USA > Maine > The beginnings of colonial Maine, 1602-1658 > Part 34
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
But Massachusetts now was by far the dominant power in New England, and her able representatives in England had the ear of those most influential in national governmental relations. John Gorges, son and heir of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, and Edward Rigby, son and heir of Baron Rigby, found themselves powerless to render Godfrey, Cleeve and others any assistance in their efforts to resist the asserted claims of Massachusetts. Moreover, conditions in the Province of Maine and the Province of Lygonia were unfavorable to growth and good order. Further opposition, accordingly, seemed to offer no hope of success, and at length, in the interest of peace and orderly government, opposition ceased.
1 Baxter, George Cleeve, Collateral Documents, 294, 295.
24
CHAPTER XXII.
THE JURISDICTION OF MASSACHUSETTS ACCEPTED.
T HE members of the general court of Massachusetts, in their search for the northern boundary of the colony, perused the colonial charter on May 31, 1652. As has already appeared, however, the attention of the general court had been called to the boundary matter in the preceding year. In fact, in October, 1651, they had reached the conclusion that from an extension of the northern boundary line of the colony, "it doth appear that the town of Kittery, and many miles to the north- ward, is comprehended within our grant." In reaching this con- clusion, the members of the general court were doubtless influ- enced by an effort on the part of several persons in Kittery to induce the residents there ("who govern now by combination") to present a petition to Parliament for a grant of the place. This, it was said, a majority of the inhabitants refused to do, many of them expressing their willingness "to submit themselves to the government of the Massachusetts".1 Under these circumstances the members of the court, taking into consideration the "commo- diousness" of the Piscataqua river, and the fact that it would be prejudicial to the Massachusetts government if Kittery and the Piscataqua river should be held by those who were unfriendly to the Bay colony, it was ordered, "that a loving and friendly letter" be sent to the inhabitants of Kittery informing them that Kittery was within the Massachusetts grant, and that a commission had been appointed consisting of Simon Bradstreet, Major Daniel Denison and Captain William Hawthorne to treat with them in accordance with their instructions, and to receive them under the Massachusetts government provided "terms of agreement can be
1 Records of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, III, 250.
371
THE JURISDICTION OF MASSACHUSETTS ACCEPTED.
concluded upon by mutual consent". If, however, the inhabit- ants of Kittery declined to enter into such an agreement, the com- missioners, having "laid claim to the place", were to protest against any further proceedings "by virtue of their combination or other interest whatsoever".1
Information concerning this action reached the Province of Maine soon after the action was taken, and Edward Godfrey, as governor of the province, summoned a provincial general court to meet December 1, 1651. On the third day of the session, the court directed Mr. Godfrey, Mr. Leader and Mr. Shapleigh to draw up a petition to Parliament for a confirmation of the exist- ing provincial government. This petition, prepared by Godfrey, professing free and willing submission to the government of Eng- land as then established "without a King or House of Lords", called attention to the circumstances under which the colonists had been compelled to take upon themselves the government of the province, making mention especially of the death of Sir Fer- dinando Gorges, and the failure of his son and heir to identify himself with the interests of the province. Having thus been forced "by way of combination to govern and rule according to the laws of England", in behalf of the general court the governor asked for a confirmation of the government thus established and requested that the inhabitants of the province, as free-born Eng- lishmen, might be declared members of the Commonwealth of England.2
But Godfrey did not cease his opposition to the proposed action of Massachusetts with the preparation of this petition. Toward the close of May, 1652, he addressed an earnest letter to Edward Rawson, secretary of the general court of Massachusetts, chal- lenging the claim of the Bay colony to Maine territory as included within Massachusetts limits. In his reply, which was by order of the general court, Rawson defended the action against which Godfrey had remonstrated. To this communication Godfrey
1 Records of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, III, 251.
2 Hazard, I, 559, 560.
372
THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
made a vigorous answer July 9, 1652. "For our perusal of your patent and your line", he wrote, "we apprehend the bounds thereof were set more than twenty years last past, at the sea-side and so up into the country from the sea three miles on this side Merrimac, as all other patents were which are no less than ten in number, that we perceive by the extension of your unknown line you now willingly labor to engraft". Against such pretended jurisdiction Godfrey earnestly protested. "We are loath to part with our precious liberties for unknown and uncertain favors", he wrote. "We resolve to exercise our just jurisdiction till it shall please the Parliament, the Commonweal[th] of England, otherwise to order under whose power and protection we are."1
The general court of Massachusetts made no haste in the pro- cedure. The action of the court in connection with the perusal of its charter did not take place until May 31, 1652. The com- missioners did not receive their instructions to repair to Kittery until June 11, 1652. On account of a change in the membership of the commission as finally constituted, William Hawthorne, John Leverett and Henry Bartholomew represented the colony of Massachusetts bay in the Kittery conference, which seems to have been held July 9, 1652. Edward Godfrey, Richard Leader, Nicholas Shapleigh, Thomas Withers and Edward Rishworth, who declared themselves "to be persons in present power for the ordering and managing of whatsoever might be of concernment to the people", represented the Province of Maine. There is no record of the proceedings of the conference. Doubtless there was much discussion, but Godfrey and those associated with him declined to accept the overtures of the Massachusetts commis- sioners.
Because of this action it only remained for the commissioners to present the protest of Massachusetts as their instructions required. It did not appear to them, the commissioners said, that Godfrey and others, representing the Province of Maine, pos- sessed any rightful authority, inasmuch as the provincial territory
1 Hazard, I, 567, 568.
373
THE JURISDICTION OF MASSACHUSETTS ACCEPTED.
was included in the limits of the patent of the Bay colony, and so by grant and charter, under the great seal of England, was under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. But they were authorized to say that those submitting themselves thereunto should "freely and quietly possess and enjoy all the lands, goods and chattels appertaining to and possessed by any or every of them" and that they should have "right and equally share" in all acts of favor and justice which by virtue of government the inhabitants of Massa- chusetts "do or may expect to enjoy". Then followed the pro- test of Massachusetts against any person or persons within the Province of Maine exercising jurisdiction over the inhabitants of the province, or any part thereof, after October 10, 1652, without order from the general court or council of the colony of Massa- chusetts bay.1
The commissioners' announcement of this protest was dated July 9, 1652. This, also, was the date of Governor Godfrey's answer to Secretary Rawson's letter of June 12, 1652, to which reference has already been made. It was also the date of the answer made by Godfrey and his associates, "sworn magistrates" of the Province of Maine, to the Massachusetts protest. Evi- dently, July 9, 1652, was a busy day in Kittery. The answer made to the protest by the magistrates of the Province of Maine was plainly. the work of Governor Godfrey. It assailed again the action of the Bay colony in attempting to extend its jurisdiction northward. "The truth doth and shall appear", it was said, "that where their bounds were set up more than twenty years passed, and both before and since many patents [have been] granted for the populating and propagating of the land". In this way, it was added, a large sum of money had been expended. Also lawful jurisdiction had been exercised by officers "acknowl- edged and owned by you of the Massachusetts", and "approved and justified in England". And now, for these gentlemen to come "in the name only and behalf of the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts", saying that the inhabitants who "shall submit
1 Hazard, I, 568, 569.
374
THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
unto them shall freely and quietly possess and enjoy all the lands, goods, chattels, and that we shall enjoy equal favors in acts of government, -these proposals are not in our judgment meet ; the time, places and persons considered we patiently bear them, and submit to be judged by those whom we acknowledge to be our supreme judges. Against exercise of jurisdiction, we resolve and intend to go on till lawful power command us the contrary, as subordinate and depending upon the Commonwealth of England."1
On receiving the report of the commissioners, the general court of Massachusetts evidently saw no reason for discouragement. Its conference had revealed the attitude of the provincial officers only. It was now resolved to appeal to the inhabitants as a whole. Accordingly, October 23, 1652, the court appointed six commis- sioners to settle the civil government amongst the inhabitants of Kittery, the Isles of Shoals, "and so to the most northerly extent" of the colony's patent. By their instructions, the commissioners were to proceed to the territory north of the Piscataqua, and sum- mon the inhabitants to assemble in places deemed by the commis- sioners most convenient and require their submission, granting unto them at the same time equal protection and privileges with the inhabitants of the Bay colony. They were also to establish courts for hearing and determining all causes, civil and criminal, to appoint commissioners, constables and such other officers as they deemed needful for preserving peace and good order, "and otherwise to act in the premises" as the general court shall direct, doing whatever in their wisdom and discretion would be most con- ducive to the glory of God, the peace and welfare of the inhabi- tants and the maintenance of their own "just rights and inter- ests. ''2
Four of the six commissioners, namely, Simon Bradstreet and Samuel Simonds of Boston, Captain Thomas Wiggin of New Hampshire and Bryan Pendleton of the Province of Maine, pro-
1 Hazard, I, 569, 570.
2 2 Massachusetts Records, 128, as cited by Williamson, History of the State of Maine, I, 343.
375
THE JURISDICTION OF MASSACHUSETTS ACCEPTED.
ceeded to Kittery, where they opened a court November 15, 1652, and issued a summons to the inhabitants to assemble on the fol- lowing day, between seven and eight o'clock in the morning at the house of William Everett. The inhabitants appeared as sum- moned, and the conference was opened by the Massachusetts com- missioners, who presented evidence of their appointment and also the instructions they had received. For four days there was full and free discussion. In general, the temper of both parties was good, but evidences of strong feeling are reported and mention is made of the offensive bearing and words of one John Bursley, who, towards the commissioners and some of the residents of Kittery that apparently were ready to subscribe their submission, indulged in threats to such an extent that at once he was brought to trial and confession for his misbehavior. Finally, the inhabitants declared their willingness to give written consent to the jurisdic- tion of Massachusetts, provided certain conditions offered by them were accepted. This offer the commissioners declined on the ground that their instructions required the submission of the inhabitants first ; then, a guaranty of rights and of ample privi- leges would follow. Evidently further opposition was thought to be useless, and November 20, 1652, forty-one of the inhabitants of Kittery subscribed to the following declaration : "We whose names are underwritten do acknowledge ourselves subject to the government of Massachusetts bay in New England."
In fourteen articles the commissioners then enumerated the rights and privileges the people of Kittery were to possess under the government of Massachusetts. The territory north of the Piscataqua was to comprise a county known as Yorkshire. The inhabitants were to have "protection and equal acts of favor and justice" with those dwelling on the south side of the Piscataqua. Kittery was to remain a township,1 and enjoy the privileges of other Massachusetts towns. Titles to property in houses and lands "whether by the grant of the town or of the Indians", or of those justly holding them. Kittery was promised a deputy to the
1 Kittery was incorporated as a town in 1647.
376
THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
general court, and two if "they think good". All the present inhabitants of the town were to be regarded as freemen of the country, and having taken the oath as freemen they were to have liberty to vote for "governor, assistants and other general officers of the country". Moreover, the county of York was to have county courts in the most commodious and fit places, "as author- ity shall see meet to appoint". Provision also was made for every township to have three men appointed by the county court for the trial of minor causes, in places where there was no resident magis- trate or commissioner. The county, also, was to have three associates to assist such commissioners as the present commission- ers, or such as might afterwards be sent. Furthermore the men of the whole county of York were not to be drawn upon for any ordinary general trainings out of their own territory without their consent.1
How many of the inhabitants declined to acknowledge their submission to Massachusetts at that time is not known. It is said there were some; but the forty-one who yielded, and by subscrip- tion acknowledged themselves subjects to the government of Massachusetts, comprised a majority and probably a large major- ity of the freemen of the place.
Having completed their labors at Kittery, the commissioners on Monday, November 22, proceeded to Agamenticus, Gorges' Gor- geana, where, in response to the commissioners' summons, the inhabitants assembled at the house of Nicholas Davis. Prominent among them was Edward Godfrey, still representing the Gorges interests. Doubtless during the conference of the preceding week at Kittery he had been in close touch with friends there holding like views with reference to the claims of Massachusetts; and in the submission of Kittery's inhabitants he could hardly have failed to foresee the issue of the conference in his own town. None the less, however, in a day of "debatements", his voice rang out loud and clear in opposition to any encroachment upon territory that had long been known as the Province of Maine.
1 Hazard, I, 573, 574.
377
THE JURISDICTION OF MASSACHUSETTS ACCEPTED.
But it was of no avail. At the close of the day, when the vote was taken, the inhabitants of Agamenticus took the same action as the inhabitants of Kittery on the preceding Saturday. As recorded by the commissioners the vote was as follows: "Mr. Godfrey did forbear until the vote was passed by the rest, and then immediately he did by word and vote express his consent".1 According to Godfrey's own statement, however, his submission was with a mental reservation. In a later appeal to Parliament, he wrote, "Whatever my body was inforced unto, heaven knows my soul did not consent unto".2 The statement seems to belong to a considerably later period in Godfrey's life, as in the endorse- ment at the close of the petition occur the words, "This was after Richard Cromwell was out", and therefore after April 22, 1659. In no sense could it be said that Godfrey was under any outward compulsion in yielding submission to the government of Massa- chusetts. His submission, it is true, was an unwilling one, but the act was his own. Of course his conviction with reference to his rights remained unchanged. To the best of his ability he had opposed the onward advance of Massachusetts into territory north of the Piscataqua. But now, even his fellow townsmen were not in agreement with him; and when this fact was made clear by their votes at the close of the conference, he yielded and added his vote to the forty-nine votes already recorded.3
This concession on the part of Godfrey has been called a mistake. Rather it seems to have been the only course open to him if he was to have any helpful influence at Agamenticus.4 The oppor- tunity for such helpful influence appeared when he received an appointment as the first of four commissioners to whom, with one assistant of the Massachusetts government, was given authority
1 Hazard, I, 575.
2 Colonial Papers, Public Records Office, London, XIII, 79. Me. Hist. Society's Coll., First Series, IX, 347.
8 For the privileges granted to the inhabitants see Hazard, I, 576.
4 From the Massachusetts commissioners Agamenticus now received the designation York, and became the second town within the limits of what is the State of Maine.
378
THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
to keep one county court at York each year, while any three of them were authorized to try cases without a jury. They were also empowered to conduct the affairs of the county in general. This position Godfrey held for three successive years. But the fires of resentment continued to burn in his breast ; and at length, probably in 1655, he left Agamenticus and made his way to Eng- land in the hope of securing from the home government redress for the losses he had sustained. During Cromwell's Protectorate, however, and also during the Protectorate of his son Richard, conditions were unfavorable for a successful presentation of his case. In 1660, however, with the restoration of Charles II, the withered hopes of Godfrey and the heirs of Gorges and Mason suddenly brightened. Yet, under even these changed circum- stances, disappointment upon disappointment followed ; and when we obtain our last glimpses of Godfrey, he is an inmate of Lud- gate jail, London, hopeless, friendless, bending under the weight of more than fourscore years; and there, on an unknown date, it is supposed that he died. His burial place, like that of Robert Trelawny, is unknown.1
Thus, in 1652, by a direct appeal to the people, Massachusetts succeeded in extending her jurisdiction over the nearest of the Maine settlements. Her success foreshadowed such added action on the part of the Bay colony as would bring to an end any exercise of authority derived from the proprietary governments of Gorges and Rigby. Yet again there was no hasty action in fur- ther procedure. In May, 1653, the general court of Massachu- setts admitted two representatives from Maine, one from Kittery
1 The last information concerning him is in a letter written in prison in April, 1663. "There we leave him in the poor debtor's cell, where he had lived for two years. The end probably came soon after, for it could not have been delayed long ; and Edward Godfrey, once governor of the Province of Maine, who bore unchallenged the arms of Godfrey of Bouillon, the knightly king of Jerusalem, was probably thence buried as a public pauper in the Potter's Field, without stone or stake to mark his grave, and his name and story have been almost lost in the two centuries that have passed." Dr. Charles E. Banks, Maine Hist. Society's Coll., First Series, IX, 335.
379
THE JURISDICTION OF MASSACHUSETTS ACCEPTED.
and one from York. Shortly after, however, having approved the wise and successful work of the commissioners at Kittery and York, the court appointed commissioners to extend the jurisdic- tion of the colony still farther northward so as to include Wells, Saco and Cape Porpoise. Equal success attended the efforts of the commissioners in these settlements, and July 5, 1653, their inhabitants by their votes placed themselves under the jurisdic- tion of Massachusetts.1
About this time the Plymouth colonists, somewhat tardily indeed, were directing attention to the lack of good government in its Maine territory on the Kennebec. Some one, evidently, had reminded the Pilgrims of their failure to comply with the requirement of their charter that the English settlers on the river within the colony's territorial limits "should be orderly governed and carried on in a way of peace for their common good in civil concernments".2 This requirement they had not fulfilled, and the general court of the Plymouth colony now authorized Thomas Prence, one of the colony's honored magistrates, to proceed to the Kennebec and call together the inhabitants along the river "for the settling of a government". Mr. Prence made his way thither, and May 23, 1654, the people assembled at the house of Thomas Ashley at Merrymeeting bay, where sixteen persons, including Thomas Purchase, took the oath of fidelity to the Com- monwealth of England and Plymouth colony, and agreed upon a series of articles designed to secure a proper observance of law and order within the limits of the Pilgrim grant.3
1 Records of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, III, 332-334.
2 Hazard, I, 583.
8 Ib., I, 585, 586. A glance at the later history of the Pilgrim grant on the Kennebec is interesting. When the general court of the colony met at Plymouth, June 6, 1660, it was voted that if {500 could be obtained for the colony's rights on the Kennebec, the grant should be sold. In accordance with this vote the Pilgrims, in 1661, sold all their lands on either side of the river to Antipas Boies, Edward Tyng, Thomas Brattle and John Winslow. These four persons and their heirs held these Kennebec lands nearly a cen- tury, making no endeavor to colonize them. In September, 1749, a meeting of the proprietors was held with a view to the introduction of settlers. Other
380
THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
As yet, still farther to the eastward, there was little if any endeavor to make proper provision for securing the benefits of good government. The necessity was recognized, but the ways and means were not discoverable. And still Massachusetts, while watchful of the territory beyond Saco, delayed added action in extending her jurisdiction. There, men of considerable influence, like Henry Josselyn, Robert Jordan and Arthur Mackworth, con- tinued their opposition to the claims of Massachusetts, as also did George Cleeve; the former on religious and political grounds, and the latter in an endeavor to retain his place in connection with the Rigby interests which otherwise would be blotted out. To Cleeve's protest against any further encroachment Massachusetts made reply : "We have not endeavored to infringe the liberties of the planters of those lands, but have offered them the same with our- selves ; nor to nourish or ease ourselves by taxing of their estates, to ease ourselves. We expect no more than what they formerly did, namely, bear their own charges ; nor do we seek to put upon them that which we ourselves would count unequal, namely, to subject [them] to such laws and constitutions made by others without their consent, it being the portion of most of our present inhabitants, as of the subjects of most countries, to be in no other capacity ; the constitutions of government and new model of laws not being made in every age of men, or upon the arrival of new comers to a colony".1
But all the while, Massachusetts held firmly to her purpose. At length, having received "divers complaints for want of gov- ernment at the westward, the Massachusetts authorities May 15, 1657, addressed a letter2 to Henry Josselyn and Robert Jordan, requesting them to meet the commissioners of the colony at the
proprietors were admitted, and in June, 1753, a corporation was formed under the title of "The Proprietors of the Kennebec Purchase from the late Colony of New Plymouth". The Kennebec Purchase Papers, carefully arranged chronologically, were presented to the Maine Historical Society by Hon. Reuel Williams, of Augusta.
1 Baxter, George Cleeve, Collateral Documents, 295, 296.
2 Ib., 296, 297.
381
THE JURISDICTION OF MASSACHUSETTS ACCEPTED.
next county court at York, to assist in settling "those parts beyond Saco, to the utmost bounds of the Massachusetts charter. As neither appeared in answer to this request, Massachusetts pro- ceeded to summons the inhabitants in the territory mentioned to present themselves at the general court to be held in Boston October 14, 1657. Again there was default. Cleeve, however, responded by a protest against the legality of the action of Massachusetts in extending her jurisdiction into Maine territory, adding an announcement that the inhabitants had resolved not to yield sub- mission to the government of the Bay colony.
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.