USA > Rhode Island > Providence County > Providence > History of the state of Rhode Island and Providence plantations, Vol. I > Part 32
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 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49
373
ERRORS OF GRAHAME AND CHALMERS.
The remainder of the reference contains an abstract CHAP. of the charter, and some erroneous statements of the ac- tion had under it, to which we shall hereafter refer.
IX. APP. C.
Now, admitting, for the moment, that Chalmers is good authority, which we shall presently disprove, so far at least as regards this portion of his annals, an examina- tion of the foregoing quotations from the two authors will show that Mr. Grahame has drawn two erroneous infer- ences, not warranted by his citations, and has stated them as facts. First, that the name of Kings Province was a proof, and, as he states, " the only proof" that Clarke could give of the " vaunted loyalty of the inhabitants of Rhode Island." Chalmers, it will be seen, says parenthet- ically, that the surrendered country "was afterwards called the Kings Province," which is correct, but is very different from the statement of Grahame. The fact is, that the name of Kings Province first appears in the in- structions to the commissioners, at the head of whom was Col. Nicholls, who were sent by the King to visit New England, and were furnished with three sets of instruc- tions regulating their conduct, one as to Massachusetts, one as to Connecticut, and the other secret, all dated 23d April, 1664, and also a commission to determine appeals, boundary disputes, &c., dated two days later. They are in New England Papers, bundle 1, pp. 182-194, in the British State Paper Office. Article 3 of the set of in- structions for Connecticut relates to the Rhode Island boundary, and in article 4, referring to the submission of the Narraganset sachems, it orders that if it prove true, the commissioners should take rent from the occupants, and shall call the country Kings Province. This order took effect on 20th March following, by formal proclama- tion of the commissioners, as appears in New England Papers, vol. iii. p. 4, British State Paper Office, printed in 3 R. I. H. Col., 179-81. This is the earliest mention of the name of Kings Province, which was given by royal
374
HISTORY OF THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND.
CHAP. IX. APP. C.
decree, nearly two years after the Rhode Island charter was issued, and in relation to the time of the submission by the sachems just twenty years " afterwards." Upon this point then Chalmers is correct and Grahame wrong.
The second false statement in which Grahame is not borne out by his authority is that Clarke " meeting this year (1662) the deputies of Massachusetts, challenged them to mention any one act of duty or loyalty shown by their constituents." A due attention to the above ex- tract will show that Chalmers says no such thing. The faulty connection of the passage would perhaps give to a cursory reader the idea received by Grahame, and very distinctly and injuriously perpetuated by him. Chal- mers' words are obscure, it is true, relating to another and later affair, as will directly be shown ; but certainly Mr. Grahame, before thus cruelly assailing Clarke, should have examined the authority to which Chalmers refers. He would have there found that Chalmers' citation was not to Clarke's conduct, but to a very different point, and he would thus have been led either to suspect the accuracy of the Annalist, or to discover his own misapplication of his language. Upon these two points, therefore, Mr. Grahame has erred in drawing inferences that are not sus- tained by his authorities, and as he has thus done a great wrong-all the greater from the acknowledged excellence of his character and general accuracy of his work-we have felt compelled to furnish what we consider as the proof of unpardonable carelessness in a historian. The only other reference which he gives, Hazard ii. 612, is to a copy of the charter.
It really seems as if Mr. Bancroft's charge of " inven- tion," or rather of " unwarranted misapprehension," was not so unfounded as has been represented, or so unjusti- fiable, when we consider the pains that a writer of history is morally bound to bestow upon his work before assailing the private character or the public acts of any man whom he
375
ERRORS OF GRAHAME AND CHALMERS.
has occasion to mention ; and also when we see, as in these two points, how Mr. Grahame has distorted the authority upon which he relies. The note and reference attached to this passage of Chalmers, the first one before quoted, reads thus : " There is a copy of the Indian Surrender in New England Papers, bundle 3; and see the same, p. 25," the latter clause referring plainly enough to the doc- ument whence his extract is made. That document could be found in five minutes by the clerks in the State Paper Office, and placed before any applicant authorized by government to have access to its archives. The Brit- ish Government are very liberal in granting permission, even to foreign students of history, who apply for this privilege, only limiting their range of research, in the case of Americans at least, with the commencement of the revolution. A British subject would, of course, as easily obtain entrance, and without such limitation. That Mr. Grahame did not use the privilege to verify his authority in this case is evident. The paper referred to is a " Petition of the Warwick deputies (Randall Holden and John Greene) to the Board of Trade, together with their reply to the Massachusetts agents," who on the 30th July, 1678, had answered a complaint made by the Warwick men, wherein was exposed the former conduct of Massa- chusetts toward Gorton and his company. The document embraces four pages, 24-27 of the volume, or bundle, and on page 25, the precise reference of Chalmers, occur the words, or nearly those, quoted by him. The aggravated circumstances of that case justified the challenge of the Warwick deputies, and the silence of those of Massachu- setts, was a discreet reserve for which they could hardly be expected to receive the praises of any man conversant with the facts. Chalmers' obscurity and Grahame's over- sight have furnished Mr. Quincy with an occasion for un- due elation in contrasting the conduct of the two colonies at this time. We only regret that he should lend the
CHAP. IX. -
APP. C.
376
HISTORY OF THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND.
CHAP. IX. APP. C.
sanction of his revered and distinguished name to the slander against Clarke, and to the defamation of Rhode Island. (See 3 Mass. Hist. Colls., vol. ix. p. 28, note, and " The Memory of the late James Grahame Vindi- cated," Svo. 59 pp. Boston, 1846, passim.)
If, as he says, "The agents of Massachusetts would not condescend, for the sake even of saving their charter, to feign a sentiment which they were sensible had no ex- istence," it is more than can be said of the general Court that deputed them, the first article of whose instructions to them is to "present us to his Majesty as his loyal and obedient subjects." (Hutchinson's Collections, 355.) Whatever else we may render to our sister colony as her just due, it is not in the qualities of honesty or of candor that Rhode Island or John Clarke should yield the palm to Massachusetts or her agents.
We have now to examine the reliability of Chalmers himself, with particular reference to chapter xi. on Rhode Island. No one can read the " Political Annals " with- out being impressed with the partisan spirit of that work. If the reader were ignorant of the circumstances of the author's life, he could scarcely fail to discover the princi- pal points of it from a perusal of his pages. The bitter- ness of the loyalist refugee appears in the title-page, and is conspicuous to the last passage of his book. He writes in 1780, when the Declaration of Independence had been four years in operation, and but a faint hope remained that the prerogative of the crown could ever be re-estab- lished in America, and yet he styles the country "the present United Colonies," and he closes the volume with a formal denial of the "immutable truths" upon which that Declaration is based. Whenever an opportunity oc- curs to flout the principles of freedom by maligning the motives of its friends, he does so with an evident satis- faction which he takes no pains to conceal. An honest regard to the truth of history is everywhere secondary to
377
ERRORS OF GRAHAME AND OF CHALMERS.
his hatred of civil and religious liberty. With such sen- CHIAP. timents for a groundwork it is only remarkable that his IX. APP. C. statements should be received without suspicion, and his ample references taken without verification by writers who, like Grahame, are imbued with opposite opinions. The position he held as a Secretary of the Board of Trade, to whose custody the colonial archives were intrusted, and the fulness of his references to original papers, have so long given currency to his work as the highest author- ity, that it seems bold at this day to question its correct- ness upon any point of colonial history. Nor would the writer venture to do so now except upon the clearest evi- dence, and because in the chapter that most concerns us the spirit of the author is more than usually apparent, and his erroneous statements have done more than those of all others to misrepresent the motives and the conduct of our ancestors.
Chalmers was born in Scotland, studied law in Edin- burg, emigrated to America, and practised at the bar of Maryland for ten years. As a stanch loyalist, he re- turned home at the time of the revolution. There he de- voted himself to historical pursuits. His situation with the Board of Trade was not obtained till six years after the publication of the Annals, when it was bestowed as a reward of his loyalty, and as a compensation for the sufferings he had endured. It is evident, however, that he had free access to the colonial papers before his ap- pointment in that office. His ability is unquestionable ; but the facts we have stated require that discretion should be exercised in perusing the Annals, and demand the application of the severest canons of historical criti- cism, before receiving as truth the statements and deduc- tions therein presented. As a general rule, in this case it may be said that whatever Chalmers states favorably for the colonists may be relied upon. The evidence must be very clear to his mind when he does so. Whatever he
378
HISTORY OF THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND.
CHAP. IX. states as fact unfavorable to them requires that his refer- ences should be verified, and if no reference is given, the APP. C. statement would more safely be thrown aside. Whatever he offers as a deduction from stated facts, as philosophy, or as " remarks," should for the most part be discarded, as being only the reflections of a mind opposed at every point to the principles of the colonists, and hence unable to appreciate their motives. And finally, those state- ments that are susceptible of confirmation by the archives of the plantations, kept by the Board of Trade, are in the main reliable, while those which could only be verified by the records of the colonies themselves, as being chiefly matters of local concern, should not be credited without examination of the original evidence in this country. There is not an American colony that has not suffered injustice in some way by this work, through those who have blindly relied upon its accuracy ; and none more so than Rhode Island. To specify the errors of fact and of inference contained in the single chapter upon this State, would be tedious and superfluous. Suffice it to say, that the comments upon the charter near the close of the chap- ter begin with an error of date, and are so interwoven with misstated facts and partial truths, and so colored by party biases, as to destroy the value of the whole.
APPENDIX D.
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE ATHERTON COMPANY AND JOHN WINTHROP, JR., AGENT FOR CONNECTICUT, IN LONDON.
FROM MSS. TRUMBULL PAPERS, VOL. XXII., NOS. 38, 47 AND 45, IN THE AR- CHIVES OF THE MASS. HIST, SOCIETY.
I.
BOSTON, 29th Sept., 1661.
Hon'rd Sr .- After our services presented to yo'selfe we make boulde to request this favor to be added to al yor former, considering it may be for our further comforte to have the Lands wee have at
379
ATHERTON COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE.
Narragansett in some pattent and yo'selfe being now in England and having an interest with ourselves therein, we conceave that if you could procure them into Connecticut pattent it would be best, and therefore if you could procure the line to runne alonge from Conecti- cot by the Bays pattent til it meete with Plimoth pattent, and then by plimoth pattent tile it come into Naraganset Bay and soe into the sea, and bounded by the sea til it meete with the further parte of Co- necticot jurisdiction with all the islands adjoyneing it would reach ye whole. But notwithstanding this our advice wee desire to have our particular Interest from the Indians to be reserved to us and onely ye jurisdiction or government to be within Conecticot, onely we leave it to yo'selfe which way you finde most feaseable whether in Conecticot pattent or Plimoth provided whichever it be our particular Interest be reserved to ourselves. If you cannot attain these boundes yet wee desire if it may be that our particular lands, the propriety alwaies re- served to ourselves, may be got into Conecticot pattent, however freed from Roade Island. Thus craving excuse for our bouldness we take leave, onely subscribing ourselves yor real servants apointed to sub- scribe our names in the behalf of the rest.
Edward Hutchinson Willm Hudson
Richª Lord Am Richison.
The former is what we formerly writ by Mr. Lord and not haveing anything to add send the same again, onely the Lord hath maide a sad breach amongst us by taking to himselfe Maj' General Atharton who was slaine by a fall from his horse.
ffor the Right Worshipful
John Winthrope, Esqr
these present.
II.
FROM MR WINTHROP TO CAPT. ED. HUTCHINSON.
Honrd Sr.
According to yor desires in those Letters from yo'self and Mr Richardson, and the others of yo' Company (of) yº Plantation of Nar- ragansett was included within Connecticott Charter, yet so as it was according to the very words of their old charter which was to Narra- gansett River, I had onely those words put in for Explication and avoiding controversie about the meaning of Narragansett River ; these words are added [commonly called Narragansett Bay where the said River falleth into the Sea] and by what I saw of ye coppy of Provi- dence charter the words are these, that the Whole Extent of ye Tract was about 25 miles, which by calculation from ye further part of Prov- idence would reach but to the Narragansett countrey.
CHAP. IX. APP. D.
380
HISTORY OF THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND.
CHAP. IX. APP. D.
After the Charter was under the Greate Seale and finished Mr Clarke then appeared wth great opposition, as Agent for Road Island Collony, he never before made it known to me that he was agent for them, nor could I imagine it for a good while after my arriveale heere. Mr Alderman Peake told me hee had Received Letters from Road Isl- and, with an Address Inclosed, and was desired by those Letters to Deliver ye Address, and afterwards told mee he had procured Mr Mandrick to Deliver it. I could not by this conceive they had any other Agent, but was resolved in my Businesse to keep to ye words of the old Pattent, as neere as might be. I am sorry there should be any Controversye between friends. If they had Desired to have Joyned wth our Collony I doubt not but they might have had all Equall Liberties with them. Mr Clarke might have done their Busi- ness before my arriveall or all ye time since ; I should not have op- posed anything therein, and whether he had done any thing, or were about it, I did not enquire, but that he hath done nothing in it (if it be so) is not through the least act from myselfe; who only minded our Businesse according to a former Grant : And when yt was fin- ished then Mr Clarke began to stirr and oppose what he could, weh was a great wrong to ye hindrance of my voyage. Why he did not Rather act about their Businesse before when hee would have none to oppose, or all this time when he should have no opposition from myself or any other, but so act onely by making a Controversye after our Busi- nesse was finished I know not ye Reason. I desire yu to present my Remembrances to Mr Brenton and Mr Arnold and Mr Williams and our friends of those parts, and let them know that this is the whole truth of the Businesse, however Mr. Clarke may Represent itt to them ; they are friends that I alwaye did and doe Respect and Love and had not the least Intent of wronging them, Intending onely that service to the Collony to their old charter weh they had purchased At a great price, and according to the Desires of yo'selves the Purchasers of that in Narragansett.
I shall not add at present by (but ?) my love and respects to yo'- seife and Mr Smith and the rest of yo' Company, and Rest
Your Loveing friend
John Winthrop.
Lnº September 2, 1662. For Capt. Edw. Hutchinson at Narragansett. III.
FROM CAPT. HUTCHINSON TO MR. WINTHROP IN LONDON.
BOSTON, 18, 9 m. 1662.
Honnrd Sr .- Wee have Received yor from London. We thought good to send you a copy of what wee sent to Connecticot to consider
381
ATHERTON COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE.
of, onely wee think good to add, yt wee are bold to presume you doe not consider yt what you have procured in ye Charter Reaches the Whole of ye Narragansett Countrey, and Whereas you speake of 25 miles wee understand not yor meaning, for yo' Pattent and Plimouth Joyns Reaching both ye Narragansett River, and whereas Mr Clarke pretends a Pattent, Wee have sent a Coppy of one to the Massachu- setts of the same Land dated before theirs Wch answers theirs, and wee conceive may give satisfaction. But, however, It is necessary for avoyding Contention to yield no way to Road Island for they are not Rationall. It seems Mr Clarke hath much abused you, but I wonder not at it, for their Principles leads them to no better. But for any Tract of Land of 25 miles there is not any such Tract, for theire Pat- tent is bounded by the Countrey inhabited by the Indians (though after there be an expression reaching to Pequod River) yet the whole Countrey of ye Narragansett lyes betwixt Pequod River and Provi- dence wch is Inhabited by Indians, and therefore that Expression is no better than a Cheate, for from the outside of Providence bounds to Pequod River is at least 60 miles taking in all the Indian Countrey wch they are not to do by their Pattent, therefore if Providence Town- ship and Road Island should be granted a Pattent yett ye Countrey Inhabited by Indians is Excepted, which is that wee have purchased, therefore wee are bold to crave of you to consider wt you yeild to be- fore you yeild, and wever you doe to Reserve our particular Interest. But if yt Providence, Warwick and Road Island should procure a Pattent for the Bounds of those 4 Towns to come as far as Warwick rails where they now stand, and so goe along by the River pawtucket not by the Bay but to Warwick pointe weh will be about 20 or 25 miles to Reach to Boston Line wee should not oppose weh is indeed more than anything they can pretend claime to. Thus not further to trouble you wee take our leave and rest
Yor servants to our powers Ed. Hutchinson by appointment of the Company.
These letters are now for the first time printed. The first is given to show the earnestness of the Atherton company to " be freed from Rhode Island," whatever else might be their lot, long before the char- ters were obtained. It breathes the true spirit of Massachusetts at that day, and proposes a series of boundary lines that would annihi- late the existence of Rhode Island. It refers to Mr. Winthrop's own- ership in the purchase, and closes with the news of the fatal accident that terminated the life of their gallant but unscrupulous leader. From this time the name by which the company was first commonly called in his honor was changed, in general use, to that of the Narra- ganset company.
CHIAP. IX. APP. D.
382
HISTORY OF THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND.
CHAP. IX. APP. D.
The second letter recites the difficulties which Winthrop encoun- tered, chiefly at the hands of Clarke, after he had obtained the Con- necticut charter. That he should feel restive under the delay that Clarke's opposition occasioned was natural, but we see no reason why Clarke should have made known his intentions in regard to Rhode Island before he was obliged to do so by the course of events. He was surrounded by the agents of adverse interests, who, he had good reason to fear, if they faithfully represented their principals, would leave no means untried that bitter hostility could suggest, to accom- plish the overthrow of Rhode Island. That influences to this end were brought to bear upon Winthrop the first letter shows, and it is due to his purity alone, and not to the justice or honesty of his princi- pals and advisers, that the worst fears of Clarke were not realized. Under such circumstances sound judgment dictated the conduct of the Rhode Island agent in keeping his own councils. Winthrop's friendly feeling towards Rhode Island is seen at the close of his letter in his message to some of her leading men, to whom he says he intended no wrong, but thought he was doing a service to their old charter, as well as to the Narraganset company, in what he had secured for Connecti- cut. There is no reference in this letter to his agreement with Clarke, which in fact was not signed till seven months later, but an allusion in the next letter, which is the reply of Hutchinson to this one, would indicate that some compromise between them was already in view, and had come to the knowledge of the writer, probably through Win- throp's official correspondence with Connecticut.
The third letter displays the usual animosity of its authors against Rhode Island. It is chiefly valuable as showing, in connection with that portion of the preceding one to which it specially replies, the in- accurate notions of both the corresponding parties concerning the courses and distances of the territory in question. It will be seen that there is an irreconcilable difference between them on this point, and hence if either party were correct in his statements the other was entirely wrong. Winthrop is pretty nearly accurate in his distance of twenty-five miles " from the further part of Providence to the Nar- raganset country," if he means from Narraganset Bay to Pawcatuck river in an east and west course, which is probably what he does mean, as it is upon that basis the agreement was made and the charter of Rhode Island was granted. Hutchinson, on the contrary, is as nearly correct in his widely different estimate of distance, taking a north and south, or rather a northeast and southwest course from Providence to Pawcatuck. So that it is probable the misunderstanding between the writers was in regard to the courses rather than the distances. The reading of each letter would seem to convey the idea that a north and south course was meant in both cases. But if this were so, Winthrop was very wide of the mark and Hutchinson pretty nearly correct.
383
CHAP. IX. APP. D.
LETTER FROM JOHN SCOT.
Another remarkable point in this letter is the allusion to the old Narraganset patent held by Massachusetts, of which a copy appears to have been sent by the Atherton company to Mr. Winthrop. The references to this ancient patent are very few, and are almost always merely incidental, as in this case, as if no great weight was attached to it. Why this should be so we cannot tell, but so it is. Every al- lusion to the patent of Dec. 10th, 1643, is worthy of notice from this peculiarity. In its proper place, chapter iv., this subject is more fully considered.
APPENDIX E.
LETTER FROM JOHN SCOT, IN LONDON, TO CAPT. HUTCHINSON.
(FROM TRUMBULL PAPERS, VOL. XXII. NO. 35, MSS, IN MASS, HIST. SOC.)
April 29, 1663. Mr. Hutchinson, and my honoured friend .-
E.
Mr. Winthrop was very averse to my prosecuting yor affaires, he having had much trouble with Mr. Clarke, whiles he remained in England ; but as soone as I received intelligence of his departure from ye Downes, I took into the Societye a Potent Gentleman, and pre- ferred a Petition against Clarke, &c., as enimyes to the peace and well being of his Majestyes good subjects, and doubt not of effecting the premises in convenient tyme ; and in order to accomplish y' businesse, I have bought of Mr. Edwards a parcel of curiosityes to ye value of 60 : to gratifye persons that are powerfull, that there may be a Letter filled with Authorizing Expressions to the Collonyes of the Massa- chusetts and Connecticut, that the proprietors of the Naraganset coun- trye, shall not onlye live peaceablye, but have satisfaction for Injuryes already received, by some of the saide Proprictors, and the power yt shall be soe invested (viz.,) the Masachusets and Concticott by ver- tue of the saide letter, will joyntlye or severallye have full power to doe us Justice to all intents as to our Naraganset concernes. Sr. Mr. Sam" Sedgwick disburst y monye, the obligation I doubt not of sat- isfaction of accordinge to tyme which is by March next and by yt time, or long before, I doubt not of satisfyinge yor desires, or elce I will satisfye yr saide Bill to Sedgwick myself. I cannot deemne those termes Mr. Winthrop made with Clarke any waye to answere yor desires, were there a certaintye in what Clarke hath granted.
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.