1653-4 DISSENSIONS IN THE CONFEDERACY. 403 on its behalf. In judging the conduct of Massachusetts we cannot forget what had been her policy in the case of De la Tour and in the case of Springfield. In the former case she had been ready to entangle herself foreign quarrel for no higher object than the pecuniary advantage of the merchants of Boston. In the latter case she had run the risk of breaking up the Confederation on a question of tariff. It is open to us to believe that on the Dutch question the Massachusetts government unwillingly violated their obligation to their allies in obedience to the higher obligation of morality. It is equally open to us to believe that they were selfishly indifferent to the danger of their neighbours. The case of La Tour makes against the former view. The case of Springfield makes in favour of the latter. When the Federal Commissioners met in 1654, a formal declaration was made by the two representatives of Massachusetts, withdrawing the doctrine which they had asserted in the previous year, and acknowledging the right of the Commissioners to declare war in the name of the Confederation. The declaration was virtually an admission that Massachusetts had broken faith with her confederates. The claim of the right to nullify had served its purpose, and it was now withdrawn with almost cynical indifference. That the withdrawal should have been accepted at all is the best proof how the just rights of the three weaker colonies were crushed by their powerful and arrogant associate. The foreign relations of the Confederacy soon offered a fresh cause for dispute, and again the pacific policy of Massachusetts prevailed. Ninigret had been harassing some of the Indians who were under the protection of the English, and was again in arrears with his tribute. The Commissioners summoned him to Hartford to explain his conduct." Ninigret replied that he had 2 Ib. p. 115. 1 Acts of Commissioners, vol. ii. p. 114. sufficient grounds for his dealings with the other Indians, and that there was no need for him to appear.1 The Commissioners thereupon unanimously declared war against him. A force of forty horse and two hundred and seventy foot was raised. To this force Massachusetts contributed all the cavalry and more than half the infantry. Probably on that ground it was left to the Massachusetts government to choose the commander out of three names proposed by the Commissioners.2 Though the three named were all Massachusetts men, yet the Court passed them over in favour of Simon Willard. He was thought to be a man of less resolution and military capacity than any of the three proposed, and his appointment excited a not unnatural suspicion as to the zeal and good faith of Massachusetts.3 Before the invading force could reach the Nyantic country, Ninigret had fled to the forests. Willard thereupon withdrew his force, and returned without striking a blow, bringing with him over a hundred Pequods, who had voluntarily attached themselves to the English.1 We can hardly wonder that the settlers in the three smaller colonies, smarting under their recent treatment, should have suspected Willard of thinking more of the wishes of his own government than of the instructions given him by the Federal Commissioners." The same masterful temper which had actuated the government of Massachusetts in their dealings with the Confederation had also been displayed towards their 1 Acts of Commissioners, vol. ii. p. 125. 2 Ib. p. 126. 3 Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 187. The Massachusetts Records refer to Willard's appointment, but give no reason for it. 4 The actual number seems to have been a hundred and ten. Willard's report of his proceedings is published in the Acts of Commissioners (vol. ii. pp. 144–7). 5 Willard was formally censured by the Commissioners. Their letter to him is in the Acts (vol. ii. p. 148). 1643 RIGBY BUYS THE PLOUGH PATENT. 405 neighbours in the north. The territory granted to Gorges as the province of Maine had passed through Rigby buys curious and somewhat complicated changes. up the Plough Patent. As we have seen, a small company had acquired a prior title to a portion of that land under a document called the Plough Patent. It might reasonably have been held that disuse had extinguished any claim which these patentees might have had against Gorges. Their title, however, was now revived to serve the ends of an unscrupulous land-speculator. The rights of the Plough patentees were bought up by Alexander Rigby, a prominent member of the Long Parliament. He does not seem even to have acquired a good title, since apparently only two members of the defunct company executed the transfer.2 In all likelihood he cared little about the legal validity of his claim, relying, as it would seem, on the favour of the authorities in England and on the help of the Massachusetts government. The territory to which he laid claim extended about forty miles along the coast. As we have seen, the original instrument from which he deduced his title is no longer extant. But it seems clear that the tract in question extended from Cape Porpoise on the south to a point not far short of the Kennebec, and thus took in the settlements of Saco and Cape Porpoise and the scattered plantations about Casco Bay. Rigby at the outset injured his cause by his choice of agents. He seems to have given some position of trust to Morton. Although that disrepu2 Ib. p. 257. 1 Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 154. 3 Mr. Palfrey thinks that the northern limit of the Plough Patent was Cape Elizabeth. If so, the Casco settlements would have been outside it. But in that case it is hard to see how Cleves held a court at Casco, and in fact made it his headquarters. That he did so appears from the documents quoted further on. + Winslow, writing to Winthrop in January 1644, says that Rigby has 'good hap to light on two of the arrantest known knaves that ever trod on New English shore, to be his agents east and west, as Cleves and Morton.' table adventurer did not take any part in the affairs of Maine, yet it is clear that Rigby by his dealings with him brought some discredit on himself. The other agent, George Cleves, seems to have been little better, though, unlike Morton, he stood well with the Puritans of Massachusetts. In 1637 he had been in Maine, acting for Gorges. It is clear that his conduct at that time was unsatisfactory to his employer. He was soon engaged in a dispute with Gorges' agent, Richard Vines, and in a lawsuit with some of the settlers in Maine, while, at the same time, he refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Proprietor. It is noteworthy that in this difficulty Vines wrote to Winthrop for advice,2 from which we may infer that no ill-feeling as yet existed between the followers of Gorges and the leading men in Massachusetts. Dispute In 1643 Cleves landed at Boston. He there endeavoured to obtain a formal confirmation of his proceedings from the Massachusetts government. This was refused, and he had to be content with a private letter of recommendation from Winthrop. Cleves then went on to the seat of his new jurisdiction at Casco. Vines immediately contested his claim by summoning a court at Saco. Cleves, not content with asserting Rigby's claim to a portion of Maine, endeavoured to discredit Gorges' title altogether by suggesting that it was a forgery. Soon after this a number of them at Casco, an ignorant sort,' as Vines 6 4 It is difficult to understand how Rigby, a Parliament man and a Puritan, became connected with Morton. But Winslow could hardly have been in error on such a point, and the context shows that he had no bias against Rigby. The letter is in Mass. Hist. Coll., 4th series, vol. vi. p. 174. A letter from Gorges to Winthrop, written in August 1637, shows that Morton and Cleves had some sort of connexion (Mass. Hist. Coll., 4th series, vol. vii. p. 329). This is clearly shown by Gorges' letter, referred to above. 2 The letter is in Mass. Hist. Coll., 4th series, vol. vii. p. 342. 1643-5 DISPUTES IN MAINE. 407 calls them, and, according to him, instigated by Cleves, offered to refer the dispute to the arbitration of the Massachusetts government.1 Vines interfered by arresting their messenger on his way to Boston and binding him over to keep the peace. Soon after Vines himself with a number of his supporters went to Boston, and there lodged a petition, probably on behalf of Gorges.2 There is nothing extant to show what course the dispute took during 1644. The two parties seem to have stood confronting one another, the one under Cleves claiming the territory north of the Sagadahock, the other under Vines asserting the authority of Gorges over the whole province. An extant letter or report from Cleves to the Massachusetts government shows that during 1645 he was exercising criminal jurisdiction at Casco.3 departs, dispute The misfortunes of the Royalist party had in all likelihood distracted Gorges' attention from his American Vines possessions. In October 1645 a General Court and a fresh of the freemen assembled at Saco, and, declarfollows. ing that they had not lately heard from the Proprietor, chose Vines as Deputy-Governor for the year. At the same time they resolved that this appointment of a Deputy-Governor should be made every year, and that if Vines should leave the colony during his year of office Joscelyn should succeed him.4 This contingency quickly arose. Joscelyn seems at once to have acted with more energy than his principal. Accompanied by two of the settlers from the territory claimed by Rigby, Robinson and Markworth, of whom the latter had at first submitted willingly to Cleves, Joscelyn went from house to house, forming a party on 1 At the same time they proposed to join the Confederacy, in all likelihood in the hope of propitiating Massachusetts. 2 I have taken this account from Winthrop (vol. ii. p. 5) and from the letters of Vines and Cleves (Mass. Hist. Coll., 4th series, vol. vii.). 3 Mass. Hist. Coll., 4th series, vol. vii. p. 366. 4 York Records in Maine Historical Society's Collections, vol. i. p. 273. |