« PreviousContinue »
truth of the matter could be learned from Mr. Winthrop or the king, and contained an emphatic protest against the division already made in their colony before “so much as a treaty” had been made with them “in a Christian, neighborly way.” Inclosed in the reply was a statement of the reasons adduced by Mr. Davenport to prove that New Haven was not included under the jurisdiction of the charter. In the first place, the name of New Haven was not mentioned in the document, and that colony, has always been treated as separate and independent, not only by the other New England colonies, including Connecticut, but by the king himself. Certainly the king would not have included them without their desire and knowledge, and if Connecticut had had any such intention, they surely would have been consulted before Mr. Winthrop went to England. If it should appear, however, after an appeal to the king, that the union of the two colonies was intended, they would submit "according to God."
Finding that Connecticut paid no attention to their protest but "persisted in" her "own will and way,” the New Haven authorities resolved to appeal to the king, being persuaded that it was not his pleasure to confound the two colonies and so destroy the “long continued” and “strongly settled distinction of the four United Colonies of New England.” Word was accordingly sent to their friends in London, asking them to confer with Mr. Winthrop and then, if satisfaction could not be obtained from him, to present their appeal to his majesty.
One of these friends was Rev. Mr. Hooke, a former resident of New Haven, who had returned to England. In a letter to Mr. Davenport which was intercepted by the English authorities and pronounced seditious, Mr. Hooke relates the part he took in the affair. He wrote that he spent part of the forenoon debating with Mr. Winthrop on the subject and that the latter declared "it was not his intention to have New Haven thus dealt with by her neighbors at Connecticut nor her liberties infringed, but desired they might remain as before." Hooke was of the opinion that New Haven's former liberties were in "danger to be utterly lost,” but he expressed the hope that Mr. Winthrop "would do his best to set them by themselves and procure their settlement upon their first foundation.”
Mr. Winthrop agreed to write to Mr. Mason, the Deputy Governor of Connecticut, informing him of the intentions he had thus expressed and requesting that the unfriendly acts against New Haven be recalled. In this letter was the following statement: “I must let you know that testimony here doth affirm that I gave assurance before authority here, that it was not intended to meddle with any town or plantation that was settled under any other government." This remark, although somewhat ambiguous, served to quiet the fears of the New Haven leaders, and they had little doubt but that the obnoxious measures against their peace would at once be rescinded. But this letter, containing such promise of relief, proved to be, in its nature, an early specimen of a wooden nutmeg. Addressed to Mr. Mason, it was sent to the New Haven governor with the evident expectation that he would forward it to Hartford. Mr. Leete, supposing it to be a copy of the original, probably retained it, as the Connecticut authorities declared that they did not receive it. Whatever the fact may be, New Haven obtained no satisfaction as a result of it, and continued to undergo the humiliation of having Connecticut officers authorized to act in her towns.
Meantime negotiations had been attempted looking toward an accommodation of the dispute. Before Mr. Winthrop's letter reached New England, Connecticut had made certain liberal propositions which New Haven rejected on the ground that while their appeal to the king was pending any action in the matter would be highly improper. Besides, it was anticipated that Mr. Winthrop's return would speedily end the controversy in favor of New Haven. In a letter congratulating him upon the safe return, Mr. Davenport said that he rejoiced in the persuasion that he had come with an olive-branch in his mouth. Governor Leete also welcomed his arrival as a physician who would, he was sure, use the method of “gradual ripening and softening supplements” to cure their disease,
, instead of the “violent fomentations” hitherto practiced.
These expectations were doomed to disappointment also. When Mr. Winthrop learned the situation of affairs at Hartford, he either was unable to persuade those who had thus far managed or mismanaged the business to adopt a milder policy, or he speedily reached the conclusion that things had gone too far to warrant interference. He must have realized that the desired union could not be accomplished by mutual consent, and being unwilling to assist in forcing a submission of New Haven, he ceased active participation in the controversy.
Proposals and counter proposals made by both colonies during the summer of 1663 not only failed to secure an amicable settlement, but resulted in more strained relations. No compromise regarding the qualifications for freemen could be effected, New Haven insisting upon her peculiar policy and finally declining to treat any further until Connecticut "first restore us to our right state again.” Encouragement to persist in this firm stand was received from the commissioners of the United Colonies of New England, to whom they had appealed. The case was heard by the Massachusetts and Plymouth representatives, who reported that "the said colony of New Haven, being owned in the Articles of Confederation as distinct from Connecticut, and having been so owned by the colonies jointly
may not by any act of violence have their liberty of jurisdiction infringed by any other of the United Colonies without breach of the Articles of Confederation, and that where any act of power hath been exerted against their authority, that the same ought to be recalled, and their power reserved to them entire, until such time as in an orderly way it shall be otherwise disposed.” This last sentence denotes an expectation that the union would ultimately come, but that it ought to be brought about in an orderly manner. New Haven obtained a measure of comfort from this decision, however, and her hopes were still further revived by letters from his Majesty's government addressed to the New Haven authorities-a distinct recognition of their separate and independent existence. Quick advantage was taken of this acknowledgment and a proclamation was issued calling upon all persons who had separated from the colony to return to their rightful allegiance and pay their arrears of rates. This proclamation was boldly torn down by the Connecticut constable at Stamford; and when it was published at Guilford, turbulent Bray Rossiter repaired to Hartford with others and demanded protection. Two magistrates, the marshal, and other officers returned with them to Guilford to stop the execution of the proclamation. Arriving there late at night, they created much alarm by the firing off of guns. Governor Leete, who lived in the town, fearing trouble, hastily sent to Branford and New Haven for assistance. A number of soldiers responded, but upon their arrival found nothing but noise and excitement to quell. After requesting Governor Leete not to collect taxes from Connecticut citizens until the dispute over the charter was settled, the armed invaders withdrew.
This affair at Guilford necessitated another attempt at a conference, but New Haven, "considering how fruitless all former treaties had been and that they had formerly ordered that there should be no more treaty with them unless they first restore us those members which they had so unrighteously taken from us, therefore, did now again confirm the same.” Nevertheless it was determined to have a formal statement of all their grievances drawn up and forwarded to Connecticut. This writing, prepared by Mr. Davenport and Mr. Street and entitled "New Haven's Case Stated," was an able and forcible presentation of the New Haven side of the dispute. It was a lengthy document and contained, under twenty-one different heads, a complete history of the controversy, the grounds of defense and an appeal for just and righteous treatment.
Connecticut's reply, which, it is thought, was never sent to New Haven, is extant, and suffers much in comparison with the New Haven paper.
While not as long as the latter, it is rather verbose and undignified in style, quite sarcastic and bantering in tone, and in many respects an unsatisfactory answer to the New Haven arguments. Time will permit of but a few quotations. The prefatory sentences are characteristic. “You are pleased to term our claims and our claiming our interest, an unjust pretence and encroachment upon your just and proper rights. To untie this knot and pretence of yours, in all the particulars of it, states the whole case you have presented in your large schedule and multiloquous pennings; therefore, as methodically as we can, and curt, as the little time we have allowed and our other weighty concernments will permit, in few words, we have addressed ourselves for resolution and your conviction.” In reviewing the history of the controversy the New Haven paper had spoken very highly of Mr. Eaton, their first governor, but with no intention of giving it an argumentative meaning. The reply takes notice of it however, and says: “Your high prizing of Mr. Èaton, that worthy man deceased, who we own was wise, grave and godly, and we could also say that we have had governors not much inferior, who now with him lie in the dust, but such applauses little promote our state concernments in this present contest; therefore, we shall pass them over as not so pertinent.”
To the declaration that she had maintained her territory against the claim of the Dutch "by hewing out the King's Arms in wood,” Connecticut sarcastically observed: "marble and brass are the more lasting," and to New Haven's claim that it could be mathematically demonstrated that her bounds were not included in the charter she replied: "For your mathematical measures, and discovery, it might do us some service in the line betwixt us and the Massachusetts if you have an able artist, when he is desired by them and us to attend that service; but our charter is the true astrolobe for our south bound.”
There was, however, an attempt to answer seriously the New Haven arguments. The objection raised in regard to the dismembering policy of Connecticut was answered by the statement that it was the duty of the New Haven people to apply for such charter privileges and that Connecticut could not refuse to accept them "without some danger.” The reply then closed with the following words, which were not calculated to allay the bitterness of the dispute:
"Then if Joshua took himself bound to keep promise with the Gibeonites who acted wilily, and were of that people which