Part 160

"Against the colony of New Haven the king had a special grudge. Two of the regicide judges, who had sat in the tribunal which condemned his father, escaped to New England in 1660 and were well received there. They were gentlemen of high position. Edward Whalley was a cousin of Cromwell and Hampden. … The other regicide, William Goffe, as a major-general in Cromwell's army, had won such distinction that there were some who pointed to him as the proper person to succeed the Lord Protector on the death of the latter. He had married Whalley's daughter. Soon after the arrival of these gentlemen, a royal order for their arrest was sent to Boston. … The king's detectives hotly pursued them through the woodland paths of New England, and they would soon have been taken but for the aid they got from the people. Many are the stories of their hairbreadth escapes. Sometimes they took refuge in a cave on a mountain near New Haven, sometimes they hid in friendly cellars; and once, being hard put to it, they skulked under a wooden bridge, while their pursuers on horseback galloped by overhead. After lurking about New Haven and Milford for two or three years, on hearing of the expected arrival of Colonel Nichols and his commission [the royal commission appointed to take possession of the American grant lately made by the king to his brother, the Duke of York], they sought a more secluded hiding place near Hadley, a village lately settled far up the Connecticut river, within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. Here the avengers lost the trail, the pursuit was abandoned, and the weary regicides were presently forgotten. The people of New Haven had been especially zealous in shielding the fugitives. … The colony, moreover, did not officially recognize the restoration of Charles II. to the throne until that event had been commonly known in New England for more than a year. For these reasons, the wrath of the king was specially roused against New Haven."

_J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England, pages 192-194._

ALSO IN: _G. H. Hollister, History of Connecticut, volume 1, chapter 11._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664. The Royal Charter and annexation of New Haven to the River Colony.

"The Restoration in England left the New Haven colony under a cloud in the favor of the new government: it had been tardy and ungracious in its proclamation of Charles II.; it had been especially remiss in searching for the regicide colonels, Goffe and Whalley; and any application for a charter would have come from New Haven with a very ill grace. Connecticut was under no such disabilities; and it had in its Governor, John Winthrop [the younger, son of the first governor of Massachusetts], a man well calculated to win favor with the new King. … In March, 1660, the General Court solemnly declared its loyalty to Charles II., sent the Governor to England to offer a loyal address to the King and ask him for a charter, and laid aside £500 for his expenses. Winthrop was successful, and the charter was granted April 20, 1662. The acquisition of the charter raised the Connecticut leaders to the seventh heaven of satisfaction. And well it might, for it was a grant of privileges with hardly a limitation. Practically the King had given Winthrop 'carte blanche,' and allowed him to frame the charter to suit himself. It incorporated the freemen of Connecticut as a 'body corporate and pollitique,' by the name of 'The Governor and Company of the English Collony of Conecticut in New England in America.' … The people were to have all the liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects of the King, as if born within the realm. It granted to the Governor and Company all that part of New England south of the Massachusetts line and west of the 'Norroganatt River commonly called Norroganatt Bay' to the South Sea, with the 'Islands thereunto adioyneinge.' … It is difficult to see more than two points in which it [the charter] altered the constitution adopted by the towns in 1639. There were now to be two deputies from each town; and the boundaries of the Commonwealth now embraced the rival colony of New Haven. … New Haven did not submit without a struggle, for not only her pride of separate existence but the supremacy of her ecclesiastical system was at stake. For three years a succession of diplomatic notes passed between the General Court of Connecticut and 'our honored friends of New Haven, Milford, Branford, and Guilford.' … {501} In October, 1664, the Connecticut General Court appointed the New Haven magistrates commissioners for their towns, 'with magistraticall powers,' established the New Haven local officers in their places for the time, and declared oblivion for any past resistance to the laws. In December, Milford having already submitted, the remnant of the New Haven General Court, representing New Haven, Guilford, and Branford, held its last meeting and voted to submit, 'with a salvo jure of our former rights and claims, as a people who have not yet been heard in point of plea.' The next year the laws of New Haven were laid aside forever, and her towns sent deputies to the General Court at Hartford. … In 1701 the General Court … voted that its annual October session should thereafter be held at New Haven. This provision of a double capital was incorporated into the constitution of 1818, and continued until in 1873 Hartford was made sole capital."

_A. Johnston, The Genesis of a New England State, pages 25-28._

ALSO IN: _B. Trumbull, History of Connecticut, volume 1, chapter 12._

_Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, 1665-78._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1664. Royal grant to the Duke of York, in conflict with the charter.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1666. The New Haven migration to Newark, N. J.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675. Long Island and the western half of the colony granted to the Duke of York.

In 1674, after the momentary recovery of New York by the Dutch, and its re-surrender to the English, "the king issued a new patent for the province, in which he not only included Long Island, but the territory up to the Connecticut River, which had been assigned to Connecticut by the royal commissioners. The assignment of Long Island was regretted, but not resisted; and the island which is the natural sea-wall of Connecticut passed, by royal decree, to a province whose only natural claim to it was that it barely touched it at one corner. The revival of the duke's claim to a part of the mainland was a different matter, and every preparation was made for resistance. In July, 1675, just as King Philip's war had broken out in Plymouth, hasty word was sent from the authorities at Hartford to Captain Thomas Bull at Saybrook that Governor Andros of New York was on his way through the Sound for the purpose, as he avowed, of aiding the people against the Indians. Of the two evils, Connecticut rather preferred the Indians. Bull was instructed to inform Andros, if he should call at Saybrook, that the colony had taken all precautions against the Indians, and to direct him to the actual scene of conflict, but not to permit the landing of any armed soldiers. 'And you are to keep the king's colors standing there, under his majesty's lieutenant, the governor of Connecticut; and if any other colors be set up there, you are not to suffer them to stand. … But you are in his majesty's name required to avoid striking the first blow; but if they begin, then you are to defend yourselves, and do your best to secure his majesty's interest and the peace of the whole colony of Connecticut in our possession.' Andros came and landed at Saybrook, but confined his proceedings to reading the duke's patent against the protest of Bull and the Connecticut representatives."

_A. Johnston, Connecticut, chapter 12._

_Report of Regents of the University on the Boundaries of the State of New York, page 21._

ALSO IN: _C. W. Bowen, The Boundary Disputes of Connecticut, pages 70-72._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1678. King Philip's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687. The hostile king and the hidden charter. Sir Edmund Andros in possession of the government.

"During the latter years of the reign of Charles II. the king had become so reckless of his pledges and his faith that he did not scruple to set the dangerous example of violating the charters that had been granted by the crown. Owing to the friendship that the king entertained for Winthrop, we have seen that Connecticut was favored by him to a degree even after the death of that great man. But no sooner had Charles demised and the sceptre passed into the hands of his bigoted brother, King James II., than Connecticut was called upon to contend against her sovereign for liberties that had been affirmed to her by the most solemn muniments known to the law of England. The accession of James II. took place on the 6th day of February 1685, and such was his haste to violate the honor of the crown that, early in the summer of 1685, a quo warranto was issued against the governor and company of Connecticut, citing them to appear before the king, within eight days of St. Martin's, to show by what right and tenor they exercised certain powers and privileges." This was quickly followed by two other writs, conveyed to Hartford by Edward Randolph, the implacable enemy of the colonies. "The day of appearance named in them was passed long before the writs were served." Mr. Whiting was sent to England as the agent of the colony, to exert such influences as might be brought to bear against the plainly hostile and unscrupulous intentions of the king; but his errand was fruitless. "On the 28th of December another writ of quo warranto was served upon the governor and company of the colony. This writ bore date the 23d of October, and required the defendants to appear before the king' within eight days of the purification of the Blessed Virgin.' … Of course, the day named was not known to the English law, and was therefore no day at all in legal contemplation." Already, the other New England colonies had been brought under a provisional general government, by commissioners, of whom Joseph Dudley was named president. President Dudley "addressed a letter to the governor and council, advising them to resign the charter into the king's hands. Should they do so, he undertook to use his influence in behalf of the colony. They did not deem it advisable to comply with the request. Indeed they had hardly time to do so before the old commission was broken up, and a new one granted, superseding Dudley and naming Sir Edmund Andros governor of New England. Sir Edmund arrived in Boston on the 19th of December, 1686, and the next day he published his commission and took the government into his hands. Scarcely had he established himself, when he sent a letter to the governor and company of Connecticut, acquainting them with his appointment, and informing them that he was commissioned by the king to receive their charter if they would give it up to him."

_G. H. Hollister, History of Connecticut, volume 1, chapter 14._

{502}

On receipt of the communication from Andros, "the General Court was at once convened, and by its direction a letter was addressed to the English Secretary of State, earnestly pleading for the preservation of the privileges that had been granted to them. For the first time they admitted the possibility that their petition might be denied, and in that case requested to be united to Massachusetts. This was construed by Sir Edmund as a virtual surrender; but as the days went by he saw that he had mistaken the spirit and purpose of the colony. Andros finally decided to go in person to Connecticut. He arrived at Hartford the last day of October, attended by a retinue of 60 officers and soldiers. The Assembly, then in session, received him with every outward mark of respect. After this formal exchange of courtesies, Sir Edmund publicly demanded the charter, and declared the colonial government dissolved. Tradition relates that Governor Treat, in calm but earnest words, remonstrated against this action. … The debate was continued until the shadows of the early autumnal evening had fallen. After candles were lighted, the governor and his council seemed to yield; and the box supposed to contain the charter was brought into the room, and placed upon the table. Suddenly the lights were extinguished. Quiet reigned in the room, and in the dense crowd outside the building. The candles were soon relighted; but the charter had disappeared, and after the most diligent search could not be found. The common tradition has been, that it was taken under cover of the darkness by Captain Joseph Wadsworth, and hidden by him in the hollow trunk of a venerable and noble oak tree standing near the entrance-gate of Governor Wyllys's mansion. The charter taken by Captain Wadsworth was probably the duplicate, and remained safely in his possession for several years. There is reason to believe that, some time before the coming of Andros to Hartford, the original charter had been carefully secreted, and the tradition of later times makes it probable that, while the duplicate charter that was taken from the table was hidden elsewhere, the original charter found a safe resting place in the heart of the tree that will always be remembered as The Charter Oak. This tree is said to have been preserved by the early settlers at the request of the Indians. 'It has been the guide of our ancestors for centuries,' they said, 'as to the time of planting our corn. When the leaves are the size of a mouse's ears, then is the time to put it in the ground.' The record of the Court briefly states that Andros, having been conducted to the governor's seat by the governor himself, declared that he had been commissioned by his Majesty to take on him the government of Connecticut. The commission having been read, he said that it was his Majesty's pleasure to make the late governor and Captain John Allyn members of his council. The secretary handed their common seal to Sir Edmund, and afterwards wrote these words inclosing the record: 'His Excellency, Sir Edmund Andros, Knight, Captain-General and Governor of his Majesty's Territory and Dominion in New England, by order from his Majesty, King of England, Scotland and Ireland, the 31st of October, 1687, took into his hands the government of this colony of Connecticut, it being by his Majesty annexed to the Massachusetts and other colonies under his Excellency's government. Finis.' Andros soon disclosed a hand of steel beneath the velvet glove of plausible words and fair promises."

_E. B. Sanford, History of Connecticut, chapter 16._

ALSO IN: _J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, book 3, chapter 13 (volume 3)._

See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686, and MASSACHUSETTS: 1671-1686.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1697. King William's War.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1701. The reinstatement of the charter government.

"April, 1689, came at last. The people of Boston, at the first news of the English Revolution, clapped Andros into custody. May 9, the old Connecticut authorities quietly resumed their functions, and called the assembly together for the following month. William and Mary were proclaimed with great fervor. Not a word was said about the disappearance or reappearance of the charter; but the charter government was put into full effect again, as if Andros had never interrupted it. An address was sent to the king, asking that the charter be no further interfered with; but operations under it went on as before. No decided action was taken by the home government for some years, except that its appointment of the New York governor, Fletcher, to the command of the Connecticut militia, implied a decision that the Connecticut charter had been superseded. Late in 1693, Fitz John Winthrop was sent to England as agent to obtain a confirmation of the charter. He secured an emphatic legal opinion from Attorney General Somers, backed by those of Treby and Ward, that the charter was entirely valid, Treby's concurrent opinion taking this shape: 'I am of the same opinion, and, as this matter is stated, there is no ground of doubt.' The basis of the opinion was that the charter had been granted under the great seal; that it had not been surrendered under the common seal of the colony, nor had any judgment of record been entered against it; that its operation had merely been interfered with by overpowering force; that the charter therefore remained valid; and that the peaceable submission of the colony to Andros was merely an illegal suspension of lawful authority. In other words, the passive attitude of the colonial government had disarmed Andros so far as to stop the legal proceedings necessary to forfeit the charter, and their prompt action, at the critical moment, secured all that could be secured under the circumstances. William was willing enough to retain all possible fruit of James's tyranny, as he showed by enforcing the forfeiture of the Massachusetts charter; but the law in this case was too plain, and he ratified the lawyers' opinion in April, 1694. The charter had escaped its enemies at last, and its escape is a monument of one of the advantages of a real democracy. … Democracy had done more for Connecticut than class influence had done for Massachusetts."

_A. Johnston, Connecticut, chapter 12._

{503}

"The decisions which established the rights of Connecticut included Rhode Island. These two commonwealths were the portion of the British empire distinguished above all others by the largest liberty. Each was a nearly perfect democracy under the shelter of a monarchy. … The crown, by reserving to itself the right of appeal, had still a method of interfering in the internal affairs of the two republics. Both of them were included among the colonies in which the lords of trade advised a complete restoration of the prerogatives of the crown. Both were named in the bill which, in April, 1701, was introduced into parliament for the abrogation of all American charters. The journals of the house of lords relate that Connecticut was publicly heard against the measure, and contended that its liberties were held by contract in return for services that had been performed; that the taking away of so many charters would destroy all confidence in royal promises, and would afford a precedent dangerous to all the chartered corporations of England. Yet the bill was read a second time, and its principle, as applied to colonies, was advocated by the mercantile interest and by 'great men' in England. The impending war with the French postponed the purpose till the accession of the house of Hanover."

_G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), part 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1690. The first Colonial Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1702-1711. Queen Anne's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710; and CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1711-1713.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1744-1748. King George's War and the taking of Louisbourg.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1753-1799. Western territorial claims. Settlements in the Wyoming Valley. Conflicts with the Penn colonists.

See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1753-1799.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1754. The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's plan of union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1755-1760. The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1750-1753; 1755; 1756; 1756-1757; 1758; 1759; 1760; NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755; 1755; Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754; 1754; 1755; CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1760-1765. The question of taxation by Parliament. The Sugar Act. The Stamp Act. The Stamp Act Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1765. The revolt against the Stamp Act.

"The English government understood very well that the colonies were earnestly opposed to the Stamp Act, but they had no thought of the storm of wrath and resistance which it would arouse. It was a surprise to many of the leaders of public affairs in America. … Governor Fitch and Jared Ingersoll, with other prominent citizens who had done all in their power to oppose the scheme of taxation … counselled submission. They mistook the feeling of the people. … The clergy were still the leaders of public opinion, and they were united in denunciation of the great wrong. Societies were organized under the name of the Sons of Liberty, the secret purpose of which was to resist the Stamp Act by violent measures if necessary. … Mr. Ingersoll, who had done all in his power to oppose the bill, after its passage decided to accept the position of stamp agent for Connecticut. Franklin urged him to take the place, and no one doubted his motives in accepting it. The people of Connecticut, however, were not pleased with this action. … He was visited by a crowd of citizens, who inquired impatiently if he would resign." Ingersoll put them off with evasive replies for some time; but finally there was a gathering of a thousand men on horseback, from Norwich, New London, Windham, Lebanon and other towns, each armed with a heavy peeled club, who surrounded the obstinate stamp agent at Wethersfield and made him understand that they were in deadly earnest. "'The cause is not worth dying for,' said the intrepid man, who would never have flinched had he not felt that, after all, this band of earnest men were in the right. A formal resignation was given him to sign. … After he had signed his name, the crowd cried out, 'Swear to it!' He begged to be excused from taking an oath. 'Then shout Liberty and Property,' said the now good-natured company. To this he had no objection, and waved his hat enthusiastically as he repeated the words. Having given three cheers, the now hilarious party dined together." Ingersoll was then escorted to Hartford, where he read his resignation publicly at the court-house.

_E. B. Sanford, History of Connecticut, chapter 29._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1766. The repeal of the Stamp Act. The Declaratory Act.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1766-1768. The Townshend duties. The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, and 1767-1768.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1768-1770. The quartering of troops in Boston. The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, and 1770.