Part 4

The death of Cromwell in 1658 struck an awe throughout all New-England. Hertford and Newhaven appointed their days of fasting and prayer. Davenport prayed “the Lord to take the New-England Vine under his immediate care, as he had removed by death the great Protector of the protestant liberty:” nevertheless he lived to see the time when Charles II. obtained the possession of his Father’s crown and kingdom, in spite of all his prayers. However, in the midst of sorrows, they were comforted by the presence of many regicides and refugees, who fled from England not so much for religion as for liberty; among whom were Whalley, Goffe, and Dixwell,[21] three of the judges and murderers of Charles I. Davenport and Leet the then Governor received them as Angels from Heaven, and blessed God that they had escaped out of the hands of “Herod the son of Barabbas.”[22]

Newhaven Dominion being thus suddenly filled with inhabitants, saw itself enabled to support its independence, and as usual despised Hertford and Saybrook, and withal paid no attention to the King and Parliament of England.--The People of Massachusets, who were ever forward in promoting their own consequence, observing the temper and conduct of those of Newhaven, conceived an idea at once of exalting an individual of their own province, and of attaching Hertford and Saybrook to their interest for ever. They sent Mr. John Winthrop privately to Hertford, to promote a petition to Charles II. for a charter, as a security against the ambition of Newhaven.--The Bostonians boasted of having had the honour of settling Hertford, which they therefore professed to consider in the light of a near and dear connection. The proposal was accepted by the few persons to whom it was communicated, but, in framing their petition, they found themselves deficient in their title to the lands. This obliged them to have recourse to a Junto at Saybrook, who claimed a title under Lords Say and Brook.--A few purchases, or rather exchanges, of land now took place between the Junto’s; after which a petition was drawn up, containing an artful description of the lands claimed, “part of which they said they had purchased, and part they had conquered.” They then as privately appointed Mr. Winthrop their agent to negociate the business in England, which he very willingly undertook. On his arrival here, he applied to the agents of Massachusets-Bay, and with their assistance procured from the incaution of Charles II. as ample a charter as was ever given to a palatinate state; it covered not only Saybrook, Hertford, and Newhaven, but half New-York, New-Jersey, and Pensylvania, and a tract of land near 100 miles wide, and extending westward to the South sea, 1400 miles from Narraganset bay. This charter, which was obtained in 1662, well pleased the people of Hertford, because it coincided with their former vote, viz. “that their dominion extended from sea to sea.”[23] Newhaven Dominion too late discovered the intrigues of her artful neighbours; and, after two years opposition, submitted to the charter purely out of fear lest some of her ministers and magistrates should suffer ignominious deaths for aiding in the murder of their King.[24]

To the great joy of the People of Boston and Saybrook, Mr. Winthrop was appointed, by the Charter, Governor of all Connecticut. Their joy, however, sprung from different motives: Saybrook hoped for effectual protection from the insults of Hertford and the persecutions of Newhaven; and Boston expected to govern the Governor.

Mr. Winthrop settled at New-London, in the kingdom of Sassacus, or colony of Saybrook, where he purchased lands of the claimants under Lords Say and Brook. Wisdom and moderation guided Mr. Winthrop. He was annually elected Governor till his death, which happened in 1676.

Whether it were owing to the discovery of any defect in the title of the People of Connecticut to the soil, or of any undue arts practised in obtaining their charter, or whether it must be considered as an instance of Charles’s fickle or arbitrary disposition, that Monarch, in the short space of two years after granting that charter, comprized half Connecticut in another grant to his brother, the Duke of York, of the territory between the rivers Connecticut and Delaware, called by the Dutch New-Netherlands. This step excited much discontent in Connecticut, especially when an actual defalcation of its territory was discovered to be in agitation, after Colonel Nichols had succeeded in an enterprise he was sent upon against the Dutch at New-York. Commissioners were sent thither from Connecticut, the latter end of 1664, to defend the interests of the Colony; but, notwithstanding all the opposition they could make, they were constrained to yield up the whole of Long-Island and a strip of land on the east side of Hudson’s river. This dismemberment is not easily to be justified; but, probably, finding it necessary to the performance of a promise he had made the Dutch of the enjoyment of their possessions, Nichols might think himself at liberty of insisting upon it, furnished as he was with almost regal powers as the Duke of York’s deputy. In that capacity, he assumed the government of the conquered territory, but does not appear to have intermeddled further with that of Connecticut.

With Colonel Nichols were associated three other gentlemen, in a commission, empowering them to enquire into the state of the New-England provinces, to hear and redress complaints, settle differences, and check abuses of power: but the ill humour and obstinacy of those of Connecticut and Massachusets-Bay, in a great measure frustrated their endeavours.

By authority of the Charter, the freemen chuse annually, in May, a Governor, a Deputy-Governor, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and 12 Assistants, and, twice a year, two Representatives from each town. These, being met, constitute the General Assembly, which has power to make laws, provided they are not repugnant to the laws of England, and enforce them without the consent of the King.

The General Assembly meets in May and October without summoning. By it the colony has been divided into six counties, viz. Hertford, Newhaven, New-London, Fairfield, Windham, and Litchfield; and these subdivided into 73 townships and 300 parishes.

Each town has two or more justices of peace, who hear and determine, without a jury, all causes under 2_l._

Each county has five judges, who try by a jury all causes above 2_l._

Five judges preside over the superior court of the province, who hold two sessions in each county every year. To this court are brought appeals from the county courts when the verdict exceeds 10_l._ appeals from the courts of probate, writs of error, petitions for divorce, &c.

The General Assembly is a court of chancery, where the error or rigour of the judgments of the superior courts are corrected.

The General Assembly, and not the Governor, has the power of life and death.

The courts of probate are managed by a justice of peace appointed by the General Assembly.

Each county has its Sheriff, and each town its constables.

By charter the Governor is Captain-general of the militia. Fourteen Colonels, 14 Lieutenant-Colonels, and 14 Majors, are appointed by the General Assembly. The Captains and Subalterns are elected by the People, and commissioned by the Governor.

The ecclesiastical courts in Connecticut are: 1. The Minister and his Communicants; 2. The Association, which is composed of every minister and deacon in the county; 3. The Consociation, which consists of four ministers and their deacons, chosen from each Association; and always meets in May, at Hertford, with the General Assembly. An appeal from the Consociation will lie before the General Assembly; but the clergy have always been against it, though with less success than they wished.--The General Assembly declared “Sober Dissenters” to be the established religion of the province.

The laws of the colony enacted by the authority of the Charter are decent in comparison with the Blue Laws. They make one thin volume in folio. Yet exceptions may justly be made to many of them--equal liberty is not given to all parties--taxes are unfairly laid--the poor are oppressed.--One law is intolerable, viz. When a trespass is committed in the night, the injured person may recover damages of any-one he shall think proper to accuse, unless the accused can prove an alibi, or will clear himself by an oath; which oath, nevertheless, it is at the option of the justice either to administer or refuse. Queen Ann repealed the cruel laws respecting Quakers, Ranters, and Adamites; but the General Assembly, notwithstanding, continued the same in their law-book, maintaining that a law made in Connecticut could not be repealed by any authority but their own. It is a ruled case with them that no law or statute of England be in force in Connecticut till formally passed by the General Assembly and recorded by the Secretary.[25] Above 30 years ago, a negro castrated his master’s son, and was brought to trial for it before the Superior Court at Hertford. The Court could find no law to punish the negro. The lawyers quoted the English statute against maiming; the Court were of opinion that statute did not reach this colony, because it had not been passed in the General Assembly; and therefore were about to remand the negro to prison till the General Assembly should meet. But an _ex-post-facto_ law was objected to as an infringement upon civil liberty. At length, however, the Court were released from their difficulty by having recourse to the vote of the first settlers at Newhaven, viz. That the Bible should be their law till they could make others more suitable to their circumstances. The court were of opinion that vote was in full force, as it had not been revoked; and thereupon tried the negro upon the Jewish law, viz. Eye for Eye, and Tooth for Tooth. He suffered accordingly.

The idea fostered by the colony of independence on Great Britain was not, as might be imagined, destroyed by the royal charter, but, on the contrary, was renewed and invigorated by it. Indeed, the charter is as much in favour of Connecticut, and unfavourable to England, as if it had been drawn up in Boston or Newhaven. Had it been granted jointly by the King, Lords, and Commons, and not by the King _solus_, no one could dispute the independence of Connecticut on England, any more than they could that of Holland on Spain. The people at large did not discriminate between an act of the King _solus_ and an act of the King, Lords, and Commons, conjointly; and, to prevent any-one from shewing the difference, the General Assembly made a law that “whoever should attempt to destroy the constitution of this Colony as by charter established, should suffer death.” The power of a British King was held up by them much higher than the constitution allowed. The King had authority, they said, to form palatinate states without consent of Parliament. Accustomed to doctrines of this tendency, the multitude concluded the General Assembly of Connecticut to be equal to the British Parliament.

Notions of this kind did not prevail in Connecticut alone; Massachusets-Bay still more abounded with them, and Rhode Island was not uninfected. What was the consequence? Complaints against those governments poured into the British court. A reformation, therefore, became indispensable in New-England, and was begun by a disfranchisement of the Massachusets province. The death of Charles II. put a temporary stop to proceedings against the other colonies; but James II. soon found it expedient to renew them. In July, 1685, the following instances of mal-administration were formally exhibited against the Governor and Company of Connecticut, viz., “They have made laws contrary to the laws of England:--they impose fines upon the inhabitants, and convert them to their own use:--they enforce an oath of fidelity upon the inhabitants without administering the oath of supremacy and allegiance, as in their charter is directed:--they deny to the inhabitants the exercise of the religion of the church of England, arbitrarily fining those who refuse to come to their congregational Assemblies:--his Majesty’s subjects inhabiting there cannot obtain justice in the courts of that colony:--they discourage and exclude the government all gentlemen of known loyalty, and keep it in the hands of the independent party in the colony.” (_New-Eng. Ent. vol._ ii. p. 241.) In consequence of this impeachment, James II. ordered a _Quo Warranto_ to be issued against the Charter of Connecticut. The People perceived the King was in earnest; and their alarm manifested itself in humble sollicitations for favour: but, it being thought adviseable, on several accounts, particularly the extensive progress the French were making in Canada, to appoint one general Governor over New-England, the submissive applications of the Connecticut colonists could no further be regarded than in allowing them their choice, whether to be annexed to New-York or the Massachusets. They preferred the latter; and, accordingly, Sir Edmund Andros having been appointed Captain-general over all New-England, the charter of Connecticut was surrendered to him. It is very remarkable that Mr. Neal, Hutchinson, and other historians of New-England, have artfully passed over in silence this transaction of the surrender of Connecticut Charter to Sir Edmund Andros, the General Governor over New-England. They have represented the magistrates of Connecticut as not having resigned their charter, but by an erroneous construction put on their humble supplication to James II. by the Court of London; whereas the fact is, they resigned it, _in propria forma_, into the hands of Sir Edmund Andros, at Hertford, in October, 1687, and were annexed to the Massachusets-Bay colony, in preference to New-York, according to royal promise and their own petition.[26] But the very night of the surrender of it, Samuel Wadsworth, of Hertford, with the assistance of a mob, violently broke into the apartments of Sir Edmund, regained, carried off, and hid the charter in the hollow of an elm; and, in 1689, news arriving of an insurrection and overthrow of Andros at Boston, Robert Treat, who had been elected in 1687, was declared by the mob still to be Governor of Connecticut. He daringly summoned his old Assembly, who, being convened, voted the charter to be valid in law, and that it could not be vacated by any power without the consent of the General-Assembly[27] They then voted that Samuel Wadsworth should bring forth the charter; which he did in a solemn procession, attended by the High-sheriff, and delivered it to the Governor. The General Assembly voted their thanks to Wadsworth, and twenty shillings as a reward for _stealing_ and hiding their charter in the elm. Thus Connecticut started from a dependent county into an independent province, in defiance of the authority that had lately been paid such humble submission. None should be surprized to find the People shewing more deference to Abimeleck, King of Mohegin, than to George, King of England; since a vote of men, whose legislative and even corporate capacity had been annihilated, has prevailed, for more than eighty years, over a just exertion of royal prerogative.[28] Nevertheless, this unconstitutional Assembly, whose authority under an assumed charter has been tacitly acknowledged by the British Parliament, have not at all times been unchecked by the Corporation of Yale College. That College, by a charter received from this self-erected Government, was enabled to give Bachelors and Masters degrees; but the Corporation have presumed to give Doctors degrees. When the General Assembly accused them of usurping a privilege not conferred by their charter, they retorted that “to usurp upon a charter was not so bad as to usurp a vacated charter.” The General Assembly were obliged to be content with this answer, as it contained much truth, and came from the clergy, whose ambition and power are not to be trifled with.

Whatever might be the reason of the English Government’s winking at the contempt shewn to their authority by the people of Connecticut, it certainly added to their ingratitude and bias to usurpation. Having been in possession of that country one-hundred and forty years, the General Assembly, though unsupported either by law or justice, resolved to take up and settle their lands west not only of Hudson but Susquehanna river, and extending to the South-Sea. In pursuance of this resolution, they with modesty passed over New-York, and the Jerseys, because they are possessed by Mynheers and fighting christians, and seized on Pensylvania, claimed by Quakers, who fight not for either wife or daughter. They filled up their fathers iniquities, by murdering the Quakers and Indians, and taking possession of their lands; and no doubt, in another century, they will produce deeds of sale from Sunksquaw, Uncas, or some other supposititious Sachem. This is a striking instance of the use I have said the Colony sometimes make of their charter, to countenance and support their adventurous spirit of enterprize. They plead that their charter bounds them on the west by the South-Sea; but they seem to have forgotten that their charter was surreptitiously obtained; and that the clause on which they dwell is rendered nugatory, by the petitioners having described their lands as lying upon Connecticut river, and obtained partly by purchase and partly by conquest. Now, it being a fact beyond all controversy, that they then had not conquered, nor even pretended to have purchased, any lands west of Hudson’s-River, it is evident that their westernmost boundary never did or ought to extend further than to that river. Not that Mr. Pen has any just title to those lands on Susquehanna river which are the bone of contention, and which lie north of his patent: they belong to the assigns of the Plymouth Company, or to the Crown of England.

Republicanism, schisms, and persecutions, have ever prevailed in this Colony.--The religion of “_Sober Dissenters_” having been established by the General Assembly, each sect claimed the establishment in its favour. The true Independents denied that the Assembly had any further power over Christ’s Church than to protect it. Few Magistrates of any religion are willing to yield their authority to Ecclesiastics; and few disciples of Luther or Calvin are willing to obey either civil or spiritual masters. In a Colony where the people are thus disposed, dominion will be religion, and faction conscience. Hence arose contentions between the Assembly and Independents; and both parties having been brought up under Cromwell, their battles were well fought. The independent Ministers published, from their pulpits, that the Assembly played off one sect against another; and that Civilians were equal enemies to all parties, and acted more for their own interest than the glory of God. Those spiritual warriors, by their Associations, fasting, and prayers, voted themselves the “_Sober Dissenters_,” and got the better of the General Assembly. Indeed, none disputed their vote with impunity. Whenever a Governor manifested an inclination to govern Christ’s Ministers, Christ’s Ministers were sure to instruct the freemen not to reëlect him. The Magistrates declared that they had rather be under Lords-Bishops than Lords-Associations. A Governor was appointed, who determined to reduce Christ’s Ministers under the Civil Power; and, accordingly, the Assembly sent their Sheriff to bring before them certain leading men among the Ministers, of whom they banished some, silenced others, and fined many, for preaching sedition. The Ministers told the Assembly that curst cows had short horns; and that “they were _Priests for ever after the order of Melchisedec_.” However, like good christians, they submitted to the sentence of the Assembly; went home, fasted, and prayed, until the Lord pointed out a perfect cure for all their sufferings. On the day of election, they told the freemen that the Lord’s cause required a man of Grace to stand at the head of the Colony, and with sure confidence recommended the Moderator of the Association to be their Governor; and the Moderator was chosen. This event greatly inflamed the lay-magistrates, who were further mortified to see Ministers among the Representatives; whereupon they cried out, “This is a presbyterian popedom.” Now Magistrates joined with other Churches which they had long persecuted; and the Connecticut Vine was rent more and more every day. The Ministers kept the power, but not always the office, of the Governor, whilst the weaker party paid the cost. One party was called Old Light, the other New Light: both aimed at power under pretence of religion; which-ever got the power, the other was persecuted. By this happy quarrel, the various sectarians were freed from their persecutions; because each contending party courted their votes and interest, to help to pull down its adversary. This has been the religious-political free system and practice of Connecticut since 1662.

In speaking of the religious phrenzies and persecutions in Connecticut under the sanction of the charter, I must notice the words of an eminent Quaker, who, as a blasphemer, had been whipped, branded, burnt in the tongue, set on the gallows, banished, and, upon return, sentenced to be hanged. “Dost thee not think,” said he to his Judges, “that the Jews, who crucified the Saviour of the World, had a _Charter_?”

Many have been the disputes between Connecticut and the neighbouring Colonies concerning their several boundaries, and much blood has been spilt on those occasions. On the north and east, where lie the Massachusets and Rhode-Island, Connecticut has, in some degree, been the gainer; but has lost considerably on the west and south, to the engendering violent animosity against the _loyal_ New-Yorkers, to whom it will probably prove fatal in the end. The detail is briefly as follows: