Rodd, the London dealer, fifty years ago. Baptista B. (or
Boazio) seems to have been the designer or engraver. There is also a
copy of this fifth map in the Lenox Library.

[172] The _Huth Catalogue_ also gives all five maps to the first
edition (52 pages); says the errata are corrected in the second
edition, and the words “with geographical mappes,” etc., are left out
of the title; while for the third edition (copy in the King’s Library,
in the British Museum) a smaller type is used, contracting it to 37
pages. An edition of 1596 is sometimes cited, but it is doubtful if
such exists. Lowndes mentions a somewhat doubtful French edition of the
same year.

[173] Bohn’s Lowndes, p. 669.

[174] Bare mention may, however, be made of the English accounts, _A
true coppie of a Discourse_, London, 1589, which has been reprinted by
Collier, and Robert Leng’s _Sir Francis Drake’s valuable Service done
against the Spaniards_, in the Camden Society’s _Miscellanies_, vol.
v., and the Latin account, printed at Frankfort, 1590, and a German one
at Munich, the same year. Stevens’s _Bibliotheca Historica_ (1870), no.
597; Bohn’s Lowndes, p. 668.

[175] This name is the Spanish rendering of John Hawkins; and Draque
and Aquines figure also in Torres’ _Relacion de los servicios de
Sotomayor_, Madrid, 1620. Rich (1832), no. 156.

[176] Mr. J. P. Collier printed a small (one hundred copies) fac-simile
edition of the 1596 book; but most of the copies were destroyed by
fire. _A full Relation_ of this voyage, dated 1652, was included in the
1653 edition of _Sir Francis Drake Revived_, and is sometimes found
separately; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. 753.

[177] There were other Dutch editions in 1643 (called by Muller
the best; cf. Carter-Brown Catalogue, ii. 521, for _Journalen van
drie Voyagien_) and 1644. A German account was added in 1598 to the
narrative of Candish’s voyages, printed at Amsterdam. _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, i. no. 520. The rendering in De Bry, part viii., is
incorrect and incomplete.

[178] Rich (1832), no. 294, £1 8_s._; Sunderland, ii. 4,052; Huth, ii.
p. 444; Carter-Brown, vol. ii. no. 312. There is a copy in Charles
Deane’s collection. It is worth £6 or £7.

[179] The _Grenville Catalogue_ errs in making this the first edition.
Huth, ii. 444; Brinley, i. 49; Carter-Brown, ii. 332.

[180] Sunderland, vol. ii. no. 4,053; Huth, ii. 444; Carter-Brown, vol.
ii. no. 753. There is also a copy in Harvard College Library.

[181] Reprinted in 1819, at the Lee Priory press, by Sir Egerton
Brydges.

[182] Sabin (_Dictionary_, iv. 13,445) says the title differs in some
copies. _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. 1,056.

[183] For a Drake bibliography we must go to Sabin’s _Dictionary_, v.
20,827, etc., and Bohn’s Lowndes. Stevens (_Historical Collections_,
vol. i. no. 202) notes a collection of copies from manuscripts in
public depositaries in England which had been brought together as
materials for writing a memoir of Drake. As a Devonshire hero, Drake
figures in the local literature of Plymouth and its neighborhood.

[184] Cf. _Journalen van drie Voyagien_, which covers both Drake
and Cavendish’s expeditions, and Commelin’s _Begin ende Voortgang_,
and the collection of Gottfried and Vander Aa (1727). Thomas Lodge,
the Elizabethan dramatist, accompanied Candish in his voyage of
circumnavigation, and translated upon it, from the Spanish, his
_Margarite of America_, published in London in 1596. Sabin’s
_Dictionary_, x. 41,765; Bohn’s Lowndes, p. 1,383.

[185] [Cf. map given on page 11.—ED.]

[186] [Cf. the Lenox Globe and other delineations, in chap. vi.—ED.]

[187] [Chap. i., by Charles Deane.—ED.]

[188] Collinson’s _Three Voyages of Martin Frobisher_, p. 72; Hakluyt’s
_Voyages_ (ed. 1600), iii. 58.

[189] Collinson’s _Three Voyages of Martin Frobisher_, p. 75; Hakluyt’s
_Voyages_, iii. 59.

[190] Collinson’s _Three Voyages of Martin Frobisher_, p. 119.

[191] Ibid., p. 242; Hakluyt’s _Voyages_, iii. 80.

[192] In his first expedition to seek for traces of Sir John Franklin,
1860-1862, our countryman, Captain Charles F. Hall, obtained and
brought home numerous relics of Frobisher’s voyages. Some of these were
sent to England, and others are deposited in the National Museum at
Washington. See Hall’s _Arctic Researches, passim_; Collinson’s _Three
Voyages_, etc., Appendix; and _the Semi-Annual Report of the Council of
the American Antiquarian Society_, October, 1882.

[193] [See Dr. De Costa’s chapter, and Gilbert’s map and comments in
Editorial Note A, _sub anno_ 1576, at the end, and also the notes at
the end of Mr. Henry’s chapter.—ED.]

[194] _Northwest Fox_, p. 42.

[195] Letter to Mr. Sanderson, in Hakluyt’s _Voyages_, iii. 114.

[196] Rundall’s _Narratives of Voyages towards the Northwest_, p. 62.

[197] _Northwest Fox_, p. 50.

[198] _Northwest Fox_, p. 117. The documents relating to Hudson’s
fourth voyage are in Purchas’s _Pilgrimes_, iii. 596-610, and in
Asher’s _Henry Hudson, the Navigator_, pp. 93-138.

[199] _Northwest Fox_, pp. 117, 118.

[200] Ibid., p. 118.

[201] _Northwest Fox_, p. 244.

[202] [The reader may consult the following, which has a parallel
English text: _Die Literatur über die Polar-regionem der Erde_. Von J.
Chavanne, A. Karpf, F. Ritter v. Le Monnier. Herausg. von der K. K.
geographischen Gesellschaft in Wien. Wien, 1878, xiv. + 333 pp., 8º.

This book shows 6,617 titles, including papers from serials and
periodicals. It is far from judiciously compiled, however; containing
much that is irrelevant, and not a little that indicates the compilers’
ignorance of the books in hand, as when they were entrapped from
the title into including Dibdin’s _Northern Tour_ and other works
equally foreign to the subject. One of the best collections of
Arctic literature in this country is in the Carter-Brown Library at
Providence; and this, putting strict limits to the subject and not
including papers of a periodic character, shows a list of between six
and seven hundred titles. _Letter of John R. Bartlett_.—ED.]

[203] _A Chronological History of Voyages into the Arctic Regions;
undertaken chiefly for the Purpose of discovering a Northeast,
Northwest, or Polar Passage between the Atlantic and Pacific: from the
earliest Period of Scandinavian Navigation to the Departure of the
recent Expeditions under the Orders of Captains Ross and Buchan._ By
John Barrow, F. R. S. London: John Murray. 1818. 8º. pp. 379 and 48.

[204] _Narratives of Voyages towards the Northwest, in Search of a
Passage to Cathay and India, 1496 to 1631. With Selections from the
Early Records of the Honourable the East India Company, and from MSS.
in the British Museum._ By Thomas Rundall, Esq. London: Printed for the
Hakluyt Society. 1849. 8º. pp. xx. and 260.

[This book has a convenient map of Arctic explorations between 1496 and
1631. The general reader will find condensed historical summaries of
antecedent voyages, often prefixed to the special narratives, as in the
case of Captain Beechey’s _Voyage of Discovery towards the North Pole_,
1843, and in the introductions to Asher’s _Henry Hudson_ and Winter
Jones’s edition of Hakluyt’s _Divers Voyages_.—ED.]

[205] [Cf., for instance, Muller’s _Geschiedenis der noordsche
Compagnie_, 1614-1642. Utrecht, 1875.—ED.]

[206] _The three Voyages of Martin Frobisher, in Search of a Passage
to Cathaia and India by the Northwest, A. D. 1576-78. Reprinted
from the First Edition of Hakluyt’s Voyages, with Selections from
Manuscript Documents in the British Museum and State-Paper Office._ By
Rear-Admiral Richard Collinson, C. B. London: Printed for the Hakluyt
Society. 1867. 8º. pp. xxvi. and 376.

[207] _The Voyages and Works of John Davis the Navigator._ Edited,
with an Introduction and Notes, by Albert Hastings Markham, Captain R.
N., F. R. G. S., Author of _A Whaling Cruise in Baffin’s Bay_, _The
Great Frozen Sea_, and _Northward Ho!_ London: Printed for the Hakluyt
Society. 1880. 8º. pp. xcv. and 392.

[This volume gives a fac-simile of the Molineaux map of 1600; and
reprints Davis’s _Worlde’s Hydrographical Description_, London, 1595.
The presentation copy to Prince Henry, with his arms and a very curious
manuscript addition, is in the Lenox Library. Cf. John Petheram’s
_Bibliographical Miscellany_, 1859, and the note, p. 51, in Rundall’s
_Voyages to the Northwest_. In this last book the accounts in Hakluyt
are reproduced. Respecting Davis’s maps, see Kohl’s _Catalogue of Maps
in Hakluyt_, pp. 20, 27.—ED.]

[208] _Henry Hudson, the Navigator. The Original Documents in which his
Career is recorded, collected, partly translated, and annotated, with
an Introduction._ By G. M. Asher, LL.D. London: Printed for the Hakluyt
Society. 1860. 8º. pp. ccxviii. and 292. See Editorial Notes.

[209] _The Voyages of William Baffin, 1612-1622._ Edited, with Notes
and an Introduction, by Clements R. Markham, C.B., F.R.S. London:
Printed for the Hakluyt Society. 1881. 8º. pp. lix. and 192.

[Purchas first printed Baffin’s narrative of his first voyage, and
Rundall re-edited it, supplying omissions from the original manuscript
preserved in the British Museum. Markham reprints it, and adds a
fac-simile of Baffin’s map of his discoveries; and he also gives a
series of five maps from Fox’s down (the first is reproduced in the
text), to show the changes in ideas respecting the shape and even
the existence of Baffin’s Bay. Of the voyage in which this water was
discovered, Purchas also printed, and Markham has reprinted, the
account as given in Baffin’s journal.—ED.]

[210] _North-West Fox, or, Fox from the Northwest passage. Beginning
With King Arthur, Malga, Octhvr, the two Zenis of Iseland, Estotiland,
and Dorgia; Following with brief Abstracts of the Voyages of Cabot,
Frobisher, Davis, Waymouth, Knight, Hudson, Button, Gibbons, Bylot,
Baffin, Hawkridge; Together with the Courses, Distance, Latitudes,
Longitudes, Variations, Depths of Seas, Sets of Tydes, Currents, Races,
and over-Falls, with other Observations, Accidents, and Remarkable
things, as our Miseries and Sufferings. Mr. Iames Hall’s three Voyages
to Groynland, with a Topographicall description of the Countries, the
Salvages lives and Treacheries, how our Men have been slayne by them
there, with the Commodities of all those parts; whereby the Marchant
may have Trade, and the Mariner Imployment. Demonstrated in a Polar
Card, wherein are all the Maines, Seas, and Islands, herein mentioned.
With the Author his owne Voyage, being the XIVth, with the opinions and
Collections of the most famous Mathematicians, and Cosmographers; with
a Probabilitie to prove the same by Marine Remonstrations, compared
by the Ebbing and Flowing of the Sea, experimented with places of our
owne Coast._ By Captaine Lvke Fox, of Kingstone vpon Hull, Capt. and
Pylot for the Voyage in his Majesties Pinnace the Charles. Printed by
his Majesties Command. London, Printed by B. Alsop and Tho. Fawcett,
dwelling in Grubstreet. 1635. 4º. pp. x. and 273.

[This little book is now worth about $40 or $50; Rich priced it in 1832
at $10. Brinley, no. 27; Huth, ii. 542; Field’s _Indian Bibliography_,
no. 556. Cf. _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, October, 1878. The copy in
the Dowse _Collection_ (Mass. Hist. Soc.) has the rare original map.
The Menzies and Carter-Brown copies show the map; the Brinley lacked
it, as does Mr. Deane’s, which has it in fac-simile.—ED.]

[211] The name _Ralegh_ was written in thirteen different ways. We
have adopted the usual spelling of Sir Walter himself. See Hakluyt’s
_Westerne Planting_, p. 171, and C. W. Tuttle in _Massachusetts
Historical Society’s Proceedings_, xv. 383.

[212] [See chapter vi.—ED.]

[213] See Chalmer’s _Annals_, chaps. xiv. and xv., and Journals of
Congress, October, 1774.

[214] [It was in 1584 that Hakluyt wrote for Ralegh his _Westerne
Planting_, to be used in inducing Elizabeth to grant to Ralegh and
his friends a charter to colonize America; and Dr. Woods, in his
Introduction to that book, writes, p. xliii, of Ralegh as the founder
of the transatlantic colonies of Great Britain. See the history of the
MS. in the notes following Dr. De Costa’s chapter.—ED.]

[215] Strachey, Hakluyt Society’s Publications, vi. 85.

[216] See _Works_ of Bacon, edited by Basil Montague, ii. 525.

[217] [It was prefixed to an edition of Ralegh’s _History of the World_
in 1736.—ED.]

[218] [One was added to an edition of Ralegh’s _Works_ in 1751.—ED.]

[219] [This work was in two volumes, 4º, and appeared in a second
edition in 1806, 8º.—ED.]

[220] [_History of England_, chapters xlv. and xlviii.—ED.]

[221] A paper read by George Dexter, Esq., before the Massachusetts
Historical Society, Oct. 13, 1881, upon “The First Voyage under Sir
Humphrey Gilbert’s Patent of 1578,” corrects an error into which Mr.
Edwards had fallen about this voyage, and shows that it was undertaken
in 1578 instead of 1579, as stated by Mr. Edwards, and that Ralegh was
the captain of one of the vessels. A few additional references may
serve the curious student. Some new material was first brought forward
in the _Archæologia_, vols. xxxiv. and xxxv. Ralegh’s career in Ireland
is followed in the _Nineteenth Century_, Nov. 1881. His last year is
considered in Gardiner’s _Prince Charles and the Spanish Marriage_. A
contemporary account of his execution from Adam Winthrop’s note-book is
printed in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Sept. 1873. A psychological
study may be found in Disraeli’s _Amenities of Literature_. Two
American essays may be mentioned,—that in Belknap’s _American
Biography_, and J. Morrison Harris’s paper before the Maryland
Historical Society in 1846.

As to the story at one time prevalent of Ralegh’s coming in person to
his colony, Stith, _History of Virginia_, p. 22, thinks it arose from
a mistranslation of the Latin. Cf. Force’s _Tracts_ i. p. 37, Georgia
Tract, 1742,—“Mr. Oglethorpe has with him Sir Walter Ralegh’s written
journal,” etc.—ED.

[222] [The sources for this first colony may be concisely enumerated as
follows:—

1. Diary of the Voyage, April 9-Aug. 25, 1585, originally in Hakluyt,
1589; also in Hawks.

2. Ralph Lane’s letters, Aug. and Sept. 1585. Some in Hakluyt, vol.
iii.; also in Hawks and others referred to in the text, edited by E. E.
Hale, in the _Archæologia Americana_, vol. iv. (1860).

3. Hariot’s narrative originally published in 1588; then by Hakluyt in
1589; and by De Bry in 1590. See later note.

4. Lane’s narrative given in Hakluyt and Hawks.

5. _A Summarie and True Discourse of Sir Francis Drake’s West Indian
Voyage_, London, 1589; also in Hakluyt, 1600. The copy of the former
in the Massachusetts Historical Society’s Library was the one used by
Prince; see ch. ii.; also Barrow’s _Life of Drake_, ch. vi. Mr. Edward
C. Bruce, in his “Loungings in the Footprints of the Pioneers,” in
_Harper’s Monthly_, May, 1860, describes the condition of the site of
the colony at that time. Roanoke Island was sold to Joshua Lamb, of New
England, in 1676; _Hist. Mag._ vi. 123. Cf. _Continental Monthly_, i.
541, by Frederic Kidder.—ED.]

[223] [A notice of the original English issue of Hariot (1588) is
described on a later page as the second original production relating
to America presented to the English public (see notes following Dr. De
Costa’s chapter); but it became more widely known in 1590, when De Bry
at Frankfort made it the only part of his famous Collection of Voyages,
which he printed in the English tongue, giving it the following
title: _A briefe and true report of the new found land of Virginia,
of the commodities, and of the nature and manners of the naturall
inhabitants_. _Discovered by the English colony there seated by Sir
Richard Greinuile in the yeere 1585.... This forebooke is made in
English by Thomas Hariot. Francoforti ad Moenvm, typis Joannis Wecheli,
svmtibus vero Theodori de Bry_, cicicxc. It is also the rarest of the
parts, and only a few copies of it are known, as follows:—

1. Carter-Brown Library. _Catalogue_, i. 397, where a fac-simile of the
title is given.

2. Lenox Library.

3. Sold in the Stevens Sale (no. 2487), Boston, 1870, to a New York
collector for $975. This was made perfect by despoiling another copy
belonging to a public collection.

4. Harvard College Library; imperfect.

5. Grenville copy in the British Museum, bought at Frankfort for £100
in 1710 (?).

6. Bodleian Library.

7. Christie Miller’s collection, England.

8. Sir Thomas Phillipp’s collection, England; imperfect.

Rich in 1832, _Catalogue_, no. 71, had a copy which was made up, and
which he priced at £21, but would have held it at £100 if perfect.

A photo-lithographic fac-simile edition of this English text was issued
in New York from the Stevens copy in 1871-72, about 100 copies, which
is worth $20. (_Griswold Catalogue_, no. 309.) The original may be
worth $1000.

In the same year, 1590, De Bry also issued it in Latin, German, and
French. Brunet gives three varieties of the original Latin issue,
besides two varieties of a counterfeit one. The _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, i. 322, gives the collations of the five varieties
slightly varying; cf. Sabin’s _Dictionary_, vol. iii.; Field’s _Indian
Bibliography_, no. 653. There was a second (1600) and third edition of
the German version (_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, pp. 354, 355; also for
the French, p. 329). A German translation by Cristhopher P—— is also
contained in Matthæus Dresser’s _Historien von China_, Halle, 1598; cf.
Sabin’s _Dictionary_, v. 536; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, i. 429.

De Bry engraved the drawings which White made at Roanoke, or rather a
portion of them; for nearly three times as many as appear in De Bry,
who copied only twenty-three, are now in the collection of drawings as
preserved in the British Museum. What De Bry used may possibly have
been copies of the originals, and in any case he gave an academic
aspect to the more natural drawings as White made them. Henry Stevens
secured the originals in 1865, and in a fire at Sotheby’s in June of
that year they became saturated with water, so that a collection of
offsets was left on the paper which was laid between them. Mr. Stevens
sold the originals for £210, and the offsets for £26 5_s._, both to
the British Museum, in 1866; and his letter offering them and telling
the story is in his _Bibliotheca Historica_, 1870, cf. _Amer. Antiq.
Soc. Proc._ Oct. 20, 1866. In the Sloane Collection are also near a
hundred of White’s drawings; see E. E. Hale in _Archæologia Americana_,
iv. 21. One section of Hariot’s paper, entitled “Of the nature and
maners of the people,” appeared in the author’s original English in
the Hakluyts of 1589 and 1600, and also in De Bry, who likewise added
to his English Hariot a statement called, “The true pictures and
fashions of the people in that parte of America now called Virginia,”
etc. This statement is not in the printed Hakluyts, though it is
said by De Bry to have been “translated out of Latin into English by
Richard Hackluit.” It is there said of the pictures that they were
“diligently collected and drowne by John White, who was sent thiter
speciallye by Sir Walter Ralegh, 1585, also 1588, now cutt in copper,
and first published by Theodore De Bry att his wone chardges.” De Bry’s
engravings have often been reproduced by Montanus, Lafitau, Beverly,
etc. Wyth’s, or White’s “Portraits to the Life and Manners of the
Inhabitants,” following De Bry, with English text, was printed at New
York in 1841.

The map which accompanies Hariot’s narrative, as given by De Bry,
was procured by him from England, and is subscribed “Auctore Joanne
With,”—once De Bry writes it “Whit.” It was made in 1587, and Kohl in
his _Maps relating to America mentioned in Hakluyt_, pp. 42-46, thinks
that there can be no doubt With is John White, the captain, and that
he based, or caused to be based, his drawing on observations made by
Lane, who had been in the Chesapeake, while White had not. Stevens,
_Bibliotheca Historica_, 1870, p. 222, identifies the John White the
artist with Governor John White. A largely reduced fac-simile of this
map is herewith given, for comparison with the Coast Survey chart of
the same region. Other fac-similes of the original are given in the
Histories of North Carolina by Hawks and Wheeler, in Gay’s _Popular
History of the United States_, i. 243. It was later followed in the
configurations of the coast given by Mercator, Hondius, De Laet,
etc. The map which is given in Smith’s _Generall Historie_ as “Ould
Virginia” closely resembles White’s, which however extends farther
north, and includes the entrance of the Chesapeake. There had been
one earlier representation of “Virginia” on a map, and that was in
Hakluyt’s edition of Peter Martyr on a half globe. De Bry also gives a
bird’s-eye view of Roanoke and its vicinity.—ED.]

[224] [The original sources are also made use of by Williamson and
Wheeler in their histories of North Carolina. Some of them are printed
in Pinkerton’s _Voyages_, in Payne’s _Elizabethan Seamen_, p. 211, and
elsewhere; cf. Strachey’s _Virginia_, p. 142.—ED.]

[225] [His narrative of the first voyage was published in 1596, the
year following his voyage, and was called _The Discoverie of the large,
rich and bewtiful empire of Guiana, with a relation of the Great and
Golden Citie of Manoa (which the Spanyards call El Dorado)_, etc.
_Huth Catalogue_, iv. 1216. _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, vol. i. no. 507.
I have compared Mr. Charles Deane’s copy. There are three copies of
this in the Lenox Library, with such variations as indicate as many
contemporary editions. Quaritch recently priced a copy at £20.

Ralegh had written this tract in large part on his voyage, when he made
the map of Trinidad and that of Guiana, which he mentions as not yet
finished. Kohl, _Maps relating to America_, etc., p. 65, thinks he has
identified this drawing of Ralegh in a MS. map in the British Museum,
which was acquired in 1849. The text of the _Discoverie_ was reprinted
in Hakluyt, iii. 627; in the Oldys and Birch’s edition (Oxford, 1829)
of _Ralegh’s Works_, vol. viii.; in Pinkerton’s _Voyages_, xii. 196; in
Cayley’s _Life of Ralegh_. The Hakluyt Society reprinted it under the
editing of Sir R. H. Schomburgk, who gives a map of the Orinoco Valley,
showing Ralegh’s track. Colliber’s _English Sea Affairs_, London, 1727,
has a narrative based on it; Sabin, iv. 14414.

There was a Dutch version published at Amsterdam in 1598 by Cornelius
Claesz; and it is from this that De Bry made his Latin version,
in his part viii., 1599 (two editions), and 1625, also in German,
1599 and 1624. Also see part xiii. (1634). There were other Dutch
editions or versions in 1605, 1617, 1644. Muller, _Books on America_,
1872, no. 1268, and 1877, no. 2654; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, i.
454. It also formed part v. of Hulsius’s Collection of Voyages, and
the _Lenox Library Bibliographical Contribution on Hulsius_ gives a
Latin edition, 1599, and German editions of 1599, 1601, 1603, 1612,
1663, with duplicate copies of some of them showing variations. See
Asher’s _Bibliography_, p. 42; Camus’s _Mémoire_, p. 97; Meusel’s
_Bibliographia Historica_, vol. iii. There are also versions or
abridgments in the collections of Aa, 1706 and 1727, and Coreal, 1722,
and 1738.

The report of Captain Lawrence Keymis was printed at London in 1596,
of which there is a copy in Harvard College Library. See _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, vol. i. no. 500; it is also given in Hakluyt. Kohl cannot
find that either Keymis or Masham made charts, but thinks their reports
influenced the maps in Hondius, Hulsius, and De Bry.

The accusations against Ralegh in regard to his Guiana representations
have been examined by his biographers. Tytler, ch. 3, defends him;
Schomburgk shields him from Hume’s attacks; so does Kingsley in _North
British Review_, also in his _Essays_, who thinks Ralegh had a right to
be credulous, and that the ruins of the city may yet be found. Napier
in the _Edinburgh Review_, later in his _Lord Bacon and Ralegh_, clears
him of the charge of deceit about the mine. Van Heuvel’s _El Dorado_,
New York, 1844, defends Ralegh’s reports, and gives a map. See Field’s
_Indian Bibliography_ no. 1595. St. John, in his _Life of Ralegh_, ch.
xv., mentions finding Ralegh’s map in the archives of Simancas. See
also the Lives by Edwards, ch. x.; by Thompson, ch. ii.; S. G. Drake
in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, April, 1862, also separately and
enlarged; Fox Bourn’s _English Seamen_, ch. viii.; Payne’s _Elizabethan
Seamen_, pp. 327, 332; Bulfinch’s _Oregon and El Dorado_, etc. Further
examination of the quest for El Dorado will be given in volume ii.—ED.]

[226] [This was originally printed at London, 1618, pp. 45. There is a
copy in Harvard College Library and in Charles Deane’s collection.—ED.]

[227] Quoted by Neill in his _Virginia Company of London_, preface, pp.
vi, vii. The play was written by Marston and others in 1605.

[228] Purchas, iv, 1685.

[229] Neill’s _Virginia Company_, p. 16.

[230] _Generall Historie_, pp. 53-65.

[231] Wingfield’s _Narrative_, quoted by Anderson in his _History of
the Church of England in the Colony_, i. 77.

[232] The height of the chimney is 17-7/12 feet; the greatest width
10-7/12 feet; the fireplace is 7-10/12 feet wide.

[233] Archer was identified by the late William Green, LL.D., Richmond,
Va., as the author of the tract, “A Relatyon of the Discovery of our
River, from James Forte, into the Maine, made by Captain Christopher
Newport, and sincerely written and observed by a Gentleman of this
Colony,” reprinted in the _Transactions of the American Antiquarian
Society_, iv. pp. 40-65.

[234] Stith, _History of Virginia_, p. 67.

[235] _Generall Historie_, ed. 1624, p. 59.

[236] In the outfit of a settler enumerated by Smith is the item, a
complete suit of armor. It is of interest to note that portions of
a steel cuirass, exhumed at Jamestown, are in the collection of the
Virginia Historical Society at Richmond.

[237] Sainsbury’s _Calendar of State Papers_ (1574-1660), p. 8.

[238] [See chapter vi.—ED.]

[239] This was the first wife of Rolfe, whom history records in 1614
as the husband of Pocahontas. He died in 1622, leaving “a wife and
children, besides the child [Thomas] he had by Pocahontas,” for whose
benefit his brother, Henry Rolfe, in England, petitioned the Company,
Oct. 7, 1622, for a settlement of the estate of the deceased in
Virginia.

[240] The text was, Daniel xii. 3: “They that turn many to
righteousness shall shine as the stars for ever and ever.” The sermon
was published by William Welby, London, 1610.

[241] Strachey, in the Hakluyt Society’s Publications, vi. 39.

[242] The tradition is that Dutch Gap derived its name from the German
artisans brought over by Newport in 1608, and that the “glass house”
was located here. A navigable canal across its narrowest breadth, the
digging of which, for military advantages, was begun by the Federal
General, Benjamin F. Butler, has since (in 1873) been completed.

[243] Letter of Sir Thomas Dale, dated “James Towne, the 25th of May,
1611,” preserved in the Ashmole Collection of MSS. in the Bodleian
Library, Oxford, England, communicated by G. D. Scull, Esq., and
published by the present writer in the Richmond _Standard_, Jan. 28,
1882.

[244] Fragments of brick, memorials of this town, are still numerously
scattered over its site.

[245] In a letter of Governor Argall to the Company in 1617, the Rev.
Alexander Whitaker is said to have been recently drowned in crossing
James River, and another minister is desired to be sent to the colony
in his stead.

[246] Newport was after this appointed one of the six Masters of the
Royal Navy, and was engaged by the East India Company to escort Sir
Robert Shirley to Persia. Chamberlain, in _Court and Times of James
I._, i. 154.

[247] Neill’s _Virginia Company_, p. 75.

[248] [See Vol. IV.—ED.]

[249] [This statement is disputed by some.—ED.]

[250] See Hening’s _Statutes_, i. 98; Stith, 126, and Appendix no. 3.

[251] It has been assumed in America that the descendants in Virginia
of Pocahontas were limited to those springing from the marriage of
Robert Bolling with Jane, the daughter of Thomas Rolfe; but it appears
that the last left a son, Anthony, in England, whose daughter, Hannah,
married Sir Thomas Leigh, of County Kent, and that their descendants
of that and of the additional highly respectable names of Bennet and
Spencer are quite numerous. See Deduction in the Richmond _Standard_,
Jan. 21, 1882.

[252] The parish register of Gravesend contains this entry, which has
been assumed as that of the burial of Pocahontas “1616, March 21,
Rebecca Wrothe, wyffe of Thomas Wrothe, Gent. A Virginia Lady borne,
was buried in the Chancell.” Its relevancy has recently been questioned
by the Rev. Patrick G. Robert, of St. Louis, in the Richmond _Daily
Despatch_ of Sept. 10, 1881, and by Mr. J. M. Sinyanki, of London,
in the Richmond _Standard_ of Nov. 12, 1881, both of whom claim upon
tradition that the interment was in a corner of the churchyard.

[253] Stith, p. 146.

[254] Smith, _Generall Historie_, ed. 1627, p. 126.

[255] One of these indentures from the original, dated July 1, 1628,
was published by the writer in the Richmond _Standard_ of Nov. 16, 1878.

[256] The engraver was William Hole, engraver of Smith’s map of
Virginia. The arms adopted were an escutcheon quartered with the arms
of England and France, Scotland and Ireland, crested by a maiden queen
with flowing hair and an eastern crown. Supporters: Two men in armor
having open helmets ornamented with three ostrich feathers, each
holding a lance. Motto: _En dat Virginia quintum_,—a complimentary
acknowledgment of Virginia as the fifth kingdom. After the union of
England and Scotland in 1707, the motto, to correspond with the altered
number of kingdoms, was _En dat Virginia quartam_, the adjective
agreeing with _coronam_ understood, and it appeared on the titlepage
of all legislative publications of the colony until the Revolution.
Neill’s _London Company_, pp. 155-56.

[257] This was not the only material effort made. In 1621, under the
zealous efforts of the Rev. Patrick Copland (the chaplain of an East
India ship), funds were collected for the establishment of a free
school in Charles City County, to be called the East India School. For
its maintenance one thousand acres of land, with five servants and an
overseer, were allotted by the Company.

The advantage of private education, in the families at least of the
more provident of the planters, was increasingly secured by the
employment as tutors of poor young men of education, who came over from
time to time, and by indenture served long enough to pay the cost of
their transportation. Later in the seventeenth century, all whose means
enabled them to do so educated their sons in England,—a custom which
largely continued during the following century, though William and Mary
College had been established in 1692.

[258] A gentleman of the honorable family of Beverstone Castle, County
Gloucester.

[259] He was the brother of Sir Edwin Sandys, the late Treasurer of the
Company. He was born in 1577, and in 1610 visited Turkey, Palestine,
and Egypt. An account of his travels was published at Oxford in 1615.

[260] Chalmers’ _Introduction_, i. 13-16. The Ordinance and Wyatt’s
Commission may be seen in Hening’s _Statutes_, i. 110-113.

[261] In the Indian massacre of March 22, 1622, Daniel Gookin bravely
maintained his settlement. He served as a burgess from Elizabeth City,
and later returned to Ireland. His son, of the same name, becoming
a convert to the missionaries sent from New England in 1642, and
declining to take the oath of conformity, removed in May, 1644, to
Boston. He afterwards became eminent in New England, was the author
of several historical works, and held various offices of dignity and
importance.

[262] In 1687, and again in 1696, Colonel William Byrd, the first
of the name in Virginia, undertook the revival of the iron-works at
Falling Creek; but there is no record preserved of his plans having
been successfully carried out. New iron-works were, however, erected
here by Colonel Archibald Cary prior to 1760, which he operated with
pig-iron from Maryland, but in the year named he abandoned the forge
because of its lack of profit, and converted his pond to the use of a
grist-mill. The site of the works of 1622 on the western bank of the
creek, and that of Cary’s forge of 1760 on the opposite side of the
same water, have both been identified by the present writer by the
scoriæ remaining about the ground. The manufacture of iron in Virginia
was revived by Governor Alexander Spotswood at Germanna about 1716.

[263] [See chapter xiii.—ED.]

[264] These were James City, Henrico, Charles City, Elizabeth City,
Warwick River, Warrosquoyoke, Charles River, and Accomac.

[265] These magnates, who were called colonels were usually members of
the Council, and their functions were magisterial as well as military.

[266] Hening states that “there is a patent granted by Harvey 13th
April, 1636.”—_Statutes at Large_, i. 4.

[267] It was fully three quarters of a century thereafter before
Dissent became appreciable in the colony. Governor Spotswood wrote
the Bishop of London, Oct. 24, 1710: “It is a peculiar blessing
to this Country to have but few of any kind of Dissenters;” and
adds the following, which may be taken in refutation of many gross
misrepresentations of the moral and social condition of the colonists
at the period: “I have observed here less Swearing and Prophaneness,
less Drunkenness and Debauchery, less uncharitable feuds and
animositys, and less Knaverys and Villanys than in any part of the
world where my Lot has been.” He also wrote to the Council of Trade,
Dec. 15, 1710: “That happy Establishment of the Church of England,
which the Colony enjoys with less mixture of Dissenters than any other
of her Majesty’s plantations;” and to the Earl of Rochester, July 30,
1711, in ample confirmation of his earlier judgment, he wrote: “This
Government, I can joyfully assure your Lordship, is in perfect peace
and tranquility under a due Obedience to the Royal Authority and a
Gen^{ll}. Conformity to the Established Church of England.” See _The
Official Letters of Governor Alexander Spotswood_, 1710-1722, published
by the Virginia Historical Society, with Introduction and Notes by R.
A. Brock, vol. i. pp. 27 and 108.

[268] His signature is Stegge. He was the maternal uncle of Colonel
William Byrd, the first of the name in the colony, who came thither
a youth, as the heir of his large landed estate, which included the
present site of Richmond.

[269] A son of Sir George Yeardley, a former governor of Virginia, and
Lady Temperance, his wife, who was born in Virginia.

[270] The letter is given in full in Thurloe’s _State Papers_, ii. 273,
and is republished in the Richmond _Standard_ of Feb. 11, 1882, by the
present writer.

[271] Hening, ii. 24.

[272] _Ibid._ ii. 49.

[273] The quit-rent was one shilling for every fifty acres of land, the
latest consideration in its acquirement. It was first granted to the
Adventurers, by the Company, in tracts of one hundred acres, after five
years’ service in the colony. If planted and seated within three years,
the quantity was augmented by another hundred acres. Later, each person
removing to the colony at his own expense, with the intention to settle
and remain, was entitled to fifty acres of land. The right extended
also to every member of his family or person whose passage-money he
defrayed. These rights upon “transports” were called “head-rights,” and
were assignable.

[274] The locality of the murder is indicated by a small stream known
as Bacon Quarter Branch.

[275] It is given in a rare little tract: _An Historical Account of
some Memorable Actions, Particularly in Virginia; Also Against the
Admiral of Algier, and in the East Indies: Perform’d for the Service of
his Prince and Country_. By S^r Thomas Grantham, K^t [Motto]. London:
printed for J. Roberts, near the Oxford Arms in Warwick Lane, MDCCVI.
18º. The copy in the Virginia State Library is thought to be the only
one in this country, pp. 12, 13: “If Virtue be a Sin, if Piety be
Guilt, if all the Principles of Morality and Goodness and Justice be
perverted, we must confess that those who are called Rebels may be in
Danger of those high Imputations, those loud and severe Bulls, which
would affright Innocency, and render the Defence of our Brethren and
the Enquiry into our sad and heavy Oppressions Treason. But if there be
(as sure there is) a just God to appeal to; if Religion and Justice be
a Sanctuary here; if to plead the Cause of the Oppress’d; if sincerely
to aim at the Publick Good, without any Reservation or By-Interest; if
to stand in the Gap, after so much Blood of our Dear Brethren bought
and sold; if after the Loss of a great Part of His Majesty’s Colony,
deserted and dispeopl’d, and freely to part with our Lives and Estates
to endeavor to save the Remainder, be Treason,—Let God and the World
judge, and the Guilty die. But since we cannot find in our Hearts One
single Spot of Rebellion and Treason, or that we have in any manner
aimed at the Subversion of the Settl’d Government, or attempting the
Person of any, either Magistrate or Private Man,—notwithstanding the
several Reproaches and Threats of some who for sinister Ends were
disaffected to Us, and censure our Just and Honest Designs,—Let Truth
be bold and all the World Know the Real Foundation of our Pretended
Guilt.”

[276] This is shown by the preservation of books to this day in the
several departments of literature which are identified, by ownership
in inscribed name and date, with the homes of the Virginia planter of
the seventeenth century, many of which have fallen under the personal
inspection of the present writer, who has some examples in his own
library. A little later, private libraries were numerous in Virginia,
and in value, extent, and variety of subject embraced, the exhibit will
contrast favorably with that of any of the English colonies in America.

[277] [On the later designation of “Old Dominion,” see _Historical
Magazine_, iii. 319; and J. H. Trumbull on Indian names in Virginia in
_Historical Magazine_, xvii. 47.—ED.]

[278] The editor of the tract, “J. H.,” in his preface, says: “Some
of the books were printed under the name of Thomas Watson, by whose
occasion I know not, unlesse it were the ouer-rashnesse or mistakinge
of the workmen.”

The words “by a gentleman” got also through ignorance of the real
authorship into the titles of some copies as author, there being four
varieties of titles. It is sometimes quoted (by Purchas for instance)
by the running head-line _Newes from Virginia_. Mr. Deane edited an
edition of it at Boston in 1866. There are eight copies of it known to
be in America: one each belonging to Harvard College, S. L. M. Barlow,
and the Carter-Brown Library; two in the New York Historical Society,
and three in the Lenox Library. (_Magazine of American History,_ i.
251.) The text is the same in all cases, and those copies in which
Smith’s name is given have an explanatory preface acknowledging the
mistake. Mr. Payne Collier, in his _Rarest Books in the English
Language_, 1865, is of the opinion that Watson was the true author,
which Mr. Deane shows to be an error. An earlier, very inaccurate
reprint was made in the _Southern Literary Messenger_, February, 1845,
from the New York Historical Society’s copy. Use is also made of it in
Pinkerton’s _Voyages_, vol. xiii. [Mr. Deane suggests that the reason
Smith omitted this tract in his _Generall Historie_, substituting for
it the _Map of Virginia_, is to be found in the greater ease with which
the narratives of others in the latter tracts would take on the story
of Pocahontas, which his own words in the _True Relation_ might forbid.

Tyler, _History of American Literature_, i. 26, calls this tract of
Smith’s the earliest contribution to American literature. The latest
copy sold which we have noted was in the Ouvry Sale, London, March,
1882, no. 1,535 of its _Catalogue_, which brought £57.—ED.]

[279] A portrait of “Captaine George Percy,” copied in 1853 by Herbert
L. Smith from the original at Syon House, the seat of the Duke of
Northumberland, at the instance of Conway Robinson, Esq., then visiting
England, is among the valuable collection of portraits of the Virginia
Historical Society at Richmond. Its frame, of carved British oak,
was a present to the Society from William Twopenny, Esq., of London,
the solicitor of the Duke of Northumberland. Percy (born Sept. 4,
1586, died unmarried in March, 1632) was “a gentleman of honor and
resolution.” He had served with distinction in the wars of the Low
Countries, and his soldierly qualities were evidenced in the colony, as
well as his administrative ability as the successor of John Smith. A
mutilated hand represented in the portrait, it is said, was a memorial
of a sanguinary encounter with the savages of Virginia. The head from
this portrait is given on an earlier page.

[280] The author of the “Relatyon,” etc., was identified by the late
Hon. William Green, LL.D., of Richmond, as Captain Gabriel Archer.
[Newport’s connection with the colony is particularly sketched in
Neill’s _Virginia and Virginiola_, 1878. Neill describes the MS. which
is in the Record office as “a fair and accurate description of the
first Virginia explorations.” Mr. Hale later made some additions to his
original notes (_Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct. 21, 1864), where some
supplemental notes by Mr. Deane will also be found as to the origin
of the name Newport-News as connected with Captain Newport. See H.
B. Grigsby in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ x. 23; also _Hist. Mag._ iii.
347.—ED.]

[281] Preface to Deane’s _True Relation_, p. xxxiii. [Wingfield’s
_Discourse_ was first brought to the attention of students in 1845 by
the citations from the original MS. at Lambeth made by Mr. Anderson in
his _History of the Church of England in the Colonies_.—ED.]

[282] [The MS. was bought at Dawson Turner’s Sale in 1859 by Lilly,
the bookseller, who announced that he would print an edition of fifty
copies. (Deane’s ed. _True Relation_, p. xxxv; _Hist. Mag._, July,
1861, p. 224; _Aspinwall Papers_, i. 21, note.) It was only partly
put in type, and the MS. remained in the printer’s hands ten years,
when Mr. Henry Stevens bought it for Mr. Hunnewell, who caused a small
edition (two hundred copies) to be printed privately at the Chiswick
Press.—ED.]

[283] _Brinley Catalogue_, no. 3,800.

[284] This was reprinted in Force’s _Tracts_, i., and by Sabin, edited
by F. L. Hawks, New York, 1867.

[285] Sabin, vii. 323; Rich (1832), £1 8_s._; Ouvry Sale, 1882, no.
1,582, a copy with the autograph, “W. Ralegh, Turr, Lond.”

[286] There is a copy in Harvard College Library. (Rich, 1832, no. 121,
£1 8_s._) It was an official document of the Company.

[287] Another official publication. A copy in Harvard College Library.
(Rich, 1832, no. 122, £2 2_s._) It is reprinted in Force’s _Tracts_,
iii.

[288] But one copy is now known, which is at present in the Huth
collection (_Catalogue_, iv. 1247), having formerly belonged to Lord
Charlemont’s Library at Dublin, where Halliwell found it in 1864,
bound up with other tracts. The volume escaped the fire in London
which destroyed the greater part of the Charlemont collection in 1865,
and at the sale that year brought £63. In the same year Halliwell
privately printed it (ten copies). Winsor’s _Halliwelliana_, p. 25;
Allibone’s _Dictionary of Authors_, vol. ii. p. 1788. In 1874 it was
again privately reprinted (twenty-five copies) in London. It once more
appeared, in 1878, in Neill’s _Virginia and Virginiola_. Cf. Lefroy’s
_History of Bermuda_.

[289] Tyler’s _American Literature_, i. 42. Malone wrote a book to
prove that this description by Strachey suggested to Shakespeare the
plot of the _Tempest_,—a view controverted in a tract on the _Tempest_
by Joseph Hunter.

[290] Reprinted in Force’s _Tracts_, iii. no. 2. The dedication is
given in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._ 1866, p. 36.

[291] [There is a copy in the Lenox Library; it was reprinted (50
copies) in 1859, and again by Mr. Griswold (20 copies) in 1868. A
letter of Lord Delaware, July 7, 1610, from the Harleian MSS., is
printed in the Hakluyt Society’s edition of Strachey, p. xxiii.—ED.]

[292] [There is a copy in Harvard College Library. A very fine copy
in the Stevens Sale (1881, _Catalogue_, no. 1,612) was afterward held
by Quaritch at £25. Fifty years ago Rich (_Catalogue_ 1832, no. 131)
priced a copy at £2 2_s._ (See Sabin, xiii. 53249.) It was reprinted
in Force’s _Tracts_, vol. i. no. 7, and in 2 _Mass. Hist. Coll._ vol.
viii.—ED.]

[293] [A further account of this tract will be found in a subsequent
editorial note on the “Maps of Virginia;” and of Smith’s _Generall
Historie_ a full account will be found in the Editorial Note at the end
of Dr. De Costa’s chapter.—ED.]

[294] [Tyler, _American Literature_, i. 46; Neill, _Virginia Company_,
78; Rich (1832), no. 135, priced at £2 2_s._ Mr. Neill has told the
story of Whitaker and others in his _Notes on the Virginian Colonial
Clergy_, Philadelphia, 1877.—ED.]

[295] [The original edition is in the Lenox Library and the Deane
Collection; and copies at public sales in America have brought $150 and
$170. (Field, _Indian Bibliography_, nos. 642-43, where he cites it as
one of the earliest accounts of the Indians of Virginia; Sabin, viii.
46.) A German translation was published at Hanau as part xiii. of the
_Hulsius Voyages_ in 1617 (containing more than was afterwards included
in De Bry’s Latin), and there were two issues of it the same year
with slight variations. The map is copied from Smith’s _New England_,
not from his _Virginia_. _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, i. 491; _Lenox
Contributions_ (Hulsius), p. 15.

In 1619 De Bry gave it in Latin as part x. of his _Great Voyages_,
having given it in German the year before. _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, i.
348, 368.—ED.]

[296] [Some of them follow in chronological order:—

Norwood’s _Voyage to Virginia_, 1649; Force’s _Tracts_, vol. iii.;
_Virginia Hist. Reg._ ii. 121.

_Perfect Description of Virginia_, 1649; Force’s _Tracts_, vol. ii.;
_Virginia Hist. Reg._ ii. 60; original edition in Harvard College
Library; priced by Rich in 1832, £1 10_s._, by Quaritch in 1879, £20.

William Bullock’s _Virginia impartially Examined_, London, 1649;
Force’s _Tracts_, vol. iii. The original is now scarce. Rich in 1832
(_Catalogue_, no. 271) quotes it at £1 10_s._ (it is now worth $75).
Sabin, iii. 9145; Ternaux, 685; Brinley, 3725.

_Extract from a manuscript collection of annals relative to Virginia_,
Force’s _Tracts_, vol. ii.

_A short Collection of the most remarkable passages from the Originall
to the Dissolution of the Virginia Company_, London, 1651; there are
copies in the Library of Congress and in that of Harvard College.

_The Articles of Surrender to the Commonwealth_, March 12, 1651;
_Mercurius Politicus_, May 20-27, 1652; _Virginia Hist. Reg._ ii. 182.

_Virginia’s Cure; or, an advisive narrative Concerning Virginia;
Discovering the True Ground of that churches unhappiness_, by R. G.
1662. Force’s _Tracts_, vol. iii. The original is in Harvard College
Library.

Sir William Berkeley’s _Discourse and View of Virginia_, 1663; Sabin’s
_Dictionary_, ii. 4889.

Nathaniel Shrigley’s _True Relation of Virginia and Maryland_, 1669;
Force’s _Tracts_, vol. v.

John Lederer’s _Discoveries in Three Marches from Virginia_, 1669,
1670, London, 1672, with map of the country traversed. It was
“collected out of the Latin by Sir William Talbot, Baronet.” There is
a copy in Harvard College Library, _Griswold Catalogue_, 422; _Huth
Catalogue_, iii. 829.

There are in the early Virginian bibliography a few titles on the
efforts made to induce the cultivation of silkworms. The King addressed
a letter to the Earl of Southampton with a review of Bonœil’s treatise
on the making of silk, and this was published by the Company in 1622.
(_Harvard College Library MS. Catalogue_; _Brinley Catalogue_, no.
3,760.) The Company also published, in 1629, _Observations ... of Fit
Rooms to keepe silk wormes in_; and as late as 1655 Hartlib’s _Reformed
Virginian Silk-worm_ indicated continued interest in the subject.
This last is reprinted in Force’s _Tracts_, vol. iii. no. 13, and the
originals of this and of the preceding are in Harvard College Library.
Sabin’s _Dictionary_, viii. 121.—ED.]

[297] The _Orders and constitutions ordained by the treasvror,
covnseil, and companie of Virginia, for the better gouerning of said
companie_, is reprinted in Force’s _Tracts_, vol. iii.

[298] _Fortieth Congress, Second Session, Misc. Doc._ no. 84, _Senate_.
Another effort was made in Congress for this eminently desirable
measure in 1881. The bill introduced by Senator John W. Johnston, of
Virginia, passed the Senate, but for some reason failed in the House of
Representatives.]

[299] [While these two volumes were yet in his possession, Mr.
Jefferson, in a letter to Colonel Hugh P. Taylor, dated October 4,
1823, says, that the volumes came to him with the Library of Colonel
Richard Bland, which Mr. Jefferson had purchased,—Colonel Bland having
borrowed them of the Westover Library, and never returned them. (See H.
A. Washington’s ed. of _Jefferson’s Writings_, vii. 312.) Colonel Bland
died in October, 1776. A duplicate set of these Records (transcripts
made in Virginia some hundred and fifty years ago) are now in the
possession of Conway Robinson, Esq., of Richmond. They were deposited
with him by Judge William Leigh, one of the executors of John Randolph
of Roanoke, in whose library they were found after his death, in
1833, where they were inspected and described by the late Hugh Blair
Grigsby, before the dispersion of the library at a later period.
(_Letters of Conway Robinson and H. B. Grigsby to Mr. Deane_). These
Randolph-Leigh-Robinson volumes were examined by Mr. Deane in Richmond,
in April, 1872, just after he had inspected the Byrd-Stith-Jefferson
copy in the Law Library in Washington.—ED.]

[300] [Mr. Neill has published numerous notes on early Virginia history
in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, namely, “English maids for
Virginia,” 1876, p. 410; “Transportation of Homeless Children,” 1876,
p. 414; “Lotteries,” 1877, p. 21; “Daniel Gookin of Virginia,” 1877,
p. 267 (see also i. 345; ii. 167; Paige’s _Cambridge_, 563, and _Terra
Mariæ_, 76).—ED.]

[301] [Colonel Aspinwall collected during his long consulship at
Liverpool a valuable American library, of about four thousand volumes
(771 titles), which in 1863 was sold to Samuel L. M. Barlow, Esq., of
New York, but all except about five hundred of the rarest volumes which
Mr. Barlow had taken possession of were burned in that city in 1864.
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ xv. 2. This collection was described in a
catalogue (a few copies privately printed), _Bibliotheca Barlowiana_,
compiled by Henri Harrisse.—ED.]

[302] John Pory’s lively account of excursions among the Indians is
given in Smith’s _Generall Historie_. Neill, _N. E. Hist. and Geneal.
Reg._ 1875, p. 296, thinks that George Ruggles was the author of
several of the early tracts in Force’s _Tracts_. See Neill’s _Virginia
Company_, p. 362.

[303] [The history of the dividing line (1728) between Virginia and
North Carolina is found in William Byrd’s _Westover MSS._, printed in
Petersburg in 1841. It shows how successive royal patents diminished
the patent rights of Virginia. See _Virginia Hist. Reg._ i. and iv. 77;
Williamson’s _North Carolina_, App.—ED.]

[304] A copy of this portion of the _Records_, collated with the
original by Mr. Sainsbury, is in the library of the present writer. The
other papers of this 1874 volume included a list of the living and dead
in 1623, a Brief Declaration of the Plantation during the first twelve
years (already mentioned), the census of 1634, etc.

[305] [The Speaker’s Report of their doings to the Company in England
was printed in the _New York Hist. Coll._ in 1857. See also on these
proceedings the _Antiquary_, London, July, 1881.—ED.]

[306] [There is a copy in Harvard College Library; Rich (1832), no.
133, £2 2_s._; Brinley, nos. 3,739-40. It was reprinted in Force’s
_Tracts_, vol. iii. no. 5. Mr. Deane, _True Relation_, p. xli, examines
the conflicting accounts as to the number of persons constituting the
first immigration.—ED.]

[307] [The vexed question as to how far the convict class made part
of the early comers is discussed in Jones’s ed. Hakluyt’s _Divers
Voyages_, p. 10; _Index to Remembrancia_, 1519-1664, with citations in
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ xvii. 297; _Aspinwall Papers_, i. 1, note;
E. D. Neill, _English Colonization in North America_, p. 171, and his
“Virginia as a Penal Colony,” in _Hist. Mag._, May, 1869. “It would be
wholly wrong, however, to suppose that immigrants of this sort were a
controlling element,” says Lodge in his _English Colonies_, p. 66; and
this is now the general opinion.—ED.]

[308] Bishop Meade’s _Old Churches and Families of Virginia_, 2 vols.
8º, 1855, Slaughter’s _History of St. Mark’s Parish, Culpeper County_,
1877, and _Bristol Parish, Dinwiddie County_, 2d edition, 1879, and the
files of the _Richmond Standard_ may be referred to for purposes of
genealogical investigation.

[309] A transcript of this “Register” is in the hands of the present
writer for preparation for publication, with an Introduction, Notes,
and Indices.

[310] A second volume, continuing the series, has been published the
present year (1882). An Introduction in vol. i. recounts the losses to
which the archives have been subjected, and enumerates the resources
still remaining.

[311] Chapter vi.

[312] This iconoclastic view was also sustained by Mr. E. D. Neill in
chapter v. of his _Virginia Company in London_, 1869, which was also
printed separately, and in chapter iv. of his _English Colonization in
America_. He goes farther than Mr. Deane, and, following implicitly
Strachey’s statement of an earlier marriage for Pocahontas, he impugns
other characters than Smith’s, and repeats the imputations in his
_Virginia and Virginiola_, p. 20. There is a paper on the marriage
of Pocahontas, by Wyndham Robertson, in the _Virginia Historical
Reporter_, vol. ii. part i. (1860), p. 67. (Cf. Field’s _Indian
Bibliography_, p. 383.) See Neill’s view pushed to an extreme in
_Hist. Mag._ xvii. 144. A writer in the _Virginia Hist. Reg._ iv. 37,
undertook to show that Kokoum and Rolfe were the same. Matthew S.
Henry, in a letter dated Philadelphia, Sept. 11, 1857, written to Dr.
Wm. P. Palmer, then Corresponding Secretary of the Virginia Historical
Society, gives us the Lenni Lenape signification of Kakoom or Kokoum,
as “‘to come from somewhere else,’ as we would say, ‘a foreigner.’”

[313] [See Maxwell’s _Hist. Reg._ ii., 189; and a note to the earlier
part of this chapter. Her story is likely still to be told with all
the old embellishment. See Prof. Schele de Vere’s _Romance of American
History_, 1872, ch. iii. A piece of sculpture in the Capitol at
Washington depicts the apocryphal scene. W. G. Simms urges her career
as the subject for historical painting (_Verses and Reviews_). She
figures in more than one historical romance: J. Davis’s _First Settlers
of Virginia_, New York, 1805-6, and again, Philadelphia, 1817, with the
more definite title of _Captain Smith and the Princess Pocahontas_;
Samuel Hopkins, _Youth of the Old Dominion_. There are other works of
fiction, prose and verse, bearing on Pocahontas and her father, by
Seba Smith, L. H. Sigourney, M. W. Moseby, R. D. Owens, O. P. Hillar,
etc.—ED.]

[314] [See an earlier note on her descendants.—ED.]

[315] Its place is sometimes supplied by a fac-simile engraved for W.
Richardson’s _Granger’s Portraits_, 1792-96. The original Mataoka or
Pocahontas picture was neither in the Brinley, the Medlicott, nor the
Menzies copies, and is not in the Harvard College, Dowse, Deane, or in
most of the known copies.

The Crowninshield copy (_Catalogue_, no. 992) had the original plate;
and that copy, after going to England, came back to America as the
property of Dr. Charles G. Barney, of Virginia, and at the sale of his
library in New York in 1870 it brought $247.50; but it is understood
that it returned to his own shelves. The Carter-Brown (1632) edition,
the Barlow large-paper copy, and one copy at least in the Lenox Library
have it.

[316] There exists at Heacham Hall, Norfolk, the seat of the Rolfes,
a portrait thought to be of Henry, the son of Pocahontas. This is the
painting mentioned by error in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ xiii. 425, as
of Pocahontas.

[317] Grigsby’s authority for his statements was the son of Sully,
who also painted an ideal portrait of Pocahontas. Copies of a picture
of Pocahontas by Thomas Sully, and of another painted by R. M. Sully
are in the Collections of the Virginia Historical Society, and it is
palpable that they are both mere fanciful representations. The original
of the picture which was at Cobb’s, the writer was informed by the late
Hon. John Robertson, a descendant of Pocahontas, represented “a stout
blonde English woman,”—a description which does not agree with the
picture by Robert M. Sully purporting to be a copy.

The late Charles Campbell, author of a _History of Virginia_, stated
that Thomas Sully was allowed to take the original from Cobb’s (it
being little valued), and that after cleaning it he altered the
features and complexion to his own fancy. Of the picture by Thomas
Sully he states: “The portrait I painted and presented to the
Historical Society of Virginia was copied, in part, from the portrait
of Pocahontas in the ‘Indian Gallery,’ published by Daniel Rice and Z.
Clark. In my opinion the copy by my nephew [Robert M. Sully] is best
entitled to authenticity.”

[318] There is a copy in Harvard College Library; Rich (1832), no. 165,
priced it at £2 2_s._

[319] [Force copied from the _Richmond Inquirer_ of September 1804,
where Jefferson had printed it from a copy in his possession. Another
copy was followed in the _Virginia Evangelical and Literary Magazine_
in 1820, which is the source from which it was again printed in the
_Virginia Hist. Reg._, iii. 61, 621.—ED.]

[320] [See an earlier note.—Ed.]

[321] [See _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._ 1861, p. 320, and
Massachusetts Archives, Colonial, 1, 475; _Democratic Review_, vii.
243, 453. For the later historians see Bancroft’s _History of the
United States_, vol. ii. ch. 14, and Centenary Edition, vol. i. ch. 20;
Gay’s _Popular History of the United States_, ii. 296; and the memoir
of Bacon by William Ware in Sparks’s _American Biography_, vol. xiii.

[Illustration: Autograph John West]

Articles of peace were signed by John West and the native kings, May
29, 1677 (_Brinley Catalogue_, 5484.)

Mrs. Aphra Behn made the events rather distantly the subject of a
drama, _The Widdow Ranter_; and in our day St. George Tucker based his
novel of _Hansford_ upon them. See Sabin, ii. 4372.—ED.

[322] In 1722 the book was reissued in London, revised and enlarged as
the author had left it, and this edition is now worth £10 10_s._ It was
again reprinted in 1855, edited by Charles Campbell. (Sabin, vol. ii.;
Brinley, 3719; Muller, 1877, no. 318, etc.) Jones’s _Present State of
Virginia_, 1724, may also be noted.

[323] [Thomas Hollis wrote in the copy of Keith which he sent to
Harvard College in 1768, “_The Society_, the glorious society,
_instituted in London for promoting Learning_, having existed but a
little while, through scrubness of the times, no other than PART I. of
this history was published, and it is very scarce.”—ED.]

[324] [Some claim to be printed in London in 1753; the copy in Harvard
College Library is of this 1753 imprint; see _Hist. Mag._ i. 59, and
ii. 61 (where it is asserted that only the title is of new make), and
the bibliographical note which Sabin added to his reprint of Stith in
1865, where he describes three varieties. There is a collation in the
_Brinley Catalogue_, no. 3,796, not agreeing with either; cf. _Hist.
Mag._ ii. 184, and _North American Review_, October, 1866, p. 605.—ED.]

[325] [Adams, _Manual of Historical Literature_, 557; _Hist. Mag._
i. 27; Field, _Indian Bibliography_, no. 1,502; Tyler, _American
Literature_, ii. 280; Allibone, ii. 2264; article by William Green in
_Southern Literary Messenger_, September, 1863.—ED.]

[326] See Charles Campbell’s _Memoir of John Daly Burk_, 1868.

[327] Sabin, iii. 9273.

[328] [C. K. Adams, _Manual of Historical Literature_, 557; _Potter’s
American Monthly_, December, 1876, the year of Campbell’s death.—ED.]

[329] [See this map in chapter i.—ED.]

[330] [The French explorations will be treated, and the illustrative
maps will be given, in Vol. IV.—ED.]

[331] Lane, in 1585, heard of houses covered with plates of metal.
_Hakluyt_, iii. 258. Others repeated similar stories about other places.

[332] Dee’s _Diary in the Publications_ of the Camden Society.

[333] [See chap. iv.—ED.]

[334] [See chapter iv.—ED.]

[335] It should be noted that Robert Salterne, who was with Pring at
Plymouth, soon after took Orders in the Church of England. This leads
to the conjecture that public worship may have been conducted at
Plymouth in 1603; though the subject is not referred to.

[336] [See chap. ix. of Vol. IV—ED.]

[337] [These transactions of the French will be noted in detail in Vol.
IV.—ED.]

[338] [This is counting Pring as the first, not usually reckoned such
however, and Champlain as the second. See the Critical Essay.—ED.]

[339] [A heliotype of this map, somewhat reduced, is given at page
198. It is the second of the ten different states of the plate. See
_Memorial History of Boston_, i. 54; and the Critical Essay—ED.]

[340] Gorges’ _Brief Narrative_, ch. xv. [The map made during the
Raleigh voyage of 1585, now with the original drawings of De Bry’s
pictures in the British Museum, shows a strait at Port Royal leading to
an extended sea, like Verrazano’s, at the west. We have been allowed by
Dr. Edward Eggleston to examine a photograph of this map.—ED.]

[341] [See chapter viii.—ED.]

[342] [See editorial note, A, at the end of this chapter.—ED.]

[343] On the signification of this word see “The Lost City of New
England” in _Magazine of American History_, i. no. 1, and printed
separately. The most notable monograph that has appeared in connection
with the general subject is that by M. Eugène Beauvois, entitled, _La
Norambegue. Découverte d’une quatrième colonie Pré-Colombienne dans le
Nouveau Monde_. Bruxelles, 1880, pp. 27-32. This very learned author
labors with great ingenuity to prove that the word is of old northern
origin, and that by a variety of transformations, which he seeks to
explain, it means Norrœnbygda, or the country of Norway; and that,
consequently, it must be regarded as showing the early occupation of
the region by Scandinavians. [Cf. also the paper by the same author
on “Le Markland et l’Escociland,” in _Congrès des Américanistes;
Compte rendu_, 1877, i. 224.—ED.] To the claim that the word is of
Indian origin we may oppose the statement in Thevet’s _Cosmographie_
(ii. 1009), evidently derived by that mendacious writer from an early
navigator, to the effect that, while the Europeans called the country
Norumbega, the savages called it Aggoncy. Father Vetromile reported
that he found an Indian who knew the word Nolumbega, meaning “still
water;” yet he does not say whether he recognized it as an aboriginal
or an imported word. [Vetromile, _History of the Abnakis_, New York,
1866, p. 49; and assented to by Murphy, _Verrazano_, p. 38. Father
Vetromile says in a letter: “In going with Indians in a canoe along
the Penobscot, when we arrived at some large sheet of water after a
rapid or narrow passage, men would say _Nolumbeghe_.” Dr. Ballard,
in a manuscript, says the coast Indians in our day have called it
_Nah-rah-bĕ-gek_.—ED.]

[344] See his account in vol. iii. p. 129 of _The Principal
Navigations, voiages, Traffiques, and Discoveries of the English Nation
made by Sea or overland, to the remote and farthest distant quarters of
the Earth at any time within the compasse of these 1600 yeeres: Divided
into three severall Volumes, according to the positions of the Regions
whereunto they were directed, etc., etc. By Richard Hakluyt, Master of
Arts, and sometime Student of Christ-Church in Oxford. Imprinted at
London by George Bishop, Ralph Newberie, and Robert Barker_, 1598; in
three volumes folio, the third, relating to America, printed in 1600.
[This edition was reprinted (325 copies) with care in 1809-12 by George
Woodfall, edited by R. H. Evans, and the reprint is now so scarce that
it brings £20 to £30. Such parts of Hakluyt’s earlier edition of 1589,
as he had omitted in the new edition (1598-1600), were reinserted by
Evans, and the completed reprint including other narratives “chiefly
published by Hakluyt or at his suggestion,” is extended to five
volumes. See an account of the earlier publications of Hakluyt in the
note following this chapter.—ED.]

[345] See _Purchas His Pilgrimes_, iii. 809.

[346] Bowen’s _Complete System of Geography_, two vols. folio, London,
1747, vol. ii. p. 686, where reference is made to Cape Lorembec. See
also Charlevoix’s reference to Cap de Lorembec, in Shea’s edition, v.
284; also some modern maps.

[347] _Descripcion de las Indias ocidentales de Antonio de Herrera_,
etc. 1601, dec. ii. lib. v. c. 3.

[348] This pilot has also been taken for Verrazano, said by Ramusio
to have been killed and eaten by the savages on this coast. See also
Biddle’s _Memoir of Sebastian Cabot_, second edition, London, 1832, p.
272. See also Brevoort’s _Verrazano the Navigator_, p. 147 [and Mr.
Deane’s chapter in the present volume.—ED.]

[349] Hakluyt, 111, 500.

[350] In 1525 the “Mary of Guilford,” 160 tons, and one year old, was
reserved for the King’s use. _Manuscripts of Henry_ VIII. iv. 752.
“John Rutt” was at one time master of the “Gabryll Royall.” In 1513 he
was master of the “Lord Sturton,” with a crew of 250 men; and, in April
of the same year, master of the “Great Galley,” 700 tons, John Hoplin
being captain. Ibid., under “Ships.”

[351] Hakluyt, iii. 208; and De Costa’s _Northmen in Maine, a Critical
Examination_, etc.,—Albany, 1870, p. 43,—[in refutation of the
arguments of Kohl in his _Discovery of Maine_, p. 281, who contends for
Rut’s exploration.—ED.]

[352] Folio, 557. A copy of the manuscript is preserved in the British
Museum, Sloane manuscripts, 1447, and one is also in the Bodleian,
Tanner manuscripts, 79. They present no substantial variations. Hakluyt
accepts the relation in his “Discourse,” 2 _Maine Hist. Coll._ ii.
115-220, [but his editor, Charles Deane, thinks it “has all the air of
a romance or fiction.” The Sloane copy was followed by P. C. T. Weston,
who privately printed it in his _Documents Connected with the History
of South Carolina_, London, 1856 (121 copies), with the following
title: “The Land Travels of Davyd Ingram and others in the years
1568-69 from the Rio de Minas in the Gulph of Mexico to Cape Breton in
Acadia.” A manuscript copy in the Sparks Collection (_Catalogue_, App.
No. 30) is called “Relaçon of Davyd Ingram of things which he did see
in Travellinge by lande for [from?] the moste northerlie pte of the
Baye of Mexico throughe a greate pte of Ameryca untill within fivetye
leagues of Cape Britton.” Mr. Sparks has endorsed it: “Many parts of
this narrative are incredible, so much as to throw a distrust over the
whole.”—ED.

[353] Purchas, iv. 1179. Ingram’s reference to Elephants reminds the
reader of the Lions of the Plymouth colonists (Dexter’s _Mourt_, p.
75). In this connection consult the _Rare Travailes_ of Job Hortop, who
was put ashore with Ingram, being twenty-two years in reaching England.
Cabeça de Vaca, who came to America with Narvaez in 1528, was six years
in captivity, and spent twenty months in his travels to escape. At
this period there were Indian trails in all directions for thousands
of miles; on these Ingram and his companions travelled. See, for the
Indian trails, _Maine Hist. Coll._, v. 326.

[354] [The Sloane text, according to Weston, has a blank for the name
of this river.—ED.]

[355] _Nouvelle France_, p. 598.

[356] _Œuvres_, iii. 22.

[357] Hakluyt, iii. 283. [See also chapter iv. of the present
volume.—ED.]

[358] Williamson’s _History of North Carolina_, i. 53.

[359] Hawks, _History of North Carolina_, i. 196., ed. 1857.

[360] _Archæologia Americana_, iv. 11; and _Colonial State Papers_, i.,
under August 12, 1585.

[361] _Calendar of Colonial State Papers_, i. no. 2.

[362] [His patent is in Hakluyt, iii. 174, and in Hazard, i. 24.—ED.]

[363] [See chapter iii. in the present volume, for notices of earlier
parts of Gilbert’s career. J. Wingate Thornton points out his pedigree
in “The Gilbert Family,” in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, July, 1850,
p. 223. In the same place, July, 1859, is one of Gilbert’s last letters
(from the state-paper office), with an autograph signature which is
copied in a later note.—ED.]

[364] See Richard Clarke’s narrative of “The Voyage for the discovery
of Norumbega, 1583,” in Hakluyt, iii. 163; [and Edward Haies’s account
of the voyage of 1583, Ibid., iii. 143, and also in E. J. Payne’s
_Voyages of Elizabethan Seamen_, London, 1880, p. 175. Soon after
Haies, in the “Golden Hind,” reached England, after seeing Gilbert, in
the “Squirrel,” disappear, _A True Reporte of the late Discoveries_
(London, 1583) came out, purporting on the titlepage to be by Gilbert;
but Hakluyt, who reprinted it in 1589 and 1600, interpreted the
initials G. P., of the Dedication, as those of Sir George Peckham,
who had in his tract urged another attempt under Gilbert’s patent, as
Captain Carlyle had done in his discourse just before Gilbert sailed,
which was also reprinted in Hakluyt. See also Hakluyt’s _Westerne
Planting_, ed. by Deane, p. 201; George Dexter’s _First Voyage of
Gilbert_, p. 4. The Rev. Abiel Holmes, D.D., printed in _Mass. Hist.
Coll._, ix. 49, a memoir of Parmenius the Hungarian, who went down in
Gilbert’s largest ship.—ED.]

[365] _Principal Navigations_, iii. 246. [Also chapter iv. of the
present volume.—ED.]

[366] Ibid., iii. 193.

[367] _A Briefe and true Relation of the Discouerie of the North
part of Virginia; being a most pleasant, fruitfull, and commodious
Soile. Made this present yeare, 1602, by Captaine Bartholomew Gosnold,
Captaine Bartholomew Gilbert, and divers other gentlemen their
associats, by the permission of the honourable Knight, Sir Walter
Ralegh, etc. Written by_ Mr. IOHN BRERETON, _one of the voyage.
Whereunto is annexed a Treatise of_ Mr. EDWARD HAYES. 4º, London. Geor.
Bishop, 1602.

[Of Brereton’s book there are copies in Harvard College Library
(imperfect) and in Mr. S. L. M. Barlow’s collection. One in the Brinley
sale, No. 280, was bought for $800 by Mr. C. H. Kalbfleisch of New York.

This narrative is followed in Strachey’s _Historie of Travaile_, book
ii. ch. 6. Thornton in notes _c_ and _d_ to his speech “Colonial
Schemes of Popham and Gorges,” at the Popham celebration, enumerates
the evidences of the intended permanency of Gosnold’s settlement.

The site of Gosnold’s fort on Cuttyhunk was identified in 1797 (see
Belknap’s _American Biography_), and again in 1817 (_North American
Review_, v. 313) and 1848 (Thornton’s _Cape Anne_, p. 21).—ED.]

[368] 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vol. viii. This reprint was made from a
manuscript copy sent from England by Colonel Aspinwall. _Proceedings_,
ii. 116.

[369] _Purchas his Pilgrimes_, iv. 1651; also in 3 _Mass. Hist.
Coll._, viii. [A French translation of the accounts of Gosnold’s and
Pring’s voyages appeared at Amsterdam, in 1715, in Bernard’s _Receuil
de Voiages au Nord_; and in 1720, in _Relations de la Louisiane,
etc._—Sabin’s _Dictionary_, ii. p. 102.—ED.]

[370] [This _Versameling_ was issued in 1706-7 at Leyden in two forms,
octavo and folio, from the same type, the octavo edition giving the
voyages chronologically, the folio, by nations. It was reissued with
a new title in 1727. Muller, _Books on America_, 1872, no. 1887; and
1877, no. 1. Sabin, _Dictionary_, i. 3.—ED.]

[371] This subject was first brought to the attention of students by
a paper on “Gosnold and Pring,” read before the New England Historic
Genealogical Society [by B. F. De Costa], portions of which were
printed in the Society’s _Register_, 1878, p. 76. This shows the
connection between the voyage of Gosnold and the letter of Verrazano.
See also, “Cabo de Baxos, or the place of Cape Cod in the old
Cartology,” in the _Register_, January, 1881 [by Dr. De Costa], and
the reprint, revised. New York: T. Whittaker, 1881. Also Belknap’s
_American Biography_, ii. 123.

[372] “_New England_ was originally a Part of that Tract Stiled
_North-Virginia_, extending from _Norimbegua_ (as the old Geographers
called all the continent beyond South-Virginia) to Florida, and
including also _New York_, _Jersey_, Pensylvania, Maryland, Virginia,
_and Carolina_. Though Sir _Walter Raleigh’s_ Adventures and Sir
_Francis Drake’s_ were ashore in this Country, yet we find nothing
very material or satisfactory either as to its Discovery or its Trade,
till the Voyage made hither in 1602 by Captain _Gosnold_, who, having
had some Notion of the Country from Sir _Francis Drake_, was the first
Navigator who made any considerable Stay here, where he made a small
Settlement, built a fort, and raised a Platform for six Guns.”—Bowen’s
_Complete System of Geography_, London, 1747, ii. 666. [There is a
long note on the landfall of Gosnold on the Maine coast, in Poor’s
_Vindication of Gorges_, p. 30.—ED.]

[373] The relation of Pring’s voyage is derived from Purchas, iv. 1654
and v. 829, where it is attributed to Pring himself. [It should be
noted that the identifying of Whitson Harbor with the modern Plymouth
was first brought forward by Dr. De Costa in the _N. E. Hist. and
Geneal. Reg._, January, 1878. It has generally been held that Pring
doubled Cape Cod, and reached what is now Edgartown Harbor in Martha’s
Vineyard, or some roadstead in that region. Such is the opinion of
Bancroft, i., cent. ed., 90; Palfrey, i. 78; Barry, i. 12; and Bryant
and Gay, i. 266—all these following the lead of Belknap.—ED.]

[374] _Voyages and Travels_, London, 1742, ii. 222. See on Raleigh’s
Patent, Palfrey’s _New England_, i. 81, _note_. [Also chapter iv. of
the present volume.—ED.]

[375] _Divers voyages touching the discouerie of America and the
Islands adiacent vnto the same, made first of all by our Englishmen,
and afterwards by the Frenchmen and Britons, etc., etc. Imprinted at
London for Thomas Woodcocke, dwelling in paules Church-Yard, at the
signe of the blacke beare_, 1582. [See further in the note following
this chapter.—ED.]

[376] _The Principall Navigations, Voiages, and Discoveries of the
English Nation, made by Sea or over Land, to the most remote and
fartherest distant quarters of the Earth, etc. Imprinted at London
by George Bishop and Ralph Newberie, Deputies to Christopher Barker,
Printer to the Queenes most excellent Maiestie_, 1589. See further in
the note following this chapter.—ED.

[377] _Virginia richly valued, By the description of the maine land of
Florida, her next neighbor, etc., etc._ London, 1609.

[378] [See Editorial note, B, at the end of this chapter, and the
chapter on “The Cabots.”—ED.]

[379] Hakluyt of Yatton. See _Divers Voyages_, ed. 1850, p. v. _note_.

[380] _American Biography_, ii. 135.

[381] Mr. McKeene in the _Maine Hist. Coll._, v. 307; _Hist. Mag._, i.
112.

[382] _Maine Hist. Coll._, vi. 291.

[383] _Memorial Volume_, published by the Maine Historical Society,
p. 301. Other writers have treated the subject, or touched upon it in
passing, and some from time to time have changed ground,—one blunder
leading to another.

[Belknap had employed a well-known Massachusetts navigator, Captain
John Foster Williams, to track the coast with an abstract of Rosier’s
journal in hand. His theory, even of late years, has had some
supporters like William Willis, in _Maine Hist. Coll._, v. 346. R. K.
Sewall in his _Ancient Dominions of Maine_, 1859, and _Hist. Mag._, i.
188, follow McKeene; as does Dr. De Costa himself in the Introduction
to his _Voyage to Sagadahoc_, and General Chamberlain in his _Maine,
her place in History_. George Prince was the first to advocate the
George’s River, and his views were furthered by David Cushman in the
same volume of the _Maine Hist. Coll._ Prince, in 1860, reprinted
Rosier’s _Narrative_, still presenting his view in notes to it.

This essay by Prince incited Cyrus Eaton, a local historian (whose
story has been told touchingly by John L. Sibley in the _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, xiii. 438), to the writing of his _History of Thomaston,
Rockland, and South Thomaston_, which he published at the age of
eighty-one years, having prepared it under the disadvantage of total
blindness. In this (ch. ii.) the theory of George’s River is sustained,
as also in Johnson’s _Bristol, Bremen, and Pemaquid_, and in Bancroft.
See p. 218.

More recent explorations to ascertain Waymouth’s anchorage are
chronicled in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_, Aug. 23, 1879, and June
11, 1881.—ED.]

[384] The writer has two sketches of the mountains as seen from
Monhegan; yet the _Maine Hist. Coll._, vi. 295, inform the reader that
“the White Mountains with an elevation above the level of the sea
of 6,600 feet, being distant 110 miles, could not on account of the
curvature of the earth be seen from the deck of the “Archangel,” even
with a naked eye.”

[385] 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, viii. 122.

[386] _The Historie of Travaile into Virginia Britannia; expressing the
cosmographie and comodities of the country, togither with the manners
and customes of the people, gathered and observed as well by those who
went first thither, as collected by William Strachey, Gent._ Edited by
R. H. Major for the Hakluyt Society, London, 1849. p. 159.

[387] _Œuvres_, iii. 74. “Il nous dit qu’il y auoit un vaisseau à dix
lieues du port, qui faisoit pesche de poisson, & que ceux de dedans
auoient tué cinq sauuages d’icelle riuiere, soubs ombre amitié: &
selon la façon qu’il nous despeignoit les gens du vaisseau, nous les
lugeasmes estre Anglois, & nommasmes l’isle où ils estoient la nef:
pour ce que de loing elle en auoit le semblance.”

[388] _A True Relation of the most prosperous voyage made this present
yeare, 1605, by Captaine George Waymouth, in the Discouery of the Land
of Virginia: where he discouered 60 miles of a most excellent River;
together with a most fertile land. Written by Iames Rosier, a Gentleman
employed in the voyage. Londini, Impensis Geor. Bishop, 1605._ [The
copy of this tract in the Brinley sale, no. 280, was bought by Mr. C.
H. Kalbfleisch, of New York, for $800. There are other copies in the
New York Historical Society’s Library and in the private collection of
Mr. S. L. M. Barlow.—ED.]

[389] Purchas, iv. 1659.

[390] 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, viii. 125. Mr. Sparks procured a
transcript of the Grenville copy, and this was used by the printer in
this reprint.

[391] _Pilgrimage_, London, 1614, p. 756.

[392] _A Brief Relation of the Discovery and Plantation of New
England_, London, 1622, pp. 2-4.

[393] _Generall Historie of New England_, London, 1624, pp. 203-4.

[394] Sir Ferdinando Gorges’ _Briefe Narration of the Originall
Undertakings of the advancement of plantations into the parts of
America, especially showing the beginning, progress, and continuance
of that of New England_, London, 1658, pp. 8-10. When first published,
Sir Ferdinando had been dead some years, and his grandson, Ferdinando
Gorges, Esq., included it in a general work, _America Painted to the
Life_, etc.

[395] Fourth Series, i. 219.

[396] _Maine Hist. Coll._, iii. 286, with an introduction by W. S.
Bartlet.

[397] _A Relation of a Voyage to Sagadahoc, now first printed from
the original manuscript in the Lambeth Palace Library_, edited with
preface, notes, and appendix, by the Rev. B. F. De Costa. Cambridge,
John Wilson & Son, University Press, 1880. [The Preface reviews the
story of the settlement; and the Appendix reprints the extracts from
Gorges, Smith, Purchas, and Alexander, from which, previous to the
publication of Strachey’s account, all knowledge of the colony was
derived.—ED.]

[398] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xviii. (1880-1881) 82, 117.

[399] Smith’s _Generall Historie_, p. 203.

[400] [The literary history of this controversy is traced more minutely
in the Editorial note C, at the end of this chapter.—ED.]

[401] [The Gorges papers, which might prove so valuable, have not
been discovered. Dr. Woods examined some called such, in Sir Thomas
Phillipps’s collection, but they proved unimportant. Hakluyt, _Westerne
Planting_, Introduction, p. xx. The grant from James I. to Gorges,
April 10, 1606, covering the coast from 34° to 45° north latitude, and
which was afterwards the cause of not a little controversy with the
Massachusetts colonists, is given in Hazard’s _Historical Collections_,
i. 442, and in Poor’s _Vindication of Gorges_, p. 110.—ED.]

[402] See _Nova Britannia_, London, 1609, p. 1, no. vi., p. 11, in
_Force’s Tracts_, vol. i.

[403] It should also be observed that Captain John Mason says: “Certain
Hollanders began a trade, about 1621, upon the coast of New England,
between Cape Cod and Delaware Bay, in 40° north latitude, granted to
Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, and afterwards confirmed and divided by
agreement by King James, in 1606. The plantations in Virginia have been
settled about forty years; in New England about twenty-five years. The
Hollanders came as interlopers between the two, and have published a
map of the coast between Virginia and Cape Cod, with the title of “New
Netherlands.” _Calendar of State-papers_ (Colonial), 1574, p. 166, by
Sainsbury, London, 1860, p. 143, under April 2 (1632?). Mason is in
error respecting the beginning of the Dutch trade, which was in 1598.

[404] For studies and speculations concerning Sabino, Monhegan,
Penobscot, and other names found in Maine, see Dr. Ballard in the
_Report of the United States Coast Survey_, 1848, p. 243. Also
Williamson’s _History of Maine_, i. 61, and the Rev. Dr. Henry Martyn
Dexter’s edition of _Mourt’s Relation_, p. 83. [See Dr. Ballard on the
location of Sasanoa’s River in _Hist. Mag._, xiii. 164.—ED.]

[405] Published by the Hakluyt Society in their volume edited by Asher,
and entitled _Henry Hudson the Navigator_, London, 1860, p. 45. See
also Read’s _Historical Inquiry concerning Henry Hudson_, etc., 1866,
with the _Sailing Directions of Henry Hudson, prepared for his use in
1608, from the Old Danish of Ivar Bardsen, with an introduction and
notes; also a dissertation on the Discovery of the Hudson River_, by B.
F. De Costa, Albany, Joel Munsell, 1869. Also, Petitot’s _Memoires_,
vol. xx. 141, 232, 421. [See further in ch. x. of the present
volume.—ED.]

[406] Purchas, iv. 1758 and 1664.

[407] Purchas, iv. 1827.

[408] _Brief Narration_, c. xiv. See also Pinkerton’s _Voyages_, xiii.
206.

[409] See Biard’s Letter in Carayon’s _Première Mission_, p. 62.

[410] _Relations des Jésuites_, Quebec, 1858, 3 vols., vol. i. p. 44.

[411] _Colonial State Papers_, 1574, vol. i. articles 18 and 25, 1613.

[412] For authorities see Champlain’s _Œuvres_, iii. 17; also,
Lescarbot’s _Nouvelle France_, ed. 1618, lib. iv. c. 13. A translation
of the narrative of Father Biard is given in _Scenes in the Isle of
Mount Desert_, by B. F. De Costa, New York, 1869. [Further accounts of
these proceedings will be given in Vol. IV. of the present history.—ED.]

[413] See _A Description of New England: or The Observations and
Discoueries of Captain Iohn Smith (Admirall of that Country), in the
North of America, in the year of our Lord 1614: with the successe of
sixe Ships that went out the next yeare, 1615, and the accidents befell
him among the French men of Warre: with the proofe of the present
benefit this countrey affoords, whither this present yeare, 1616, eight
voluntary ships are gone to make further Tryall. At London printed by
Humfrey Lownes for Robert Clerke; and are to be sould at his house
called the Lodge, in Chancery lane, ouer against Lincolnes Inne, 1616._
Also _The Generall Historie of Virginia, New England, and the Summer
Isles ... from their first beginning An^o. 1584, to the present, 1626_.
London, 1632. [See note D, at the end of this chapter.—ED.]

[414] _Brief Narration_, in _Maine Hist. Coll._, ii. 27, and Dexter’s
_Mourt’s Relation_, p. 86.

[415] _Generall Historie._

[416] Bradford’s _Plimouth Plantation_ in 4 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, iii.
95. _Mourt’s Relation_ says that Hunt took seven Indians from Cape
Cod. Dexter’s _Mourt’s Relation_, p. 86. Dermer says that Squanto was
captured in Maine.

[417] See the Hakluyt Society’s publication, edited by Markham, _The
Hawkins Voyages_, 1878.

[418] See the letter in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1874, p.
248; and the Cotton Manuscripts, British Museum. Also Neill’s
_Colonization_, p. 91.

[419] Gorges in _Brief Narration_, ch. xiv., and _New England’s
Trials_, p. 11, in Force’s _Tracts_. _Briefe Relation of the President
and Council_, Purchas, iv. 1830; also in 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, i.
Prince’s _New England Chronology_, Boston, 1736, p. 64, and Dermer’s
letter in 2 _New York Hist. Coll._, i. 350.

[420] _Doc. Hist. of New York_, i. [This is a map “Della nuova Belgia
è parte della nuova Anglia,” of which a portion is given in fac-simile
in chapter ix. of the present volume. The editor of the _Doc. Hist._
gives no clew to its origin, but it can be traced to Carta II., in
Robert Dudley’s _Dell Arcano del Mare_, Firenze, 1647.—ED.] See, on the
tourists in the New World, _Verrazano the Explorer_, p. 65.

[421] [It may be worth mentioning that the map in the _Libro di
Benedetto Bordone_, 1528, gives “Norbegia” as the form of the name.
_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, no. 91. The matter will be further considered
in connection with the French explorers in another volume.—ED.]

[422] [It is described in the _Catalogue of the MS. Maps, etc., in the
British Museum_, 1844, i. 23; and map no. 17 shows the east coast of
North America from 6° N. to 51° N.; and no. 20, both hemispheres. Malte
Brun describes it in his _Histoire de la Géographie_, Ed. Huot., i.
631.—ED.]

[423] [See further on this map in the chapter on “The Cabots,” where a
fac-simile is given.—ED.]

[424] This map embraces the country from Newfoundland to Florida,
showing a part of the Gulf of Mexico. It is found in a collection of
eleven beautifully executed maps, bound in one large volume, preserved
in the British Museum. [Cf. Kohl’s _Maps, Charts, etc., mentioned in
Hakluyt_, 1857, p. 16; and Collinson’s _Frobisher’s Voyages_, published
by the Hakluyt Society.—ED.] See _Verrazano the Explorer_, New York,
1880, p. 56. This map shows the _Euripi_ of Nicholas of Lynn. See
_Inventio Fortunata_.

[425] _The Private Diary of John Dee_, edited by Halliwell, and
published by the Camden Society, 1842, P. 5. [This diary is written on
the margins of old almanacs, which were discovered in the Ashmolean
Museum. Halliwell calls Disraeli’s account of Dee, in his _Amenities of
Literature_, correct and able. Winsor’s _Halliwelliana_, p. 5.—ED.]

[426] [It measures 3¾ by 2¼ inches; and is carefully drawn on vellum,
and accompanied by another, sketchily drawn, of the same date.
_Catalogue of MS. Maps, etc., in the British Museum_, 1844, i. 30.—ED.]

[427] Dee’s _Diary_, p. 16, and Hakluyt, iii.

[428] [We can only regret that Gilbert’s “cardes and plats that were
drawn with the due gradation of the harbours, bayes, and capes, did
perish with the admirall.” Haies in Hakluyt.—ED.]

[429] See reproduction in the _Historical and Geographical Notes_ of
Henry Stevens, 1869, and another in chapter i. of the present volume.
[A fac-simile has also been separately issued in London, worth about
thirty shillings. The map, which is a considerable advance on earlier
maps and shows the English tracks down to about 1584, is dedicated to
Hakluyt by F. G. (initials which have so far concealed the true name),
and is so rarely found in copies that its presence more than doubles
the value of the book, which without it may be put at eight guineas.
Fifty years ago a good copy with a genuine map was not worth more than
four guineas,—now twenty guineas. Rich’s _Catalogue_, 1632, No. 68. The
_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, No. 370, does not show the map.—ED.]

[430] _Atlas zur Entdeckungsgeschichte Amerikas_, by Kunstmann and
others, Munich, 1859, Plate xiii. [The original is said, in Markham’s
_Davis’s Voyages_, p. 361, to be preserved in Dudley’s own copy of the
_Arcano del Mare_, at Florence. The large map of 1593 in _Historiarum
Indicarum Libri xvi_. _Maffeii_, also gives place to Norumbega; as does
Wytfliet’s edition of _Ptolemy_, 1597. The _Speculum Orbis-terrarum_ of
Cornelius de Judaeis, published at Antwerp, 1593, has a map, “Americæ
pars borealis, Florida, Baccalaos, Canada, Corterealis.” The German
edition of Acosta, 1598, gives a map of Norumbega and Virginia, making
them continuous. _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, nos. 517, 520.—ED.]

[431] Preserved in the Library of the Middle Temple. A tracing is in
possession of the writer, from which a sketch of a section is given in
note E, following this chapter.

[432] [See note F, at the end of this chapter.—ED.]

[433] See _Cabo de Baxos, or the Place of Cape Cod, in the old
Cartology_, by B. F. De Costa, New York, 1881, p. 7.

[The Editor dissents from the views given in this elaborate tract and
adopted in the text of the present chapter; and thinks that Cape Cod,
and not Sandy Hook, is the conspicuous peninsula which appears on the
early maps. In the general coast-line Cape Cod is a protuberant angle,
while Sandy Hook is in the bight of a bay which forms an entering
angle, and, unlike Cape Cod, is of no significance in relation to the
trend of the continental shore. There is the least difficulty, in the
matter of the bearings of one point from another, with considering
this feature to be Cape Cod; and we must remember that the compass was
the only instrument of tolerable precision which the early navigators
had, and its records are the only ones to be depended upon. It is
accordingly never safe to discard the record of it, unless under strong
convictions as to a misreading of its evidence. The Editor does not
receive such convictions from the moderate variations of latitude,
which often were one or two degrees or even more out of the way in the
old maps; nor from the coast names, which by no means were constant in
position, and were not infrequently sadly confused and made to appear
more than once under translated forms. The process of copying such from
antecedent maps was far more liable to error than the transmission
of the general direction and the sinuosities of the coast line. The
cartographers sometimes scattered names, seemingly for little purpose
but to fill up spaces. Coast names, before settlements were fixed, were
of the utmost delusiveness, except sometimes in the case of isolated
features, not to be confounded.—ED.]

[434] [See vol. iv. of this present work.—ED.]

[435] On the variations found in ten different impressions of the
map, see Winsor, in the _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 52 [where a
section of it, with the portrait of Smith, is given in heliotype. A
reduced heliotype of the whole map is given herewith. Hulsius, when he
translated Smith’s book for his voyages, made an excellent reproduction
of the map, which appears in three of his sections. The earliest of the
modern reproductions was that in 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, iii. Palfrey
has given it, reduced by photolithography, but not very satisfactorily,
in his _New England_, i. 95. It was re-engraved by Swett in 1865 for
Veazie’s edition of the _Description_, and the plate was subsequently
altered to correspond with later states of the original plate, and in
this condition appears in Jenness’s _Isles of Shoals_. It is reduced
from this re-engraving in Bryant and Gay’s _United States_, i. 518.—ED.]

[436] In his _Description_, p. 67, Smith says, “At last it pleased Sir
_Ferdinando Gorge_, and Master Doctor _Sutliffe_, Deane of Exceter, to
conceve so well of these proiects and my former imployments, as induced
them to make a new adventure with me in those parts, whither they have
so often sent to their continuall losse.”

[437] See his _Henry Hudson in Holland_, printed at The Hague, 1859,
pp. 43-66.

[438] _Beschryvinghe van der Samoyeden Landt in Tartarien_, etc.,
Amsterdam, 1612. The language on the map is, “ende by Westen Nova
Albion in mar del sur.” See also _Henry Hudson in Holland_, which shows
how Hudson happened to make his voyage to our coast.

[439] _Verrazano the Explorer_, 1881, p. 57. Hakluyt, iii. 737.
Endicott, in 1661, called New England “This Patmos;” _Calendar of State
Papers, America and the West Indies_, London, 1880, p. 9.

[440] _True Travels_, p. 58.

[441] [It however still kept its place on the maps of De Laet, 1633,
1640, etc.—ED.]

[442] Bourne (d. 1582) first issued almanacs with _Rules of Navigation_
in 1567. In 1578 he printed an account of sea devices, making in it
the earliest mention of Humphrey Cole’s invention of the log. Cruden’s
_History of Gravesend_, 1843.

[443] In Dexter’s _Congregationalism_, pp. 277-78, are citations of
English State Papers relating to this voyage and to journals of it.

[444] Dexter, _Congregationalism_, p. 314.

[445] Neal, _History of the Puritans_, iii. 347.

[446] Preface to _Christian Institutions_.

[447] Dexter, _Congregationalism_, pp. 395, 397.

[448] A full and evidently impartial account of this dissension, its
method and its results, though anonymous, was published in London in
1575, under the title of _A Brieff discours off the troubles begonne at
Franckford, in Germany, Anno Domini 1554, Abowte the Booke of common
prayer and Ceremonies, and continued by the Englishe men there to
thende of Q. Maries Raigne, in the which discours the gentle reader
shall see the very originall and beginnenge off all the contention that
hath byn, and what was the cause off the same (no place given)_. This,
with an Introduction, was reprinted in London in 1846, as _A Brief
Discourse of the Troubles begun at Frankfort in the Year 1554, about
the Book of Common Prayer and Ceremonies_.

[449] _Exhort. ad Castita_, c. 7.

[450] _Village Communities_, p. 201.

[451] In Morton’s _New England Memorial_.

[452] Morton, p. 76.

[453] New York, 1880.

[454] The works of John Strype include _Historical Memorials_, six
volumes; _Annals of the Reformation_, seven volumes; and his _Lives_
of Cranmer, Parker, Whitgift, Grindall, Aylmer, Cheke, and Smith,
published at Oxford, 1812-1828, which should be accompanied by a
_General Index_, by R. T. Lawrence, in two volumes.

Gilbert Burnet’s _History of the Reformation of the Church of England_
was originally published in London in three volumes in 1679, 1681, and
1715. There have been various editions since.

[455] University Press, Cambridge. Cf. _The Zurich Letters._

[456] [Cf. the Critical Essay appended to the chapter on the “Pilgrim
Church” in the present volume.—ED.]

[457] _The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity_, London, 1594. The seventh
and eighth books did not appear till 1618; and the whole was issued
together in 1622. There have been various editions since.

[458] _Literature of Europe_, ii. 166.

[459] _Constitutional History of England._

[460] _The History of the Puritans, or Protestant Nonconformists:
from the Reformation in 1517 to the Revolution in 1688. Comprising an
Account of their Principles, their Attempts for a Further Reformation
in the Church, their Sufferings, and the Lives and Characters of their
Most Considerable Divines._ By Daniel Neal, M.A. Cf. Bohn’s edition of
Lowndes, p. 1655.

[461] _The Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth,
considered principally with Reference to the Influence of Church
Organization on the Spread of Christianity._ By Robert Barclay. London,
1876, 4º, 700 pp.

[462] [See the chapter on “The Founding of Pennsylvania” in the present
volume.—ED.]

[463] _A History of the Free Churches of England, from A. D. 1688 to A.
D. 1851._ By Herbert S. Skeats. London, 1868.

[464] See the _Annual Congregational Year-Book_.

[465] _Bampton Lectures_, p. 68.

[466] Among the more important volumes of a historical character
prompted by the occasion above referred to, may be mentioned, _English
Puritanism, its Character and History, etc._ (by P. Bayne); _The Early
English Baptists_ (by B. Evans); _Church and State Two Hundred Years
Ago_ (by J. Stoughton); _and English Nonconformity_ (by R. Vaughan).

[467] _Leaders of the Reformation; English Puritanism and its
Leaders,—Cromwell, Milton, Baxter, Bunyan_; and _Rational Theology and
Christian Philosophy in England in the Seventeenth Century._ These
works were published in 1859, 1861, and 1872, respectively, and there
have been later editions.

[468] _Dissent in its Relations to the Church of England: Eight
Lectures, on the Bampton Foundation, preached before the University of
Oxford in 1871._ By George Herbert Curteis, M.A., London, 1872.

[469] _History of Free Churches of England_, p. 14.

[470] _Constitutional History_, chap. iv.

[471] _The Church and Puritans: a Short Account of the Puritans; their
Ejection from the Church of England, and the Efforts to restore them._
By D. Mountfield, M.A., Rector of Newport, Salop. London, 1881.

[472] _The Organization of the early Christian Churches: Eight Lectures
delivered before the University of Oxford, in the year 1880. Bampton
Lectures._ By Edwin Hatch, M.A. London, 1881.

[473] _Christian Institutions: Essays on Ecclesiastical Subjects._ By
Dean Stanley, of Westminster. London, 1881.

[474] [Cf. also chapter ix.—ED.]

[475] _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._ xviii. 20.

[476] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ xii. 98.

[477] _Calendar of Domestic State Papers_, Aug. 18, 1603.

[478] _Historical Magazine_, iii. 358.

[479] _Eighth Report of Royal Commission on Hist. MSS._, pt. 2, p. 45;
Hanbury’s _Memorials_, i. 368.

[480] In the household of this Countess (widow of the fourteenth
Earl), Thomas Dudley, later one of the founders of Massachusetts, was
steward. The patentee did not go with the emigrants, and is never heard
of again. Another John Whincop was matriculated at Trinity College,
Cambridge, in July, 1618, graduated B.A. in 1622, was a member of the
Westminster Assembly in 1643, and died Rector of Clothall, Herts, May
6, 1653, in his fifty-second year.

[481] [We only know this compact in the transcript given in _Mourt’s
Relation_, and in the copy which Bradford made of it in his MS. history.

[Illustration]

Its last surviving signer was John Alden, who died in Duxbury, Sept.
12, 1686, aged eighty-seven; though that passenger of the “Mayflower”
longest living was Mary, daughter of Isaac Allerton, who became the
wife of Elder Thomas Cushman (son of Robert Cushman), and she died in
1699, aged about ninety.—ED.

[482] By New Style the 21st; through an unfortunate mistake originating
in the last century (Palfrey’s _History of New England_, i. 171) the
22d has been commonly adopted as the true date.

[483] _Mourt’s Relation_, p. 21. Mr. S. H. Gay has suggested (_Atlantic
Monthly_, xlviii. 616) that this landing was not at Plymouth, but on
the shore more directly west of Clark’s Island (Duxbury or Kingston),
and that consequently the commemoration of a landing at Plymouth on
that day rests on a false foundation; but the Rev. Henry M. Dexter,
D.D., has conclusively shown (_Congregationalist_, Nov. 9, 1881) that
the soundings must have led the explorers, unless the deep-water
channels have unaccountably changed since then, directly to the
neighborhood of the rock which a chain of trustworthy testimony on the
spot identifies as the first landing-place of any of the “Mayflower”
company within Plymouth Harbor. Tradition divides the honor of being
the first to step on Plymouth Rock between John Alden and Mary Chilton,
but the date of their landing must have been subsequent to December 11.

[484] [The burials of that first winter were made on what was later
known as Coale’s Hill, identical with the present terrace above the
rock.

[Illustration]

It perpetuates the name of one of the early comers.—ED.

[485] Printed in 1854 in _Mass. Hist. Coll._ vol. xxxii, with
Introduction by Mr. Charles Deane; also separately (one hundred
copies). [The original parchment was discovered, in the early part of
this century, in the Land Office in Boston; and having been used by
Judge Davis when he edited Morton’s _Memorial_, was again lost sight
of till just before it fell to Mr. Deane to edit it. Besides the
autographs of the Duke of Lenox, the Marquis of Hamilton, the Earl of
Warwick, Lord Sheffield, and Sir Ferdinando Gorges, it bore one other
signature, of which a remnant only remains. It is now at Plymouth.—ED.]

[486] Bradford’s _History_, xi.; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, August,
1866, p. 345.

[487] _Mass. Hist. Coll._, xxviii. 298.

[488] [The main parts of it were also reprinted in the Congregational
Board’s edition of Morton, in 1855. There is a memoir of Hunter in
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xvii. 300.—ED.]

[489] Priest, Tinker and Soule, are names found in the records of
parishes near Scrooby (Palfrey’s _History of New England_, i. 160),
and it is not unlikely that Degory Priest, Thomas Tinker, and George
Sowle, of the “Mayflower,” may have come from this region. It is also
said by Mr. W. T. Davis (_Harper’s Magazine_, lxiv. 254, January, 1882,
“Who were the Pilgrims?”), that a William Butten’s baptism is found in
Austerfield, under date of Sept. 12, 1589. But it would be hazardous
to identify this man of thirty-one years with the “William Butten, a
youth, servant to Samuel Fuller,” who died on the “Mayflower’s” voyage
to America. It is also believed that Miles Standish was a scion of the
Standish family of Duxbury Hall, Lancashire. [This view is encouraged,
if not established, by the expressions of Standish’s own will, which
is printed in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, v. 335. The story of
Standish’s career has been more than once reviewed of late years, on
account of the efforts, not yet completed, to erect a tower to his
memory on Captain’s Hill, in Duxbury. Its proposed height is not yet
reached; and when completed, it will bear his effigy on its top. There
were _Proceedings_ printed to commemorate the consecration of the
ground, Aug. 17, 1871, and on laying the corner-stone, in 1872. It is
known that Standish was never of the Pilgrim communion; and “Was Miles
Standish a Romanist?” is discussed in _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, i. 390.
The inventory of his books is given in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._,
i. 54. Bartlett, _Pilgrim Fathers_, and the illustrated edition of
Longfellow’s _Poems_, 1880, give some views connected with the English
family. On the descendants of the Captain, see _N. E. Hist. and Geneal.
Reg._, 1873, p. 145; Winsor’s _Duxbury_; Savage’s _Dictionary_, etc.

Of the origin of Carver, their first governor, nothing is known. Cf. N.
B. Shurtleff, in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1850, p. 105; 1863,
p. 62; and 1872, p. 333. The Howlands were long supposed to be his
descendants through the marriage of his daughter to the Pilgrim John
Howland, and the modern inscription on the latter’s monument on the
Burial Hill, at Plymouth, repeats a story seemingly disproved by the
recovery of Bradford’s manuscript history, which states that Howland
married a daughter of another Pilgrim, Edward Tilley. A recent revision
of the story, by W. T. Davis, in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_, Nov.
25, 1881, rather urging the traditional belief, was met by Charles
Deane, in _Ibid._, Dec. 7, 1881, who showed that John Howland, Jr., was
born in Plymouth, in 1626, and could not have sprung from an earlier
marriage of John, Sr., with Carver’s daughter. The decision turns upon
the identity of “Lieutenant Howland,” as mentioned by Sewall, being met
near Barnstable. It is barely possible that Joseph Howland, and not
John, Jr., was meant; but Joseph did not live at Barnstable, as John,
Jr. did. Cf. _Historical Magazine_, iv. 122, 251; and _New England
Historical and Genealogical Register_, 1860, p. 13, 1880, p. 193.—ED.]

[490] [Cf. Mr. Deane’s memorandum, in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
October, 1870, p. 403.—ED.]

[491] [This book contains a full exposition of the influence which
the Plymouth Pilgrims exerted upon the New England Congregational
system. Cf. further Dr. Jas. S. Clark’s _Congregational Churches in
Massachusetts_, 1858; the Appendix to the Congregational Board’s
edition of Morton’s _Memorial_; and Dexter’s _Congregationalism_, p.
415.—ED.]

[492] [Winslow’s tract was reissued unchanged in 1649, as _The Danger
of tolerating Levellers in a Civill State_. There are copies in the
Lenox, Charles Deane, and Carter-Brown libraries. A copy is worth,
perhaps, $100. Winslow’s report of Robinson’s sermon seems to have been
a reminiscence of his own, twenty-five years after the event. It is not
decided when it was delivered. It has usually been held to represent
advanced and liberal views; but Dr. Dexter dissents, and says that
“polity, and not dogma, is the keynote of the still noble farewell.”
See _Congregationalism_, etc., pp. 403, 409; and Palfrey’s _History of
New England_, i. 157. The whole subject of Robinson’s relation to the
Leyden congregation is treated by Dr. Dexter, p. 359; and of his union
with Johnson’s church at Amsterdam, on p. 318, note. The only copies of
the original edition of 1646 known to the Editor are in Dr. Dexter’s
and the Carter-Brown libraries.—ED.]

[493] [Dr. O. W. Holmes has thrown a little light on contemporary life
in Leyden from _Scaligerana_, in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._ (June, 1874),
xiii. 315.—ED.]

[494] See a memoir of Mr. Sumner, by R. C. Waterston, in the _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, xviii. 189. also, a report of his speech at
Plymouth, in 1859, in the _Hist. Mag._, iii. 332; and in the _N. E.
Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1859, p. 341.

[495] With the specific title: _John Robinson, Prediker der Leidsche
Brownistengemeente en grondlegster der Kolonie Plymouth_. Leiden, 1846.
[What is known of Robinson’s family and descendants can be learned from
the _New England Historical and Genealogical Register_, 1860, p. 17;
1866, pp. 151, 292. The question of the Rev. John Robinson, of Duxbury,
being a descendant, was set at rest negatively by Dr. Edward Robinson,
in his _Memoir of the Rev. William Robinson_, New York. 1859.—ED.]

[496] The story of the manuscript and of its transmission to our times
is given by the editor of the present volume, in the _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, vol. xix.,—a paper also issued separately (75 Copies).

[497] [They are also given in Steele’s _Chief of the Pilgrims_, p. 316;
in Neill’s _English Colonization_, ch. vi.; in Poor’s _Gorges_; and in
the English calendars, _Colonial_, i. 43.—ED.]

[498] The Bibliographical Appendix to Dr. H. M. Dexter’s
_Congregationalism as seen in its Literature_, mentions nine of these
imprints, viz., nos. 459, 467, 470, 475, 476, 478, 481, 482, 495.
Three or four others are also known. See the _Brinley Catalogue_,
no. 530. [Brewster’s career has been made the subject of an extended
memoir, _Chief of the Pilgrims_, Philadelphia, 1857, as it is somewhat
unsatisfactorily called. It has merit in tracing the European existence
of the Pilgrim Church, but is unfortunately disfigured (p. 350) in a
minor part by some genealogical fabrications imposed upon the author,
the Rev. Ashbel Steele. (Cf. Savage’s _Genealogical Dictionary, sub_
“Brewster.”) Dr. Dexter, _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1864, p. 18,
in examining the evidence for his birth, puts it in 1566-67; so that at
his death, in 1644, he was seventy-seven, or possibly seventy-eight.
See Mr. Neill, _Hist. Mag._, xvi. 69, and cf. Mr. Deane, _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, xii. 98; also Poole’s _Index_, p. 160.

The well-known trembling autograph of the Elder (given in fac-simile
on an earlier page) is one of the sights in the Record Office at
Plymouth, where it appears attached to a deed, as recorded,—a practice
not uncommon in the days when the colony was small. This was long
thought to be the only signature known, while it was a cause of some
surprise that no one of the four hundred volumes of his library (given
by title in his inventory,—_Plymouth Wills_, i. 53) had been identified
by bearing his autograph. Three of these books, however, have since
been found,—one a Latin Chrysostom, Basil, 1522, now in the Boston
Athenæum, bears his autograph, with the motto, “Hebel est omnis Adam,”
which is also found, as shown in the fac-simile in Steele’s _Chief of
the Pilgrims_, in another volume, similarly inscribed, now at Yale
College Library. The fact that the Athenæum volume bears evidence, in
another inscription, of having belonged to Thomas Prince, the grandson
of the Elder, and son of the governor of the colony of the same name,
and of his receiving it in July, 1644, while the Elder died in the
preceding April, would seem to indicate that the Pilgrim’s collection
of books was distributed among his relatives. The Rev. Dr. Dexter,
in his _Congregationalism_, gives a fac-simile of an autograph of
Brewster written at an earlier period than the others; and this is
found in a third volume belonging to Dr. Dexter, and numbered 211 in
his _Bibliography_. Hunter, in his _Founders of New Plymouth_, p. 86,
has shown how close a resemblance the autograph of James Brewster, the
master of the hospital near Bawtry, and friend of Archbishop Sandys,
bears to the Elder’s signature.—ED.]

[499] [Dr. Punchard’s work was unfortunately left incomplete. See
_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1880, p. 325, and _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, xviii. 3. The painstaking student will doubtless compare these
works with Dr. Waddington’s _Hidden Church_ and _Cong. Hist._, in
which, however, Dr. Dexter seems to have little confidence. (Cf. his
_Congregationalism_, pp. 70, 201, 211, 262, 322, and his article in
the _Cong. Quarterly_, 1874.) The _Hidden Church_ was published in
1864, with an Introduction by E. N. Kirk. (Cf. _N. E. Hist. and Geneal.
Reg._, 1864, p. 219; and 1881, p. 195.)

In the archives of the English Church at Amsterdam there is a document,
signed by Ant. Walæus and Festus Hommius, theological professors at
Leyden, dated May 25-26, 1628, testifying to Robinson’s exertions to
remove the schisms between the various Brownist congregations in the
Low Countries, and his resolution, upon discouragement, to remove
“to the West Indies, where he did not doubt to effect this object.”
A photo-lithographic copy of this paper has been issued (Muller’s
_Books on America_, 1877, no. 2,780). The contemporary rejoinders to
Robinson’s arguments can be seen in Samuel Rutherford’s _Due Rights of
Presbyteries_, London, 1644.

The student will not neglect Hanbury’s _Historical Memorials relating
to the Independents_, London, 1639-44; R. Baillie’s _Anabaptism_,
London, 1647, and Catherine Chidley’s _Justification of the Independent
Churches_ (? 1650). The distinction between the Puritans and the
Pilgrims is maintained in Dr. Waddington’s books; in Dr. I. N. Tarbox’s
papers in the _Congregational Quarterly_, vol. xvii., and in the _Old
Colony Hist. Soc. Papers_, 1878; in an appendix, p. 443, to Punchard,
vol. iii.; in Benjamin Scott’s _Lecture_, London, 1866, reprinted in
the _Hist. Mag._, May, 1867, from which is mostly derived a paper in
_Scribner’s Monthly_, June, 1876. Scott also printed a lecture, “An
Hour with the Pilgrim Fathers and their Precursors,” in 1869. (Cf.
_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1871, p. 301; also, see _Hist. Mag._,
May and November, 1867; October, 1869; _Essex Institute Hist. Coll._,
vol. iv., by A. C. Goodell; besides Baylies, Palfrey, Barry, etc.) Dr.
Dexter, _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xvii. 64, has pointed out a curious
instance of tampering with one of Robinson’s books. See further, _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, x. 393, and _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1859, p.
259.—ED.]

[500] [This charge was first printed by Morton in his _Memorial_,
and the earliest mention of it known is in some papers of the Record
Office, London, printed in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, December,
1868, p. 385. Neill, in his _English Colonization_, p. 103, intimates
that Jones may have purposely guided his vessel to Cape Cod from an
understanding with Pierce and Gorges. Neill identifies the “Mayflower”
captain with Jones of the “Discovery,” a vessel despatched to Virginia.
(Cf. Young’s _Chronicles_, p. 102, and Palfrey’s _New England_, i.
163.) O’Callaghan, _New Netherland_, i. 80, rejects the bribe theory.
The name of Jones is preserved in Jones River, shown on the map of
Plymouth Bay on a previous page.—ED.]

[501] [Our chief accounts of Bradford, other than from his own
writings, are derived from Mather’s _Magnalia_, and from Hunter’s
_Founders of New Plymouth_. Belknap, in his _American Biography_, gives
a judicious summary of what was then known, and there is a brief one in
Cheever. Besides what may be found in the general histories, the reader
can find other accounts in Tyler’s _American Literature_, i. 116; by
J. B. Moore in _Amer. Quart. Reg._ xiv. 155, and in his _Governors of
New Plymouth_, etc.; by W. F. Rae in _Good Words_, xxi. 337; in the
_Congregational Monthly_, ix. 337, 393. His will is in the _N. E. Hist.
and Geneal. Reg._, 1851, p. 385; and an account of his Bible in same,
1865, p. 12. For accounts of his descendants, see genealogy by G. M.
Fessenden in _Register_, 1850, pp. 39, 233; also, 1855, pp. 127, 218;
1860, pp. 174, 195. Cf. also Durrie’s _Index to American Genealogies_,
and Savage’s _Genealogical Dictionary_.

Bradford’s views on the Separatist movement, and on church government,
are given in several “Dialogues between Old Men and Young Men;” one
of which, written in 1648, and copied in the Records by Morton, is
given by Dr. Young in his _Chronicles_, and another, probably written
in 1652, was printed with comments by Charles Deane in the _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, October, 1870, vol. ix. p. 396. See also the
Congregational Board’s edition of Morton’s _Memorial_. A letter of
Bradford to Governor Winthrop on the early relations of the Plymouth
Colony with the Bay, dated Feb. 6, 1631-32, is now in the possession
of Judge Chamberlain, of the Boston Public Library; and, with its
signatures of Bradford and his associates, it is the most precious
autograph document of the Pilgrims in private hands. It is printed in
_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, ii. 240, annotated by Charles Deane.
Some verses by Bradford, illustrating in a slender way the colony’s
early history, were referred to in his will, and were printed as a
fragment in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, iii. 77, by Dr. Belknap. The original
manuscript came with Belknap’s papers to the Society,—_Proceedings_,
iii. 317. Other verses of a similar character were printed in 3
_Collections_, vii. 27; still others are edited by Mr. Deane in
_Proceedings_, xi. 465.—ED.]

[502] [Smith gave an abstract of Mourt in his _Generall Historie_; then
Purchas, vol. iv., condensed it; and this condensation was reprinted,
with notes, in 1802, by Dr. Freeman in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, viii. 203;
but in 1819 Dr. Freeman and Judge Davis procured from a copy in the
Philadelphia Library the parts omitted by Purchas in _Ibid._, xix.
26. (Cf. _Proceedings_, i. 279.) Dr. Young first printed it entire in
his _Chronicles_. Dr. Cheever, in 1848, gave it with disorderly and
homiletical editing in his _Journal of the Pilgrims_. Dr. Dexter used
Charles Deane’s copy. There are other copies in the Carter-Brown and S.
L. M. Barlow libraries. (Cf. _Brinley Catalogue_, no. 1,909; _Menzies
Catalogue_, no. 1,447; _Crowninshield Catalogue_, no. 742; and _N. E.
Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1849, p. 282, and 1866, p. 281.) Rich, in
his 1832 _Catalogue_, 164 and 171, priced a copy at £2 2_s._, and in
his 1844 _Catalogue_ at £1 8_s._; Quaritch recently held one at £36.
Doctors Young and Dexter agree that “G. Mourt” must represent George
Morton. A previous note has given Dr. Dexter as the best authority for
tracing the localities named in this journal. See, also, Freeman’s
_Cape Cod_ and De Costa’s _Footprints of Miles Standish_.

Mourt makes no record of the landing from the “Mayflower” being upon a
_rock_, nor does he indicate the precise spot, or fix a commemorative
day. In an earlier note mention has been made of a recent controversy
on these points. Mr. Gay found an earlier opponent than Dr. Dexter in
Mr. William T. Davis, _Boston Daily Advertiser_, Nov. 17, 1881, to
which Mr. Gay replied, Nov. 30, 1881; and again Mr. Davis rejoined,
Dec. 3, 1881. As to the mistake of celebrating the 22d instead of the
21st December, which arose from the Committee of the Old Colony Club
adding for the change of style one day too many, a Committee of the
Pilgrim Society in 1850 recommended a change in the commemoration day;
but though for a few years followed, it has not effected a permanent
compliance, and by a recent vote of the Society the 22d has been
re-established. The 1850 Report was printed. (Cf. _N. E. Hist. and
Geneal. Reg._, iv. 350, 369) Mr. Gay, in the _Popular History of the
United States_, i. 393, takes another view of the mistake. It was in
1769 that the Plymouth people determined to institute a celebration,
and fixed upon the day, December 11, Old Style, when the exploring
party from the “Mayflower,” then in Provincetown harbor, first landed
on the mainland and explored it.

Attempts have been made to trace the earlier and later career of
the “Mayflower.” Mr. Hunter, in an appendix to his _Founders of New
Plymouth_, p. 186, has shown how common the name was. She is thought to
have been identical with one of Winthrop’s fleet ten years later; but
the slaver “Mayflower,” with which she has been sometimes identified,
was a larger vessel. Cf. _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1871, p. 91,
and 1874, p. 50; _Calendar of State Papers_, Domestic Series, April 12,
1588.

Of Samoset, the Indian whom the colonists first encountered after
landing, there are accounts in Dexter’s edition of Mourt’s _Relation_;
Sewall’s _Ancient Dominion of Maine_, p. 101; _Popham Memorial_, by
Professor Johnson, p. 297; Thornton’s _Pemaquid_, p. 54; and in _Maine
Hist. Coll._, v. 186.

Mourt’s _Relation_ and Winslow’s _Good News_ give the earliest
accounts of the Indians in the Pilgrims’ neighborhood, who had been
nearly exterminated by a recent plague. (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
v. 130.) Of Massasoit and his family,—this chief being the nearest
sachem,—Fessenden’s _History of Warren, R. I._, gives an account.
See also E. W. Peirce’s _Indian History, Biography, and Genealogy
pertaining to the good Sachem Massasoit and his descendants_, North
Abington, 1878. Drake, in his _Book of the Indians_, book ii. chap.
ii., and in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1858, p. 1, examines
the colonists’ relations with the Indians. See _Congregational
Quarterly_, i. 129, for a paper, “Did the Pilgrims wrong the Indians?”
Their efforts to Christianize them are examined in the Appendix to the
Congregational Board’s edition of Morton’s _Memorial_.

It was at Plymouth (1631-1633) that Roger Williams drew up his treatise
attacking the validity of the titles acquired under the patents
granted by the king, in accordance with the common-law principle
as understood at the time. Acceptance of his views as to the sole
validity of the Indian title would have disturbed the foundations of
the colony’s government; and it was not without satisfaction that the
authorities saw Williams return to the Bay, where his factious and
impracticable views on civil policy, quite as much or even more than
any views on theology, led to his subsequent banishment. The later
history of Williams was Massachusetts’ best vindication. Charles Deane
has thoroughly examined his position as regards the patent, with an
amplitude of references, in the Mass_. Hist. Soc. Proc._, February,
1873.—ED.]

[503] [The bibliography of this famous discourse is traced in the
_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg_, April, 1861, p. 169; and in the
_Hist. Mag._, ii. 344; iv. 57; v. 89. Cf. Sabin’s _Dictionary_, v.
156. Dr. Dexter notes three copies,—his own, the Bodleian’s, and
Charles Deane’s. The sermon has been several times reprinted; is
given in part by Dr. Young; also in the _Cushman Genealogy_, and was
photo-lithographed (60 copies), in 1870, from Dr. Dexter’s copy, then
in Mr. Wiggin’s hands, with a historical and bibliographical preface
by Charles Deane. Dexter, _Congregationalism_, App., p. 30, gives the
reprints.—ED.]

[504] [It was printed in London in 1624. There are copies in Charles
Deane’s and the Carter-Brown collections. Rich (1844), £1 8_s._
Purchas, vol. iv., abridged it; and his abridgment was printed in
_Mass. Hist. Coll._, viii. 239, with omissions supplied in xix. 74;
cf. also _Proceedings_, i. 279. Young first printed it entire in his
_Chronicles_, from a copy formerly in Harvard College Library; it is
also in the Appendix of the Congregational Board’s edition of Morton’s
_Memorial_.—ED.]

[505] [See a memoir of Judge Davis by Convers Francis, in 3 _Mass.
Hist. Coll._, x. 186.—ED.]

[506] [The second edition, Boston, 1721, had a supplement by Josiah
Cotton, with changes of title, indicating perhaps successive
impressions. The third edition appeared in 1772, at Newport. In 1826 an
edition appeared at Plymouth, followed the same year by Judge Davis’s
at Boston. The last edition was issued by the Congregational Board in
1855, with notes and appendix of Bradford’s account of the church from
the Colony records, and Winslow’s visit to Massasoit, from his _Good
Newes_. The Harvard College copy of the 1669 edition has autographs
of “W. Stoughton” and “John Danforth.” The Prince Library copy is
imperfect, restored in manuscript, and has Prince’s notes. There were
different imprints to the 1721 edition, the Harvard copy reading,
“Reprinted for Daniel Henchman;” Charles Deane’s copy has “Reprinted
for Nicholas Boone;” otherwise the two seem to be alike. See _Brinley
Catalogue_, nos. 329, 330; Dexter’s _Congregationalism_, App. p. 94;
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, vi. 427; Tyler’s _American Literature_, i.
126.—ED.]

[507] [Certain of the letters, being the correspondence between the
Plymouth and New Netherland Colonies in 1627, are reprinted in the _New
York Hist. Coll._, 2d series, vol. i. See an account of the MS. in
Cheever’s _Journal of the Pilgrims_, chap. xxiii.—ED.]

[508] [_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, i. 246, 279. S. G. Drake added a fifth
part and an index to Baylies’, when he reissued the remainder-sheets of
the original work, giving an account of the 1628 Kennebec patent, with
an old map of that region. See, also, for the Pilgrims’ experiences on
the Kennebec, R. H. Gardiner’s paper in the _Maine Hist. Coll._ ii.,
and the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1855, p. 80, and 1871, pp. 201,
274; for their Penobscot experiences, J. E. Godfrey’s paper in _Maine
Hist. Coll._ vii. 29.—Ed.]

[509] [An “Old Colony Historical Society,” whose seat is at Taunton,
began to publish papers of a Collection in 1878. The local aspect of
the colony’s history is traced in various town and parish histories, to
which clews will be found in F. B. Perkins’s _Check List of American
Local History_, Colburn’s _Massachusetts Bibliography_, and in the
historical sketch prefixed to the _Plymouth County Atlas_, Boston, 1879.

These local histories usually contain more or less genealogical
information about the descendants of the “first comers,” as those
who came in the first three vessels (“Mayflower,” 180 tons, in 1620;
“Fortune,” 55 tons, in 1621; “Ann,” 140 tons, and “Little James,” 44
tons, 1623) are distinctively called; and various family histories
have also traced the spread of Pilgrim blood throughout the American
States. Savage’s _Geneal. Dict. of N. E._, and the bibliographies of
American genealogies by Whitmore and Durrie, will indicate these. Dr.
N. B. Shurtleff published the long-accepted list of the “Mayflower”
passengers in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, i. 47 (also
separately privately printed); but several errors were corrected on the
recovery of the Bradford manuscript, and the true list is printed in
that _History_.—ED.]

[510] [A memoir of Dr. Young by Chandler Robbins will be found in 4
_Mass. Hist. Coll._, ii. 241.—ED.]

[511] _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1863, p. 366.

[512] [A Dutch translation of this, published in 1859, may indicate the
interest still felt in the story in the land of their exile.—ED.]

[513] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiii. 390.

[514] See _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, i. 114.

[515] See _Ibid._, iv. 367.

[516] [It was remodelled in 1880, when a fragment of the rock, which
was taken from the larger portion in 1774, and after having been kept
before the Court House till 1834, when it was placed before this hall,
was taken back to its original site beneath the present monumental
canopy.—ED.]

[517] The family tradition fixes the painting of it in 1651, and
Vandyke, to whom it has been assigned, died in 1541. See the _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, xv. 324, for a notice of an alleged portrait of
Miles Standish; also _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 65.

[518] [See Dr. Waddington’s description of a picture in one of the
compartments of the Lords’ corridor at Westminster, representing
with some misconception the same scene. _Historical Magazine_, i.
149. Sargent’s picture of the landing at Plymouth, well known from
engravings, is in Pilgrim Hall. _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, iv.
193.—ED.]

[519] [This monument, after a design by Hammatt Billings, was
originally intended to be one hundred and fifty feet high; but it
was reduced nearly one-half, as the necessary subscriptions failed.
It bears a colossal figure of Faith, and four other typical figures
surrounding the base, not all of which are yet in place. _N. E. Hist.
and Geneal. Reg._, 1857, p. 283.—ED.]

[520] [This well-known production is for the historical student much
disfigured by abundant anachronisms, which, as it happens, do not
conduce to the effect of the poem. _Crayon_, v. 356; _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._, April, 1882.—ED.]

[521] [A collection of the minor commemorative poems, edited by
Zilpha H. Spooner, was published as _Poems of the Pilgrims_, Boston,
1882, with photographs of associated localities. Cf. _Boston Daily
Advertiser_, April 22, 1881.—ED.]

[522] The stories of these two colonies are told respectively in
chapters v. and vi.

[523] The records of the Council for New England frequently refer to
the subject of the renewal of their patent. Under the date of Aug.
6, 1622, we read: “Forasmuch as it has been ordered by the Lords of
his Majesty’s Privy Council that the Patent for New England shall be
renewed, as well for the amendment of some things therein contained as
for the necessary supply of what is found defective,” etc. Then follow
some minutes of additional changes desired by the patentees themselves.

[524] [See Vol. IV. chap. iv.—ED.]

[525] “Mr. Glanvyle moveth to speed the bill of fishing upon the coast
of America, the rather because Sir Ferdinand Gorge hath executed
a patent since the recess. Hath, by letters from the Lords of the
Council, stayed the ships ready to go forth.

“Mr. Neale _accordant_, that Sir Ferdinando hath besides threatened to
send out ships to beat off from their free fishing, and restraineth the
ships, _ut supra_.

“Sir Edward Coke, that the patent may be brought in; and Sir T.
Wentworth, that the party may be sent for.

“Ordered, the patent shall be brought in to the Committee for
Grievances upon Friday next, and Sir Jo. Bowcer [Bourchier, one of
the patentees] and Sir Ferdinando his son, to be sent for, to be then
there, if he be in town, Sir Ferdinando himself being captain of
Portsmouth” (Plymouth).

On the 24th, “Neale moveth again concerning ... restraint of fishing
upon the coasts of ... it may be brought in at the next ... for
grievances and the Com....

“Ordered, the patent, or in the default thereof [a copy?], shall be
considered of by the said com[mittee] in the afternoon. Sir Jo. Barr
[Bowcer?...] attend the said committee at that time.”—_Journal of the
House of Commons._

[526] See chapter viii.

[527] Two parts of the territory were to be divided among the
patentees, and one third was to be reserved for public uses; but the
entire territory was to be formed into counties, baronies, hundreds,
etc. From every county and barony deputies were to be chosen to
consult upon the laws to be framed, and to reform any notable abuses;
yet these are not to be assembled but by order of the President and
Council of New England, who are to give life to the laws so to be made,
as those to whom it of right belongs. The counties and baronies were
to be governed by the chief and the officers under him, with a power
of high and low justice,—subject to an appeal, in some cases, to the
supreme courts. The lords of counties might also divide their counties
into manors and lordships, with courts for determining petty matters.
When great cities had grown up, they were to be made bodies politic
to govern their own private affairs, with a right of representation
by deputies or burgesses. The management of the whole affair was to
be committed to a general governor, to be assisted by the advice and
counsel of so many of the patentees as should be there resident,
together with the officers of State. There was to be a marshal for
matters of arms; an admiral for maritime business, civil and criminal;
and a master of ordnance for munition, etc. (Cf. the Council’s “Briefe
Relation,” in 2 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, ix. 21-25; S. F. Haven’s Lecture
before the Massachusetts Historical Society, Jan. 15, 1869, on _The
History of the Grants_, etc., pp. 18, 19.)

[528] Tradition has preserved the name of “Winter Harbor” there, and
this name appears on a map of the New England coast, which is one of
the collection known as Dudley’s _Arcano del Mare_, issued at Florence
in 1646, and of which a reduced fac-simile is given herewith. Dudley
was an expatriated Englishman, of the Earl of Leicester, and had a
romantic story, which has been told by Mr. Hale in the _Amer. Antiq.
Soc. Proc._, 1873. Dudley’s first wife had been a sister of Cavendish,
and he is otherwise connected with American exploration; but there is
no evidence that he had much other material for this map than Smith and
the Dutch. [Dudley and his cartographical labors are also brought under
notice in chap. ii. of the present volume, and in chap. ix. of Vol.
IV.—ED.]

[529] Of thirty-six meetings recorded to have been held between May
31, 1622, and June 28, 1623, Sir F. Gorges was present at thirty-five
meetings; Sir Samuel Argall, thirty-three; Goche, treasurer,
twenty-two. The average attendance at a meeting was but four. One half
the patentees originally named in the grant never attended a meeting.

[530] The record says that there was presented to the King “a plot of
all the coasts and lands of New England, divided into twenty parts,
each part containing two shares, and twenty lots containing the said
double shares, made up in little bales of wax, and the names of twenty
patentees by whom these lots were to be drawn.” The King drew for three
absent members, including Buckingham, who had gone to Spain. There were
eleven members present, who drew for themselves. Nine other lots were
drawn for absent members.

[531] Yet it should be mentioned here that the grant to the Marquis,
afterward Duke, of Hamilton of land between the Connecticut River and
Narragansett, which lay dormant during his life, was claimed by his
heirs at the Restoration, and at a later period, but was not allowed.
The grant to the Earl of Sterling, between St. Croix and Sagadahoc, was
in 1663 sold by his heir to Lord Clarendon, and a charter for it was
granted next year to the Duke of York.

[532] Palfrey’s _History of New England_, ii. 51-56.

[533] Ibid. pp 57, 403-405; _Transactions of the American Antiquarian
Society_, iii. 281-300.

[534] [See chap. x. of the present volume, and chap. x. of Vol. IV.—ED.]

[535] See chapter x.

[536] Hilton’s Point (Dover) about the year 1640 was called North-ham,
in compliment to Thomas Larkham, who in that year arrived there from
North-ham in England. Wiggin was governor here five years, George
Burdett two, John Underhill three, and Thomas Roberts one.

[537] It is by virtue of this agreement that the lands are still held.

[538] [The so-called Endicott Rock, with its inscription dated 1652,
fixed the northern limits of New Hampshire at the headwaters of the
Merrimac River, and as part of Massachusetts. Cf. _Granite Monthly_, v.
224; _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, i. 311; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
xviii. 400; _New Hampshire Historical Collections_, iv. 194.—ED.]

[539] Bacon, quoted by Palfrey, i. 535, 536.

[540] [What purported to be a portrait of Haynes appeared in C. W.
Elliott’s _History of New England_; but it was later proved to be a
likeness of Fitz John Winthrop, and the plate was withdrawn. Cf. _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, xii. 213.—ED.]

[541] At last, in 1696, what was termed “owning the covenant” was
first introduced into the church at Hartford. Under the influence of
the synod held in Boston in 1662 of Massachusetts churches alone,
the “Half-Way Covenant” had been adopted in that colony. A want of a
closer union among the churches was a growing feeling in the colony
of Connecticut not provided for by the Cambridge Platform; and the
Saybrook Platform, the result of a Connecticut synod held in 1708,
was an attempt to provide for this want. This ecclesiastical document
was printed in New London in 1710, in a small, thin volume called a
_Confession of Faith_, etc.; and is the first book, says Isaiah Thomas,
printed in Connecticut. Trumbull, i. 471, 482.

[542] Palfrey’s _History of New England_, vol. iii. p. 238.

[543] See Belknap, _History of New Hampshire_, i. 5. It was also
printed by Dr. Benj. Trumbull, _History of Connecticut_, vol. i. 1818,
App., from a copy furnished by Chalmers, under the impression that it
had been “never before published in America,” and has since appeared in
Brigham’s _Charter and Laws of New Plymouth_, pp. 1-18, Baylies’ _New
Plymouth_, i. 160, and in the _Popham Memorial_, pp. 110-118.

[544] _Sabin’s Dictionary_, no. 52,619,—very rare.

[545] [Dr. Haven also contributed to the _Memorial History of Boston_,
i. 87, a chapter on the subject of these early patents and grants. He
closed a valuable life Sept. 5, 1881. Cf. _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._,
October, 1881, and _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xix. 4, 63.—ED.]

[546] See _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, for October, 1868, pp. 34, 35;
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, May 1876, p. 364.

[547] See _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._ for October, 1875, pp. 49-63.
Most of the grants of the Council are extant, either in the original
parchments or in copies; and many of them have been printed. Some
enterprising scholar will probably one day bring them all together in
one volume, with proper annotations. It would be a convenient manual of
reference.

[548] The rare list of these names in duplicate inserted in some copies
of Smith’s tract may be seen in his _Generall Historie_, p. 206. [The
map itself, with some account of it and of Smith, may be found in
chapter vi. of the present volume.—ED.]

[549] [See a previous page.—ED.]

[550] See Hutchinson’s _History of Massachusetts_, i. 9; Belknap’s _New
Hampshire_, App. xv.

[551] Bradford, _Plymouth Plantation_, pp. 89, 90; Brigham, _Charter
and Laws of New Plymouth_, pp. 36, 49, 50, 241; 1 _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Coll._, iii. 56-64. For the discussion of questions of European and
Aboriginal right to the soil, see Sullivan, _History of Land Titles
in Mass._, Boston, 1801, and John Buckley’s “Inquiry, etc.,” 1 _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Coll._, iv. 159.

[552] But cf. _Magazine of American History_, 1883, p. 141; and Davis’s
_Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth_, p. 61. I should add here that it has
been recently suggested to me as a possible alternative, that this seal
is that of the Council for the Northern Colony of Virginia.

[553] The name “Massachusetts,” so far as I have observed, is first
mentioned by Captain Smith, in his _Description of New England_,
1616. He spells the word variously, but he appears to use the term
“Massachuset” and “Massachewset” to denote the country, while he
adds a final s when he is speaking of the inhabitants. He speaks of
“Massachusets Mount” and “Massachusets River,” using the word also in
its possessive form; while in another place he calls the former “the
high mountain of Massachusit.” To this mountain, on his map, he gives
the English name of “Chevyot Hills.” Hutchinson (i. 460) supposes
the Blue Hills of Milton to be intended. He says that a small hill
near Squantum, the former seat of a great Indian sachem, was called
Massachusetts Hill, or Mount Massachusetts, down to his time. Cotton,
in his Indian vocabulary, says the word means “a hill in the form of
an arrow’s head.” See also Neal’s _New England_, ii. 215, 216. In the
Massachusetts charter the name is spelled in three or four different
ways, to make sure of a description of the territory. Cf. Letter of J.
H. Trumbull, in _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct. 21, 1867, p. 77; and
_Memorial History of Boston_, i. 37.

[554] See S. F. Haven’s “Origin of the Massachusetts Company,” in
_Archæologia Americana_, vol. iii.

[555] This matter is discussed by Dr. Haven in the Lecture above cited,
pp. 29, 30; and by the present writer in _Memorial History of Boston_,
i. 341-343, _note_. See also Gorges, _Briefe Narration_, pp. 40, 41.

[556] It is printed in Hutchinson’s _Collection of Papers_, 1769; and
also in vol. i. of the _Colony Records_.

[557] See 4 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vii. 159-161.

[558] [In six volumes, royal quarto; cf. _Massachusetts Historical
Society Lectures_, p. 230; _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1848, p.
105; and 1854, p. 369. They were published at $60, but they can be
occasionally picked up now at $25.—ED.]

[559] [See Memoir and portrait in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._,
1870, p. 1; cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. 113; and _Historical
Magazine_, xvii. 107.—ED.]

[560] [Dr. Palfrey (vol. iii. p. vii) has pointedly condemned it, and
the arrangement will be found set forth in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal.
Reg._, 1848, p. 105. Besides much manuscript material (not yet put
into print) at the State House, and in the Cabinet of the Historical
Society, and the usual local depositories, mention may be made of some
papers relating to New England recorded in the _Sparks Catalogue_, p.
215; and the numerous documents in the Egerton and other manuscripts,
in the British Museum, as brought out in its printed _Catalogues
of Manuscripts_, and Colonel Chester’s list of manuscripts in the
Bodleian, in _Historical Magazine_, xiv. 131. Mr. S. L. M. Barlow,
of New York, has an ancient copy of the Records of the Massachusetts
Company (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iii. 36).

Brodhead’s prefaces to the published records of New York indicated
the sources of early manuscript material in the different Government
offices of England, equally applicable to Massachusetts; but these
records have now been gathered into the public Record Office, some
account of which will be found in Mr. B. F. Stevens’s “Memorial,”
_Senate, Miscellaneous Documents_ no. 24, 47th Congress, 2d session,
and in the _London Quarterly_, April, 1871. It requires formality and
permission to examine these papers, only as they are later than 1760.
The calendaring and printing of them, begun in 1855, is now going on;
and Mr. Hale has described (in the _Christian Examiner_, May, 1861)
the work as planned and superintended by Mr. Sainsbury. Three of these
volumes already issued—_Calendar of State Papers, Colonial America_,
vol. i., 1574-1660; vol. v., 1661-1668; vol. vii., 1669—are of much
use to American students. Mr. F. S. Thomas, Secretary of the public
Record Office, issued in 1849 a _History of the State Paper Office and
View of the Documents therein Deposited_. Mr. C. W. Baird described
these depositories in London in the _Magazine of American History_, ii.
321.—ED.]

[561] [A list of the publications of this Society, brought down,
however, no later than 1868, will be found in the _Historical
Magazine_, xiv. 99; and in 1871 Dr. S. A. Green issued a bibliography
of the Society, which was also printed in its _Proceedings_, xii. 2.
The first seven volumes of its first series of _Collections_ were
early reprinted. Each series of ten volumes has its own index. The
Society’s history is best gathered from its own _Proceedings_, the
publication of which was begun in 1855; but two volumes have also been
printed, covering the earlier years 1791-1854. The first of these
dates marks the founding of this the oldest historical society in
this country. Its founder, if one person can be so called, was Dr.
Jeremy Belknap, who was one of the earliest who gave the writing of
history in America a reputable character. His _Life_ has been written
by his granddaughter, Mrs. Jules Marcou, and the book is reviewed by
Francis Parkman in the _Christian Examiner_, xliv. 78; cf. _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, i. 117; iii. 285; ix. 12; xiv. 37. His historical
papers are described by C. C. Smith in the _Unitarian Review_, vii.
604. The two principal societies working parallel with it in part,
though professedly of wider scope, are the American Antiquarian
Society, at Worcester (not to be confounded with the Worcester Society
of Antiquity,—a local antiquarian association), and the New England
Historic, Genealogical Society, in Boston. The former has issued the
_Archæologia Americana_ and _Proceedings_ (cf. _Historical Magazine_,
xiv. 107); while the latter has been the main support of the _New
England Historical and Genealogical Register_, which has published
an annual volume since 1847, and these have contained various data
for the history of the Society. Cf. 1855, p. 10; 1859, p. 266; 1861,
preface; 1862, p. 203; 1863, preface; 1870, p. 225; 1876, p. 184, and
reprinted as revised; 1879, preface, and p. 424, by E. B. Dearborn.
To these associations may be added the Essex Institute, of Salem, the
Connecticut Valley Historical Society (begun in 1876), the Dorchester
Antiquarian Society, the Old Colony Historical Society (cf. the chapter
on the Pilgrims),—all of which unite historical fellowship with
publication,—and the Prince Society, an organization for publishing
only, whose series of annotated volumes relating to early Massachusetts
history is a valuable one.—ED.]

[562] It is a volume of great value, and brings from $10 to $15 at
sales. It is sometimes found lettered on the back as vol. iii. of the
_History_. A third edition of the _History_ was published in Boston in
1795, with poor type and poor paper. [A reprint of the _Papers_ was
made by the Prince Society in 1865. For other papers of Hutchinson,
see 2 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, x., and 3 Ibid., i.; cf. _N. E. Hist. and
Geneal. Reg._, 1865, P. 187. A controversy for many years existed
between the Historical Society and the State as to the custody of
a large mass of Hutchinson’s papers. This can be followed in the
Society’s _Proceedings_, ii. 438; x. 118, 321; xi. 335; xii. 249; xiii.
130, 217; and in _Massachusetts Senate Documents_, no. 187, of 1870.
These papers, mostly printed, are now at the State House.—ED.]

[563] See _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, i. 286, 397, 414; and xi. 148; also
a full account of Hutchinson’s publications in Ibid., February, 1857;
cf. Sabin, _Dictionary_, xi. 22. A correspondence between Hutchinson
and Dr. Stiles, upon his history, is printed in _N. E. Hist. and
Geneal. Reg._, 1872, pp. 159, 230.

[564] Cf. a Memoir of Minot, in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vol. viii.

[565] A fourth volume, carrying the record to 1741, was published in
1875; and since Dr. Palfrey’s death a fifth volume has been announced
for publication under the editing of his son.

[566] Good copies of the original folio edition, with the map, bring
high prices. One of Brinley’s copies, said to be on large paper (though
the present writer has a copy by his side much larger), brought $110.
The Menzies copy (no. 1,353) sold for $125. See “The Light shed upon
Mather’s Magnalia by his Diary” in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, December,
1862, pp. 402-414; Moses Coit Tyler, _History of American Literature_,
ii. 80-83. Of the map, Dr. Douglass says (i. 362): “Dr. Cotton Mather’s
map of New England, New York, Jerseys, and Pennsylvania is composed
from some old rough drafts of the first discoveries, with obsolete
names not known at this time, and has scarce any resemblance of the
country. It may be called a very erroneous, antiquated map.” [See
Editor’s note following this chapter. For some notes on the Mather
Library, see _Memorial History of Boston_, vol. i. p. xviii. The
annexed portrait of Mather resembles the mezzotint, of which a reduced
fac-simile is given in the _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 208, and
which is marked COTTONUS MATHERUS, _Ætatis suæ LXV_, MDCCXXVII. _P.
Pelham ad vivum pinxit ab origine fecit et excud._ Its facial lines,
however, are stronger and more characteristic. It may be the reduction
made by Sarah Moorhead from the painting, thus mentioned by Pelham,
for the purpose of the engraving. It is to be observed, however, that
the surroundings of the portrait are different in the engraving. This
same outline, but reversed, characterizes a portrait of Mather, which
belongs to the American Antiquarian Society at Worcester, and which is
said to be by Pelham. Paine’s _Portraits, etc., in Worcester_, no. 5;
W. H. Whitmore’s _Peter Pelham_, 1867, p. 6, where the Pelham engraving
is called the earliest yet found to be ascribed to that artist.—ED.]

[567] See what Beverly says of him in the Preface to his _History of
Virginia_, 1722. The numerous maps in his book were made by Herman
Moll, a well-known cartographer of that day. Oldmixon’s name appears
only to the dedication prefixed to the first edition.

[568] _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, iii. nos. 281, 855; and 510, for the
Bishop of Winchester’s examination of Neal’s _History of the Puritans_.

[569] [These supplementary parts have been reprinted in 2 _Mass. Hist.
Coll._, vii. It was republished in Boston in 1826, edited by Nathan
Hale. Mr. S. G. Drake, having some sheets of this edition on hand,
reissued it in 1852, with a new titlepage, and with a memoir of Prince
and some plates, etc., inserted. It has been again reprinted in Edward
Arber’s _English Garner_, 1877-80, vol. ii. Prince’s own copy, with his
manuscript notes, is noted in the _Brinley Catalogue_, no. 350. Mr.
Deane has several sheets of the original manuscript of this work.—ED.]

[570] A memoir of Dr. Douglass, by T. L. Jennison, M.D., was published
in _Medical Communications of the Massachusetts Medical Society_, vol.
v. part ii., Boston, 1831. Cf. _Memorial History of Boston_, Index;
Sabin, v. 502; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, iii. 899.

[571] [This is reprinted in full in Force’s _Tracts_, ii. It was
printed in 1630, and original copies are in Mr. Deane’s and in the
Lenox libraries; cf. also _Brinley Catalogue_, nos. 373, 2,704;
_Crowninshield Catalogue_, no. 744; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, vol. ii.
no. 371.—ED.]

[572] [The Journal of Higginson, which is a relation of his voyage,
1629, is in Hutchinson’s _Collection of Papers_, and an imperfect
manuscript which that historian used is in the Cabinet of the
Historical Society. His _New England’s Plantation_ is reprinted in
Young’s _Chronicles_; in _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Coll._, iii. 79; in Force’s
_Tracts_, vol. ii.; and in _Mass. Hist, Coll._, vol. i. The narrative
covers the interval from July to September, 1629, and three editions
were issued in 1630; the Lenox Library has the three, and Harvard
College Library has two,—one imperfect. Rich, _Catalogue_ (1832), nos.
186, 191; _Brinley Catalogue_, no. 312; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, vol.
ii. nos. 362, 363; _Menzies Catalogue_, no. 927 ($66.)—ED.]

[573] [This, besides being in Young’s _Chronicles_, can be found in
Force’s _Tracts_, vol. ii., with notes by John Farmer; and in the _N.
H. Hist. Coll._, vol. iv., following a manuscript more extended than
the text given on its first appearance in print in _Massachusetts, or
the First Planters_; 1696, copies of which are noted in the Prince (p.
37) and Carter-Brown (vol. ii. no. 1,494) catalogues.—ED.]

[574] [This tract was reprinted in Boston in 1865, and also in 3 _Mass.
Hist. Coll._, iii. There are copies of the original in Mr. Deane’s,
Harvard College, and the Carter-Brown (_Catalogue_, ii. 379) libraries.
Cf. the editorial note at the end of chap. vi., and _Memorial History
of Boston_, i. p. 50.—ED.]

[575] The volume was reissued in 1635, 1639, and 1764. The Prince
Society reprinted the volume in 1865, with a prefatory address by
the present writer. [Copies of the original edition are noted in the
_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. no 421 (later editions, nos. 433, 469);
and _Brinley Catalogue_, no. 377. Cf. also Rich, _Catalogue_ (1832),
no. 296, and (1844) priced at £1 8_s._ Mr. Deane’s copy of the _first_
edition has ninety-eight pages, besides the Indian words. The Rice
copy brought $200. Cf. _Menzies Catalogue_, no. 2,187. The second and
third editions had each eighty-three pages, besides an appendix of
Indian words. The 1764 edition has an anonymous introduction, perhaps
by Nathaniel Rogers (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, November, 1862) or James
Otis (Ibid., September, 1862). Mr. Deane reprints this preface.—ED.]

[576] Mr. Charles Francis Adams, Jr., recently prepared a new edition
of Morton’s book for publication by the Prince Society. It is
accompanied by a memoir of Morton.

[577] [There has been a strange amount of misdating in respect to this
book. The _Mondidier Catalogue_ (Henry Stevens) gives it, “Printed
by W. S. Stansby for Rob. Blount, 1625.” (Sabin, _Dictionary_, xii.
51,028.) The _Sunderland Catalogue_, iv. no. 8,684, gives it 1627,—a
date followed by Quaritch in a later catalogue. Cf. Rich, _Catalogue_
(1832), no. 218; (1844), priced at £1 8_s._; Menzies, no. 1,440, $160;
_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. 443; _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 80.
It is included in Force’s _Tracts_, ii.—ED.]

[578] His tract of twenty-three pages is entitled _A True Relation
of the Late Battell fought in New England between the English and
the Salvages_, etc., London, 1637. [There was a reissue in 1638 of
the first edition, and a second edition the same year, which last is
in Harvard College and the Prince libraries. There is an account of
Vincent by Hunter in 4 _Coll._, i. Cf. Rich (1832), _Catalogue_, no.
221; _Crowninshield Catalogue_, no. 766; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii.
448, 461, 462; Field, _Indian Bibliography_, no. 1,606.—ED.]

[579] His tract was entitled, _Newes from America_, etc., London, 1638.
[There is a copy in Harvard College Library and in Charles Deane’s. Cf.
also, Rich (1832), no. 220, and _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. 460, with
fac-simile of title.—ED.]

[580] [It was again reprinted in a volume on the _Mohegan Case_ in
1796 (cf. _Brinley Catalogue_, no. 2,085; Menzies, 1,338, $40); and
afterward, following Prince’s edition, in 2 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, viii.
120; and in New York by Sabin, in 1869. Field’s _Indian Bibliography_,
no. 1,021. Cf. references on Mason in _Memorial History of Boston_, i.
253.—ED.]

[581] It is also reprinted in some copies of Dodge’s edition of
Penhallow’s _Indian Wars_ Cincinnati, 1859. Cf. Sabin, _Dictionary_,
vii. 165; and accounts of Gardiner in Thompson’s _Long Island_, i. 305,
and 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, x. 173.

[Illustration]

Further references on the Pequot War will be found in _Memorial
History of Boston_, i. 255; and in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, May,
1860, will be found a letter from Jonathan Brewster describing its
outbreak.—ED.

[582] [More extensive references will be found in _Memorial History of
Boston_, i. 176, and _Harvard College Library Bulletin_, no. 11, p.
287.—ED.]

[583] See Hutchinson, i. 435.

[584] [Ward is better known, however, by his _Simple Cobler of Aggawam
in America_, which passed through four editions in London in 1647,—a
rarity now worth six or seven pounds; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii.
624; _O’Callaghan Catalogue_, 2,351; _Menzies Catalogue_, no. 2,038,
etc. It was not reprinted in Boston till 1713, and again, edited by
David Pulsifer, in 1843. Mr. John Ward Dean published a good memoir of
Ward in 1868. The book in question is no further historical than that
it illustrates the length to which good people could go in vindication
of intolerance, in days when Antinomianism and other aggressive views
were troubling many.—ED.]

[585] [The _Abstract_ is also in Force’s _Tracts_, iii. A note on
the bibliography of the subject will be found in _Memorial History
of Boston_, i. 145. Cf. _Brinley Catalogue_, p. 108; _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, ii. 483; Sabin, no. 52,595. Mr. Deane has a copy.—ED.]

[586] A list of books there printed from 1540 to 1599 may be seen in
the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, i. 131-135.

[587] [Something of its bibliographical history is told with references
in _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 458-460. Of two copies of the
original edition there mentioned, one, the Fiske copy, is now in the
Carter-Brown library (_Catalogue_, ii. 470); another, the Vanderbilt
copy, has since been burned in New York.—ED.]

[588] For a list of Daye’s and Green’s books see Thomas’s _History of
Printing_, 2d ed.; and other references to the early history of the
press in New England will be found in _Memorial History of Boston_, i.
ch. 14.

[589] It was reprinted in 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, iii. A new edition,
with learned notes and an introduction by the editor, Dr. J. Hammond
Trumbull, was published in Boston in 1867. [A portion of the manuscript
is in the cabinet of the Historical Society, and a fac-simile of a
page of it is given herewith, together with the accompanying statement
on the manuscript in the hand of the learned Boston antiquary, James
Savage, of whom there is a memoir by G. S. Hillard in _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, xvi. 117. Cf. _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, i. 81. The
autograph of Lechford is from another source. The Ebeling copy is
certainly no longer unique, though the book is rare enough to have been
priced recently in London at $75. Cf. Sabin, _Dictionary_, x. 158;
_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. 506, 545; _Brinley Catalogue_, no. 322;
Menzies, no. 1,202. There is a note-book of Lechford preserved in the
American Antiquarian Society’s Cabinet.—ED.]

[590] [A portrait of Cotton of somewhat doubtful authenticity, together
with references on his life, will be found in _Memorial History of
Boston_, i. 157.—ED.]

[591] [The best bibliographical record of the books in Cotton’s
controversy with Williams, as indeed of most of the points of this
present essay, is the appendix of Dexter’s _Congregationalism_; a
briefer survey, grouping the books in their relations, is in _Memorial
History of Boston_, i. 172. See a later page under “Rhode Island.”—ED.]

[592] This is the earliest edition of this famous book; and I know of
but two copies of it,—one before me, and one in the Thomason Library
in the British Museum. Mr. Arthur Ellis, in his _History of the First
Church in Boston_, has given a fac-simile of the titlepage. An edition
was printed at Cambridge in 1656, of which a copy is in the library of
the late George Livermore.

[593] Palfrey, _New England_, ii. 184.

[594] In 1725 the _Results of Three Synods ... of the Churches of
Massachusetts_, 1648, 1662, _and_ 1669, was reprinted in Boston. Cf.
_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, iii. no. 362.

[595] A copy of the rare first edition is in the library of the
American Antiquarian Society, from which twenty copies were reprinted
by Mr. Hoadly, Secretary of State of Connecticut, in 1858. The
important subject of this confederation is sufficiently illustrated in
a lecture by John Quincy Adams, in 1843, published in 3 _Mass. Hist.
Coll._, ix. 187. [See references to reprints of the articles, and notes
on the Confederacy in _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 299.—ED.]

[596] Copies of Winslow’s book are very rare, and are worth probably
one hundred dollars or more, being rarely seen in the market. [There
are copies in the Carter-Brown Library (_Catalogue_, ii. 600, with
fac-simile of title), and in Mr. Deane’s collection. The second edition
appears in the _Brinley Catalogue_, no. 691.—ED.] Gorton’s book, also
rare, has been reprinted by Judge Staples, with learned notes, in the
_Rhode Island Historical Society’s Collections_, vol. ii. [and is also
in Force’s _Tracts_, vol. iv. There are copies in the Prince, Charles
Deane, Carter-Brown (_Catalogue_, ii. 589, with a long note), and
Harvard College libraries. Cf. also Sabin’s _Dictionary_, vii. 352, and
_Brinley Catalogue_, no. 578.—ED.] While writing this note there has
come to my hand no. 17 of Mr. S. S. Rider’s _Rhode Island Historical
Tracts_, containing “A Defence of Samuel Gorton and the Settlers of
Shawomet,” by George A. Brayton. See other authorities noted in the
_Memorial History of Boston_, i. 171, and in Bartlett’s _Bibliography
of Rhode Island_.

[597] Child’s book was reprinted in part in 2 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, iv.
107. It was reprinted in 1869 by William Parsons Lunt, with notes by
W. T. R. Marvin. A copy of the original edition is in the library of
the Boston Athenæum, and in that of John Carter Brown (_Catalogue_, ii.
608), which also has a copy of Winslow’s _New England’s Salamander_
(_Catalogue_, ii. 623), and there is another in Harvard College
Library. This is also reprinted in 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, ii. 110. The
Remonstrance and Petition of Child and others, and the Declaration in
answer thereto, may be seen in Hutchinson’s _Papers_, p. 188 _et seq_.

[598] [For an account of this book and its history, and much relating
to the embodiment of the Indian speech in literary form, see Dr. J. H.
Trumbull’s chapter on “The Indian Tongue and the Literature fashioned
by Eliot and others,” in _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 465, with
references there noted.—ED.]

[599] That part relating to the college was published in an early
volume of the _Collections_ of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

[600] The originals of these tracts, with one exception, are in the
possession of the writer, and they are for the most part in the
Carter-Brown Library; and seven of them are published in 3 _Mass.
Hist. Coll._, vol. iv. [Further bibliographical detail can be found in
Dr. Dexter’s _Congregationalism_; Sabin, _Dictionary_; Dr. Trumbull’s
_Brinley Catalogue_, p. 52; Field’s _Indian Bibliography; Memorial
History of Boston_, i. 265, etc.; and more or less of the titles
appear in the Menzies (nos. 1,475, 1,815, 1,816, 2,124, 2,125),
O’Callaghan (nos. 852, etc.), and Rich (1832, nos. 237, 261, 263,
273, 280, 287, 292, 304, 316, 355) catalogues. Some of these Eliot
tracts were used in compiling the postscript on the “Gospel’s Good
Successe in New England,” appended to a book _Of the Conversion of
... Indians_, London, 1650 (Sabin, xiii. 56,742). Eliot’s own _Briefe
Narrative_ (1670) of his labors has been reprinted in Boston, and in
the appendix of the reprint is a list of the writers on the subject.
Letters of Eliot, dated 1651-52, on his labors, are in the _N. E. Hist.
and Geneal. Reg._, July, 1882. For an alleged portrait of Eliot and
references, see _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 260, 261. A better
engraving has since appeared in the _Century Magazine_, 1883.—ED.]


[601] [Some copies of the second edition have a dedication to Robert
Boyle and the Company for the Propagation of the Gospel among the
Indians, signed by William Stoughton, Joseph Dudley, Peter Bulkley, and
Thomas Hinckley.

[Illustration: AUTOGRAPHS CONNECTED WITH THE INDIAN BIBLE.]

Eliot was assisted in this second edition by John Cotton, of Plymouth,
son of the Boston minister; and the type was in part set for both
editions by James Printer, an Indian taught to do the work. There is
a notice of Boyle by C. O. Thompson in the _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._,
April, 1882, p. 54; and one of the Society for Propagating the Gospel,
by G. D. Scull, in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, April, 1882, p.
157. Cf. Sabin’s _Dictionary_, viii. 552. A portion of the original
manuscript records of the society (1655-1685) were described in
Stevens’s _Bibliotheca Historica_ (1870), no. 1,399, and brought in the
sale $265. The bibliographical history of the Indian Bible is given in
Dr. Trumbull’s chapter in the _Memorial History of Boston_, as before
noted.]

[602] A copy is in the Carter-Brown Library, and another in the
possession of the writer.

[603] See the list of Norton’s and Pynchon’s publications in Sabin’s
_Dictionary_.

[604] _A journal of the Transactions and Occurrences in the Settlement
of Massachusetts and the other New-England Colonies, from the year 1630
to 1644.... Now first published from a correct copy of the original
manuscript._ Hartford, 1790.

[605] _The History of New England from 1630 to 1649. From his original
manuscripts. With Notes to illustrate the Civil and Ecclesiastical
concerns, the Geography, Settlement, and Institutions of the Country,
and the Lives and Manners of the principal Planters._ By James Savage.
Boston, 1825-26. 2 vols. New ed., with additions and corrections.
Boston, 1853. 2 vols.

[606] [For other details and references see _Memorial History of
Boston_, i. p. xvii.—ED.]

[607] A curious bibliographical question is connected with a later
issue of the volume as bound up with several of the Gorges tracts,
for the discussion of which see the Introduction to Mr. W. F. Poole’s
valuable edition of Johnson’s book, Andover, 1867, pp. li-vi; with
which cf. _North American Review_, January, 1868, pp. 323-328; and
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, June, 1881, pp. 432-35. [Geo. H. Moore
printed some strictures on Poole’s edition in _Historical Magazine_,
xiii. 87. Cf. Dexter’s _Congregationalism_; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_,
ii. 771, 851; and other references in _Memorial History of Boston_, i.
463.—ED.]

[608] It was republished in fragmentary parts in several volumes of the
Massachusetts Historical Society’s _Collections_, second series.

[609] It is reprinted in 4 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vol. ii., from a copy
of the rare original in the Carter-Brown Library.

[610] Charles Lamb speaks of the book in his _Elia_ under “A Quaker
Meeting.”

[611] [The literature of the Quaker controversy is extensive and
intricate in its bearings.

[Illustration]

It can best be followed in Mr. J. Smith’s _Catalogue of Friends’
Books_, and in his _Anti-Quakeriana_. Dr. Dexter’s _Congregationalism_,
and the _Brinley_ and _Carter-Brown Catalogues_ will assist the
student. The 1703 edition of Bishope’s _New England Judged_, abridged
in some ways and enlarged in others, contains also John Whiting’s
_Truth and Innocencey Defended_, which is an answer in part to portions
of Cotton Mather’s _Magnalia_; cf. also the note in _Memorial History
of Boston_, i. 187. There were a few of the prominent men at the
time who dared to protest boldly against the unwise actions of the
magistrates; and of such none were more prominent than James Cudworth,
of Plymouth Colony, and Robert Pike, of Salisbury. The conduct of the
latter has been commemorated in James S. Pike’s _New Puritan_, New
York, 1879.—ED.

[612] For their titles see Thomas’s _History of Printing_, 2d ed.
vol. ii. pp. 313-315; the bibliographical list in Dr. H. M. Dexter’s
_Congregationalism_, whose work may also be consulted for a history
of the subject itself; Mather’s _Magnalia_, v. 64 _et seq._; Upham’s
_Ratio Disiplinæ_, p. 223; Trumbull’s _Connecticut_, chaps. xiii. and
xix. of vol. i.; Hutchinson, i. 223-24; Wisner’s _History of the Old
South Church in Boston_, pp. 5-7; Bacon’s _Discourses_, pp. 139-141.

[613] [Mr. Tuckerman revised his notes and introduction in a reprint,
published by Veazie in Boston in 1865. The _Voyages_, which had been
reprinted in 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, iii., was also reissued in 1865 in
a companion volume to the _Rarities_, the text being corrected from a
copy of the “second addition,” 1675, in Harvard College Library. The
earlier book usually brings £3 or £4, the later one from £5 to £10.
Both are in the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. 1,080, 1,104. Cf. Sabin,
ix. 340; Menzies, 1,104, 1,105.—ED.]

[614] [It is further characterized in Vol. IV., chap. x.—ED.]

[615] There are at least eight titles in this interesting list:—

1. _The Present State of New England with respect to the Indian War_,
1675 (19 pages), purporting to be by a merchant of Boston.

2. _A Briefe and True Narration of the late Wars_, 1675 (8 pages); cf.
Sabin, vol. xiii. nos. 52,616, 52,638.

3. _A Continuation of the State of New England_, 1676 (20 pages).

4. _A New and Further Narrative of the State of New England_, 1676 (14
pages), signed N. T.

5. _A True Account of the most considerable Occurences that have hapned
in the War_, 1676 (14 pages).

6. _New England’s Tears for her present Miseries_, 1676 (14 pages).

7. _News from New England_, 1676 (6 pages). Sabin only records one
copy; and of a second edition, 1676, there are copies in the British
Museum and Carter-Brown libraries.

8. _The War in New England visibly Ended_, 1677 (6 pages), containing
news of the death of Philip, brought by Caleb More, master of a vessel
newly arrived from Rhode Island.

[These tracts are all in the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, vol. ii.,
and several are in Mr. Deane’s collection, and in Harvard College
Library. Rich supposed that nos. 1, 3, and 4 were written by the same
person. Five of them were reprinted by S. G. Drake in his _Old Indian
Chronicle_ in 1836, and again in 1867, with new notes; and no. 7 was
reprinted in 1850 by Drake, and in 1865 by Woodward. Sabin, xiii. 321,
322.

These tracts are priced at twelve and eighteen shillings, and at
similarly high sums, even in Rich’s catalogues of fifty years ago.
Whenever they have occurred in sales of late years they have proved the
occasion of much competition and unusual prices. Cf. Stevens’s _Hist.
Coll._, i. 1523, 1524.

Another contemporary account by a Rhode Island Quaker, as it is
thought, John Easton, was printed at Albany in 1858, as a _Narrative of
the Causes which led to Philip’s War_. Cf. Palfrey, iii. 180; Field,
_Indian Bibliography_, p. 479.

Mr. Drake, whose name is closely associated with our Indian history,
was one of the foremost of American antiquaries for many years. There
is a memoir of him by W. B. Trask in _Potter’s American Monthly_, v.
729; and another in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, July, 1863, by
J. H. Sheppard, also separately issued. In 1874 he printed _Narrative
Remarks_, anonymously, embodying some personal grievances and notes of
his career, not pleasantly expressed. For his publications, see Sabin’s
_Dictionary_, v. 526, and Field’s _Indian Bibliography_, p. 452.—ED.]

[Illustration]

[616] John Foster had now set up a press in Boston, for the history of
which and its successors see _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 453.

[617] [Rich in 1832, no. 368, priced it, either edition, at eighteen
shillings. It was a quarto of 51 pages. Cf. _Carter-Brown Catalogue_,
ii. 1,150; Field’s _Indian Bibliography_, 1,022; _Brinley Catalogue_,
948, 5,531. It has of late years brought about $80. S. G. Drake
included this and the section of the _Magnalia_ on the war in his
_History of King Philip’s War_, 1862. Another book by Mather, _A
Relation of the Troubles which have hapned in New England_, etc., was
also printed in 1676, and traces the Indian wars from 1641, including
the causes of Philip’s War. Drake also reprinted this in 1864, as the
_Early History of New England_.—ED.]

[618] [King Philip’s War, which was but the beginning of a long
series of wars which devastated the frontiers, may be said properly
to end with the treaty of Casco, April 12, 1678, which is preserved
in the _Massachusetts Archives_; though a continuation of hostilities
intervened till the treaty of Portsmouth, Sept. 8, 1685. Cf. Belknap’s
_New Hampshire_, p. 348.—ED.]

[619] [Rich priced this book in 1832 (no. 375) at £1 10_s._,—an
extraordinary high sum for those days. I have seen the London edition
priced recently at £26, and $75; and the Boston edition in the Menzies
sale (no. 990) brought $200. It was reprinted in New England at least
six times (all spurious editions) between 1775 and 1814 (_Brinley
Catalogue_, 5,523, etc.; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. 1,167, 1,168,
1,170); and S. G. Drake brought out an annotated edition in two volumes
in 1865. Cf. _Hist. Mag._, i. 252, 348; ii. 62.

[Illustration]

Perhaps the most popular book touching the events of the war was one
which was not published till 1716, from notes of Colonel Benjamin
Church, and compiled by that hero’s son, Thomas Church, and called
_Entertaining Passages relating to Philip’s War_. It is an extremely
scarce book, and has brought $400. (_Brinley Catalogue_, no. 383;
Sabin, _Dictionary_, no. 12,996; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, iii. 293.)
A second edition, Newport, 1772, is said to have been edited by Dr.
Stiles, but it is not supposed he was privy to the fraud practised in
that edition of presenting an engraving of the portrait of Charles
Churchill, the English poet, with the addition of a powder-horn slung
over the shoulder, as a likeness of Church. (Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, xix. 243; also iii. 293; and _Hist. Mag._, December, 1868, pp.
27, 271.) Drake first reissued it in 1827, and made stereotype plates
of the book, and they have been much used since. He continued to use
the spurious portrait as late as 1857. Sabin, iv. 12,996; Brinley, no.
5,514. Dr. H. M. Dexter did all that is necessary for the text in his
edition (two volumes) in 1865-67. Another class of books growing out
of the war during its long continuance, particularly at the eastward,
is what collectors know as “captivities,” the most famous of which
is, perhaps, that of Mrs. Rowlandson, of Lancaster, printed in 1682.
The _Brinley Catalogue_, nos. 469, 5,540, etc., groups them, and they
are scattered through Field’s _Indian Bibliography_. The _Brinley
Catalogue_ also groups the works on the Indian wars of New England
(nos. 382, etc.); and a condensed exposition of the authorities on
Philip’s War will be found in the _Memorial History of Boston_, i. 327.
The local aspects of the war involve a very large amount of citation
and reference. What are known as the “Narragansett Townships” grew
out of the war. Before the troops marched from Dedham Plain, Dec. 9,
1675, they were promised “a gratuity of land beside their wages,”
and not till 1737 were the promises fulfilled, when 840 claimants or
their representatives met on Boston Common, and dividing themselves
into seven groups, they took possession of seven townships in Maine,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, granted by the General Court. _New
England Historical and Genealogical Register_, 1862, pp. 143, 216.—ED.

[620] For reference to the recovery of the preface and other missing
lines, see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xvi. 12, 38, 100; also, cf. i.
243; ii. 421; iii. 321. Hubbard, besides the above aid, had a large
number of official documents which he incorporated into his _History_.
Cf. Sabin, _Dictionary_, viii. 499; Field, _Indian Bibliography_, no.
730.

[621] [Mr. Whitmore also epitomized the history with references in
the _Memorial History of Boston_, ii. chap. i. Cf. also _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, ii. 1,351, 1,370, 1,372, 1,388, 1,398, 1,400, 1,403, 1,408,
1,420, 1,421.—ED.]

[622] A copy of Dudley’s commission (Oct. 8, 1685) has been recently
printed in 5 _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ix. 145.

[623] [Dr. N. B. Shurtleff, an eager Boston antiquary, died in that
city, Oct. 17, 1874, and his library was sold at auction, Nov. 30,
1875, etc.—ED.]

[624] The preface of the _Memorial History_ enumerates the sources of
Boston’s history.

[625] [A law was placed on the statute book of Massachusetts in 1854,
by which towns may legally appropriate money for publishing their
histories. The authorities on the town system of New England are cited
in W. E. Foster’s _Reference Lists_, July, 1882.—ED.]

[626] [The different keys to the genealogy of New England are indicated
in _Memorial History of Boston_, ii. Introduction.—ED.]

[627] “Maine” took its name probably from the early designation, by
the sailors and fishermen, of the main land—that is, “the main,”—in
distinction from the numerous islands on the coast. See Weymouth’s
“Voyage,” in 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, viii. 132, 151; Palfrey, i. 525;
_Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, i. 371. The earliest use of the name,
officially employed, that I have met with, is in the grant to Gorges
and Mason of Aug. 10, 1622, which recites that the patentees, “by
consent of the President and Council, intend to name it the _Province
of Maine_.” See the _Popham Memorial Volume_, p. 122. This grant was
never made use of, but the name was inserted in the royal charter to
Gorges of April 3, 1639, which secured its future use. Sullivan’s
_Maine_, Appendix, 399. The territory had been previously included in
the European designations of Baccalaos and Norumbega. The Indian name
was Mavooshen. See Purchas, iv., 1873; _Maine Hist. Coll._, i. 16, 17.

[628] These manuscripts were made use of by Dr. Belknap in writing his
_History of New Hampshire_, and are now all printed in the _Provincial
Papers_ of that State, vol. i., 1867, edited by the late Nathaniel
Bouton.

[Illustration]

The grant of Aug. 10, 1622, is printed in Poor’s _Ferdinando Gorges_,
from the _Colonial Entry Book_, p. 101, no. 59. An account of the
voyage of the barque “Warwick,” in 1630, which brought Captain Neal
to be governor for the Company, is given in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal.
Reg._, 1867, p. 223.

[629] Citations are made from them by Folsom in his _History of Saco
and Biddeford_, pp. 49-52. The original manuscript is among the old
county of York records at Alfred. The commission to Sir Ferdinando
Gorges as governor of New England, 1637, is printed in Poor’s _Gorges_,
p. 127. For his deed to Edgecombe, 1637, see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
ii. 74.

[630] See _Massachusetts Archives_, Miscellanies, i. 130.

[631] These old Maine records have all been removed to the county town
of Alfred, and they have never been printed. Extracts from time to time
have been published, as by Folsom above, and by Willis in vol. i. of
his _History of Portland_, who gives a description, from Judge David
Sewall, of the manner in which the original records were made and kept.
The charter of incorporation of Acomenticus as a town, April 10, 1641,
and the charter of Gorgeana as a city, March 1, 1642, were among the
papers which Hazard found at old York, and printed in his _Collection_,
vol. i. Cf. “Sir Robert Carr in Maine,” in _Magazine of American
History_, September, 1882, p. 623; and a paper on Gorgeana in _N. E.
Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1881, p. 42.

[632] [Cf. _Historical Magazine_, ii. 286, and Note B to chapter vi. of
the present volume.—ED.]

[633] [Mr. Somerby, a native of Massachusetts, who died in London
in 1872, did much during a long sojourn in England to further the
interests of American antiquaries and genealogists. Cf. _N. E. Hist.
and Geneal. Reg._, 1874, p. 340. Colonel Joseph L. Chester also for
many years filled a prominent place in similar work in England, till
his death in 1882. A portrait and notice of him by John T. Latting is
in the _New York Genealogical and Biographical Record_, 1882; also
issued separately: Cf. _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, January, 1883,
p. 106.—ED.]

[634] [The deed to Usher as agent of Massachusetts, in 1677, and his
conveyance to Massachusetts are at the State House in Boston. Cf.
_Maine Hist. Coll._, ii. 257; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xi. 201.—ED.]

[635] Mr. Folsom, a graduate of Harvard in 1822, was at this time
living in Saco. He subsequently removed to New York, became an active
member of the New York Historical Society, was minister at the Hague,
and died in Rome, Italy, in 1869.

[636] Special mention should perhaps be made of the enumeration of
Maine titles in the _Brinley Catalogue_ no. 2,571, etc., and of several
town histories published since Mr. Willis wrote his Catalogue, which
in their treatment go back to the early period, namely, _History of
Augusta_, by James W. North; _History of Brunswick_, etc., by G.
A. Wheeler and H. W. Wheeler, 1878; _History of Castine_, by G. A.
Wheeler, Bangor, 1875; _History of Bristol, Bremen, and Pemaquid_, by
John Johnston, Albany, 1873; _History of Ancient Sheepscot and New
Castle_, by David Q. Cushman, Bath, 1882. Most of the local historical
literature can be picked out of F. B. Perkins’s _Check-List of American
Local History_.

A volume entitled _Papers relating to Pemaquid_, collected from the
archives at Albany by Franklin B. Hough, was printed at Albany in 1856.
They relate to the condition of that part of the country when under
the colony of New York, and are of great value. Cf. also Mr. Hough’s
contributions in the _Maine Hist. Coll._, v. and vii. 127. Pemaquid as
a centre of historical interest is also illustrated in J. W. Thornton’s
_Ancient Pemaquid_; in Johnston’s papers in his _History of Bristol_,
etc.; in the Popham_ Memorial Volume_, p. 263; in _Maine Hist. Coll._,
vol. viii.; Vinton’s _Giles Memorial_, 1864; _Historical Magazine_, i.
132; _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1871, p. 131. [See also Vol. IV.
of this History.—ED.]

[637] [The early history of this society is told by Mr. Willis in an
address printed in their _Collections_, vol. iv. Cf. also Note B at the
end of chapter vi. of the present volume.—ED.]

[638] This collection, entitled _America painted to the Life_, passes
by the name of the _Gorges Tracts_. There are copies in Harvard College
Library, and noted in the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. 127; _Brinley
Catalogue_, nos. 308, 2,640 ($225.) Cf. Sabin’s _Dictionary_, vii.
348; Rich’s _Catalogue_, no. 314; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xviii.
432, and xix. 128; Stevens’s _Historical Collections_, vol. i. no.
247. The relations of Gorges and Champernoun are discussed by C. W.
Tuttle in _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1874, p. 404. See further on
Champernoun in Ibid., 1873, p. 147; 1874, pp. 75, 318, 403. There is an
account of Gorges’ tomb at St. Bordeaux in the _Magazine of American
History_, August, 1882; and notes on his pedigree, in _N. E. Hist. and
Geneal. Reg._, 1861, p. 17; 1864, p. 287; 1872, p. 381; 1877, pp. 42,
44, 112.—ED.

[639] [Captain Christopher Levett. His account was published in London
in 1628. The reprint in 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, viii. 164, was made from
a copy got in England by Sparks. The Maine Historical Society reprinted
it in their _Collections_, ii. 73 (1847); and the copy in the New York
Historical Society’s Library was then considered to be unique. The
_Huth Catalogue_, iii. 843, and _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. no. 338,
show original copies.—ED.]

[640] [The principal contestants may be thus divided:—

_Pro_,—_New Hampshire Historical Collections_, i.; Bell’s
_Wheelwright_; cf. _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1869, p. 65.

_Con_,—Farmer’s _Belknap_; Savage’s _Winthrop_; Palfrey’s _New
England_; and, besides Mr. Deane, the recorded opinions of Dr. Bouton,
Mr. C. W. Tuttle, Mr. J. A. Vinton; cf. _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._,
1868, p. 479; 1874, pp. 343, 477; and _Historical Magazine_, i. 57; and
also a letter of Colonel Chester in the _Register_, 1868, p. 350.

The deed is printed in the _Provincial Papers_, i. 56. Cotton Mather’s
original letter regarding it, dated March 3, 1708, is noted in the
_Brinley Catalogue_, no. 1,329. Belknap has printed it, and it is also
in the _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1862, p. 349.—ED.]

[641] Mason made no use of this grant; and no use had been made of his
grant of Mariana, of March 9, 1621/22, and that to him and Gorges of
Aug. 10, 1622; Hubbard’s _New England_, p. 614.

[642] [Governor Bell discovered in 1870 what is known as the Hilton or
Squamscott patent, of March 12, 1629, and it is printed in the _N. E.
Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1870, p. 264; it was found not to agree as to
its bounds with Piscataqua patent. Jenness, in his _Notes_, contends
that Wiggin set up the title of Massachusetts to the territory under
the 1628/29 charter. It was the conclusion of Mr. C. W. Tuttle (a
studious explorer of New Hampshire history, who died July 18, 1881; cf.
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xix. 2, 11) that Bloody Point, being included
in both grants, became the cause of the trouble between Neale and
Wiggin, as told by Hubbard.—ED.]

[643] Mason’s will, or a long extract from it, may be seen in Hazard,
i. 397-399, dated Nov. 26, 1635; also in _Provincial Papers_. These
papers last named are a publication of the State. The Rev. Dr.
Nathaniel Bouton, between 1867 and 1876, completed ten volumes of
Papers. They contain nothing before 1631; few from 1631 to 1686. Most
of the original papers between 1641 and 1679 are in the _Massachusetts
Archives_. The papers of interest in the present connection are in
vols. i. and ii. The series has since been resumed under another
editor, with the publication (1882) of the first part (A to F) of
documents relating to towns, 1680-1800. Very few of the papers,
however, are before 1700. Colonel A. H. Hoyt’s “Notes, Historical and
Bibliographical, on the Laws of New Hampshire,” are in _Amer. Antiq.
Soc. Proc._, April, 1876. Like most of the patents issued at the grand
division, Mason’s grant included ten thousand acres more of land on the
southeast part of Sagadahoc, “from henceforth to be called by the name
of Massonia.”

[644] [John Farmer (1789-1838) and Jacob B. Moore (1797-1853). Each
did much for New Hampshire history. For an account of Farmer, see _N.
E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, i. 12, 15. He published a first volume
(Dover, 1831) of a projected new edition of Belknap’s _History of New
Hampshire_, from a copy “having the author’s last corrections.” Moore
was the father of the well-known historical student, Dr. George H.
Moore, of the Lenox Library.—ED.]

[645] [Cf. C. K. Adams, _Manual of Historical Literature_, p. 549.
Mention has been made elsewhere of the Belknap Papers; cf. _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, March, 1858.—ED.]

[646] [The reports of the Adjutant-General of the State, 1866 and 1868,
contained Mr. Chandler E. Potter’s _Military History of New Hampshire_,
from 1623 to 1861, issued separately at Concord in 1869. The histories
by Whiton (1834) and Barstow (1853) are of minor importance.] There
are many valuable histories of separate towns in New Hampshire, and I
cannot do better than refer to the “Bibliography of New Hampshire,”
in Norton’s _Literary Letter_, new series, no. i. pp. 8-30, by S. C.
Eastman. [A current periodical, _The Granite Monthly_, is devoting
much space to New Hampshire history; cf. Sabin, vol. xiii. no. 37,486,
etc.—ED.]

[647] J. Hammond Trumbull, in _Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. 8. [Dr.
Trumbull has compassed a large part of the field of the Indian
nomenclature of Connecticut in his _Indian Names of Places: ... in
Connecticut, etc._, Hartford, 1881. The fortunes of the natives of this
colony have been traced in J. W. De Forest’s _History of the Indians of
Connecticut_ (with a map of 1630), of which there have been successive
editions in 1850, 1853, and 1871. Of Uncas, the most famous of the
Mohegan chiefs, there is a pedigree, as made out in 1679, recorded in
the _Colony Records_, Deeds, iii. 312, and printed in _N. E. Hist. and
Geneal. Reg._, 1856, p. 227. The will of his son Joshua is in Ibid.,
1859, p. 235. An agreement which Uncas made in 1681 with the whites is
in the _Public Records_, i. 309, and in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, x.
16. The warfare in 1642 between Uncas and Miantonomo, the chief of the
Narragansetts, and which ended with the latter’s death in captivity,
the English approving, is described by Winthrop and Hubbard; also in
Trumbull’s _Connecticut_, chap. 7; Arnold’s _Rhode Island_, chap. 4;
Palfrey’s _New England_, vol. ii. chap. 3; and it was the subject of
an historical address in 1842 by William L. Stone, called _Uncas and
Miantonomo_.—ED.]

[648] _Massachusetts Colonial Records_, i. 170.

[649] See _Connecticut Colonial Records_, i. 4.

[650] J. Hammond Trumbull, as above, p. 15.

[651] _New Haven Records._

[652] [Block, in 1614, had been the first to explore the river for the
Dutch; and both O’Callaghan (_New Netherland_, i. 169) and Brodhead
(New York, i. 235) set forth the prior right of the Dutch; cf. _N. E.
Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, vi. 368.—ED.]

[653] [Roger Wolcott celebrated Winthrop’s agency in London, in 1662,
in a long poem, which was printed in Wolcott’s _Poetical Meditations_,
London, 1725, and in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._ Cf. _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, iii. 369; Brinley Catalogue, no. 2,134.—ED.]

[654] It had been printed by Trumbull in 1797, in the Appendix to the
first edition of his _History_, i. 528-533; and is repeated in the
second edition, 1818; cf. Dr. J. H. Trumbull’s _Historical Notes on the
Constitutions of Connecticut_, 1639-1878, published in 1873. Hinman
published a collection of _Letters of the Kings of England to the
Successive Governors_ (1635-1749).

[655] Douglass’s _Summary_, ii. 160; Neal’s _New England_, 2d ed., i.
163; Trumbull’s 2d ed. 1818, i. 21; Hubbard, p. 310.

[656] Trumbull, i. 28, from manuscripts of President Clap. This old
Connecticut patent has always been a mystery. Some of the colonists
of the Winthrop emigration to Massachusetts in 1630 were unfavorably
impressed on their arrival with the place selected for a plantation.
The sad mortality of the preceding winter was appalling, and they began
to cast their thoughts on a more southerly spot than Massachusetts
Bay. In a letter of John Humfrey, written from London, Dec. 9, 1636,
in reply to one just received from his brother-in-law, Isaac Johnson,
from the colony, he says, in speaking of Mr. Downing: “He is the only
man for Council that is heartily ours in the town; and yet, unless you
settle upon a good river and in a less snowy and cold place, I can see
no great edge on him to come unto us.” Further on he says, “My Lord
of Warwick will take a patent of that place you writ of for himself,
and so we may be bold to do there as if it were our own.” (4 _Mass.
Hist. Coll._, vi. 3, 4.) No further hint is given as to the location of
Warwick’s intended grant, and we have no contemporaneous record of any
patent having been taken by him at this time or later. The Earl was a
great friend of the Puritans. It was through him that the Massachusetts
patent was obtained; and the patent to the people of Plymouth was
signed by him alone, but in the name of the Council, and sealed with
their seal.

The title to Connecticut was contested. On the grand division of 1635,
James, Marquis, afterward Duke, of Hamilton, received for his share
the territory between the Connecticut and Narragansett rivers, and
a copy of his feoffment was cited by Chalmers, as on record bearing
date April 22, 1635, that being the date which all the grants of that
final division bore. From a copy on the Connecticut files Mr. R. R.
Hinman, Secretary of State, published the deed in a volume of ancient
documents, at Hartford, in 1836. On the Restoration the heirs of the
Duke, in a petition to the King, asked to “be restored to their just
right,” and their claim was, in 1664, laid by the King’s commissioners
before the Connecticut authorities. These in their answer set up, in
the first place, the prior grant of Lord Say and Sele and others, which
Connecticut, as they alleged, had “purchased at a dear rate,” and which
had been recently ratified and confirmed by the King in their new
charter; then, secondly, a conquest from the natives; and, thirdly,
they claimed thirty years’ peaceable possession (Trumbull, i. 524,
530). At a period still later, the Earl of Arran, a grandson, applied
to King William for a hearing; and when in a formal manner several
patents were exhibited on the part of Connecticut, the Earl’s final
reply was, “that when they produced a grant from the Plymouth Council
to the Earl of Warwick, it should have an answer.” (Chalmers, pp.
299-301; Trumbull, i. 524.)

Some entries in the recently recovered records of the Council for New
England tend to deepen the suspicion that the Earl of Warwick never
received the alleged grant from that body. It is true that the records
as preserved are not entire, and do not cover the year 1630, and for
the year 1631 they begin at November 4. But some later entries are very
significant. Under date of June 21, 1632, which is three months after
the date of the grant to Lord Say and Sele and associates, is this
entry: “The Secretary is to bring, against the next meeting, a rough
draft in paper of a patent for the E. of Warwick, from the river of the
Narrigants 10 leagues westward. Sir Ferd. Gorges will forthwith give
particular directions for the said patent.” At the next meeting, June
26, “The rough draft of a patent for the E. of Warwick was now read.
His Lordship, upon hearing the same, gave order that the grant should
be unto Rob. Lord Rich and his associates, A, B, etc. And it was agreed
by the Council that the limits of the said patent should be 30 English
miles westward, and 50 miles into the land northward, provided that it
did not prejudice any other patent formerly granted.” A committee was
appointed to take further order respecting this patent, and there is no
evidence that it was ever perfected or issued. This proposed grant, it
will be seen, covered in part the same territory previously included in
the grant above cited to Lord Say, Lord Brook, Lord Rich, and others by
the Earl of Warwick himself.

Three days afterward some very singular orders were adopted by the
Council, indicating that there had been a serious disagreement with the
Earl, or that a feeling akin to suspicion, of which the Earl was the
object, had found a lodgment in that body. The Earl being president,
the meetings for some years had been held at “Warwick House in
Holborne.” At a meeting on the 29th of June, at which the Earl was not
present, “It was agreed that the E. of Warwick should be entreated to
direct a course for finding out what patents have been granted for New
England.” (Did not the Council keep a record of their grants?) Also,
“The Lord Great Chamberlain and the rest of the Council now present
sent their clerk unto the E. of Warwick for the Council’s great seal,
it being in his Lordship’s keeping.” Answer was brought that as soon as
his man Williams came in he would send it. It was then voted that the
meetings of the Council, which for some time, as I have already said,
had been held at Warwick House, should hereafter be held at Captain
Mason’s House, in Fenchurch Street. But the seal was not then sent, and
during the next five months two other formal applications were made for
it. In the mean time and thence after the records indicate the Earl’s
absence from the meetings, and finally Lord Gorges was chosen President
of the Council in his place.

The patent to Lord Say and Sele, it may be added, was never formally
transferred to Connecticut. In the agreement of 1644/45 Fenwick
conveyed the fort and lands on the river, and promised to convey the
jurisdiction of all the lands between Narragansett River and Saybrook
Fort, “if it come into his power,”—which he seems never to have done,
though the authorities of Connecticut claimed that they had paid him
for it. For a long time the Connecticut authorities appear to have
had no copy of this patent, for they were often challenged to exhibit
it, and were not able to do so; though they say that a copy was shown
to the commissioners when the confederation of the colonies was
formed,—then of course in the possession of Fenwick; and in 1648 it
is referred to as having been recently seen. (Hazard, ii. 120, 123.)
A transcript of this patent was found in London by John Winthrop,
among the papers of Governor Hopkins, who died there in 1658. See
_Connecticut Colonial Records_, pp. 268, 568, 573, 574.

[657] First edition, vol. i. Appendix v. and vi. See also Ibid., i.
149, 507-510, edition of 1818, with which compare _Connecticut Colonial
Records_, pp. 568, 573, 585.

[658] Vol. i. p. 306; cf. Trumbull, i. 110; Hutchinson, i. 100, 101.

[659] Vol. i. pp. 77-80, 509-563, 1-384. The twelve Capital Laws of the
Connecticut Colony, established in 1642, were taken almost literally
from the Body of Liberties of Massachusetts, established in 1641. The
preamble to the code of 1650, the paragraph following it, and many, if
not all, of the laws were taken from the Massachusetts Book of Laws
published in 1649. A copy of the constitution of 1639 was prefixed to
the Code. This was first printed in a small volume in 1822 at Hartford,
by Silas Andrus, called _The Code of 1650, being a Compilation of the
Earliest Laws and Orders of the General Court of Connecticut; also,
the Constitution, or Civil Compact, entered into and adopted by the
Towns of Windsor, Hartford, and Weathersfield, in 1638-39, to which is
added some Extracts from the Laws and Judicial Proceedings of New Haven
Colony commonly called Blue Laws_. There was an edition at Hartford in
1828, 1830, 1838, from the same plates; and in 1861 there appeared at
Philadelphia _A Collection of the Earliest Statutes, Edited with an
Introduction_, by Samuel W. Smucker.

[660] Cf. also Trumbull, i. chap. viii.; Caulkins, _New London_, pp.
27-50.

[661] Vol. i. pp. 259, 260, 404, 405.

[662] Vol. i. 1, _et seq._; cf. Trumbull, i. chap. vi.; Hubbard, chap.
xlii. See also Davenport’s _Discourse about Civil Government in a New
Plantation_, Cambridge, 1663, probably written at this early period;
Leonard Bacon, _Thirteen Historical Discourses_, New Haven, 1839; and
Professor J. L. Kingsley, _Historical Discourse_, New Haven, 1838.

[663] [Of Governor Eaton, the first governor of New Haven, there is a
memoir by J. B. Moore in 2 _N. Y. Hist. Coll._, ii. 467.—ED.]

[664] A copy of the original edition is also in the Library of the
Boston Athenæum, not quite perfect. Two copies were in the sale of Mr.
Brinley’s library in 1879, and they brought, one $380, the other, not
perfect, $310. Dr. J. Hammond Trumbull, in his learned Introduction
to his edition of _The True-Blue Laws of Connecticut and New Haven,
and the False Blue Laws Invented by the Rev. Samuel Peters_, etc.,
Hartford, 1876, says: “Just when or by whom the acts and proceedings of
New Haven Colony were first stigmatized as _Blue Laws_ cannot now be
ascertained. The presumption, however, is strong that the name had its
origin in New York, and that it gained currency in Connecticut among
Episcopalian and other dissenters from the established church, between
1720 and 1750” (p. 24). He thinks that “blue” was a convenient epithet
for whatever “in colonial laws and proceedings looked over-strict, or
queer, or ‘puritanic’” (pp. 24, 27).

Mr. Peters, of course, did not invent the name. He says of these laws:
“They consist of a vast multitude, and were very properly termed _Blue
Laws_, i.e., _bloody laws_.” In his _General History of Connecticut_,
London, 1781, Peters gives some forty-five of these laws as a sample of
the whole, “denominated _blue laws_ by the neighboring colonies,” which
“were never suffered to be printed.” The greater part of these probably
never had an existence as standing laws or otherwise. The archives
of the colony fail to reveal such, though we do not forget that the
jurisdiction records for nine years are lost. Peters’ laws have often
been reprinted, and appear in Mr. Trumbull’s volume above cited, along
with authentic documents relating to the foundation of Connecticut and
New Haven colonies, already referred to in this paper. (See Peters’
_Connecticut_, pp. 63, 66; the _New-Englander_, April, 1871, art. “Blue
Laws;” and _Methodist Quarterly Review_, January, 1878.)

It might be inferred from the conclusion of the titlepage (cited
above) of the small volume published by Silas Andrus, at Hartford,
in 1822, on bluish paper, bound in blue covers, with a frontispiece
representing a constable seizing a tobacco taker, which was stereotyped
and subsequently issued at different dates, that the book contained the
Peters’ laws; but what related to New Haven here were simply extracts
of a few laws and court orders from the records. The Blue Laws of
Peters were reprinted by J. W. Barber, in his _History and Antiquities
of New Haven_, 1831, with a note in which the old story is repeated,
that the term blue originated from the color of the paper in which
the first printed laws were stitched. They were also printed by Mr.
Hinman, formerly Secretary of the State of Connecticut, in 1838, in
a volume already cited, along with other valuable documents relating
to the colony, and with what he called the Blue Laws of Virginia, of
Barbadoes, of Maryland, New York, South Carolina, Massachusetts, and
Plymouth.

Peters’ _Connecticut_ (1781) is now a scarce book. The copy in the
Menzies sale, no. 1,590, brought $125. Cf. _Brinley Catalogue_, no.
2,088, etc. The interest in this apocryphal history of Connecticut and
in Peters’ Blue Laws was revived in modern times by the publication
in 1829 of a new edition of Peters’ _History_, in 12º., at New Haven,
with a preface and eighty-seven pages of supplementary notes. The
anonymous editor of the new edition was Sherman Croswell, son of the
Rev. Harry Croswell,—a recent graduate of Yale College, who furnished
the supplementary notes. Nearly all the type of this edition was set by
the late Joel Munsell, then a young man just twenty-one years of age.
Mr. Croswell subsequently went to Albany as co-editor with his cousin,
Edwin Croswell, of the _Albany Argus_. (Joel Munsell, _Manuscript
Note_; October, 1871.) Professor Franklin B. Dexter, of Yale College,
writes me under date of Feb. 20, 1883, respecting the enterprise of
publishing the new edition of Peters’ _History_: “I have heard that
the publisher, Dorus Clarke, used to say that he lost $2,000 by the
publication. Sherman Croswell was a young lawyer then living here, a
son of the Rev. Dr. Harry Croswell, and brother and classmate (Yale
College, 1822) of the more gifted Rev. William Croswell, of the Church
of the Advent in Boston. Sherman was born Nov. 10, 1802; removed to
Albany in 1831, and became an editor of the _Argus_ with his cousin,
Edwin Croswell; returned to New Haven in 1855, and died here March
4, 1859. I have repeatedly heard that he edited this publication,
though my authority has never been a very definite one. Munsell’s note
I should not hesitate to accept as far as this fact is concerned.”
Munsell inadvertently calls Sherman Croswell a brother of Edwin. A
spurious edition of this book was published in New York in 1877, edited
by a descendant of the author, S. J. McCormick. Cf. _Amer. Antiq. Soc.
Proc._, Oct. 22, 1877, and _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1877, p. 238.

But New Haven was not the only New England colony whose laws were
satirized or burlesqued by those who did not sympathize with the strict
ways of the Puritan. John Josselyn, who visited the Massachusetts
Colony twice, in his account of the country published in 1674 professes
to give some of the laws of that colony. Some of those cited by him
are true, and some are false. Some were court orders or sentences
for crimes. One is similar to a law in Peters’ code: “For kissing a
woman in the street, though in the way of civil salute, whipping or a
fine” (p. 178). Of course there were at an early period in the colony
instances of ridiculous punishments awarded at the sole discretion of
the magistrate, of which the record in all cases may not be preserved,
and it is hazardous to deny, for that reason, that they ever took
place. The existence of standing laws are more easily ascertained.
Josselyn (p. 179) refers the reader to “their Laws in print.” During
his second visit to Massachusetts (1663-1671) he could have seen the
digest of 1649, and that of 1660. Of the first no copy is now extant,
but the Connecticut code of 1650, first printed in 1822, was perhaps
substantially a transcript of it. 3 _Mass. Hist. Coll._ viii. 214.
Josselyn probably never examined either of the Massachusetts digests.

The notorious Edward Ward published, in 1699 a folio of sixteen pages,
entitled _A Trip to New England_, etc. (Carter-Brown, ii. 1580.) A
large part of it, where he speaks of “Boston and the Inhabitants,”
is abusive and scandalous. He enlarges upon Josselyn in the instance
cited, whose book he had seen. Mr. Drake and Dr. Shurtleff, in their
histories of Boston, both quote from it. No one would think of
believing “Ned Ward,” the editor of the _London Spy_, who was sentenced
more than once to stand in the pillory for his scurrility; yet for all
this he probably was as truthful, if not as pious, as Parson Peters of
a later generation.

[665] See Trumbull, i. 297; _New Haven Colonial Records_, ii. 217, 238,
363; _Connecticut Colonial Records_, ii. 283, 303, 308, 324.

[666] [See chap. x. of the present volume, and chap. ix. of Vol.
IV.—ED.]

[667] See also Winthrop’s letter in _Connecticut Historical Society’s
Collections_, i. 52, and Secretary Clarke’s in _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, xi. 344. The earnest protest of New Haven against the union,
till the time it really took place, may be seen in the records of that
colony from 1662 to 1665.

[668] See also Hutchinson, i. 213-220; the lecture on _The Regicides
sheltered in New England_, Feb. 5, 1869, by Dr. Chandler Robbins, who
used the new materials published in a volume of “Mather Papers” in 4
_Massachusetts Historical Society’s Collections_, vol. viii.; J. W.
Barber’s _History and Antiquities of New Haven_, etc., 1831.

[669] Cf. Trumbull, _History_, i. 524, 526, 362, 363; Arnold’s _Rhode
Island_, vol. i., _passim_; Palfrey, _New England_, vol. ii. [An
elaborate monograph of the _Boundary Disputes of Connecticut_, by C.
W. Bowen, Boston, 1882, covers the original claims to the soil, and
the disputes with Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York. It is
illustrated with the Dutch map of 1616, an Indian map of 1630, and
various others.—ED.]

[670] Copies are rare. A copy sold in the Brinley sale (no. 2,001)
for $300. Mr. Brinley issued a private reprint of it, following this
copy, in which he gave a fac-simile of the title and an historical
introduction.

[671] [Cf. C. K. Adams’s _Manual of Historical Literature_, p. 552.
The author was the Rev. Benjamin Trumbull, D.D. (b. 1735; d. 1820).
The papers of Governor Jonathan Trumbull (b. 1710; d. 1785), bound
in twenty-three volumes, are in the library of the Massachusetts
Historical Society; and the writer of the present chapter is the
chairman of a committee preparing them for publication. Their chief
importance, however, is for the Revolutionary period. The papers were
procured in 1795, by Dr. Belknap, from the family of the Governor. One
volume (19th) was burned in 1825. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, i. 85,
393.—ED.]

[672] [Dr. Trumbull’s labors ceased, with the second volume after the
union; when, beginning with 1689, the editorial charge was taken by Mr.
Hoadly.—ED.]

[673] Reference may here be made to a valuable note on the alleged
incident, as related by Dr. Benjamin Trumbull in 1797, which has for
so many years invested “The Charter Oak” with so much interest. See
Palfrey, iii. 542-544. Vol. iii. of the _Colonial Records_ contains a
valuable official correspondence relating to this period, and also the
“Laws enacted by Governor Andros and his Council,” for the colony, in
1687.

[674] The first volume (1860) has reprints of Gershom Bulkeley’s _The
People’s Right to Election ... argued_, etc., 1869, following a rare
tract of Mr. Brinley on _Their Majesties’ Colony of Connecticut in New
England Vindicated_, 1694. A second volume of _Collections_ was issued
in 1870.

[675] [The first, in 1865, contained a history of the colony, by Henry
White; an essay on its civil government, by Leonard Bacon; and others
on the currency of the colony, etc. In the second is a valuable sketch
of the life and writings of Davenport, by F. B. Dexter, and some notes
on Goffe and Whalley from the same source. The third includes J. R.
Trowbridge, Jr., on “The Ancient Maritime Interests of New Haven;”
Dr. Henry Bronson on “The early Government of Connecticut and the
Constitution of 1639;” and F. B. Dexter on “The Early Relations between
New Netherland and New England.”—ED.]

[676] It has a map of New Haven in 1641.

[677] [There is no considerable Connecticut bibliography of local
history; and F. B. Perkins’s _Check-List of American Local History_
must be chiefly depended on; but the _Brinley Catalogue_, nos.
2,001-2,340, is very rich in this department. So also is Sabin’s
_Dictionary_, iv. 395, etc., for official and anonymous publications.
There are various miscellaneous references in Poole’s _Index_, p. 292.
E. H. Gillett has a long paper on “Civil Liberty in Connecticut” in the
_Historical Magazine_, July, 1868. Mr. R. R. Hinman’s _Early Puritan
Settlers of Connecticut_ was first issued in 1846-48 (366 pages), and
reissued (884 pages) in 1852-56. Cf. _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._,
1870, p. 84. Savage’s _Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of
New England_, however, is the chief source of genealogical information
for the earliest comers.—ED.]

[678] The official name of this State since 1663 is “Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations.” The Island of “Aquedneck,” its Indian name,
spelled in various ways, was so called till 1644, when the Court
ordered that henceforth it be “called the Isle of Rhodes, or Rhode
Island.” It is said that Block, the Dutch navigator, in 1614, gave the
island the name of “Roodt Eylandt,” from the prevalence of red clay in
some portions of its shores. There are traditions connecting the name
with Verrazano and the Isle of Rhodes in Asia Minor, which require no
further mention. See Arnold’s _Rhode Island_, i. 70; _Rhode Island
Colonial Records_, i. 127; Verrazano in 2 _N. Y. Hist. Coll._, i. 46;
Brodhead’s _New York_, i. 57, 58; _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, i. 367; J.
G. Kohl, in _Magazine of American History_, February, 1883.

[679] In 1838 it was republished as vol. iv. of Rhode Island Historical
Society’s _Collections_, edited by Professor Romeo Elton, with notes,
and a memoir of the author, and reissued in Boston in 1843; cf.
_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, iii. 600.

[680] It was reprinted in 2 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, ix. 166-203. It is
called “inaccurate” by Bancroft.

[681] Cited by S. G. Arnold, _History of Rhode Island_, i. 124.

[682] Bartlett’s _Bibliography of Rhode Island_, p. 204.

[683] [A second edition was published in 1874; cf. C. K. Adams’s
_Manual of Historical Literature_, p. 552.—ED.]

[684] John Pitman’s Discourse was delivered in August, 1836; Job
Durfee’s in January, 1847; and Zachariah Allen’s in April, 1876; and
another, by Mr. Allen, on “The Founding of Rhode Island,” in 1881.

[685] The original edition of the _Key_ was issued in London in 1643.
_Brinley Catalogue_, no. 2,380. It is also reprinted in the _R. I.
Hist. Soc. Coll._, vol. i. See an earlier page under “Massachusetts.”

[686] It was at first intended to republish also such of the writings
of John Cotton, George Fox, and John Clarke as were connected with
Roger Williams, to be followed by the writings of Samuel Gorton and
Governor Coddington; but with the exception of two pieces by Cotton,
edited by R. A. Guild, the publications of the Club have been limited
to the writings of Williams.

[687] He published an abridgment in 1804, which was reprinted in
Philadelphia, in 1844, with a memoir of the author, under the title of
_Church History of New England_, from 1620 to 1804. Backus was born in
1724, and died in 1806.

[688] [Dr. Turner also read a paper—_Settlers of Aquedneck and Liberty
of Conscience_—before the Historical Society, in February, 1880, which
was published at Newport the same year.—ED.]

[689] [Dr. Dexter a few years since recovered a lost tract by Williams,
_Christenings make not Christians_, 1645, which he found in the British
Museum, and edited for Rider’s _Historical Tracts_, no. 14, in 1881,
adding certain of Williams’s letters. Williams’s letter to George
Fox, 1672, in his controversy with the Quakers, is printed in the
_Historical Magazine_, ii. 56.—ED.]

[690] [Sabin’s _Dictionary_, iv. 106; _Menzies Catalogue_, no.
392; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, vol. ii. no. 729. It was reprinted
in 4 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, ii. pp. 1-113. Thomas Cobbett’s _Civil
Magistrates’ Power in Matters of Religion modestly debated_, London,
1653, was in part an answer to this “slanderous pamphlet” (_Prince
Catalogue_, no. 97-154). The character of Clarke and the influence of
his mission to England, wherein he procured the revocation of William
Coddington’s commission as governor, gave rise to a controversy between
George Bancroft and Josiah Quincy in relation to the misapprehension
of Grahame on the subject in his _History of the United States_; cf.
_Historical Magazine_, August, 1865 (ix. 233), and the references noted
in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, ii. 339. Coddington (of whom there is
an alleged portrait in the Council Chamber at Newport,—_N. E. Hist.
and Geneal. Reg._, 1873, p. 241) also had his controversy with the
Massachusetts authorities, and his side of the question is given in his
_Demonstration of True Love unto ... the rulers of the Massachusetts,
... by one who was once in authority with them, but always testified
against their persecuting spirit_, which was printed in 1674. _Menzies
Catalogue_, no. 422 ($36); _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, vol. ii. no.
1,101. See _Magazine of American History_, iii. 642; _N. E. Hist. and
Geneal. Reg._, April, 1882, p. 138.—ED.]

[691] [A copy of the charter is in the _Massachusetts Archives_
(Miscellaneous, i. 135), and it is printed in the _N. E. Hist. and
Geneal. Reg._, 1857, p. 41. The discussion in the _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Proc._ was by Mr. Deane and Colonel Thomas Aspinwall. The latter’s
contribution was also issued in Providence (2d ed.) in 1865, as
_Remarks on the Narragansett Patent_.—ED.]

[692] Other digests followed in 1730, 1745, 1752, and 1767.

[693] [Cf. Thomas T. Stone on _Roger Williams the Prophetic
Legislator_, Providence, 1872.—ED.]

[694] [Cf. Mr. Whitehead’s chapter in the present volume.—ED.]

[695] See chapter xi.

[696] See chapter xi.

[697] _The History of the Province of New York, from the first
Discovery to the year MDCCXXXII. To which is annexed a Description of
the Country, with a short Account of the Inhabitants, their Trade,
Religious and Political State, and the Constitution of the Courts of
Justice in that Colony._ By William Smith, A.M. London; MDCCLVII., 4º,
pp. 255.

[698] [Of Smith and his History O’Callaghan (ii. 64) says “Smith knew
about as little of the history of New Netherland as many of his readers
of the present day.”—ED.]

[699] [Cf. Mr. Fernow’s estimate of Smith in Vol. IV. Also, _Hist.
Mag._, xiv. 266.—ED.]

[700] _The Natural, Statistical, and Civil History of the State of New
York_, in three volumes, by James Macauley. New York, 1829. 8º.

[701] [Cf. Mr. Fernow’s estimate in Vol. IV.—ED.]

[702] _History of the New Netherlands, Province of New York, and State
of New York, to the Adoption of the Federal Constitution._ In two
volumes. By William Dunlap. Printed for the author by Carter & Thorp,
New York, 1839-1840. 2 vols. 8º.

[703] [Cf. Mr. Fernow’s estimate in Vol. IV.—ED.]

[704] _History of the State of New York_, by John Romeyn Brodhead.
First period, 1609-1664. New York, 1853; second edition, 1859. Second
period, 1664-1691. New York, 1871. Harper & Brothers, New York. 2 vols.
8º. Mr. Brodhead was born Jan. 21, 1814, and died May 6, 1873.

[705] [Cf. Mr. Fernow’s estimate of Brodhead in Vol. IV., where, in
the chapter on New Netherland, an examination is made of the labors of
Brodhead and others in amassing and arranging the documentary history
of the State.—ED.]

[706] See also Bowden’s _Friends in America_, i. 309; Lamb’s _New
York_, i. 180; Valentine’s _Manual_, 1842-43, p. 147; Gay’s _Popular
History of the United States_, ii. 236.

[707] There were later enlarged editions in 1680 and 1705, or of about
those dates. Muller, _Catalogue_ (1877), no. 3,389.

[708] Cf. Mr. Fernow’s chapter in Vol. IV. It was afterwards followed
in part in Lotter’s map. (Asher’s _List_, no. 20.)

[709] [See a chapter in Vol. IV. for the Dutch rule.—ED.]

[710] [See this volume, chap. x., for the English Conquest.—ED.]

[711] [See Vol. IV. for the Swedish rule.—ED.]

[712] [See chapter ix.; and the full treatment of the struggle to
maintain the charter, given by Mr Deane, in the _Memorial History of
Boston_, i. 329.—ED.]

[713] _East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments_, pp. 250, 251.

[714] Leaming and Spicer’s _Grants and Concessions_, p. 493.

[715] [See chapter x.—ED.]

[716] It was entitled _A Brief Account of the Province of East Jersey
in America, published by the present Proprietors, for information of
all such persons who are or may be inclined to settle themselves,
families, and servants in that country_.

[717] It was styled _A Brief Account of the Province of East New
Jersey in America. Published by the Scots’ Proprietors having interest
there, For the information of such as may have a desire to Transport
themselves or their Families thither; wherein the Nature and Advantage
of, and Interest in, a Forraign Plantation to this Country is
Demonstrated. Printed by_ JOHN REID.

[718] Twenty-five copies were printed separately, bearing date 1867.
Sabin’s _Dictionary_, xiii. 53,079. _Alofsen Catalogue_, No. 823.

[719] Vol. I. p. 226.

[720] It was entitled _The Model of the Government of the Province of
East New Jersey in America; And Encouragements for such as Designs to
be concerned there. Published for Information of such as are desirous
to be Interested in that place_.

[721] [The copies known are these: 1. New Jersey Historical Society. 2.
Harvard College Library. 3. John Carter Brown Library, Providence. 4.
William A. Whitehead, Newark. 5. J. A. King, Long Island. 6. British
Museum. 7. Huth Library, London. 8. Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh. 9.
Göttingen University. 10. Lenox Library, New York.—ED.]

[722] The title, in full, is quite a correct table of contents, and
under the several headings is given very excellent advice as to the
course to be followed to insure success in the new settlements. It is
as follows: _Good Order Established in Pennsilvania and New Jersey in
America. Being a true Account of the Country, With its Produce and
Commodities there made, And the great Improvements that may be made by
means of Publick Store-houses for Hemp, Flax, and Linnen-Cloth; also,
the Advantages of a Publick School, the profits of a Publick Bank, and
the Probability of its arising, if those directions here laid down are
followed; With the advantages of publick Granaries. Likewise, several
other things needful to be understood by those that are or do intend to
be concerned in planting in the said Countries. All which is laid down
very plain in this small Treatise; it being easie to be understood by
any ordinary Capacity. To which the Reader is referred for his further
satisfaction. By_ THOMAS BUDD. _Printed in the year 1685_.

[723] The title, which may also be considered a table of contents, was
as follows: _An Historical Description of the Province and Country of
West New Jersey in America. A short View of their Laws, Customs, and
Religions. As also the Temperament of the Air and Climate, The fatness
of the Soil, with the vast Produce of Rice, etc., the improvement of
the Lands as in England to Pasture, Meadows, etc. Their making great
quantities of Pitch and Tar, as also Turpentine, which proceeds from
the Pine Trees, with Rosen as clear as Gum Arabick, with particular
Remarks upon their Towns, Fairs, and Markets; with the great Plenty of
Oyl and Whale-Bone, made from the great number of whales they yearly
take: As also many other Profitable and New Improvements. Never made
Publick till now. By_ GABRIEL THOMAS.

[This book is rare, and may be worth, when found, $200. Copies have
brought, however, $300 within ten years. _Griswold Catalogue_, Part
I. No. 851. It was reprinted in lithographic fac-simile in New York
in 1848 for Henry Austin Brady. One copy, on blue writing paper and
illustrated, was in the Griswold sale, No. 852.—ED.]

[724] It was entitled _The Case put and decided. By George Fox, George
Whitehead, Stephen Crisp, and other the most Antient and Eminent
Quakers. Between Edward Billing, on the one part, and some West
Jersians, headed by Samuell Jenings, on the other part, In an Award
relating to the Government of their Province, wherein, because not
moulded to the Pallate of the said Samuell, the Light, the Truth, the
Justice, and Infallibility of these great Friends are arreigned by him
and his Accomplices. Also Several Remarks and Anniversations on the
same Award, setting forth the Premises. With some Reflections on the
Sensless Opposition of these Men against the present Governour, and
their daring Audatiousness in their presumptuous asserting an Authority
here over the Parliament of England. Published for the Information of
the Impartial and Considerate, particularly such as Worship God and
profess Christianity not in Faction and Hypocrisie, but in Truth and
Sincerity_. Ending with the texts Isa. xxx. 1, Isa. xlvii. 10, and [no
book given] v. 11.

[725] He entitled it _Truth Rescued from Forgery and Falshood. Being An
Answer to a late Scurralous piece, Entituled The Case put and Decided,
etc.; Which Stole into the World without any known Author’s name
affixed thereto, And renders it the more like its Father, Who was a
Lyer and Murtherer from the Beginning. By_ SAMUEL JENINGS.

[726] _A Journal of the Life, Travels, Sufferings, and Labour of
Love in the Work of the Ministry of that Worthy Elder and faithful
Servant of Jesus Christ, William Edmundson, Who departed this Life the
thirty-first of the sixth Month, 1712._

[727] It received the following title: _A Bill in the Chancery of New
Jersey, at the Suit of John, Earl of Stair, and others, Proprietors of
the Eastern-Division of New Jersey, against Benjamin Bond, and some
other Persons of Elizabeth-Town, distinguished as Clinker Lot Right
Men; With three large Maps, done from Copper Plates. To which is added
The Publications of the Council of Proprietors of East New Jersey, and
Mr. Nevill’s Speeches to the General Assembly, Concerning the Riots
committed in New Jersey, and the Pretences of the Rioters, and their
Seducers. These Papers will give a better Light into the History and
Constitution of New Jersey than any Thing hitherto published, the
Matters whereof have been chiefly collected from Records. Published by
Subscription: Printed by James Parker, in New York, 1747, and a few
Copies are to be Sold by him and Benjamin Franklin, in Philadelphia.
Price, bound, and Maps , Three Pounds; plain and stitcht only,
Fifty Shillings, Proclamation Money_.

[728] It is to be regretted that one who is styled by Smith, the
historian of New York, “a gentleman eminent in the law, and equally
distinguished for his humanity, generosity, great ability, and
honorable stations,” should never have had his biography written.
[Alexander’s own copy of the bill was sold in the Brinley sale, 1880,
No. 3591, and contained considerable manuscript additions in his
handwriting.—ED.]

[729] The following is the title of the publication: _An Answer to a
Bill in the Chancery of New Jersey, at the suit of John, Earl of Stair,
and others, commonly called Proprietors of the Eastern Division of New
Jersey, against Benjamin Bond and others, claiming under the original
Proprietors and Associates, of Elizabeth-Town. To which is added:
Nothing either of The Publications of The Council of Proprietors of
East New-Jersey, or of The Pretences of the Rioters and their Seducers;
Except, so far as the Persons meant by Rioters Pretend Title against
the Parties to the above Answer; but a Great Deal of the Controversy,
Though Much Less of the History and Constitution of New Jersey than the
said Bill. Audi Alteram Partem. Published by Subscription. New York:
Printed and Sold by James Parker at the New Printing Office in Beaver
Street_. 1752, pp. 218, _folio_.

[730] Of the minor publications meriting attention the following are
thought worthy of notice here:—

_A Brief Vindication of the Purchassors Against the Proprietors in a
Christian Manner. 48 pages 20º. New York, 1746._

_An Answer to the Council of Proprietors’ two Publications, set forth
at Perth Amboy the 25th of March, 1746, and the 25th of March, 1747. As
also some observations on Mr. Nevill’s Speech to the House of Assembly
in relation to a Petition presented to the House of Assembly, met
at Trentown, in the Province of New Jersey, in May, 1746. New York:
Printed and sold by the Widow Catharine Zenger, 1747_. _Folio_, pp. 13.
This is very rare, only two copies known.

_A Pocket Commentary of the first settling of New Jersey by the
Europeans; and an Account or fair detail of the original Indian East
Jersey Grants, and other rights of the like tenor in East New Jersey.
Digested in order. New York: Printed by Samuel Parker. 1759. 8º._

To these may be added the following of an earlier date:—

_A further account of New Jersey in an Abstract of Letters lately writ
from thence by several inhabitants there resident, 1676._ This has been
reprinted in fac-simile by Mr. Brinton Coxe.

_The true state of the case between John Fenwick, Esq., and John
Eldridge and Edmund Warner, concerning Mr. Fenwick’s Ten Parts of
his land in West New Jersey in America_. London, 1677; Philadelphia,
reprinted 1765. A copy is in the Pennsylvania Historical Society’s
Library, as I am informed by Mr. F. D. Stone, the librarian.

_An Abstract or Abbreviation of some few of the many (Later and Former)
Testimony from the inhabitants of New Jersey and other eminent persons
who have wrote particularly Concerning that Place._ London, 1681. 4º.
32 pp. Several of these letters, between 1677 and 1680, are printed in
Smith’s _History_. The preface and whole tenor of the publication shows
that rumors published in London were having a detrimental effect. There
is a copy in the Carter-Brown Library.

_Proposals by the Proprietors of East New Jersey in America for the
building of a town on Amboy Point, and for the disposition of Lands in
that Province._ London, 1682, 4º. 6 pp.

[731] _The History of the Colony of Nova-Cæsaria, or New Jersey:
containing an account of its First Settlement, progressive
improvements, the original and present Constitution, and other events,
to the year 1721, with some particulars since; and a short view of its
present state. By_ SAMUEL SMITH, _Burlington, in New Jersey. Printed
and sold by James Parker. Sold also by David Hall, in Philadelphia,
MDCCLXV. 8º_. [Smith was born in 1720, and died in 1776. This edition
is a rare book, and may be worth $25.00. Copies have brought much
higher sums.—ED.]

[732] As late as 1877, a second edition was published without any
alteration,—a questionable proceeding, but evincing the estimation in
which the work is held at the present day. [It was issued by William
S. Sharp at Trenton, and contains a brief memoir of the author by his
nephew, the late John Jay Smith, of Germantown, Pennsylvania.—ED.]

[733] It is entitled _The Grants, Concessions, and Original
Constitutions of the Province of New Jersey: The Acts Passed during the
Proprietary Governments, and other material Transactions before the
Surrender thereof to Queen Anne; The Instrument of Surrender, and Her
formal acceptance thereof; Lord Cornbury’s Commission and Instructions
consequent thereon. Collected by some Gentlemen employed by the
General Assembly, And afterwards Published by Vertue of an Act of the
Legislature of the said Province. With proper Tables, alphabetically
digested, containing the principal Matters in the Book. By_ AARON
LEAMING _and_ JACOB SPICER. _Philadelphia: Printed by W Bradford,
Printer to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty for the Province of New
Jersey._ Small folio, pp. 763. The date of printing does not appear
upon the titlepage; but it is presumed to have been in 1758.

[734] Since this notice of the book was written a new edition of it
has unexpectedly appeared, printed by Honeyman & Co., Somerville, New
Jersey.

[735] _Documents relating to the Colonial History of the State of New
Jersey. [First Series.] Edited by_ WILLIAM A. WHITEHEAD. _Vol. I.
1631-1687. Newark: Daily Journal Establishment. 1880. 8º._ Succeeding
volumes cover a period later than that which now occupies us.

[736] Its full title was _East Jersey under the Proprietary
Governments; a Narrative of Events connected with the settlement and
progress of the Province, until the Surrender of the Government to the
Crown in 1702. Drawn principally from original sources. By_ WILLIAM A.
WHITEHEAD. _With an appendix containing The Model of the Government of
East New Jersey in America. By_ GEORGE SCOT, _of Pitlochie. Now first
reprinted from the original edition of 1685. 8º_. pp. 341. A second
edition, revised and enlarged, making a volume of 486 pages, with a
large number of fac-simile autographs, was published in 1875. [It was
also published separate from the _Collections_. It contained a map of
New Jersey, 1656, following Vanderdonck’s, and another of East Jersey,
with the settlements of about 1682, marked by Mr. Whitehead.—ED.]

[737] On the family of Sir Edmund Plowden, see Burke’s _Commoners_ and
_Landed Gentry of Great Britain and Ireland_, under “Plowden;” Baker’s
_Northamptonshire_, under “Fermor;” the _Visitation of Oxfordshire_,
published by the Harleian Society, and other works cited below,
particularly _Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus_,
by Henry Foley, S. J. (London, 1875-1882), especially vol. iv. pp. 537
_et seq._

[738] On this point, see Father Foley’s _Records_, just mentioned, and
“A Missing Page of Catholic American History,—New Jersey colonized by
Catholics,” by the Rev. R. L. Burtsell, D.D., in the _Catholic World_
for November, 1880 (xxxii. 204 _et seq._, New York, 1881). Sir Edmund
Plowden was not so stanch in his adherence to his faith as was his
illustrious grandfather, for in 1635 he is said (temporarily, at least)
to have counterfeited conformity in religion. See “Sir Edmund Plowden
in the Fleet,” by the Rev. Edward D. Neill, in the _Pennsylvania
Magazine_, v. 424 _et seq._, an article which “furnishes some facts
relative to the career of Sir Edmund Plowden just before he left
England for Virginia,” from “the calendars of British State papers
during the reign of Charles the First.”

[739] See “Sir Edmund Plowden or Ployden,” by “Albion,” in _Notes
and Queries_, iv. 319 _et seq._ (London, 1852), containing so many
statements not elsewhere met with as to have provoked a series of
pertinent queries from the late Sebastian F. Streeter, Secretary of the
Maryland Historical Society, Ibid., ix. 301-2 (London, 1854), several
of which, unfortunately, are still unanswered.

[740] The petitions and warrant mentioned, with a paper entitled
“The Commodities of the Island called Manati ore Long Isle within
the Continent of Virginia,” extracted from Strafford’s _Letters and
Despatches_ (i. 72) and _Colonial Papers_ (vol. vi. nos. 60, 61), in
the Public Record Office at London, are given in the _N. Y. Hist. Soc.
Coll._, 1869, pp. 213 _et seq._ (New York, 1870). “Between this period
and 1634,” according to “Albion,” “Sir Edmund was engaged in fulfilling
the conditions of the warrant by carrying out the colonization by
indentures, which were executed and enrolled in Dublin, and St. Mary’s,
in Maryland, in America. In Dublin the parties were Viscount Muskerry,
100 planters; Lord Monson, 100 planters; Sir Thomas Denby, 100
planters; Captain Clayborne (of American notoriety), 50; Captain Balls;
and amounting in all to 540 colonizers, beside others in Maryland,
Virginia, and New England.” The same persons, with “Lord Sherrard”
and “Mr. Heltonhead” and his brother, are named as lessees under the
charter of New Albion, in Varlo’s _Floating Ideas of Nature_, ii. 13,
hereafter spoken of.

[741] “Confirmed,” says “Albion,” “24th July, 1634.” The Latin original
of this charter may be seen in the _Pennsylvania Magazine_, vol. vii.
p. 50 _et seq._ (Philadelphia, 1883), with an Introductory Note by the
writer, embracing Printz’s account of Plowden, extracts from the wills
of Sir Edmund and Thomas Plowden, and a portion of Varlo’s pamphlet,
hereafter referred to.

[742] So “Albion.”

[743] Printed in Rymer’s _Fœdera_, xix. 472 _et seq._, A.D. 1633,
and reprinted in Ebenezer Hazard’s _Historical Collections_, i. 335
_et seq._, Philadelphia, 1792. For biographical accounts of Yong
and Evelin, see _Memoir and Letters of Captain W. Glanville Evelyn_
(Oxford, 1879), and _The Evelyns in America_ (Ibid., 1881), both edited
and annotated by G. D. Scull; cf. also “Robert Evelyn, Explorer of
the Delaware,” by the Rev. E. D. Neill, in the _Historical Magazine_,
second series, vol. iv. pp. 75, 76; and Neill’s _Founders of Maryland_,
p. 54, note.

[744] These facts are stated in letters from Yong to Sir Tobie
Matthew, referred to in the chapter on Maryland, which also contains a
fac-simile of the signature of Thomas Yong.

[745] _Direction for Adventurers, and true description of the
healthiest, pleasantest, and richest Plantation of New Albion, in North
Virginia, in a letter from Mayster Robert Eveline, that lived there
many years._ Small 4º. (“Liber rarissimus,” Allibone.) It was reprinted
in chapter iii. of Plantagenet’s _Description of New Albion_, hereafter
mentioned.

[746] So Beauchamp Plantagenet.

[747] Before the Committee of Trade. See Samuel Hazard’s _Annals of
Pennsylvania_, p. 109.

[748] With regard to whom see Vol. IV., chapter on “New Sweden.”

[749] Hazard’s _Annals_, pp. 109, 110, citing “Albany Records,” iii.
224.

[750] “Sir Edmund Plowden,” by the Rev. Edward D. Neill, _Pennsylvania
Magazine of History_, v. 206 _et seq._, citing “Manuscript records of
Maryland, at Annapolis.”

[751] Printed at the end of _Kolonien Nya Sveriges Grundläggning_,
1637-1642, af C. T. Odhner (Stockholm, 1876), referred to in Vol. IV.,
chapter on “New Sweden.” The “former communications” spoken of in it
cannot be found, although they have been diligently sought for, on
behalf of the writer, in Sweden.

[752] Accomack and Kecoughtan (as it is usually spelled by English
writers), the present Hampton. The diverse orthography of the text
conforms to the original. The places are noted on contemporary maps.

[753] Cited in Vol. IV., chapter on “New Sweden.” John Romeyn Brodhead,
in his _History of the State of New York_, i. 381, 484, mentions
Plowden’s visits to Manhattan as occurring in 1643 and 1648.

[754] Scull’s _Evelyns in America_, p. 361 _et seq._ The lawyers
referred to were Henry Clerk and Arthur Turner, serjeants-at-law, and
Arthur Ducke, Thomas Ryves, Robert Mason, William Merricke, Giles
Sweit, Robert King, and William Turner, doctors of laws; of whom, says
the editor, two at least, Ducke and Ryves, are “recognized as very
able and learned lawyers in their day.” The rest, as well as Bysshe,
speak of the letters patent as “under the Great Seal of Ireland.” I
am informed by Mr. Scull that the documents mentioned constitute a
manuscript folio volume now in the Bodleian Library, Oxford.

[755] _A Description of the Province of New Albion. And a Direction
for Adventurers with small stock to get two for one, and good land
freely: And for Gentlemen, and all Servants, Labourers, and Artificers
to live plentifully. And a former Description reprinted of the
healthiest, pleasantest, and richest Plantation of New Albion in
North Virginia, proved by thirteen witnesses. Together with a Letter
from Master Robert Evelin, that lived there many years, shewing the
particularities, and excellency thereof. With a briefe of the charge
of victuall, and necessaries, to transport and buy stock for each
Planter, or Labourer, there to get his Master £50 per Annum, or more
in twelve trades, at £10 charges onely a man. Printed in the Year
1648._ Small 4º, 32 pp. (Sabin’s _Dictionary_, vol. v. no. 19,724.)
On the _verso_ of the titlepage (reproduced here from the copy of the
book in the Philadelphia Library) appear: “The Order, Medall, and
Riban of the Albion Knights, of the Conversion of 23 Kings, their
support;” the medal (given also in Mickle’s _Reminiscences of Old
Gloucester_) bearing on its face a coroneted effigy of Sir Edmund
Plowden, surrounded by the legend, ‘EDMUNDUS. COMES. PALATINUS. ET.
GUBER. N. ALBION,’ and on the reverse two coats of arms impaled; the
dexter, those of the Province of New Albion, namely, the open Gospel,
surmounted by a hand dexter issuing from the partiline grasping a
sword erect, surmounted by a crown; the sinister, those of Plowden
himself, a _fesse dancettée_ with two _fleurs-de-lis_ on the upper
points; supporters, two bucks rampant gorged with crowns,—the whole
surmounted by the coronet of an Earl Palatine, and encircled with
the motto, ‘SIC SUOS VIRTUS BEAT;’ and the order consisting of this
achievement encircled by twenty-two heads couped and crowned, held up
by a crowned savage kneeling,—the whole surrounded with the legend,
‘DOCEBO INIQUOS VIAS TUAS, ET IMPII AD TE CONVERTENTUR.’ These
engravings are accompanied by Latin mottoes and English verses on
“Ployden” and “Albion’s Arms.” The work is the subject of an essay
entitled “An Examination of Beauchamp Plantagenet’s Description of the
Province of New Albion,” by John Penington, in the _Memoirs of the
Historical Society of Pennsylvania_, vol. iv. pt. i. pp. 133 _et seq._
(Philadelphia, 1840), for which the writer is very justly censured
by a reviewer in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for August, 1840, in
these terms: “He has shown himself not unskilful in throwing ridicule
upon the exaggerations and falsifications with which (as unhappily
has been generally the case with such compositions in all ages) the
prospectus of Ployden, or Plowden, abounds; but he has failed in the
more difficult task of separating truth from falsehood.” The same
critic says: “It is clear to us that the pamphlet was issued with the
consent, and probably at the procuration and charges, of Sir Edmund
Ployden;” and he attempts to throw some light upon the personality of
the author, whose name of “Plantagenet,” undoubtedly, is fictitious.
Besides the copy of the _Description of New Albion_ in the Philadelphia
Library, there is another in the Carter-Brown Library (_Catalogue_,
vol. ii. no. 649), at Providence; three are mentioned by Mr. Penington
as included in private libraries; and two, says the writer in the
_Gentleman’s Magazine_, are preserved in the British Museum. The book
was reprinted from the Philadelphia copy in _Tracts and Other Papers_
collected by Peter Force, vol. ii. no. 7 (Washington, 1838), and again
reprinted from Force in Scull’s _Evelyns in America_, p. 67 _et seq._
The citations in the text are taken directly from the Philadelphia
and Carter-Brown copies, which will account for some variations from
these occasionally inaccurate reprints. A second edition of the
original is mentioned by Lowndes as published in 1650. See the _Huth
Catalogue_, which says: “The original edition was doubtless published
at Middleburgh in 1641 or 1642.”

[756] An intimacy which authorized Plantagenet to speak thus of the
Earl Palatine: “I found his conversation as sweet and winning, as grave
and sober, adorned with much Learning, enriched with sixe Languages,
most grounded and experienced in forain matters of State policy, and
government, trade, and sea voyages, by 4 years travell in Germany,
France, Italy, and Belgium, by 5 years living an Officer in Ireland,
and this last 7 years in America.” “Sir Edmund Plowden,” says “Albion,”
“was not inferior to any of his co-governors in ability, fortune,
position, or family.”

[757] Reproduced in Heylin’s _Cosmographie_, in Philips’s enlarged
edition of Speed’s _Prospect of the Most Famous Parts of the World_, in
Stith’s _History of Virginia_ (Williamsburg, 1747), and in the _Pocket
Commentary of the first Settling of New Jersey by the Europeans_ (New
York, 1759). Compare “Councells Opinions concerning Coll. Nicholls
pattent and Indian purchases,” in _Doc. Col. Hist. N. Y._, xiii. 486,
487 (Albany, 1881). On certain of these points, see “Expedition of
Captain Samuel Argall,” by George Folsom, in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._,
second series, i. 333 _et seq._ (New York, 1841), and Brodhead’s
_History of the State of New York_, i. 54, 55, 140, and notes E and F.

[758] See _Sketches of the Primitive Settlements on the River
Delaware_, by James N. Barker (Philadelphia, 1827), Penington’s work
already cited, and “An Inquiry into the Location of Mount Ployden,
the Seat of the Raritan King,” by the Rev. George C. Schanck, in _New
Jersey Hist. Soc. Proc._, vi. 25 _et seq._ (Newark, N. J., 1853).
According to Plantagenet, “The bounds is a thousand miles compasse, of
this most temperate, rich Province, for our South bound is Maryland
North bounds, and beginneth at Aquats or the Southermost or first Cape
of Delaware Bay in thirty-eight and forty minutes, and so runneth
by, or through, or including Kent Isle, through Chisapeack Bay to
Pascatway, including the fals of Pawtomecke river to the head or
Northermost branch of that river, being three hundred miles due West;
and thence Northward to the head of Hudson’s river fifty leagues, and
so down Hudson’s river to the Ocean, sixty leagues; and thence by
the Ocean and Isles a crosse Delaware Bay to the South Cape, fifty
leagues; in all seven hundred and eighty miles. Then all Hudson’s
river, Isles, Long Isle, or Pamunke, and all Isles within ten leagues
of the said Province being; and note Long Isle alone is twenty broad,
and one hundred and eighty miles long, so that alone is four hundred
miles compasse.” These limits of New Albion, as given in Smith’s
_History of New Jersey_, are cited by the Rev. William Smith, D.D.,
in _An Examination of the Connecticut Claim to Lands in Pennsylvania_
(Philadelphia, 1774), with the remark, page 83: “This Grant, which was
intended to include all the Dutch Claims, was the Foundation of the
Duke of York’s Grant.”

[759] Domestic Interregnum, Entry Book, xcii. 108, 159, 441. Reprinted
in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._ 1869, pp. 221-22.

[760] Reproduced herewith from a copy in the possession of John
Cadwalader, Esq., of Philadelphia. It will be seen that Mr. Penington
was correct in his account of this map, _op. cit._, notwithstanding the
criticisms of the reviewer of his work in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_,
which were based not on this, but on a similar map in _The Discovery of
New Britaine_ (London, 1651), in the British Museum, collated by “John
Farrer, Esq.” Cf. Editorial Note A, following chapter v.

[761] Neill’s _Sir Edmund Plowden_, before cited.

[762] The document is on file in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury,
London, and has two seals attached to it,—described by “Albion” as Sir
Edmund’s “private seal of the Plowdens, and his Earl’s with supporters,
signed ‘Albion,’ the same as is given in Beauchamp Plantagenet’s _New
Albion_.” The extracts in the text were copied from the original will
by a London correspondent of the writer.

[763] Extract courteously made from the original at Somerset House,
London, by the same correspondent. This gentleman assures me that,
notwithstanding the declaration of “Albion” to the contrary, the will
contains “no allusion whatever to the death of anybody at the hands of
American Indians.”

[764] In his manuscript Journal, preserved in Sweden.

[765] See _Doc. Col. Hist. N. Y._, ii. 82, 92.

[766] In these terms: “A Commission was granted to Sir Edmund
Ploydon for planting and possessing the more Northern parts [of New
Netherland], which lie towards New England, by the name of New Albion.”
Similarly (following Heylin) the _Pocket Commentary of the first
Settling of New Jersey_.

[767] Maps of “New England and New York” and “Virginia and Maryland,”
in this work, name the region on the west side of the Delaware south of
the Schuylkill “Aromaninck,” which was understood by Mr. Neill to be
the “Eriwomeck” of Yong and Evelin, placed, therefore, at that point
by him in articles in the _Historical Magazine_ and the _Pennsylvania
Magazine of History_, before referred to. “Aromanink” is given on
another map, one of Visscher’s (from which these in Speed’s work were
partly derived), agreeing with several of the period in assigning
“Ermomex” (quite as likely the true “Eriwomeck”) to the eastern side of
the Delaware. Modern historians of New Jersey, following a statement of
Evelin, place Yong’s Fort near Pensaukin Creek.

[768] For information with regard to this family, see Note B to
Mr. Henry C. Murphy’s translation of “The Representation of New
Netherland,” _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, second series, ii. 323 _et
seq._ (New York, 1849), and the Rev. Dr. Burtsell’s article, already
quoted. The latter lays particular stress upon the devout fidelity to
the Catholic Church of the kinsfolk of the Earl Palatine of New Albion,
whether in England or America, and intimates the Catholic character of
Sir Edmund Plowden’s projected colony.

[769] In 8º, 30 pp., with the following titlepage: _The Finest Part
of America. To be Sold, or Lett, From Eight Hundred to Four Thousand
Acres, in a Farm, All that Entire Estate, called Long Island, in New
Albion, Lying near New York: Belonging to the Earl Palatine of Albion,
Granted to His Predecessor, Earl Palatine of Albion, By King Charles
the First._ [asterism] _The Situation of Long Island is well known,
therefore needs no Description here. New Albion is a Part of the
Continent of Terra Firma, described in the Charter to begin at Cape
May; from thence Westward 120 Miles, running by the River Delaware,
closely following its Course by the North Latitude, to a certain
Rivulet there arising from a Spring of Lord Baltimore’s, in Maryland;
to the South from thence, taking its Course into a Square, bending to
the North by a Right Line 120 Miles; from thence also into a Square
inclining to the East in a right Line 120 Miles to the River and Port
of Reacher Cod, and descends to a Savannah or Meadow, turning and
including the Top of Sandy Hook; from thence along the Shore to Cape
May, where it began, forming a Square of 120 Miles of good Land. Long
Island is mostly improved and fit for a Course of Husbandry. N.B.—Great
Encouragement will be given to improving Tenants, by letting the Lands
very cheap, on Leases of Lives, renewable for ever_. _Letters (Post
paid) signed with real Names, directed for F. P., at Mr. Reynell’s
Printing-Office, No. 21, Piccadilly, near the Hay-Market, will be
answered, and the Writer directed where he may be treated with,
relative to the Conditions of Sale, Charter, Title Deeds, a Map, with
the Farms allotted thereon, etc., etc. Just Published, and may be had
as above (Price One Shilling), A True Copy of the Above Charter, With
the Conditions of Letting, or Selling the Land, and other Articles
relating thereto_. A copy of this rare tract (that collated by Sabin,
and consulted by the writer) is owned by Mr. Charles H. Kalbfleisch,
of New York; others are mentioned in Mr. Whitehead’s _East Jersey
under the Proprietors_ (2d ed.), p. 11, _note_, as belonging to the
late John Ruthurfurd, of Newark, N. J., and the late Henry C. Murphy,
of New York. The copy formerly pertaining to Varlo’s counsellor,
William Rawle, long since passed out of the possession of his family.
Of the contents of the book mentioned in the text, the translation
of the charter and the lease and release were reprinted in Hazard’s
_Historical Collections_, i. 160 _et seq._; the address is given (with
the error “Sir Edward” for “Sir Edmund Plowden”) in a “parergon” to
Penington’s essay; and the conditions for letting or selling land
appear in the _Pennsylvania Magazine of History_, vii. 54, as before
intimated.

[770] “The Proclamation,” says Mr. Murphy, “has not been republished.
The only copy which we know of is the one for the use of which we are
indebted to the kindness of the Hon. Peter Force, of Washington.”

[771] Notice was also given that “True copies in Latin and English of
the original charter registered in Dublin, authenticated under the hand
and seal of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, 1784, may be seen, by applying to
Captain Cope, at the State Arms Tavern, New York.”

[772] An account of Varlo’s “Tour through America” was given in his
_Nature Displayed_, p. 116 _et seq._ (London, 1794), and was reprinted
(with slight variations of phrase) in his _Floating Ideas of Nature_,
ii. 53 _et seq._, London, 1796. A copy of the former book is in the
Mercantile Library of Philadelphia, and one of the latter is in the
Library of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

[773] The letters appear in the _Floating Ideas of Nature_, ii. 9 _et
seq._

[774] The authorities cited in this paper contain, it is believed,
all the facts in print concerning New Albion, although the subject is
mentioned in all the general and in many of the local annals of New
Jersey, as well as in several histories of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
New York.

[775] See chapter ix.

[776] As early as 1658 Josiah Coale and Thomas Thurston visited the
Susquehanna Indians. They were received with great kindness, and spent
some weeks with the red men, travelling over two hundred miles in their
company. Coale also visited the tribes of Martha’s Vineyard and others
of Massachusetts. He returned to them after being liberated from prison
at Sandwich, and was told by a chief: “The Englishmen do not love
Quakers, but the Quakers are honest men and do no harm; and this is no
Englishman’s sea or land, and the Quakers shall come here and welcome.”
Of this early teacher Penn wrote: “Therefore shall his memorial remain
as a sweet oyntment with the Righteous, and time shall never blot him
out of their remembrance.” Fox had several meetings with the Indians,
and at one he says, “They sat very grave and sober, and were all very
attentive, beyond many called Christians.” After Fox’s return to
England, his interest in the Indians continued, and in 1681 he wrote to
the Burlington Meeting to invite the Indians to worship with them. It
was thus that the way was prepared for the peaceful settlement of West
Jersey and Pennsylvania.

[777] [See Mr. Whitehead’s chapter in the present volume.—ED.]

[778] _An Abstract or Abbreviation of some Few of the Many (Latter and
Former) Testimonys from the Inhabitants of New Jersey_, etc. London,
1681.

[779] [The history of the Swedish period is told in Vol. IV.—ED.]

[780] _History of Chester County, Pa._, by Judge J. Smith Futhey and
Gilbert Cope, p. 18.

[781] The courts were of three different kinds: namely, the County
Courts, Orphans’ Courts, and Provincial Court. The County Courts sat
at irregular intervals during the year, and were composed of justices
of the peace, commissioned from time to time, the number of whom
varied with the locality, the press of business, or the caprice of
the government. They had jurisdiction to try criminal offences of
inferior grades, and all civil causes except where the title to land
was in controversy. In proper cases they exercised a distinct equity
jurisdiction, which seems, however, to have been excessively irritating
to the people. In many instances they were materially assisted in their
labors by boards of peacemakers, who were annually appointed to settle
controversies, and who performed pretty nearly the same functions as
modern arbitrators. The Justices of the County Courts sat also in the
Orphans’ Courts, which were established in every county to control and
distribute the estates of decedents. For some cause now imperfectly
understood, the conduct of the early Orphans’ Courts was exceedingly
unsatisfactory, and their practice so irregular that but little can be
gleaned respecting them.

The Provincial Court, which was established in 1684, was composed of
five, afterwards of three, judges, who were always among the most
considerable men in the province. They had jurisdiction in cases of
heinous or enormous crimes, and also in all cases where the title to
land was in controversy. An appeal also lay to this court from the
County and Orphans’ Courts, in all cases where it was thought that
injustice had been done.

[782] In 1700 the admiralty jurisdiction was done away with by the
establishment of a regular vice-admiralty court in the province.

[783] Manuscript note furnished by Lawrence Lewis, Jr., Esq.

[784] [See the Maryland view of this controversy in chap. xiii.—ED.]

[785] This must not be confused with the present Cape Henlopen, which
was in 1760 called Cape Cornelius. The line was eventually run from
a point known as “The False Cape,” about twenty-three or twenty-four
miles south of the present Cape Henlopen.

[786] While in America, Penn made other purchases from the Indians. One
purchase from the Five Nations for land on the Susquehanna was delayed
until after the limits between Pennsylvania and Maryland were settled,
when it was consummated in 1696, through the agency of Governor Dongan
of New York, and confirmed by the Indians in 1701.

[787] Manuscript note furnished by Samuel W. Pennypacker, Esq.

[788] [There is a contemporary map showing the laying out of
Philadelphia by Holme (concerning which much will be found in John
Reed’s _Explanation of the Map of Philadelphia_, 1774), and also a part
of Harris’s map of Pennsylvania, which gives the location of Pennsbury
Manor, Penn’s country house, in Bucks County, four miles above Bristol,
on the Delaware, which was built during Penn’s first visit, on land
purchased by Markham of the Indians. See the view in Gay’s _Popular
History of the United States_, iii. 174.—ED.]

[789] Their frames were logs; they were thirty feet long and eighteen
wide, with a partition in the middle forming two rooms, one of which
could be again divided. They were covered with clapboards, which were
“rived feather-edged.” They were lined and filled in. The floor of the
lower rooms was the ground; that of the upper was of clapboards. These
houses, he said, would last ten years; but some persons, even in the
villages, had built much better. The house built for James Claypoole
was about such as we have described. It had, however, a good cellar,
but no chimney. He said it looked like a barn.

[790] _Some Account of the Province of Pennsilvania in America, Lately
Granted under the Great Seal of England To William Penn, etc., Together
with Priviledges and Powers necessary to the well-governing thereof.
Made public for the Information of such as are or may be disposed to
Transport Themselves or Servants into those Parts._ London: Printed and
Sold by Benjamin Clark, etc., 1681.

See _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, vol. ii. no. 1,225; _Rice Catalogue_,
no. 1,753. There is a copy in Harvard College Library, from which the
accompanying fac-simile of title is taken. The chief portion of it
is reprinted in Hazard’s _Annals of Pennsylvania_, p. 505; Hazard’s
_Register of Pennsylvania_, i. 305.

In this pamphlet we have the origin of the quit-rents, which gave
considerable uneasiness in the province. It gives also a picture of the
social condition of England.

[791] _Een Kort Bericht van de Provintie ofte Landschap Pennsylvania
genaemt; leggende in America; Nu onlangs onder het groote Zegel
van Engeland gegeven aan William Penn, etc._ Rotterdam: Pieter van
Wynbrugge, 1681, 4º, 24 pp. See _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, vol. ii. no.
1,227; Trömel, _Bibliotheca Americana_, no. 381.

A copy of this was sold at the Stevens sale (no. 619) in 1881 for £10
5_s._

[792] _Eine nachricht wegen der Landschaft Pennsylvania in America:
welche jungstens unter dem Grossen Siegel in Engelland an William Penn,
etc._ Amsterdam: Christoff Cunraden, 4º, 31 pp. _See Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, vol. ii. no. 1,226. A copy is in the Philadelphia Library.
(Loganian, no. Q, 1,262.) [Harrassowitz of Leipzig, in recently
advertising a copy (28 marks) with the imprint, Frankfort, 1683, says
that it originally formed a part of the _Diarium Europæum_, and was
never published separately.—ED.]

[793] _Recit de l’Estat Present des Celebres Colonies de la Virgine, de
Marie-Land, de la Caroline, du nouveau Duché d’York, de Pennsylvania,
et de la Nouvelle Angleterre, situées dans l’Amerique septentrionale,
etc._ Rotterdam: Reinier Leers, 4º, 43 pp. _Carter-Brown Catalogue_,
vol. ii. no. 1,230; Leclerc’s _Bibliotheca Americana_, no. 1,324.

[794] _A Brief Account of the Province of Pennsylvania, lately granted
by the King, under the Great Seal of England, to William Penn and his
Heirs and Assigns._ London: Printed by Benjamin Clark, in George-Yard
in Lombard Street, 4º; also abridged and issued in folio, without place
or date.

There is a copy in Harvard College Library. Cf. Smith’s _Catalogue
of Friends’ Books_, and _Rëcuel de Diverses pieces concernant la
Pensylvanie_. See _infra_, p. 31.

[795] _Plantation Work the Work of this Generation. Written in
True-Love To all such as are weightily inclined to Transplant
themselves and Families to any of the English Plantations in America.
The Most material Doubts and Objections against it being removed, they
may more cheerfully proceed to the Glory and Renown of the God of the
whole Earth, who in all undertakings is to be looked unto, Praised,
and Feared for Ever. Aspice venturo lætetur ut India Sêclo._ London:
Printed for Benjamin Clark, in George-Yard in Lombard Street, 1682, 4º,
18 pp. and title.

Copies of the tract are in the Carter-Brown Library, vol. ii. 1,252,
Friends’ Library, Philadelphia, and in that of the Historical Society
of Pennsylvania.

[796] _The Frame of the Government of the Province of Pennsilvania
in America: Together with certain Laws agreed upon in England by the
Governour and divers Free Men of the aforesaid Province._ Folio, 11
pp., 1682.

Penn’s copy of the above, with his bookplate, is in the library of the
Historical Society of Pennsylvania. It was purchased at the Stevens
sale in 1881 for £10 5_s._ (Stevens’s _Historical Collection_, no. 623;
_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, vol. ii. no. 1,251.) There is another copy in
Harvard College Library, from which the annexed fac-simile of title is
taken. Later editions of the _Frame_, containing the alterations made
in 1683, are spoken of on a subsequent page.

[797] _Information and Direction To Such Persons as are inclined
to America, more Especially Those related to the Province of
Pennsylvania._ Folio, 4 pp.

The title of this tract is given in Smith’s _Catalogue of Friends’
Books_, under date of 1681. It is reprinted, with a fac-simile of the
half-title, in _Pennsylvania Magazine of History_, iv. 329, from a
copy in possession of Mr. Henry C. Murphy. An edition was published at
Amsterdam in 1686, which is given on a following page.

[798] There is a copy of the original tract in Harvard College Library.
Its title is as follows,—

_The Articles, Settlement, and Offices of the Free Society of Traders
in Pennsilvania: Agreed upon by divers Merchants and others for the
better Improvement and Government of Trade in that Province._ London:
Printed for Benjamin Clark, folio, 14 pp., 1682.

[799] Copies of it are in the British Museum and in the Friends’
Library, London. It is reprinted in the _Pennsylvania Magazine of
History_, vi. 176, from a transcript obtained from the British Museum.

[800] _A Letter from William Penn, Proprietary and Governour of
Pennsylvania in America, to the Committee of the Free Society of
Traders of that Province, residing in London. To which is added An
Account of the City of Philadelphia, etc._ Printed and Sold by Andrew
Sowle, at the Crooked-Billet in Holloway Lane in Shoreditch, and at
several Stationers’ in London, folio, 10 pp., 1683.

A copy of the edition, with list of property holders, is in the Library
of the New York Historical Society. It has been lately reprinted by
Coleman, of London. Copies of the edition, which does not contain
the list of purchasers, are in the Philadelphia Library and in the
Historical Society of Pennsylvania. It is reprinted in Proud’s _History
of Pennsylvania_, i. 246; Hazard’s _Register of Pennsylvania_, i. 432;
Janney’s _Life of Penn_, p. 238; and in the various editions of Penn’s
collected _Works_. Menzies’ copy sold for $65. Harvard College Library
has a copy without the list; another is in the Carter-Brown Library.
Cf. Rich’s _Catalogue_ of 1832, no. 403.

[801] _Missive van William Penn, Eygenaar en Gouverneur van
Pennsylvania, in America. Geschreven aan de Commissarissen van de
Vrye Societeyt der Handelaars, op de selve Provintie, binnen London
resideerende. Waar by noch gevoeght is een Beschrijving van de
Hooft-Stadt Philadelphia, etc._ Amsterdam: Gedrukt voor Jacob Claus,
1684, 4º, 23 pp.

A copy is in the Carter-Brown Library, _Catalogue_, vol. ii. no. 1,293,
and in the _O’Callaghan Catalogue_, no. 1,816 ($20). The one in the
Library of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania lacks the map. It
contains, in addition to what is in the London edition, a letter from
Thomas Paschall, dated from Philadelphia, Feb. 10, 1683 (N. S.), the
first, we believe, dated from that locality. This letter will be found
translated in _Pennsylvania Magazine of History_, vi. 322.

[802] _Beschreibung der in America new-erfunden Provinz Pensylvanien.
Derer Inwohner Gesetz Arth Sitten und Gebrauch: auch samlicher reviren
des Landes sonderlich der haupt-stadt Philadelphia._ (Hamburg.) Henrich
Heuss, 1684, 4º, 32 pp. _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, vol. ii. no. 1,295.

[803] _Recüeil de Diverses pieces concernant la Pensylvanie._ A La
Haye: Chez Abraham Troyel, 1684, 18º, 118 pp.

Of the copy in the Carter-Brown Library, Mr. J. R. Bartlett, its
curator, writes that it is the same with the German. _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, vol. ii. no. 1,295. Another copy is in the possession
of a member of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania; cf. Stevens,
_Historical Collection_, no. 1,539.

[804] _Twee Missiven geschreven uyt Pensilvania, d’ Eene door een
Hollander, woonachtig in Philadelfia, d’ Ander door een Switser,
woonachtig in German Town, Dat is Hoogduytse Stadt. Van den 16 en 26
Maert, 1684, Nieuwe Stijl._ Tot Rotterdam, by Pieter van Alphen, anno
1684, 2 leaves, small 4º.

[805] See Mr. Whitehead’s chapter in the present volume, and Proud’s
_History of Pennsylvania_, i. 226.

[806] We are unable to give any information additional to that
furnished by Mr. Whitehead, except that a copy of this tract sold
for $160 at the Brinley sale, and that the original edition can be
found in the Carter-Brown, Lenox, Historical Society of Pennsylvania,
and Friends’ (of Philadelphia) libraries; cf. _Historical Magazine_,
vi. 265, 304. A biographical sketch of Budd will be found in Mr.
Armstrong’s introduction to the work as published in Gowan’s
_Bibliotheca Americana_, no. 4.

[807] _Missive van Cornelis Bom Geschreven uit de Stadt Philadelphia
in de Provintie van Pennsylvania Leggende op d’ vostzyde van de Zuyd
Revier van Nieuw Nederland Verhalende de groote Voortgank van deselve
Provintie Waerby komt de Getuygenis van Jacob Telner van Amsterdam._
Tot Rotterdam, gedrukt by Pieter van Wijnbrugge, in de Leeuwestraet,
1685.

The title we give is from a copy in the “Library of the Archives” of
the Moravians, Bethlehem, Pa.

[808] _A Further Account of the Province of Pennsylvania and its
Improvements. For the Satisfaction of those that are Adventurers and
enclined to be so._ No titlepage. Signed “William Penn, Worminghurst
Place, 12th of the 10 month, 1685.”

_Tweede Bericht ofte Relaas van William Penn, Eygenaar en Gouverneur
van de Provintie van Pennsylvania, in America, etc._ Amsterdam: By
Jacob Claus, 4º, 20 pp.

Copies of all three editions are in the Carter-Brown Collection.
(_Catalogue_, ii. 1, 320-22). The two English editions are in the
possession of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Extracts from
it are given in Blome’s _Present State of His Majesties Isles and
Territories in America_, London, 1687, pp. 122-134. We do not think
that the work has ever been reprinted. Trömel, _Bibliotheca Americana_,
no. 390, gives the Dutch edition.

[809] _Nader Informatie en Bericht voor die gene die genegen zijn,
om zich na America te begeeven, en in de Provincie van Pensylvania
Geinteresseerd zijn, of zich daar zocken neder te zetten. Mit
een Voorreden behelzende verscheydene aanmerkelzjke zaken vanden
tegenwoordige toestand, en Regeering dier Provincie; Novit voor
dezen in druk geweest: maar nu eerst uytgegeven door Robert Webb
t’ Amsterdam._ By Jacob Claus, 1686, 4º, i+11 pp. _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, vol. ii. no. 1,332.

[810] _A Letter from Doctor More, with Passages out of several Letters
from Persons of Good Credit, Relating to the State and Improvement of
the Province of Pennsilvania._ Published to prevent false Reports.
Printed in the Year 1687.

It is reprinted in _Pennsylvania Magazine of History_, iv. 445, from a
copy in the Carter-Brown Library, _Catalogue_, vol. ii. no. 1,339.

[811] _Some Letters and an Abstract of Letters from Pennsylvania,
Containing the State and Improvement of that Province. Published to
prevent Mis-Reports._ Printed and Sold by Andrew Sowe, at the Crooked
Billott in Holloway Lane in Shoreditch, 1691, 4º, 12 pp.

Penn’s copy is in the Library of the Historical Society of
Pennsylvania; see _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. 1,423. It is reprinted
in _Pennsylvania Magazine of History_, iv. 189.

[812] _A Short Description of Pennsilvania, or, A Relation What things
are known, enjoyed, and like to be discovered in the said Province._
[Imperfect.] By Richard Frame. Printed and sold by William Bradford in
Philadelphia, 1692, 4º, 8 pp.

But one copy is known to have survived, and it is preserved in the
Philadelphia Library. A small edition was printed in fac-simile, in
1867, on the Oakwood Press, a private press of “S. J. Hamilton” (the
late Dr. James Slack). Its introduction is in the form of a letter by
Horatio Gates Jones, Esq.

[813] _Copia Eines Send-Schriebens ausz der neuen Welt, betreffend
die Erzehlung einer gefäherlichen Schifffarth, und glücklichen
Anländung etlicher Christlichen Reisegefehrten, welche zu dem Ende
diese Wallfahrt angetratten, den Glauben an Jesum Christum allda
Ausz-zubreiten._ Gedruckt im Jahr 1695, 4º, 11 pp.

A copy was purchased by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania at the
Stevens sale in 1881 for £26. It has been translated by Professor
Oswald Seidensticker for publication in the _Pennsylvania Magazine of
History_. Professor Seidensticker inclines to the belief that it was
written by Daniel Falkner.

[814] There are two copies of the book in Harvard College Library;
from the map in one the annexed fac-simile is taken. Cf. Wharton’s
paper on provincial literature in _Hist. Soc. Mem._, i. 119; and the
_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii. 1,550.

[815] _Umstandige Geographische Beschreibung Der zu
allerletzt-erfundenen Provintz Pensylvaniæ, In denen End Grantzen
Americæ In der West-Welt gelegen durch Franciscum Danielem Pastorium,
etc. Vattern Melchiorem Adamum Pastorium, und andere gute Freunde._
Franckfurt und Leipzig. Zu finden bey Andreas Otto, 1700, 16º, 140 pp.

The Harvard College copy is dated 1704; cf. _Brinley Catalogue_, no.
3,077; and _O’Callaghan Catalogue_, no. 1,807, with a _Continuatio_ of
1702 ($43 00).

[816] _Curieuse Nachricht von Pensylvania in Norden-America welche auf
Begehren guter Freunde, etc._ Von Daniel Falknern, Professore, Burgern
und Pilgrim allda. Franckfurt und Leipzig. Zu finden bey Andreas Otto,
Buchhandlern, 1702, 16º, 58 pp.

[817] It is worth while to make record of two tracts of this early
period whose titles might deceive the student with the belief that they
pertained to the subject, but they do not. The first is a burlesque
indorsement of the Protestant Reconciler, entitled _Three Letters of
Thanks to the Protestant Reconciler_: _1. From the Anabaptists at
Munster; 2. From the Congregations in New England; 3. From the Quakers
in Pennsylvania._ London: Benjamin Took, 1683, 4º, 26 pp.

The other is a Letter to _William Penn, with His Answer_, London,
1688, 4º, 10 pp; again the same year in 20 pp.; and in Dutch, 16 pp.,
Amsterdam, 1689.

This letter, by Sir William Popple, is addressed “To the Honourable
William Penn, Esq., Proprietor and Governor of Pennsylvania.” It is a
friendly criticism on his conduct while living in England, after his
return from America. It has nothing to do with his province but is of
a biographical nature. Proud prints the correspondence in his _History
of Pennsylvania_ (i. 314). It has been catalogued as connected with the
history of the province. Cf. _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, vol. ii., nos.
1,363 and 1,390. Both of the London editions are in the possession of
the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

The student may also need to be warned against a forged letter of
Cotton Mather, about a plot to capture Penn. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
1870, p. 329.

[818] _A Journal or Historical Account of his Life, Travels,
Sufferings, etc._ London, 1694, folio. Again, London, 1709; 1765; 7th
ed., 1852, with notes by Wilson Armistead. Allibone’s _Dictionary_, i.
625; Sabin’s _Dictionary_, vi. 25, 352.

[819] London, 1713; Dublin, 1715; London, 1715, 1777; Dublin, 1820; and
in two different Friends’ libraries, 1833 and 1838. Sabin, vi. 21,873.

[820] _Apology for the Church and People of God called in derision
Quakers; Wherein they are vindicated from those that accuse them of
Disorder and Confusion on the one hand, and from such as calumniate
them with Tyranny and Imposition on the other; shewing that as
the true and pure Principles of the Gospel are restored by their
Testimony, so is also the ancient apostolick order of the Church of
Christ re-established among them, and settled upon its Right Basis and
Foundation._ By Robert Barclay, London, 1676, 1 vol., 4º.

There have been various later editions in English and German. Masson
calls this book by far the best-reasoned exposition of the sect’s early
principles.

[821] _A Collection of the Sufferings of the People called Quakers, for
the testimony of a good Conscience._ London, 1753, 2 vols., folio.

[822] _The History of the Rise, Increase, and Progress of the
Christian People called Quakers, intermixed with several remarkable
occurrences. Written originally in Low Dutch by W. S., and by himself
translated into English._ London, 1722, folio, 752 pp. There are later
editions,—London, 1725; Philadelphia, 1725; Burlington, N. J., 1775;
again, 1795, 1799-1800; Philadelphia, 1811; again, 1833, in Friends’
Library; New York, 1844, etc. The Philadelphia edition of 1725 bears
the imprint of Samuel Keimer. It was this book which Franklin, in his
_Autobiography_, tells us he and Meredith worked upon just after they
had established themselves in business. Forty sheets, he says, were
from their press.

[823] [This was published at Amsterdam in 1696, and was translated into
English, with a letter by George Keith, vindicating himself, the same
year; and also into German. Sabin’s _Dictionary_, v. 17,584. The next
year (1797) Francis Bugg’s _Picture of Quakerism_ was printed as “A
modest Corrective of Gerrard Croese” (Sabin, iii. 9,072); Bugg having,
since about 1684, joined their opponents. _Brinley Catalogue_, no.
3,503.—ED.]

[824] _Portraiture of Quakerism_, 3 vols., London, 1806; New York, same
date.

[825] Four vols., Philadelphia, 1860-67.

[826] London, 1876.

[827] _An Examen of Parts relating to the Society of Friends in a
recent work by Robert Barclay, entitled, etc._ Philadelphia, 1876.

[828] See also _Brinley Catalogue,_ no. 3,479, for a variety of titles;
and Bohn’s _Lowndes_, p. 2017.

[829] It may not, however, be out of place to mention here the chief
reasons on which the followers of Fox base their objections to the
manner in which it is customary to speak of the first Quakers who
visited New England. It is generally represented that it was the
behavior of these early ministers which caused their persecution; but
before a European Quaker had set foot on Massachusetts the court had
denounced them, and in October, 1656, a law was passed which spoke of
them as a “cursed sect of heretickes.” It is also customary to speak
of the executions of Quakers in Boston in connection with certain
acts of indecency committed by women who were either laboring under
mental aberrations or believed that they were fulfilling a divine
command, leaving on the mind of the reader the impression that the
capital law was called into existence to correct such abuses. No
such acts were committed until after the capital law had fallen into
disuse. Nor is it clear, from printed authorities, that the death
penalty was only inflicted after every possible means had been tried
by the Massachusetts authorities to rid themselves of their unwelcome
visitors. The language of the law of 1658, which declared that if a
banished Quaker returned he or she should suffer death, does not show
that it supplemented that of 1657, by which punishments increasing in
severity were visited on Quakers upon their first, second, and third
return. Neither will the practice under the law of 1658 justify this
interpretation. The penalties of the law of 1657 had not been exhausted
in the cases of Mary Dyer, William Robinson, Marmaduke Stevenson, and
William Ledera, when they were hanged.

[830] See _Memoirs of Long Island Historical Society_, vol. i.

[831] London, 1726, 2 vols., folio; London, 1771, 1 vol., royal folio;
London, 1782, 5 vols., 8º; London, 1825, 3 vols., 8º.

[832] A list of the most important of these, with references to where
they will be found, is printed in _Pennsylvania Magazine of History_,
vi. 368.

[833] London, 1813, 2 vols.; Dover, N. H., 1820; new edition, with
preface by Forster, 1849. It is reviewed by Jeffrey in _Edinburgh
Review_, xxi. 444.

[834] Philadelphia, 1852; cf. Sabin’s _Dictionary_, vol. ix. p. 221.
Mr. Janney was appointed Indian Agent by President Grant, 1869. He died
April 30, 1880.

[835] London, 1851; again, 1856. It is reviewed in the _Edinburgh
Review_, xciv. 229, and _Christian Observer_, li. 818.

[836] Two vols., 1791. It is of some interest to note another French
life by C. Vincent, Paris, 1877, and a Dutch life by H. van Lil,
Amsterdam, 1820-25, 2 vols.

[837] 1. ANSWERS TO MACAULAY.—_Defence of William Penn from Charges,
etc., of T. B. Macaulay_, by Henry Fairbairn. Philadelphia, 1849, 8º,
38 pp.

2. _William Penn and T. B. Macaulay_, by W. E. Forster. Revised for the
American edition by the author. Philadelphia, 1850, 8º, 48 pp. This
first appeared as an Introduction to an edition of Clarkson’s _Life of
W. Penn_, London, 1850.

3. _William Penn_, par L. Vullieum. Paris, 1855, 8º, 83 pp.

4. _Inquiry into the Evidence relating to the Charges brought by Lord
Macaulay against W. Penn_, by John Paget. Edinburgh, 1858, 12º, 138
pp. Cf. also _Westminster Review_, liv. 117; and _Eclectic Magazine_,
xxiii. 115; xxxix. 120. Sabin’s _Dictionary_, 49,743.

ADDITIONAL WORKS.—_Memorials of the Life and Times of_ [Admiral] _Sir
W. Penn_, by Granville Penn. London, 1833, 2 vols. 8º. Cf. also P. S.
P. Conner’s _Sir William Penn_, Philadelphia, 1876, and “The Father of
Penn not a Baptist,” in _Historical Magazine_, xvi. 228.

“The Private Life and Domestic Habits of W. Penn,” by Joshua F. Fisher,
in the _Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania_, vol. iii.
part ii. p. 65 (1836); published also separately.

“Memoir of Part of the Life of W. Penn,” by Mr. Lawton, a
contemporaneous writer, in Ibid., p. 213.

“Fragments of an Apology for Himself,” by W. Penn, in Ibid., p. 233.

“Penn and Logan Correspondence.” Edited by Edward Armstrong, in vols.
ix. and x. of _Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania_.
These volumes cover only the years between 1700 and 1711; they also
contain Mr. J. J. Smith’s Memoir of the Penn Family, reprinted in
_Lippincott’s Magazine_, v. 149. Cf. _Magazine of American History_,
ii. 437; also James Coleman’s _Pedigree and General Notes of the Penn
Family_, 1871.

“William Penn’s Travels in Holland and Germany,” by Oswald
Seidensticker. See _Pennsylvania Magazine of History_, ii. 237. Penn’s
journal of these travels will be found in his collected works.

_The Penns and the Penningtons_, and _The Fells of Swarthmore Hall_,
by Maria Webb, are two interesting books throwing light on the Quaker
society in which Penn moved.

_Calvert and Penn; or, the Growth of Civil and Religious Liberty in
America_, by Brantz Mayer. Delivered before the Historical Society of
Pennsylvania, April 8, 1852. Baltimore, 1852, 8º, 49 pp.

John Stoughton’s _William Penn, the Founder of Pennsylvania_. London,
1882. This book, called out by the Bi-Centenary of Pennsylvania, is
founded on the standard Lives, but adds some new matter.

[838] Coleman, James, bookseller. _Catalogue of Original Deeds,
Charters, Copies of Royal Grants, petitions, Original Letters, etc.,
of William Penn and his Family._ July, 1870. Also Supplement. London,
1870, 8º, 32, 12 pp.

Also see _The Penn Papers_. _Description of a large Collection of
Original Letters, Manuscript Documents, Charters, Grants, Printed
Papers, rare Books and Pamphlets relating to the Celebrated William
Penn, to the early History of Pennsylvania, and incidentally to other
parts of America, dating from the latter part of the 17th to the end of
the 18th century, lately in the possession of a surviving descendant of
William Penn, now the property of Edward G. Allen._ London, 1870.

Also see _Original Deeds and Charters, State and Boundary Documents,
Letters, Maps, and Charts, also Books and Papers relating to America,
the Penn Family, and the Quakers, many of them from the Penn Library_.
July, 1876. London, 1876, 8º, 24 pp.

[839] The published address delivered upon their presentation to the
Historical Society is entitled _Proceedings of the Historical Society
of Pennsylvania on the Presentation of the Penn Papers, and Address
of Craig Biddle_, March 10, 1873, Philadelphia, 1873, 8º, 30 pp. Cf.
_Catalogue of Paintings, etc., belonging to the Pennsylvania Historical
Society_, no. 177.

[840] Mr. Whitehead informs me that the papers in the Library of the
New Jersey Historical Society consist of 17 parts (no. 10 missing), and
are called, “The History of the Colonies of New Jersey and Pennsylvania
in America. From the time of their first discovery to the year 1721.
Together with an Appendix containing several occurrences that have
happened since, down to the present time. Undertaken at the desire of
the Yearly Meeting of the people called Quakers, of the said Colonies,
and published by their order. By——. Psal. cv. 12. 13. 14, when they
were but a few, etc.” Several of the passages, marked “Transfer to
History of Friends,” correspond to the Philadelphia manuscript, which
is apparently the portion designated as the second part in the author’s
scheme, as thus detailed by himself in the New Jersey manuscript: “The
History of the Province of Pennsylvania in two parts. Part I. The time
and manner of the grants of territories, the arrival of settlers, a
general view of the original state of the country and of the public
proceedings in legislation, and other matters for the first forty years
after the settlement made under William Penn. Part II. The introduction
and some account of the religious progress of the people called Quakers
therein, including the like account respecting the same people in New
Jersey as constituting one Yearly Meeting.”

[841] _The History of Pennsylvania in North America, from ... 1681
till after the year 1742, with an Introduction respecting the Life of
W. Penn, ... the Religious Society of the People called Quakers, with
the First Rise ... of West New Jersey, and ... the Dutch and Swedes in
Delaware; to which is added a Brief Description of the said Province_,
1760-1770. Philadelphia, 1797-1798.

[842] A biographical notice of him by the Rev. Charles West Thomson
will be found in vol. i. of the _Memoirs of the Historical Society of
Pennsylvania_ (2d ed. p. 417), together with some verses which show
the sympathies of a Loyalist. He was born in 1728, and died in 1813. A
Portrait after a pencil sketch is noted in the _Catalogue of Paintings,
etc., belonging to the Pennsylvania Historical Society_, no. 86.

[843] Philadelphia, 1829.

[844] London, 1854; vol. i. appearing in 1850. The work was never
completed.

[845] Harrisburg, 1876; 2d ed., Philadelphia, 1880.

[846] London, 1757, 2 vols., 8º.

[847] London, 1770, 2 Vols., 8º.

[848] [This book has passed through several editions,—1830, with
lithographic illustrations; 1844, 1850, 1857, and 1868, with woodcuts.
A tribute to Mr. Watson (who was born June 13, 1779, and died Dec.
23, 1861), by Charles Deane, is in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, v.
207; and Benjamin Dorr published _A Memoir of John Fanning Watson_,
Philadelphia, 1861, with a portrait. Mr. Willis P. Hazard’s _Annals
of Philadelphia_, 1879, supplements Mr. Watson’s book. The local
antiquarian interest will be abundantly satisfied with Mr. Townsend
Ward’s papers on the old landmarks of the town, which have appeared
in the _Pennsylvania Magazine of History_, though much in them
necessarily fails of association with the early years with which we
are dealing. This is likewise true of Thompson Westcott’s _Historic
Buildings of Philadelphia_, 1877; cf. the papers on old Philadelphia in
_Harper’s Monthly_, 1876; cf. _An Explanation of the Map of the City
and Liberties of Philadelphia_. By John Reed. Philadelphia, 1794 and
1846.—ED.]

[849] Philadelphia, 1867, 12º, 379 pp.

[850] Norristown, 1859.

[851] Philadelphia, 1862. See Memoir of Dr. Smith in _Pennsylvania Mag.
of Hist._, vi. 182.

[852] Philadelphia, 1877.

[853] Doylestown, Pa., 1876, 8º, 875 + 54 pp.

[854] It is unfortunate that a book of such merit should have been
given to the public in so objectionable a form. It is a 4º, 782 +
44 pages (Philadelphia, 1881), profusely illustrated with pictures
calculated to gratify the vanity of living persons and to mislead
students as to the value of the work.

[855] _Annals of Pennsylvania, from the Discovery of the Delaware_, by
Samuel Hazard, 1609-1682, Philadelphia, 1850, 8º, 664 pp. An excellent
compilation, containing nearly all the documentary information on the
subject, arranged in chronological order.

A catalogue of the papers relating to Pennsylvania and Delaware in
the State-Paper Office, London, was printed in the _Memoirs of the
Pennsylvania Historical Society_, vol. iv. part ii. p. 236.

[856] _Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives of the
Province of Pennsylvania. Beginning the Fourth Day of December, 1682._
Volume the First, in Two Parts. Philadelphia, 1752. This collection was
continued down to the Revolution. It is contained in six folio volumes.
The first three are from the press of Franklin and Hall. They are
always known as “Votes of the Assembly.”

[857] The first ten volumes of the series known as the _Colonial
Records_ bear the title of _Minutes of the Provincial Council of
Pennsylvania, from the Organization_ [1683] _to the Termination of
the Proprietary Government_; the last six: _Minutes of the Supreme
Executive Council of Pennsylvania from its Organization to the
Termination of the Revolution_. They contain, however, the Minutes
down to 1790. The publication of this series was begun by the State in
1837, the American Philosophical Society and the Historical Society of
Pennsylvania having petitioned the Legislature to adopt measures for
this end. After three volumes were issued (Harrisburg, 1838-1840) the
publication was suspended. In 1851, at the request of the Historical
Society, the matter was again brought before the Legislature by Edward
Armstrong, Esq., a member of the Society, then a delegate to the
Legislature. The sixteen volumes of the _Colonial Records_ and twelve
of the _Pennsylvania Archives_ were issued between the years 1852 and
1856. The volumes issued in 1838-1840 were reprinted in 1852, and an
index volume to both works in 1860. The latter does not apply to the
volume of the Records published in 1838-1840.

[858] _Pennsylvania Archives, selected and arranged from Original
Documents in the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth._
By Samuel Hazard, Commencing 1664. 12 vols., 8º. Harrisburg and
Philadelphia, 1852-1856. To Mr. Samuel Hazard, who was also the author
of the _Annals of Pennsylvania_ and publisher of _Hazard’s Register of
Pennsylvania_ (16 vols., 8º, Philadelphia, 1828-1835), the students of
history are greatly indebted for the preservation of some of the most
important documents relating to the history of the State.

[859] _Charter to William Penn and Laws of the Province of
Pennsylvania, 1682 and 1700; preceded by Duke of York’s Laws in Force
from the year 1676 to the year 1682. Published under the direction of
John Blair Linn, Sec. of Commonwealth, Compiled and edited by Staughton
George, Benjamin M. Nead, and Thomas McCamant._ Harrisburg, 1879, 8º,
614 pp.

Appendix A of this volume contains a compilation of the laws, etc.,
establishing the Courts of Judicature; it is by Staughton George.
Appendix B contains Historical Notes of the Early Government and
Legislative Councils and Assemblies of Pennsylvania; it is by Mr. Nead.
Both are valuable pieces of work; but we do not agree with Mr. Nead
that the laws printed and agreed upon in England, and the written ones
prepared by Penn and submitted to the Assembly that met at Upland,
December, 1682, were both passed. The passage in Penn’s letter of Dec.
16, 1682, which reads, “the laws were agreed upon more fully worded,”
indicates that the printed series was superseded by the written one.

[860] _Laws of Pennsylvania._ Philadelphia, 1810 (Beoren’s edition).
The second volume of this edition contains an elaborate “note” on
land-titles; it will be found on pp. 105-261. It was prepared by Judge
Charles Smith.

_View of the Land-Laws of Pennsylvania, with Notes of its Early History
and Legislation._ By Thomas Sargeant. Philadelphia, 1838, 8º, xiii +
203 pp.

_Address before the Law Academy._ By Peter McCall. Philadelphia, 1838.
A valuable historical essay.

_Essay on the History and Nature of Original Titles of Land in
Pennsylvania._ By Charles Huston. Philadelphia, 1849, 8º, xx + 484 pp.

_Syllabus of Law of Land-Office Titles in Pennsylvania._ By Joel Jones.
Philadelphia, 1850, 12º, xxiv + 264.

_The Common Law of Pennsylvania._ By George Sharswood. A lecture before
the Law Academy. Philadelphia, 1856.

_Equity in Pennsylvania._ A lecture before the Law Academy of
Philadelphia, Feb. 11, 1868. By William Henry Rawle. With an Appendix,
being the _Register Book of Governor Keith’s Court of Chancery_.
Philadelphia, 1868, 8º, 93 + 46 pp.

_A Practical Treatise on the Law of Ground-Rents in Pennsylvania._ By
Richard M. Cadwalader. Philadelphia, 1879, 8º, 356 pp.

_An Essay on Original Land-Titles in Philadelphia._ By Lawrence Lewis,
Jr. Philadelphia, 1880, 8º, 266 pp.

_The Courts of Pennsylvania in the Seventeenth Century._ Read before
the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, March 14, 1881. By Lawrence
Lewis, Jr. See _Pennsylvania Magazine of History_, v. 141, also,
separately.

_Some Contrasts in the Growth of Pennsylvania and English Law._ A
Lecture before the Law Department of the University of Pennsylvania,
Oct. 3, 1881. By William Henry Rawle. Philadelphia, 1881, 8º, 78 pp.,
2d ed., 32 pp., 1882.

[861] A number of addresses were delivered before this Society. That of
J. N. Barker, delivered in 1827, is the most valuable of the series,
and is entitled _Sketches of the Primitive Settlements of the River
Delaware_, Philadelphia, 1828.

[862] That no doubt should exist regarding the accuracy of these dates,
we have had Penn’s letter to the Lords of Plantation in the State-Paper
Office, London, examined, and in it the 24th is clearly written. This
is confirmed by the original draft of his letter to the Free Society of
Traders, in which the same date of arrival is given. The “New Castle
County old Records transcribed,” quoted by Hazard, give the 27th as
the time of his arrival before that town, and the 28th as the day on
which he took official possession. These statements are verified by the
Breviate of Penn vs. Lord Baltimore, in which the original Newcastle
Records appear to have been quoted, since the volumes and folios
referred to differ from those given by Hazard.

[863] This conclusion has been reached by examining the evidence we
have in strict chronological order. There is nothing to show that Penn
met the Indians in council until May, 1683. At this conference the
Indians either failed to understand him, or refused to sell him land.
His next meeting with them was on June 23, 1683. He then purchased land
from them, and the promises of friendship quoted on a former page were
exchanged. It is a significant fact that while there is scarcely any
allusion to the Indians in his letters prior to the meeting of June 23,
subsequent to that time they are full of descriptions of them, and of
accounts of his intercourse with them.

[864] [The elm-tree known as the Treaty-tree which was long venerated
as the one under which the interview was held, was blown down in 1810,
and a picture of it taken in 1809 is preserved in the Historical
Society. (Cf. _Catalogue of Paintings, etc., belonging to the
Historical Society_, no. 167. Cf. views in Gay’s _Popular History of
the United States_, ii. 493; Watson’s _Annals of Philadelphia_; one
of the latter part of the last century in _Pennsylvania Magazine of
History_, iv. 186.) For the monument on the spot, see Lossing’s _Field
Book of the Revolution_, ii. 254. It is well known that Benjamin
West made the scene of the treaty the subject of a large historical
painting. The original first deed given by the Indians to Markham is in
the possession of the Historical Society. Cf. _Catalogue of Paintings,
etc., belonging to the Historical Society_, no. 174.

William Rawle’s address before the Pennsylvania Historical Society in
1825 was upon Penn’s method of dealing with the Indians as compared
with the customs obtaining in the other colonies. (Cf. _Historical
Magazine_, vi. 64.) Fac-similes of the marks of many Indian chiefs,
as put to documents from 1682 to 1785, are given in _Pennsylvania
Archives_, vol. i.—ED.]

[865] [Cf. also _Pennsylvania Archives_, 2d series, vol. vii. There
is a map illustrating the boundary dispute in _Pennsylvania Archives_
(1739), i. 595; cf. Neill’s _Terra Maria_, chap. v., Hazard’s _Register
of Pennsylvania_, ii. 200, and Mr. Brantley’s chapter in the present
volume.—ED.]

[866] S. R. Gardiner’s _Prince Charles and the Spanish Marriage_, i.
164.

[867] S. R. Gardiner’s _Personal Government of Charles I._, ii. 290.

[868] In the Maryland Historical Society are preserved the original
manuscript records of courts baron and leet held in St. Clement’s manor
at different times from 1659 to 1672.]

[869] _Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus._
London, 1878, iii. 362.

[870] [See _Memorial History of Boston_, i. p. 278.—ED.]

[871] At a session of the Assembly held in Januuary, 1648, an incident
occurred which annalists have generally deemed worthy of mention as the
first instance of a demand of political rights for women. Miss Margaret
Brent—who was the administratix of Governor Calvert, and as such held
to be the attorney, in fact, of Lord Baltimore—applied to the Assembly
to have a vote in the House for herself, and another as his lordship’s
attorney.

[Illustration]

Upon the refusal of her demand, the lady protested in form against all
the proceedings of the House. The Assembly afterwards defended her
from the censures passed by Lord Baltimore upon her management of his
affairs in the Province.

[872] [See Vol. IV.—ED.]

[873] See chapter x.—ED.

[874] See chapter xii.—ED.

[875] [It is reprinted in the _Magazine of American History_, i.
118.—ED.]

[876] A copy of the original, which is very rare, is in the British
Museum. It was reprinted by Munsell, of Albany, as No. 1 of Shea’s
_Early Southern Tracts_. [It is suggested in the preface of the
reprint, which was edited by Colonel Brantz Mayer, that it “was
perhaps prepared by Cecilius Calvert, Lord Baltimore, from the letters
of his brothers, Leonard and George Calvert, who went out with the
expedition.” It was also reprinted in the _Historical Magazine_,
October, 1865—ED.]

[877] This second tract was reprinted by Sabin, of New York, in 1865
[under the editing of Francis L. Hawks. A perfect copy should have a
map, engraved by T. Cecill, “Noua Terræ-Mariæ tabula.” It is often
wanting, as in the Harvard College copy; it is, however, in the
Library of Congress copy. Sabin reproduced it full size, and a reduced
fac-simile of it is given in Scharf’s _History of Maryland_, i. 259.
Another is given in the text. The _Chalmers Catalogue_ says that at the
time of the boundary disputes between Maryland and Pennsylvania the
only copy to be found was in the Sir Hans Sloane Collection. See the
_Sparks Catalogue_, and the _Huth Catalogue_, iii. 926.—ED.]

[878] [Dr. Dalrymple was born in Baltimore, in 1817, and was for
twenty-four years the Corresponding Secretary of the Maryland
Historical Society. He is said to have possessed the largest private
library (over 14,000 volumes) south of Pennsylvania. He died Oct. 30,
1881.—_Necrology_ (1881) _of the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of
Philadelphia_.—ED.]

[879] [In 1844 Georgetown College presented to the Maryland Historical
Society a copy of McSherry’s transcript of the _Relatio Itineris_; and
in 1847 Dr. N. C. Brooks made a translation from this copy, which was
later printed in _Force’s Tracts_, iv. No. 12. The Latin text, with a
revision of Brooks’s version, was printed privately in the _Woodstock
Letters_, in 1872. Two years later (1874) the Maryland Historical
Society reprinted it as stated in the text, following, however, the
original McSherry transcript, which had been transferred to Loyola
College, Baltimore. This, however, then wanted the concluding pages,
but in 1875 the whole was found, which necessitated the printing of
a supplement to the _Fund Publication_ of the Society (No. 7) which
contained it. The later version of Converse is largely reprinted in
Scharf’s _Maryland_, i. 69, etc.

Various accounts of Father White have been printed: B. U. Campbell’s
in the _Metropolitan Catholic Almanac_, 1841, and in the _United
States Catholic Magazine_, vol. vii. Mr. Campbell also read before
the Historical Society a paper on _Early Missions in Maryland_, and
printed a chapter on the same subject in the _United States Catholic
Magazine_ in 1846. There is also an account of Father White, by Richard
H. Clarke, in the _Baltimore Metropolitan_, iv. (1856), and a sketch
in the _Woodstock Letters_. Upon all these is based the account in the
_Fund Publication_ already mentioned. Other accounts of the Maryland
missions may be found in Shea’s _Early Catholic Missions_; and in Henry
Foley’s _Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus_,
London, 1878, vol. iii. Mr. Neill has used this last in his tract,
_Light Thrown by the Jesuits upon Hitherto Obscure Points of Early
Maryland History_, Minneapolis. See also his _Eng. Col._, ch. xv.—ED.]

[880] Reprinted in Force’s _Historical Tracts_, vol. ii. There is a
copy of it in Harvard College Library.

[881] The documents transmitted by Bennett and Matthews to the
Protector, during their contest with Lord Baltimore in 1656, may be
found in Thurloe’s _State Papers_, v. 482-486. Copies of Strong’s and
Langford’s rare tracts are in the Boston Athenæum.

[882] Reprinted in Force’s _Historical Tracts_, vol. iii. There is a
copy of it in Harvard College Library. See Sabin, viii. 30276.

[883] Reprinted in Gowan’s _Bibliotheca Americana_, No. 5. New
York, 1869. [This edition has a map, with introduction and notes by
John Gilmary Shea. It has again been reissued as one of the _Fund
Publications_ of the Maryland Historical Society.—ED.]

[884] It is reprinted in Scharf’s _Maryland_, i. 174.

[885] [The early Quakers of Maryland have been the subject of two
publications of the Historical Society: one by J. Saurin Norris, issued
in 1862; and the other, Dr. Samuel A. Harrison’s _Wenlock Christison
and the early Friends in Talbot County_, 1878. See also Neill’s _Terra
Mariæ_, ch. iv. On Wenlock Christison see _Memorial History of Boston_,
i. 187.—ED.]

[886] This manuscript volume is in the possession of the Maryland
Historical Society. An Index to the Calendar was printed in 1861.

[887] In 1860 another valuable report to the governor on the condition
of the public records was made by the Rev. Ethan Allen, D. D.

[888] Cf. Preface to Alexander’s Calendar.

[889] Published in the Master of the Rolls series. [The Peabody Index
is described in Lewis Mayer’s account of the library, 1854.—ED.]

[890] The Maryland Historical Society has a manuscript copy of some of
the Sloane manuscripts in the British Museum, pertaining to the first
Lord Baltimore and Maryland. Mr. Alexander gave to the State Library at
Annapolis some of the manuscripts relating to Maryland in Sion College,
London. A number of the Maryland papers in the state-paper office have
been published in Scharf’s _History of Maryland_, and in the _Report
on the Virginia and Maryland Boundary Line, 1873_. The Journal of the
Dutch Embassy to Maryland in 1659, and some of the communications
between the Maryland Council and the Dutch at New Amstel have been
published in _Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State
of New York_, ii. 84 _et seq._ The _1880 Index_, p. 246, to accessions
of manuscripts in the British Museum shows various papers of Cecil
Calvert.

[891] A description of the occupations of the planters of Maryland,
and of the culture of tobacco by them in the year 1680, is contained
in the “Journal of a voyage to New York and a Tour in several of the
American colonies,” by Jaspar Dankers and Peter Sluyter, published in
the _Memoirs of the Long Island Historical Society_, vol. i. pp. 194,
214-216, 218-221.

[892] An article in _Lippincott’s Magazine_ for July, 1871, describes
the topography and the present condition of St. Mary’s.

[893] There is a fine portrait of the first Lord Baltimore in the
gallery of the Earl of Verulam at Glastonbury, England. It was painted
by Mytens, court painter to James I. An engraving from it is in the
possession of the Maryland Historical Society. In 1882 a copy of this
portrait was presented to the State of Maryland by John W. Garrett,
Esq. It is engraved in McSherry’s _Maryland_, p. 21, as from an
original in the great gallery of Sir Francis Bacon; and again in S.
H. Gay’s _Popular History of the United States_, i. 485. An engraved
portrait of Cecilius, second Lord Baltimore, at the age of fifty-one,
made by Blotling, in 1657, is in the possession of the Maryland
Historical Society. Engravings of these portraits of the two lords are
given in the present chapter.

The Baltimore arms are those of Calverts, quartered with Crosslands.
The Calvert arms are barry of six, or and sable, over all a bend
counterchanged. Crosslands: quarterly, argent and gules, over all a
cross bottony counterchanged. Lord Baltimore used: quarterly, first and
fourth paly of six, or and sable, a bend counterchanged; second and
third, quarterly, argent and gules, a cross bottony counterchanged.
_Crest_: on a ducal coronet proper, two pennons, the dexter or, the
sinister sable; the staves, gules. _Supporters_: two leopards, guardant
coward, proper. _Motto: Fatti maschii, parole femine._

The first great seal of the Province was lost during Ingle’s Rebellion;
and in 1648 the Proprietary sent out another seal, slightly different.
This seal had engraven on one side the figure of the Proprietary in
armor on horseback, with drawn sword and a helmet with a great plume
of feathers, the trappings being adorned with the family arms. The
inscription round about this side was: _Cecilius absolutus dominus
Terra Mariæ et Avaloniæ Baro de Baltimore_. On the other side of the
seal was engraven a scutcheon with the family arms; namely, six pieces
impaled with a band dexter counterchanged, quartered with a cross
bottony, and counterchanged; the whole scutcheon being supported with
a fisherman on one side and a ploughman on the other (in the place of
the family leopards), standing upon a scroll, whereon the Baltimore
motto was inscribed; namely, _Fatti maschii, parole femine_. Above the
scutcheon was a count-palatine’s cap, and over that a helmet, with the
crest of the family arms; namely, a ducal crown with two half bannerets
set upright. Behind the scutcheon and supporters was engraven a large
ermine mantle, and the inscription about this side of the seal was,
_Scuto bonæ voluntatis tuæ coronasti nos_. In 1657 Lord Baltimore
sent out another seal, similar in design, which was used till 1705.
Subsequent changes were made in the seal and arms of the Province and
State, but in 1876 the last described side of the Great Seal sent out
in 1648 was adopted as the arms of Maryland. A full account of the
pedigree of the Calverts will be found in _An Appeal to the citizens of
Maryland, from the legitimate descendants of the Baltimore family_, by
Charles Browning, Baltimore, 1821. [Fuller’s _Worthies of England_ and
Anthony Wood’s _Athenæ Oxoniensis_ give us important facts regarding
the first Lord Baltimore. See John G. Morris’s _The Lords Baltimore,
1874_, No. 8 of the _Fund Publications_ of the Historical Society; and
Neill’s _English Colonization in North America_, ch. xi.—ED.]

[894] [He undertook it at the instance of Sir John Dalrymple. See his
chapters ix. and xv. See, also, his _Introduction to the History of the
Revolt of the American Colonies_. Chalmers had come to Maryland in 1763
to give legal assistance to an uncle in pursuing a land claim. Many of
his papers were bought at his sale by Sparks, and are now in Harvard
College Library.—ED.]

[895] [Compare George William Brown’s _Origin and Growth of Civil
Liberty in Maryland_, a discourse before the Historical Society in
1850. And Brantz Mayer’s _Calvert and Penn_,—a discourse before the
Pennsylvania Historical Society in 1852.—ED.]

[896] [Bozman was born in 1757 and died in 1823. He had published in
1811 a preliminary _Sketch of the History of Maryland during the three
first years after its Settlement_. Some of the old records, supposed to
have been lost since he used them, were found at Annapolis in 1875, and
serve to show the accuracy with which he copied them. Gay’s _Popular
History of the United States_, i. 515.—ED.]

[897] New Series, vol. ix.

[898] [Following Chalmers, it had been often stated that the Assembly
of 1649 was Catholic by majority; but four or five years before this
publication of Davis, Mr. Sebastian F. Streeter, in his _Maryland
Two Hundred Years Ago_, had claimed that the Assembly which passed
the Toleration Act was by majority Protestant, for which, so late as
January, 1869, he was taken to task in the _Southern Review_ by Richard
McSherry, M.D., who reprinted his paper in his _Essays and Lectures_.
The question of the relations of Protestant and Catholic to the spirit
of toleration is discussed by E. D. Neill, in his “Lord Baltimore and
Toleration in Maryland,” in the _Contemporary Review_, September, 1876;
by B. F. Brown, in his _Early Religious History of Maryland: Maryland
not a Roman Catholic Colony_, 1876; in “Early Catholic Legislation,
1634-49, on Religious Freedom,” in the _New Englander_, November, 1878.
The Rev. Ethan Allen, in his _Who were the Early Settlers of Maryland?_
published by the Historical Society in 1865, aimed to show that the
vast majority were Protestant. Kennedy also had asserted that the
Assembly of 1649 was Protestant.—ED.]

[899] [He says in his preface that he picked up his threads from the
printed sources in the Library of Congress while he was one of the
Secretaries of President Johnson.—ED.]

[900] [The principal of Mr. Neill’s other contributions are _The
Founders of Maryland as portrayed in Manuscripts, Provincial Records,
and early Documents_, published by Munsell, of Albany, in 1876; and
_English Colonization of America_, chapters xi., xii., and xiii., where
he first printed Captain Henry Fleet’s Journal of 1631. Streeter, in
his Papers, etc., gives an account of Fleet.—Mr. Neill also printed
_Maryland not a Roman Catholic Colony_, Minneapolis, 1875.—ED.]

[901] A manuscript copy of this charter, both in Latin and English,
is in the Maryland Historical Society. Many writers, including the
Rev. E. D. Neill, so late as 1871, in his _English Colonization in
the Seventeenth Century_, have made the mistake of supposing that the
charter of Maryland was copied from the charter of Carolina, granted
in 1629 to Sir Robert Heath. The last two named charters were both
copied from the charter of Avalon, issued in 1623. [The Maryland
charter of June 20, 1632, is printed by Scharf, i. 53, following Thomas
Bacon’s translation, as given in his edition of the Laws, Annapolis,
1765; where is also the original Latin, which is likewise in Hazard’s
_Collection_, i. 327. Lord Baltimore had printed it in London, in 1723,
in a collection of the Acts, 1692-1715,—an edition which Bacon had
never found in the Province. See the _Brinley Catalogue_, No. 3657.
The Philadelphia Library has an edition printed in Philadelphia in
1718.—ED.]

[902] [The Rev. John G. Morris, D.D., began a Bibliography of Maryland
in the _Historical Magazine_ (April and May, 1870), but it was never
carried beyond “Baltimore.” If a topical index is furnished to
Sabin’s _Dictionary_, when completed, it may supply the deficiency;
but in the mean time the articles “Baltimore” and “Maryland” can be
consulted. Of the local works references may be made to a few: George
A. Hanson’s _Old Kent_, 1876, is largely genealogical, and not lucidly
arranged. T. W. Griffith published in 1821 his _Sketches of the Early
History of Maryland_, and in 1841 his _Annals of Baltimore_. J. T.
Scharf published his _Chronicles of Baltimore_ in 1874. David Ridgely
published in 1841 his _Annals of Annapolis_ (1649-1872). Rev. Ethan
Allen’s _Historical Notes of St. Ann’s Parish_ (1649-1857), appeared in
1857; and George Johnstone’s _History of Cecil County_ in 1881.—ED.]

[903] [Mr. Kennedy’s reply appeared in the _United States Catholic
Magazine_, and Mr. Michael Courtney Jenkins printed a rejoinder in the
same number.—ED.]

[904] [Mr. Gladstone was answered by Dr. Richard H. Clarke, in the
_Catholic World_, December, 1875, in a paper which was later issued as
a pamphlet, with the title, _Mr. Gladstone and Maryland Toleration_.
Mr. Gladstone had reissued his _Vaticanism_ essays with a preface,
styling the book, _Rome and the Newest Fashions in Religion_, in which
he reiterated his arguments.

It is perhaps largely owing to the deficiency of early personal
narratives bearing upon Maryland history and throwing light upon
character, that there is so much diversity of opinion regarding the
interpretation to be put on the charter as an instrument inculcating
toleration. The shades of dissent, too, are marked. Hildreth,
_History of the United States_, says, “There is not the least hint
of any toleration in religion not authorized by the law of England.”
Henry Cabot Lodge, _Short History of the English Colonies_, p. 96,
says, “There is no toleration about the Maryland charter.” Some
light regarding Calvert, on the side of doubt, may be gathered from
Gardiner’s _Prince Charles and the Spanish Marriage_.

In Baltimore’s controversy with Clayborne, the side of the latter
has been espoused by Mr. Streeter in his _Life and Colonial Times of
William Claiborne_, which he has left in manuscript, and of which an
abstract of the part relating to Clayborne’s Rebellion is given by Mr.
S. M. Allen in the _New England Historical and Genealogical Register_,
April, 1873. Mr. Streeter was of New England origin, a graduate of
Harvard (1831), and had removed to Richmond in 1835, and to Baltimore
the following year, where he had been one of the founders, and was
long the Recording Secretary of the Maryland Historical Society. He
contributed also in 1868 to its _Fund Publication_ (No. 2), _The First
Commander of Kent Island_,—an account of George Evelin, under whose
administration the island passed into Calvert’s control. This tract has
been reprinted in G. D. Scull’s _Evelyns in America_, privately printed
at Oxford (England), 1881. Streeter’s “Fall of the Susquehannocks,” a
chapter of Maryland’s Indian history, 1675, appeared in the _Historical
Magazine_, March, 1857, being an extract only from a voluminous
manuscript work by him on the Susquehannocks.—ED.]

[905] [Lewis Mayer published an account of its library, cabinets, and
gallery in 1854; and No. 1 of its _Fund Publications_ is Brantz Mayer’s
_History, Possessions, and Prospects of the Society_, 1867.—ED.]




      *      *      *      *      *      *




Transcriber’s note:

—Obvious errors were corrected.



***