USA > Rhode Island > Providence County > Providence > State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations at the end of the century : a history, Volume 1 > Part 13
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 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73
1Ext. Conn. MSS. i, 40, which contains all this contemporary correspond- ence. Some of the letters are printed in R. I. Col. Rec. and most of them are referred to in Bowen's Boundary Disputes of Conn. pt. 2.
2The details of their stay in New England, although prejudiced wherever Massachusetts is concerned, is best given in Palfrey, v. 2, chap. 15.
110
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
The method taken by the commissioners in deciding the title to the Narragansett country was perhaps the wisest that could have been devised. The submission of the Indian sachems procured by Gorton in 1644 was made the basis of a decision whereby the whole country was taken possession of in the name of the King, legally named King's Province, and declared to extend as far west as the Pawcatuck River. The pretension of the Atherton Company to the territory by virtue of their grand mortgage was declared void, as were also both their purchases from the Indians in 1659, in which there was "no men- tion of any consideration".1 In addition they ordered that the gov- ernor, deputy-governor and assistants of Rhode Island should serve as magistrates throughout the Province. At Misquamicuck, likewise, they decided that all grants of land made by Massachusetts or by "that usurped authority called the United Colonies", to any person whatsoever, were void. An added rebuff was given to Massachusetts in the declaration that "no colony hath any just right to dispose of any lands conquered from the natives, unless both the cause of that conquest be just, and the lands lie within those bounds which the King by his charter has given it".2
Another duty for the commissioners to perform was the decision as to the line between Plymouth and Rhode Island. Shortly before their arrival, in June, 1664, Plymouth had complained to Rhode Island of intrusions upon her territory, and in October following the latter colony answered by proposing the appointment of a committee who should determine as to the boundaries. All negotiations, however, ceased upon the return of the royal commission from New York. Rhode Island appointed three men to appear before that body at See- konck on February 27, 1665, when the subject was to come up for decision. But the commissioners could come to no definite settlement since, as they stated in their report, Rhode Island claimed a strip three miles in breadth bordering upon Narragansett bay, which Plymouth could not yield without great prejudice to her interests. Accordingly they established the "water" as the natural bounds between the two colonics until the King's pleasure should be further known.3 Unfor- tunately the Rhode Island charter had not settled the boundary with unmistakable clearness. The phrase "extending three miles to the
1R. I. H. S. Coll. iii, 179-182. The purchasers were also ordered to quit their habitations by the following September, which order, however, was later remanded.
2Idem, p. 262.
8The early negotiations are in R. I. C. R. ii, 74, 90, the report of the com- missioners in ii, 128, and the letter to Clarendon in ii, 164.
111
FROM THE CHARTER OF 1663 TO KING PHILIP'S WAR.
east and northeast of the most eastern and northeastern parts of Nar- ragansett Bay" was one that would take considerable arbitration to be satisfactorily determined. The Rhode Island claimants certainly had strong arguments, in alluding to the proximity of the strip in question and its fitness to belong to their jurisdiction, to support their request that the charter should be interpreted most favorably to them. In their letter to Lord Clarendon, in September, 1666, giving seven reasons why the eastern line should be settled "according to the mean- ing and letter of the charter", they state that the land opposite the whole length of the Island of Rhode Island had never been improved by Plymouth, that it could not be fortified by Plymouth on account of its remoteness, and that the inhabitants already there had formerly lived and were still desirous of living under Rhode Island jurisdiction. However strong were the arguments brought forward, the decision remained unrendered for many years. Occasionally a clash as to jurisdiction would cause an exchange of letters, but it was not until nearly a century had passed that the line was finally determined upon by royal order.
Yet a third Rhode Island controversy was to be presented before the commissioners during their stay. Gorton and his companions, after having in vain sought reparation for the losses inflicted by the Massa- chusetts men twenty years before, addressed a "humble petition" to the commission at the time of their arrival in Rhode Island. In this they briefly summed up the many wrongs they had suffered during their capture and imprisonment, and made especial mention of the damage inflicted by the petty sachems who lived at Warwick under color of Massachusetts authority.1 The commissioners soon paid at- tention to their petition by ordering, on April 7, 1665, that Pumham and his Indians should remove from Warwick Neck within a year.2 But to obtain any redress from Massachusetts, opposed in every way to the commission and dreading the least interference with their self-
Mass. Rec. iv, pt. 2, 253. Their letters to Mass. and to the United Colonies, setting forth their claims and giving notice of their intention to appeal to the King, are in R. I. H. S. Coll. ii, 217, 224.
2The town of Warwick was to pay Pumham twenty pounds for his removal. Sir Robert Carr, on his return to Rhode Island in December, 1665, found that the Indians had not yet removed, and only by doubling the bribe could he oust them. John Eliot, instigated doubtless by Massachusetts author- ities, wrote an ill-timed letter of intercession in Pumham's behalf, which, together with other transactions, led Carr to assert that the Bay magistrates were "unwilling to let the people in these southern parts rest under his Majes- ties government". Roger Williams also, who was misinformed as to the matter, wrote urging pacification. (All this correspondence is in R. I. C. R. ii, 132-138.)
112
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
assumed domination over New England, was quite another matter. The request for an answer upon the subject from the General Court brought forth a wordy and abusive reply that scarcely gave promise of any reparation. Cartwright, discouraged with the general opposi- tion against the commission, wrote to Gorton: "These gentlemen of Boston would make us believe that they verily think that the King has given them so much power in their charter to do unjustly, that he reserved none for himself, to call them to an account for doing so. In short, they refuse to let us hear complaints against them, so that, at present, we can do nothing in your behalf. But I hope shortly to go for England, where, if God bless me thither, I shall truly present your sufferings and your loyalty".1
The final duty of the commissioners was to submit to the colony a set of five proposals similar to those which had been offered to Ply- mouth and Connecticut, and which with certain reservations regarding the religious clause had been accepted. These proposals, which were acted upon by the General Assembly in May, 1665, were as follows :
"1. That all householders inhabiting this Colony take the oath of allegiance, and the administration of justice be in his Majesty's name.
"2. That all men of competent estates and of civil conversation, who acknowledge and are obedient to the civil magistrate, though of differing judgments, may be admitted to be freemen, and have liberty to choose and to be chosen officers both civil and [military].
"3. Thatall men and women of orthodox opinion, competent knowl- edge and civil [lives], who acknowledge and are obedient to the civil magistrate, and are not scandalous, may be admitted to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and their children to baptism, if they desire it; either by admitting them into the congregations already gathered, or permitting them to gather themselves into such congregations where they may enjoy the benefits of the sacraments, and that difference in opinion may not break the bands of peace and charity.
"4. That all laws and expressions in laws derogatory to his Maj- esty, if any such have been made in these late troublesome times, may be repealed, altered, and taken off.
"5. That this Colony be put in such a posture of defense, that if there should be any invasion upon this Island or elsewhere in this Colony (which God forbid), you [may in] some measure be in readi- ness to defend yourselves ; or if need be, to relieve your [neighbors] according to the power given you by the King in your Charter, and to us in this commission and instruction".
Upon these proposals, the assembly "in a deep sense of his Majesty 's most royal and wonderful grace and favor more particularly expressed
1R. I. H. S. Coll. ii, 246; Mass. Rec. iv, pt. 2, 274.
113
FROM THE CHARTER OF 1663 TO KING PHILIP'S WAR.
in his gracious Charter", took most favorable action. To the first they assented, only substituting in place of the "oath", an "engagement" of similar purport and equal binding force. With the second and third proposals, which provided for complete religious toleration, the assembly most heartily concurred, declaring that "as it hath been a principle held forth and maintained in the colony from the very be- ginning thereof, so it is much on their hearts to preserve the same liberty to all persons within this colony forever". To the fourth and fifth proposals, the assembly gave their cheerful consent, passing in accordance with the last, a complete militia law which required fre- quent trainings, pay for service, individual ownership of ammunition, and maintenance of town magazines.1
The work of the commissioners in Rhode Island was completed. In no colony had their proposals been so willingly accepted. In no col- ony were they themselves so heartily welcomed. Their requests and demands were in perfect unison with those principles which Rhode Island had maintained from the beginning-liberty of conscience, op- position to a New England oligarchy controlled by Massachusetts, and allegiance to the mother country to which Rhode Island owed so much. With such impartial and powerful friends, it is needless to say that Rhode Island's "demonstrations of loyalty and obedience", to which the commissioners especially referred to in their report, did not go unnoticed among those who administered the affairs of the colonies.
Scarcely had the commissioners departed from Rhode Island, when there arose in Providence one of the most bitter local quarrels that the colony had ever witnessed. Although a study of it belongs to local, rather than to colony history, yet a brief allusion to the dispute is helpful in order to show the general ineffectiveness of both town and colony government. Almost from its very foundation, Providence had been disturbed with contention over the vaguely worded bound- aries of Roger Williams's original deed. The great body of proprie- tors, led by William Harris, asserted that the clause "up the stream of Patuckett and Patuxet without limits we might have for our use of cattle" in the "memorandum", gave to them, not the mere right of pasturage, but a fee simple in all the territory as far west as twenty miles-to what was later the Connecticut line. Through Williams's deed to them of the "Pawtuxet lands" in 1638, they claimed that all this territory was vested in them, and by means of liberal gratuities, ob- tained from the degenerate heirs of Canonicus and Miantonomo "con- firmation deeds" of both lands and rights of pasturage as far west as
1R. I. C. R. ii, 110-118. 8
1
114
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
twenty miles from Fox's hill. Williams, on the other hand, solemnly asserted that "the great Sachems never gave me, nor did I give to any, a foot beyond those known stated bounds fixed us in our grand original decd, to wit, Pawtuckqut, Notaquonckanit, Mauhapog, and Pawtuxet, which at the furthest the Sachems would never suffer to extend beyond Paupauqunnuppog, far short of W. Harris's being at Pauchasit, which was ever accounted by the Indians a violation".1 He always spoke bitterly and invectively of this "rawming for up streams with- out limits" and said that such a boundary was "a terrible Bcast, not only tearing our peace and neighborhood in pieces, but spits fire and spreads fire and sets the towns on fire, and the whole colony also, unless the merciful Lord please most wonderfully to quench it".2
This variance, engendering many minor disputes, had been the cause of much disturbance at town meetings for many years, but it remained for the lull succeeding the departure of the royal commissioners from Rhode Island for it to break out again with renewed virulence and force. On June 3, 1667, at the Providence town meeting for election of officers, a wordy controversy arose as to the qualification of voters. The meeting split into two factions, headed by Arthur Fenner and William Harris, and chose two respective sets of deputies for the general assembly. The Fenner party immediately addressed a vitu- perative document, called "The Firebrand Discovered", to the other towns, in which they gave their side of the story and incidentally visited much opprobrium on the said Harris.3 That gentleman then procured of the Governor the calling of a special session of the assem- bly to test his case and to bring Fenner to trial. If he hoped to better his cause by such action, he must have been sadly disappointed. For the assembly quickly accepted the deputies chosen by virtue of Fen- ner's warrant, cleared Fenner himself of all charges against him, and discharged Harris from the office of assistant. In addition, upon the petition of the town of Warwick,4 they fined him fifty pounds for
1R. I. H. S. Publ. viii, 158.
2R. I. Hist. Tract, xiv, 35. Even if we adopt Williams's idea of the origi- nal boundary as correct and morally just to the Indians, we must acknowledge that the more liberal construction placed upon the vague wording by the proprietors prevented the intrusion of alien purchasers into the territory in question and preserved it intact to be included under the Rhode Island charter of 1663.
3A copy of this document is in Copies of Warwick Records, p. 15, in the R. I. Hist. Soc. Library.
4Harris had earned the enmity of Warwick both through personal disputes over land and through his activity in collecting the rate for paying John Clarke, Warwick objected to this rate, giving several rather insufficient
115
FROM THE CHARTER OF 1663 TO KING PHILIP'S WAR.
putting them to the expense of calling an assembly at such a busy season of the year.
The Fenner party had won a complete triumph, which was, however, to be short lived. Harris, undoubtedly through his influence with the Quakers, was reinstated in his office of assistant at the following May elections of 1668, and Fenner was dropped. Governor Brenton re- fused to qualify him, but Deputy-Governor Easton, a Quaker, willing- ly administered the engagement.1 Harris was not yet satisfied. Through a letter of complaint addressed to Col. Nicolls, one of the royal commissioners, he induced that official to make a protest against the fine previously imposed upon him, as being unprecedented in Eng- lish law. The general assembly immediately remanded the fine.2 Letters and protests now followed in rapid succession, Roger Williams writing vituperatively about Harris, Warwick vigorously protesting against the "contrary deportment of others", and Governor Brenton bewailing the general disorder and imploring peace.3 At last Brenton could stand it no longer. In March, 1669, he wrote to the various towns, complaining of attacks upon his property and of discourage- ments offered to him in public office, and requested that they should "pitch on some other person that might be more serviceable to the Colony". Accordingly, at the next May election, Benedict Arnold was chosen Governor. Through all this turmoil, Harris remained in the office of assistant, took part in the most important meetings of the governor and council, and was reinstated in his old position of chief gatherer of the John Clarke rate of 1664. His triumph is all the more remarkable in view of the fact that his designs with Connecticut against Rhode Island ownership of Narragansett territory were already suspected.
The disputes at Providence continued with unabated vigor, render- ing the townsmen incapable of transacting their own affairs and pre- venting their aid in the management of colony matters. The general assembly, in October, 1669, was finally forced to take action. "Sadly resenting the distractions amongst our ancient, loving and honored neighbors of the town of Providence, and finding that the cause of the aforesaid inconveniences ariseth from disagreement about divisions
reasons (R. I. C. R. ii, 78, 142,) which drew forth from Roger Williams one of the finest and most powerful letters that he ever wrote. ( In R. I. H. S. Publ. viii, 147. See also Arnold i, 325, 336, and Copies of Warwick Records, p. 10, 13, 14, 18, in R. I. Hist. Soc. Library.)
1R. I. C. R. ii, 223, and Arnold i, 335.
2 Idem, ii, 234, 237.
3Prov. Rec. xv, 117, 118, 120, 121, 124; Copies of Warwick Records, p. 8, 19-22; and Moses Brown Papers, xviii, 117, in R. I. Hist. Soc. Library.
116
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
of lands", they appointed a committee of five men to repair to the town and at a meeting of all the inhabitants, to persuade them to com- pose their differences by arbitration. This having been done, a meet- ing of the freemen was to be called, in which all the town officers should be elected and a set of deputies chosen for the assembly.1 This laudable attempt at a settlement completely failed. Neither party would brook interference which in any way compromised their titles to property. The assembly, at the March session in 1670, sadly allud- ed to the failure of the committee, and appointed two men to ascertain who were the legal voters of Providence, in order that a town meeting should be held for election of officers and deputies to the succeeding assembly. Again there was a dispute at the May session, and we learn from the assembly record that "whereas, there was a difference about the choice of the second assistant for Providence, between Mr. William Harris and Capt. Arthur Fenner, which of them was chosen, and they both being not very free to accept upon so doubtful terms, therefore by the assembly Mr. Roger Williams is chosen assistant".
Thus the dispute went on. The assembly took no further action toward officially settling the matter and Providence town meetings continued to be beset with land controversies, which, however, dimin- ished in force as the landed proprietors gradually gained the ascend- ency over the smaller holders. Williams's protest against the en- larged construction of the original grant found few to favor it, and after the great King Philip war came to discredit all Indian rights and claims, was scarcely ever revived. The proprietors continued to draw lots for vacant lands and dispose of it to their best advantage, while the few who opposed such proceedings could never gain enough power to make their voices heard. The whole controversy as alluded to in these pages merely shows the general disregard of restraint by law and the lack of a strong, centralized authority in Rhode Island. Thus the town, filled as it was with party factions and bickering spirits, could receive but little help from a legislative body that could make laws, but not enforce them.
Several allusions have already been made to the influence attaincd by the Quakers in Rhode Island. The refuge offered them at Newport at their first coming into New England they had turned into a strong- hold, gradually gaining converts to their belief, acquiring control of town affairs, and making their weight felt in colony elections. For five years in succession-from 1672 to 1676-they had filled the gov- ernor's chair, and several men in the northern part of the colony, like
1R. I. C. R. ii, 289. Dorr, Prov. Proprietors, p. 97-99.
117
FROM THE CHARTER OF 1663 TO KING PHILIP'S WAR.
William Harris and others, had discovered the beneficent results of adopting their principles. Roger Williams, although strongly opposed to the tenets of the Quakers, yet in consistence with the distinctive Rhode Island principle of religious toleration, always considered them his political equals. He managed to hold aloof from all discussion and controversy as to doctrine, until the arrival of their great leader, George Fox, led many of the "orthodox faith" to regard with favor the new belief. In company with some of his disciples, Fox left Eng- land to visit America, and finally reached Newport in May, 1672, where he became the guest of Governor Easton. Here he found much satisfaction with his reception, with the progress of the faith, and with the meetings to which people "flocked in from all parts of the island". As to the results of his journey to Providence, however, he was more fearful. The people there, he said, "were generally above the priests in high notions", and since some came to his meeting on purpose to dispute, he was "exceeding hot, and in a great sweat. But all was well, the disputers were silent, and the meeting quiet".
A few days after his return to Newport, Williams challenged him to a public discussion of fourteen specific points of Quaker doctrine, seven to be debated upon in Newport and seven in Providence. The challenge was accepted, not by Fox, who, according to Williams, "slily departed", but by three of his disciples. The date set was August 9th, and Williams, after performing the extraordinary physical feat of rowing down the bay within a single day, entered the lists with unim- paired vigor. After a three days' rather disorderly session at New- port, the parties adjourned to Providence, where they finished the debate. Since each side was apparently well satisfied that it had won the victory, Williams soon published a lengthy volume with the pun- ning title, "George Fox digged out of his Burrowes". Fox, with his disciple Burnyeat, immediately replied with a treatise having the equally graphic title "A New England Firebrand Quenched". Few of even the most assiduous antiquaries would have the courage to toil through the accounts of this weary and profitless dispute. The point to be especially noticed by the historical student of to-day is the fact that these hair-splitting discussions over religious doctrine were more momentous to the people of that period than were ever debates on political subjects. The controlling element of religion in social life, and hence its importance as a factor in legislation and the making of history, is a matter that must never for a moment be overlooked.1
'The authorities for this dispute and the events leading up to it may be found in the Journal of the life of G. Fox; Journal of the life of Wm. Ed-
George Fox
Digg'd out of his
Burrovves,
Or an Offer of
DISPUTATION
On fourteen Propofalls made this laft Summer 1672 (10 call's) unto G. Fox then prefent on Rade-ifund in New- England, by. R.n
PhAs alfo how ( G. Fox flily departing) the Diputation went on being managed three dayes at Newport on Rode- Ifland, and one day at Providence, between John Stubs, John Burnet, and William Edmundfon on the one part, and R.IV. on the other.
In which many Quotations out of G. Fox & Ed. Burrowes Book in Folio are alleadged.
Glusha WITH AN
Grote)
APENDI
X
Of fome fcores of G. F. his fimple lame Anfwers to his Oppo- fires in that Book, quoted and replyed to By R. W. of Providence in N. E.
0 S T O N
Printed by Fohn Foter, 1 6 7 6.
.. .
TITLE PAGE OF ROGER WILLIAMS'S ANSWER TO GEORGE FOX. FROM THE ORIGINAL IN THE LIBRARY OF THE RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
119
FROM THE CHARTER OF 1663 TO KING PHILIP'S WAR.
Affairs in the Narragansett country remained in a strangely settled state after the verdict of the royal commissioners had placed that terri- tory under the control of the Rhode Island magistrates. Connecticut seemed willing to allow the decision to stand unquestioned, and when one John Crandall, in 1667, illegally laid out some land on the west side of the Pawcatuck, she immediately complained of the encroacli- ment, but never even alluded to any claim upon the east side of the river. Thus matters might have indefinitely remained and the bound- ary decided according to the wording of the Rhode Island charter had not that same old spirit of discontent with Rhode Island institutions again cropped out within her territory. Twice had Richard Smith and his companions beseeched Connecticut to assume jurisdiction over them, chiding her for not taking more active interest in their behalf. So again, on May 4, 1668, we find Hudson, Smith and the other inhab- itants of Wickford begging Connecticut to "assume her power and to afford us protection we being not able to live either in our civil or ecclesiastical matters without government".1 Dissatisfied with the factious Rhode Island government, and especially provoked by the absence of a state protected church, these alien inhabitants of Narragansett much desired to be under the strong ecclesiastical gov- ernment of Connecticut. Thus importuned, that colony soon renewed her claim to Narragansett Bay and appointed agents to treat with Rhode Island. But matters were not proceeding fast enough to suit the Wickford men. Again, in October, 1668, they write, "At present being without government we crave you will be pleased to consider our former petition and take us under your wing, that so we may know whither we have recourse for justice; and also to appoint such as in your wisdom you think meet to be ministers of justice amongst us, which our necessity requires, for we cannot be content to live under an anarchy".2 Connecticut, however, did not quite yet dare to take such summary action in view of the recent decision of the commis- sioners, and answered by proposing a mutual treaty.
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.