1649

About this time, a controversy which had long subsisted between Massachusetts, and Connecticut, was terminated. The latter, for the purpose of maintaining Saybrooke, had laid a duty on all goods exported from Connecticut river. The inhabitants of Springfield, a town of Massachusetts lying on the river, having refused to pay this duty, the cause was laid before the commissioners of the united colonies; and, after hearing the parties, those of Plymouth and New Haven adjourned the final decision of the case until the next meeting, in order to hear farther objections from Massachusetts, but directed that, in the meantime, the duty should be paid.

At the meeting in 1648, Massachusetts insisted on the production of the patent of Connecticut. It was perfectly well known that the original patent could not be procured; and the agents for Connecticut, after stating this fact, offered an authentic copy. The commissioners recommended that the boundary line should be run, to ascertain whether Springfield was really in Massachusetts, but still directed that the duty should continue to be paid. On this order being made, the commissioners of Massachusetts produced a law of their general court, reciting the controversy, with the orders which had been made in it, and imposing a duty on all goods belonging to the inhabitants of Plymouth, Connecticut, or New Haven, which should be imported within the castle, or exported from any part of the bay, and subjecting them to forfeiture for non-payment. The commissioners remonstrated strongly against this measure, and recommended it to the general court of Massachusetts, seriously to consider whether such proceedings were reconcilable with "the law of love," and the tenor of the articles of confederation. In the meantime, they begged to be excused from "all farther agitations concerning Springfield."

In this state of the controversy fort Saybrooke was consumed by fire, and Connecticut forbore to re-build it, or to demand the duty. In the following year, Massachusetts repealed the ordinance which had so successfully decided the contest.[80]

Thus does a member of a confederacy, feeling its own strength, and the weakness of those with whom it is associated, deride the legitimate decisions of the federal body, when opposed to its own interest or passions, and obey the general will, only when that will is dictated by itself.

Although, while civil war raged in the mother country, New England had been permitted to govern itself as an independent nation, Parliament seems to have entertained very decisive opinions respecting the subordination of the provinces, and its own controlling power. The measures taken for giving effect to these opinions, involved all the colonies equally. The council of state was authorised to displace governors and magistrates, and to appoint others. Massachusetts was required to take a new patent, and to hold its courts, not in the name of the colony, but in the name of the Parliament. 1651The general court, unwilling to comply with these requisitions, transmitted a petition to Parliament, styling that body "the supreme authority," and expressing for it the highest respect. They stated their uniform attachment to Parliament during the civil war, the aid they had given, and the losses they had sustained. After speaking of the favours they had received, they expressed the hope "that it will not go worse with them than it did under the late King; and that the frame of this government will not be changed, and governors and magistrates imposed on them against their will." They declared, however, their entire submission to the will of Parliament; and, avowing for that body the most zealous attachment, prayed a favourable answer to their humble petition.

But the united colonies had lately given great umbrage by supplying Virginia and Barbadoes, then enemies of the commonwealth, with warlike stores and other commodities. It was also matter of real complaint that their exemption from the payment of duties enabled them to enrich themselves at the expense of others; and a revocation of their privileges in this respect was seriously contemplated. Yet the requisitions concerning their charter were never complied with, and do not appear to have been repeated.[81]

In this year, war was declared by England against Holland. The united colonies, accustomed to conduct their affairs in their own way, did not think themselves involved in this contest, unless engaged in it by some act of their own. The Dutch at Manhadoes, too weak to encounter their English neighbours, solicited the continuance of peace; and, as the trade carried on between them was mutually advantageous, this request was readily granted. 1653Machinations of the Dutch with the Indians.Intelligence however was soon brought by the Indians, that the Dutch were privately inciting them to a general confederacy for the purpose of extirpating the English. This intelligence gave the more alarm, because the massacre at Amboyna was then fresh in the recollection of the colonists. An extraordinary meeting of the commissioners was called at Boston, who were divided in opinion with regard to the propriety of declaring war. In consequence of this division, a conference was held before the general court and several elders of Massachusetts. The elders, being requested to give their opinion in writing, stated "that the proofs and presumptions of the execrable plot, tending to the destruction of so many of the dear saints of God, imputed to the Dutch governor, and the fiscal, were of such weights as to induce them to believe the reality of it; yet they were not so fully conclusive as to clear up a present proceeding to war before the world, and to bear up their hearts with that fullness of persuasion which was mete, in commending the case to God in prayer, and to the people in exhortations; and that it would be safest for the colonies to forbear the use of the sword; but advised to be in a posture of defence until the mind of God should be more fully known either for a settled peace, or more manifest grounds of war."[82] With this opinion of the elders, the vote of the general court concurred.

The intelligence of the practices of the Dutch governor with the Indians becoming more certain, all the commissioners except Mr. Bradstreet of Massachusetts, declared in favour of war. Their proceedings were immediately interrupted by a declaration of the general court of Massachusetts, that no determination of the commissioners, although they should be unanimous, should bind the general court to join in an offensive war which should appear to be unjust. A serious altercation ensued, in the course of which the other colonies pressed the war as a measure essential to their safety; but Massachusetts adhered inflexibly to its first resolution. This additional evidence of the incompetency of their union to bind one member, stronger than all the rest, threatened a dissolution of the confederacy; and that event seems to have been prevented only by the inability of the others to stand alone. Alarmed at their situation, and irritated by the conduct of their elder sister, Connecticut and New Haven represented Cromwell, then lord protector of England, the danger to which the colonies were exposed from the Dutch and the Indians; and the hazard the smaller provinces must continue to incur, unless the league between them could be maintained and executed according to its true intent, and the interpretation which its articles had uniformly received.

With his usual promptness and decision, Cromwell detached a small armament for the reduction of the Dutch colony, and recommended to Massachusetts to furnish aid to the expedition. Although the legitimate requisitions of the government of the union had been ineffectual, the recommendation of the lord protector was not to be disregarded; and the general court passed a resolution conforming to it. 1654A treaty of peace, which was signed in April, saved the Dutch colony.[83]