XII. to decide on the claims of the resident settlers to the CHAP land which they occupied, but denied to Massachusetts the right of jurisdiction over Maine and New Hamp- 1677 shire. The decision was so manifestly in conformity with English law, that the colonial agents attempted no serious defence. The provinces being thus severed from the governinent of Massachusetts, King Charles was willing to secure them as an appanage for his reputed son, the kind-hearted, but worthless duke of Monmouth, the Absalom of that day, whose weakness was involved in a dishonest opposition to his father, and whom frivolous ambition at last conducted to the scaffold. It was thought that the united provinces would furnish a noble principality with an immediate and increasing revenue. But before the monarch, whom extravagance had impoverished, could resolve on a negotiation, Massachusetts, through the agency of a Boston merchant, obtained possession of the claims of Gorges, by a purchase and regular assignment. The price paid was May £1250-about six thousand dollars. It was never doubted that a proprietary could alienate the soil; it was subsequently questioned whether the rights of government could be made a subject of traffic. This assignment was the cause of a series of relations, which, in part, continue to the present day. In a pecuniary point of view, no transaction could have been for Massachusetts more injurious; for it made her a frontier state, and gave her the most extensive and most dangerous frontier to defend. But Massachusetts did not, at this time, come into possession of the whole territory which now constitutes the state of Maine. France, under the treaty 6. XII. CHAP of Breda, claimed and occupied the district from St Croix to the Penobscot; the duke of York held the tract between the Penobscot and the Kennebeck, claiming, indeed, to own the whole tract between the Kennebeck and the St. Croix; while Massachusetts was proprietary only of the district between the Kennebeck and the Piscataqua. A novel form of political institution ensued. Massachusetts, in her corporate capacity, was become the lord proprietary of Maine; the little republic on the banks of the Charles was the feudal sovereign of this eastern lordship. Maine had thus far been represented in the Massachusetts house of representatives; henceforward she was to be governed as a province, according to the charter to Gorges. In obedience to an ordinance of the general court, the governor and 680 assistants of Massachusetts proceeded to organize the government of Maine. The president and council were appointed by the magistrates of Massachusetts; at the same time, a popular legislative branch was established, composed of deputies from the several towns in the district. Danforth, the president, was a man of worth and republican principles; yet the pride of the province was offended by its subordination; the old religious differences had not lost their influence; and royalists and churchmen prayed for the interposition of the king.' Massachusetts was compelled to employ force to assert its sovereignty, which, nevertheless, was exercised with moderation and justice.2 1 Sullivan's Maine, 384. Wiliamson, i. 557, &c. Hutch. Coll. Mass. Records, iv. 2 Chalmers, 488: "No assembly, of which the representatives of the people composed a constituent part, was allowed because none had been mentioned in the origina: grant." An assembly was regularly held. Williamson's Maine, i. 566, &c. The reason assigned is as unfounded as the statement in Chal mers. In the grant of 1639, the assent of the majority of the free XII. The change of government in New Hampshire was CHAP less quietly effected. On the first apprehension that the claim of Mason would be revived, the infant 1675. people, assembling in town-meetings, expressed their content with the government of Massachusetts. But the popular wish availed little in the decision of a question of law; the patent of Mason was duly inves tigated in England; it was found that he had no righ to jurisdiction over New Hampshire; the unappro- 1677 priated lands were allowed to belong to him; but the rights of the settlers to the soil which they actually occupied, were reserved for litigation in colonial courts.' 24 To further that end, a new jurisdiction was estab- 1679 July lished; New Hampshire was separated from Massachusetts, and organized as a royal province. It was the first royal government ever established in New England. The king, reserving a negative voice to himself and his officers, engaged to continue the privilege of an assembly, unless he or his heirs should deem that privilege" an inconvenience." The persons first named by the king to the offices of president and council, were residents of the colony, and friends to the colonists; but, perceiving that their appointment had no other object than to render the transition to a new form of government less intolerable, they accepted office reluctantly. Mar At length a general assembly was convened at 1680 Portsmouth. Its letter to Massachusetts is a testimony 16 of its gratitude. "We acknowledge your care for us,” -it was thus that the feeble colony addressed its more holders is required for all acts of Legislation. Hazard, i. 445. It is true, the proprietary supremacy of Massachusetts was unpalatable to many. Willis's Portland, i. 158. Maine Hist. Collections, i. 302. CHAP. powerful neighbor,-" we thankfully acknowledge your XII kindness, while we dwelt under your shadow, owning 1680 ourselves deeply obliged that, on our earnest request, you took us under your government, and ruled us well. If there be opportunity for us to be any wise serviceable to you, we shall show how ready we are to embrace it. Wishing the presence of God to be with you, we crave the benefit of your prayers on us, who are separated from our brethren." The claims of affection having been acknowledged, the colony proceeded to assert its rights by a solemn decree, the first in their new code; "No act, imposition, law, or ordinance, shall be valid, unless made by the assembly and approved by the people." Thus did New Hampshire seize the earliest moment of its separate existence, to express the great principle of self-government, and take her place by the side of Massachusetts and Virginia. When the code of the infant government was transmitted to England, it was disapproved both for style and matter; and its provisions were rejected as incongruous and absurd. Nor was Mason successful in establishing his claims to the soil. The colonial government protected the colonists, and restrained his exactions. Hastening to England to solicit a change, the proprietary was allowed to make such arrangement as promised auspicious results to his own interests. The scenes that occurred are instructive. Mason, a party in suits to be commenced, was authorized to select the person to be appointed governor. He found a fit agent in Edward Cranfield, a man who had no object in banishing himself to the wilds of America, but to wrest a fortune from the sawyers and lumber-dealers of New Hampshire. He avowed his purpose openly; XII. Jan. 25. and the moral tone of that day esteemed it no dishonor. CHAP But he insisted on good security. By a deed enrolled in chancery, Mason surrendered to the king one fifth 1682 part of all quit-rents, for the support of the governor, and gave to Cranfield a mortgage of the whole province for twenty-one years, as collateral security for the payment of his salary. Thus invested with an ample royal commission,' with the promise of a fixed salary, a fifth of all quit-rents, a mortgage of the province, and the exclusive right to the anticipated abundant harvest of fines and forfeitures, Cranfield deemed his fortune secure, and, relinquishing a profitable employment in England, embarked for the banks of the Piscataqua. 14. But the first assembly which he convened dispelled Nov. all his golden visions of an easy acquisition of fortune. To humor the governor, the "rugged " legislators voted him a gratuity of two hundred and fifty pounds, which the needy adventurer greedily accepted; but they would not yield their liberties; and the governor in anger Jar. dissolved the assembly. The dissolution of an assembly was a novel procedure in New England. Such a thing had till now been unheard of. Popular discontent became extreme; and a crowd of rash men raised the cry for "liberty and reformation." The leader, Edward Gove, an unlettered enthusiast, was confined in irons, and condemned to the death that barbarous laws denounced against treason, and, having been transported to England, was for three years kept a prisoner in the tower of London. The lawsuits about land were multiplied. Packed juries and partial judges settled questions rapidly; but 1 Mass. Hist. Coll. v. 232. 1683 20 |