[954]. Randolph Papers, vols. II, p. 297, and VI, pp. 73 f.
[955]. Ibid., vol. II, p. 297. In spite of the former decision, serious doubts had been cast upon its validity, which cannot be dismissed lightly. Cf. Osgood, American Colonies, vol. III, p. 322.
[956]. Randolph Papers, vols. III, pp. 3 ff., and VI, pp. 75 ff.
[957]. Cal. State Pap., Col., 1677-80, p. 224; Massachusetts Records, vol. V, pp. 195, 203.
[958]. It is difficult to judge public sentiment by petitions, but in 1680 a petition signed by 136 inhabitants of York, Kittery, and Wells prayed for release from Massachusetts. Later, what was evidently intended as a counter-petition from the General Assembly, was signed by 16 burgesses. Cal. State Pap., Col., 1677-80, pp. 608, 622. Cf. Hutchinson, History, vol. I, p. 296.
[959]. Massachusetts Records, vol. V, pp. 451, 326 f.
[960]. Cal. State Pap., Col., 1677-80, p. 279. Cf. the land company's advertisement for settlers and claims of title, in R. I. Records, vol. III, p. 18.
[961]. Cal. State Pap., Col., 1677-80, p. 309.
[962]. Ibid., p. 340. There is additional reference to this case in Conn. Col. Records, vol. III, pp. 281 ff. Cf. also the unjust action of Connecticut toward the Indians the same year, when, in order to recover £30 damage done by some drunken individual, the colony confiscated 600 acres of Mohegan lands. Ibid., pp. 43 n., 56.
[963]. Massachusetts Records, vol. V, pp. 192, 194.