371

CHAPTER IX

THE NORTHWARD EXPANSION OF MASSACHUSETTS

In an earlier chapter the history of the enterprises of Gorges and Mason as proprietors in New England has been traced. Reference was made to their connection with the New England council, to the various patents which were issued to them by that body, and to the efforts they made to establish permanent colonies. The Laconia company, their largest and most promising undertaking, proved a failure. The death of John Mason completed for the time the ruin of their hopes on the Piscataqua. Though Gorges survived and procured a royal charter for his province of Maine, his energy and resources were not equal to the tasks of colonizing and governing it. The struggle between king and parliament in England soon diverted his attention; he entered the royal service, while his interests in New England were allowed to slumber. His peace was later made with parliament, but, being already an old man, he did not survive beyond the spring of the year 1647.

The failure of Mason and Gorges to establish and maintain an effective control over their provinces, and the death of the former before he had secured through a royal charter the necessary rights of government, left a number of small and scattered settlements on that coast destitute of a superior tribunal to which their differences could be referred for adjustment. Upon the Piscataqua were Strawberry Bank,—which was soon to be known as Portsmouth,—Dover, and Exeter. Beyond the Piscataqua lay a number of petty outposts, of which the most important were Saco and a settlement on the neck where now the city of Portland is situated. The interests and relations which existed on the Piscataqua first demand attention.

372

Above Mason’s settlement at Strawberry Bank, which was Anglican and proprietary in character, developed the settlement at Hilton’s Point. This in course of time became Dover. The date of its origin and the location of the grant from the New England council upon which it developed are still to an extent matters of controversy.¹ This is due in part to uncertainty as to the stream or body of water which constitutes the upper course of the Piscataqua river, in part also to the obscurity which attaches to descriptions of boundary and location in all ancient deeds. Tradition, moreover, has it that Edward Hilton, with a few associates, began a settlement on Hilton’s Point or Dover neck as early as 1623. Nearly all of the authorities accept this as true, though no trace appears of the existence or progress of the settlement between that date and 1628 or 1630. In March, 1630, the same Edward Hilton, a communicant of the English Church and by trade a fishmonger, procured an indenture from the New England council for land on Dover neck, and gave as a reason for the grant the fact that he and his associates, at their own expense, had already built houses and planted corn there, and intended to do more.² The words describing the location of the grant are, “all that part of the River Piscataquack called or known by the name Wecanacohunt or Hilton’s Point, with the south side of the said River up to the fall of the River, and three miles into the Maine Land by all the breadth aforesaid.”

About the location of Hilton’s Point there can be no doubt. It lies at the upper extremity of the main course of the Piscataqua river, between it and Back river, Oyster river, and Little bay, which in turn expands into Great bay. The latter is fed by Lamprey river and Exeter or Squamscot river. But both Little bay and Great bay are tidal inlets, which at ebb are left exposed as mud flats. The main body of

373

water by which the Piscataqua in its lower course is steadily fed flows down the Salmon Falls river and over Quampegan falls. That river flows more nearly in the same direction with the Piscataqua proper than do any of the other streams mentioned, and it has been traditionally accepted as the upper part of “the river” Piscataqua, and the boundary between Maine and New Hampshire.¹ If this description be true, the grant to Hilton lay wholly north of Little bay, and did not overlap the territory, the possession of which was confirmed to the Laconia company in 1631. We are told that Hilton sold “this land” to some merchants of Bristol, who had it in their possession for about two years; but whether all the Hilton grant was then disposed of, or only a part of it, we are not informed.²

The grant and confirmation of Pescataway to the Laconia company was issued, as we have seen, in November 1631, and was therefore later than the Hilton grant.³ It comprised the land on both sides of the main course of the Piscataqua, extending on the south bank to the upper part of Great bay, and on the north and east bank to a distance of thirty miles inland. The breadth of the northern strip was three miles.⁴ The southern half of the grant comprised a large part of the present towns of Rye, Newington, and Greenland. If the Hilton grant was located wholly inland and north of Little bay, it and the Pescataway grant would at no point have overlapped. But the time soon came when the terms of the Hilton patent received a different interpretation. A short time after the issue of the Pescataway grant Captain Thomas Wiggin, a Puritan, became interested in the settlement at Hilton’s Point. Hubbard states ⁵ that he was the representative of certain adventurers from Shrewsbury in England. He also became, at a later time, a defender of

374

the claim of Massachusetts to the entire region. At the time when Wiggin first appears, Captain Walter Neale was on the Piscataqua as the manager of the Laconia enterprise. He and Wiggin are reported to have nearly come to blows over their claims to the land on the south bank of the river immediately opposite Dover neck. Because of the threatened encounter, this tract has always gone by the name of Bloody Point. Not long after this event Wiggin went to England and induced Lord Say and Sele, Lord Brook, Sir Richard Saltonstall, and others, all Puritans, to form an association and buy out the Bristol merchants,¹ or at least to secure an interest in their grant. The governors and magistrates of Massachusetts are said to have favored this step, because they feared “some ill neighborhood” from the Bristol men. The purchase was made, and in October, 1633, Wiggin returned as manager for the Puritan proprietors, bringing with him a “godly minister” named William Leveridge.

A conflict soon began between the Anglican and Puritan elements in the little settlement of Dover. Between the years 1637 and 1640 Wiggin seems to have lost control. George Burdet, an Anglican clergyman of loose morals, was for a time the leader² of the opponents of Wiggin, and was elected as his successor in the magistracy. Then Captain John Underhill, also of unsavory reputation in Massachusetts, and recently disfranchised there because of his adherence to the Antinomian faction, came to Dover. He was twice chosen “governor,” and was instrumental in gathering a Baptist congregation, which chose Hanserd Knollys as its minister.

In 1640 forty-one inhabitants of the place signed a combination or plantation covenant.³ In this they stated that, for the purpose of escaping the mischiefs and inconveniences from which they had suffered because of their lack of powers of government, they united as a body politic. As a result of this they hoped more comfortably to enjoy the benefits of his Majesty’s laws, together with those orders

375

which they themselves should adopt by majority vote, provided they were executed in the name of the king and were not inconsistent with the laws of England. They engaged to be true to this agreement until the king should otherwise command. Among the signers the name of Underhill appears, but not that of Wiggin. Francis Champernowne, a scion of the famous west of England family, was also one of the signers, as were two Waldrons, a family which was long to hold a prominent place in the town. Thomas Larkham,¹ whose name also appears in the list, was a minister who succeeded Burdet as the head of the Anglican party. Under his lead the quarrel became violent between the Anglican and Puritan parties in the little settlement. Underhill supported the latter. They were unable to unite in one church or to live, peaceably as two. Knollys undertook to excommunicate Larkham, and Larkham assaulted Knollys. An attempt was made to arrest Underhill, whereupon he and his supporters paraded the streets with a Bible on a halberd as an ensign. Larkham then sent for Francis Williams, who was the leading magistrate at Strawberry Bank. He came and, sitting as judge, found Underhill and his associates guilty of riot. Some were heavily fined, while Underhill and others were ordered to depart from the plantation.

While these dissensions were continuing at Dover, the town of Exeter was founded at the falls of the Squamscot or Exeter river, some distance above Great bay. This was the work of Rev. John Wheelwright, the Antinomian leader, and his followers.² In 1638 they extinguished the Indian title to the territory between the Merrimac river and the settlements on the Piscataqua. A church was founded, and in June, 1639, a civil compact was signed at Exeter, and rights of government were assumed under it. The obligation of allegiance to England was frankly acknowledged, though “according to the libertys of our English Colony of the Massachusetts.” The wording of the compact was later somewhat changed to suit those who desired a less pronounced acknowledgment of English supremacy; but this did not give perfect satisfaction.

376

In March, 1636, the general court of Massachusetts ordered that a bound house should be built and a plantation settled north of the Merrimac river.¹ This resulted in the settlement of Hampton, which in 1639 was made a town, with the usual officials and the right to send a deputy to the general court. As Hampton was located north of the three-mile limit beyond the Merrimac and was within the territory which Exeter had bought from the Indians, that town in 1638 protested. But the general court of Massachusetts replied that it considered this protest “as against good neighborhood, religion, and common honesty.” The reason which it gave for so regarding the act revealed the theory concerning its northern bounds which Massachusetts had already adopted. It claimed Winicowett or Hampton “as within our patent or as vacuum domicilium,” and therefore had built the bound house north of the three-mile limit. Of this act and the claim from which it proceeded Wheelwright and his associates were aware, and for that reason their protest seemed to the general court of Massachusetts to indicate bad faith. The people of Exeter were also informed by the court that the Indians had a natural right to only such land as they could improve, and that the rest of the country lay open to those who could and would improve it.

When the royal charter was granted to the Massachusetts company, with the specification that it should possess all the lands lying within three English miles to the north of the Merrimac river, “or to the norward of any and every part thereof,” it was supposed that, through its entire course, the Merrimac flowed in an easterly direction. The northern boundary of the colony would then follow the course of the river, to its source, though three miles to the northward of it, and thence extend in a straight line to the South sea. But before settlement had progressed far it was found that the source of the Merrimac was at a point much farther north than was supposed. While the controversy with Exeter was in progress² an investigation was begun, and it

377

resulted in the discovery that some parts of the river lay C north of 432°, or about a degree and a half north of the lower course of the river. Later surveys, made in 1652 and 1654, established the fact that the Merrimac took its rise in Lake Winnepiseogee, and that a line drawn due east from that point and three miles north of it, would reach the ocean in the latitude¹ of Upper Clapboard island in Casco bay. This line was then declared by the general court to be, according to the patent, the northern boundary of the colony from the source of the Merrimac eastward. This assertion, however, is manifestly contradicted by all we know of the views and policy, both of the New England council and of the crown, at the time of the issue of the charter to Massachusetts. It was clearly an afterthought, and gave to the clause of the charter in question a meaning which was not contemplated at the time of its issue. It ignored all the acquired rights of Mason and Gorges, and involved what was more clearly an usurpation than was any later act of the crown which affected New England. In fact, it is doubtful if this can be paralleled by any event of a similar character in the history of the American colonies during the seventeenth century.

But even this act of usurpation by Massachusetts carried with it an appearance of justification, and one, too, which was especially calculated to recommend it to the conscience of the Puritan and to his spiritual pride. The interests of the faith among the northern settlements needed support. Owing to the failure of their plans, both Mason and Gorges had left abortive proprietary provinces; the local settlements were there, but either no executive or legislature existed to bind them together, or one that was inadequate for the purpose. They were left in isolation, rent and divided by controversies, and in danger of falling into anarchy. That this was the condition of the towns on the Piscataqua has already been shown, and it will appear that similar perils confronted the Maine settlements. The intervention of Massachusetts and the extension over them of its system of county and town

378

government furnished a reasonable guaranty of good order among them until the right of the proprietors or the crown could again be asserted.

The settlements on the Piscataqua were the first to be annexed by Massachusetts, and the immediate occasion for this was furnished by the events which have already been described. Mason was dead, the Laconia company had been dissolved; the settlements were small, remote, and the residents of Dover were at odds among themselves. They had no adequate institutions or powers of government. In 1633 the magistrates of Massachusetts had been requested to try cases which had arisen on the Piscataqua, but they had then declined to assume jurisdiction. Early in 1641¹ Simon Bradstreet, with two of the ministers, Peters and Dalton, were sent by Massachusetts to Dover to mediate between the factions of Knollys and Larkham. Knollys, being found guilty of immoral conduct in the settlement, was forced to depart. Underhill also soon removed to Stamford in New Haven colony. Quiet was thus restored. Agreements were then reached with Edward Hilton and with Williams of the lower plantation, in consequence of which they made no opposition to the step which was now to be taken. The patentees of Dover who were² resident in England, seem also to have surrendered their rights, with certain reservations of land, to Massachusetts.

On June 14, 1641, George Willis and others, on behalf of Lords Say, Brook, and the other grantees of the Hilton patent,³ made a full submission to Massachusetts, and agreed to be governed by its laws. But in this paper reference is for the first time made to a second grant, over which Willis and his associates seem to have had control, and for which also they made submission. This is called the Squamscot⁴ patent and was located on the south bank of the Piscataqua, extending as far inland as Squamscot or Exeter falls, and having a breadth of three miles. It therefore included all, or nearly all, of that part of the Pescataway Confirmation

379

which lay south of the river; in other words, it comprised much of the territory which had belonged to the Laconia company. Later documents show that some families from Dover had settled on Bloody Point, but they were only squatters, being able to urge no claim save that originating in purchase from the Indians and in possession.¹

Among the extant records of the New England council appears no reference to a Squamscot patent. These records, however, are not complete, and for that reason it cannot be absolutely affirmed that such a grant was not issued. So many references to it appear in the proceedings of the time, that it is manifestly rash to affirm that it was an invention of Massachusetts. The rights which existed under it, whatever they were, seem to have belonged to Lords Say and Brook and their associates. They were the parties who made the submission to Massachusetts in 1641, reserving to themselves one-third of the land in the Dover patent and the whole of the Squamscot patent; simply putting it under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. The political effect of the extension of the claim was important, for it brought a part of the former territory of the Laconia company, including Strawberry Bank, more directly under Puritan control. In 1656, by order of the general court of Massachusetts,² a division of the land within the Squamscot patent was made between Wiggin, the town of Dover, and the survivors of the Shrewsbury and Bristol men who had been its earlier patentees. Wiggin, with Lake, one of his associates, then surrendered to Dover all the land, except sixteen acres, which they claimed within its limits.

Though Exeter had not yet made submission, the act of October 9, 1641, by which Massachusetts annexed Dover,³ referred to the Piscataqua as being within its bounds and the inhabitants on that river as under its government. The authority of Massachusetts courts was extended over them, and a commission was appointed to hold courts there with the jurisdiction of a county court, and with power to temporarily; appoint local magistrates. Two deputies should be sent

380

from the whole river to the general court at Boston, though the next year it was provided that each town should send one deputy. Exemption was granted from all except local charges. It was also agreed that for no cases of debt involving less than £100 should parties be compelled to plead before courts out side of Norfolk county. In September, 1642, the requirement that representatives to the general court should be church members was suspended for these settlements.¹

Early in 1643 the inhabitants of Exeter petitioned Massachusetts, but the document has not been preserved. The reply of Massachusetts was in substance that, since Exeter lay within their patent, “the Court took it ill they should Capitulate with them.” Soon after, in May, 1643, Exeter again petitioned, asking that their bounds toward Hampton and toward Wiggin’s farm down the river might be settled, and that local justices might be appointed. In the following September Exeter was formally received as a part of the county of Norfolk. It now became subject to the conditions of annexation which applied to Dover, though it was not granted the right to send a deputy² to the general court. Mr. Wheelwright then removed to Wells, which lay within the jurisdiction of Gorges. But later, having acknowledged his fault and gone through the form of submission, he was pardoned by Massachusetts and allowed to return within her bounds, where he became minister first of the church at Hampton and afterwards of that at Salisbury.³

While Massachusetts, through orders and commissions, carried on during the next twenty years the general business of the settlements on the Piscataqua, her influence was of course exerted for the extension and strengthening of Puritanism in that region. The control of the Puritan party in Dover was fully established at the time of annexation. Hampton and Exeter were Puritan from the beginning, though at the outset the strength of the adherents of Wheelwright made it undesirable to grant Exeter representation

381

in the general court. The inhabitants of Strawberry Bank were mainly Anglicans, and in that locality centred the interests of the Mason family. Though from the outset the two upper settlements were treated as towns, more than a decade passed before Strawberry Bank received that honor. In 1643, because the commissioners who had been appointed to lay out the bounds between Dover and Strawberry Bank had not considered the latter to be a town and had not been accurate in their surveys, the general court ordered a reconsideration of the case.¹ The land in dispute was Bloody Point, and its inhabitants, who had removed thither from Dover, asked that they might not be separated from that town. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the court adjudged the land to belong to Dover.

In 1651 the inhabitants of Strawberry Bank petitioned to be made a town and to have two courts annually, presided over by resident magistrates. Some of the people were also reported to be planning withdrawal from Massachusetts control. In response to this demand their bounds were extended toward Hampton, and three resident magistrates were appointed, with the authority to hold a court. In 1653 they petitioned for the privilege of voting for magistrates of the colony, that their militia officers might be confirmed, and additional jurisdiction given to their local magistrates. The petition concerning the militia officers was granted, but as to the other points, the petitioners were told to be content with what they had received at the time of annexation. Another petition for extension of bounds failed to meet with a favorable² response. The settlement, however, was permitted to call itself Portsmouth, and was referred to as a town. But these references make it evident that discontent was felt in Portsmouth during the period of Massachusetts rule, and that perhaps the majority of its inhabitants were ready to welcome the Restoration.

In 1651³ Joseph Mason, who had been sent over by Anne Mason, the widow of the late proprietor, to take charge of her affairs, appeared on the Piscataqua. He had power of attorney

382

to hold and dispose of goods and lands. One Richard Leader,¹ who had been superintendent of the iron works at Lynn, had occupied some of Mason’s lands on the Newichwannock and had built a saw-mill there. Joseph Mason brought suit for trespass against him, and the case came before the general court of Massachusetts. It was as a step preparatory to the trial of this case that the location of the boundary line between the source of the Merrimac river and the ocean was determined. The court decided that Mason had territorial rights at Newichwannock, and that land proportioned to his disbursements be laid off there for his heirs. Joseph Mason then complained that encroachments had been made on the rights of the family by settlers at Strawberry Bank and elsewhere, and he desired justice against them;² but there is no record that Massachusetts noticed this petition. Mason then posted notices at Portsmouth, Dover, and Exeter protesting against the conduct of Massachusetts toward those settlements, and forbidding grass or timber to be cut in that region without license from him. But he received no effective support from any quarter, and was able to accomplish nothing until after the Restoration. In 1655 Anne Mason died, leaving Robert Tufton Mason as her executor and sole heir of the estate. In 1659, as soon as Richard Cromwell resigned the office of Protector, Mason, with Edward Godfrey and Ferdinando Gorges, began petitioning parliament for relief.

Controversies also existed among the settlements to the north of the Piscataqua, which gave even more direct occasion for the interference of Massachusetts than did any that led to the establishment of her control south of that river. In a previous chapter reference has been made to the multiplication of grants along that coast and also to the beginning of proprietary government within the region that for a short time was known as New Somersetshire, but which under the royal charter of 1639 became the province of Maine. Members of the Gorges family were sent over in succession as governors,

383

and commissioners were selected to assist them. Courts were held at Saco, and at Agamenticus or York. The latter settlement, under the name of Gorgeana, with a city charter and territory enough to make it a proper residence for a bishop, was intended to be the capital of the province.¹ But while Sir Ferdinando, already an old man and with impaired fortune, was still busy with his plans, the civil disturbances began in Scotland and England. While they were in progress he died. His relatives had already withdrawn from the province. Richard Vines, succeeded in 1645 by Henry Josselyn, continued to administer government in Gorges’s interest at Saco, while at York Edward Godfrey lived and acted as senior councillor, as mayor, and from 1649 as an elective governor under a “combination” which was made when the inhabitants found it no longer possible to secure aid or guidance from the family of the proprietor. In this way² two districts or germinal counties appear within the province, the Kennebunk river being the boundary between them. Though not distinctly named, the westernmost of the two was often called York, while to the easternmost the term Somerset was sometimes applied.

The grantees within the region whose relations affected most closely the events which follow, were Robert Trelawny and George Cleeve. The former was a merchant of ancient and distinguished family, who lived near Plymouth in England.³ In 1631 he, with Moses Goodyear, also of Plymouth, received from the New England council a grant of Richmond’s island, and a tract on the adjoining mainland, being a part of Cape Elizabeth. According to the terms of the patent this was to extend inland as far as did a grant of fifteen hundred acres which had recently been made to Thomas Cammock.⁴ Cammock’s grant lay on the west side of the Spurwink river at Black Point, adjoining that of Trelawny. Trelawny’s grant, according to the wording of his patent, lay between Cammock’s land and “the bay and

384

river of Casco.” This phrase could only have meant that part of Casco bay which is adjacent to Cape Elizabeth.

John Winter was sent over with servants as Trelawny’s agent. A trading and fishing station of some importance was established on Richmond’s island, and land was cultivated to an extent. The correspondence between the agent and his employer in England, which has been preserved,¹ affords a detailed picture of the fishing operations, which were the main concern of the settlers; and also of a small trade in skins with the natives and the raising of swine and Indian corn for food. Several vessels were employed in bringing supplies from Europe to the plantation and in carrying its commodities to the English markets. Some of these ships were of considerable size for the time, and details of their arrivals and departures and cargoes have been preserved. A bark for use in the fishery was built in the settlement. About fifty persons were employed on the plantation and in the fishery, all with a very few exceptions being men without families. It was a typical fishing station and plantation, of which there were many examples along the coast of northern New England.

While Winter was agent he claimed both banks of the Spurwink river through a part of its course, and this caused a dispute with Cammock. In 1636, during a visit of Winter to England, Trelawny’s patent was enlarged by a grant from Gorges of a strip of land containing two thousand acres and extending inland from the sea, just west of Cammock’s grant, as far as Casco river.² By the latter term was meant the tide-water inlet which forms the northwestern extension of the present Portland harbor.

About the time when Trelawny obtained his first patent, George Cleeve and Richard Tucker settled on the mainland near Richmond’s island,³ but had no valid title. As Winter was a harsh man and one who was not slow to assert the claims of his principal, he and Cleeve soon fell out. Cleeve also possessed a large amount of the resource which is so necessary to the squatter on the border of the wilderness.

385

Considering his interests imperilled by the grant to Trelawny of the two thousand acre strip, he soon visited England, where he was able to say a good word for the Puritans of Massachusetts before Archbishop Laud, and to obtain from Gorges a grant of the neck on which the city of Portland is now situated and the land extending northward of that to the Presumpscot river.¹ Tucker was also his partner in this grant. Cleeve moreover procured from Sir Ferdinando what purported to be a joint commission for Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts, himself, and others, to govern that part of New Somersetshire which lay between Cape Elizabeth and Sagadahoc.² But the Massachusetts authorities were not certain as to its validity, and concluded not to intermeddle. This, however, with other acts of his, showed that Cleeve was anxious to secure Puritan support for his ambitious schemes.

When Winter learned that Cleeve and Tucker had obtained their grant and also that charges against him, and against Vines, Godfrey, and Purchase, because of support they had given him, had been preferred before the Star Chamber, the feud was greatly intensified. Winter now claimed that the land which had been granted to Cleeve lay within the original grant to Trelawny and Goodyear, though it was always understood to extend back only a short distance from the coast. Later, changing the form of his claim, he urged that by Casco river, which was the designation of the eastern boundary of the original grant to Trelawny, as well as that of the northern boundary of his two thousand acre grant, was meant the Presumpscot river. Thus on the one count or the other, or the two combined, Winter hoped to prove the invalidity of Cleeve’s patent. Though the interpretation which he put upon the language of his own patents respecting bounds was clearly false, he supported it with great vigor. It was opposed with equal activity by Cleeve, and therefore events soon occurred which called loudly for the interposition of some superior power.³ The case under

386

different forms was twice heard before the court of Governor Thomas Gorges at Saco, and in both instances was won by Cleeve. Winter then tried to have the jury which decided against him in one of the suits attainted, and also proposed to appeal to the proprietor himself. Arbitration, however, was first resorted to, and again the decision was favorable to Cleeve. Though this checked further proceedings, the Trelawny interest continued to threaten Cleeve with ejectment from Machigonne neck—where he had developed a prosperous Indian trade—and from his other possessions.

But the outbreak of civil troubles in England soon landed the royalist Trelawny in prison, where, about two years later, he died. It also completed for the time the ruin of Gorges’s plans. Cleeve, who till now had sheltered himself under Gorges’s authority, at once revisited England and induced Alexander Rigby, a parliamentarian, to buy the Lygonia or Plough patent. This included the territory between Cape Porpoise and Sagadahoc, and extended forty miles into the mainland. It thus included Saco, all the territory held by Cammock, Trelawny, and Cleeve, and much in addition. Cleeve secured from Rigby confirmation of his own¹ grant, and received appointment as governor of Lygonia. He also preferred charges before parliament against Vines and Godfrey, and asked that a commission, headed by Governor Winthrop, be appointed to inquire into them. Armed with this authority, or rather with these evidences of personal and party support, Cleeve returned to New England late in 1643. Winter died the following year, and his son-in-law, Robert Jordan, who officiated for a time as an Episcopal clergyman, appears as the equally persistent and far more skilful defender of the Trelawny claims.

Cleeve, as soon as possible after his return,² began appointing officers for his province and called a court to meet at Casco. He sent Tucker abroad to procure the signatures of all who approved his course. He sought to discredit the claims of the Gorges party. Concerning his doings Vines, who, after the departure of Thomas Gorges represented the interests of the proprietor, informed Governor Winthrop.

387

Cleeve, whose assumed Puritan leanings had already brought him into connection with Massachusetts, now sent Tucker to procure the intervention of that colony. But Vines had Tucker arrested while on his way, and bound him over for trial at Saco. His release, however, was followed by the despatch of the appeal to Boston, and later by a proposal that Lygonia should be admitted to the New England Confederacy.¹ Massachusetts was not disposed to act hastily upon either of these propositions, while the fact that the inhabitants of Lygonia could hardly be considered as living “in a church way” was likely to prove an insuperable obstacle to their union with the Confederacy. While Massachusetts delayed action the royal cause suffered irretrievable defeat in England, and with it the immediate prospects of the Gorges family in America vanished. It was this which caused the withdrawal of Vines to Barbadoes.

Henry Josselyn, the successor of Vines, now went with a body of armed men to Casco and demanded a view of the documents² on which Cleeve based his claim. Their demand was granted, but they of course were not thereby convinced, and presented in writing a protest and a demand that Cleeve and his associates should submit to the government of Maine. This was rejected, and both parties agreed to submit their case to the judgment of Massachusetts. The trial was held in June, 1646,³ before the court of assistants, with a jury, at Boston. Cleeve and Tucker appeared in defence of the Rigby claim, Josselyn and Robinson in the interest of Gorges. Cleeve produced the assignment of the Lygonia patent to Rigby, signed by a part of the patentees, but he was unable to prove that the territory which he claimed was within its limits. Josselyn, on behalf of the defendant, was able to produce only a copy of Gorges’s patent, and that was held to be not pleadable in law. For these reasons the jury could not find a verdict, and the assistants dismissed the case with the advice that peace be maintained until the controversy could be settled under authority from England.

Rigby now obtained from the Commissioners of Plantations in England a confirmation of the Lygonia patent.

388

This settled the question for the present, and confined the possessions of Gorges to the small district between the Kennebunk and Piscataqua rivers, with the settlement at Kittery, Gorgeana, and Wells, and a hamlet on the Isles of Shoals. It was within this district, after Gorges’s death, that the settlers formed a combination and elected Edward Godfrey governor, with a council from the towns. Meantime Cleeve, acting with the support of a commission of Massachusetts men which had been appointed by parliament,¹ had established government within the Lygonia grant. A general assembly was called, and a circuit court met at Casco, Black Point, and Saco in turn. Josselyn and Jordan cooperated with Cleeve in this, and with the help of the latter as a magistrate Jordan was placed in possession of all the property of the Trelawny heir in the province. At this stage of affairs Governor Winthrop died, and his death was followed, in 1650, by the death of Alexander Rigby. The first-mentioned event removed the source of hesitancy among the magistrates of Massachusetts to the annexation of the Maine settlements; the death of Rigby greatly weakened the influence of Cleeve and revived the hopes of his enemies that they might yet overthrow him.

Godfrey and the settlers between the Kennebunk and Piscataqua rivers now, in 1651, petitioned parliament for the recognition of their government, and Cleeve carried the document to England. Massachusetts at once took action. Bradstreet, Dennison, and Hathorne were sent² by the general court to urge upon those towns the claim of Massachusetts and to treat for submission. Godfrey refused to admit the claim which Massachusetts was urging in reference to her northern boundary, and insisted with truth that Gorges’s royal charter was as valid as their own. He also called attention to services which he had rendered to Massachusetts when she was threatened with a quo warranto in England. Having petitioned parliament, he and his associates refused to submit.

In 1652, nothing having been heard from parliament,

389

another commission, with Bradstreet at its head and Wiggin and Pendleton of the Piscataqua settlements among its members,¹ was sent first to Kittery and then to Agamenticus. The people were called together. After considerable debate at both places, and persistent objections from Godfrey, submission was voted by large majorities of the inhabitants. Godfrey then for the time abandoned opposition and took the oath with the rest, though later he returned to England, where, both before and after the Restoration, he appeared as a determined opponent of the pretensions of Massachusetts.² Kittery and Agamenticus—the latter under the name of York—were now made towns, and provision was made for holding yearly in each town two sessions of a county court. A new county, named Yorkshire, was organized. All of its inhabitants who took the freeman’s oath were nominally admitted to full political rights. In 1653 Wells,³ Cape Porpoise, and Saco followed the example of these towns, and thus an important part of the Lygonia patent fell under the control of Massachusetts.

Cleeve, after his return from England, with the inhabitants of Casco, held out against Massachusetts until 1658. The plea which he urged was the validity of the Lygonia patent and of its assignment to Rigby,⁴ and the fact that legal government was in existence under it. This of course involved a denial of the boundary claim now urged by Massachusetts, and there is evidence that in the protests from the settlers east of Saco this was as strongly enforced as it had been by the residents farther west. As a large proportion of the inhabitants of this region were Episcopalians, or sympathizers with that form of worship, Cleeve received additional assurance of support. He presented a petition from the settlers about Casco bay before the general court⁵ at Boston, but received in reply only another assertion of its claim and of its determination to maintain it. Massachusetts

390

also declared that she was not infringing the liberties of the planters, but was extending to them the same benefits which her own people enjoyed.

Meantime Edward Rigby, son of Sir Alexander, was urging his claims before the authorities in England against counter representations from Massachusetts; but at that time no decision could be reached. In May, 1657, the general court wrote to Josselyn and Jordan, calling their attention to alleged disturbances in Saco and Wells¹ and asking them to meet the commissioners at York and assist in establishing a firm government in “those parts beyond Saco to the utmost bounds of our pattent.” The summons was disregarded, as was a later one from the commissioners to appear at the general court in Boston. But after some further correspondence, owing to the increase of disorder in the eastern settlements and the lack of sufficient authority there to repress it, in May, 1658,² Samuel Symonds and Thomas Wiggin were joined with the magistrates of Yorkshire and ordered to proceed thither and take “the residue of the inhabitants residing within our line” under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. This was effected at the house of Robert Jordan at Spurwink. The inhabitants of Black Point, Blue Point, Spurwink, and Casco then signed a form of submission and took the oath. They were guarantied the same liberties as those which were enjoyed by the towns that had previously submitted. They were themselves organized as two towns, Scarborough and Falmouth, with the Spurwink river as the boundary between them. This finally was the form to which the settlements within the patents of Cammock, Trelawny, and Cleeve had come. The towns were given local courts and representation in the general court at Boston. They were also incorporated within Yorkshire, but owing to the size and remoteness of that county, with the consent of the inhabitants, Josselyn, Jordan, Cleeve, and two other residents were appointed for one year to try cases in the two towns which did not involve more than £50. Each of these appointees also possessed

391

the authority of a local justice in his town, together with the other powers of a magistrate. The five in joint session could appoint militia officers below the rank of captain and transact the probate business usually done in county courts. Provision was also made for sessions of the county court at Saco and Scarborough, as well as at York. This court should consist of the five magistrates already mentioned, and four associates chosen annually by the freemen.

The towns of Maine, as well as those on the Piscataqua, were not taxed for the general purposes of the colony; they were required to meet only the expenses of their local government. This, however, was done under the forms of the Massachusetts system. This circumstance made it less needful than it otherwise would have been for these remote towns to be represented in the general court. Moreover, no law at that time required deputies to reside in the towns which they represented.¹ In 1659 Edward Rishworth of York represented Scarborough and Falmouth. In 1660 Henry Josselyn of Scarborough was deputy. The towns were unrepresented from that date until 1663, when Cleeve of Falmouth was chosen for two successive years. No more deputies were chosen until 1669, when Richard Collicot, a resident of Boston, represented Falmouth. From 1670 until the organization of government under the charter of 1691 no more representatives were sent to the general court from Scarborough or Falmouth.²

← Vol. I, Pt. II, Ch. VIII   Table of Contents   Vol. I, Pt. II, Ch. X →