CHAPTER IX.
THE FIGHT FOR FREE FISHING.
But while Gorges and those associated with him in the administration of the affairs of the northern colony had failed in all their efforts to plant permanent settlements on the coast of Maine, the southern colony in Virginia, notwithstanding many difficulties, had succeeded in obtaining there, a firm foothold. But the Virginia colonists lacked the fishing privileges that attracted their own vessels, as well as vessels from England, to the waters in the vicinity of Monhegan; and they desired to extend their boundaries farther north so as to bring the fisheries of the northern colony within their own limits. Accordingly, after the breaking up of the Popham colony, the Council of wrote to the Mayor and Aldermen of Plymouth1 inviting them, inasmuch as on account of "the coldness of the climate and other connatural necessities" their "good beginnings" had not "so well succeeded as so worthy intentions and labors did merit", to unite with them in their efforts farther down the coast, where the conditions, as they viewed them, were more favorable. But the members of the Plymouth company, although greatly disappointed and discouraged by the return of the Popham colonists to England, were not ready to abandon their interests.
Long continued ill success, however, had had a depressing effect upon all of them, and Captain John Smith, in recording his experiences in connection with the Plymouth company, had some reason for his assertion that the Charter of the company was virtually dead.2
IT WAS NOT DEAD.
Nevertheless, it was not dead; but there was need of the influence of new forces, and a revival of colonial interests in the west-
Footnotes.
1. Calendar of the Plymouth Municipal Records, R.N. Worth, F.G.S., 203.
2. General Historie, Richmond, Virginia, Edition II, 177.
THE FIGHT FOR FREE FISHING.
p.145
ern countries of England, if anything was to be accomplished in connection with the Charter. Some important lessons had been learned from the London or South Virginia company, which twice (in 1609 and 1612) had secured an enlargement of its privileges, and was now enjoying considerable prosperity. Accordingly, an application for a like enlargment was made by the Plymouth company, March 3, 1619. After mention of the "great charge and extreme hazard" that had attended the efforts of the Company in its "continued endeavor to discover a place fit to entertain such a design, as also to find the means to bring to pass so noble a work", the company asked for like privileges as the Virginia company." In response to this request a warrant was obtained for a patent giving to the adventurers of the northern colony "like liberties, privileges, powers, authorities, lands ..... as were heretofore granted to the company of Virginia", with an
exception as to freedom of customs.2
THE GREAT PATENT OF NEW ENGLAND.
Notwithstanding opposition on the part of the Virginia Company, a patent, known as the "Great Patent of New England", was issued by King James I, November 3, 1620, to the "Council established at Plymouth in the County of Deven, England, for the planting, ruling, ordering and governing of New England in America."3
Gorges, who had been prominent in the affairs of the Plymouth company, as long as it had any affairs, was no less prominent in this new movement, cherishing the hope that he might yet secure the ends at which he had aimed with so much labor and loss.
Evidently he had given to many men of influence within his circle of friends sound reasons for securing an enlargment of privileges by a re-incorporation of the Plymouth company; but now, he says, "I was bold to offer the sounder considerations to divers of his Majesty's honorable privy council, who had so good liking thereunto, as they willingly became interested themselves therein
Footnotes.
1. Farnham Papers, I, 15-18.
2. Ib., 18, 19.
3. Ib., 20-45.
p.146
as patentees and counselors for the managing of the business, by whose favors I had the easier passage in the obtaining his majesty's royal charter to be granted us according to his warrant to the then solicitor-general."1 This proposed re-incorporation of the Plymouth company, whose territorial limits were from the thirty-eighth degree north latitude to the forty-fifth, changed those limits so that they included the territory from the fortieth degree to the forty-eighth, and from the Atlantic westward to the Pacific.
THIRTEEN PEERS OF THE REALM.
Its affairs were entrusted to forty-eight patentees, thirteen of whom were Peers of the Realm, and all men of distinction. They were to have not only the planting, ruling and governing of this vast territory, but they were also "to have and to hold, possess and enjoy" the firm lands, soils, grounds, havens, ports, rivers, waters, fishing, mines and minerals, as well royal mines of gold and silver, or other mine and minerals, precious stones, quarries and all, and singular other commodities, jurisdictions, royalties, privileges, franchises and pre-eminencies, both within the same tract of land upon the main, and also within the said islands and the seas adjoining.2
COUNCIL FOR NEW ENGLAND.
RESTRICTIONS.
No other of the King's subjects could enter and visit any of the ports of New England in America, or trade or traffic therein, without a license from the Council for New England, on penalty of the forfeiture of both ships and goods.
THE REIGN OF QUEEN ELIZABETH.
To a certain extent monopolies had flourished during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. In fact, toward the close of her reign, they flourished to such an extent that, as Macaulay2 says, "There was scarce a family in the realm which did not feel itself aggrieved by the oppression and extortion which this abuse naturally caused.
Iron, oil, vinegar, coal, saltpetre, lead, starch, yarn, skins, leather, glass, could be bought only at exhorbitant prices". This condition of affairs aroused strong opposition and in the Parliament of 1601, the first great battle with monopoly was successfully fought
Footnotes.
1. Gorges, Briefe Narration. Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of Maine, II, 30, 31.
2. Farnham Papers, I, 33.
3. History of England, I, 49.
p.147
THE FIGHT FOR FREE FISHING.
in the House of Commons, the Queen, with admirable tact, placing herself at the head of the party redressing the grievance, and leaving to her successor, says Macaulay, "a memorable example of the way to deal with public movements".
KING JAMES.
But, King James, a stout asserter of royal perogatives, did not follow Queen Elizabeth's wise, tactful example. Gorges, who was a most devoted Loyalist, had the King's ear, as well as the ears of those nearest to the throne; and in the patent of 1620, a gigantic monopoly was created. In the patent of 1606, the privilege of "fishings" was conferred upon the patentees; but this may have meant "fishings" in rivers and ponds only and not in the seas adjoining the main.
THE PATENT OF 1620.
In the patent of 1620, however, the words "seas adjoining"1 are used in connection with the privileges granted, and "sea waters" in connection with "fishings".
THE VIRGINIA COMPANY.
SIR EDWIN SANDYS.
The southern, or, Virginia Company, was the first to protest against such a denial of the rights of free fishing on the seas. Early information concerning the privileges for which Gorges and his associates asked, seems to have reached the members of the Virginia company; and the treasurer of the company, Sir Edwin Sandys, at a meeting held on March 15th, only a few days after Gorges and his associates made their request for a new Charter, called the attention of the members of the company to the purposes of the northern company; and a committee was appointed to appear before the privy council on the following day, and protest against this attempt to overthrow the right of free fishing on the New England coast.2
THE DUKE OF LENNOX & THE EARLY OF ARUNDELL.
At the interview, Gorges was present. As a result of the conference, the matter at issue was referred to two members of the Council, the Duke of Lennox and the Earl of Arundell, both of whom were interested in the re-incorporation of the Plymouth company. In their report they suggested and recommended a modification of the Charter, so that each company should have the right to fish within the limits of the other, with the provision that
Footnotes. 1. Farnham Papers, I, 33.
2. Narrative and Critical History of the United States, III, 297.
p.148
THE GREAT PATENT OF NEW ENGLAND - 1620.
such fishing should be "for the sustentation of the people of the colonies there". This was not acceptable to either company, and council, its members confirmed the recommendation of March 16th; and July 23, 1620, the warrant for the preparation of a patent for the northern company was granted by the King and the issue of the great patent of New England followed, November 3, 1620.
THE MONOPOLY CREATED.
MONHEGAN AND DAMARISCOVE, MAINE.
HARBOR OF PLYMOUTH, ENGLAND OR, SUTTON'S POOL
But the Sough Virginia company was not the only party affected by the monopoly thus created. Far heavier was the blow that now fell on the merchants of Plymouth, Bristol and other western Ports of England - whose vessels, in increasing numbers, now made their way, annually, to Monhegan and Damariscove (Maine). As from the ancient harbor of Plymouth, England, known as Sutton's Pool1 from whence the Mayflower colony sailed in 1620 2 - fishing vessels at the pres-
Footnotes. 1. Plymouth, England, is on the south side of the rive, Plym, and was called by the Saxons, Tameorworth, and afterwards, Sutton or South-Town, and was divided into Sutton Prior and Sutton Ralph. As far back as 1383, it had occasionally received the name of Plymouth, England, and in a petition to Parliament in 1411, it was called Sutton. In the reign of King Henry II, it was little more than a small fishing village; but in 1253, it had grown into such importance that a market was established there. In 1377, only three towns in England had a larger population, viz., London, York and Bristol, England. Historical, Practical and Theoretical Account of the Breakwater at Plymouth Sound, England, by Sir John Rennie, F. R. S., 5.
Footnote 2. There is no spot in Plymouth, England, of so great interest to a native of New England, as the pier whence the ship Mayflower sailed on her memorable voyage. For many years befor 1620, hardy Plymouth fishermen had passed this entrance to Sutton's Pool, as they left Plymouth, England on their way to Monhegan and the waters of the Maine coast. In the pavement in the middle of this pier is this record:
MAYFLOWER COMPACT
1620.
INSERT.
http://www.themayflowersociety.com/pilgrim.htm
Mayflower Compact 1620
Agreement Between the Settlers at New Plymouth : 1620
IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience.
IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini; 1620.
Mr. John Carver
Mr. William Bradford
Mr Edward Winslow
Mr. William Brewster
Isaac Allerton
Myles Standish*
John Alden
John Turner
Francis Eaton
James Chilton John Craxton
John Billington
Moses Fletcher
John Goodman
Mr. Samuel Fuller
Mr. Christopher Martin
Mr. William Mullins
Mr. William White
Mr. Richard Warren
John Howland
Mr. Steven Hopkins Digery Priest
Thomas Williams
Gilbert Winslow
Edmund Margesson
Peter Brown
Richard Britteridge
George Soule
Edward Tilly
John Tilly
Francis Cooke
Thomas Rogers
Thomas Tinker
John Ridgdale
Edward Fuller
Richard Clark
Richard Gardiner
Mr. John Allerton
Thomas English
Edward Doten
Edward Liester
http://www.themayflowersociety.com/pilgrim.htm
MYLES STANDISH
MYLES STANDISH
New England Marriages Prior to 1700 by Clarence Almon Torrey.
p.700
Alexander Standish (ca 1626-1702) & 1st wife, Sarah (Alden) (1629-1685?) d. many years before
1686?) ca. 1650/2? Duxbury?
Alexander Standish (ca 1626-1702) & 2nd wife, Desire (Doty) (Sherman) Holmes (ca 1645-1732) w William, w Israel; 1686?; Marshfield.
Ebenezer Standish (1672-1755) & Hannah Sturtevant ca 1679-1759; b. 1698, Plympton.
James Standish (-1679) & Sarah ____? who m. (2) Richard Hutchinson ?1670, 1679?; m. (3) Thomas Root, 1682, 1683, ca 1638/1640? Salem/Manchester/Lynn.
Josiah Standish (-1690) & 1st wife, Mary Dingley (-1655, 1665) Dec 19, 1654, Marshfield.
Josiah Standish (-1690) & 2nd wife, Sarah (Allen)? (1639-); after July 1, 1665, Duxbury/Preston, CT. Myles Standish (1584-1656) & 1st wife Rose ____? (-1621); b. 1620; Plymouth.
Myles Standish (1584-1656) & 2nd wife Barbara (Allen)? (-1659+) between July, 1623 & April 3, 1624; Plymouth/Duxbury.
Myles Standish (-1663) & Sarah Winslow (1638, 1636-1726) m. (2) Tobias Paine, 1665; m. (3) Richard Middlecot 1673; July 19, 1660, no issue - Boston.
Myles Standish & & Mehitable (Cary) Adams (1670-) w. of Eliashib; Dec 5, 1700; Bristol, R.I./Preston, Conn.
Thomas Standish1 (1612-1692) & 2nd wife, Susanna Smith (1624-1692); b. 1660; Wethersfield, CT. Thomas Standish (1660-1735) & 1st wife, Mary Church (-1705) m. Mar 20, 1690; 1689/90?; Wethersfield, Conn.
Transcribed by Janice Farnsworth
The Last Will and Testament of Myles Standish.
March 7, 1655
The Last Will and Testament of Captaine Myles Standish, exhibited before the Court held att Plymouth, Mass. the 4th of May, 1657 on the oath of Captain James Cudworth; and ordered to bee recorded as followeth:
Given under my hand this March 7th 1655, witnesseth these prsents tha I Myles Standish, Snr. of Duxburrow being in perfect memory yett deseased in my body and knowing the fraile estate of man in his best estate, I doe make this to to be my last will and Testament in manor and forme following:
1. My will is that out of my whole estate my funerall charges be taken out & my body to be buried in decent manor andif I die att Duxburrow my body to bee layed as neare as conveniently may bee to my two daughters Lora Standish &Mary Standish my daughter-in-law.
2. My Will is that out of the remaining parte of my whole estate that all my just and lawful debts which I now owe or att the day of my death owe, bee paied.
3.
4. I have given to my son Josias Standish upon his marriage one young horse, five sheep and two heiffers which I must upon the contract of marriage make forty pounds yett not knowing whether the estate will bear it att prsent, my Will is that the resedue remaie in the whole stocke and that every one of my four sons, viz, Allexander Standish, Myles Standish and Charles Standish may have forty pounds appeec; if not that they have proportionable to ye remaining parte be it more or lesse.
5. My Will is that my oldest son Allexander shall have a double share in land.
6. My will is that soe long as they live single that the whole bee in partnership betwixt them
7. I do ordaine and make my dearly beloved wife Barbara Standis, Alexander Standish, Myles Standish and Josias Standish joynt exequitors of this my last Will and Testament.
8. I doe by this my Will make and appoint m y loveing friends Mr. Timothy Hatherley and Captain James Cudworth supervisors of this my last Will and that they wil bee pleased to do the office of Christian love to bee helpful to my poor wife and children by theire Christian counsell and advise; and if any difference should arise which I hope will not, my Will is that my said supervissors shall determine the same and that they see that my poor wife shall have as comfortable maintainance as my poor state will beare the whole time of her life which if you my loveing friends pleasse to doe though neighter they nor I shall bee abel to recompence. I doe not doubt but the Lord will; by mee Myles Standish.
Further My Will is that Marcye Robenson whome I tenderly love for her grandfather's sake shall have three pounds in something to goe forward for her two yeares after my decease which my Will is my overseers shall see performed.
Further, my will is that my servant John Irish, Jr., have forty shillings more than his Covenant which will appear upon the towne booke alwaies provided that hee continue till the time he convenanted be expired in the service of my executors or any of them with theire joynt concent. March 7th, 1655 by mee, Myles Standish
THE BEGINNINGS OF COLONIAL MAINE.
THE SHIP, MAYFLOWER.
1620.
In the wall on the seaward side of the pier, a bronze tablet bears this inscription:
"On the 6th of September, 1620, in the mayoralty of Thomas Townes, after being kindly entertained and courteously used by divers friends there dwelling, the Pilgrim Fathers sailed from Plymouth, England in the ship, Mayflower, in the providence of God, to settle in New England and to lay the foundation of the New England States. The ancient causeway, whence they embarked
p.149
THE FIGHT FOR FREE FISHING.
THE LITTLE HARBORS AT MONHEGAN AND DAMARISCOVE, MAINE.
present time sail out of its narrow entrance on their way to their accustomed fishing grounds, so was it then. So also was it with fishing vessels then, as now, at Bristol, England, whence John Cabot sailed on his voyage of discovery in 1497. For nearly a score of years, at least, the great value of the fisheries on the coast of Maine had been sufficiently attested to the people of England by both explorers and fishermen, and the little harbor at Monhegan, Maine and that at Damariscove, as well as the waters about these islands, presented busy scenes as vessels from England's ports came hither with each opening spring. Not only, therefore, did this assault upon free fishing call forth the protest of the Virginia colonists, but it aroused a feeling of intense indignation on the part of the merchants and fishermen conected with the fishing interests of the western counties of England; and with united voices they insisted, "Fishing is free!" The state of feeling in Plymouth, England, and vicinity, found strong expression in the following letter1 addressed to Cranfield, the Lord Treasurer of England, February 12, 1621:
LETTER TO LORD CRANFIELD, LORD TREASURER OF ENGLAND.
FEBRUARY 12, 1621.
"It pleased your Honor upon the motion of Sir Warwic Hele, to signify your pleasure that our ships bound on their fishing voyages for the northern parts of Virginia should not be stayed, or interrupted in their proceedings as was by some, intended, for which your humble favor the inhabitants of this town, and others in these western parts do acknowledge themselves much bound to your Lordship; yet seeing some threats have been given out by Sir Fernando Gorges, either to disturb the poor men in their present voyages, or to procure their trouble in their return, and being that it is suspected he is now in pursuit of such his intention; we, being assured that no such thing can be
Footnotes continued from above.
was destroyed not many years afterwards; but the site of their embarkation is marked by the stone bearing the name of the Mayflower in the pavement of the adjacent pier. This tablet was erected in the mayoralty of J. T. Bond, 1891, to commemorate their departure and the visit to Plymouth in July of that year of a number of their descendants and representatives."
1. Public Records Office, London, England, I. S. P. Dom. King James, V., 127, 92.
p.150
effected, but your Honor must have notice thereof, both in respect your Lordship is a patentee in that patent for New England, as also in regard of your other honorable places, we humbly beseech your Lordship that you would be pleased to give order that nothing be done against us in this business until we have been heard both for the interest we have in regard of your former adventures and employments that way, and the general estate of these western parts of the Realm, having little or no other means left to them for employment of their people and shipping. Humbly submitting the consideration hereof to your Honor's grave wisdom, do in all duty, remain, Your Honor's to be commanded,
John Bownd, Mayor.
Also: ROBERT RAWLIN
THOMAS SHERWILL
JAMES BAGG
NICHOLAS SHERWILL
LEONARD POMERY
THOMAS TOWNES
JOHN SCOBETT.
Plymouth, England, this 12th of February, 1621.
THE RIGHT OF EVERY ENGLISHMAN TO FREE FISHING UPON THE SEAS.
The feeling was intense not only at Plymouth, England but in
Bristol, England and other seaport towns. The monopoly thus created meant to each English fishing vessel on the New England coast, a charge of about eighty-three cents a ton, which, considering the probable average size of the fishing vessels of the period, was a demand of more than one hundred dollars for each vessel.1 Moreover, the right to take wood for the erection of stages and other uses, was denied, a matter of importance to all fishing vessels making their way hither. In response to this popular uprising against Gorges and his associates, the British House of Commons, more responsive to popular feeling than ever before, became the field on which was to be fought the battle in behalf of the immemorial right of every Englishman to free fishing upon the seas.
Footnotes.
1. Sabine, Report of the Principal Fisheries of the American Seas, 43. In 1623, Melshare Bennet of Barnstable, England, paid to the Plymouth Council, �162, 13s, 4d, for a fishing license for his ship, the Eagle, Witheridge, Ship's Master. The vessel was on the coast of Maine in that season. Maine Historical Society's Collection, Series I, 5, 186,
p.151
PARLIAMENT'S ACT FOR FREER LIBERTY OF FISHING & FISHING VOYAGES.
1621.
For the first time in seven years, Parliament met January 16, 1621. The matter of monopoly received early attention, and, April 17th, following, an act was introduced, entitled "An act for the freer liberty of fishing and fishing voyages, to be made and performed on the sea-coasts and places of Newfoundland, Virginia and New England and other coasts and parts of America".1
Discussion followed April 25, 1621, and was opened by Sir Edwin Sandys. Two colonies, the northern and the southern, he said, had been granted land in America. The southern colony, at an expense of one hundred thousand pounds, had established a foothold there.
THE NORTHERN COLONY, KNOWN AS NEW ENGLAND.
The northern colony had not been as successful; but it now desired to proceed in its territory known as New England, on whose coast there is fishing twice a year and far better than at Newfoundland. As the new patent of this company confers upon the patentees, the sole right to fish there, the attention of the King has been called to the matter and he has stayed the delivery of the patent. By reason of the monopoly thus secured, English fishermen are denied their free fishing rights, a loss to them and to the nation, for the privilege costs the Kingdom nothing, while these fisheries give employment to men and ships and secure a profitable cash trade with Spain, fish being an article of food that can lawfully be carried to Spanish ports. He therefore moved "free liberty for all the King's subjects for fishing there", saying it was "pitiful that Englishmen should be denied a liberty enjoyed by the French and the Dutch, who come and will fish there, notwithstanding the Company's monopoly - and he added, "The northern company also prohibiteth timber and wood, which is of no worth there, and they take away the salt the merchants leave."
Mr. Glanvyle, continuing the debate, thought there should be some government control of the fishermen, who "spoil havens with casting out ballast", etc.
Secretary Calvert said the sub-committee had not heard the other side. The fishermen are hinderers of the plantations.
Footnotes.
1. Journal of the House of Commons, I, 591, 592. The discussion is reported in brief as was the custom at that early period.
p.152
"They burn a great store of wood and choke the havens", as mentioned. While he would not strain the King's prerogative against the good of the Commonwealth, at the same time, he did not think it fit to make laws for those countries that have not as yet been annexed to the crown.
Mr. Neale said that at least three hundred vessels had gone to Newfoundland this year out of these parts. Earlier complains had been made to the Lords and the Council. No public good but private gains were sought by the monopolists. From the time of King Edward VI, there had been liberty for all subjects to fish in American waters. In various ways the fishermen had been hindered. London merchants, by restraining trade, and imposing upon trade, undo all trade.
Mr. Guy thought the London merchants were to be commended, "howsoever their greediness in other things" was an occasion for complaint. He claimed that the King, by his Great Seal, had already done as much as could be done by the act now before the House. Provision might be made for the fishermen to secure wood and timber.
Mr. Brooks said, "We may make laws here for Virginia; for if the King consents to this Bill, passed here by the Lords, such action will control the patent".
It was then voted to commit the Bill to Sir Edwin Sandys for a hearing upon the matter by the Burgesses of London, York and the seaport towns of England - "all that will come to have voice, this day seven-night exchequer changer". So far as is known, this meeting was not reported; but that it was held hardly admits of doubt, so strong was the popular feeling in the communities interested in the proposed Bill.
May 24, 1621, Mr. Earle reported the Bill for Free Fishing upon the Coast of America, also amendments, which, with the bill, were twice read.1 Mr. Guy claimed that the Bill pretended to make fishing free, but in fact, it took this liberty away from those who had established themselves at Newfoundland. This, Mr. Neale
Footnote. 1. Journal of the House of Commons, I, 626.
p.153
denied. Secretary Calvert again raised the objection that the Bill was "not proper for this House, because it concerned America". The fishermen must be ruled by laws. He would have the word "unlawful" added to the word "molestation". This was done. After added discussion by Sir Edward Sandys and Sir Edward Gyles, the bill was recommitted.
Further action with reference to the Bill was delayed, however, by a message received by the House of Commons from the House of Lords, June 4, 1621, conveying the information that the King, under the Great Seal of England, had sent a commission adjourning Parliament until November 14th. The commission had been read and the House of Lords had adjourned. It was his Majesty's pleasure, it was added, that all matters before Parliament should be left in the same state as at present. The announcement evidently greatly embittered the opponents of the King and Sir Robert Philips objected to the reading of the King's missive. Then, according to the Journal of the House of Commons, "Mr. Speaker letteth them know that this House taketh notice of his Majesty's pleasure, by his commission for the adjournment of Parliament, and that the House will adjourn itself accordingly".
After proceedings expressive of indignation and even derision,1 the speaker declared the House adjourned until November 14, 1621.
Notwithstanding the strong opposition to the patent in that it gave the sole right of fishing on the American coast to the patentees, the privy council, November 18, passed an order delivering the patent to Sir Ferdinando Gorges, with a provision that both the northern and southern companies should have like freedom for drying nets, taking and curing fish, also wood for necessary uses; the patent to be renewed in accordance with these premises, and the southern company to have the privilege of examining the
Footnote.
1. "Then Sir Edward Coke, standing up, desired the House to say (after him) and he recited the collect for the King and his children, with some alteration:
"Oh Almighty God, which hath promised to be" - Journal of the House of Commons, I. 639.
p.154
patent before it was engrossed and delivered to the patentees.1
Parliament re-assembled in November according to adjournment, and November 20, it being represented that Gorges had executed a patent, since the recess,2 and had by letters from the Lords of the Council not only stayed,3 the fishing vessels ready to sail, but had "threatened to send out ships to beat them off from their free fishing", Mr. Glanvyle moved to speed the Bill for free fishing on the coast of America. Sir Edward Coke also asked that the patent4 should be laid before the Committee for Grievances.5
JOHN PIERCE.
THE MAYFLOWER COLONISTS.
CAPTAIN JOHN MASON.
NOVA SCOTIA, 1621.
June 1, 1621, the Council for New England had issued a patent to John Pierce and his associates - the patent for the Mayflower colonists. Furthermore, the King, influenced by Captain John Mason6 who was now in London, had requested Gorges in "a gracious message" to hae the council for New England convey the northern part of the territory he had granted to the Council for New England to Sir William Alexander, which was done, and it was confirmed to him by a Royal Charter, September 10, 1621, the territory receiving the designation, Nove Scotia.7. Evidently it was supposed, that though the New England patent had
Footnotes.
1. Narrative and Critical History of the United States, III, 299.
2. The reference is to the Pilgrim patent which was grant- to John Pierce, June 1, 1621 by the Council for New England, not by Gorges. Doubtless its source was attributed to Gorges because he was so prominent in the Council's affairs, and also because of his prominence in securing the patent. In this patent, the Pilgrims received "free liberty to fish in and upon the coast of New England" – a recognition of the Council's monopoly. Strictly stated, the patent was issued three days before the recess occurred.
3. "This was true", said Sir W. Heale; "but my Lord Treasurer hath given order that the ships shall go forth presently without stay". Journal of the House of Commons, I, 641.
4. The reference is to the great patent for New England.
5. The Journal of the House of Commons, I, 646.
6. He had been Governor of a plantation in Newfoundland. His term of office having expired, he returned to England. For an extended account of his various activities, especially later in connection with interest of Sir Ferdinando Gorges on this side of the Atlantic, see Captain John Mason, edited by John Ward Dean and published by the Prince Society, Boston, 1887.
7. Sir Ferdinando Gorges, II, 55, 56.
Insert - Bond's Watertown, Index - page references for John Mason of Watertown, Mass. pp. 357, Volume I JOHN MASON, WATERTOWN, was son of Capt. Hugh Mason - John Mason m. Elizabeth Hammond. Among other children, first child was John Mason b. 1677 m. Elizabeth Spring and their 1st child was John Mason b. 1701 who m. Lydia Loring.
p.155
passed the Seals, its delivery to the Council for New England had been stopped pending the consideration of the grievances it had called forth and which had been received by the House of Commons. The Bill for free fishing was again before the House, on December 1, 1621, when Mr. Guy tendered a proviso in "parchment", insisting that the Bill took away "trade of fishing from those who are inhabitants of Newfoundland".
Secretary Calvert was of the opinion that without this proviso the Bill would never receive Royal assent. Mr. Sherwell and Mr. Glanvyle were opposed to the proviso and it was rejected. The Bill was then passed.
On February 19, 1624, there is no record in the Journal of the House of Commons after December 18, 1621. The reason is not far to seek. On that day, the members of the House, alleging that the King had threatened that body for exercising liberty of speech, entered in the Journal their famous
"Protestation"
THE ENGLISH BIRTHRIGHT.
in which they declared "That the liberties, franchises, privileges and jurisdictions of Parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England, and that the arduous and urgent affairs concerning the King, the State and defence of the Realm, and of the Church of England and the making and maintenance of Laws and Redress of grievances, which daily happen within this Realm, are proper subjects and matter of Council and debate in Parliament".2 The significance of this declaration, the King clearly saw, and he answered it with a characteristic exhibition of passion. Having sent for the
Footnotes.
1. The Journal of the House of Commons, I, 668, 669. Gorges (Baxter, Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of Maine, II, 35-43) says he appeared three times before the House of Commons concerning this free-fishing matter (the 2nd and 3rd time with Counsel) and gives quite a vivid account of the proceedings in connection with his appearance.
2. Green, A Shorter History of the English People, 492, 493.
p.156
THE KING'S EXHIBITION OF TEMPER.
Sir Edward Coke & Sir Robert Philips committed to the Tower.
journal, he tore out the pages1 on which the "Protestation" was recorded, saying, "I will govern according to the common weal, but not accord-to the common will". This, however was not the limit of the King's exhibition of temper. Having dissolved Parliament he immediately proceeded to inflict punishment upon the most conspicuous leaders of the House of Commons. Sir Edward Coke and Sir Robert Philips were committed to the Tower, while those less conspicuous were made
But Gorges and those associated with him in the Council for New England, while recognizing "these troubles" as "unfortunately falling out",2 still relied on the assistance of the King in maintaining their Charter privileges, especially as Parliament had been dissolved, and they no longer felt the restraints of popular feeling manifested in the House of Commons.
Fishing in the waters of Monhegan & Damariscove, Maine.
CAPTAIN FRANCIS WEST.
Meanwhile, however, without securing license form the Council, fishermen were taking fish as formerly, in the waters in the vicinity of Monhegan and Damariscove; and the council adopted measures for bringing "these troubles", if possible, to an end. Robert Gorges,2 a younger son of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, was sent to New England as Governor and Lieutenant General of the territory conveyed to them by their patent. And hither, also came Captain Francis West,
MESSACHUSIACK.
MASSACHUSETTS.
Footnotes.
1. "The Commons put themselves on their strongest ground when they entered in the Journals of the House, a just and sober protestation of their privilege to speak freely on all subjects. King James put himself as much as possible in the wrong, when he sent for the book and tore out the page with his own hand". Trevelyan, England Under the Stuarts, 127.
2. He brought with him a patent from the Council for New England, granted November 3, 1622 for "all that part of the mainland in New England aforesaid, commonly called, or known by the name of Messachusiack, (MASSACHUSETTS).... for ten miles in a straight line towards the northeast....and thirty English miles unto the main land ... to be executed according to the Great Charter of England and such laws as shall hereafter be established by public authority of the state assembled in Parliament in New England". Baxter, Sir Ferdinando Gorges, II, 51-54. The return of Robert Gorges to England, after a brief stay, led to the abandonment of this patent.
p.157
REV. WILLIAM MORRELL.
who was made Admiral of New England, and the Reverend William Morrell, who was to superintend the establishment of churches in New England in connection with the Church of England. Bradford 1 says West preceded Gorges, arriving at the end of June, 1623, while Governor Gorges reached the coast in the middle of of September.2 West had authority "to restrain interlopers, and such fishing ships as come to fish and trade without a license from the Council of New England, for which they should pay a round sum of money. But he could do no good of them, for they were too strong for him, and he found the fishermen to be stubborn fellows".3
Unable to accomplish anything, therefore, West4 made his way back to England not long after, as also did Gorges, "having scarcely saluted the country in his government", says Bradford, "not finding the state of things here to answer to his quality and condition".5
King James' fourth Parliament assembled February 19, 1624. March 15th, following, "An act for the freer liberty of fishing", previously introduced,6 was committed to a large committee on grievances, of which Sir Edward Coke was chairman. Two days later the committee reported 7 that it had condemned one grievance, namely, that occasioned by Sir Ferdinando Gorges' patent.8 Coun-
COLONEL FRANCIS WEST.
Footnotes.
1. Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation, 178.
2. Bradford, Ib., 169.
3. Ib, 169, 170.
4. West accompanied Newport to Virginia in 1608, and was elected a member of the council in the following year. He was Commander at Jamestown many years. Having returned to England, he received the appointment that brought him to New England in 1623. After he returned to England, he again went to Virginia, where he was elected Governor in 1627, and was continued in office until March 5, 1627. He is not mentioned in Virginia records after February, 1633. A Colonel Francis West was lieutenant of the Tower in London in 1645, and he may be the one to whom reference is here made. Brown, Genesis of the United States, II, 1047.
5. Bradford, History, 184.
6. The Bill, passed by the House of Commons, December 1, 1621, was not acted upon by the House of Lords and so failed.
7. Journal of the House of Commons, I, 688.
8. Here, also, the reference is to the great patent for New England. See Journal of the House of Commons, I, 738.
p.158
sel for Gorges were heard. As to the clause in the patent, dated November 3, 1620, that no subject of England shall visit the coast upon pain of forfeiture of the ship and goods,1 the patentees had yielded; the English fishermen were not to be interrupted, and were to have the privilege of drying their nets, salting their fish, and of whatever was "incident to their fishing", including necessary wood and timber.
That the Council for New England had yielded, however, did not satisfy its opponents in the House of Commons. They wished by higher authority to make void the objectionable clauses in the patent. When, therefore, the Bill came up for final action in the House, May 3, 1624, Sir Edward Coke maintained in the debate that the part of the patent forbidding free fishing should be condemned; that it made "a monopoly upon the sea which was wont to be free, that it was a monopoly attempted of the wind and sun by the sole packing and drying of fish". Secretary Calvert said that "free fishing, prayed for by this Bill, overthrows all plantations in those countries". In other words, it was of no advantage for the patentee to hold lands on the New England coast, unless the fishing rights in the adjoining coast waters were his. All opposition, however, proved unavailing. At the close of the debate, the amendments proposed by the opponents of the bill were rejected and the Bill was passed.2
Evidently it was not expected by the members of the House of Commons that the Lords would sustain this action, or take any notice of it; and on May 28, 1624, the House adddressed a letter to the King calling his attention to the grievances they had sustained, and its source in the King's patent of November 3, 1620, whereby all his subjects visiting that part of the coast of New England to which fishing vessels were wont to resort were forbidden to fish without a license from the patentees on penalty of a forfeiture of ship and goods.
The trade of fishing, the Commons maintained, was a most beneficial one for the Realm. Shipping
Footnotes.
1. Farnham Papers, I, 37.
2. The Journal of the House of Commons, I, 795.
p.159
thereby was enlarged; there was an increase in the number of seamen, and the commerce of the Kingdom was more widely extended; furthermore, the Council had agreed to relinquish the monopoly which the great patent created, and of which complaint had been made. It was asked, therefore, that the King would be pleased to declare the patent, so far as free fishing was forbidden, also the incidents thereunto, including the confiscation of ships and good, together with the restraints and penalties that followed, "void and against your laws and never hereafter to be put in execution".1
If King James I paid any attention to this address, there is no known record of the fact. The King evidently was not in a mood for any such action on his part. He could not, or would not, read the handwriting on the wall. But Gorges and his associates in the Council for New England kept their promise to the House of Commons; and the English fishermen in the vicinity of Monhegan, Maine, were allowed to continue their labors unmolested.
The battle in their interest had been won, and not only had the voice of the people been heard in the voice of the House of Commons, but it had been recognized and heeded. Both were voices that were soon to become more and more insistent, and with reference to larger popular demands.
Footnotes.
1. I.S.P. Domestic, King James I, Vol. CLXV, 53, Public Records Office, London. This document has received no attention from English historians. It has this title: "Address of the House of Commons, presenting the grievances of which they request redress, viz.: I. Sir Ferdinando Gorges' patent for sole fishing on the coasts of New England, May 28, 1624. Against a patent restraining fishing on the sea coast of New England." On the back of the leaf are the words, "The Petition to the King to moderate Sir Ferdinando Gorge's patent". Plainly it was the denial that fishing is free that made the fishing grievance the most prominent of all grievances to which the House of Commons directed attention. |
