1643 THE PLOUGH PATENT. 293 But it is clear not judge of the justice of this claim. from the letter just referred to that this, or something very near this, was the claim of the original grantees. We may reasonably doubt whether that claim was ever valid, and we may be almost sure that it was not valid. in the form in which it was revived at a later day. Gorges, whatever may have been his follies as a legislator, had no lack of shrewdness where his own territorial rights were concerned. We may be certain that he would never have dealt as he did with the land about Wells, while a dormant claim was hanging over him which he could have easily extinguished. As we have just seen, he knew the existence and the extent of the so-called Plough patent. In all likelihood he considered that, by the abandonment of the scheme, the territory had reverted to the condition of unoccupied soil. 294 CHAPTER VIII. THE NEW ENGLAND CONFEDERATION.1 THE process by which the New England colonies each came into being was now complete. Henceforth we have Necessity only to deal with such changes as came about for union. by their growth and combination. Experience had by this time made it clear that some sort of union between the various colonies was a necessity. Union indeed had been distasteful when it was likely to be enforced from without in a manner which would override local liberties and rights. But the state of affairs in England put an end to that danger, and the colonists were left free to enter upon a self-imposed union which should be consistent with local independence, and even helpful to it. At the same time the very causes which made confederation a necessity were hindrances to the successful institution of any such system. To understand them we must go back a few years to survey what one may call the international politics of New Obstacles to union. 1 The two main authorities for the history of the New England Confederation are Winthrop down to his death, which happened in April 1649, and the Acts of the Federal Commissioners. These latter form the ninth and tenth volumes of the Plymouth Records. Several papers of value are contained in the Hutchinson Collection. For the Gorton controversy we have Winslow's pamphlet, entitled Hypocrisy Unmasked, and Gorton's Simplicities Defence against Seven-headed Policy, both published in 1646. The latter is reprinted in Force's Collection, vol. iv. It is to this that I refer. For all matters which touch on New Netherlands history, Mr. Brodhead's History of New York, published in 1859, is of great value. It contains copious references to the Dutch archives and to other somewhat inaccessible materials. 1634 AFFRAY ON THE KENNEBEC. 295 England, the dealings of the colonies one with another and with the foreign neighbours upon their borders. on the We have already seen how the settlement of the Connecticut valley and the measures necessary against The affray the Pequods introduced something of dissenKennebec. sion between the colonies. These were not the only subjects of strife. The Plymouth settlers, it will be remembered, had established a trading station on the Kennebec, and had obtained from the Crown a patent giving them a monopoly of trade on the river and the right of enforcing that monopoly if needful by armed force. In defiance of this a certain Hocking, seemingly one of the settlers planted by Lord Say and Sele and his partners at Cocheco, forced his way in a bark up the river, intending to intercept the Indian trade above the Plymouth factory. Howland, the manager, remonstrated and threatened to use force. Hocking, after bidding him do his worst, went up the stream and came to anchor. Howland then sent an armed party with orders to cut Hocking's cable and let him drift down stream. This was done. Hocking fired on his assailants, and shot one Moses Talbot dead. Thereupon another of the party fired back and killed Hocking. The settlers at Cocheco at once wrote home to the Proprietors, giving them, Bradford says, a one-sided report of the affair. Soon after the Plymouth trading vessel went to Boston. Among those on board was John Alden, a leading man among the settlers. He had been at Kennebec, but had borne no part in the fray. Nor is it easy to see by what right the government of Massachusetts meddled in the business. Nevertheless they detained the bark for a while, and kept Alden as a prisoner. Standish was thereupon sent to treat for his release. This was granted, but not till 1 Bradford (pp. 199–202) and Winthrop (vol. i. pp. 131, 136, 139, 146) both describe this affair. Their accounts agree. Alden and Standish had both given security to appear and explain the matter. Dudley, then Governor, wrote at the same time to Bradford, acquitting the Plymouth settlers, though in a carefully guarded manner, of guilt. It is clear that the authorities at Massachusetts were really actuated by fear that New England would be discredited with the mother country. It would give occasion to the King to send a general Governor over; and besides had brought us all and the gospel under a common reproach of cutting one another's throats for beaver.' 1 Finally it was decided, by the advice of Winthrop, that a conference should be held by representatives from Cocheco and Plymouth at some convenient place, at which some of the leading men from Massachusetts might attend, and the ministers of every plantation might be present to give their advice in point of conscience.' 2 The government of Plymouth, feeling confidence in the goodness of their cause, adopted this proposal, though somewhat reluctantly. At the appointed time the representatives of Piscataqua failed to appear. The arbitrators from Boston, apparently Winthrop, Cotton, and Wilson, thereupon considered the matter and absolved the men of Plymouth from all blame. Winslow, who was about to visit England on the embassy before described, was instructed to explain matters to Lord Say and Sele and his partners, while Winthrop and Dudley at the same time wrote them a letter exculpating the men of Plymouth. The Proprietors received these explanations harshly and grudgingly, saying that they might have sent a man-of-war to beat down the house at Kennebec. They were content, however, to leave the matter in the hands of Wiggin, who was then agent at Cocheco, and of the Massachusetts government, and no more came of it. 1 Winthrop, vol. i. p. 131. 2 Bradford, p. 202. 1639-41 PLYMOUTH AND MASSACHUSETTS. 297 In 1639 a direct dispute arose between Plymouth and Massachusetts. It might have been foreseen that as these colonies increased and extended, diffidispute be- culties would arise about the boundaries. A Boundary tween Ply Massachu setts. mouth and fertile tract of meadow lay between Scituate, the northernmost township of Plymouth, and Hingham, a settlement on the southern borders of Massachusetts. The settlers at the latter place staked out the meadow as their own, whereupon the Plymouth settlers pulled up the stakes. Each government maintained its territorial claim. A conference was held at which each was represented by two commissioners, who failed to agree. The northern boundary of Plymouth was a rivulet called the Cohasset. This had been definitely fixed by the charter of 1629. The Massachusetts patent was more open to dispute. It took for the southern boundary a line three miles south of the Charles river. But what was the Charles river? According to the contention of the Plymouth commissioners it meant the main stream, while the representatives of Massachusetts argued that it meant a small tributary to the south. After a dispute which lasted for about two years, a compromise was made by which the debateable land was divided between the two colonies. between setts and Connecti The settlement of Connecticut had been attended with ill-feeling between Massachusetts and Plymouth. Dispute It soon gave rise to a dispute between the Massachu- parent and the new colony. Although Massachusetts had at first kept up some jurisdiction. cut. over the settlements on the Connecticut, there could be no doubt that with one exception they lay outside her territorial limits, and accordingly no attempt was made to retain them permanently. But one township, Agawam, afterwards Springfield, unquestionably lay within the boundaries of Massachusetts. A resolu1 The only account of this affair is that given by Bradford (pp. 231-4). |