p.370 CHAPTER XXII.
THE JURISDICTION OF MASSACHUSETTS ACCEPTED.
KITTERY, MAINE.
The members of General Court of Massachusetts, in their search for
northern boundary of the Colony, perused the colonial Charter on
May 31, 1652. As has already appeared, however, the attentio of
the General Court had been called to the boundary matter in the pre-
ceding year. In fact, in October, 1651, they had reached the con-
clusion that from an extension of the northern boundary line of the
colony, "it doth appear that the town of Kittery, and many miles to
the northward, is comprehended within our Grant." In reaching this
conclusion, the members of the General Court were doubtless in-
fluenced by an effort on the part of several persons in Kittery to
induce the residents there ("who govern now by combination") to
present a petition to Parliament for a Grant of the place. This,
it was said, a majority of the inhabitants refused to do, many of
them expressing their willingness "to submit themselves to the
government of the Massachusetts".1 Under these circumstances
the members of the Court, taking into consideration the "commo-
diousness" of the Piscataqua River, and the fact that it would
be prejudicial to the Massachusetts government if Kittery and
the Piscataqua River should be held by those who were unfriend-
ly to the Bay colony, it was ordered, "that a loving and friendly
letter" be sent to the inhabitants of Kittery, informing them
that Kittery was within the Massachusetts Grant, and that a
commission had been appointed consisting of Simon Bradstreet,
Major Daniel Denison and Captain William Hawthorne to treat
with them in accordance with their instructions, and to re-
ceive them under the Massachusetts government provided "terms
of agreement can be
Footnote. 1. Records of the Massachusetts Bay in New England,
III, 250.
p.371 THE JURISDICTION OF MASSACHUSETTS ACCEPTED.
concluded upon by mutual consent". If, however, the inhabit-
ants of Kittery declined to enter into such an agreement, the
commissioners, having "laid claim to the place", were to pro-
test against any further proceedings "by virtue of their com-
bination or other interest whatsoever"1.
Information concerning this action reached the Province of
Maine soon after the action was taken, and Edward Godfrey, as
Governor of the Province, summoned a Provincial General Court
to meet December 1, 1651. On the third day of the session, the
Court directed Mr. Godfrey, Mr. Leader and Mr. Shapleigh to
draw up a petition to Parliament for a confirmation of the
existing Provincial government. This petition, prepared by
Godfrey, professing free and willing submission to the govern-
ment of England as then established "without a King or House of
Lords", called attention to the circumstances under which the
colonists had been compelled to take upon themselves the govern-
ment of the Province, making mention especially of the death of
Sir Ferdinando Gorges, and the failure of his son and heir to
identify himself with the interests of the Province. Having thus
been forced "by way of combination to govern and rule according
to the laws of England", in behalf of the General Court, the
Governor asked for a confirmation of the government thus esta-
blished and requested that the inhabitants of the Province, as
free-born Englishmen, might be declared members of the Common-
wealth of England.2
But Godfrey did not cease his opposition to the proposed action
of Massachusetts with the preparation of this Petition. Toward
the close of May, 1652, he addressed an earnest letter to Edward
Rawson, secretary of the General Court of Massachusetts, chal-
lenging the claim of the Bay Colony to Maine territory as in-
cluded within the Massachusetts limits. In his reply, which was
by order of the General Court, Rawson defended the actin against
which Godfrey had remonstrated. To this communication, Godgfrey
Footnotes. 1. Records of the Massachusetts Bay in New England,
III, 251. 2. Hazard, I, 559, 560.
p.372 THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
made a vigorous answer, July 9, 1652. "For our perusal of your
patent and your line", he wrote, "we apprehend the bounds thereof
were set more than twenty years last past, at the sea-side, and so
up into the country from the sea three miles on this side Merrimac,
as all other patents were which are no less than ten in number,
that we perceive by the extension of your unknown line you now
willingly labor to engraft". Against such pretended jurisdiction
Godfrey earnestly protested. "We are loath to part with our prec-
ious liberties for unknown and uncertain favors", he wrote.
"We resolve to exercise our just jurisdiction until it shall
please the Parliament, the Commonwealth of England, otherwise to
order under whose power and protectin we are."1
The General Court of Massachusetts made no haste in the procedure.
The action of the Court in connection with the perusal of its
Charter, did not take place until May 31, 1652. The commissioners
did not receive their instructions to repair to Kittery until June
11, 1652. On account of a change in the membership of the commiss-
ion as finally constituted, William Hawthorne, John Leverett and
Henry Bartholomew represented the Colony of Massachusetts Bay in
the Kittery conference, which seems to have been held July 9,
1652. Edward Godfrey, Richard Leader, Nicholas Shapleigh, Thomas
Withers and Edward Rishworth, who declared themselves "to be per-
sons in present power for the ordering and managing of whatsoever
might be of concernment to the people", represented the Province
of Maine. There is no record of the proceedings of the conference.
Doubtless there was much discussion, but Godfrey and those associ-
ated with him declined to accept the overtures of the Massachusetts
commissioners.
Because of this action it only remained for the commissioners to
present the protest of Massachusetts as their instructions re-
quired. It did not appear to them, the commissioners said, that
Godfrey and others, representing the Province of Maine, possess-
ed any rightful authority, inasmuch as the provincial territory
Footnote. 1. Hazard, I, 567, 568.
p.373 THE JURISDICTION OF MASSACHUSETTS ACCEPTED.
was included in the limits of the patent of the Bay Colony and so
by grant and charter, under the great seal of England, was under
the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. But they were authorized to say
that those submitting themselves thereunto should "freely and
quietly possess and enjoy all the lands, goods and chattels
appertaining to and possessed by any or every of them" and that
they should have "right and equally share" in all acts of favor
and justice which by virtue of government, the inhabitants of
Massachusetts "do or may expect to enjoy". The followed the
protest of Massachusetts against any person or persons withing
the Province of Maine exercising jurisdiction over the inhabit-
ants of the province, or any part thereof, after October 10, 1652,
without order from the General Court of Council of the colony of
the Massachusetts Bay.1
GOVERNOR GODREY'S PROTEST TO THE MASSACHUSETTS PROTEST.
The commissioners' announcement of this protest was dated July 9,
1652. This, also, was the date of Governor Godfrey's answer to
Secretary Rawson's letter of June 12, 1652, to which reference
has already been made. It was also the date of the answer made
by Godfrey and his associates, "sworn Magistrates" of the Prov-
ince of Maine, to the Massachusetts protest.
MAINE ASSAILS THE ACTIONS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY COLONY.
Evidently, July 9, 1652, was a busy day in Kittery, Maine. The
answer made to the protest by the Magistrates of the Province of
Maine, was plainly the work of Governor Godfrey. It assailed
again, the action of the Massachusetts Bay colony, in attempt=
ing to extend its jurisdiction northward. "The truth doth and
shall appear", it was said, "that where their bounds were set up
more than twenty years passed, and both before and since, many
patents have been granted for the populating and propagating of
the land".
In this way, it was added, a large sum of money had been expended.
Also, lawful jurisdiction had been exercised by officers" acknowl-
ledged and owned by you of the Massachusetts", and "approved and
justified in England". And now, for these gentlemen to come "in
the name only and behalf of the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts",
saying that the inhabitants who "shall submit
Footnote. 1. Hazard, I, 568, 569.
p.374 THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
unto them shall freely and quietly possess and enjoy all the lands,
goods, chattels, and that we shall enjoy equal favors in acts of
government - these proposals are not, in our judgement meet; the
time, places and persons considered we patiently bear them, and
submit to be judged by those whom we acknowledge to be our supreme
judges.
WE ARE SUBORDINATE TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF ENGLAND...
MAINE.
Against exercise of jurisdiction, we resolve and intend to go on
till lawful power command us the contrary, as subordinate and de-
depending upon the Commonwealth of England."1
On receiving the report of the commissioners, the General Court
of Massachusetts, evidently saw no reason for discouragement. Its
conference had revealed the attitude of the provincial officers
only. It was now resolved to appeal to the inhabitants as a whole.
KITTERY, MAINE, THE ISLES OF SHOALS.
MASSACHUSETTS GRANTS EQUAL PRIVILEGES & PROTECTION.
Accordingly, October 23, 1652, the Court appointed six commissioners
to settle the civil government amongst the inhabitants of Kittery,
the Isles of Shoals, "and so the the most northerly extent" of the
colony's patent. By their instructions, the commissioners were to
proceed to the territory north of the Piscataqua and summon the in-
habitants to assemble in places deemed by the commissioners most con-
venient, and require their submisssion, granting unto them at the same
time, equal protection and privileges with the inhabitants of the
Bay colony.
"AS THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL COURT SHALL DIRECT"
They were also to establish Courts for hearing and determining all
causes, civil and criminal, to appoint commissioners, constables and
such other officers as they deemed needful for preserving peace and
good order, "and otherwise to act in the premises" as the General
Court should direct, doing whatever in their wisdom and discretion
would be most conducive to the glory of God, the peace and welfare
of the inhabitants and the maintenance of their own "just rights
and interests."2
Four of the six commissioners, namely,
Simon Bradstreet - Boston
Samuel Simonds - Boston
Captain Thomas Wiggin, New Hampshsire
Bryan Pendleton, Province of Maine
Footnotes. 1. Hazard, I, 569, 570, 2. Massachusetts Records, 128,
as cited by Williamson, History of the State of Maine, I, 343.
p.375 THE JURISDICTION OF MASSACHUSETTS IS ACCEPTED.
proceeded to Kittery, where they opened a Court, November 15, 1652,
and issued a summons to the inhabitants to assemble on the following
day, between seven and eight o'clock in the morning, at the house
of William Everett.
THE OFFENSIVE WORDS OF JOHN BURSLEY.
The inhabitants appeared as summoned and the conference was opened
by the Massachusetts commissioners, who presented evidence of their
appointment and also the instructions they had received. For four
days there was full and free discussion. In general, the temper of
both parties was good, but evidences of strong feelings are re-
ported and mentioned, is made of the offensive bearing and words
of one John Bursley, who, towards the commissioners and some of
the residents of Kittery, that apparently were ready to subscribe
their submission, indulged in threats to such an extent that at
once he was brought to trial and confession for his misbehavior.
Finally, the inhabitants declared their willingness to give
written consent to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, provided
certain conditions offered by them were accepted. This offer,
the commissioners declined on the ground that their instructions
required submission of the inhabitants first; the, a guaranty of
rights and of ample privileges would follow.
Evidently further opposition was thought to be useless, and on
November 20, 1652, forty-one of the inhabitants of Kittery, Maine
subscribed to the following declaration:
FORTY-ONE INHABITANTS OF KITTERY, MAINE.
"We whose names are underwritten do acknowledge ourselves subject
to the government of Massachusetts Bay in New England."
UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF MASSACHUSETTS.
COUNTY OF YORKSHIRE, MAINE.
In fourteen articles the commissioners then enumerated the rights
and privileges the people of Kittery were to possess under the
government of Massachusetts. The territory north of the Pisca-
taqua ws to comprise a county known as Yorkshire. The inhabi-
tants were to have "protection and equal acts of favor and
justice" with those dwelling on the south side of the Piscataqua.
KITTERY, MAINE.
Kittery was to remain a township,1 and enjoy the privileges of
other Massachusetts towns. Titles to property in houses and lands
"whether by the grant of the town or of the Indians", or of those
justly holding them. Kittery was promised a Deputy to the General
Footnote 1. Kittery, Maine, was incorporated as a town in 1647.
p.376 THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
Court, and two if "they think good". All the present inhabitants
of the town were to be regarded as freemen of the country, and hav-
ing taken the oath as freemen they were to have
INSERT - THE FREEMEN'S OATH
Massachusetts Bay Colony Freeman
Transcribed by Janice Farnsworth
Massachusetts Bay Colony
Freemen to take the Oath: 1630
Applied for Freeman Status, October 19th, 1630 What follows is the entire
record of the Court of the session of October 19, 1630. The men that applied
for freemen status were mostly arrived in 1630 with the Winthrop fleet and the
Mary & John.
However, the earlier arrivals are also represented here, and this list contains
many of the surviving settlers from the the Abigail and the Higginson fleet, as
well as a few who came before 1628.
All names were inscribed by the Court clerk, and give an indication of the
pronunciation, if not the oath-taker's prefered spelling of his name. The
spelling of surnames and most prenames is given here as originally written down,
but we have replaced abbreviated prenames by the common full spelling. Where
prenames were omitted, they are inserted here in italics. The order of the names
as written down originally can be seen here. There is no apparent indication of
their social status
in the order of the names, but some of the earliest settlers appear first, and
study has revealed groupings according to the MBC township of origin.
At General Court, holden at Boston the 19th of October, 1630 Present, The
Governor (John Winthrop)
The deputy Governor (Thomas Dudley) Sir Richard Saltonstall Mr. (Roger) Ludlowe
Capt. (John) Endicott Mr. (Increase) Nowell Mr. (William) Pinchon Mr. (Simon)
Bradstreete
For establishing the government, it was propounded if it were not the best
course that the Freemen should have the power of choosing Assistants when there
are to be chosen, and the Assistants from among themselves to choose a Governor
and a DeputyGovernor, who with the Assistants should have the power of making
laws and choosing officers to execute the same. This was fully assented unto by
the
general vote of the people and erection of hands.
Ralfe Sprage is chosen constable of Charlton, John Johnson of Rocksbury,and
John Page for Watertown, for the space of one whole year, and after till new be
chosen.
It is ordered that the sawyers shall not take above 12d a score for sawing oak
boards, and 10d a score for pine boards if they have their wood felled and
scored for them.
Walter Palmer made his personal appearance this day, and stands bound, he and
his sureties, till the next Court.
he names of such as desire to be made Freeman:
Mr. Samuell Mavracke
Mr. Edward Johnson
Mr. Edward Gibbins
Mr. William Jeffries
Mr. John Burslin
Mr. Samuel Sharpe
Mr. Thomas Graves
Mr. Roger Conant
John Woodbury
Peter Palfrey
Mr. Nathaniel Turner
Mr. Samuel Freeman
Eprahim Childe
Mr. William Clerke
Mr. Abraham Palmer
John Page
Nicholas Upsall
Stephen Terree
Henry Smyth
Roger Williams (Roger Williams of Dorchester, not the Minister and later
founder of Rhode Island.)
John Woolridge
Thomas Lumberd
Bigatt Egglestone
John Grinoway
Christopher Gibson
John Benham
Thomas Williams alias Harris Richard Garrett
John Howman
John Crabb
Capt. Walter Norton
Mr. Alexander Wignall
Mr. William Jennison
Mr. Thomas Southcoate
Mr. Richard Southcoate
James Pemberton
Mr. John Dillingham
John Johnson
Mr. Robert Coles
Jehu Burr
Thomas Rawlins
Richard Bugby
Richards Hutchins
Ralfe Mushell
Thomas Lambe
William Throdingham
William Chase
(Richard) Foxewell
Mr. Charles Gott
Henry Harwood
Mr. George Phillips
Mr. John Wilson
Mr. John Mavracke
Mr. Robert Feake
Mr. William Pelham
Mr. Benjamin Brand
Mr. William Blackstone
Mr. Edmond Lockwood
Mr. Richard Browne
John Strickland
Ralfe Sprague
Mr. George Ludlowe
James Penn
Henry Woolcott
Thomas Stoughton
William Phelpes
George Dyar
John Hoskins
Thomas Ford
Mr. John Warham
Mr. Samuell Skelton
Mr. William Colbron
Mr. William Aspinwall
Edward Converse
Mr. Richard Palgrave
John Taylour
Richard Church
Richard Silvester
William Balstone
Robert Abell
Mr. Giles Sexton
Robert Seely
John Mills
John Cranwell
Mr. Ralfe Glover
William Hulbird
Edmond James
John Pillips
Nathaniell Bowman
John Doggett
Laurence Leach
Charles Chadwicke
William Drakenbury
John Drake
John Balshe
Mr. Samuell Coole
Mr. William Traske
William Gallard
William Rockewell
Henry Herricke
Samuel Hosier
Richard Mylett
Mr. Abraham Pratt
William James
William Allen
Samuel Archer
Thus ends the record of the Court of October, 1630
Transcribed by Janice Farnsworth
See also:
The Winthrop Fleet of 1630
(full book transcribed and sent, freely shared email farns10th@aol.com.)
THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
p.376
Having completed their labors at Kittery, the commissioners on
Monday, November 22, proceeded to Agamenticus, Georges' Gorgeana,
where, in response to the commissioner's summons, the inhabitants
assembled at the house of Nicholas Davis. Prominent among them was
Edward Godfrey, still representing the Gorges interests.
Doubtless during the conference of the preceding week at Kittery
he had been in close touch with friends there holding like views
with reference to the claims of Massachusetts; and in the sub-
mission of Kittery's inhabitants, he could hardly have failed to
forsee the issue of the conference in his own town.
Nonetheless, however, in a day of "debatements", his voice rang
out loud and clear in opposition to any encroachment upon territory
that had long been known as the Province of Maine.
Footnote. 1. Hazard, I, 573, 574.
p.377 THE JURISDICTION OF MASSACHUSETTS IS ACCEPTED.
But, it was of no avail. At the close of the day, when the vote
was taken, the inhabitants of Agamenticus took the same action
as the inhabitants of Kittery on the preceding Saturday. As
recorded by the commissioners, the vote was as follows:
"MY SOULD DID NOT CONSENT UNTO" - GODFREY.
"Mr. Godfrey did forbear until the vote was passed by the rest,
and then immediately he did by word and vote express his con-
sent".1 According to Godfrey's own statement, however, his sub-
mission was with mental reservation. In a later appeal to Parlia-
ment, he wrote, "Whatever my body was inforced unto, Heaven knows
my soul did not consent unto".2
The statement seems to belong to a considerably later period in
Godfrey's life, as in the endorsement, at the close of the petition
occur the words, "This was after Richard Cromwell was out", and
therefore, after April 22, 1659.
In no sense could it be said that Godfrey was under any outward com-
pulsion in yielding submission to the government of Massachusetts.
His submission, it is true, was an unwilling one, but the act was
his own. Of course, his conviction with reference to his rights
remained unchanged. To the best of his ability, he had opposed
the onward advance of Massachusetts into territory north of the
Piscataqua. But now, even his fellow townsmen were not in agree-
ment with him - and when this fact was made clear by their votes,
at the close of the conference, he yielded and added his vote to
the forty-nine votes already recorded.3
This concession on the part of Godfrey has been called a mistake.
Rather, it seems to have been the only course open to him, if he
was to have any helpful influence at Agamenticus.4 The oppor-
tunity for such helpful influence appeared when he received an
appointment as the first of four commissioners to whom, with one
assistant of the Massachusetts government, was given authority...
AGAMENTICUS BECOMES YORK, MAINE.
Footnotes. 1. Hazard, I, 575. 2. Colonial Papers, Public Records
Office, London, England, XIII, 79. Maine Historical Society's
Coll., First Series, IX, 347. 3. For the privileges granted to
the inhabitants, see Hazard, I., 576. 4. From the Massachusetts
commissioners, Agamenticus now received the designation of York,
and became the second town within the limits of what is the State
of Maine.
p.378 THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
to keep one County Court at York, each year, while any three of
them were authorized to try cases without a jury. They were also
empowered to conduct the affairs of the County, in general.
This position Godfrey held for three successive years. But the
fires of resentment continued to burn in his breast; and at length,
probably in 1655, he left Agamenticus and made his way to England,
in the hope of securing from the home government redress for the
losses he had substained.
CROMWELL'S PROTECTORATE.
ENGLAND'S KING CHARLES II.
During Oliver Cromwell's Protectorate, however, and also during the
Protectorate of his son, Richard Cromwell, conditions were unfavorable
for a successful presentation of his case. In 1660, however, with
the restoration of King Charles II, the withered hopes of Godfrey and
the heirs of Gorges and Mason, suddenly brightened.
GODFREY DIES IN LUDGATE JAIL, ENGLAND, DATE UNKNOWN.
Yet, under even these changed circumstances, disappointment upon
disappointment followed; and when we obtain our last glimpses of
Godfrey, he is an inmate of Ludgate Jail, London, hopeless, friend-
less, bending under the weight of more than fourscore years; and
there, on an unknown date, it is supposed that he died. His burial
place, like that of Robert Trelawny is unknown.1
Thus, in 1652, by a direct appeal to the people, Massachusetts
succeeded in extending her jurisdiction over the nearest of the
Maine settlements. Her success foreshadowed such added action on
the part of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, as would bring to an end
any exercise of authority derived from the proprietary governments
of Gorges and Rigby. Ye again, there was no hasty action in further
procedure. In May, 1653, the General Court of Massachusetts, ad-
mitted two representatives from Maine - one from Kittery
EDWARD GODFREY BURIED IN ENGLAND, NO GRAVESTONE, AS A PUBLIC PAUPER.
Footnote 1. The last information concerning him is in a letter
written in prison, April, 1663. "There we leave him in the poor
debtor's cell, where he had lived for two years. The end probably
came soon after, for it could not have been delayed long; and
Edward Godfrey, once the Governor of the Province of Maine, who
bore the unchallenged Arms of Godfrey of Boullon, the knightly
King of Jerusalem, was probably thence buried as a public pauper
in the Potter's Field, without a stone or a stake to mark his grave,
and his name and story have been almost lost in the two centuries that
have passed." Dr. Charles E. Banks, Maine Historical Society, First
Series, IX, 335.
p.379. THE JURISDICTION OF MASSACHUSETTS IS ACCEPTED.
WELLS, SACO AND CAPE PORPOISE, MAINE.
and one from York. Shortly after, however, having approved the
wise and successful work of the commissioners at Kittery and York,
the Court appointed commissioners to extend the jurisdiction of
the colony still further northward, so as to include Wells, Saco
and Cape Porpoise.
WELLS, SACO AND CAPE PORPOISE ACCEPT THE JURISDICTION OF
MASSACHUSETTS.
Equal success attended the efforts of the commissioners in these
settlements, and July 5, 1653, their inhabitants, by their votes,
placed themselves under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts.1
PLYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS & ITS KENNEBEC TERRITORY.
THOMAS PRENCE.
THOMAS ASHLEY - MERRYMEETING BAY.
About this time, the Plymouth colonists, somewhat tardily indeed,
were directing attention to the lack of good government in its
Maine territory on the Kennebec. Someone, evidently, had remind-
ed the Pilgrims of their failure to comply with the requirement
of their Charter, that the English settlers on the river within
the colony's territorial limits "should be orderly governed and
carried on in a way of peace for their common good in civil con-
cernments".2 This requirement, they had not fulfilled, and the
General Court of the Plymouth Colony now authorized Thomas Prence,
one of the colony's honored Magistrates to proceed to the Kenne-
bec and call together the inhabitants along the river "for the
settling of a government". Mr. Prence made his way thither and
May 23, 1654, the people assembled at the house of Thomas Ashley
Merrymeeting Bay, where sixteen persons, including Thomas Purchase,
took the Oath of Fidelity to the Commonwealth of England and Ply-
mouth Colony, and agreed upon a series of articles designed to
secure a proper observance of law and order within the limits of
the Pilgrim Grant.3
THE PILGRIM GRANT ON THE KENNEBEC.
ANTIPAS BOIES, EDWARD TYNG, THOMAS BRATTLE AND JOHN WINSLOW.
Footnotes. 1. Records of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, III,
332-334. 2. Hazard, I, 583. 3. Ib., 585, 586. A glance at the
later history of the Pilgrim Grant on the Kennebec is interesting.
When the General Court of the colony met at Plymouth, June 6, 1650,
it was voted that if �500 could be obtained for the Colony's rights
on the Kennebec, the Grant should be sold. In accordance with this
vote, the Pilgrims, in 1661, sold all their lands on either side of
river to Antipas Boies, Edward Tyng, Thomas Brattle and John Winslow.
These four persons and their heirs held these Kennebec lands nearly
a century, making no endeavor to colonize them. In September, 1749,
a meeting of the proprietors was held with a view to the introduct-
ion of settlers. Other (see footnotes continued p. 380)
p.380 THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
HENRY JOSSELYN, ROBERT JORDAN & ARTHUR MACKWORTH.
As yet, still farther to the eastward, there was little, if any
endeavor to make proper provision for securing the benefits of
good government. The necessity was recognized, but the ways and
means were not discoverable. And stil Massachusetts, while
watchful of the territory beyond Saco, delayed added action in
extending her jurisdiction. There, men of considerable influence,
like Henry Josselyn, Robert Jordan and Arthur Mackworth, contin-
ued their opposition to the claims of Massachusetts, as also did
George Cleeve; the former, on religious and political grounds and
the latter in an endeavor to retain his place in connection with the
Rigby interests which otherwise would be blotted out.
To Cleeve's protest against any further encroachment Massachusetts
made reply: "We have not endeavored to infringe the liberties of
the planters of those lands, but have offered them the same with
ourselves; not to nourish or ease ourselves by taxing of their
estates, to ease ourselves. We expect no more than what they
formerly did, namely, bear their own charges; not do we seek
to put upon them that which we ourselves would count unequal,
namely, to subject them to such laws and constitutions made by
others, without their consent, it being the portion of most of
our present inhabitants, as of the subjects of most countries,
to be in no other capacity; the constitutions of government and
new model of laws not being made in every age of men, or upon the
arrival of newcomers to a colony".1
But, all the while, Massachusetts held firmly to her purpose.
At length, having received "divers complaints for want of gov-
ernment at the westward, the Massachusetts authorities on May 15,
1657, addressed a letter2 to Henry Josselyn and Robert Jordan,
requesting them to meet the commissioners of the Colony, at the
Footnotes, continued - proprietors were admitted, and in June,
1753, a corporation was formed under the title of "The Proprietors
of the Kennebec Purchase from the late colony of New Plymouth".
The Kennebec Purchase papers, carefully arranged chronologically,
were presented to the Maine Historical Society by the Honorable
Reuel Williams of Augusta.
Footnotes. 1. Baxter, George Cleeve, Collateral Documents, 295,
296. 2. Ib., 296, 297.
p.381 THE JURISDICTION OF MASSACHUSETTS IS ACCEPTED.
next County Court at York, Maine, to assist in settling "those
parts beyond Saco, to the utmost bounds of the Massachusetts
Charter. As neither appeared in answer to this request, Massa-
chusetts proceeded to summons the inhabitants in the territory
mentioned, to present themselves at the General Court to be held
in Boston, October 14, 1657. Again there was default. Cleeve,
however, responded by a protest against the legality of the
action of Massachusetts in extending her jurisdiction into
Maine territory, adding an announcement that that the inhabi-
tants had resolved not to yield submission to the government
of the Bay Colony.
To this protest, the General Court of Massachusetts, October
23, 1657, replied by a "declaration and protestation",1 re-
affirming its "right and claim to those parts", but asserting
its purpose to "surcease any further prosectution", at the same
time insisting that "if any mischief or inconvenience" should
result "by means of their own differences, or for want of a
settled government .... all the blame and danger must and ought
to be imputed" to the inhabitants themselves. Here, also, it was
made to appear that Josselyn, Jordan and Cleeve, in their atti-
toward Massachusetts, did not represent the people among whom
they lived; and in response to added complaints of unsettled
conditions, commissioners, appointed by the Massachusetts General
Court, were directed to repair to Black Point, Richmond's Island
and Casco, to receive the submission of the inhabitants.
ROBERT JORDAN, AT SPURWINK.
In attending to this duty, the commissioners held a Court, July
13, 1658, at the house of Robert Jordan, at Spurwink. Hither came
a majority of the residents in the places mentioned. As at Kittery,
York, Wells, Saco and Cape Porpoise, there was "serious debate",
but final unanimity, "the inhabitants at Black Point, Blue Point,
Spurwink and Casco Bay, with all the islands thereunto belonging,"
acknowledging themselves to be subject to the government of the
Massachusetts Bay. Twenty-nine persons signed the form of sub-
mission. Among them appear such familiar names as:
Footnote. 1. Baxter, George Cleeve, Collateral Documents, 299.
BLACK POINT, BLUE POINT & STRATTON'S ISLANDS BECOME SCARBOROUGH.
SPURWINK & CLAPBOARD ISLANDS IN CASCO BAY BECAME FALMOUTH.
p.382 George Cleeve, Robert Jordan and Michael Mitton.1 In the articles
of agreement it was announced that the places formerly known as
Black Point, Blue Point and Stratton's Islands would be called
Scarborough henceforth. Those places, hitherto known as Spurwink
and Casco Bay from east side of Spurwink River to the Clapboard
Islands in Casco Bay, and run back into the country eight miles
would henceforth be called Falmouth.
Henry Josselyn, Robert Jordan, George Cleeve, Henry Watts and
Francis Neale were appointed commissioners for the year ensuing
and were invested with full power, or any three of them, for the
trial of all causes without jury, within the limits of Scarborough
and Falmouth; while Henry Josselyn, Robert Jordan, Nicholas Shap-
leigh, Edward Rishworth and Abraham Preble were invested with magi-
sterial power throughout the county of York.2
The purpose of Massachusetts, at least the initial purpose, in
her invasion of Maine territory, was now accomplished. It was not
without watchfulness and skilful management, however, that under
changed political conditions in England, she succeeded in retain-
ing her hold upon the territory thus secured.
The stars in their courses seem to fight on her side, and she was
able at length to extend her jurisdiction into the larger territory
still farther to the eastward. The story of those added endeavors
is one of very deep interest, but it belongs to a period outside
of that which this present volume is restricted.
Footnotes. 1. Baxter, George Cleeve, Collateral Documents, 301-303.
2. Ib., 303-306. |
