USA > Rhode Island > Providence County > Providence > State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations at the end of the century : a history, Volume 1 > 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 | 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
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
The war, which in the meanwhile had been waged with renewed vigor throughout New England, was rapidly drawing to a close. By the summer of 1676, defeat, sickness and desertion had redueed the Indian forces to a few hundred braves who still remained truc to their chief. After several attempts on Philip's life, he was finally driven into a swamp near Mount Hope, where he was shot through the heart by a treacherous Indian. The leader dead, the war was soon ended. The Indians, their power utterly broken, were henceforth doomed to slavery or dependence upon the whites, and eventually to extinction. The English had lost hundreds of their best soldiers, incurred a heavy debt, and suffered losses to their eattle, erops, and homes from which it would take many years to recover.1 Rhode Island, although she had been opposed to the war, had suffered in proportion to her popu- lation probably more severely than any other colony. The charred ruins of once promising villages, lands despoiled of all that was valu- able, homes bercaved by death and desolation remained as mute wit- nesses of her own helplessness and the fury of the enemy.2
After the war, the Connectieut authorities, seeking some new pre- text for control over the Narragansett lands, claimed them by right of eonquest. They asserted that Rhode Island, during the war, rendered no assistanee to the other eolonies or to her mainland towns, and even aeeused her of sheltering the enemy. Although Rhode Island's vir- tual desertion of the mainland towns is only too true, that she refused to render aid to her distressed neighbors is disproved by contempora- neous accounts.3 The fact that she was opposed to the war and be-
1The contemporaneous tracts on King Philip's War are listed in Winsor Narr. and Crit. Hlist. iii, 360. See also Palfrey iii, 132-239, Bodge Soldiers in King Philip's War. and Mem. Hist. of Boston i, 327. For an account of R I. in the war, see the bibliography at the close of the last volume of this work.
2A contemporaneous account presents the following table of losses so far as regards Rhode Island: "In Narragansett, not one house left standing. At Warwick, but one. At Providence, not above three. At Pawtuxet, none left". (Drake's Indian Chronicle, p. 244.) The Islanders, furthermore, had expended about £800 for war purposes. ( Prov. Rec. xv, 160. The Newport Town Records soon after the war often mention the payment of individual claims for Island defence.) The tax laid in November, 1678, clearly shows the relative degree in which the towns had suffered. Newport was assessed £136, Portsmouth £68, New Shoreham and Jamestown each £29, Providence £10, Warwick and Kingston each £8, East Greenwich and Westerly each £2. (R. I. C. R. iii, 21, 112.)
3A few references to contemporaneous accounts will best show how Rhode Island was of assistance to the other colonies. In June, 1675, upon the request of Plymouth, Rhode Island sent out some sloops to attend Philip's movements by water (Easton's Narrative, p. 16, Church's History, p. 4, Narr. Club Publ. vi, 372,) and in the following month transported the troops from the Island
129
FROM KING PHILIP'S WAR TO THE COMING OF ANDROS.
lieved the attaek upon the Narragansetts to be unlawful and unjust would certainly justify her in not entering as a colony into the strug- gle. Her counsel and joint assistance, moreover, was never asked, and in all preparations for war her aid, welfare, and even existenee were apparently not considered. Rhode Island asserted that sinee the war was prosecuted solely by the United Colonies, she was eon- cerned only as necessity required for the defense of life and property, and that her colony, "though mueh negleeted and disregarded, had afforded sueh assistance as eould rationally be expected from so little a spot of land, encompassed with so many difficulties and disadvan- tages".1
Rhode Island emerged from the war desolate and impoverished. It would seem as if the process of reeonstrueting their homes and re- trieving their fortunes would have prevented the settlers from renew- ing the costly and fruitless struggles over land. But on the contrary, the entire eolony became embarrassed with controversies and litigation to a greater extent than ever. In the northern part of the colony Warwiek was in dispute with Providenee over jurisdietion, and with Pawtuxet over title to the lands bordering upon the Pawtuxet River, the proprietors of Providence and Pawtuxet were at issue over the boundary line between their respeetive holdings, and private parties were constantly sueing one another for trespass and recovery of prop- erty. The details of these various disputes are too prolix and pro-
over to Pocasset (Church, p. 7, 13; Hubbard's Narrative, p. 28). It was a Rhode Island sloop, moreover, that rescued them from their perilous position after the skirmish at Fogland Ferry (Church, p. 11). Holden and Greene in their reply to Massachusetts, thus confirm this fact of naval assistance, "The colony did, at the request of the other colonies, assist them with several sloops well manned, when the war was begun in Plymouth colony, to the utmost they could do, and to the great damage of the enemy". ( Arnold, i, 410, R. I. C. R. iii, 62.) After the sanguinary and exhaustive Swamp Fight of December, 1675, the English wounded-one writer says to the number of 150-were removed to Rhode Island, where they were hospitably and kindly cared for, some for many weeks ( Drake, Indian Chronicle, p. 185, 211, and especially notes; Church, 17, and Plym. Rec. vi, 118). Rhode Island men served as volunteers in the war ( Hubbard, 28), and at its very close two companies under Rhode Island captains brought in forty-two captives, and a body of Rhode Island men pursued Philip to his death. ( Drake, 291; Church, 43, Cal- lender, Hist. Discourse, p. 79, R. I. C. R. iii, 44.) Constant mention is made by Church of the provisions and aid furnished him by the Island ( Church, 11, 12, etc .; Drake, 290), and the Newport jail was frequently used for Indian captives (Drake, 292). As a place of refuge, the Island was resorted to not only by the inhabitants throughout Rhode Island, but also by people from Swanzey, Dartmouth, and even from Mendon (Hubbard, 70, Drake, 133n, Church, 21). To use the expression of one early narrator, "Rhode Island now became the common Zoar, or place of refuge for the distressed". (Drake, 224.)
1R. I. C. R. ii, 582; iii, 44.
9-1
130
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
tracted to be considered in this chapter on colony history.1 To give a complete account of them would be to write a biography of William Harris. This active and fearless opponent of Roger Williams spent the greater part of his life in trying to maintain and enlarge his prop- erty, and though invariably successful in obtaining verdicts in his favor, could seldom, on account of the persistence of rival claimants, get these decrees carried out. After his death in 1680, land disputes occupied a less prominent place in Providence politics, and those in which he was formerly concerned were finally settled, now that the champion was out of the fight, with considerable detriment to his original claims.
In the southern part of the colony, Rhode Island had much more formidable opposition to confront. The lands about Mount Hope, which now belonged to the English by right of conquest, offered a prize to the colony which could present the best claim. An additional claimant unexpectedly came forward in the person of John Crowne, a man who had attained considerable note in England as a writer of plays. In January, 1679, he petitioned the King for "a small tract of land in New England, called Mount Hope", as a recompense for certain losses sustained by his family in Acadia. The council imme- diately sought information from the agents of Rhode Island and of Massachusetts who were then in London. The former asserted that the propricty was vested in the King, while the latter favored the claim of Plymouth to the territory in question. Unable to decide upon such contrary evidence, the council addressed letters of inquiry to the four New England colonies. Rhode Island admitted that the territory had been previously granted to Plymouth by the Commis- sioners in 1665, as having been within that colony's original patent, but mentioned the fact that it was also included within her own char- ter of 1663. Plymouth, besides advancing her rights by patent, sought the property as a compensation for the losses she had sustained in Philip's war. Her claim scemed the most conclusive, and on Jan- uary 12, 1680, the land was especially granted to Plymouth. Crowne, disappointed in his purpose, presented a new petition for a grant of Boston Neck, in Narragansett, which met the same fate as its prede- cessor.2
1For detailed treatment, see Staples's Providence, page 581-592, and Arnold, i, 429-438. The papers of the chief actor in these controversies, William Harris, are in process of publication by the R. I. Historical Society.
2For the original documents bearing upon these Mount Hope lands, see R. I. C. R. iii, 37-46, 64; Conn. Rec. iii, 272, 506; and Cal. State Papers Colo- nial, 1677-80. For the life of Crowne see Dict. Nat. Biog. xiii, 243.
131
FROM KING PHILIP'S WAR TO THE COMING OF ANDROS.
It was in the renewed struggle for Narragansett country, however, that Rhode Island had the most concern. During the period when that territory was a possible battle-ground, both colonies refrained from asserting jurisdiction over it. But immediately upon the con- clusion of the war, Connecticut, setting up an additional claim to the territory by right of conquest, warned Rhode Island inhabitants from resettling upon their former estates. The Rhode Island assembly, in a letter of October 25, 1676, remonstrated against this order and said that because a colony was obliged by necessity to desert some of its plantations, it should therefore lose its Charter rights, and particular persons their lands and privileges, would without doubt be disap- proved by his Majesty.1 They furthermore set up a written prohibi- tion, forbidding anyone to "exercise jurisdiction in any part of the Narragansett country, but by order of the authority of the Colony of Rhode Island".
With each colony taking so determined an attitude, the controversy seemed in a way of becoming more serious than ever. Connecticut arrests brought forth threats of Rhode Island reprisals and each side began to strengthen its military arm. Connecticut's proposal in May, 1677, of Coweset as the boundary between the two colonies was met by Rhode Island's offer of five thousand acres in Narragansett to be at Connecticut's disposal but under Rhode Island's jurisdiction.2 Neither party being willing to sacrifice any of its assumed rights, these attempts at compromise were wholly in vain. Both colonies prepared for a protracted controversy-Connecticut, more adventurous and self-confident from her recent practice in arms, and prodded on by those of Massachusetts who hoped to make good their flimsy mortgaged title ; Rhode Island, weaker, yet twice assured in her claim by royal command, and realizing that to forfeit the territory in question would be to lose her geographical integrity.
The Connecticut court, at its May meeting in 1677, appointed a committee to survey the Narragansett country with a view towards a . general settlement, and in October following the Rhode Island assem- bly laid out a tract of five thousand acres to be known as the town of East Greenwich.3 Those of the Atherton Company who resided in
1R. I. C. R. ii, 556, 559.
2Idem, ii, 583, 594.
3Idem, ii, 587, 593, 595. East Greenwich was the eighth town to be incor- porated in the colony, Kingston having been incorporated in 1674. The new town was to be laid out in two parts, one of 500 acres for house lots on the bay, and the other of 4500 acres for farms. The whole was to be divided
132
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
Massachusetts, now sought to turn their pretended holdings in Narra- gansett country into ready money, and applied to Connecticut for the privilege to form settlements there. This request granted, they posted a handbill in Boston and Newport offering for sale at reasonable terms several tracts of land in that country. Rhode Island quickly warned all people against these "fallacious claims of title and govern- ment", asserted her own ownership of the territory, and later impris- oned and fined one of the signers of the advertisement.1 A still bolder move was made by the heirs of the Atherton Company residing in Narragansett. They sent a petition to the King, signed by Richard Smith and others, and also by William Harris, begging that Narra- gansett, as well as the islands in the Bay, should be given to the juris- dietion of Conneetient. In view of these powerful attaeks upon Rhode Island's authority, it was most fortunate that two sueh able representatives of her interests were in London at the time. Randall Holden and John Greene, who had originally gone abroad to defend Warwiek in the Harris ease, and who had already shown mueh skill in diplomaey, now became the aeeredited agents of Rhode Island in England. They soon made answer to Smith's petition and also in- formed the King regarding the Atherton handbill, which was in direet defianee of former royal orders. In a document dated December 13, 1678, the King rendered his decision. After sumning up the chief points in the history of the dispute-the submission of the Indians to his Majesty in 1644, the declaration of the royal commissioners in 1665 that the Atherton purchases were void, and the subsequent order that the magistrates of Rhode Island should govern in Narra- gansett until further notice-the order directly commanded that the provinee should be left as it was, and that all persons pretending title should make their appeal to the King.2 Massachusetts was rebuked by a later order annulling the sentenee of banishment passed upon Holden and his Warwiek associates thirty-five years before. The intelligenee of this decision was conveyed to the eolonies in a royal letter of February 12, 1679, requiring them to send agents to England if they had elaims to the territory in question.
into fifty equal shares among those named in the act. Neglect to build within a year would result in the forfeiture of one's whole share. For references to the town's history, see the Bibliography at the close of this work. For discussion as to the origin of the name see Narr. Hist. Reg. iii, 249, 327.
1Ct. Rec. iii, 15, 32, 257; R. I. C. R. iii, 18; Arnold, i, 447. The handbill is dated July 30, 1678.
2The original documents are in R. I. C. R. iii, 50-51, 60-63. Holden and Greene received from R. I. a richly deserved letter of thanks upon their return home in July, 1679, besides the sum of £60 for their expenses. A letter of gratitude was also sent to the King. (Idem, 43, 47.)
133
FROM KING PHILIP'S WAR TO THE COMING OF ANDROS.
It was opportune for Rhode Island that this royal intercession in her bchalf came when it did. Connecticut's recent demand that the settlers in East Greenwich should be recalled, was answered by a letter in which Rhode Island justified her coursc. The letter deplores the "pressing forward of that long difference between the two colonies which we hoped would not again be raked up", and then prophetically continues, "We must own you are of strength sufficient to compel submission ; but if you think his Majesty will not relieve, maintain and defend his subjects in their just and lawful rights from usurpa- tion, forceable and violent intrusions, you may attempt anything un- der the pretence of settlement".1 Upon receiving the royal confirma- tion of the government of Narragansett by her magistrates, Rhode Island immediately posted a prohibition commanding the inhabitants in Westerly and elsewhere in Narragansett to render obedience only to her authority, and warning Connecticut not to exercise any juris- diction in that country. The Connecticut court, at a meeting held in October, 1679, took action on the King's letter by appointing William Harris as their authorized agent to argue their claim in England. Although she realized that her pretensions to the heart of Narragansett country were temporarily, at least, defeated, and expressed her will- ingness to "sit silent" until the King's pleasure was made known, Connecticut strongly protested against Rhode Island's assertion of authority at Westerly. She assumed that the royal order that King's Province should remain in its present condition meant that Westerly should remain under her jurisdiction-an evidently wrong construc- tion in that it neglected the premise of the King's decision mentioning Rhode Island's authority over the province until his Majesty's pleas- ure was further known. Acting upon this assumption, however, she complained of Rhode Island's "unlawful proceedings" on the east side of the Pawcatuck, forbade the inhabitants there to recognize Rhode Island authority, and condemned that colony's "pretences" of jurisdiction as "usurped and utterly unlawful". Rhode Island re-
1Ct. Rec. iii, 266, under date of April 21, 1679. The hindrance offered to the Rhode Island government by some of the Narragansett settlers themselves is well illustrated by a letter of R. Smith to Connecticut, May 26, 1679. After complaining of the proceedings of Rhode Island "against those that assert your right", he continues, "I long to hear what your Court concludes. Pray let us hear what we may trust unto; we must either be protected or comply with our adversaries, the latter being sore against our minds, if forced to it. As to what Rhode Island pretends to have favor in England, I know they lie, nor have they any assurance in any such thing Rhode Island settles daily in Narragansett; if no stop be made, it will be hard to remove them". (Ct. Rec. iii, 269.) Prodded on by such letters as this, Connecticut could scarcely recede a step in her controversy with a manifestly weaker colony.
134
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
plied by giving notice of her intention to run her western line and requesting the concurrence of Connecticut in the matter-"a cool rejoinder", says Arnold, "to the recent fulminations from that quarter".1
Harris sailed for England as agent for Connecticut in December, 1679, but was taken at sea by a Barbary corsair, kept as a prisoner for over a year in Algiers, and finally ransomed for a large sum. He returned to England, broken down by his hardships, and died within a few days after reaching London.2 Connecticut, upon hearing of his capture and consequent loss of papers, lastened to send a letter to the Board of Trade giving seven reasons why they be given authority over Narragansett Country. The Narragansett proprictors also sent a long petition, asking to be separated from Rhode Island, and either annexed to some other colony or erccted into a separate province.3 The Board of Trade soon found that the controversy was too complicated to re- ceive final decision in England, and recommended that commissioners be appointed to examine the subject.
At length, on April 7, 1683, a royal commission was issued to Ed- ward Randolph, the English customs officer in Massachusetts, Edward Cranfield, Governor of New Hampshire, William Stoughton, Joseph Dudley, and five other Massachusetts men, to inquire into the "respec- tive claims and titles to the jurisdiction, government, or propriety of King's Province, or Narragansett Country". This commission, from the very character of its composition, could scarcely be expected to render a fair decision. Randolph was one of the most unscrupulous and incapable officers ever sent over to New England, and Cranfield was a mere political frecbooter.4 The preponderance of Massachu- setts representatives, furthermore, immediately suggested the partiality that was to be shown to the Atherton Company. By August, the com- mission was ready for business. They wrote to Rhode Island, giving notice of their intention to meet at Richard Smith's house on August
1Connecticut's action is in Ct. Rec. iii, 38, 40, 278. See also R. I. C. R. iii, 73, and Arnold, i, 457.
"The Harris Captivity Letters, a remarkably interesting series of docu- ments, are in process of publication by the R. I. Historical Society.
3Connecticut's letter, dated July 15, 1680, is in Ct. Rec. iii, 302; and the Narragansett petition, received Oct. 11, 1680, is mentioned in Arnold, i, 463. For the reply of R. I. to this latter document, and for previous letters in regard to the "first settler" of Narragansett, see R. I. C. R. iii, 56-60, Arnold, i, 463, and Narr. Reg. ii, 27.
4For English estimates of these officials, see Doyle's Puritan Colonies, ii, 196, 226.
135
FROM KING PHILIP'S WAR TO THE COMING OF ANDROS.
22, and requiring that that colony should produce all necessary docu- ments, and desiring that printed briefs should be publicly set up. This was the first warning that Rhode Island had regarding the ap- pointment of the commission and she was in considerable uncertainty as to how to act. The Governor and Council, after a serious debate, decided that the printed briefs should not be published, because "the said summons were not granted in his Majesty's name; because they have not shown any commission to this government from his Majesty for their so acting; and because his Majesty hath not given any infor- mation thercof to us by any of his royal letters". The assembly approved of this action, "the said printed briefs being not only date- less, but also placeless". They also wrote a letter to Cranfield asking that before anything further was done, the royal order should be shown to the assembly, "that we may be informed what his Majesty's will and pleasure is concerning us therein".
The Rhode Island authorities evidently perceived that nothing could be hoped for from such a commission, and decided to stand suit in the matter on the plea of illegality. It might have been more politic, and surely more courteous, to have adopted a less defiant course, but they hoped to head off any final judgment upon the commissioners' report when the matter came up in England. That a permanent decision would be made entirely upon the testimony of one side they realized was hardly probable.
The commission met at Smith's house on the appointed date. When Cranfield was shown the letter from Rhode Island, he said that he did not recognize that colony's authority in King's Province, and refused to send a reply. The assembly, which was now met at Captain Fones's house near by, immediately issued a prohibition, by virtue of his Maj- esty's trust to them, forbidding the holding of the court unless royal authority was shown. The commission continued with their proceed- ings, however, and heard the testimony of the Connecticut agents, of the Atherton representatives, and of some Indians who were brought before them. After a two days' session, they adjourned to Boston, where they looked over several documents furnished them by the Ath- erton men. On October 20, they rendered their report, a lengthy doc- ument, in which Rhode Island's disrespectful conduct is enlarged upon. Not having heard any pleas in behalf of Rhode Island, the commission naturally came to the decision that the jurisdiction of Narragansett belonged to Connecticut and the right of the soil to the Atherton associates. The grant of the territory to Rhode Island by charter was declared invalid, since that clause was dependent entirely
136
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
upon the Winthrop-Clarke agreement which was later repudiated by Connecticut. The decision of the royal commissioners in 1665 in behalf of Rhode Island was briefly disposed of by asserting that these "inadvertent orders were since by Colonel Nichols and themselves reversed".1 Cranfield, on October 19, wrote a letter to the King, abusing Rhode Island, and that colony, on the same date, explained her whole eonduet to the King, contrasting the action of the present commission with that of the deputation of 1665, and stating that the refusal to exhibit royal authority had forced her to issue a prohibition of proceedings.2 All these letters and reports were brought before the English council, where they were apparently disregarded in making way for the rapidly maturing scheme of bringing Narragansett within a general New England province.
For several years, the English government had had serious intention of reducing all the New England colonies to an absolute subjection to the mother country. Through their natural resources, their enter- prise, and their virtual immunity from British duties, these colonies had built up a flourishing trade, and were reaping profits of which but a small percentage went into English pockets. In attempting to estab- lish a supremacy in commerce, the home government had found that, because the eolonies paid little heed to British navigation acts, the Dutch were rapidly gaining control of the lucrative colonial trade. After the Holland war was over in 1674, the King again resumed his plan of subduing the New England colonies, and unfortunately for them, just at a time when they had been wasted and weakened by a destructive Indian war. But such a scheme, especially on account of the obstinacy and boldness of Massachusetts, required careful hand- ling. The great trouble was that the charters, enabling the colonies to evade English laws and making them largely independent, stood squarely in the way. These instruments of freedom, and particularly that of Massachusetts, must be first annulled ; and the appointment of Randolph as collector of duties in 1676, the separation of New Hamp-
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.