own ends. They defend the treatment of Lokman by the Court of Connecticut. He had been given a fair trial, and if he renews his malpractices he will meet with a like punishment again. Finally, the English Commissioners brought forward their own grievances; the various outrages committed by the Dutch settlers at Hartford, and the successive attacks made on the English when they had attempted to settle, or even to trade, south of the Hudson.

At this stage of the dispute Stuyvesant proposed that matters should be referred to four arbitrators, two appointed by each side. He himself chose as his representatives two of the English settlers at New Netherlands, Willet and Baxter. The other side appointed Bradstreet, of Massachusetts, and Prence, of Plymouth. After discussion and a full hearing of both sides, a formal agreement was drawn up and signed by the four representatives. A boundary line was fixed; Greenwich was restored to the jurisdiction of Newhaven, and the Dutch at Hartford were secured in possession of their territory. With reference to the wrongs complained of by each party, the arbitrators refused to express a decided opinion, but referred the matter to the home governments of England and the United Provinces. At the same time they sought to smooth over matters by a declaration that most of the wrongs complained of by the English were committed before Stuyvesant had been appointed, and that Kieft was really responsible for them.1

English

encroach

The disputes which should have been set at rest by this treaty soon broke out afresh. In 1651 a party of emigrants from Newhaven once more attempted to establish themselves on the territory by the Delaware. Stuyvesant apprehended them,

ment on the Delaware.

The whole of these proceedings are in theActs of Commissioners (vol. i. pp. 171-191); Brodhead, vol. i. p. 518.

1651-2 RUMOURED INTRIGUES OF DUTCH AND INDIANS. 399

and only released them upon their promising to abandon their attempt. The victims of the attack brought their grievance before the Federal Commissioners, and induced them to write a letter to Stuyvesant, protesting against his unjust and unneighbourly courses.1

Rumours of a conspiracy be

tween the

Dutch and

Next year a rumour reached New England that a conspiracy was on foot between the Dutch and the Indians to cut off the English settlers. Three Commissioners were sent to New Netherlands to inquire into the matter. Stuyvesant seems to the Indians. have behaved with perfect fairness and moderation, and to have thrown no hindrance in the way of the Commissioners. He demanded reasonably enough that the inquiry should be conducted by a joint tribunal.3 The English representatives demurred to this. Their system of inquiry seems to have been to hear and record, without scrutiny of any sort, every statement which made in favour of the charges against the Dutch. Yet it cannot be said that this credulity was wholly without excuse. The conduct now imputed to the Dutch was in no wise worse than the conduct of their countrymen twenty-seven years earlier in Japan. And when Stuyvesant complained that civilized men should. rely upon the testimony of the savages, the English not unfairly retorted that at Amboyna the Dutch had tortured Englishmen on charges unlikely in themselves, and resting on the unsupported testimony of the Japanese. Nor is it possible to read all the depositions on which the English acted, without feeling that they had some reasonable cause for alarm. There may have

1 The petition and the letters are in the Acts of Commissioners (vol. i. pp. 210-5).

2 The report of the three Commissioners of Inquiry, and the proceedings of the Federal Commissioners and of the Dutch government in connexion with it, are all given in the Acts of Commissioners (vol. ii.), under the year 1653; cf. Brodhead.

$ Acts of Commissioners, vol. ii. p. 37.

been nothing to show that Stuyvesant had suborned the Indians to cut off the English. But there certainly was ground for thinking that he had spoken of the English to the Indians in a contemptuous and hostile spirit, and that he was not unwilling, in case war broke out, to secure the support of the savages.

for war.

As might have been expected, the two southern colonies, Connecticut and Newhaven, were clamorous Their zeal was quickened by the English who dwelt within the Dutch border. In 1644 a colony from Stamford had settled at Heemstede, on Long Island, not far from its south-west point. They now made overtures to the Federal government.' Underhill too was plotting against his new masters. For endeavouring to stir up a rebellion on Long Island he was imprisoned. He was soon released, renewed his malpractices, and was banished.2 He then fled to Rhode Island, where he was well received, and obtained from the government a commission to take all Dutch vessels that might come into his power, and generally to wage defensive war against the Dutch. The aggressive policy of Newhaven and Connecticut may have been culpable, but it is at least intelligible. It is hard to understand what pretext Rhode Island could find for interfering in the quarrel. Meanwhile the Federal Commissioners had drawn up a report setting forth the injuries sustained from the Dutch during the last thirteen years. It is obvious that the treaty of Hartford should have been regarded as setting at rest all prior claims and disputes, and that if war was to be made it should have been avowedly made on the facts which had come to light since.

The combative temper of Connecticut and Newhaven

1 Acts of Commissioners, vol. ii. p. 51.

2 Ib. pp. 31, 52, 426.

3 Rhode Island Records, vol. i. p. 266.

1653-4

Dissensions

Confede

DISSENSIONS IN THE CONFEDERACY.

401

was paralyzed by the persistent determination of Massachusetts to keep the peace. In 1653 seven of within the the eight Commissioners voted for declaring racy. war, both against the Dutch and the Nyantics, while Bradstreet of Massachusetts alone stood fast on the other side.1 The question was referred back for special consideration to the Deputies in Massachusetts and to the Elders.2 Hathorne, Bradstreet's colleague, gave his voice for war, and Norris, the minister of Salem, invoked the curse of Meroz on his brother citizens.4 A conference was held, at which three of the Commissioners, Hathorne among them, met the representatives of the Court of Massachusetts, but to no purpose. The Court as a whole supported Bradstreet, and voted that the Commissioners had no power to engage the Confederacy in an offensive war.5

3

It seemed for a time as though the weaker colonies would make war on their own account. The three outlying settlements, Stratford, Fairfield, and Stamford, were naturally the most eager for vigorous measures. The last named addressed a special petition to the Court of Newhaven, urging them to war, and asking leave to raise a volunteer force in the neighbouring towns. The men of Fairfield went even further. They held a town meeting, at which it was decided to raise troops, to be placed under the command of Ludlow. The governments of Connecticut and Newhaven were more temperate. They decided that the season was too far advanced for operations. The leaders of the war party at Fairfield were punished, and bound over to keep the peace.6

Next year the dispute between the federated colonies

3 Ib.

1 Acts of Commissioners, vol. ii. p. 109.

5 Mass. Records, vol. iii. p. 311.

Newhaven Records, vol. ii. pp. 47-57; Trumbull, vol. i.

II.

was practically set at rest by the action of the home government. The short-lived war between England and Holland, ended by the peace of 1654, relieved the colonies of all responsibility, and gave the smaller settlements a guarantee that their safety would not be overlooked. The chief result of the war, as far as the colonies were concerned, was the permanent annexation of the Dutch territory at Hartford.

war.

The persistency of Massachusetts had in all likelihood saved the colonies from an unnecessary war. Yet it is difficult to see in it anything but the lucky result of a selfish and unscrupulous policy. Apologists of Massachusetts in modern times have repeated the plea which she then urged on her own behalf, that she did but violate the formal obligation to her confederates in obedience to the higher law which forbids an unjust It would be rash for us, judging, as we necessarily must, from imperfect evidence, to pronounce dogmatically on the justice or injustice of the charges urged against the Dutch. But let them have been ever so groundless, that cannot justify the conduct of Massachusetts. That colony had deliberately and of free will made a contract. That contract clearly bound her in certain cases to subordinate her own wishes and her own judgment to those of her confederates. If, as was alleged, the obligations of that contract became intolerable, as conflicting with the higher obligations of morality, no doubt the government of Massachusetts was justified in freeing itself. But it was assuredly not justified in acting as it did, in retaining the advantages of confederation and repudiating obligations so imposed. To deal as Massachusetts dealt with the smaller members of the Confederation was simply to reduce them to the position of dependent allies. We must remember, too, that the Massachusetts government had by other actions deprived itself of a claim to the defence which is urged