into his own hands.1 Burdet's ascendency did not last long. After the persecution of the Antinomians some of the victims took refuge at Cocheco. Among them was Underhill. His services against the Pequods might have wiped out the stain of heresy which rested on his character. But he soon revived the memory of his misdeeds by his violent language against the government while he was on a voyage from England, by grave suspicions of unchastity, and by the levity with which he spoke of the Divine mystery of conversion.2 Upon hearing of the reception of these fugitives, the Massachusetts government sent a letter to the settlers at Cocheco, expressing their resentment, and containing a warning that their title to their lands might be open to question. To this Burdet, we are told, returned a scornful answer.1 The Massachusetts government then sent to Cocheco information about Burdet's character." The letter was The letter was intercepted by Burdet and his adherents, and probably had no effect beyond quickening the hostility with which he already regarded the government of Massachusetts. Meanwhile Burdet seems to have lost his hold over the people of Cocheco, since before Winthrop's letter arrived they had elected Underhill as Governor. Burdet must have left the settlement soon after, since he seems to have borne no part in the disturbances which followed, and in 1640 we hear of him at Agamenticus, where apparently he obtained much the same kind of popularity which he had for a while enjoyed at Cocheco. His successor soon entangled 1 This is expressly stated by Winthrop (vol. i. p. 291). It is not however quite easy to see what were the relations between Wiggin and Burdet. Winthrop's letter remonstrating against the reception of the Antinomians was addressed to Burdet, Wiggin, and others of the plantation of Piscataqua.' (Winthrop, vol. i. p. 276). 2 Ib. p. 270. 4 Winthrop, as above. 6 Ib. vol. i. p. 326. 3 Ib. p. 276; Mass. Records, vol. i. p. Ib. p. 277. 254. 1639-41 DISPUTES AT COCHECO. 279 the colony in disputes with Massachusetts, while to make its case worse it was torn asunder by the rivalry of two claimants for spiritual office, Knollys and Larkham, both clever adventurers, unscrupulous in their public conduct, and, as it would seem, dissolute in their private lives. Of these Knollys had been already driven out of Massachusetts as a follower of Mrs. Hutchinson. Larkham too, if not actually expelled from Massachusetts, was in disfavour there. The two banished Antinomians, Knollys and Underhill, at once made common cause. The Massachusetts government had not unnaturally been incensed by the appointment of Underhill, and their anger was now quickened by the discovery that Knollys in a letter sent home to England had described the authorities in Massachusetts as tyrannical and irreligious. Winthrop seemingly sent a private messenger to Knollys, telling him that his conduct was known. The culprit thereupon presented himself at Boston and made formal acknowledgement of his fault. Underhill at the same time did the like. Knolly's apology was accepted. Underhill's was so mixed with excuses and vindications that it was voted unsatisfactory, and he was a second time excommunicated.3 Underhill had already embroiled himself with the settlers at Cocheco by attempting an unauthorized interference with the jurisdiction of the neighbouring settlement, and by sending a magistrate to prison who said that he would not sit with an adulterer as Underhill was. The little community was now broken into two parties, with Knollys and Underhill at the head of one and Larkham of the other. Knollys excommunicated his rival, while Larkham's followers in turn denounced Underhill as willing to hand over the plantation to 1 Larkham's misdeeds do not seem to have been detected till after his departure from the colony, in 1642 (Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 92). 2 Winthrop, vol. i. 3 Ib. 4 Ib. ་ Massachusetts. Knollys and Underhill resorted to force, whereupon the other side sent for help to Williams, the Governor of the lower colony. He came with an armed force, arrested Underhill and his followers, and then sat in judgment on them and banished them. The defeated party thereupon appealed for help to Boston. Three commissioners, Bradstreet, Hugh Peter, and Dalton, came over and restored peace.1 The reconciliation thus effected was happily confirmed by the departure of two of the chief combatants. Knollys was immediately afterwards detected in an act of unchastity and banished.2 Underhill returned to Boston and was reconciled to the church. His restless temper, however, soon made him a wanderer again. He went to New Netherlands, where he distinguished himself as a soldier in the service of the Dutch government, and lived, it is said, to see his adopted colony pass into the hands of his own countrymen.3 It is somewhat singular that during the very heat of these disturbances. the settlers at Cocheco, in imitation, it may be, of their neighbours at Exeter, drew up a formal agreement by which they constituted themselves a body politic. The contract was signed by forty-one of the settlers, with the name of Larkham at the head. It does not specify the form of government, but only pledges those who signed it to submit to the King's laws, together with all such laws as should be concluded by a major part of the freemen. As nothing was said as to the qualifications for citizenship, we must suppose that the freemen were a self-electing body.* Meanwhile two other townships had come into 1 Our chief authority for these disturbances at Dover is Winthrop (vol. ii. pp. 27-9). Lechford gives a short account of them. 2 Knolly's misconduct and banishment are recorded by Winthrop. 3 Mr. Savage's note to Winthrop (vol. ii. p. 15). Winthrop himself tells of Underhill's reconciliation (p. 41) and his subsequent departure (p. 63). 4 This combination is preserved by Hubbard (p. 222). 1638-9 SETTLEMENT AT EXETER. 281 existence within the territory claimed by Mason. Settlement Wheelwright, the banished leader of the Antiat Exeter. nomians, had established a small settlement about ten miles inland on the southernmost tributary of the Piscataqua.1 The claims of the Proprietor were apparently satisfied by agreement. Many years after evidence was adduced to show that Wheelwright had already obtained a right to the soil by purchase from the Indians in 1629. The document which is the only evidence for this sale is too full of anachronisms and improbabilities to be accepted as authentic, and there can be little doubt that those are right who regard it as the deliberately fraudulent production of some eighty years later.2 The new settlement was called Exeter. In 1639 the inhabitants formally constituted themselves a township, and bound themselves together by a civil compact. The whole number of these was thirty-five, of whom fourteen had to sign with a mark. The agree ment resembled that adopted in the following year by the settlers at Cocheco, but was at once fuller and more guarded. The settlers professed themselves to be subjects to the King, according to the liberty of the English colony of the Massachusetts.' They further bound themselves to submit to all such Christian laws as are established in the realm of England to their best knowledge, and to all other laws which should upon good grounds be made and enacted among them.' Here, as at Cocheco, no provision was made, or at least expressed, either for the form of government or for admission to the rights of citizenship. 6 1 Winthrop, vol. i. p. 290. 2 Mr. Savage, the editor of Winthrop's journal, has gone into the question with great care in an Appendix. His arguments seem to me quite fatal to the authenticity of the deed. Dr. Bouton, the editor of the New Hampshire Records, takes the same view, and points out other anachronisms besides those noticed by Mr. Savage. 3 New Hampshire Records, vol. i. p. 131. these town Massachu setts. Each of the three townships had dealings of some kind with Massachusetts. In the case of Cocheco, or, to give Dealings of it the name which it formally assumed in 1639,1 ships with Dover, these have been already described. It was scarcely possible that the government of Massachusetts could cherish friendly feelings towards the settlers at Exeter. Nevertheless, the church at Boston so far recognized them as to give Wheelwright and eight of his associates a formal dismissal, without which they could not have established a fresh church." Between the Puritan government and the little Anglican community under Williams there soon sprang up a dispute. Richard Gibson, whom the settlers at Portsmouth had chosen for their parson, was accused of having written a letter to Larkham scandalizing the Massachusetts government. On this charge he was summoned to Boston, but was dismissed upon his making submission and announcing his intention of leaving the colony. In the course of this case a point arose which foreshadowed an impending dispute. It would seem from Winthrop's account that one of the charges against Gibson was, that he had married and baptized among the fishermen at the Isle of Shoals, off the mouth of the Merrimac, and had thereby encroached on the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. Passages in contemporary letters show that Gibson was not the only settler at Piscataqua who was charged with scandalizing the authorities in Massachusetts. If we may believe a letter from England written by Edward Howe, a very hot-headed admirer of New England Puritanism, to the younger John Winthrop, the Piscataqua settlers railed at Massachusetts as a country 1 Winthrop, vol. i. p. 326. 2 Extract from the Boston church records, quoted by Belknap (p. 20). Winthrop (vol. i. p. 281) mentions the dismissal. 3 Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 66. |