character of the settlements CHAPTER VII. THE SETTLEMENTS NORTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 1 MEANWHILE the territory to the north of Massachusetts was being colonized from motives and on principles General widely different from those which governed the settlement of New England. The plantations north of the Which afterwards grew into Maine and New Piscataqua. Hampshire had an origin not unlike that of the Southern colonies. An individual or a company acquired a tract of unoccupied land. The actual settlers 1 The early history of New Hampshire and Maine is beset with difficulties. Happily its importance is not equal to its intricacy. The archives of New Hampshire, including the records of the four separate townships which formed the germ of that colony, were published in 1867-73, edited by Dr. Bouton. They extend down to 1776. The most important part of them for the period now before us is the correspondence between Mason and his agent Gibbons. Some of these letters are also given in the Appendix to Belknap's History of New Hampshire, published in 1812. Belknap's is a clear narrative, based mainly on the manuscript records of the various New Hampshire townships, those of Massachusetts, and on Winthrop's History. In some cases he refers to Winthrop, not directly, but through the somewhat untrustworthy medium of Hubbard. Belknap was not always severely critical in his examination of evidence, and there can be little doubt that he was more than once imposed on by forged documents. Mr. Farmer, who edited Belknap's History in 1831, has added some valuable matter in the form of notes. My references are to this edition. A document of great value for the early history of New Hampshire was brought to light in 1876. It is the agreement between David Thompson and three merchants of Plymouth. It is published with a very full explanatory monograph by Mr. Deane, in the Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for 1876. This, coupled with the evidence of Maverick's book, described at page 14 n, throws an entirely new light on Thompson's position and on the early history of the settlements on the Piscataqua. Maverick's evidence is of great value both for New Hampshire and Maine. The most important events in the history of the townships on the Piscataqua, their union with Massachusetts and the RELATIONS TO NEW ENGLAND. 269 who emigrated and tilled the soil were, like the live stock and the capital expended in husbandry, part of the machinery which the proprietors employed to make their grant profitable. Such a community did not, like the Puritan colonies, begin life with definite political principles or a preconceived system; its institutions were shaped by practical needs. to New There could be but little community of interest or sentiment between these settlers and their Puritan neighRelations bours. Nevertheless, Maine and New HampEngland. shire, as we may by anticipation call them, had an important influence on the history of New England. Neither Massachusetts nor that republic which owes so much of its peculiar character to Massachusetts has ever been indifferent to the motive which we call patriotism when we would approve and lust of territory when we would condemn. The attitude of the colonies on the northern border of Massachusetts was one of the first influences which called out that passion and kept it alive. When a partial and imperfect incorporation was brought about it must have infused into Massachusetts an element alien from the dominant Puritanism, not indeed large, but yet strong enough to have an influence on the life of the state. Moreover it can hardly be too often said that the history of the United States is the history of a continuous process of union. Every circumstances which led to it, are fully told by Winthrop. There is also much valuable material in the publications of the New Hampshire Historical Society. The materials for the history of Maine during this time are very scanty. The early records have never, so far as I can ascertain, been published in an authentic and connected form. Fragments of them have been preserved in Hazard, in the Massachusetts Historical Society's Collections, and in the Maine Historical Society's Collection. One or two details have been preserved by Winthrop. Hubbard appears to have enjoyed special opportunities for acquiring information about the northern settlements, and he often supplements the deficiencies of our other authorities. The narrative of Gorges has necessarily some value, but it is at once prolix and incomplete. I have thought it best to deal with various points of controversy pertaining to this chapter in an Appendix. step in that direction is important, since it lessened the number of separate members which had to be united, and also familiarized the community with the process and educated it for its final destiny. Plymouth Council. The recklessness, probably too the geographical ignorance, of the Plymouth Council showed itself in their Grants of distribution of the land north of the Merrimac. land by the Individuals from time to time received grants, given on no connected system, and often contradicting and encroaching on one another.1 If we knew the details of those grants we should not improbably find that in some instances the smaller grantees were tenants of the larger, and that in other cases land once assigned was left unoccupied, and thereby forfeited and regranted. John Among the adventurers who employed themselves in settling to the north of the Merrimac two stand out prominent. These were Gorges and John Mason. The early career and the colonial schemes of the former have already been sketched. The fulfilment of those schemes, so far as they were fulfilled, will soon come before us. Mason, like his associate, has suffered in reputation, partly from the indifference, partly from the active hostility of the Puritan chroniclers, while the meagre reports of unfriendly critics cannot in this case be supplemented from his own writings, and but scantily from general history. Perhaps the best testimony to Mason's character is the absence of any specific charge of dishonesty or immorality. The fairest and most moderate of the Puritan chroniclers describes him as the chief mover in all the attempts against us.' But this means no more than that he was unfriendly to Puritanism, and an energetic and aggressive rival to the New England traders, and that in conse 1 For a list of these grants between 1621 and 1636 see Appendix B. 2 It is scarcely needful to say that he is wholly distinct from the conqueror of the Pequods. 3 Winthrop, vol. i. p. 187. 1611-27 JOHN MASON. 271 quence he was anxious to see the colonies brought under one central government. The records of his settlement show that he was sagacious in the management of it and liberal, indeed lavish, in his expenditure. In fact, of all those members of the Council who parcelled out the land of New England between them,1 only Mason and Gorges seem to have taken any interest in their territory or bestowed any care upon plantation. Events showed that the system which they adopted was unsuited to the conditions of the country. Personal supervision and manual labour were more needed than capital, and there was no place for the absentee landowner. But if New England could have been settled by the same process which answered in Virginia and Maryland, Mason was apparently well fitted to succeed. He seems to have begun his American career as Governor of Newfoundland under the company of proprietors, chiefly Bristol merchants, who held a patent for that colony. There is nothing to show the exact date of his appointment. We know that his predecessor, Guy, held office in 1611,' that Mason himself was Governor in 1621, and his successor, Slaney, in 1627.3 That Mason was an active and capable man may be assumed from the position which he held in the public service, and from the manner in which he was regarded by those under whom he served. We learn from the State Papers that he was Commissary-General for victualling the Cadiz expedition in 1626. We find him described by Lord Wimbledon, who was in command of that expedition, as a man deserving a better office, and in the next year he was appointed Treasurer 1 For this division see above (p. 193). 2 There is a proclamation by Guy in the State Papers, dated August 13, 1611. It is calendared under December 1618. 3 Colonial Papers, 1621, March 16; 1627, Nov. 2. 4 Domestic Papers, 1626, May 25. 5 Ib. of the Army.1 His own letters show him to us as an active, capable man, not afraid to tell his superiors unpalatable truths.2 There were at least two settlements on the territory which afterwards formed New Hampshire earlier than those established by Mason. The first of these was that, already mentioned, formed by David Thompson and three Plymouth merchants, Colmer, Sherwill, and Pomery. The historian of Plymouth tells us just enough to show the continued existence of this plantation. The site of it was in all likelihood the present township of Rye, a few miles south of the mouth of the Piscataqua.3 Thompson himself left in 1626, and became an independent settler upon an island in what was afterwards Boston harbour.* What became of the settlement after Thompson's departure is uncertain. But a list of the plantations which subscribed towards helping Plymouth in the expedition against Morton is still extant. Among the contributors was 'Pascataquack.' This, in all likelihood, was the settlement established by Thompson. Probably it was at some later day amalgamated with the neighbouring settlement of Portsmouth, and the rights of the proprietors either lost by disuse or transferred by some agreement no longer extant. The other settlement was at Cocheco, afterwards called Dover, some fifteen miles up the river, on the western bank. It was founded by two brothers, Edward and William Hilton, sometime fishmongers in London. The same document which proves the existence of the settlement at Pascataquack' in 1628 also mentions. 1 Domestic Papers, 1627, May 16. 2 See, for example, his letters to Edward Nicholas, clerk of the Council, remonstrating against the delay in paying the troops and against other negligence in the public service (Domestic Papers, 1627, Jan. 19, May 7). 3 Deane, in Proceedings, p. 368. 4 See above, p. 107. |