The Warwick patent

s • • , *\p>. ->

.^^-v »'

•v ^ -

t^-o^

«-^ \V •^

♦^

c3 > .i

V'..

V ^<^

• ^1 ^ ° „/^

.0-

4 o

,^

"■o. - • • * \ '

.^^

•>

J^^'\.

rO"

>-. >^o<

■^ .- •^'. '^^

^oV^

^^ •-?^^.* '^'' '"^ -."^^W* ^^'^'^\. ''•-^^*° 4.^^'\* oX

^o.v^ ;^^^^^'. '^^^-^

^^-^^^ ".

^'^*

V'O^

o « o -* .^^•^

o 4> O^

'bV

V

The Warwick Patent

The WARWICK
PATENT ^ ^

Ig Qlliarto 3. Sfnablg, ffiilJ.

C I D ID C C C C II

THf Lie.lAKY OF
CONGRESS,

T'vo CupiEo Received

OOPVHIOHT ffNTHY

VvLcu-\ IT- fci 01.
Ct ASS^Ct xXa No

• oy a.

Seventh Publicatton

ONE HUNDRED AND TWO COPIES PRINTED

^0, 1.0.^..

Copyright by the Acorn Club
1902

H a r t f 0 r d Press
The Case, Lockwood & Brainard Company

^c\\

b1

ACORN CLUB

r^l^H^

Donald Grant Mitchell, Honorary, New Haven

Frederick Woodward Skiff, . West Haven

William Newnham Chattin Carlton, Hartford

John Murphy, . . . New Haven

Albert Carlos Bates, . . Hartford

Charles Lewis Nichols Camp, . New Haven

Charles Thomas Wells, . • . Hartford

George Seymour Godard, . Hartford

Frederic Clarence Bissell, . . Willimantic

Joline Butler Smith, . . New Haven

William Fowler Hopson, . New Haven

Frank Addison Corbin, . . New Haven

Henry Russell Hovey, . . Hartford

Frank Butler Gay, . . Hartford

Mahlon Newcomb Clark, . Hartford

William John James, . . Middletown

Lucius Albert Barbour, . . Hartford

Martin Leonard Roberts, . . New Haven

Charles Yale Beach, . . Bridgeport

Addison Van Name, . . New Haven

Deceased
Charles Jeremy Hoadly

ON the nineteenth day of March in the year
1632, according to the present mode of
beginning the year with January, Rob-
ert, Earl of Warwick, conveyed to sun-
dry lords and gentlemen a considerable tract of land
situated in America. The land was a part of the ter-
ritory embraced in the Great Patent of New England
granted by King James I., November 3, 1620, to
forty persons, under the name of The Council es-
tablished at Plymouth in the County of Devon, for
the planting, ruling, ordering, and governing of New
England in America. The original deed from War-
wick was not brought to this country ; it is not prob-
able that it is now in existence, nor is any certified
copy known, the most authentic being the copy of
that copy which was shewed to the people in Connec-
ticut by Mr. George Fenwick, found in i66r by
Governor Winthrop among Mr. Hopkins' papers in
London, and now among the State archives.

In his grant to the patentees of Connecticut the
Earl, who had been president of the Council before
mentioned, did not state the source whence his title
was derived, nor is it certainly disclosed in those por-
tions of the records of that council now known to
exist. Dr. Benjamin Trumbull, writing of the old
patent, says in his History of Connecticut, that the

[8]

Council of Plymouth in 1630 granted this whole tract
to the Earl of Warwick and it had been confirmed
to him by a patent from King Charles I. He took
the statement from an older writer, perhaps from
Dr. Douglass' Summary, which was published in
1753' o^' ^^ "^^y ^^' ^^^"^ Neal's History, published in
1720, but it is pretty certain that the only patent of
Connecticut granted by a king of England was the
charter to the Governor and Company granted by
Charles II., dated April 23, 1662.

The grantees named in the Warwick patent or
deed were : Lord Saye and Sele, Lord Brooke, Lord
Rich, eldest son of the Earl of Warwick, Hon. Charles
Fiennes of the family of Lord Saye and Sele, Sir
Nathaniel Rich, one of those named in the great pat-
ent for New England, who died in 1636, Sir Richard
Saltonstall, one of the Massachusetts patentees 1629,
Richard Knightly, who died in 1639, John Pym,
John Hampden, John Humphrey also one of
the Massachusetts patentees, and Herbert Pelham.'
From the commission given to the younger Winthrop,
July 18, 1635, we learn the names of four more of the
associates : Henry Lawrence, Henry Darley, Sir

' Robert, Earl of Warwick, William, Viscount Saye and Sele,
Robert, Lord Brooke, Sir Nathaniel Rich, and John Pym, were
interested in the Bahamas. Brown's Genesis of the United States,
886. Lords Saye and Sele and Brooke were also interested in New
Hampshire. V{nx.c\\mson's History of Massachusetts,!, io^. Ed.
1764.

[9]

Arthur Haselrig, and George Fenwick. Lion Gardi-
ner names also Sir Matthew Boynton. Edward Hop-
kins seems to have been of the company, as, perhaps,
were also Robert Harrington and Philip Nye.

Of these, John Humphrey, Herbert Pelham,
George Fenwick, and Edward Hopkins came to
America after the date of the Warwick patent, but
only the two latter came to Connecticut ; Sir Richard
Saltonstall came over in 1630, but returned the next
year ; ^ Charles Fiennes is supposed to have made a
brief visit to Massachusetts in 1630, as his name is
signed to the address from on board the Arabella, of
April 7, in that year ; and, possibly, ^ John Hampden
had visited Plymouth in 1622-3. Others of the pat-
entees contemplated emigration, as Sir Matthew
Boynton, who sent over cows, sheep, and goats, with
two servants, and purposed to bring a great family.

One Mr. Jessup was the clerk of the patentees.
The Warwick patent was simply a deed of feoffment
of certain lands. It did not purport to convey any
powers of government nor to create the patentees a
corporation ; it was not in the power of the Earl ot
Warwick to do either. The grantees were simply
joint tenants of the lands conveyed. As such they

* It is not unlikely that Saltonstall's representation of the
fruitfulness of the Connecticut valley had considerable to do with
the grant by the Earl of Warwick. Brodhead's History of the
State of New York, i, 211.

3 Quite doubtful.

[10]

acted when six of them July 7, 1635, in their own
names and in the name of the rest of the company,
concluded certain articles with John Winthrop the
younger. So they did when on the 18th of the same
month five of them, in their own names and in the
name of the right honorable Viscount Saye and Sele,
Robert, Lord Brooke, and the rest of their company,
commissioned Winthrop as governor of the river Con-
necticut with the places adjoining thereto for the space
of one whole year. There was no recital of a vote for
the purpose, nor was there affixed a common seal, but
only their five individual seals impressed on one large
piece of wax.

In the year 1635 the attention of many was
turned to New England, and the Warwick grantees
took steps to colonize their territory. The first
attempt was by Sir Richard Saltonstall, who sent over
a bark of forty tons, the Christian (or Christopher), of
London, John White master, with twenty servants
under the superintendence of Francis Stiles.'^ The
ship sailed the latter part of March, and arrived at
Boston June 16, 1635. After a stay of about ten
days there. Stiles and his men sailed for what is now
Windsor, where they were to impale 2,000 acres for
Sir Richard, but they were interfered with by Mr.
Ludlow and others from Dorchester, who were pur-

4 Their names may be seen in Massachusetts Historical Society
Collections, 2d Series, viii, 252, or Drake's Founders oj New Eng-
land, 14.

[ 11 ]

posing to make a settlement. Stiles returned to Eng-
land to report. In July Bamabas Davis sailed in the
Blessing for Boston, whence a few days after his arri-
val he came on foot to Connecticut as agent for Wil-
liam Woodcock, for whom Stiles was to impale 400
acres and build a house. Finding Stiles gone Davis
also returned to England with letters from Mr.
Hooker to Lord Saye and to Mr. Woodcock.

The following Articles were made between the
Right Honorable the Lord Viscount Saye and Sele,
Sir Arthur Haselrig, Baronet, Sir Richard Saltonstall,
Knight, Henry Lawrence, Henry Darley, and George
Fenwick, Esquires, on the one part, and John Win-
throp, Esq., the younger, of the other, the 7 July,

1635-

First, That we, in our names and the rest of the

company, do by these presents appoint John Win-
throp the younger Governor of the river Connecti-
cut in New England, and of the harbor and places
adjoining, for the space of one year from his arrival
there. And the said John Winthrop doth undertake
and covenant for his part, that he will with all con-
venient speed repair to those places and there abide as
aforesaid for the best advancement of the company's
service.

Secondly, That so soon as he comes to the Bay he
shall endeavor to provide able men, to the number of
fifty at the least, for making of fortifications and
building of houses at the river Connecticut and the

[ 12 ]

harbor adjoining : first for their own present accom-
modations, and then such houses as may receive men
of quahty ; which latter houses we would have to be
builded within the fort.

Thirdly, That he shall employ those men, accord-
ing to his best ability, for the advancement of the
company's service, especially in the particulars above
mentioned, during the time of his government ; and
shall also give a true and just account of all the mon-
ies and goods committed to his managing.

Fourthly, That for such as shall plant there now
in the beginning, he shall take care that they plant
themselves either at the harbor or near the mouth of
the river, that these places may be the better strength-
ened for their own safety ; and to that end that they
also set down in such bodies together as they may be
most capable of an entrenchment : provided that there
be reserved unto the fort for the maintenance of it,
one thousand or fifteen hundred acres, at least, of
good ground as near adjoining thereunto as may be.

Fifthly, That forasmuch as the service will take
him off from his own employment, the company do
engage themselves to give him a just and due consid-
eration for the same.

In the same summer of 1635, Lion Gardiner, engi-
neer and master of works of fortification in the legers
of the Prince of Orange in the Low Countries, through
the persuasion of Mr. John Davenport, Mr. Hugh
Peters, with some other well affected Englishmen of

[ '3]

Rotterdam, made an agreement with the forenamed
Mr. Peters for ^loo per annum for four years, to
serve the company of patentees, namely the Lord Saye,
the Lord Brooke, Sir Arthur Haselrig, Sir Matthew
Boynton, Sir Richard Saltonstall, Esquire Fenwick,
and the rest of their company. He was to serve
them only in the drawing, ordering, and making of a
city, towns, or forts of defence.

Sergeant Gardiner came from Holland to London,
and thence to New England in the Bacheler, a small
north-sea boat of twenty-five tons. With him came
his wife Mary, their maid servant Eliza Coles, and
William Job or Jope, his master workman. Except
the master and crew, eight in all, there were no other
passengers. The vessel brought provisions, iron work,
and other things useful for the contemplated fortifica-
tion ; she arrived at Boston November 28, 1635'.

In October preceding, in the Abigail, came John
Winthrop the younger with his commission as gov-
ernor, men and ammunition, and ^2,000 in money,
to begin a plantation at the mouth of the Connecticut.
With him also came Hugh Peter and either in the
same ship or in the Defence which arrived about the
same time, Henry Vane. Before the arrival of Gar-
diner, Winthrop had sent a bark of 30 tons and about
twenty men, carpenters and other workmen under
command of Lieutenant Gibbons and Sergeant Wil-
lard, with all needful provisions, to take possession
and to begin some buildings. They were none too

[ H]

early, for the Dutch about this time sent a sloop to
seize the river's mouth, to which they pretended some
claim, but were not suffered to land.

The Dutch had in 1633 established a small fort at
Hartford which they continued to hold for about 20
years, and they challenged the territory to the west
bank of the Connecticut as a part of New Nether-
lands, though the English repudiated their preten-
sions. Our ancestors were Englishmen and settling
where they did had no idea of changing their allegi-
ance. In 1641, Sir William Boswell, the British resi-
dent at the Hague, had advised that the English at
Connecticut should " not forbear to put forward their
plantations and crowd on, crowding the Dutch out of
those places," and this policy was pursued from the
first settlement here.

In the summer and autumn of 1635, a number of
persons from Dorchester and some other places in
Massachusetts began settlements in Windsor, Hart-
ford, and Wethersfield. They were attracted by the
superior fertility of the lands in the valley of the Con-
necticut, and the milder climate. They did not come
hither under the encouragement of the patentees but
were rather intruders upon their territory, and to them
the agents of the patentees addressed this letter :

Dear Friends : Whereas there is a patent lately
granted to certain persons of quality (friends to New
England) of the River of Connecticut with the places
adjoining, together with liberties and prerogatives as

[ 15]

in such cases are usual, so that, by virtue thereof, they
conceive they have full power, right and authority, to
govern and dispose of all persons and affairs that shall
fall within the circuit and limits of the said grant : it
is therefore conceived requisite, by the agents of the
said patentees now present in New England, to lay
forth the claims and rights of the said personages to
such as here in New England it may concem : to the
end, if any thoughts or designs of others have been
heretofore, or may be hereafter, prejudicial or injuri-
ous to the right or possessions of the said patentees,
they may so far take notice of the same as, whatever
hath happened in the by past, or may befall for the
future, any way derogating from the former claims,
may seasonably meet with a loving and friendly pre-
vention; at least, every one that seems to be inter-
ested herein may declare and give reasons of their
titles and pretensions thereto, that so, in so weighty
an enterprise, the business may be carried to an end
with order, justice, peace, and joint power and strength
for the accomplishing of the same and fruition of it
with blessing and love.

Upon consideration of the premises we conceive
that the present face of affairs of Connecticut, as it
now appears, will admit or require a punctual and
plain answer to these necessary queries from the towns
that are lately removed from the Massachusetts Bay
to take up plantation within the limits of the fore-
said patent.

[ 16]

Imprimis, whether they do acknowledge the right
and claims of the said persons of quality, and in testi-
mony thereof will and do submit to the counsel and
direction of their present governor, Mr. John Win-
throp the younger, established by commission from
them in those parts.

Secondly, under what right and pretence they
have lately taken up their plantations within the pre-
cincts forementioned, and what government they
intend to live under, because the said country is out
of the claim of the Massachusetts patent.

Item, what answer and reasons we may return to
the said patentees, if the said towns intend to intrench
upon their rights and privileges and justify the same.

These things we tender to you as our truly re-
spected brethren, and do desire you earnestly to take
them into your serious and Christian consideration,
with as much secrecy as may be, so that we may re-
ceive your speedy and loving resolutions, that, by the
present opportunities which now present themselves
for returning your answers into England, we discharge
our trust, which we have lately been put in mind of.
And thus we commend you to the guidance and pro-
tection of our good God, and remain, your loving
friends, H. Vane Jun.

John Winthrop,
Hugh Peter.

To our loving and much respected friends, Mr.
Ludlow, Mr. Maverick, Mr. Newberry, Mr. Stough-

[ 17 J

ton, and the rest of our friends engaged in the busi-
ness of Connecticut plantations in the town of Dor-
chester.

The letter seems to have been thus addressed
because the company which came to Windsor was
the most numerous of those which came to the three
river towns in 1635, or because they had interfered
with the lands which one of the patentees was propos-
ing to take up, or because Mr. Ludlow was the most
prominent person engaged in the enterprise of plant-
ing these towns.

Sir Richard Saltonstall wrote to the younger Win-
throp a letter expressing his dissatisfaction with the
wrong done to him through Francis Stiles by the Dor-
chester men, and Lord Saye wrote Governor Winthrop
of Massachusetts expressing his opinion that those up
the river had carved largely for themselves, which he
thought they would after repent when they saw what
helps they had deprived themselves of Lord Brooke
also wrote to him on the subject.

The Warwick patent being, as has already been
said, only a conveyance of land and not an instru-
ment of government: as government of some kind
was a matter of necessity, and as those already gone
to Connecticut were but a small part of those propos-
ing to do so in the then coming summer: in conse-
quence of the letter before cited and a conference of
Mr. Vane and the other agents of the patentees with
the magistrates of Massachusetts and the intending

[ i8]

emigrants, the General Court of Massachusetts at
their session March 3, 1636, issued this commission : ^
Whereas upon some reason and grounds, there are
to remove from this our commonwealth and body of
the Massachusetts in America divers of our loving
friends, neighbors, freemen, and members of New-
town, Dorchester, Watertown, and other places, who
are resolved to transplant themselves and their estates
unto the river of Connecticut, there to reside and
inhabit, and to that end divers are there already and
divers others shortly to go : we in this present court
assembled, on the behalf of our said members, and
John Winthrop, jun., Esq., govemor appointed by
certain noble personages and men of quality interested
in the said river, which are yet in England, on their
behalf, have had a serious consideration thereon, and
think it meet that where there are a people to sit
down and cohabit there will follow, upon occasion,
some cause of difference, as also divers misdemeanors,
which will require a speedy redress : and in regard of
the distance of place this state and government can-
not take notice of the same as to apply timely rem-
edy or to dispense equal justice to them and their
affairs as may be desired ; and in regard the said noble
personages and men of quality have something en-
gaged themselves and their estates in the planting of
the said river, and by virtue of a patent do require
jurisdiction of the said place and people, and neither

s Records of the Massachusetts Bay, 1, 170.

[ >9]

the minds of the said personages (they being writ
unto) are as yet known, nor any manner of govem-
ment is yet agreed on, and there being a necessity, as
aforesaid, that some present govemment may be ob-
served ; we therefore think it meet, and so order, that
Roger Ludlow, Esq., William Pynchon, Esq., John
Steel, William Swaine, Henry Smith, William
Phelps, William Westwood, and Andrew Ward, or
the greater part of them, shall have full power and
authority, to hear and determine in a judicial way, by
witnesses upon oath examine, within the said planta-
tion, all those differences which may arise between
party and party, as also, upon misdemeanor to inflict
corporal punishment or imprisonment, to fine and
levy the same if occasion so require, to make and
decree such orders, for the present, that may be for
the peaceable and quiet ordering the affairs of the said
plantation, both in trading, planting, building, lots,
military discipline, defensive war (if need so require),
as shall best conduce to the public good of the same,
and that the said Roger Ludlow, William Pynchon,
John Steele, William Swaine, Henry Smith, William
Phelps, William Westwood, Andrew Warner, or the
greater part of them, shall have power, under the
greater part of their hands, at a day or days by them
appointed, upon convenient notice, to convene the
said inhabitants of the said towns to any convenient
place that they shall think meet, in a legal and open
manner, by way of court, to proceed in executing the

[20]

power and authority aforesaid ; and in case of present
necessity, two of them joining together, to inflict
corporal punishment upon any offender if they see
good and warrantable ground so to do. Provided
always, that this commission shall not extend any
longer time than one whole year from the date thereof,
and in the meantime it shall be lawful for this court
to recall the said presents if they see cause, and if so
be there may be a mutual and settled government
condescended unto by and with the good liking and
consent of the said noble personages, or their agent,
the inhabitants, and this commonwealth; provided
also, that this may not be any prejudice to the interest
of those noble personages in the said river and con-
fines thereof within their several limits.

Although Massachusetts had no right to exercise
powers of govemment outside the limits of her pat-
ent, this commission was readily submitted to,
because the then inhabitants of Connecticut, being
but few in number, were not yet in a capacity to erect
a form of government for themselves ; which if they
had done, in strictness of law it would have been no
more a legal govemment than the commission, since
it was not derived from the crown, the fountain of
power and only source of jurisdiction.

The first court under this commission was held at
Hartford April 26, 1636, and the first business re-
corded relates to a complaint that Henry Stiles or
some of the servants of Sir Richard Saltonstall had
traded a gun with the Indians for corn.

[ 21 ]

The names of William Pynchon and Henry
Smith, of Springfield, are found in the commission,
for that town was at first regarded as within the lim-
its of the Connecticut patent. We are not now con-
cerned with the causes of its secession or with the
bounds claimed by the patentees, remarking only
that in October 1639, Fenwick, as their agent, wrote
to Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts, that what-
soever was concluded between that colony and the
towns above (that is, Springfield, Windsor, Hartford,
and Wethersfield), about bounds, without the patent-
ees, he should account invalid and must protest
against.

Saybrook was not under the government estab-
Hshed by the commission, nor did the younger Win-
throp during the few months he remained there as
governor apparently attempt to exercise any authority
outside the limits of that plantation. All the build-
ings within Saybrook fort were destroyed by a fire in
the winter of 1647-8 in which the early records
are supposed to have perished. Saybrook seems to
have been an independent community until about the
time of the confederation of the United Colonies in
1643. However, before 1639 it had a very small
population, few, if any, of its inhabitants not being in
the service of the company or connected with the
fort.^

In May 1636, Fenwick came over. About the

6 Very likely its population, all told, did not exceed 50.

[22 ]

first of July^ he set out on horseback with Hugh Pe-
ters for the upper towns on the riv^er and thence by
water to Saybrook. By him Vane wrote to the
younger Winthrop that, having been chosen governor
of Massachusetts and Mr. Fenwick having come into
the country, he should no ways interest himself in the
matters of Connecticut any further than as a pubUc
person of Massachusetts. Winthrop, whose wife had
not accompanied him to Saybrook, probably finally
left that place with Fenwick, who returned to Eng-
land in the autumn of that year. Lion Gardiner then
had charge of the fort, and he wrote to Winthrop :
" It seems that we have neither masters nor owners,
but are left like so many servants whose masters are
willing to be quit of them." Indeed, the patentees
were discouraged. The restrictions placed by the
government upon emigration had prevented the send-
ing of so many men as had been contemplated, and
the plague visiting London in the summer of 1636
scattered those interested into several parts, so that
moneys did not come in to enable Mr. Hopkins, who
managed that business, to send further supplies, I
suppose nothing was sent by the patentees after the
summer of 1636. The Pequot war soon followed,
and the little band at Saybrook felt their weakness
and isolation, so that John Higginson, the chaplain

7 June, Winthrop's History of New England, Savage's edition,
1, 470 ; July 1, Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 3d
Series, vi, 582.

[23]

there, out of the bitterness of his heart at their appar-
ent desertion, wrote to the elder Winthrop, " O that
the heavy curse of Meroz may never fall upon any of
the lords."

That the party which came to Connecticut with
Hooker in the summer of 1636 did so under the en-
couragement of the patentees can admit, as I think,
of no doubt. Hooker corresponded with Lord Saye
and Sele, and Sir Richard Saltonstall had proposed to
build at Hartford and join with Mr. Hooker, who, as
he knew, was intending to remove thither.

Two of the patentees. Lord Saye and Sele and Sir
Richard Saltonstall, in 1642, showed their interest in
the colony by the complaints which they made to the
Dutch ambassador at London of molestations and in-
solences suffered by the English on the Connecticut
from the Dutch. The Earl of Warwick did the same. '
The letter from Connecticut to Lord Saye and Sele of
June, 1661, expressly refers to the former encourage-
ments that our fathers and some of their then surviv-
ing associates received from his honor to transplant
themselves and families into these inland parts of this
vast wilderness, where his honor was interested by
virtue of patent power and authority.

How the people of the three towns up the river
were governed the first year has been shown. After
the expiration of the commission there appears on the

^Documents relative to the Colonial History of New York, 1,
127, 128, 135.
4

[ 24]

records a new form of government called the General
Court. Hitherto only the magistrates named in the
commission had held the courts, but now, besides the
magistrates, were present Committees or deputies from
the several towns. The first of these general courts
was held at Hartford May i, 1637. Just how this
was brought about is not so clear as is the fact that
the govemment of those towns continued, as it had
been from the beginning, a federated govemment;
they were never in a state of independence one of an-
other. On the 14th of January, 1639, the inhabitants
and residents of the three towns established for them-
selves a Constitution or form of govemment well
adapted to their circumstances, under which they, with
the towns afterward settled under combination with
them, continued to live until, in 1662, they received
from the crown a charter by which they were recog-
nized a govemment in law as well as in fact.

So, too, those who settled New Haven in 1638
did it with the knowledge and assent of the patentees.
We have already seen that Davenport was one of those
by whose persuasion Gardiner entered into the service
of the company. He was also a friend of Lord Saye
and Sele. Hopkins, who in behalf of the patentees
sent supplies to Saybrook, had married a daughter of
Eaton's wife and came to America with Davenport
and Eaton, although he himself took up his residence
at Hartford. Guilford assuredly was settled with the
knowledge, at least, of the patentees, for the first plant-

[25]

ers of that town came over with Fenwick on his sec-
ond visit in 1639. Guilford, though proposing to set-
tle in the southerly part of New England about Quin-
nipiack, owed no allegiance to New Haven; neither
did Milford. Those three towns were all on an equal
footing: neither had authority over another; each es-
tablished a government for itself and maintained a sep-
arate and independent existence until 1643. They
had not been associated together before their emigra-
tion, nor were they settled simultaneously, like the
river towns. The leaders of New Haven were Lon-
doners and wished to found a city for trade ; the set-
tlers of Guilford and Milford were agriculturists and
they chose lands which were better adapted for hus-
bandry than was that of New Haven. In the juris-
diction of New Haven the organization of the towns
preceded that of the colony, which, as we have seen,
was not the case in Connecticut. '

On the eve of the projected planting of Connecti-
cut Lord Saye, Lord Brooke, and other persons of
quality submitted to Massachusetts certain proposals
as conditions of their removing to New England,
which are subjoined with the answers thereto :

Demand 1 . That the commonwealth should con-
sist of two distinct ranks of men, whereof the one

9 The supreme court of this state in Webster v. Harwinton,
34 Connecticut Reports, 131, held that towns have no original or
inherent power. But the court did not take into account anything
prior to the constitution of 1639.

[26]

should be, for them and their heirs, gentlemen of the
country, the other for them and their heirs, freeholders.

Answer. Two distinct ranks we willingly ac-
knowledge, from the light of nature and scripture :
the one of them called Princes or Nobles, or Elders
(amongst whom gentlemen have their place), the other
the people. Hereditary dignity or honors we willingly
allow to the former, unless, by the scandalous and base
conversation of any of them, they become degenerate.
Hereditary liberty, or estate of freemen, we willingly
allow to the other, unless they also, by some unworthy
and slavish carriage, do disfranchise themselves.

Dem. 2. That in these gentlemen and freeholders,
assembled together, the chief power of the common-
wealth shall be placed, both for making and repealing
laws.

Ans. So it is with us.

Dem. 3. That each of these two ranks should,
in all public assemblies, have a negative voice, so as
without a mutual consent nothing should be estab-
lished.

Ans. So it is agreed among us.

Dem. 4. That the first rank, consisting of gentle-
men, should have power, for them and their heirs, to
come to the parliaments or public assemblies, and
there to give their free votes personally; the second
rank of freeholders should have the same power for
them and their heirs of meeting and voting, but by
their deputies.

[ 27]

Ans. Thus far this demand is practiced among
us. The freemen meet and vote by their deputies;
the other rank give their votes personally, only with
this difference, there be no more of the gentlemen that
give their votes personally but such as are chosen to
places of office, either governors, deputy governors,
councellors, or assistants. All gentlemen in England
have not that honor to meet and vote personally in
parliament, much less all their heirs. But of this more
fully, in answer to the ninth and tenth demand.

Dem. 5. That for facilitating and dispatch of
business, and other reasons, the gentlemen and free-
holders should sit and hold their meetings in two dis-
tinct houses.

Ans. We willingly approve the motion, only as
yet it is not so practiced among us, but in time the
variety and discrepancy of sundry occurrences will put
them upon a necessity of sitting apart.

Dem. 6. That there shall be set times for these
meetings, annually or half yearly, as shall be thought
fit by common consent, which meetings should have
a set time for their continuance, but should be ad-
journed or broken off at the discretion of both houses.

Ans. Public meetings, in general courts, are by
charter appointed to be quarterly, which, in this in-
fancy of the colony, wherein many things frequently
occur which need settling, hath been of good use, but
when things are more fully settled in due order, it is
likely that yearly or half yearly meetings will be suf-

[28]

ficient. For the continuance or breaking up of these
courts, nothing is done but with the joint consent of
both branches.

Dem. 7. That it shall be in the power of this
parliament, thus constituted and assembled, to call the
governor and all public officers to account, to create
new officers, and to determine them already set up ;
and, the better to stop the way to insolence and am-
bition, it may be ordered that all offices and fees of
office shall, every parliament, determine, unless they
be new confirmed the last day of every session.

Ans. This power to call governors and all officers
to account, and to create new and determine the old, is
settled already in the general court or parliament, only
it is not put forth but once in the year, viz., at the
great and general court in May, when the governor is
chosen.

Dem. 8. That the governor shall ever be chosen
out of the rank of gentlemen.

Ans. We never practice otherwise, choosing the
governor either out of the assistants, which is our
ordinary course, or out of approved known gentlemen,
as this year Mr. Vane. '°

Dem. 9. That, for the present, the Right Honor-
able the Lord Viscount Say and Scale, the Lord Brook,
who have already been at great disbursements for the
public works in New England, and such other gentle-
men of approved sincerity and worth as they, before

^''1636.

[29]

their personal remove, shall take into their number,
should be admitted, for them and their heirs, gentle-
men of the country. But for the future, none shall be
admitted into this rank but by the consent of both
houses.

Ans. The great disbursements of those noble
personages and worthy gentlemen we thankfully ac-
knowledge, because the safety and presence of our
brethren at Connecticut is no small blessing and com-
fort to us. But, though that charge had never been
disbursed, the worth of the honorable persons named
is so well known to all, and our need of such supports
and guides is so sensible to ourselves, that we do not
doubt the country would thankfully accept it, as a
singular favor from God and from them, if he should
bow their hearts to come into this wilderness and help
us. As for accepting them and their heirs into the
number of gentlemen of the country, the custom of
this country is, and readily would be, to receive and
acknowledge, not only all such eminent persons as
themselves and the gentlemen they speak of, but oth-
ers of meaner estate, so be it is of some eminency, to
be for them and their heirs, gentlemen of the country.
Only, thus standeth our case: Though we receive
them with honor and allow them preeminence and
accommodations according to their condition, yet we
do not, ordinarily, call them forth to the power of
election, or administration of magistracy, until they
be received as members into some of our churches;

[30]

a privilege which we doubt not religious gentlemen
will willingly desire, (as David did in Psal. xxvii,
4.) and christian churches will as readily impart to
such desirable persons. Hereditary honors both nature
and scripture doth acknowledge, (Eccles. xix, 17),
but hereditary authority and power standeth only by
the civil laws of some commonwealths ; and yet, even
amongst them, the authority and power of the father
is no where communicated together with the honors
unto all his posterity. Where God blesseth any
branch of any noble or generous family with a spirit
and gifts fit for government, it would be a taking of
God's name in vain to put such a talent under a
bushel, and a sin against the honor of magistracy to
neglect such in our public elections. But if God
should not delight to furnish some of their posterity
with gifts fit for magistracy, we should expose them
rather to reproach and prejudice, and the common-
wealth with them, than exalt them to honor if we
should call them forth, when God doth not, to public
authority.

Dem. 10. That the rank of freeholders shall be
made up of such as shall have so much personal estate
there as shall be thought fit for men of that condition,
and have contributed some fit proportion to the pub-
lic charge of the country, either by their disbursements
or labors.

Ans. We must confess our ordinary practice to
be otherwise. For, excepting the old planters, i. e.

[31 ]

Mr. Humphry, who himself was admitted as an assist-
ant at London, and all of them freemen, before the
churches here were established, none are admitted
freemen of this commonwealth but such as are first
admitted members of some church or other in this
country, and, of such, none are excluded from the lib-
erty of freemen. And out of such only, I mean the
more eminent sort of such, it is that our magistrates are
chosen. Both which points we should willingly per-
suade our people to change, if we could make it
appear to them that such a change might be made
according to God ; for, to give you a true account of
the grounds of our proceedings herein, it seemeth to
them, and also to us, to be a divine ordinance (and
moral) that none should be appointed and chosen by
the people of God, magistrates over them, but men
fearing God (Ex. xviii, 21), chosen out of their
brethren (Deut. xvii, 15), saints (1 Cor. vi, 1).
Yea the apostle maketh it a shame to the church, if
it be not able to afford wise men from out of them-
selves, which shall be able to judge all civil matters
between their brethren (ver. 5). And Solomon
maketh it the joy of a commonwealth, when the
righteous are in authority, and the calamity thereof,
when the wicked bear rule. Prov. xxix, 2.

Obj. If it be said, there may be many carnal men
whom God hath invested with sundry eminent gifts
of wisdom, courage, justice, fit for government.

Ans. Such may be fit to be consulted with and
5

[32]

employed by governors, according to the quality and
use of their gifts and parts, but yet are men not fit to
be trusted with place of standing power or settled
authority. Ahithophel's wisdom may be fit to be heard
(as an oracle of God) but not fit to be trusted with
power of settled magistracy, lest he at last call for
1 2,000 men to lead them forth against David, 2 Sam.
XVII, I, 2, 3. The best gifts and parts under a
covenant of works (under which all carnal men and
hypocrites be) will at length turn aside by crooked
ways to depart from God, and, finally, to fight against
God, and are therefore, herein, opposed to good men
and upright in heart. Psal. cxxv, 4, 5.

Obj. If it be said again, that then the church
estate could not be compatible with any common-
wealth under heaven.

Ans. It is one thing for the church, or members
of the church, loyally to submit unto any form of
govemment, when it is above their calling to reform
it, another thing to choose a form of government and
governors discrepant from the rule. Now if it be a
divine truth, that none are to be trusted with public
permanent authority but godly men, who are fit ma-
terials for church fellowship, then from the same
grounds it will appear that none are so fit to be
trusted with the liberties of the commonwealth as
church members. For the liberties of the freemen of
this commonwealth are such as require men of faithful
integrity to God and the state, to preserve the same.

[33]

Their liberties, among others, are chiefly these: i, To
choose all magistrates, and to call them to account at
their general courts. 2, To choose such burgesses,
every general court, as with the magistrates shall make
or repeal all laws. Now both these liberties are such
as carry along much power with them, either to estab-
lish or subvert the commonwealth, and therewith the
church, which power, if it be committed to men not
according to their godliness, which maketh them fit
for church fellowship, but according to their wealth,
which, as such, makes them no better than worldly
men, then, in case worldly men should prove the
major part, as soon they might do, they would as
readily set over us magistrates like themselves, such
as might hate us according to the curse, Levit. xxvi,
17, and turn the edge of all authority and laws against
the church and the members thereof, the maintenance
of whose peace is the chief end which God aimed at
in the institution of magistracy. 1 Tim. 11, 1, 2.

The answers to these demands were written in
1636 by Mr. Cotton after consultation with some of
the leading men. Both are here inserted, because they
give some of the ideas upon government entertained
by the patentees, and because the general court of
Connecticut on the 27th of March, 1643, took the
following action :

The court consenteth that the former answer shall
be returned to the propositions made by the lords,
the particulars at present not coming to view ; and if

[34]

it please Mr. Fenwick to join with the plantations it
shall not infringe any of his privileges which belong
to him.

Had the particulars of the propositions come to
their view we may safely presume that the answers
given to them by the Connecticut general court would
have differed considerably from those cited above.
Confining the rank of freemen to church members
only was not consonant to the polity adopted by
Connecticut, though it was insisted on at New Haven,
and when the former absorbed the latter Davenport
wrote that in New Haven colony Christ's interest was
miserably lost. However, it may be made a question
whether it would have proved an unmixed blessing
had the patentees actually come over and settled here.

Plymouth, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New
Haven confederated together in May, 1643, under
the title of The United Colonies of New England.
The object was, to " enter into a firm and perpetual
league of friendship and amity, for offence and defence,
mutual advice and succor, upon all just occasions, both
for preserving and propagating the truth and liberties
of the gospel and for their own mutual safety and
welfare." The articles of confederation were signed
on the part of Connecticut by George Fenwick and
Edward Hopkins, thus representing also the interest
of the patentees. Mr. Fenwick, soon after his arrival
in 1639, had expressed his willingness, with reserva-
tions as to boundaries, that the colony of Connecticut

[35]

should proceed in the matter. The first movement
toward this confederation had been made by Connec-
ticut in 1638, but it proved abortive because of appre-
hension that Massachusetts was inclined to subordi-
nate the smaller colony to the larger one. However,
in 1643 the condition of public affairs seemed to indi-
cate the expediency, if not necessity, of the confeder-
ation. The combination was of more importance to
the two westem colonies, because they had no royal
charter and because the territory occupied by them
was claimed as a part of New Netherlands by the
Dutch, who still retained the small fort they had built
at Hartford. Now the third article of confederation
provided for the peculiar jurisdiction among them-
selves as one entire body of each of the confederating
colonies.

Similar reasons to those which induced the con-
federation between the colonies had shortly before
caused a combination to be entered into between
New Haven, Stamford, Guilford, and Southold on
Long Island, to which in October, 1643, Milford was
joined ; and thus was formed the Colony or Jurisdic-
tion of New Haven, The plantation of New Haven
had purchased Totoket, now Branford, but it was not
yet planted. Beyond the towns named the colony of
New Haven was circumscribed by the colony of
Connecticut, which claimed the remainder of the terri-
tory comprising the present State. Connecticut's
claim was based upon conquest and purchase from
the Indians.

[36]

When the four years for which he had engaged to
serve the company had expired Lion Gardiner re-
moved to the island he had purchased, and which
still bears his family name. In the same year, 1639,
George Fenwick came over again and resided at
Saybrook as agent for the patentees. With him
came some who settled at Saybrook. He expected
others of those interested in the patent to come and
join him the next spring. The Long Parliament,
which met in the autumn of 1640, setting upon a
general reformation both of church and state caused
all men to stay in England in expectation of a new
world. A final stop was put to emigration. After
waiting until there was no longer hope of seeing the
lords and gentlemen as planters here, and the prospect
of a rising city at the mouth of the river had van-
ished, Fenwick was willing to dispose of his interest
and return to his native country.

His relations with the colony of Connecticut had
always been friendly. In October, 1639, a few
months after his arrival, he had been put in nomina-
tion for election as a magistrate of Connecticut, pro-
vided he became a freeman. As no church was gath-
ered at Saybrook, his wife had joined that at Hartford
and presented their child for baptism. At Hartford
dwelt his friend Edward Hopkins, who from 1639
until his departure from the country was in the mag-
istracy of Connecticut, most of the time either as gov-
ernor or deputy governor. At Hartford also settled

[37]

his brother-in-law, John CuUick, and became a prom-
inent citizen

A committee consisting of Governor Hopkins,
Deputy Governor Haynes, Capt. Mason, Mr. Steele,
Mr. Gaylord, and James Boosy, was appointed by the
Connecticut general court, at the session of October
25, 1644, to treat with Mr. Fenwick concerning the
settling of the river's mouth, to know upon what
terms we stand with him in that respect, and also to
consider what they think meet to be done for matter
of fortification there, and to take the first opportunity
they could for the issuing of it, and to determine and
conclude with him as they should judge meet. By
articles agreed upon between the parties December 5,
1644, -^'"- Fenwick conveyed to the use of the juris-
diction of Connecticut the Fort at Saybrook, with
certain appurtenances mentioned, and it was also
agreed that all the land upon the river of Connecticut
should belong to the said jurisdiction of Connecticut ;
all which Mr. Fenwick engaged himself to make
good to the jurisdiction aforesaid against all claims
that might be made by any other to the premises, by
reason of any disbursements made upon the place.
This is all that Mr. Fenwick conveyed to Connec-
ticut. " He promised, indeed, that all the lands from

" If it be objected that the agreement with Fenwick was de-
fective in form, not being under seal, the answer is, that it appears
to have been satisfactory to Connecticut. Fenwick was chosen
into the magistracy in 1644 and 1645.

[38]

Narragansett River to the fort of Saybrook, men-
tioned in a patent granted by the Earl of Warwick to
certain nobles and gentlemen, should fall in under the
jurisdiction of Connecticut, if it came into his power :
a contingency which does not appear to have hap-
pened.

Here is a difficulty : Why were not " the lands
from Narragansett River to the fort at Saybrook " as
much in Fenwick's power as the lands to the west of
Connecticut River *? They were equally included in
Warwick's conveyance. Why was it that all of the
earlier settlements were made west of Connecticut
River? Doubtless physical geography was to some
extent a determinant factor, but why did Eaton's com-
pany select New Haven instead of New London,
when both places were vacant and the latter with its
magnificent harbor was quite as well, if not better
known than the former '? Pequot River was desig-
nated as a place which might be selected for fortifica-
tion by Winthrop in behalf of the patentees. Was
the decision of Eaton's company to settle where they
did influenced at all by Hamilton's claim and the
fact that the marquis was not in political sympathy
with them ?

The patent was not assigned to Connecticut. It
was not in Fenwick's power to do it. The patentees,
as we have seen, were not a corporation and so could
not by a vote authorize an agent to convey : they
were joint tenants, and the signature of each one was

[39]

necessary to transfer his interest, and it was not prac-
ticable to obtain these, the parties being numerous
and scattered. The patentees simply abandoned
their claim, leaving Connecticut in possession of the
greater part of it together with the fort, which might
be called a key to the situation.

We are told on good authority that Fenwick gave
to Connecticut the colony seal, of which the first use
known to us is of the date of October 27, 1647. ^^
may have been brought over by Fenwick in 1639,
when the lords and gentlemen were still in expecta-
tion of establishing a colony on the territory covered
by their patent.

All this time the colonies of Connecticut and New
Haven were without a charter from the king or par-
liament of England. They were only governments
de facto. In November, 1643, ^^ lords and commons
assembled in parliament passed an ordinance "whereby
Robert earl of Warwick was made Governor in
Chief and Lord High Admiral of all those islands and
plantations, inhabitated, planted, or belonging to any
of his majesty's the king of England's subjects, within
the bounds and upon the coasts of America, and a
committee appointed to be assisting unto him, for the
better governing, strengthening, and preservation of
the said plantations, but chiefly for the advancement
of the true protestant religion and further spreading
of the gospel of Christ among those that yet remain
there in great and miserable blindness and ignorance."

[40]

Among the commissioners we find the names of Lord
Saye and Sele, Sir Arthur Haselrig, Baronet, and John
Pym, who were of the Connecticut patentees. George
Fenwick was of the number in 1646. From this com-
mission Rhode Island received a patent in March,
1644. Judging the season opportune, the General
Court of New Haven colony in October, 1644, saw
cause to join with Connecticut to procure a patent
from the parliament for these parts, and for that pur-
pose desired Mr. Gregson to undertake the voyage
and business. Gregson sailed from New Haven in
January, 1646, but the ship was never heard of after
and New Haven suffered a loss from which she did
not recover for a long time. In the New Haven Case
Stated, this action of that colony is said to have been
taken " with the consent and desire of Connecticut to
concur with New Haven therein," and that the pro-
posed patent was to provide " for common privileges
to both in their distinct jurisdictions." There is noth-
ing found in the Connecticut records confirming these
statements, but in May, 1645, Governor Haynes, dep-
uty governor Hopkins, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Whiting,
and Mr. Welles were desired to agitate the business
concerning the enlargement of the liberties of the pat-
ent for this jurisdiction, which they had liberty to pro-
ceed in at such reasonable charge as they should judge
meet. In the following July it was ordered that there
should be a letter directed from the court to desire Mr.
Fenwick, if his occasions would permit, to go for Eng-

[41 ]

land to endeavor the enlargement of patent, and to fur-
ther other advantages for the country. This would
seem to have been an independent movement. How-
ever, nothing came of it. Mr. Fenwick left the coun-
try late in the autumn of 1645.

The latest appearance in this country of a copy of
the Warwick patent, before Winthrop procured one
from Mr. Hopkins' executor, was when it was pro-
duced before the commissioners of the united colonies
at their meeting at Plymouth in September, 1648, at
which time it was mentioned, as a thing not unknown,
that this patent had been lately owned by the honora-
ble committee of parliament, and equal respect and
power given to it by them within the bounds therein
mentioned as to the Massachusetts and Plymouth
within their several limits, respectively.

The news of the restoration of King Charles II.,
reached Connecticut early in August, 1660. At the
next session of the General Court, in October, the sub-
ject of addressing and petitioning the king was under
consideration, but nothing was done about it. Mas-
sachusetts had not, and Connecticut in general fol-
lowed her lead. Massachusetts did, at a special court
in December, 1660, order that addresses be made to
the king and parliament. A special session of the
Connecticut general court was called to meet at Hart-
ford February 14, 1661. On account of a severe
snowstorm, not an unusual event at that season, or for
some other reason, a quorum did not assemble to form

[42]

a court, and, therefore, there is no account of the meet-
ing to be found in the secretary's book, though it is
alluded to in the record of the session held a month
later. It was the result of the consultation of those
magistrates and deputies who did meet February 14th,
" that it is necessary for this colony to make a speedy
address to his majesty our sovereign lord Charles the
second, king of England, Scotland, France, and Ire-
land, humbly to petition his majesty for his favor and
for the continuance and confirmation of such privi-
leges and liberties as are necessary for the comfortable
settlement of this colony. They likewise resolved,
that the deputies would commend it to their several
towns, to consult and consider about what might be
necessary in way of preparation thereunto, that at the
next meeting of the general court might be consid-
ered and settled the suitable means to effect the same
in a fit and honorable way."

At subsequent sessions the general court com-
pleted arrangements for presenting a petition to the
king, and on the 7th of June, 1661, approved a draft
of Instructions to Governor Winthrop as their agent,
of which draft the following is an extract :

It is desired that you would be pleased to use all
due means to procure a copy of the patent referring to
these parts, granted unto those nobles and gentlemen
whom Mr. Fenwick did represent in his act of sale
to this colony. And in case the copy of this patent
can by no means used be obtained, then you are de-

[43]

Sired to advise with the counsel forementioned, [Lord
Saye and Sele, the Earl of Manchester, " Lord Brooke,
and others named] what to do in reference to the heirs
of Mr. Fenwick for the regaining such sums as have
been disbursed for the purchase of Jurisdiction Right.

And in case the forementioned patent can be pro-
cured, our desire is, that you would be pleased to con-
sider both what privileges, rights, and immunities are
therein granted, and to compare it with the copy of
the Bay patent ; and what is conducible in both to the
well-being and future comfort of this colony our de-
sire is may be inserted and comprehended in the pat-
ent granted and confirmed to this colony.

There was a clause in the draft which seems to
have been canceled and something else substituted.
The canceled clause read as follows :

But in case upon representation of our purchase
and moneys expended upon it the heirs of Mr.
Fenwick, or any other the patentees, do tender the
confirmation of the patent (that we conceive we
bought), we shall rest satisfied with that patent, pro-
vided it may be completed and the confirmation fin-
ished without further expense to this colony.

Now we cannot but believe that the committee

" The Earl of Manchester and Lord Saye and Sele had, in July,
1660, been appointed by the king members of a committee for
plantation affairs, and in the following December members of the
Council for Foreign Plantations. Documents relative to the Colo-
nial History of New York, iii, 3<3, 33.

[44]

which prepared these instructions was very well aware
that the Warwick deed or patent conferred, and could
confer, no power of government. Jurisdiction right
could only come from the supreme power. It does
not seem at all probable that a charter from the crown
would have been granted before a colony was settled
or immediately about to be established : it could not
be known who should be named in it as the first offi-
cers. A charter may have been drafted, however. The
New Haven Case Stated expressly says that a copy
of a patent for Connecticut had been framed before
any house was erected by the seaside from the fort to
the Dutch, which yet was not signed and sealed by
the last king (Charles I). There was an understand-
ing with Fenwick in 1645, that he should procure a
charter from the committee of parliament, which he
failed to do. Bearing these things in mind we can
better understand the instructions to Winthrop, the
expressions in various papers about the purchase of
jurisdiction right, and the reclamation from Fenwick's
heirs of money paid therefor; for it cannot be pre-
tended that the colony did not receive all that Fen-
wick purported to convey in his agreement of De-
cember 5, 1644, or that it was disturbed in the quiet
enjoyment thereof by the patentees or any of them.

The description of the tract conveyed March 19,
1632, by the Earl of Warwick to Lord Saye and Sele
and others is as follows : All that part of New Eng-
land in America which lies and extends itself from a

river there called Narraganset river the space of forty
leagues upon a straight line near the sea shore towards
the southwest, west and by south, or west, as the coast
lieth towards Virginia, accounting three English miles
to the league ; and also all and singular the lands and
hereditaments whatsoever, lying and being within the
lands aforesaid, north and south in latitude and breadth,
and in length and longitude of and within all the
breadth aforesaid, throughout the main lands there,
from the western ocean to the south sea.

About three years after, that is to say, April 2o,
1635, the Council established at Plymouth in the
county of Devon for the planting, ordering, ruling
and governing of New England, granted to James,
Marquis of Hamilton, all that portion of the main
lands of New England, beginning at the middle part
of the mouth or entrance of the river of Connecticut
in New England, from thence to proceed along the
sea coast to the Narraganset river or harbor, there to
be accounted about sixty miles, and so up the west-
ern arm of that river to the head thereof, and into the
land northwestward till sixty miles be finished, and so
to cross overland southwestwards to meet with the end
of sixty miles to be accounted from the mouth of Con-
necticut up northwest.

Now the interference of these grants is so obvious
that it is not necessary to look upon the map to dis-
cover it, and we cannot account for it by asserting the
ignorance of the grantors as to the geography of New

y

[46]

England. The grant to the Marquis of Hamilton
takes in the whole of Connecticut east of the river,
with parts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts. The
Marquis asserted his claim before the royal commis-
sioners in 1664-5. The claim was again renewed in
1683, and also in 1697, by his son the Earl of Arran.
At the last date, when the colony of Connecticut
among other things pleaded the prior grant of the Earl
of Warwick, Arran replied, according to Chalmers,
«'that when they produced a grant from the Plymouth
company to the Earl of Warwick it should have an
answer." Now, although the colony regarded itself as
the successor, by purchase, of Warwick's grantees, we
know that the patent was never formally assigned to
the colony, nor did the document itself nor even an
authenticated copy of it come into the possession of
the colony, although Mr. Hopkins, in 1649, offered to
make oath as to the truth of the copy by him pre-
sented before the commissioners of the united colonies.
It could not be expected then that the colony would
have the original deed from the Plymouth company
to Warwick. There was no privity between the
colony and the Earl. As the Plymouth company had
been dissolved more than fifty years, Arran doubtless
knew that the colony would be unable to shew the
grant from the records of that company.

So much of the records of the Plymouth Council
for New England as now remains are printed with the
Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society for

[47]

April 1867 and October 1875. It consists of tran-
scripts more or less complete from the original
records which are now lost. These extracts extend
from the last of May, 1622, to June 29, 1623, and
from November 4, 1631, to November 1, 1638.
Under date of Saturday, the last of May, 1622, is this
entry : " The patents already granted, to be confirmed,
and order is given for patents to be drawn for the earl
of Warwick and his associates, the lord Gorges, Sir
Robert Mansell, Sir Ferd. Gorges." There was pre-
sented to the king, June 29, 1623, a plot of all the
coasts and lands of New England, divided into twenty
parts ; but Connecticut does not appear upon the map
reproduced in the Proceedings of the American Anti-
quarian Society for October, 1875, as having been
allotted to any one, nor was the division then made
confirmed.

Among the Winthrop Papers is a letter from John
Humphrey,'^ afterwards one of the grantees named in
the Warwick patent, dated London, December 9,
1630, and adressed to Isaac Johnson at Charlestown
in New England, in which is this passage, "My lord
of Warwick will take a patent of that place you writ
of for himself, so we may be bold to do there as if it
were our own." From another letter written three
days later by the same to the same, printed in the
same volume, it evidently appears that the southern
part of New England was the place which both had

^3 Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 3d Series, vi, 4.

[48]

in mind. We can get no information on the subject
from the council records because of the hiatus from
June 29, 1623 to November 4, 1631. These letters
imply that, so far as the writer's knowledge extended,
the Earl of Warwick had not taken out a patent for
what is now Connecticut from the council of New
England before December 12, 1630.

The council records have this memorandum under
date of June 23, 1632: "The secretary is to bring
against the next meeting a rough draught in paper of
a patent for the E. of Warwick from the river of the
Narrigants 10 leagues westward." At a meeting on
the 26th of the same month : " The rough draught 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 Robert lord Rich and his asso-
ciates A, B. &c. 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 it did not prejudice any other patent for-
merly granted." Now this was a portion of the territory
which the Earl had in the month of March preceding
granted to Lords Saye and Sele, Brooke, Rich, and
others. Had it been for the whole of it, we might
have supposed that this last mentioned patent, — of
which we hear nothing further, — was intended as a
confirmation of title to lands which had previously
been granted informally to the Earl, and that the in-
formality of the original grant by the council was

[49]

perhaps the reason why the Earl made no mention of
the source of his title in his grant to Lord Saye and
Sele, etc.

Whoever will examine the extant record of the
I Council for New England will not fail, I think, to

come to the conclusion that its affairs were very
loosely managed and that records were not kept of all
the grants made. For the latter reason it appears to
have been that on the eve of its dissolution the coun-
cil, on the 3d of February, 1635, made new grants of
all the coast of New England from the 40th degree of
north latitude. From Hudson's River to New Haven
fell to the Duke of Lenox; from New Haven to
Connecticut River, to the Earl of Carlisle ; from Con-
necticut River to Narragansett River, to the Marquis
of Hamilton, and so on. The whole was divided,
"saving and reserving to every one that hath any
lawful grant of lands or plantations lawfully settled in
the same the free holding and enjoying of his right
with the liberties thereunto appertaining." Not only
Connecticut was thus regranted, but Massachusetts
also, which in 1628 had been granted to Roswell and
his associates and had received in 1629 a royal charter
from King Charles L The object of this division
seems to have been to cover all the territory embraced
in the great patent of New England, if any had been
ungranted or if any grants had been forfeited, so that
no portion of it should lapse to the crown. '♦

'*The grants which were made, or pretended to be made, in
1635, were the efforts of a number of the members of the council,

L5°]

It has been suggested by a late writer, '^ that the
Warwick patent might have been a pious fraud, but
it is difficult to believe that the Earl of Warwick or
Lord Saye and Sele and the rest of the nobles and
gentlemen who were his grantees, not to speak of the
Winthrops, Hooker and others, would have lent
countenance to any fraud, even a pious one, if such a
thing could be.

There are matters relating to the Warwick patent
not easy to understand, and which I cannot clear up
to entire satisfaction. Most of the difficulties are
occasioned by the loss or imperfection of records; for
some of the difficulties I hope that possible solutions
have been suggested. Upon the whole, however, I
am of the opinion that the Warwick patent or deed
was one which the Earl had a right to give and did
give. The legal presumptions are in its favor. The
Earl was certainly in a position to obtain such a grant
from the Council, of which he had been president. The
authenticity of the patent seems to have been gener-
ally admitted by those who lived at the time. With
exception of that by the Marquis of Hamilton to a
portion of the territory, we hear of no other claim on

to secure some part of the dying interest to themselves and poster-
ity, in which they all failed. Hutchinson's History of the Colony
of Massachusetts Bay, Boston, 1764, i, 314.

The great council of Plymouth had no power to transfer gov-
ernment to any. — Opinion of judges. Hutchinson's History of
the Colony oj Massachusetts Bay, i, 317.
*5 Prof Johnston.

[p ]

the part of any of the English nation. The patent
was recognized by the commissioners of the united
colonies. It seems to have been recognized by the
committee of parliament in July, 1647,'^ and after-
wards by King Charles II., who in his letter of
April 23, 1664, to the colony, speaks of "the time
when we renewed your charter." '^ The grantees
showed their faith in the patent to the extent that they
were willing to invest money in it and some of them
proposed to settle within its limits.

**Winthrop's History of New England, n, 319.
•7 Trumbull's History of Connecticut, 1, 523.

^\\\^

',902

pd

18 J

> .C,^^vP. V'

* V^^^*/ \^^'^\/ %'^^'/

^ • .<;>^^ -

"c^ ° - " Ay

"-^-0

»-i^

.Or

■^o' DOBBSBROS. ' '^^S^.' <i5 ^ "^^S^." ^ '%t. ^*^^^* \^ '

.-iv ST^GUSTINE ^ A, ♦^S^ • ^ ^ *Am/Ao '^'v.-c^

v^^.ii