His example was followed by John Eliot, the minister of Roxbury, in Massachusetts, who learned to speak the Indian tongue, and in 1646 preached to the Indians near Watertown. The Massachusetts general court a week later endorsed the purposes of Eliot by enacting that the church should take care to send two ministers among the Indians every year to make known to them by the help of an interpreter "the heavenly counsel of God." In four years two colonies of Indians were established, one at Nonantum and the other at Concord. But the converts were still under the influence of their sagamores, who were hostile to Eliot's schemes, and in 1651 he removed his Indians to Natick, on the Charles River, where they might be free from all heathenish subjection.

In the mean time, the intelligence of what was taking place was communicated to Edward Winslow, the agent of the colony in England. He brought the matter to the attention of Parliament, and July 19, 1649, an ordinance was passed incorporating "the society for the promoting and propagating of the gospel of Jesus Christ in New England." This society selected the federal commissioners as the managers of the fund which flowed into them from persons charitably inclined, and in seven years the sums which were remitted to New England amounted to more than L1700. The commissioners laid out the money in paying Eliot and Mayhew and other teachers, in printing catechisms in the Indian language, and providing the Indian converts with implements of labor. By 1674 the number of these "praying Indians," as they were called, was estimated at four thousand.[7]

The commissioners also rendered many services in the domestic affairs of the colonies. In order to secure the claim which she had advanced in 1637 to the Pequot River as her southern boundary, Massachusetts in 1644 authorized John Winthrop, Jr., to plant a colony on Pequot Bay at a spot called Nameaug, now New London.[8] The Connecticut government protested against the authority of Massachusetts, and in 1647 the commissioners decided that "the jurisdiction of the plantation doth and ought to belong to Connecticut."[9] This decision, however, only settled the ownership of a particular place, and the exact southern and northern boundaries of Connecticut remained for several years a matter of contention.

In another matter of internal interest the influence of the confederacy was manifested. Among other considerations for the cession of the Saybrook fort, Fenwick was promised the proceeds for the term of ten years of a duty on all corn, biscuit, beaver, and cattle exported from the Connecticut River.[10] March 4, 1645, the general court of Connecticut passed an act to carry out their promise; but as the law affected the trade of Springfield on the upper waters of the Connecticut River as much as that of the Connecticut towns, Springfield protested, and appealed to the protection of Massachusetts. Thereupon the general court of that colony lodged a vigorous complaint with the federal commissioners, and the cause was patiently heard by them at two separate meetings. Massachusetts had, doubtless, the right on her side, but the Connecticut contention rested on what was international usage at the time.

The result of the deliberation of the commissioners was a decision in July, 1647, in favor of Connecticut. This was far from satisfying Massachusetts, and she reopened the question in September, 1648. To enforce her arguments, she offered certain amendments to the confederation, which, if adopted, would have shorn the commissioners of pretty nearly all their authority. But the commissioners stood firm, and declared that "they found not sufficient cause to reverse what was done last year."[11]

Feeling on both sides had now become quite embittered. At a special meeting of the federal commissioners in July, 1649, Massachusetts renewed her objections, and during the discussions her commissioners produced an order,[12] passed two months before by their general court, which, reciting the decision against Springfield, laid a tax upon all articles imported to Boston from any one of the other three confederate colonies, or exported to them from "any part of the Bay." This proceeding was justly interpreted by the federal commissioners to mean not only a retaliation upon Connecticut for the Saybrook tax, but a punishment upon the other two colonies—Plymouth and New Haven—for taking her side in the court of the confederation.

The commissioners acted with dignified firmness, and forwarded to Massachusetts a remonstrance in which they pointedly desired "to be spared in all further agitations concerning Springfield."[13] Massachusetts reluctantly yielded and the next year repealed her impost,[14] while Connecticut continued to tax the trade of Springfield till the ten years expired. Whether the tax imposed by Connecticut was right or not, Massachusetts had, nevertheless, gone dangerously near to nullification in these proceedings.

Not less interesting is the history of the dealings of the commissioners with the French and Dutch. Encouraged by the favor which had been extended to him in Massachusetts, De la Tour arrived in person in Boston, June 12, 1643, to crave assistance against D'Aulnay, his rival. As, notwithstanding the French king's order of the previous year, he showed a commission from the vice-admiral of France which styled him as lieutenant-general of Acadia, Governor Winthrop, influenced by the merchants of Boston, whose cupidity was excited by the valuable fur trade of Acadia, permitted him to hire both men and shipping in Massachusetts. When his preparations were completed he sailed away, accompanied by a fleet of four ships and a pinnace, the property of two intimate friends of the governor—Major Gibbons and Captain Hawkins—the latter of whom went along in charge of the Puritan contingent.[15]

In permitting this expedition Winthrop not only violated the articles of confederation and the laws of neutrality, but exposed himself to the reproach of Endicott and some of the more straitlaced elders, that he consorted with "idolators" and "antichrists," as Puritans chose to call Roman Catholics. It seems that Winthrop and his Boston friends did not intend to do more than to restore De la Tour to St. Johns, which D'Aulnay was then besieging. But the original wrong had its natural result. When D'Aulnay saw his rival's formidable fleet approaching he promptly raised the blockade and made haste to get under the protection of his stronghold at Port Royal. De la Tour followed and attacked, and, though he failed to dislodge his enemy, with the assistance of the Boston men he killed several of D'Aulnay's soldiers, burned his mill, and did much other damage.

After this, while D'Aulnay went to France to get fresh orders from the king against his rival, De la Tour came to Massachusetts in May, 1644, in hopes of again interesting the Puritans there in his fortunes. But John Endicott had been elected governor in the place of Winthrop, and all the cheer De la Tour could get in return for permitting free-trade was the promise of a letter addressed to D'Aulnay urging peace with De la Tour and protesting against the capture of Massachusetts' trading vessels.[16]

In September, 1644, the federal commissioners met at Hartford, and showed dislike of the conduct of ex-Governor Winthrop by passing a resolution to the effect that "no jurisdiction within this confederation shall permit any voluntaries to go forth in a warlike way against any people whatever without order and direction of the commissioners of the other jurisdictions." In the mean while, D'Aulnay came back from France with fresh orders from the king for the arrest of De la Tour, and in October, 1644, sent to Boston an envoy with the new credentials. The Massachusetts authorities were reluctant to abandon De la Tour, but seeing no alternative they made a treaty for free-trade, subject to confirmation by the federal commissioners.[17]

Still the ties that bound the Boston merchants to De la Tour were not wholly dissolved even now. They gave an asylum to De la Tour's wife at Boston, and sent her with supplies to his fort at Port Royal; and when the fort succumbed under D'Aulnay's attack they fitted her husband out with a ship and truck for trading. At last De la Tour's dealings thoroughly opened their eyes. When the ship came to Cape Sable, De la Tour and his Frenchmen suddenly arose against the English crew, put them out in the woods, and seized and appropriated the vessel and cargo. Prominent among those who had lent money and influence to De la Tour was Major Edward Gibbons, who lost upward of L2500.

D'Aulnay retaliated and took a ship belonging to Massachusetts, and in September, 1646, a new treaty was made with him by envoys representing the confederacy. The English made a formal acknowledgment of error, and the French accepted in full satisfaction a present to D'Aulnay of a sedan-chair, which had been sent as a present by the viceroy of Mexico to his sister, but was captured in the West Indies by Cromwell and given by him to Governor Winthrop.[18]

In 1648 the colony of Massachusetts applied to the French officials at Quebec for a reciprocity of trade. As the Iroquois had proved very destructive to the French and their Algonquin and Huron allies, the French governor caught at the plan of granting the desired privileges in return for military aid. Accordingly, in 1650, the French governor, D'Aillebout, sent the Jesuit father Druillettes, who had acted as missionary among the Algonquins of Maine, as envoy to Boston to negotiate a treaty.[19] But Massachusetts did not repeat the error of former times, and would do nothing without consent of the federal commissioners. To them, therefore, the matter was referred, with the result that the commissioners declined to involve the confederacy in a war with the Iroquois by authorizing any assistance to be given the French privately or officially.[20]

In the relations with the Dutch the temperate and conservative force in the confederacy was Massachusetts, who took steady ground for peace and opposed hostile measures. In doing so, however, she went the whole length of nullification and almost broke up the confederacy. William Kieft, the governor of New Netherland (1637-1647), seemed to recognize at once the significance of the confederacy as well as the importance of making friends with Massachusetts; and in July, 1643, before the commissioners had time to hold their first meeting, he wrote a letter of congratulations to Governor Winthrop, which he loaded, however, with complaints against Connecticut for intruding upon the land of the Dutch fort at Hartford. Governor Winthrop in reply assured Kieft that the influence of Massachusetts would be on the side of peace, for that "the ground of difference being only a small parcel of land" was a matter of too small value to cause a breach between two people so nearly related as the Dutch and English.

When the federal commissioners met in September they showed a hostile spirit, and addressed vehement letters to the Swedish and Dutch on account of their "foul injuries" offered the New Haven settlers on the Delaware. In March, 1644, letters came from the Swedes and Dutch full of expressions of regard for the English and "particularly for Massachusetts." They promised to refrain from interfering with visitors who should bring authority from the commissioners, which so encouraged some Boston merchants that they sent to the Delaware a pinnace to search for a great lake reported to be its source. But when they arrived at the Delaware, the Swedish and Dutch governors, while telling the captain that he might go up the river as far as he chose, prohibited him from any trafficking with the Indians, which caused the return of the pinnace to Boston. After this the war which Kieft provoked with the Indians so occupied the Dutch that for two years they had no time to give attention to their English neighbors. So hard pressed were they that, instead of making further reclamations on New Haven, they earnestly but unsuccessfully solicited her aid. After great losses to both the Dutch and the Indians the Mohawks intervened as arbitrators, and brought about a peace in September, 1645.[21]

In 1646 the men of New Haven set up a trading-house near the mouth of the Housatonic, and thereupon Kieft wrote to the commissioners, who met at New Haven in April, 1646, a blustering letter of which the following is a good sample: "We protest against all you commissioners met at the Red Mount (New Haven) as against breakers of the common league, and also infringers of the rights of the lords, the states, our superiors, in that you have dared, without our express and especial consent, to hold your general meeting within the limits of New Netherland."[22] At the close of Kieft's administration in 1647 the whole province of New Netherland could furnish not more than three hundred fighting-men and contained a population of not more than two thousand. Compared with the population of New England these figures seem insignificant enough, and render highly improbable the story popular with some New England historians that the Dutch were enlisted in a great scheme of uprooting the English colonies.

In 1647 Peter Stuyvesant was sent over as governor. He had the sense to see that the real safety of the Dutch consisted not in bluster, but in settling a line between the possessions of the two nations as soon as possible. The charter of the West India Company called for the territory between forty and forty-five degrees north latitude, but to assert the full extent of the patent would have been to claim the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. Accordingly, Stuyvesant, soon after his arrival, addressed a letter to Governor Winthrop, asserting the Dutch claim to all the land between the Connecticut and Delaware and proposing a conference. But it is evident that in claiming the Connecticut he was actuated more by a hope of deterring the further aggressions of English settlers than otherwise. The federal commissioners returned a polite reply, but showed no anxiety to come to an accommodation. Soon after a fresh quarrel broke out with New Haven, and in March, 1648, Stuyvesant wrote to the governor of Massachusetts offering to submit to him and the governor of Plymouth the matter in dispute. He then wrote home for instructions, and as diplomatic relations between England and Holland were suspended, the West India Company bade him make such terms as he could with his English neighbors.[23]

Accordingly, in September, 1650, Stuyvesant visited Hartford while the federal commissioners were in session there. The discussions were carried on in writing, and Stuyvesant dated his letter at "New Netherland." The federal commissioners declined to receive this letter, and Stuyvesant changed the address to "Connecticut." This proving satisfactory to the commissioners, Stuyvesant set out his territorial claim and the imputed wrongs suffered by the Dutch from the English, and the federal commissioners rejoined in a similar manner. Then Stuyvesant proposed to refer the question in dispute to four arbitrators, all Englishmen, two to be appointed by himself and two by the federal commissioners.

The offer was accepted, and after a full hearing by these arbitrators, Thomas Willet, George Baxter, Simon Bradstreet, and Thomas Prince, declined to decide upon the wrongs complained of by either party and rendered an award upon the territorial question only. They decided that the Dutch should retain their fort on the Connecticut, and that the boundary should begin at a point on the west side of Greenwich Bay, about four miles from Stamford, and run due north twenty miles. From that point it should be extended as the Dutch and New Haven might agree, provided that the line should not come nearer the Hudson River than ten miles. The English obtained most of Long Island besides, for in that quarter the line was declared to be a meridian drawn through the westernmost part of Oyster Bay.[24] If these terms subjected Stuyvesant to severe criticism at New Amsterdam, it was really a stroke of statesmanship to obtain, even at a sacrifice, what was for the first time an international barrier to English intrusion.

The southern flank of New Netherland was left unprotected, and in 1651 New Haven once more endeavored to plant a colony on the Delaware. The failure of the former attempt bore heavily upon the wealthy merchants of the town, and they had ill luck in another adventure. In January, 1646, they sent an agent to England to solicit a charter from the English government. The ship in which he sailed carried seventy other prominent citizens of the place and a cargo valued at L5000. A great storm ensued after the ship's departure and she was lost at sea.[25] So disheartening was this misfortune that many at New Haven entertained the idea of removing to the West Indies or Ireland.

Now, in 1651, under a commission from Governor Eaton, fifty men from New Haven prepared to sail for the Delaware.[26] Their ship touched at New Amsterdam, and Stuyvesant arrested both passengers and officers, and only released them on their promise to return home. The adventurers appealed to the commissioners, and these officials wrote a letter to Stuyvesant protesting against his course.[27]

Next year war broke out between Holland and England, and the war spirit spread to this side of the ocean. Rumors got afloat that the Dutch and Indians had conspired against the English, and Connecticut and New Haven became hysterical for war; while Rhode Island commissioned John Underhill, lately escaped from the Dutch, to take all Dutch vessels he could find.[28] Stuyvesant indignantly denied the charge of conspiring with the Indians, and proposed to refer the examination of the facts to any impartial tribunal. Nevertheless, all the old complaints were revived.

In 1652 the federal commissioners resolved on hostilities,[29] but the Massachusetts general court, which had all along taken a position in favor of peace, refused to be bound by a vote of six commissioners representing Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven.[30] On the other hand, the commissioners of the three smaller colonies protested against the conduct of the court of Massachusetts as violating the confederation.[31] New Haven and Connecticut took measures to wage war on their own account,[32] and in April, 1654, Connecticut sequestered the Dutch fort at Hartford.[33]

When, in June, 1654, a fleet despatched by Cromwell, in response to appeals made to him, appeared in Boston harbor, Connecticut and New Haven were overjoyed, and proceeded with alacrity to make arrangements for an attack on the hated Dutch. Massachusetts refused to raise troops, although she gave her citizens privilege to enlist if they chose. Yet her policy of peace prevailed in the end, for before the preparations described could be completed a stop was put to them by the news that a treaty of peace had been signed between England and Holland April 5, 1654.[34]

Massachusetts had successfully nullified the plain provisions of the articles, and for a time it looked as if the dissolution of the confederacy would be the consequence. New Haven voted at first not to choose commissioners, but finally decided to do so,[35] and meetings of the commissioners went on apparently as before. Nevertheless, the effect of the action of Massachusetts was far-reaching—from that time the respective colonies diverged more and more, till the hope of a permanent intercolonial bond vanished.

[Footnote 1: Winthrop, New England, I., 283, 342-344.]

[Footnote 2: Winthrop, New England, II., 95, 99, 102, 121-127.]

[Footnote 3: Ibid., 121.]

[Footnote 4: Simplicities Defence (Force, Tracts, IV., No. vi., 93).]

[Footnote 5: Winthrop, New England, II., 203, 243, 301, 463.]

[Footnote 6: Plymouth Col. Records, IX., 32-49.]

[Footnote 7: Palfrey, New England, II., 187-198, 332-341, III., 141; Hutchinson, Massachusetts Bay, I., 153.]

[Footnote 8: Winthrop, New England, II., 325.]

[Footnote 9: Palfrey, New England, II., 234.]

[Footnote 10: Trumbull, Connecticut, I., 508.]

[Footnote 11: Ibid., 165, 166; Palfrey, New England, II., 240-249.]

[Footnote 12: Mass. Col. Records, III., 152.]

[Footnote 13: Plymouth Col. Records, IX., 158.]

[Footnote 14: Mass. Col. Records, IV., pt. i., II.]

[Footnote 15: Winthrop, New England, II., 128, 130, 153.]

[Footnote 16: Winthrop, New England, II., 163, 180, 219, 220.]

[Footnote 17: Plymouth Col. Records, IX., 59.]

[Footnote 18: Winthrop, New England, II., 244, 335.]

[Footnote 19: Parkman, Jesuits, 327-335.]

[Footnote 20: Hutchinson, Massachusetts Bay, I., 156-158.]

[Footnote 21: Winthrop, New England, II., 155, 157, 169, 189, 193, 229; Brodhead, New York, I., 409.]

[Footnote 22: Trumbull, Connecticut, I., 158.]

[Footnote 23: Winthrop, New England, II., 382, 395; Brodhead, New York, I. 499.]

[Footnote 24: Trumbull, Connecticut, I., 189-192.]

[Footnote 25: Winthrop, New England, II., 325, 337.]

[Footnote 26: Trumbull, Connecticut, I., 196.]

[Footnote 27: Plymouth Col. Records, IX., 210-215.]

[Footnote 28: R.I. Col. Records, I., 266.]

[Footnote 29: Plymouth Col. Records, X., 102.]

[Footnote 30: Mass. Col. Records, III., 311.]

[Footnote 31: New Haven Col. Records, II., 36.]

[Footnote 32: Ibid., 37]

[Footnote 33: Conn. Col. Records, I., 254.]

[Footnote 34: Trumbull, Connecticut, I., 219, 220.]

[Footnote 35: New Haven Col. Records, II., iii.]



CHAPTER XIX

EARLY NEW ENGLAND LIFE

(1624-1652)

During the civil war in England the sympathies of Massachusetts, of course, were with Parliament. New England ministers were invited to attend the Westminster assembly of divines held in September, 1642, and several of them returned to England. The most prominent was Rev. Hugh Peter, who was instrumental in procuring the decapitation of Charles I., and paid for the offence, on the restoration of Charles II., with his own life. In 1643 Parliament passed an act[1] freeing all commodities carried between England and New England from the payment of "any custom, subsidy, taxation, imposition, or other duty."

The transfer of the supreme authority to the Parliament, though hailed with enthusiasm in New England, increased, if anything, her confidence. In the summer of 1644 a ship bearing a commission from the Parliament attacked and captured in the harbor of Boston another ship friendly to the king; Massachusetts showed her displeasure by addressing a strong protest to Parliament. Not long after another vessel of Parliament attacked a ship belonging to persons from Dartmouth in sympathy with the king. This time Winthrop turned the guns of the battery upon the parliamentary captain and made him pay a barrel of powder for his insolence.[2]

The same summary action was adopted in regard to the growing demand for a freer suffrage. In May, 1646, an able and respectful petition was presented to the general court for the removal of the civil disabilities of all members of the churches of England and Scotland, signed by William Vassall, Samuel Maverick, Dr. Robert Child, and four other prominent Presbyterians. The petition was pronounced seditious and scandalous, and the petitioners were roundly fined. When Child set out for England with his grievances, he was arrested and his baggage searched. Then, to the horror of the rulers of Massachusetts, there was discovered a petition addressed to Parliament, suggesting that Presbyterianism should be established in New England and that a general governor should be sent over. The signers, brought before the court, were fined more heavily than before and imprisoned for six months. At length Vassall and his friends contrived to reach England, expecting to receive the aid of the Presbyterian party in Parliament; but misfortune overtook them there as in Massachusetts, for the Independents were now in control and no help could be obtained from them.[3]

The agitation in England in favor of Presbyterianism, and the petition of Vassall and his friends in Massachusetts, induced the general court in May, 1646, to invite the clergy to meet at Cambridge, "there to discuss, dispute, and clear up, by the word of God, such questions of church government and discipline as they should think needful and meet," until "one form of government and discipline" should be determined upon. The "synod" met September 1, 1646, and after remaining in session fourteen days they adjourned. In August, 1648, after the downfall of Presbyterianism in England, another meeting was held, and a plan of church government was agreed upon, by which order and unity were introduced among members theoretically independent.[4]

By a unanimous vote the synod adopted "a platform" approving the confession of faith of the Westminster divines, except as to those parts which favored the Presbyterian discipline. The bond of union was found in the right of excluding an offending church from fellowship and of calling in the civil power for the suppression of idolatry, blasphemy, heresy, etc. The platform recognized the prerogative of occasional synods to give advice and admonition to churches in their collective capacity, but general officers and permanent assemblies, like those of the Presbyterian and Anglican churches, armed with coercive power to act upon individuals, were disclaimed.[5]

Nevertheless, by the organization thus effected, the benumbing influence of the Calvinistic faith upon the intellectual life of New England was fully established, and the deaths of John Winthrop and John Cotton, which happened not long after, were the forerunners of what Charles Francis Adams styles the "glacial period of Massachusetts."[6] Both Winthrop and Cotton were believers in aristocracy in state and church, but the bigotry of Winthrop was relieved by his splendid business capacity and that of Cotton by his comparative gentleness and tenderness of heart.

"Their places were taken by two as arrant fanatics as ever breathed"[7]—John Endicott, who was governor for thirteen out of fifteen years following Winthrop's death, and John Norton, an able and upright but narrow and intolerant clergyman. The persecuting spirit which had never been absent in Massachusetts reached, under these leaders, its climax in the wholesale hanging of Quakers and witches.

In the year of Cotton's death (1652), which was the year that Virginia surrendered to the Parliamentary commissioners and the authority of the English Parliament was recognized throughout English America, the population of New England could not have been far short of fifty thousand. For the settlements along the sea the usual mode of communication was by water, but there was a road along the whole coast of Massachusetts. In the interior of the colony, as Johnson boasted, "the wild and uncouth woods were filled with frequented ways, and the large rivers were overlaid with bridges, passable both for horse and foot."[8]

All the conditions of New England tended to compress population into small areas and to force the energies of the people into trade. Ship-building was an early industry, and New England ships vied with the ships of Holland and England in visiting distant countries for commerce.[9] Manufacturing found early encouragement, and in 1639 a number of clothiers from Yorkshire set up a fulling-mill at Rowley.[10] A glass factory was established at Salem in 1641,[11] and iron works at Lynn in 1643,[12] under the management of Joseph Jenks. The keenness of the New-Englander in bargains and business became famous.

In Massachusetts the town was the unit of representation and taxation, and in local matters it governed itself. The first town government appears to have been that of Dorchester, where the inhabitants agreed, October 8, 1633, to hold a weekly meeting "to settle and sett down such orders as may tend to the general good."[13] Not long after a similar meeting was held in Watertown, and the system speedily spread to the other towns. The plan of appointing a body of "townsmen," or selectmen, to sit between meetings of the towns began in February, 1635, in Charlestown.[14]

The town-meeting had a great variety of business. It elected the town officers and the deputies to the general court and made ordinances regarding the common fields and pastures, the management of the village herds, roadways, boundary-lines, fences, and many other things. Qualified to share in the deliberations were all freemen and "admitted inhabitants of honest and good conversation" rated at L20 (equivalent to about $500 to-day).[15]

In the prevalence of the town system popular education was rendered possible, and a great epoch in the history of social progress was reached when Massachusetts recognized the support of education as a proper function of government. Boston had a school with some sort of public encouragement in 1635,[16] and in 1642, before schools were required by law, it was enjoined upon the selectmen to "take account from time to time of parents and masters of the ability of the children to read and understand the principles of religion and the capital lawes of the country."[17] In November, 1647, a general educational law required every town having fifty householders or more to appoint some one to teach children how to read and write, and every town having one hundred householders or more to establish a "grammar (Latin) school" to instruct youth "so far as may be fitted for the university."[18]

In 1636 the Massachusetts assembly agreed to give L400 towards "a schoole or Colledge,"[19] to be built at Newtown (Cambridge). In 1638 John Harvard died within a year after his arrival, and left his library and "one-half his estate, it being in all about L700, for the erecting of the College." In recognition of this kindly act the general court fitly gave his name to the institution,[20] the first founded in the United States.

In 1650 Connecticut copied the Massachusetts law of 1647, and a clause declared that the grammar-schools were to prepare boys for college. The results, however, in practice did not come up to the excellence of the laws, and while in some towns in both Massachusetts and Connecticut a public rate was levied for education, more generally the parents had to pay the teachers, and they were hard to secure. When obtained they taught but two or three months during the year.[21] Bad spelling and wretched writing were features of the age from which New England was not exempt. Real learning was confined, after all, to the ministers and the richer classes in the New England colonies, pretty much as in the mother-country. In Plymouth and Rhode Island, where the hard conditions of life rendered any legal system of education impracticable, illiteracy was frequent. The class of ignorant people most often met with in New England were fishermen and the small farmers of the inland townships.

Scarcity of money was felt in New England as in Virginia, and resort was had to the use of wampum as a substitute,[22] and corn, cattle, and other commodities were made legal tenders in payment of debts.[23] In 1652 a mint was established at Boston, and a law was passed providing for the coinage of all bullion, plate, and Spanish coin into "twelve-penny, sixpenny, and threepenny pieces." The master of the mint was John Hull, and the shillings coined by him were called "Pine-Tree Shillings," because they bore on one side the legend "Massachusetts" encircling a tree.[24]

Marriage was a mere civil contract, and the burials took place without funeral service or sermon. Stern laws were made against card-playing, long hair, drinking healths, and wearing certain articles, such as gold and silver girdles, hat-bands, belts, ruffs, and beaver hats. There were no Christmas festivals and no saints' days nor recognized saints, though special feasts and thanksgiving days were frequent.[25] The penal legislation of New England was harsh and severe, and in Massachusetts and Connecticut there were fifteen crimes punishable with death, while the law took hold also of innumerable petty offences. In addition the magistrates had a discretionary authority, and they often punished persons on mere suspicion.

There can be no doubt that the ideal of the educated Puritan was lofty and high, and that society in New England was remarkably free from the ordinary frivolities and immoralities of mankind; but it would seem that human nature exacted a severe retaliation for the undue suppression of its weaknesses. There are in the works of Bradford and Winthrop, as well as in the records of the colonies, evidence which shows that the streams of wickedness in New England were "dammed" and not dried up. At intervals the impure waters broke over the obstacles in their way, till the record of crime caused the good Bradford "to fear and tremble at the consideration of our corrupt natures."[26]

The conveniences of town life gave opportunities for literature not enjoyed by the Virginians, and, though his religion cut the Puritan almost entirely off from the finer fields of poetry and arts, New England in the period of which we have been considering was strong in history and theology. Thus the works of Bradford and Winthrop and of Hooker and Cotton compare favorably with the best productions of their contemporaries in England, and contrast with the later writers of Cotton Mather's "glacial period," when, under the influence of the theocracy, "a lawless and merciless fury for the odd, the disorderly, the grotesque, the violent, strained analogies, unexpected images, pedantics, indelicacies, freaks of allusion, and monstrosities of phrase" were the traits of New England literature.[27]

[Footnote 1: N.H. Hist. Soc., Collections, I., 323-326.]

[Footnote 2: Winthrop, New England, II., 222-224, 228, 238-240.]

[Footnote 3: New England's Jonas Cast Up at London (Force, Tracts, IV., No. iii.); Winthrop, New England, II., 319, 340, 358, 391.]

[Footnote 4: Winthrop, New England, II., 329, 330, 402.]

[Footnote 5: Mather, Magnalia, book V.]

[Footnote 6: Adams, Massachusetts, its Historians and its History, 59.]

[Footnote 7: Fiske, Beginnings of New England, 179.]

[Footnote 8: Johnson, Wonder Working Providence, book III., chap. i.]

[Footnote 9: Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist. of New England, I., 143.]

[Footnote 10: Palfrey, New England, II., 53.]

[Footnote 11: Mass. Col. Records, I., 344.]

[Footnote 12: Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist. of New England, I., 174.]

[Footnote 13: Clapp, Dorchester, 32.]

[Footnote 14: Frothingham, Charlestown, 51.]

[Footnote 15: Howard, Local Constitutional History, I., 66.]

[Footnote 16: Palfrey, New England, II., 47.]

[Footnote 17: Mass. Col. Records, II., 9.]

[Footnote 18: Ibid., 203.]

[Footnote 19: Ibid., I., 183.]

[Footnote 20: Ibid., 253.]

[Footnote 21: Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist., of New England, I., 282, II., 861.]

[Footnote 22: Weeden, Indian Money as a Factor in New England Colonization (Johns Hopkins University Studies, II., Nos. viii., ix.).]

[Footnote 23: Mass. Col. Records, 110; Conn. Col. Records, I., 8.]

[Footnote 24: Mass. Col. Records, IV., pt. i., 84, 118.]

[Footnote 25: Howe, Puritan Republic, 102, 110, 111.]

[Footnote 26: Bradford, Plimoth Plantation, 459.]

[Footnote 27: Tyler, American Literature, II., 87.]



CHAPTER XX

CRITICAL ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL AIDS

Four special bibliographies of American history are serviceable upon the field of this volume. First, most searching and most voluminous, is Justin Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America (8 vols., 1888-1889). Mr. Winsor has added to the study of the era of colonization by the writers of his co-operative work the vast wealth of his own bibliographical knowledge. The part of Winsor applicable to this volume is found in vol. III., in which most of the printed contemporary material is enumerated. The second bibliography is the Cambridge Modern History, VII. (1903); pages 757-765 include a brief list of selected titles conveniently classified. J.N. Lamed, Literature of American History, a Bibliographical Guide (1902), has brief critical estimates of the authorities upon colonial history. Channing and Hart, Guide to the Study of American History (1896), contains accounts of state and local histories (Sec. 23), books of travel (Sec. 24), biography (Sec. 25), colonial records (Sec. 29), proceedings of learned societies (Sec. 31), also a series of consecutive topics with specific references (Sec.Sec. 92-98, 100, 101, 109-124). For the field of the present volume a short road to the abundant sources of material is through the footnotes of the principal secondary works enumerated below. The critical chapters in The American Nation, vols. III. and V., contain appreciations of many authorities which also bear on the field of vol. IV.

GENERAL SECONDARY WORKS

The "Foundation" period, from 1574 to 1652, is naturally one of the most interesting in the annals of the American colonies. The most important general historians are George Bancroft, History of the United States (rev. ed., 6 vols., 1883-1885); J.A. Doyle, English Colonies in America (3 vols., 1882-1887); Richard Hildreth, History of the United States (6 vols., 1849-1852); George Chalmers, Political Annals of the American Colonies (1780); Justin Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America (8 vols., 1888-1889); John Fiske, Discovery of America (2 vols., 1892), Old Virginia and Her Neighbors (1900), Beginnings of New England (1898), Dutch and Quaker Colonies in America, New France and New England (1902).

Among these writers three have conspicuous merit—Doyle, Winsor, and Fiske. Doyle's volumes manifest a high degree of philosophic perception and are accurate in statement and broad in conclusions. Of his books the volumes on the Puritan colonies are distinctly of a higher order than his volume on the southern colonies. The chief merit of Winsor's work is the critical chapters and parts of narrative chapters, which are invaluable. John Fiske is not wanting in the qualities of a great historian—breadth of mind and accuracy of statement; but his great charm is in his style and his power of vivifying events long forgotten. He has probably come nearer than any one else to writing real history so as to produce a popular effect.

COLLECTIONS OF SOURCES

The main contemporary collectors of materials for the history of the early voyages to America were Richard Eden, Richard Hakluyt, and Samuel Purchas. Eden's Decades of the New World or West Indies (7 vols., 1555) consists of abstracts of the works of foreign writers—Peter Martyr, Oviedo, Gomara, Ramusio, Ziegler, Pigafetta, Munster, Bastaldus, Vespucius, and others. Richard Hakluyt first published Divers Voyages (1582; reprinted by the Hakluyt Society) and then his Principal Voyages (3 vols., folio, 1589; reissued 1600). Samuel Purchas's first volume appeared in 1613 under the title, Purchas: His Pilgrimage of the World, or Religions Observed in all Ages and Places Discovered, from the Creation unto this Present. The four subsequent volumes were published in 1623 under the title, Hakluytius Posthumous, or, Purchas: His Pilgrimes.

Among these three compilers Hakluyt enjoys pre-eminence, and the Hakluyt Society has supplemented his labors by publishing in full some of the narratives which Hakluyt, for reasons of accuracy or want of space, abbreviated. The Historie of Travaile into Virginia, by William Strachey, secretary to Lord Delaware, was published by the Hakluyt Society in 1848, and this book contains excellent accounts of the expeditions sent by Sir Walter Raleigh to Roanoke, the voyages of Bartholomew Gosnold and George Weymouth, and the settlement made under its charter by the Plymouth Company at Sagadahoc, or Kennebec.

The only official collection of documentary materials that covers the entire period is the Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies, 1574-1696 (9 vols., 1860-1903). George Sainsbury, the editor, was a master at catching the salient points of a manuscript. Many of his abstracts have elsewhere been published in full.

The principal private collectors are E. Hazard, State Papers (2 vols., 1792-1794); Peter Force, Tracts (4 vols., 1836-1846); Alexander Brown, Genesis of the United States (2 vols., 1891); Albert Bushnell Hart, American History Told by Contemporaries (4 vols., 1898-1902); Maryland Historical Society, Archives of Maryland; and the series called Documents Relating to the Colonial History of New York, edited by John Romeyn Brodhead. Two convenient volumes embodying many early writings are Stedman and Hutchinson, Library of American Literature, I. (1888); Moses Coit Tyler, History of American Literature During the Colonial Time, 1607-1676, I. (1897).

VIRGINIA

The standard authorities for the history of Virginia are Robert Beverley, History of Virginia (1722) (extends to Spotswood's administration); William Stith, History of Virginia (1747) (period of the London Company); John D. Burk, History of Virginia (4 vols., 1805); R.R. Howison, History of Virginia (2 vols., 1846); Charles Campbell, History of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of Virginia (1847); and Jonn Fiske, Old Virginia and Her Neighbors (1900). For the period Stith is by far the most important. His work covers the duration of the London Company, and as he had access to manuscripts now destroyed the history has the value of an original document. As president of William and Mary College Stith was an accomplished scholar, and his work, pervaded with a broad, philosophic spirit, ranks perhaps first among colonial histories. As a mere collection of facts upon the whole colonial history of Virginia Campbell's work is the most useful. The greatest collection of original material bearing upon the first ten years of the colony's history is in Alexander Brown, Genesis of the United States (2 vols., 1890). This remarkable work contains an introductory sketch of what has been done by Englishmen prior to 1606 in the way of discovery and colonization, and a catalogue of charters, letters, and pamphlets (many of them republished at length) through which the events attending the first foundation of an English colony in the New World are developed in order of time. Dr. Brown's other works, The First Republic in America (1898), and English Politics in America (1901) make excellent companion pieces to the Genesis, though the author has made a great mistake in not supporting his text with foot-notes and references.

Among the contemporary writers, John Smith, Works (1884), edited by Edward Arber, is a compilation rather than a history, and in spite of its partisan coloring contains much that is valuable regarding Virginia affairs from 1607 to 1629. For matters from 1619-1624 we have the sure guide of the London Company's Journal, in Virginia Historical Society, Collections, new series, VII. After that time the main dependence, apart from the Calendar of State Papers, is Hening, Statutes at Large of Virginia (13 vols., 1823). The leading incidents in Virginia connected with Lord Baltimore's colony of Maryland and the Puritan persecution are set forth by J.H. Latane, Early Relations of Maryland and Virginia (Johns Hopkins University Studies, XIII., Nos. iii., iv.) Many documents illustrative of this period may be read in Force, Tracts, and Hazard, State Papers; Virginia history is illuminated by many original documents printed in the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography (11 vols., 1893-1903); and the William and Mary College Quarterly (12 vols., 1892-1903). The works of Edward D. Neill are also of a documentary nature and of much value. Those which bear upon Virginia are The Virginia Company (1868), Virginia Carolorum (1886), Virginia Vestusta (1885), and Virginia and Virginiola (1878). Many tracts are cited in the foot-notes.

MARYLAND

The standard authorities for the history of Maryland are J.V.L. McMahon, Historical View of the Government of Maryland (1831); John Leeds Bozman, History of Maryland (2 vols., 1837, covering the period of 1634 to 1658); James McSherry, History of Maryland (1849); J.T. Scharf, History of Maryland (3 vols., 1879); William Hand Browne, History of Maryland (1893), and George and Cecilius Calvert (1893); Edward D. Neill, Founders of Maryland (1876), and Terra Mariae (1867). Of these Bozman's work is an invaluable magazine of information, being, in fact, as much a calendar of documents as a continuous narrative. William Hand Browne's books show great familiarity with the story of Maryland and its founders, but his treatment of the subject is marked by strong bias and partisanship in favor of Lord Baltimore and his government. Neill's books, on the other hand, argue strongly in favor of the Puritan influence on the history of Maryland. There are many interesting pamphlets relating to Maryland in the series of Johns Hopkins University Studies, such as Edward Ingle, Parish Institutions of Maryland, I., No. vi.; John Hensley Johnson, Old Maryland Manors, I., No. vii.; Lewis W. Wilhelm, Maryland Local Institutions, III., Nos. v., vi., vii.; D.R. Randall, The Puritan Colony at Annapolis, Maryland, IV., No. vi.; J.H. Latane, Early Relations of Virginia and Maryland, XIII., Nos. iii., iv., and Bernard C. Steiner, The Beginnings of Maryland.

The documentary material of Maryland is very extensive, as the State has been fortunate in preserving most of its colonial records. The Archives of Maryland (23 vols., 1889-1903), published by the Maryland Historical Society, is composed of the proceedings of the council, legislature, and provincial court. The Fund Publications of the society (36 nos. in 4 vols., 1867-1900), are also valuable in this respect, and contain among other things The Calvert Papers (Fund Publications, No. 34). A complete list of all these publications can be found in the annual report of the society for 1902.

For the controversy between Lord Baltimore and the Puritans the chief authorities are Winthrop, History of New England (2 vols., 1790-1853); Lord Baltimore's Case Concerning the Province of Maryland (1653); Virginia and Maryland, or Lord Baltimore's Case Uncased and Answered (Force, Tracts, II., No. ix.); Leonard Strong, Babylon's Fall in Maryland, a Fair Warning to Lord Baltimore; John Langford, A Just and Clere Reputation of Babylon's Fall (1655); John Hammond, Leah and Rachel (Force, Tracts, III., No. xiv.); Hammond versus Heamans, or an Answer to an Audacious Prophet; Heamans, Brief Narrative of the Late Bloody Designs Against the Protestants. The battle of the Severn is described in the letters of Luke Barber and Mrs. Stone, published in Bozman, Maryland, II., 688.

PLYMOUTH AND MASSACHUSETTS

The standard authorities for the history of these two colonies are Thomas Hutchinson, History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay (3 vols., 1795-1828); John G. Palfrey, History of New England (3 vols., 1858-1890); J.S. Barry, History of Massachusetts (3 vols., 1855-1857). Very lively and interesting are Charles Francis Adams, Massachusetts: Its Historians and Its History (1893); Three Episodes of the History of Massachusetts (2 vols., 1895). The best account of Plymouth is J.E. Goodwin, The Pilgrim Republic (1888).

The chief original authority for the early history of the Puritan colony of New Plymouth is William Bradford, Plimoth Plantation (several eds.); and for Massachusetts, John Winthrop, History of New England (several eds.), which is, however, a journal rather than a history. Edward Arber, Story of the Pilgrim Fathers as Told by Themselves (1897), is a collection of ill-arranged sources. The documentary sources are numerous. Hazard prints many documents bearing upon the early history of Massachusetts, and much valuable matter is found in the Records of Plymouth (12 vols., 1855-1859), and the Records of Massachusetts Bay (5 vols., 1853-1854). Then there are the published records of numerous towns, which throw much light upon the political, social, and economic condition of the colonies. The publications of the Massachusetts Historical Society and of the New England Historic-Genealogical Society contain much original matter and many interesting articles upon the early history of both Plymouth and Massachusetts. Special tracts and documents are referred to in the foot-notes to chaps, ix.-xiii., above.

RHODE ISLAND

The general histories are J.N. Arnold, History of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantation (2 vols., 1878), and Irving B. Richman, Rhode Island, Its Making and Meaning (2 vols., 1902). The chief original authorities for the early history of Rhode Island are John Winthrop, History of New England, and the Colonial Records, beginning in 1636. The publications of the Rhode Island Historical Society consist of Collections (9 vols.), Proceedings (21 numbers), and Publications (8 vols.). In all of these important material for history is preserved. The Narragansett Club, Publications (6 vols.), contain Roger Williams's letters; and there is some important matter in S.S. Rider, Rhode Island Historical Tracts (1877-1895), in the Narragansett Historical Register (9 vols.), and the Newport Historical Reports (4 vols.).

CONNECTICUT AND NEW HAVEN

For Connecticut the standard authority is Benjamin Trumbull, History of Connecticut (2 vols., 1818). Other general histories are by Theodore Dwight, G.H. Hollister, and W.H. Carpenter. Original material is found in the Colonial Records, edited by J.H. Trumbull and C.J. Hoadly; Winthrop, History of New England; Connecticut Historical Society, Proceedings, which contain Hooker's famous letter to Winthrop; and Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections.

For New Haven the reader should consult Edward E. Atwater, History of New Haven (1881); Charles H. Levermore, Republic of New Haven (1886); and the publications of the New Haven Historical Society and the Records of the Colony of New Haven, in which the documentary material is chiefly printed. In connection with this volume the records of Hartford and of Southold are important. Special authorities are cited in chaps, xiv., xv. above.

NEW HAMPSHIRE AND MAINE

The standard authority for the history of New Hampshire is Jeremy Belknap, History of New Hampshire (3 vols., 1784-1813); and that for Maine is William D. Williamson, History of Maine (2 vols., 1832). Documents illustrating the history of New Hampshire can be found in the New Hampshire Provincial and State Papers and in John Scribner Jenness, Transcripts of Original Documents in the English Archives Relating to the Early History of the State of New Hampshire (1876).

Important papers occur in the ten volumes of Collections published by the New Hampshire Historical Society. For Maine the reader is referred to the Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society and those of the Maine Historical Society. Important original material may be found in York Deeds (11 vols., 1642-1726).

For the early history of both colonies John Winthrop, History of New England, is the principal original authority. The narrative of Gorges has some value in connection with both colonies. Special tracts and documents are treated in chap, xvi., above.

DUTCH COLONY OF NEW NETHERLAND

The standard authorities for the early history of this colony are E.B. O'Callaghan, History of New Netherland (2 vols., 1855), and John Romeyn Brodhead, History of the State of New York (2 vols., 1872). The voyage of Henry Hudson is told in Purchas; and the Documents Relating to the History of New York (15 vols., 1856-1861) collected by John Romeyn Brodhead shed light on the early Dutch trading-post at New Amsterdam. The first mention by the English of the Dutch on the Hudson is made in a work republished in the Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society (2d series, IX., 1-25), in which it is stated that an English sea-captain, Dermer, "met on his voyage from [Virginia to New England] with certain Hollanders who had a trade in Hudson River some years before that time, 1619."

For the relations of the Dutch with the English the main authorities are William Bradford, Plimoth Plantation; John Winthrop, History of New England; the "Proceedings of the Federal Commissioners," published in Plymouth Colony Records, IX., X., and New Haven Records, and Hazard, State Papers, II.; and Peter de Vries, Journal (N.Y. Hist. Soc., Collections, 2d series, III.).

NEW SWEDEN

The founding of New Sweden is probably best told in Benjamin Ferris, History of the Original Settlements on the Delaware (1846), extracted from works already published in English, and is interesting and valuable as identifying and describing many of the places mentioned. Winthrop and the records of the federal commissioners set out pretty fully the relations with the English colonies.

NEW FRANCE AND ACADIA

A series of chapters in Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America (vol. IV., chaps, i.-iv.) tell the story of the founding of the French dominion in America. The chief original authorities are Richard Hakluyt, Voyages; Samuel de Champlain, Les Voyages; Marc Lescarbot, Histoire de la Nouvelle France; and the Jesuit Relations.

For relations with the English the chief original authority is Winthrop. Among the late French writers the pre-eminence is accorded to the Jesuit father Pierre Francois Xavier de Charlevoix, Histoire de la Nouvelle France.

RIVALRY WITH SPAIN

The rivalry of England with Spain, which is the greatest underlying principle of English colonization, is depicted fully in Hakluyt, Discourses on Western Planting, written at Raleigh's request and shown to Queen Elizabeth; first printed in 1877 by Dr. Charles Deane in the Maine Hist. Soc., Collections (2d series, II.). The lives of Gilbert and Raleigh were manifestations of this spirit of rivalry, and Edward Edwards, Life of Sir Walter Raleigh (2 vols., 1868), contains the fullest and best account extant of the two half-brothers. In an excellent little work, Thomas Hariot and His Associates (1900), developed by Henry Stevens chiefly from dormant material, we have a most entertaining and interesting account of Thomas Hariot, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, Sir Walter Raleigh, Jacques Le Moyne, Captain John White, and other noble spirits associated in the colonization of America. Compare the critical chapter of E.G. Bourne, Spain in America (The American Nation, III.).

RELIGIOUS INFLUENCES

Religious influences entered largely into the settlement and development of the different colonies in America. The chief authorities on the subject are James Carwithen, History of the Church of England (1849); Daniel Neal, History of the Puritans (1844); Anderson, History of the Church of England in the Colonies (2 vols., 2d ed., 1856); William Stevens Perry, History of the American Episcopal Church (2 vols., 1885); Francis Lister Hawks, Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History of the United States (2 vols., 1836-1839). William Meade, Old Churches in Virginia (2 vols., 1857), tells much about the early church in Virginia. In the Johns Hopkins University Studies are Paul E. Lauer, Church and State in New England, X., Nos. ii., iii.; and George Petrie, Church and State in Maryland, X., No. iv.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

For Virginia the economic side has been fully presented by Philip A. Bruce in his Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century (2 vols., 1896). The social side during the period of the present volume has not been thoroughly covered by any modern writer. For Maryland no detailed statement can be found, but much valuable information is contained in Newton D. Mereness, Maryland as a Proprietary Province (1901). For New England the social and economic status is fully presented by William B. Weeden, Economic and Social History of New England (2 vols., 1891). John G. Palfrey, History of New England (4 vols.), has also several valuable chapters on the subject. Edward Eggleston, Beginners of a Nation (1897) and Transit of Civilization (1900) deal very appreciatively with social elements and conditions.

INDEX

Acadia, Argall's raid, 72, 149, 289; attacks on Plymouth posts, 176, 177; settlement, 287; English grant and rule, 289; restored to France, 290; La Tour-Aulnay dissension, 290, 306-309; bibliography, 337.

Agamenticus. See York.

Alexander, Sir William, grants, 207, 289, 294; expedition against Canada, 289; protests restoration, 290.

Antinomian controversy, 219-228; Anne Hutchinson's doctrines, 219; factions, 220, 221; ministerial conferences, 220, 225; political aspect, 221-225; Antinomians banished, 226-228; effect, 228.

Archer, Gabriel, in Virginia, 43, 52, 54, 63.

Argall, Samuel, relieves Virginia, 59, 63, 68; deputy governor, 70, 77; captures Pocahontas, 71; raids on Acadia, 72, 149, 289; tyranny, 77, 78; colonizing plan, 292.

Assistants, in Plymouth, 179; in Massachusetts, elective, 188, 203; permanent tenure, 201, 202; as a court, 202, 203; legislative power, 203; in Connecticut, 258; tenure, 259.

Aulnay, Sieur d', in Acadia, quarrel with La Tour 290, 306-309.

Baltimore, Cecilius, Lord, early years, character, 123; power as proprietary, 123-126; religious toleration, 125, 126, 139, 140, 143, 144; control of legislation, 131, 133; and Kent Island affair, 135-138; deposed by king, 142, 145; and Parliament, 143, 145-147.

Baltimore, George, Lord, early years, 118; settlement in Newfoundland, 118, 119; Catholic, 119; ennobled, 119; in Virginia, 119; seeks grant in Virginia, 119-121; first charter, 121; opposition of Virginia, 120-123; Maryland charter, 121; death, 122.

Baptists, in Rhode Island, 237; persecuted in Massachusetts, 238.

Bennett, Richard, commissioner, 111, 112; governor of Virginia, 113; in Maryland, 147.

Berkeley, Sir William, royalist governor of Virginia, 105; and Puritans, 106, 108; and parliamentary commission, 112.

Bermudas, Gates at, 62.

Bibliographies of period 1574-1652, 328.

Bicameral legislatures, 93, 133, 203, 258.

Boston, Blackstone's house, 175; settled, 198.

Boundaries, Virginia charter (1606), 37; (1609), 61; Maryland charter, 121; New England charter, 152; Plymouth, 173; Massachusetts charter, 184, 270, 279; Rhode Island charter, 235; New Netherland charter, 292, 313; Massachusetts-Plymouth, 298; Massachusetts-Connecticut, 304; New England-New Netherland, 313, 314.

Bradford, William, Separatist, 156; in Leyden, 158; emigrates, 160; governor of Plymouth, 164.

Brewster, William, Separatist, 155; in Leyden, 157; emigrates, 160; minister in Plymouth, 181.

Brooke, Lord, grant in Connecticut, 248; buys Dover, 268, 271.

Cabot, John, voyage, 6.

Cabot, Sebastian, and English trade, 8.

Calvert, Leonard, governor of Maryland, 126; Kent Island affair, 135-138; letters of marque, 140; driven from Maryland, 141; regains control, 142; death, 143.

Cambridge platform, 320, 321.

Canada, French voyages, 284; Roberval's colony, 285; colonizing company, 286; Quebec settled, 288; origin of Iroquois hostility, 288; company reorganized, 288; supplies captured, 289; Alexander's grant, 289; English capture, 290; restored to France, 290; and Massachusetts' trade, 309; bibliography, 337.

Cape Ann, Plymouth claim, 170; Dorchester settlers, 170; trouble, 171; settlement moved, 183.

Cartier, Jacques, voyages, 284, 285.

Carver, John, Separatist, in Leyden, 158; seeks patent, 150; emigrates, 160; governor of Plymouth, 161; death, 164.

Casco. See Falmouth.

Catholics, in Maryland, 126, 139, 140; missionaries in Canada, 287, 288, 290.

Cavendish, Thomas, voyage, 13; with Raleigh's colony, 23.

Challons, Henry, attempted settlement, 39.

Champlain, Samuel, first visit to Canada, 286; in Acadia, 287; settles Quebec, 288; attacks Iroquois, 288; surrenders, 290; return to Canada, 290.

Chancellor, Richard, voyage, 8.

Charles I., and Virginia, 91-96, 99, 105, 120; and Baltimore, 120; and Kent Island, 136-138; and Massachusetts, 204-209.

Charlestown, Walford's settlement, 175; laid out, named, 190; sickness, 196, 198.

Charters, Merchant Adventurers (1554), 8; trading (1566), 14; Gilbert (1578), 15; Raleigh (1584), 22; Virginia (1606), 36-38; (1609), 59-61; (1612), 76; annulled, 88; Virginia parliamentary, 105; Maryland (1632), 122-126; New England (1620), 152; resigned, 207; Massachusetts, (1629), 188, 189; Rhode Island (1644), 235; Gorges (1637), 275. See also Grants.

Chelsea, settled, 175.

Church of England in Virginia, 80, 106; improved ministry, 110.

Claiborne, William, Kent Island settlement, 95, 134; and Harvey, 96; commissioner, 111, 112; opposes Baltimore's charter, 121; career, 121; denies Baltimore's authority, 135; arrest ordered, 136; appeals to king, 136, 137; conflict on island, 136; treachery of Evelin, 137; island seized, 138; attainted, 138; claim invalidated, 138; property confiscated, 138; return to Kent Island, 142; ascendency in Maryland, 147.

Cocheco. See Dover.

Coddington, William, in Rhode Island, 229, 237; royal commission, 237, 238.

Colonies, English, Gilbert's charter, 15; immunities, 16; Gilbert's attempts, 16-21; debt to Raleigh, 32; Gosnold and Gilbert's attempt, 34; joint-stock companies, 36; royal administration, 96, 206; connected history, 282; bibliography, 329-331; bibliography on religious influences, 338; bibliography on social and economic conditions, 338. See also colonies and companies by name.

Colonies, French. See Acadia, Canada.

Colonies, Spanish, influence on Spain, 4; and Hawkins, 9, 10; Drake's attacks, 11, 12; Cavendish plunders, 13; bibliography on English relations, 337.

Commission for Foreign Plantations, 96, 206.

Communism in Virginia, 59, 73, 77, 79; in Plymouth, 167.

Conant, Roger, in Massachusetts, 170, 171, 183.

Congregationalism, beginnings, 154; established in Massachusetts, 190, 196, 201, 202, 210; disclaimed, 194, 197; Massachusetts clergy, 200, 205; opposition, 211, 212; Antinomian controversy, 219-228; in Connecticut, 258; in New Haven, 263; Cambridge platform, 320; effect, 321. See also Pilgrims.

Connecticut, elements, 239; Plymouth's interest, 240-242, 245; Dutch in, 241, 249, 310, 316; migration from Massachusetts, 242-247; settled by organized communities, 247; Saltonstall's settlement, 248; Saybrook, 249; union of settlements, 250; Pequot War, 251-257; Fundamental Orders, 257-259; suffrage, 258; theocracy, 258; tenure of office, 259; growth, 259, 260; acquires Fenwick patent, 260; population (1653), 260; Massachusetts boundary, 304; river tolls, 304-306; bibliography, 335. See also New England.

Constitutions, Connecticut (1639), 257-259.

Cotton, John, in Massachusetts, 205; character, 218, 243, 321; and Antinomianism, 220, 223, 226, 227; death, 321.

Council in Maryland, 129. See also Assistants.

Council for New England, charter, 152; territory, 152; patent to Plymouth, 164; grant to Weston, 166; fishing monopoly endangered, 167; temporary activity, 168; division, 168, 185; discouraged, 169; grant to Massachusetts, 184; conflicting grants, 185; redivision, 207; resigns charter, 207; grants to Mason and Gorges, 266, 268; other Maine grants, 274-277. See also Plymouth Company.

Courts, Maryland, 129; New England codes, 180, 203, 326; assistants, in Massachusetts, 202, 203; New Haven, 265.

Dale, Sir Thomas, deputy governor of Virginia, policy and discipline, 70; and Indians, 71; expeditions against French, 72; abolishes communism, 73; departs, 74.

Davenport, John, purpose, 260; in Boston, 261; settles New Haven, 261; organizes government, 262.

Davis, John, voyages, 15.

Delaware, Lord, governor of Virginia, 61, 78; arrival, 67, 68; administration, 68, 69; death, 78.

Delaware River, named, 72; Dutch on, 293; Dutch and Virginians, 294; Swedes on, 296; New Haven on, 296, 311, 315.

Denys, Jean, voyage, 284.

Dorchester, settled, 198; restless, 242; emigration to Connecticut, 245, 246; settles Windsor, 247; town government, 323.

Dorchester adventurers, settlement, 170; renewed activity, 183; patent, 184. See also Massachusetts.

Dover (Cocheco), settlement, 175, 267; feeble existence, 268; Puritans control, 268; Antinomian settlers, 269; dissensions, 269; civil contract, 270; annexed by Massachusetts, 271.

Drake, Sir Francis, with Hawkins, 10; early years, 10; attack on Panama, 11; on Pacific settlements, 12; circumnavigation, 12; Elizabeth's reception, 13; rescues Raleigh's colony, 25.

Dudley, Thomas, agrees to emigrate, 193; deputy governor of Massachusetts, 193, 224; disclaims Separatism, 197; governor, 200, 215.

Eaton, Theophilus, purpose, 260; governor of New Haven, 263.

Economic condition, England (1606), 39; Virginia (1648), 110; New England (1652), 322; money in New England, 325.

Education, in Virginia, 116, 117; in Maryland, 147; in Plymouth, 181; public, in Massachusetts, 323; Harvard College, 324; in Connecticut, 324; extent in New England, 325.

Eliot, John, contumacy, 211; Indian mission, 303.

Elizabeth, and Hawkins, 10; and Drake, 13; and Frobisher, 14; and Gilbert, 15, 18; and Raleigh, 21; names Virginia, 23; support of Protestantism, 28; and Puritans, 153.

Endicott, John, grantee, 184; at Salem, 186; suppresses Merry Mount, 186; anticipates Oldham, 190; Congregationalist, 190; banishes Conformists, 191; and Morton, 192; defaces flag, 206; expedition against Pequots, 252; character, 321.

England, spirit of progress, 3, 4; religious conditions, 5; Spanish rivalry, 5; claim to America, 6; unprepared for colonization, 7; fisheries, 7; trade development (1550) 8; slave-trade, 8-10; trade under Mary, 9; private attacks on Spanish colonies, 10-13; search for northwest passage, 14; Spanish war, 28-30, 35; Armada, 30; economic condition (1606), 39; Puritanism, 153; Separatism, 154-156; and French colonies, 289; and New Netherland, 292; bibliography on Spanish relations, 337. See also colonies, and sovereigns by name.

Evelin, George, and Kent Island, 137.

Exeter, settled, 269; civil contract, 270; annexed by Massachusetts, 272.

Falmouth (Casco), Cleves at, 277; submits to Massachusetts, 281.

Fenwick, George, patent, 260, 304.

Ferdinando, Simon, voyage, 17.

Fisheries, English interests, 9; New England monopoly, 168.

Frobisher, Martin, voyages, 14.

Fur-trade, New England monopoly, 168; French grants, 286, 287; Dutch, 291, 293.

Gates, Sir Thomas, governor of Virginia, 61, 70; at Bermudas, 62; at Jamestown, 62, 67.

Gilbert, Bartholomew, attempted colony, 34.

Gilbert, Sir Humphrey, purpose, 6; early years, 13; first efforts, 14; pamphlet, 14; charter, 15; first expedition, 16; preparation for second, 17; second, 18-21; death, 20.

Gorges, Sir Ferdinando, career, 151; colonial activity, 151; opposition to Massachusetts, 187, 204-209; grants, 207, 266, 268; general governor, 208; Massachusetts annexes grant, 209, 279, 280; settlements in territory, 272-274, 276, 277; charter and regulations, 275; and Plough patent, 277, 278; death, 278.

Gorges, John, patent, 187; grant to Oldham, 187; heir, 274.

Gorges, Robert, settlement, 168; and Weston, 169; grant, 185, 186; heir, 187.

Gorton, Samuel, settlement, 230, 233; character, 232; trouble with Massachusetts, 232-234; banished, 234; return, 234.

Gosnold, Bartholomew, attempted colony, 34; in Virginia, 42, 49; death, 51.

Governors, Virginia, under charter, 61, 79, 80; elective, in Plymouth, 179; in Massachusetts, 199, 202; in Connecticut, 258, 259; in New Haven, 263, 264.

Grants, Heath (1629), 120; Pilgrims, 159, 164, 172; Weston (1622), 166; Pierce (1623), 167; Massachusetts (1628), 184; conflicting, 185; Mason and Gorges (1622), 185, 266; (1629), 267, 268; (1631), 268; R. Gorges (1622) 185; Sheffield (1623) 185; E. Gorges (1623), 185; division of New England (1635), 207; Say and Brooke (1631), 248; various, in Maine, 274, 276; Plough, 277; Monts. (1604), 286; Alexander (1621, 1628), 289; Plowden (1632), 294. See also Charters.

Grenville, Sir Richard, and Gilbert's plan, 15; conducts Raleigh's colony, 23, 26; captures Spanish ship, 24; death, 24.

Hakluyt, Richard, and Gilbert's plan, 15, 17; Western Planting, 22; buys trade right, 31; trade venture, 35; instructions to settlers, 42.

Hanham, Thomas, voyage, 39.

Hartford, Dutch fort, 241, 310, 316; English settlers, 247.

Harvard College, 324.

Harvey, John, governor of Virginia, 93; conduct, 96; deposed, 97, 136; reinstated, 98; called to account, 104.

Hawkins, Sir John, slave-trade, 9; attacked by Spanish, 10.

Hawkins, William, slave-trade, 8.

Haynes, John, governor of Connecticut, 200; effort for confederation, 297.

Higginson, Francis, minister at Salem, 191; death, 198.

Hooker, Thomas, in Massachusetts, 205; liberality, 243; goes to Connecticut, 247; effort for confederation, 297.

Hore, voyage, 7.

Houses, Virginia, 114.

Hudson, Henry, voyage, 291.

Hutchinson, Anne, doctrine, 219; following and controversy, 220-225; punishment of followers, 225, 226; banished, 226-228; in Rhode Island, 228; under surveillance, 231; removes, 231; slain, 231.

Indians, and Raleigh's colony, 27, 28; Virginia confederacies, 44, 45; houses, 45; religion, 45; adoption of victims, 46-48; maidens' dance, 48; and Virginia, 49, 51, 65, 66, 68, 71; massacres in Virginia, 85, 107; peace, 108; and Maryland, 127, 136, 139; pestilence in New England, 152; and Plymouth, 163-165, 177; and Massachusetts, 200; Roger Williams's influence, 213, 217, 253; Narragansett-Mohegan war, 233, 301; Pequot War, 251-257; and French, 288; and New England Confederation, 300-302; New England missions, 302-304; number of praying, 304; Dutch war, 296, 311.

Ingle, Richard, in Maryland, 141.

Iroquois, and English, 256; origin of hostility to French, 288.

James I., and London Company, 82, 83, 86-88, 90; and Separatists, 155; and Pilgrims, 159.

Jamestown, founded, 50; burned, 53; in 1634, 101; improved houses, 102.

Kent Island, occupied, 95; Virginia's claim, 134; Baltimore's authority denied, 135; seizure ordered, 136; conflict, 136; royal order, 137; Evelin's treachery, 137; reduced by Calvert, 138; decreed to Baltimore, 138; Claiborne's return, 142.

Kieft, William, governor of New Netherland, 296; and New England, 310-312.

Kittery, settlement, 278; submits to Massachusetts, 280.

Land, allotment in Virginia, 79; manors in Maryland, 130; division in Plymouth, 167; in Massachusetts, 189; Williams's objection to titles, 213, 214.

La Roche, Marquis de, colony, 286.

La Tour, Charles de, in Acadia, quarrel with Aulnay, 290, 306-309; Massachusetts aids, 291, 306-309.

Legislation, of Virginia's first assembly, 80; on tobacco, 103; initiative in Maryland, 131, 133; Maryland Toleration Act, 144; New England codes, 180, 203, 326; initiative in Massachusetts, 203; New England sumptuary, 326.

Lery, Baron de, attempted settlement, 284.

Literature in New England, 327.

London Company, charter, 36-38; patron, 37; government, 37-39; new charter, 59-61; third charter, 76; self-government, 76; policy, 76; control, 81; and the king, 82; Sandys's enterprise, 82; overthrow, 86-88; service, 88; loyalty of colony, 89; attempts to restore, 91, 95, 104-106; patents to Pilgrims, 159. See also Virginia.

Long Island, Plowden's grant, 294; Alexander's grant, 294; English settlements, 296.

Lyford, John, in Plymouth and Massachusetts, 170, 171.

Lynn, settled, 198.

Mace, Samuel, voyage, 33.

Maine, Popham's colony, 40, 41; grants, 207, 266, 268, 274-277; Massachusetts annexes, 209, 279-281; settlements, 267, 273; origin of name, 272; Gorges's charter and regulations, 275; Massachusetts buys a patent, 276; Plough patent resisted and arbitrated, 277, 278; union of Gorges's settlements, 278; results of annexation, 281; bibliography, 336.

Manhattan purchased, 293.

Manors in Maryland, 129, 130.

Manufactures, New England, 322.

Maps, Virginia (1608), 57; New England (1614), 150.

Maryland, Virginia's protest, 96, 122; Puritan settlers, 109, 144; charter, 121, 122; boundaries, 121; named, 122; power of proprietary, 123-126; legislative power, 125; religious freedom, 125, 139, 140, 143, 144; first settlers, 126; leaving England, 126; and Indians, 127, 136, 139; settlement, 127; conditions favoring growth, 128; servants, 128; rural society, 129; government, 129; manors, 130; democracy, 130; origin of laws, 131, 133; composition of assembly, 133; Kent Island affair, 134-139; Catholic propaganda, 139; and Great Rebellion, 140; and Ingle, 141; Protestant revolt, 141, 142; Calvert regains control, 142; Stone governor, 143; and Parliament, 143, 145-147; oath of fidelity, 145; parliamentary control, 147; population (1652), 147; social conditions, 147; bibliography, 332-334.

Mason, John, grants, 185, 207, 266-268; opposition to Massachusetts, 204-208; death, 208; Massachusetts annexes grant, 209, 271, 272; settlements in territory, 268-270.

Mason, John, in Pequot War, 254-256.

Massachusetts, trade with Virginia, 104; minor settlements, 166, 168, 170, 175; Dorchester adventurers, 170, 183; Merry Mount, 174, 186, 192, 197; religion not primary interest, 184; patent, 184, 185; boundaries, 184, 270; conflicting grants, 185; Salem reinforced, 186; government for colonists, 189; land allotment, 189; and Oldham's claim, 187, 190; charter, government, 188, 189; Congregationalism established, 190, 192, 196, 201, 202, 210; religious persecution, 191, 201, 211, 237, 319; government transferred to America, 193; great emigration, cause, 193-195; sickness, 195, 196, 198, 199; towns (1630), 198; first general court, 199; governors, 199; and Indians, 200; rise of theocracy, 200-202; quality of clergy, 200, 205; assistants usurp power, 201; restricted suffrage, 202, 210, 211; criminal law, 202; representation established, 202, 203; popular elections, 203; origin of laws, 203; code, 203; opposition in England, 204-209; temporarily sustained, 204; and Laud, 205; increased immigration, 205; population (1634), 205; (1643), 209; charter demanded, 205, 208; prepares for resistance, 206; and English flag, 206; petition, 206; judgment against, frustrated, 208; annexes New Hampshire and Maine, 209, 271, 272, 279-281; opposition to religious despotism, 211, 212; Williams incident, 212-218; religious regulations, 218; Antinomian controversy, 219-228; its effect, 228; and Rhode Island, 230, 231, 235-238; and Gorton, 232-235; parliamentary grant, 235; and settlement of Connecticut, 240-242; emigration to Connecticut, 242-247; opposition to restricted suffrage, 243, 271, 319; and Pequot War, 251-253, 256; and Davenport's colony, 261; buys a Maine patent, 276; arbitrates on Plough patent, 277; influence of annexations, 281; and La Tour, 291, 306-309; boundary disputes, 298, 304; and trade with Canada, 309; and Parliament, 318; Cambridge platform, 320; "glacial period," 321; mint, 325; bibliography, 334. See also New England.

Maverick, Samuel, settlement, 175; grant, 274; fined, 319.

Mayhew, Thomas, Indian mission, 302-304.

Merry Mount, settlement, 174; suppressed, 174, 186; Morton's return, 192.

Miantonomoh, and Gorton, 233; captured and slain, 233.

Minuit, Peter, governor of New Netherland, 293; Swedish colony, 296.

Mohegans, Narragansett war, 233, 300-302.

Money in New England, 325.

Monts, Sieur de, grant, 286; attempted settlement, 287.

Morton, Thomas, at Merry Mount, 174; sent to England, 175, 197; return, 192; attorney against Massachusetts, 208.

Mount Desert Island, French settlement reduced, 72, 149, 289.

Mystic, settled, 198.

Nantasket, settled, 170.

Narragansetts, and Plymouth, 165; Mohegan war, 233, 300; and Pequot War, 251, 253; and New England Confederation, 300-302.

Netherlands, Separatists in, 154-158; voyages to America, 291.

New England, coast explorations, 34, 35, 40, 150; map (1614), 150; named, 150; attempted settlement, 150; Indian pestilence, 152; settlements (1628), 175; population (1643), 209; (1652), 322; preparation against Dutch, 316; communication, 322; trade, 322; ship-building, 322; manufactures, 322; town government, 322, 323; education, 323-325; money, 325; marriage, 326; sumptuary laws, 326; criminal laws, 326; social character, 326; literature, 327; bibliography on Dutch relations, 337; bibliography on French relations, 337. See also next title, Council for New England, Plymouth Company, and colonies by name.

New England Confederation, causes and attempts, 282, 297, 298; organized, members, 298; object, management, powers, support, 299; defects, 300; population, 300; and Indian war, 300-302; and Massachusetts, 301, 305, 306, 308, 310, 316, 317; appointment of commander, 301; and Indian missions, 302-304; boundary decision, 304; Connecticut River tolls, 304-306; and French, 308, 310; and Dutch, 311-313; Dutch treaty, 313, 314; war threats, 315-317; permanency thwarted, 317.

New Hampshire, Massachusetts annexes, 209, 271, 272; grants, 266, 267; settlements, 267, 269, 270; named, 268; feebleness, 268; dissensions, 269; civil contracts, 270; Massachusetts' claim, 270; suffrage after annexation, 271; and the confederation, 298; bibliography, 336. See also New England.

New Haven, settlers' plan, 260; settled, 261; purchase from Indians, 262; government, 262-264; suffrage, 262-264; union, 264; growth, 265; on Delaware, 296, 311, 315; Kieft's bluster, 312; trade ventures, 315; migration considered, 315; bibliography, 335. See also New England.

New London, settled, 260; jurisdiction, 304.

New Netherland, Argall in, 72; and Plymouth, 175, 240; on Connecticut, 239-242, 249; trade charter, 292; boundaries, 292, 313; English protest, 292; settlement, 293; patroonships, 293; English encroachments, 294-296, 310-312, 315; Indian war, 296, 311; New England boundary, 313, 314; New England war threats, 315-317; bibliography, 336, 337.

New Sweden, settlement, 296; bibliography, 337.

Newfoundland, English voyages, 7; fisheries, 7; Gilbert at, 19, 20; Calvert's settlement, 118.

Newport, Christopher, conducts Virginia colony, 42; in council, 49; seeks gold mine, 50; visits, 52, 53, 55-57, 62.

Newport, settled, 229.

Newtown, restless, 242; migration to Connecticut, 244, 246; settles Hartford, 247.

Northwest passage, search, 8, 14, 15; Gilbert's pamphlet, 14.

Norton, John, bigotry, 321.

Oldham, John, in Plymouth, 170; at Nantasket and Cape Ann, 170, 171; and Massachusetts Company, 187, 190; killed, 252.

Opechancanough, massacres, 85, 107; captured and slain, 108.

Parliament, trade charter (1566), 14; sanctions Raleigh's charter, 22; and Virginia, 111-113; and Maryland, 143, 145-147; and Massachusetts, 235, 318; charter to Rhode Island, 235.

Patents. See Charters, Grants.

Patroonships in New Netherland, 293.

Pemaquid, settled, 273.

Pequot War, 251-257; killing of Stone, 251, 252; Massachusetts' expedition, 252; Narragansett alliance, 253; settlements attacked, 254; capture of Indian fort, 254-256; Pequots exterminated, 256; results, 257.

Percy, George, in Virginia, 43, 64, 65.

Pilgrims, English congregation, 155; leaders, 155; flight to Holland, 156; at Leyden, 157, 158; decide to settle in Virginia, 158; James I.'s attitude, 159; patents, 159; financial arrangement, 159; voyage, 160; land-fall, 160; compact, 161; settlement, 161. See also Plymouth.

Piscataqua. See Portsmouth.

Plymouth, settlement, 161; named, 162; scurvy, 163; and Indians, 163-165, 177; first summer, 164; patents, 164, 172, 178; first cargo, 165; and Weston's settlers, 166; trouble with partners, 167, 169; land division, 167; character of immigrants, 169, 170; conspiracy, 170; Cape Ann trouble, 170; buys out partners, 171; trading-posts, 172; reunion, 172; boundaries, 173; and Merry Mount, 174; and Dutch, 175, 240; French attacks, 176, 177; on Connecticut, 177, 239-242, 245; growth, 178; government, 179; suffrage, 180; code, 180; town government, 180; ministers, 181; education, 181; thrift, 181; significance, 182; and Roger Williams, 217, 218; boundary dispute, 298; bibliography, 334. See also New England, Pilgrims.

Plymouth Company, charter, 36-38; patrons, 37; government, 37-39; attempted settlements, 39-41, 150; inactive, 149; Gorges's activity, 151; reorganized, 152. See also Council for New England.

Plough patent, 277; resisted and arbitrated, 277, 278.

Pocahontas, rescues Smith, 46-48; dance, 48; seized, 71; married, 71; in England, 74; death, 77.

Popham, George, colony, 40; death, 41; fate of colony, 41.

Popham, Sir John, and Zuniga, 36; patron of Plymouth Company, 37; colony, 40; death, 41.

Population, Virginia (1629), 93; (1635), 100; (1652), 114; Maryland (1652), 147; Massachusetts (1634), 205; (1643), 209; New England (1643), 209, 300; (1652), 322; Connecticut (1653), 260.

Port Royal, Argall reduces, 72, 149, 289; settlement, 287; rebuilt, 289.

Portsmouth (Piscataqua), N.H., settled, 175, 267; feeble existence, 268; Anglicanism, 268; civil contract, 270; annexed by Massachusetts, 271.

Portsmouth, R.I., settled, 229.

Potato, introduction, 26.

Pott, John, in Virginia, 93, 94; and Baltimore, 119.

Poutrincourt at Port Royal, 287.

Powhatan, chief of confederacy, 44, 45; crowned, 56; and Virginia, 69-71; death, 85.

Prado, de, voyage, 7.

Presbyterianism, Massachusetts' attitude, 319-321.

Pring, Martin, voyage, 35, 39.

Providence, Md., founded, 109, 144.

Providence, R.I., settled, 218; growth, 230; and Gorton, 232; union with Rhode Island, 235, 237.

Puritans, in Virginia, 106; in Maryland, 109, 144, 145; rise, 153; Separatists, 154-156. See also New England colonies by name.

Quebec, settled, 288; captured, 290.

Quo warranto against Virginia Company, 88.

Raleigh, Sir Walter, and Gilbert's plan, 15; voyage with Gilbert, 16; appearance, 21; accomplishments, 21; royal favor, 21; charter, 22; exploring expedition, 22, 23; first colony, 23-25; second, 26, 27; introduces potato and tobacco, 26; third colony, 27; colony and Indians, 27, 28, 32; and Armada, 29; relief expeditions, 30; assigns trade right, 31; fate of colony, 31, 32; place in history, 32; fall, 33; in Guinea, 33; executed, 33; monopoly abrogated, 35; search for colony, 56.

Ratcliffe, John, in Virginia, 43, 49, 57, 63; president, 51; and Smith, 52, 63; deposed, 54; slain, 65.

Religion, influence on Spain, 4; on England, 5; freedom in Maryland, 125, 139, 140, 143, 144; persecution in Massachusetts, 191, 201, 211, 237, 319; theocracy in New England, 200-202, 258, 262-264; freedom in Rhode Island, 238; Indian missions, 302-304; bibliography on influence, 338. See also sects by name.

Representation, Virginia, 79, 80, 92-94; and taxation in Virginia, 90, 96, 113; James I.'s policy, 91; Maryland, 125, 133; Plymouth, 179; Massachusetts, 202, 203; Connecticut, 250, 258; New Haven, 265; town unit, 322. See also Suffrage.

Rhode Island, Providence settled, 218; island purchased and settled, 229; body politic, 229; union of settlements, 230, 237, 238; attitude of Massachusetts, 230, 231, 235-238; parliamentary charter, 235; boundaries, 235; Gorton's settlement, 232-235; Coddington's commission, 237, 238; Baptists in, 237; religious freedom, 238; and New England Confederation, 298; named, 292; bibliography, 335. See also New England.