USA > Maine > The beginnings of colonial Maine, 1602-1658 > Part 15
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37
1 Sabine, Report on the Principal Fisheries of the American Seas, 43. In 1623, Melshare Bennett of Barnstable, England, paid to the Plymouth Council 1616, 13s, 4d, for a fishing license for his ship Eagle, Witheridge, master. The vessel was on the coast of Maine that season. Me. Hist. Society's Coll., Series I, 5, 186, note 2.
1
1
1
151
THE FIGHT FOR FREE FISHING.
For the first time in seven years Parliament met January 16, 1621. The matter of monopoly received early attention, and, April 17 following, an act was introduced, entitled "An act for the freer liberty of fishing and fishing voyages, to be made and performed on the sea-coasts and places of Newfoundland, Virginia and New England and other coasts and parts of America".1 Dis- cussion followed April 25, and was opened by Sir Edwin Sandys. Two colonies, the northern and southern, he said, had been granted land in America. The southern colony, at an expense of one hundred thousand pounds, had established a foothold there. The northern colony had not been as successful; but it now desired to proceed in its territory known as New England, on whose coast there is fishing twice a year and far better than at Newfoundland. As the new patent of this company confers upon the patentees the sole right to fish there, the attention of the king has been called to the matter and he has stayed the delivery of the patent. By reason of the monopoly thus secured English fisher- men are denied their free fishing rights, a loss to them and to the nation ; for the privilege costs the kingdom nothing, while these fisheries give employment to men and ships and secure a profita- ble cash trade with Spain, fish being an article of food that can lawfully be carried to Spanish ports. He therefore moved "free liberty for all the king's subjects for fishing there", saying it was pitiful that Englishmen should be denied a liberty enjoyed by French and Dutch, who come and will fish there notwithstanding the company's monopoly ; and he added, "The northern company also prohibiteth timber and wood, which is of no worth there, and they take away the salt the merchants leave".
Mr. Glanvyle, continuing the debate, thought there should be some government control of the fishermen, who "spoil havens with casting out ballast", etc.
Secretary Calvert said the sub-committee had not heard the other side. The fishermen are hinderers of the plantations.
1 Journal of the House of Commons, I, 591, 592. The discussion is reported in brief as was the custom at that early period.
152
THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
"They burn a great store of wood and choke the havens", as mentioned. While he would not strain the king's prerogative against the good of the commonwealth, at the same time he did not think it fit to make laws for those countries that have not as yet been annexed to the crown.
Mr. Neale said that at least three hundred vessels had gone to Newfoundland this year out of these parts. Earlier complaints had been made to the lords of the council. Not public good but private gains were sought by the monopolists. From the time of Edward VI there had been liberty for all subjects to fish in American waters. In various ways the fishermen had been hin- dered. London merchants, by restraining trade, and imposing upon trade, undo all trade.
Mr. Guy thought the London merchants were to be commended, "howsoever their greediness in other things" was an occasion for complaint. He claimed that the king by his great seal had already done as much as could be done by the act now before the House. Provision might be made for the fishermen to secure wood and timber.
Mr. Brooks said, "We may make laws here for Virginia; for if the king consents to this bill, passed here and by the lords, such action will control the patent".
It was then voted to commit the bill to Sir Edwin Sandys for a hearing upon the matter by the burgesses of London, York and the seaport towns- "all that will come to have voice, this day seven-night exchequer chamber". So far as is known, this meet- ing was not reported ; but that it was held hardly admits of doubt, so strong was the popular feeling in the communities interested in the proposed bill.
May 24, 1621, Mr. Earle reported the bill for free fishing upon the coast of America, also amendments, which, with the bill, were twice read.1 Mr. Guy claimed that the bill pretended to make fishing free, but in fact it took this liberty away from those who had established themselves at Newfoundland. This, Mr. Neale
1 Journal of the House of Commons, I, 626.
153
THE FIGHT FOR FREE FISHING.
denied. Secretary Calvert again raised the objection that the bill was "not proper for this House, because it concerned America". The fishermen must be ruled by laws. He would have the word "unlawful" added to the word "molestation". This was done. After added discussion by Sir Edward Sandys and Sir Edward Gyles, the bill was recommitted.
Further action with reference to the bill was delayed, however, by a message received by the House of Commons from the House of Lords June 4, 1621, conveying the information that the king, under the great seal of England, had sent a commission adjourn- ing Parliament until November 14. The commission had been read and the House of Lords had adjourned. It was his majesty's pleasure, it was added, that all matters before Parliament should be left in the same state as at present. The announcement evi- dently greatly embittered the opponents of the king, and Sir Rob- ert Philips objected to the reading of the king's missive. Then, according to the journal of the House of Commons, "Mr. Speaker letteth them know that this House taketh [notice] of his majesty's pleasure, by his commission for the adjournment of Parliament, and that [the] House will adjourn itself accordingly". After proceedings expressive of indignation and even derision,1 the speaker declared the House adjourned until November 14, 1621.
Notwithstanding the strong opposition to the patent in that it gave the sole right of fishing on the American coast to the patent- ees, the privy council, November 18, passed an order delivering the patent to Sir Ferdinando Gorges, with a provision that both the northern and southern companies should have like freedom for drying nets, taking and curing fish, also wood for necessary uses ; the patent to be renewed in accordance with these premises, and the southern company to have the privilege of examining the
1 "Then Sir Edw. Coke, standing up, desired the House to say [after him] and he recited the collect for the King and his children, with some altera- tion :--
"O Almighty God, which hath promised to be"- Journal of the House of Commons, I, 639.
154
THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
patent before it was engrossed and delivered to the patentees.1
Parliament reassembled in November according to adjournment, and November 20, it being represented that Gorges had executed a patent since the recess,2 and had by letters from the lords of the council not only stayed3 the fishing vessels ready to sail but had "threatened to send out ships to beat them off from their free fish- ing", Mr. Glanvyle moved to speed the bill for free fishing on the coast of America. Sir Edward Coke also asked that the patent 4 should be laid before the committee for grievances.5
June 1, 1621, the council for New England had issued a pat- ent to John Pierce and his associates-the patent for the May- flower colonists. Furthermore, the king, influenced by Captain John Mason, who was now in London, had requested Gorges in "a gracious message" to have the council for New England con- vey the northern part of the territory he had granted to the coun- cil for New England to Sir William Alexander, which was done and it was confirmed to him by a royal charter, September 10, 1621, the territory receiving the designation Nova Scotia.7 Evi- dently it was supposed, that though the New England patent had
1 Narrative and Critical History of the United States, III, 299.
2 The reference is to the Pilgrim patent which was granted to John Pierce June 1, 1621, by the council for New England, not by Gorges. Doubtless its source was attributed to Gorges because he was so prominent in the coun- cil's affairs, and also because of his prominence in securing the patent. In this patent, the Pilgrims received "free liberty to fish in and upon the coast of New England"-a recognition of the council's monopoly. Strictly stated the patent was issued three days before the recess occurred.
3 "This was true", said Sir W. Heale; "but my lord treasurer hath given order that the ships shall go forth presently without stay". Journal of the House of Commons, I, 641.
4 The reference is to the great patent for New England.
5 Journal of the House of Commons, I, 646.
6 He had been governor of a plantation in Newfoundland. His term of office having expired, he returned to England. For an extended account of his various activities, especially later in connection with interests of Sir Ferdinando Gorges on this side of the Atlantic, see Captain John Mason, edited by John Ward Dean and published by the Prince Society, Boston, 1887. 7 Sir Ferdinando Gorges, II, 55, 56.
155
THE FIGHT FOR FREE FISHING.
passed the seals, its delivery to the council for New England had been stopped pending the consideration of the grievances it had called forth and which had been received by the House of Com- mons. The bill for free fishing was again before the House on December 1, 1621, when Mr. Guy tendered a proviso in "parch- ment", insisting that the bill took away "trade of fishing from those who are inhabitants of Newfoundland". Secretary Calvert was of the opinion that without this proviso the bill would never receive the royal assent. Mr. Sherwell and Mr. Glanvyle were opposed to the proviso and it was rejected. The bill was then passed.
On December 18, the House of Commons summoned Sir Ferdi- nando Gorges and Sir John Bowcer "to appear here the first day of the next access and to bring their patent or a copy thereof.1 Parliament then adjourned.
Until February 19, 1624, there is no record in the journal of the House of Commons after December 18, 1621. The reason is not far to seek. On that day, the members of the House, alleging that the king had threatened that body for exercising liberty of speech, entered in the journal their famous "Protestation", in which they declared "That the liberties, franchises, privileges and jurisdictions of Parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England, and that the arduous and urgent affairs concerning the king, state and defence of the realm, and of the Church of England, and the making and maintenance of laws and redress of grievances, which daily happen within this realm, are proper subjects and matter of council and debate in Parliament".2 The significance of this declaration the king clearly saw, and he answered it with a characteristic exhibition of passion. Having sent for the
1 Journal of the House of Commons, I, 668, 669. Gorges (Baxter, Sir Ferdi- nando Gorges and his Province of Maine, II, 35-43) says he appeared three times before the House of Commons concerning this free fishing matter (the second and third time with counsel), and gives quite a vivid account of the proceedings in connection with his appearance.
2 Green, Shorter History of the English People, 492, 493.
156
THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
journal, he tore out the pages1 on which the "Protestation" was recorded, saying, "I will govern according to the common weal, but not according to the common will". This, however, was not the limit of the king's exhibition of temper. Having dissolved Parliament he immediately proceeded to inflict punishment upon the most conspicuous leaders of the House of Commons. Sir Edward Coke and Sir Robert Philips were committed to the Tower, while those less conspicuous were made to feel the weight of his displeasure in other places of confinement.
But Gorges and those associated with him in the council for New England, while recognizing "these troubles" as "unfortu- nately falling out",2 still relied on the assistance of the king in maintaining their charter privileges, especially as Parliament had been dissolved, and they no longer felt the restraints of popular feeling manifested in the House of Commons. Meanwhile, how- ever, without securing license from the council, fishermen were taking fish as formerly in the waters in the vicinity of Monhegan and Damariscove; and the council adopted measures for bringing "these troubles", if possible, to an end. Robert Gorges,3 a younger son of Sir Ferdinando, was sent over to New England as governor and lieutenant general of the territory conveyed to them by their patent; and hither, also, came Captain Francis West,
1 "The Commons put themselves on their strongest ground, when they entered in the journals of the House a just and sober protestation of their privilege to speak freely on all subjects. James put himself as much as pos- sible in the wrong when he sent for the book and tore out the page with his own hand". Trevelyan, England under the Stuarts, 127.
2 Baxter, Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of Maine, I, 225.
8 He brought with him a patent from the council for New England, granted November 3, 1622 for "all that part of the main land in New Eng- land aforesaid, commonly called or known by the name of Messachusiack [Massachusetts ] . for ten miles in a straight line towards the north-
east and thirty English miles unto the main land . to be executed according to the great charter of England and such laws as shall hereafter be established by public authority of the state assembled in Parliament in New England". Baxter, Sir Ferdinando Gorges, II, 51-54. The return of Robert Gorges to England, after a brief stay, led to the abandonment of this patent.
157
THE FIGHT FOR FREE FISHING.
who was made admiral of New England, and Rev. William Mor- rell, who was to superintend the establishment of churches in New England in connection with the Church of England. Brad- ford1 says West preceded Gorges, arriving at the end of June, 1623, while Governor Gorges reached the coast in the middle of September.2 West had authority "to restrain interlopers, and such fishing ships as come 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".3 Unable to accomplish anything, therefore, West4 made his way back to England not long after, as also did Gorges, "having scarcely saluted the country in his government", says Bradford, "not finding the state of things here to answer to his quality and condition". 5
King James' fourth Parliament assembled February 19, 1624. March 15 following, "An act for the freer liberty of fishing", pre- viously introduced,6 was committed to a large committee on griev- ances, of which Sir Edward Coke was chairman. Two days later the committee reported that it had condemned one grievance, namely, that occasioned by Sir Ferdinando Gorges' patent. 8 Coun-
1 Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation, 178.
2 Bradford, Ib., 169.
3 Ib., 169, 170.
+ West accompanied Newport to Virginia in 1608, and was elected a mem- ber of the council in the following year. He was commander at Jamestown many years. Having returned to England, he received the appointment that brought him to New England in 1623. After he returned to England, he again went to Virginia, where he was elected governor in 1627, and was continued in office until March 5, 1627. He is not mentioned in Virginia records after February, 1633. A Colonel Francis West was lieutenant of the Tower in London in 1645, and he may be the one to whom reference is here made. Brown, Genesis of the United States, II, 1047.
5 Bradford, History, 184.
6 The bill, passed by the House of Commons, December 1, 1621, was not acted upon by the House of Lords and so failed.
7 Journal of the House of Commons, I, 688.
8 Here, also, the reference is to the great patent for New England. See Journal of the House of Commons, I, 738.
158
THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
sel for Gorges were heard. As to the clause in the patent, dated November 3, 1620, that no subject of England shall visit the coast upon pain of forfeiture of the ship and goods,1 the patentees had yielded ; the English fishermen were not to be interrupted, and were to have the privilege of drying their nets, salting their fish, and of whatever was "incident to their fishing", including necessary wood and timber.
That the council for New England had yielded, however, did not satisfy its opponents in the House of Commons. They wished by higher authority to make void the objectionable clauses in the patent. When, therefore, the bill came up for final action in the House, May 3, 1624, Sir Edward Coke maintained in the debate that the part of the patent forbidding free fishing should be con- demned ; that it made "a monopoly upon the sea which [was] wont to be free, that it was a monopoly attempted of the wind and sun by the sole packing and drying of fish". Secretary Cal- vert said that "free fishing, prayed for by this bill, overthrows all plantations in those countries". In other words, it was of no advantage for the patentee to hold lands on the New England coast unless the fishing rights in the adjoining coast waters were his. All opposition, however, proved unavailing. At the close of the debate, the amendments proposed by the opponents of the bill were rejected and the bill was passed.2
Evidently it was not expected by the members of the House of Commons that the Lords would sustain this action, or take any notice of it; and on May 28, 1624, the House addressed a letter to the king calling his attention to the grievances they had sustained, and its source in the king's patent of November 3, 1620, whereby all his subjects visiting that part of the coast of New England to which English fishing vessels were wont to resort were forbidden to fish without a license from the patentees on penalty of a for- feiture of ship and goods. The trade of fishing, the Commons maintained, was a most beneficial one for the realm. Shipping
1 Farnham Papers, I, 37.
2 Journal of the House of Commons, I, 795.
159
THE FIGHT FOR FREE FISHING.
thereby was enlarged; there was an increase in the number of seamen, and the commerce of the kingdom was more widely extended ; furthermore, the council had agreed to relinquish the monopoly which the great patent created, and of which complaint had been made. It was asked, therefore, that the king would be pleased to declare the patent, so far as free fishing was forbidden, also the incidents thereunto, including the confiscation of ships and goods, together with the restraints and penalties that followed, "void and against your laws and never hereafter to be put in exe- cution".1
If James I paid any attention to this address, there is no known record of the fact. The king evidently was not in a mood for any such action on his part. He could not, or would not, read the handwriting on the wall. But Gorges and his associates in the council for New England kept their promise to the House of Com- mons ; and the English fishermen in the vicinity of Monhegan were allowed to continue their labors unmolested. The battle in their interest had been won, and not only had the voice of the people been heard in the voice of the House of Commons, but it had been recognized and heeded. Both were voices that were soon to become more and more insistent, and with reference to larger popular demands.
1 I. S. P. Domestic, James I, Vol. CLXV, 53, Public Records Office, Lon- don. This document has received no attention from English historians. It has this title: "Address of the House of Commons, presenting the grievances of which they request redress, viz. : I. Sir Ferd. Gorges' patent for sole fishing on the coasts of New England, May 28, 1624. Against a patent restraining fishing on the sea coast of New England." On the back of the leaf are the words, "The petition to the king to moderate Sir Ferdi- nando Gorges' patent". Plainly it was the denial that fishing is free that made the fishing grievance the most prominent of all the grievances to which the House of Commons directed attention.
CHAPTER X.
VARIOUS SCHEMES AND LEVETT'S EXPLORATIONS.
N
ATURALLY during this battle royal for free fishing, the council for New England, notwithstanding its new char- ter privileges, was not making any progress in establish- ing settlements upon the Maine coast. In fact, as has already appeared, the affairs of the council were in a very languishing condition. Its members, or, more accurately, some of its mem- bers, including Gorges, were still considering plans for obtaining funds with which to advance colony planting ; but their schemes1 were not received with favor. Indeed, while they were being put forth, "and likely to have taken a good foundation", says the council, "the news of the Parliament flew to all parts, and then the most factious of every place presently combined themselves to follow the business in Parliament, where they presumed to prove the same to be a monopoly, and much tending to the prejudice of the common good".2
One of these schemes had reference to a settlement forty miles square, "the most convenient upon the river Sagadahoc", to be called the "State County", the city and county to be equally divided amongst the patentees, who shall cast lots for their sev- eral shares".3 It was evidently a dream of Gorges, of which the reader will be reminded at a later period in Sir Ferdinando's for- tunes, when, upon the foundation of Agamenticus, he sought to rear the elaborate structure of Gorgeana. The "State County" on the Kennebec was a dream and a dream only.
1 Baxter, Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of Maine, I, 222, 223.
2 Ib., I, 224.
3 Records of the Council for New England in Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, April 24, 1867, 84, 85. "As for the name of the city, the council will be humble petitioners unto the king's majesty to give the same."
S
S S
t
1
t
I
161
VARIOUS SCHEMES AND LEVETT'S EXPLORATIONS.
Indeed, up to this time, 1622, there is no evidence whatever that English settlers had gained a single foothold on any part of what is now the coast of Maine. Extravagant claims have been made, especially in behalf of Pemaquid, but an examination of these claims reveals their worthlessness. They have been well summarized in these words : "It is alleged that Englishmen made seizure of its [Pemaquid] soil, and introduced colonial life a dozen years anterior to the patent of John Pierce [1621]. By rare power of vision a ship was seen to enter St. John's bay; a withered colony was landed, planted, and so nursed and guarded as to maintain life. Errant fancy on wings of theory, gathering dismembered facts, has built up a showy fabric, though unsub- stantial.'' 1
In support of this claim of an early settlement at Pemaquid it is said that there were "granaries" there, and accordingly settlers, from whom the Pilgrims received supplies in a time of food dis- tress. The reference is to the conditions at Plymouth in 1622. The Pilgrims were in need, and their pressing necessities were met, but not from "granaries" at Pemaquid. Both Bradford and Winslow tell the story, the latter in greater fulness as he was the one who secured the supplies that relieved the distress of the Pil- grims. "It was about the end of May, 1622", he writes, "at which time our store of victuals was wholly spent, having lived long before with a bare and short allowance". In this exigency it was suggested to the sufferers that help might be received from the fishing vessels at the eastward ; and at the request of the gov- ernor, Winslow proceeded thither, finding at Damariscove island, near Monhegan, "above thirty sail of ships". From the masters of these English fishing vessels Winslow received kind entertain- ment, he says, and generous food supplies. Payment for these the masters declined, doing "what they could freely, wishing their store had been such as they might in greater measure have expressed their own love, and supplied our necessities ; for which they sorrowed, provoking one another to the utmost of their abili- 1 Thayer, Me. Hist. Society's Coll., Series II, 6, 64, 65.
11
162
THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
ties, which, although it was not much amongst so many a people as were at the plantation, yet through the provident and discreet care of the governor recovered and preserved strength till our own crop on the ground was ready."1 In this narrative of the trans- action, by the principal character in it, there is no mention of Pemaquid. In fact there was at that time no English settlement at Pemaquid, and therefore no "granaries", or anything else indicating English occupation. The supplies Winslow received came from England, in English fishing vessels, as the narrative clearly shows, and the masters of those vessels should not be robbed of the beautiful tribute that Winslow gratefully, lovingly pays to them.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.