Chapter IV: , VII (193)

"The politico-religious contest between Catholics and Liberals
exists to a greater or less degree in all Catholic countries,
and even in Protestant ones possessing, like Prussia, Catholic
provinces: but nowhere is political life more completely
absorbed by this antagonism than in Belgium, nowhere are the
lines of the contest more clearly traced. … In order
thoroughly to grasp the meaning of our politico-religious
strife, we must cast a glance at its origin. We find this in
the constitution adopted by the Congress after the Revolution
of 1830.
{2303}
This constitution enjoins and sanctions all the freedom and
liberty which has long been the privilege of England, and of
the States she has founded in America and Australia. A free
press, liberty as regards education, freedom to form
associations or societies, provincial and communal autonomy,
representative administration—all exactly as in England. How
was it that the Congress of 1830, the majority of whose
members belonged to the Catholic party, came to vote in favour
of principles opposed, not only to the traditions, but also
the dogmas of the Catholic Church? This singular fact is
explained by the writings of the celebrated priest and author,
La Mennais, whose opinions at that time exercised the greatest
influence. La Mennais's first book, 'L'Essai sur
l'indifference en Matière de Religion,' lowered all human
reasoning, and delivered up society to the omnipotent guidance
of the Pope. This work, enthusiastically perused by bishops,
seminarists, and priests, established the author as an
unprecedented authority. When, after the year 1828, he
pretended that the Church would regain her former power by
separating herself from the State, retaining only her liberty,
most of his admirers professed themselves of his opinion. …
Nearly all Belgian priests were at that time La Mennaisiens.
They accepted the separation of Church and State, and, in
their enthusiastic intoxication, craved but liberty to
reconquer the world. It was thus that Catholics and Liberals
united to vote for Belgium the constitution still in existence
after a half-century. In 1832, Pope Gregory XVI., as Veuillot
tells us, 'hurled a thunderbolt at the Belgian constitution in
its cradle.' In a famous Encyclical, since incessantly quoted,
the Pope declared, ex cathedrâ, that modern liberties were a
plague, 'a delirium,' from whence incalculable evils would
inevitably flow. Shortly afterwards, the true author of the
Belgian constitution, La Mennais, having been to Rome in the
vain hope of converting the Pope to his views, was repulsed,
and, a little later, cast out from the bosom of the Church.
The separation was effected. There was an end to that 'union'
of Catholics and Liberals which had overthrown King William
and founded a new political order in Belgium. It was not,
however, till after 1838 that the two parties distinctly
announced their antagonism. … The Liberal party is composed
of all who, having faith in human reason and in liberty, fear
a return to the past, and desire reforms of all sorts. …
When Catholics are mentioned as opposed to Liberals, it is as
regards their political, not their religious opinions. The
Liberals are all, or nearly all, Catholics also; at all events
by baptism. … The Catholic party is guided officially by the
bishops. It is composed, in the first place, of all the
clergy, of the convents and monasteries, and of those who from
a sentiment of religious obedience do as they are directed by
the bishop of the diocese and the Pope, and also of genuine
Conservatives, otherwise called reactionists—that is to say,
of those who consider that liberty leads to anarchy, and
progress to communism. This section comprises the great mass
of the proprietors and cultivators of the soil and the country
populations. … We see that in Belgium parties are divided,
and fight seriously for an idea; they are separated by no
material, but by spiritual interests. The Liberals defend
liberty, which they consider menaced by the aims of the
Church. The Catholics defend religion, which they look upon as
threatened by their adversaries' doctrines. Both desire to
fortify themselves against a danger, non-existent yet, but
which they foresee. … The educational question, which has
been the centre of the political life of the country during
the last two years, deserves expounding in detail. Important
in itself, and more important still in its consequences, it is
everywhere discussed with passion. Primary education was
organized here in 1842, by a law of compromise adopted by the
two parties, thanks to M. J. B. Nothomb, one of the founders
of the Belgian Constitution, who died recently in Berlin,
where he had been Belgian Minister for a space of upwards of
forty years. This law enacted that every parish should possess
schools sufficient for the number of children needing
instruction; but it allowed the 'commune' to adopt private
schools. The inspection of the public schools and the control
of the religious teaching given by the masters and mistresses,
was reserved to the clergy. Advanced Liberals began to clamour
for the suppression of this latter clause as soon as they
perceived the preponderating influence it gave the priests
over the lay teachers. The reform of the law of 1842 became
the watchword of the Liberal party, and this was ultimately
effected in July, 1879; now each parish or village must
provide the schools necessary for the children of its
inhabitants, and must not give support to any private school.
Ecclesiastical inspection is suppressed. Religious instruction
may be given by the ministers of the various denominations, in
the school buildings, but out of the regular hours. This
system has been in force in Holland since the commencement of
the present century. Lay instruction only is given by the
communal masters and mistresses; no dogmas are taught, but the
school is open to the clergy of all denominations who choose
to enter, as it is evidently their duty to do. This system,
now introduced in Belgium, has been accepted, without giving
rise to any difficulties, by both Protestants and Jews, but it
is most vehemently condemned by the Catholic priesthood. …
In less than a year they have succeeded in opening a private
school in every commune and village not formerly possessing
one. In this instance the Catholic party has shown a
devotedness really remarkable. … At the same time in all the
Churches, and nearly every Sunday, the Government schools have
been attacked, stigmatized as 'écoles sans Dieu' (schools
without God), to be avoided as the plague, and where parents
were forbidden to place their children, under pain of
committing the greatest sin. Those who disobeyed, and allowed
their children still to frequent the communal schools, were
deprived of the Sacraments of the Church. They were refused
absolution at confession, and the Eucharist, even at Easter.
All the schoolmasters and mistresses were placed under the ban
of the Church, and the priests often even refused to pronounce
a blessing on their marriage. It is only lately that, contrary
instructions having been received from Rome, this extreme step
is now very rarely resorted to. The Liberal majority in the
House has ordered a Parliamentary inquiry—which is still in
progress, and the results of which in this last six months,
fill the columns of our newspapers—in order to ascertain by
what means the clergy succeed in filling their schools. … As
a natural consequence of the excessive heat of the conflict, the
two parties end by justifying the accusations of their
adversaries.
{2304}
The Liberals become anti-religionists, because religion
is—and is daily becoming more and more—anti-liberal; and the
Catholics are afraid of liberty, because it is used against
their faith, which is, in their opinion, the only true and the
necessary foundation of civilization. … The existence in
Belgium of two parties so distinctly and clearly separated,
offers, however, some compensation: it favours the good
working of Parliamentary government."

_E. de Laveleye,
The Political Condition of Belgium
(Contemporary Review, April, 1882),
pages 715-724, with foot-note._

NETHERLANDS: (Belgium): A. D. 1876-1890.
The founding of the Congo Free State.

See CONGO FREE STATE.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland, or the Kingdom of the Netherlands): A. D. 1887. Revision of the Constitution.

The constitution of 1848 (see above), in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, was revised in 1887, but in a very conservative
spirit. Attempts to make the suffrage universal, and to effect
a separation of church and state, were defeated. The suffrage
qualification by tax-payment was reduced to ten guilders, and
certain classes of lodgers were also admitted to the
franchise, more than doubling the total number of voters,
which is now estimated to be about 290,000. All private
soldiers and non-commissioned officers of the regular army are
excluded from the franchise. The upper chamber of the States
General is elected as before by the Provincial States, but its
membership is raised to fifty. The second chamber, consisting
of one hundred members, is chosen directly by the voters. In
the new constitution, the succession to the throne is
definitely prescribed, in the event of a failure of direct
heirs. Three collateral lines of descent are designated, to be
accepted in their order as follows: 1. Princess Sophia of
Saxony and her issue; 2. the descendants of the late Princess
Marian of Prussia; 3. the descendants of the late Princess
Mary of Wied. The late king of the Netherlands, William III.,
died in 1890, leaving only a daughter, ten years old, to
succeed him. The young queen, Wilhelmina, is reigning under
the regency of her mother.

_The Statesman's Year-book, 1894._

ALSO IN:
_The Annual Register, 1887._

_Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1887._

NETHERLANDS: (Belgium): A. D. 1892-1893.
The revised Belgian Constitution.
Introduction of plural Suffrage.

A great agitation among the Belgian workingmen, ending in a
formidable strike, in 1890, was only quieted by the promise
from the government of a revision of the constitution and the
introduction of universal suffrage. The Constituent Chambers,
elected to perform the task of revision, were opened on the
11th of July, 1892. The amended constitution was promulgated
on the 7th of September, 1893. It confers the suffrage on
every citizen twenty-five years of age or over, domiciled in
the same commune for not less than one year, and not under
legal disqualification. The new constitution is made
especially interesting by its introduction of a system of
cumulative or plural voting. One supplementary vote is
conferred on every married citizen (or widower), thirty-five
years or more of age, having legitimate issue, and paying at
least five francs per annum house tax; also on every citizen
not less than twenty-five years old who owns real property to
the value of 2,000 francs, or who derives an income of not
less than 100 francs a year from an investment in the public
debt, or from the savings bank. Two supplementary votes are
given to each citizen twenty-five years of age who has
received certain diplomas or discharged certain functions
which imply the possession of a superior education. The same
citizen may accumulate votes on more than one of these
qualifications, but none is allowed to cast more than three.
On the adoption of the new constitution, the Brussels
correspondent of the "London Times" wrote to that journal;
"This article, which adds to manhood suffrage as it exists in
France, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, the United States, and
the Australian colonies, the safeguard of a double and triple
suffrage accorded to age, marriage, and paternity, as well as
to the possession of money saved or inherited, or of a
profession, will constitute one of the distinguishing marks of
the new Belgian Constitution. As it reposes upon the just
principle that votes must be considered in reference to their
weight rather than to their numbers, it has had the effect of
putting an immediate end to the violent political crisis which
disturbed the country. It has been accepted without much
enthusiasm, indeed, but as a reasonable compromise. The
moderates of all classes, who do not go to war for abstract
theories, think that it has a prospect of enduring." An
attempt to introduce proportional representation along with
the plural suffrage was defeated. The constitution of the
Senate raised questions hardly less important than those
connected with the elective franchise. Says the correspondent
quoted above: "The advanced Radical and Socialist parties had
proposed to supplement the Chamber, the political
representation of the territorial interests of the country, by
a Senate representing its economic interests. The great social
forces—capital, labour, and science—in their application to
agriculture, industry, and commerce, were each to send their
representatives. It may be that this formula, which would have
made of the Belgian Senate an Assembly sui generis in Europe,
may become the formula of the future. The Belgian legislators
hesitated before the novelty of the idea and the difficulty of
its application. This combination rejected, there remained for
the Senate only the alternative between two systems—namely,
to separate that Assembly from the Chamber by its origin or
else by its composition. The Senate and the Government
preferred the first of these solutions, that is to say direct
elections for the Chamber, an election by two degrees for the
Senate, either by the members of the provincial councils or by
specially elected delegates of the Communes. But these
proposals encountered from all the benches in the Chamber a
general resistance." The result was a compromise. The Senate
consists of 76 members elected directly by the people, and 26
elected by the provincial councils. The term of each is eight
years. The Senators chosen by the councils are exempted from a
property qualification; those popularly elected are required
to be owners of real property yielding not less than 12,000
francs of income, or to pay not less than 1,200 francs in
direct taxes. The legislature is empowered to restrict the
voting for Senators to citizens thirty years of age or more.
{2305}
The members of the Chamber of Representatives are apportioned
according to population and elected for four years, one half
retiring every two years. The Senate and Chamber meet annually
in November, and are required to be in session for at least
forty days; but the King may convoke extraordinary sessions,
and may dissolve the Chambers either separately or together.
In case of a dissolution, the constitution requires an
election to be held within forty days, and a meeting of the
Chambers within two months. Only the Chamber of
Representatives can originate money bills or bills relating to
the contingent for the army. The executive consists of seven
ministries, namely of Finance, of Justice, of Interior and
Instruction, of War, of Railways, Posts and Telegraphs, of
Foreign Affairs, of Agriculture, Industry and Public Works.
The King's Privy Council is a distinct body.

----------NETHERLANDS: End----------

NEUCHATÊL: Separation from Prussia.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

NEUENBERG: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1638).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

NEUSTRIA.

See AUSTRASIA.

NEUTRAL GROUND, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEUTRAL NATION, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.

NEUTRAL RIGHTS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

----------NEVADA: Start--------

NEVADA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

NEVADA: A. D. 1848-1864.
Acquisition from Mexico.
Silver discoveries.
Territorial and State organization.

"Ceded to the United States at the same time, and, indeed, as
one with California [see MEXICO: A. D. 1848], this region of
the Spanish domain had not, like that west of the Sierra
Nevada, a distinctive name, but was described by local names,
and divided into valleys. In March following the treaty with
Mexico and the discovery of gold, the inhabitants of Salt Lake
valley met and organized the state of Deseret, the boundaries
of which included the whole of the recently acquired Mexican
territory outside of California, and something more." But
Congress, failing to recognize the state of Deseret, created
instead, by an act passed on the 9th of September, 1850, the
Territory of Utah, with boundaries which embraced Nevada
likewise. This association was continued until 1861, when the
Territory of Nevada was organized by act of Congress out of
western Utah. Meantime the discovery in 1859 of the
extraordinary deposit of silver which became famous as the
Comstock Lode, and other mining successes of importance, had
rapidly attracted to the region a large population of
adventurers. It was this which had brought about the separate
territorial organization. Three years later the young
territory was permitted to frame a state constitution and was
admitted into the Union in October, 1864.

_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 20: Nevada, page 66._

----------NEVADA: End--------

NEVELLE, Battle of (1381).

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.

NEVILLE'S CROSS, OR DURHAM, Battle of.

A crushing defeat suffered by an army of the Scots, invading
England under their young king, David Bruce, who was taken
prisoner. The battle was fought near Durham, October 17, 1346.

_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 25 (volume 3)._

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.

NEW ALBION, The County Palatine of.

By a royal charter, witnessed by the Deputy-General of
Ireland, at Dublin, June 21, 1634, King Charles I. granted to
Sir Edmund Plowden and eight other petitioners, the whole of
Long Island ("Manitie, or Long Isle"), together with forty
leagues square of the adjoining continent, constituting the
said domain a county palatine and calling it New Albion, while
the island received the name of Isle Plowden. "In this
document the boundaries of New Albion are so defined as to
include all of New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and
Pennsylvania embraced in a square, the eastern side of which,
forty leagues in length, extended (along the coast) from Sandy
Hook to Cape May, together with Long Island, and all other
'isles and islands in the sea within ten leagues of the shores
of the said region.' The province is expressly erected into a
county palatine, under the jurisdiction of Sir Edmund Plowden
as earl, depending upon his Majesty's' royal person and
imperial crown, as King of Ireland.'" Subsequently, within the
year 1634, the whole of the grant was acquired by and became
vested in Plowden and his three sons. Sir Edmund, who died in
1659, spent the remainder of his life in futile attempts to
make good his claim against the Swedes on the Delaware and the
Dutch, and in exploiting his magnificent title as Earl
Palatine of New Albion. The claim and the title seem to have
reappeared occasionally among his descendants until some time
near the close of the 18th century.

_G. B. Keen,
Note on New Albion.
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
J. Winsor, editor, volume 3, pages 457-468)._

ALSO IN:
_S. Hazard,
Annals of Pennsylvania,
pages 36-38 and 108-112._

NEW AMSTERDAM.

The name originally given by the Dutch to the city of New
York.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1634; and 1653.

Also the name first given to the village out of which grew the
city of Buffalo, N. Y.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

----------NEW BRUNSWICK: Start--------

NEW BRUNSWICK:
Embraced in the Norumbega of the old geographers.

See NORUMBEGA;
also, CANADA: NAMES.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1621-1668.
Included in Nova Scotia.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1713.
Uncertain disposition by the Treaty of Utrecht.

See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1820-1837.
The Family Compact.

See CANADA: A. D. 1820-1837.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1854-1866.
The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):
A. D. 1854-1866.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1867.
Embraced in the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada.

See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

----------NEW BRUNSWICK: End--------

NEW CÆSAREA, OR NEW JERSEY.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

NEW CARTHAGE.
The founding of.

See CARTHAGENA, THE FOUNDING OF.

NEW CASTILE.

See PERU: A. D. 1528-1531.

{2306}

----------NEW ENGLAND: Start--------

NEW ENGLAND.
[Footnote: The greater part of New England history is given
elsewhere, as the history of the several New England states,
and is only indexed in this place, instead of being repeated.]

NEW ENGLAND:
The Aboriginal Inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NEW ENGLAND:
The Norumbega of early geographers.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1498.
First coasted by Sebastian Cabot.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1524.
Coasted by Verrazano.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1602-1607.
The voyages of Gosnold, Pring and Weymouth.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.
Embraced in the region claimed as Acadia by the French.

See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1605.
Coast explored by Champlain.

See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1606.
Embraced in the grant to the North Virginia Company
of Plymouth.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1607-1608.
The Popham Colony on the Kennebec.
The fruitless venture of the Plymouth Company.

See MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1614.
Named, mapped and described by Captain John Smith.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620.
The voyage of the Mayflower and the planting of Plymouth Colony.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.
Incorporation of the Council for New England,
successor to the Plymouth Company.
Its great domain and its monopoly of the Fisheries.

"While the king was engaged in the overthrow of the London
company [see VIRGINIA: A. D. 1622-1624], its more loyal rival
in the West of England [the Plymouth company, or North
Virginia branch of the Virginia company] sought new
letters-patent, with a great enlargement of their domain. The
remonstrances of the Virginia corporation and the rights of
English commerce could delay for two years, but not defeat,
the measure that was pressed by the friends of the monarch. On
the 3d of November, 1620, King James incorporated 40 of his
subjects—some of them members of his household and his
government, the most wealthy and powerful of the English
nobility—as 'The Council established at Plymouth, in the
county of Devon, for the planting, ruling, ordering, and
governing New England in America.' The territory, which was
conferred on them in absolute property, with unlimited powers
of legislation and government, extended from the 40th to the
48th degree of north latitude, and from the Atlantic to the
Pacific. The grant included the fisheries; and a revenue was
considered certain from a duty to be imposed on all tonnage
employed in them. The patent placed emigrants to New England
under the absolute authority of the corporation, and it was
through grants from that plenary power, confirmed by the
crown, that institutions the most favorable to colonial
independence and the rights of mankind came into being. The
French derided the action of the British monarch in bestowing
lands and privileges which their own sovereign, seventeen
years before, had appropriated. The English nation was
incensed at the largess of immense monopolies by the royal
prerogative; and in April, 1621, Sir Edwin Sandys brought the
grievance before the house of commons. … But the parliament
was dissolved before a bill could be perfected. In 1622, five
and thirty sail of vessels went to fish on the coasts of New
England, and made good voyages. The monopolists appealed to
King James, and he issued a proclamation, which forbade any to
approach the northern coast of America, except with the leave
of their company or of the privy council, In June, 1623,
Francis West was despatched as admiral of New England, to
exclude such fishermen as came without a license. But they
refused to pay the tax which he imposed, and his ineffectual
authority was soon resigned."

_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision),
part 1, chapter 13 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:
_C. Deane,
New England (Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 3, chapter 9)._

_Sir Ferdinando Gorges,
Brief Narration
(Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 2)._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
The grants made by the Council for New England.
Settlements planted.
Nova Scotia, Maine and New Hampshire conferred.

Captain John Mason, a native of King's Lynn, in Norfolk,
became governor of Newfoundland in 1615. "While there he wrote
a tract entitled 'A Brief Discourse of the Newfoundland,' and
sent it to his friend Sir John Scot of Edinburgh, to peruse,
and to print if he thought it worthy. It was printed in the
year 1620. … In the spring or summer of 1621, Mason returned
into England, and immediately found proof of the effect of his
little tract. … Sir William Alexander, afterwards Earl of
Stirling, immediately sought him out. He had been appointed
Gentleman of the Privy Chamber to Prince Henry, honored with
Knighthood, and was Master of Requests for Scotland. He
invited Mason to his house, where he discussed with him a
scheme of Scotch colonization, and he resolved to undertake
settling a colony in what is now Nova Scotia. He begged Mason
to aid him in procuring a grant of this territory from the
Council for New England, it being within their limits. Mason
referred him to Sir Ferdinando Gorges, one of the Council and
their Treasurer. The king readily recommended Alexander to
Gorges, and Gorges heartily approved the plan. In September,
1621, Alexander obtained a Royal Patent for a tract of land
which he called New Scotland, a name attractive to his
countrymen. This must have been gratifying to Mason, who had
urged Scotch emigration in his tract printed only a year
before. The Council for New England, established in November,
1620, was now granting and ready to grant to associations or
to individuals parcels of its vast domain in America. … The
second patent for land granted by the Council was to Captain
John Mason, bearing date March 9, 1621-2. It was all the land
lying between the Naumkeag and the Merrimac rivers, extending
back from the sea-coast to the heads of both of these rivers,
with all the islands within three miles of the shore. Mason
called this Mariana. This tract of territory lies wholly
within the present bounds of Massachusetts. We now arrive at a
period when Mason and Gorges have a joint interest in New
England.
{2307}
On the 10th of August, 1622, the Council made a third grant.
This was to Gorges and Mason jointly of land lying upon the
sea-coast between the Merrimac and the Kennebec rivers,
extending three-score miles into the country, with all islands
within five leagues of the premises to be, or intended to be,
called the Province of Maine. Thus was the territory destined
seven years later to bear the name of New Hampshire, first
carved from the vast domain of New England, whose boundaries
were fixed by the great circles of the heavens. Thus was Capt.
Mason joint proprietor of his territory afterwards known as
New Hampshire, before a single settler had built a cabin on
the Pascataqua. Captain Robert Gorges, son of Sir Ferdinando,
was authorized to give the grantees possession of this new
Province. Great enthusiasm on the subject of colonization now
prevailed in England, extending from the king, through all
ranks. … Before the year 1622 closed, the Council issued
many patents for land, in small divisions, to persons
intending to make plantations. Among the grants, is one to
David Thomson and two associates, of land on the Pascataqua.
The bounds and extent of this patent are unknown. Only the
fact that such a patent was granted is preserved. … The
Council for New England, in view of the many intended
settlements, as well as the few already made, now proposed to
set up a general government in New England. Captain Robert
Gorges, recently returned from the Venetian wars, was
appointed Governor, with Captain Francis West, Captain
Christopher Levett, and the governor of New Plymouth as his
Council. Captain Gorges arrived here the middle of September,
1623, having been preceded some months by Captain West, who
was Vice-Admiral of New England as well as Councillor. Captain
Levett came as late as November. … The next year, 1624, war
between England and Spain broke out, and drew off for a while
Gorges and Mason from their interests in colonization. Gorges
was Captain of the Castle and Island of St. Nicholas, at
Plymouth, a post that he had held for thirty years; and he was
now wholly taken up with the duties of his office. Mason's
services were required as a naval officer of experience. …
In 1626 England plunged into a war with France, without having
ended the war with Spain. Captain Mason was advanced to be
Treasurer and Paymaster of the English armies employed in the
wars. There was no time now to think of American colonization.
His duties were arduous. … In 1629 peace was made with
France, and the war with Spain was coming to an end. No sooner
were Gorges and Mason a little relieved from their public
duties than they sprang at once to their old New England
enterprise. They resolved to push forward their interests.
They came to some understanding about a division of their
Province of Maine. On the 7th of November, 1629, a day
memorable in the history of New Hampshire, the Council granted
to Mason a patent of all that part of the Province of Maine
lying between the Merrimac and Pascataqua rivers; and Mason
called it New Hampshire, out of regard to the favor in which
he held Hampshire in England, where he had resided many years.
… This grant had hardly been made when Champlain was brought
to London, a prisoner, from Canada, by Kirke. The French had
been driven from that region. Gorges and Mason procured
immediately a grant from the Council of a vast tract of land
in the region of Lake Champlain, supposed to be not only a
fine country for peltry, but to contain vast mineral wealth.
The Province was called Laconia on account of the numerous
lakes supposed or known to be there, and was the most northern
grant hitherto made by the Council. The patent bears date
November 17, 1629, only ten days later than Mason's New
Hampshire grant. … For the purpose of advancing the
interests of Gorges and Mason in Laconia as well as on the
Pascataqua, they joined with them six merchants in London, and
received from the Council a grant dated November 3, 1631, of a
tract of land lying on both sides of the Pascataqua river, on
the sea-coast and within territory already owned by Gorges and
Mason in severalty. This patent, called the Pascataqua Patent,
covered, on the west side of the river, the present towns of
Portsmouth, New Castle, Rye and part of Greenland; on the east
side, Kittery, Eliot, the Berwicks, and the western part of
Lebanon."

_C. W. Tuttle,
Captain John Mason
(Prince Society Publications, 1887),
pages 12-24._

ALSO IN:
_S. F. Haven,
Grants under the Great Council for New England
(Lowell Institute. Lecture: Early History of Massachusetts,
pages 127-162)._

_J. P. Baxter, editor,
Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of Maine
(Prince Society Publications 1890)._

_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
volume 1, page 397, foot-note._

See, also,
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629;
and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1631.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1623-1629.
The Dorchester Company and the royal charter to
the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
The new patent to Plymouth Colony.

See MASSACHUSETTS:
A. D. 1623-1629 PLYMOUTH COLONY.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1629-1630.
The immigration of the Governor and Company of
Massachusetts Bay with their charter.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
The pioneer settlements in Connecticut.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.
Dissolution of the Council for New England and partitioning
of its territorial claims by lot.

"The Council for New England, having struggled through nearly
fifteen years of maladministration and ill-luck, had yielded
to the discouragements which beset it. By the royal favor, it
had triumphed over the rival Virginia Company, to be
overwhelmed in its turn by the just jealousy of Parliament,
and by dissensions among its members. The Council, having, by
profuse and inconsistent grants of its lands, exhausted its
common property, as well as its credit with purchasers for
keeping its engagements, had no motive to continue its
organization. Under these circumstances, it determined on a
resignation of its charter to the king, and a surrender of the
administration of its domain to a General Governor of his
appointment, on the condition that all the territory, a large
portion of which by its corporate action had already been
alienated to other parties [see above: A. D. 1621-1631],
should be granted in severalty by the king to the members of
the Council. Twelve associates accordingly proceeded to a
distribution of New England among themselves by lot; and
nothing was wanting to render the transaction complete, and to
transfer to them the ownership of that region, except to oust the
previous patentees, of whom the most powerful body were
colonists in Massachusetts Bay. To effect this, Sir John
Banks, Attorney-General, brought a writ of 'quo warranto' in
Westminster Hall against the Massachusetts Company. …

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.

{2308}

It seemed that, when a few more forms should be gone through,
all would be over with the presumptuous Colony. … But …
everything went on as if Westminster Hall had not spoken. 'The
Lord frustrated their design.' The disorders of the mother
country were a safeguard of the infant liberty of New
England."

_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
volume 1, chapter 10._

In the parcelling of New England by lot among the members of
the Council, the divisions were:
(1) Between the St. Croix and Pemaquid, to William Alexander.
(2) From Pemaquid to Sagadahoc,
in part to the Marquis of Hamilton.
(3) Between the Kennebec and Androscoggin; and
(4) from Sagadahoc to Piscataqua, to Sir F. Gorges.
(5) From Piscataqua to the Naumkeag, to Mason.
(6) From the Naumkeag round the sea-coast,
by Cape Cod to Narragansett, to the Marquis of Hamilton.
(7) From Narragansett to the half-way bound, between that and
the Connecticut River, and 50 miles up into the country,
to Lord Edward Gorges.
(8) From this midway point to the Connecticut River, to the
Earl of Carlisle.
(9 and 10) From the Connecticut to the Hudson,
to the Duke of Lennox.
(11 and 12) From the Hudson to the limits of the
Plymouth Company's territory, to Lord Mulgrave.

_W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
History of the United States,
volume 1, page 337, foot-note._

ALSO IN:
_T. Hutchinson,
History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
volume 1, pages 48-50._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636.
Providence Plantation and Roger Williams.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636;
and RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636-1639.
The first American constitution.
The genesis of a state.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1636-1639.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636-1641.
Public Registry laws.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1630-1641.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.
The Pequot War.

"The region extending from the bounds of Rhode Island to the
banks of the Hudson was at the time of the colonization held
in strips of territory mainly by three tribes of the natives,
who had long had feuds among themselves and with other tribes.
They were the Narragansetts, the Mohegans, and the Pequots.
The Mohegans were then tributaries of the Pequots, and were
restive under subjection to their fierce and warlike
conquerors, who were estimated to number at the time 1,000
fighting men. … The policy of the whites was to aggravate
the dissensions of the tribes, and to make alliance with one
or more of them. Winthrop records in March, 1631, the visit to
Boston of a Connecticut Indian, probably a Mohegan, who
invited the English to come and plant near the river, and who
offered presents, with the promise of a profitable trade. His
object proved to be to engage the interest of the whites
against the Pequots. His errand was for the time unsuccessful.
Further advances of a similar character were made afterwards,
the result being to persuade the English that, sooner or
later, they would need to interfere as umpires, and must use
discretion in a wise regard to what would prove to be for
their own interest. In 1633 the Pequots had savagely mutilated
and murdered a party of English traders, who, under Captain
Stone, of Virginia, had gone up the Connecticut. The Boston
magistrates had instituted measures to call the Pequots to
account, but nothing effectual was done. The Dutch had a fort
on the river near Hartford, and the English had built one at
its mouth. In 1636 several settlements had been made in
Connecticut by the English from Cambridge, Dorchester, and
other places. John Oldham, of Watertown, had in that year been
murdered, while on a trading voyage, by some Indians belonging
on Block Island. To avenge this act our magistrates sent
Endicott, as general, with a body of 90 men, with orders to
kill all the male Indians on that island, sparing only the
women and little children. He accomplished his bloody work
only in part, but after destroying all the corn-fields and
wigwams, he turned to hunt the Pequots on the main. After this
expedition, which simply exasperated the Pequots, they made a
desperate effort to induce the Narragansetts to come into a
league with them against the English. It seemed for a while as
if they would succeed in this, and the consequences would
doubtless have been most disastrous to the whites. The scheme
was thwarted largely through the wise and friendly
intervention of Roger Williams, whose diplomacy was made
effective by the confidence which his red neighbors had in
him. The Narragansett messengers then entered into a friendly
league with the English in Boston. All through the winter of
1637 the Pequots continued to pick off the whites in their
territory, and they mutilated, tortured, roasted, and murdered
at least thirty victims, becoming more and more vindictive and
cruel in their doings. There were then in Connecticut some 250
Englishmen, and, as has been said, about 1,000 Pequot
'braves.' The authorities in Connecticut resolutely started a
military organization, giving the command to the redoubtable
John Mason, a Low-Country soldier, who had recently gone from
Dorchester. Massachusetts and Plymouth contributed their
quotas, having as allies the Mohegans, of whose fidelity they
had fearful misgivings, but who proved constant though not
very effective. Of the 160 men raised by Massachusetts, only
about 20, under Captain Underhill,—a good fighter, but a
sorry scamp,—reached the scene in season to join with Mason
in surprising the unsuspecting and sleeping Pequots in one of
their forts near the Mystic. Fire, lead, and steel with the
infuriated vengeance of Puritan soldiers against murderous and
fiendish heathen, did effectively the exterminating work.
Hundreds of the savages, in their maddened frenzy of fear and
dismay, were shot or run through as they were impaled on their
own palisades in their efforts to rush from their blazing
wigwams, crowded within their frail enclosures. The English
showed no mercy, for they felt none. … A very few of the
wretched savages escaped to another fort, to which the
victorious English followed them. This, however; they soon
abandoned, taking refuge, with their old people and children,
in the protection of swamps and thickets. Here, too, the
English, who had lost but two men killed, though they had many
wounded, and who were now reinforced, pursued and surrounded them,
allowing the aged and the children, by a parley, to come out.
{2309}
The men, however, were mostly slain, and the feeble remnant of
them which sought protection among the so-called river
Indians, higher up the Connecticut, and among the Mohawks,
were but scornfully received,—the Pequot sachem Sassacus,
being beheaded by the latter. A few of the prisoners were sold
in the West Indies as slaves, others were reduced to the same
humiliation among the Mohegans, or as farm and house servants
to the English. … But the alliances into which the whites
had entered in order to divide their savage foes were the
occasions of future entanglements in a tortuous policy, and of
later bloody struggles of an appalling character. … In all
candor the admission must be made, that the Christian white
men … allowed themselves to be trained by the experience of
Indian warfare into a savage cruelty and a desperate
vengefulness."

_G. E. Ellis,
The Indians of Eastern Massachusetts
(Memorial History of Boston, volume 1, pages 252-254)._

"More than 800 [of the Pequots] had been slain in the war, and
less than 200 remained to share the fate of captives. These
were distributed among the Narragansets and Mohegans, with the
pledge that they should no more be called Pequots, nor inhabit
their native country again. To make the annihilation of the
race yet more complete, their very name was extinguished in
Connecticut by legislative act. Pequot river was called the
Thames, Pequot town was named New London."

_S. G. Arnold,
History of Rhode Island,
volume 1, chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_G. H. Hollister,
History of Connecticut,
chapters 2-3._

_G. E. Ellis,
Life of John Mason
(Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 3)._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1638.
The purchase, settlement and naming of Rhode Island.
The founding of New Haven Colony.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640;
and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1639.
The Fundamental Agreement of New Haven.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.
The growth of population and the rise of towns.
The end of the Puritan exodus.

"Over 20,000 persons are estimated to have arrived in New
England in the fifteen years before the assembling of the Long
Parliament [1640]; one hundred and ninety-eight ships bore
them over the Atlantic; and the whole cost of their
transportation, and of the establishment of the plantation, is
computed at about £200,000, or nearly a million of dollars.
The progress of settlement had been proportionally rapid. …
Hingham was settled in 1634. Newbury, Concord, and Dedham were
incorporated in 1635. And from that date to 1643, acts were
passed incorporating Lynn, North Chelsea, Salisbury, Rowley,
Sudbury, Braintree, Woburn, Gloucester, Haverhill, Wenham, and
Hull. West of Worcester, the only town incorporated within the
present limits of the state was Springfield, for which an act
was passed in 1636. These little municipalities were, in a
measure, peculiar to New England; each was sovereign within
itself; each sustained a relation to the whole, analogous to
that which the states of our Union hold respectively to the
central power, or the constitution of the United States; and
the idea of the formation of such communities was probably
derived from the parishes of England, for each town was a
parish, and each, as it was incorporated, was required to
contribute to the maintenance of the ministry as the basis of
its grant of municipal rights. Four counties were erected at
this time: Suffolk, Essex, Middlesex, and Old Norfolk, all
which were incorporated in 1643. Each of the first three
contained eight towns, and Old Norfolk six."

_J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 1, chapter 8._

"Events in England had now [1640] reached a crisis, and the
Puritan party, rising rapidly into power, no longer looked to
America for a refuge. The great tide of emigration ceased to
flow; but the government of Massachusetts went on wisely and
strongly under the alternating rule of Winthrop, Dudley, and
Bellingham. The English troubles crippled the holders of the
Mason and Gorges grants, and the settlements in New
Hampshire—whither Wheelwright had gone, and where turbulence
had reigned—were gradually added to the jurisdiction of
Massachusetts. In domestic matters everything went smoothly.
There was some trouble with Bellingham, and Winthrop was again
made Governor [1642]. The oath of allegiance to the King taken
by the magistrates was abandoned, because Charles violated the
privileges of Parliament, and the last vestige of dependence
vanished. Massachusetts was divided into counties; and out of
a ludicrous contest about a stray pig, in which deputies and
magistrates took different sides, grew a very important
controversy as to the powers of deputies and assistants, which
resulted [1644] in the division of the legislature into two
branches, and a consequent improvement in the symmetry and
solidity of the political system."

_H. C. Lodge,
Short History of the English Colonies,
chapter 18._

See, also,
TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1655.
Colonizing enterprises of New Haven on the Delaware.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.
The confederation of the colonies.

In May, 1643, "a confederacy, to be known as the United
Colonies of New England, was entered into at Boston, between
delegates from Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven on the one
hand, and the General Court of Massachusetts on the other.
Supposed dangers from the Indians, and their quarrels with the
Dutch of Manhattan, had induced the people of Connecticut to
withdraw their formal objections to this measure. Two
commissioners from each colony were to meet annually, or
oftener, if necessary; the sessions to be held alternately at
Boston, Hartford, New Haven, and Plymouth; but Boston was to
have two sessions for one at each of the other places. The
commissioners, all of whom must be church members, were to
choose a president from among themselves, and everything was
to be decided by six voices out of the eight. No war was to be
declared by either colony without the consent of the
commissioners, to whose province Indian affairs and foreign
relations were especially assigned. The sustentation of the
'truth and liberties of the Gospel' was declared to be one
great object of this alliance. All war expenses were to be a
common charge, to be apportioned according to the number or
male inhabitants in each colony. Runaway servants and fugitive
criminals were to be delivered up, a provision afterward
introduced into the Constitution of the United States; and the
commissioners soon recommended, what remained ever after the
practice of New England, and ultimately became, also, a
provision of the United States Constitution, that judgments of
courts of law and probates of wills in each colony should have
full faith and credit in all the others.
{2310}
The commissioners from Massachusetts, as representing by far
the most powerful colony of the alliance, claimed an honorary
precedence, which the others readily conceded. Plymouth,
though far outgrown by Massachusetts, and even by Connecticut,
had made, however, some progress. It now contained seven
towns, and had lately adopted a representative system. But the
old town of Plymouth was in decay, the people being drawn off
to the new settlements. Bradford had remained governor, except
for four years, during two of which he had been relieved by
Edward Winslow, and the other two by Thomas Prince. New Haven
was, perhaps, the weakest member of the alliance. Besides that
town, the inhabitants of which were principally given to
commerce, there were two others, Milford and Guilford,
agricultural settlements; Southold, at the eastern extremity
of Long Island, also acknowledged the jurisdiction of New
Haven, and a new settlement had recently been established at
Stamford. … The colony of Connecticut, not limited to the
towns on the river, to which several new ones had already been
added, included also Stratford and Fairfield, on the coast of
the Sound, west of New Haven. … The town of Southampton, on
Long Island, acknowledged also the jurisdiction of
Connecticut. Fort Saybrook, at the mouth of the river, was
still an independent settlement, and Fenwick, as the head of
it, became a party to the articles of confederation. But the
next year he sold out his interest to Connecticut, and into
that colony Saybrook was absorbed. … Gorges's province of
Maine was not received into the New England alliance, 'because
the people there ran a different course both in their ministry
and civil administration.' The same objection applied with
still greater force to Aquiday and Providence."

_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 10 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:
_J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 1, chapter 1._

_G. P. Fisher,
The Colonial Era,
chapter 8._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1644.
The chartering of Providence Plantation,
and the Rhode Island Union.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1647.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1649-1651.
Under Cromwell and the Commonwealth.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1649-1651.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1650.
Adjustment of Connecticut boundaries with the Dutch.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1651-1660.
The disputed jurisdiction in Maine.
The claims of Massachusetts made good.

See MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1656-1661.
The persecution of Quakers.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1657-1662.
The Halfway Covenant.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1664.
The protection of the Regicides.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1665.
Under the Restored Monarchy.
The first collision of Massachusetts with the crown.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.
The Union of Connecticut and New Haven by Royal Charter.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.
The Rhode Island charter, and beginning of boundary conflicts
with Connecticut.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675.
King Philip's War: Its causes and beginning.

"The Pokanokets had always rejected the Christian faith and
Christian manners, and their chief had desired to insert in a
treaty, what the Puritans always rejected, that the English
should never attempt to convert the warriors of his tribe from
the religion of their race. The aged Massassoit—he who had
welcomed the pilgrims to the soil of New England, and had
opened his cabin to shelter the founder of Rhode Island—now
slept with his fathers, and Philip, his son, had succeeded him
as head of the allied tribes. Repeated sales of land had
narrowed their domains, and the English had artfully crowded
them into the tongues of land, as 'most suitable and
convenient for them,' and as more easily watched. The
principal seats of the Pokanokets were the peninsulas which we
now call Bristol and Tiverton. As the English villages drew
nearer and nearer to them, their hunting-grounds were put
under culture, their natural parks were turned into pastures,
their best fields for planting corn were gradually alienated,
their fisheries were impaired by more skilful methods, till
they found themselves deprived of their broad acres, and, by
their own legal contracts, driven, as it were, into the sea.
Collisions and mutual distrust were the necessary consequence.
There exists no evidence of a deliberate conspiracy on the
part of all the tribes. The commencement of war was
accidental; many of the Indians were in a maze, not knowing
what to do, and disposed to stand for the English; sure proof
of no ripened conspiracy. But they had the same complaints,
recollections, and fears: and, when they met, they could not
but grieve together at the alienation of the domains of their
fathers. They spurned the English claim of jurisdiction over
them, and were indignant that Indian chiefs or warriors should
be arraigned before a jury. And, when the language of their
anger and sorrow was reported to the men of Plymouth colony by
an Indian tale-bearer, fear professed to discover in their
unguarded words the evidence of an organized conspiracy. The
haughty Philip, who had once before been compelled to
surrender his 'English arms' and pay an onerous tribute, was,
in 1674, summoned to submit to an examination, and could not
escape suspicion. The wrath of his tribe was roused, and the
informer was murdered. The murderers, in their turn, were
identified, seized, tried by a jury, of which one half were
Indians, and, in June, 1675, on conviction, were hanged. The
young men of the tribe panted for revenge: without delay,
eight or nine of the English were slain in or about Swansey,
and the alarm of war spread through the colonies. Thus was
Philip hurried into 'his rebellion;' and he is reported to
have wept as he heard that a white man's blood had been shed.
… What chances had he of success? The English were united;
the Indians had no alliance, and half of them joined the
English, or were quiet spectators of the fight: the English
had guns enough; few of the Indians were well armed, and they
could get no new supplies: the English had towns for their
shelter and safe retreat; the miserable wigwams of the natives
were defenceless: the English had sure supplies of food; the
Indians might easily lose their precarious stores. They rose
without hope, and they fought without mercy.
{2311}
For them as a nation there was no to-morrow. … At the first
alarm, volunteers from Massachusetts joined the troops of
Plymouth; on the twenty-ninth of June, within a week from the
beginning of hostilities, the Pokanokets were driven from
Mount Hope; and in less than a month Philip was a fugitive
among the Nipmucks, the interior tribes of Massachusetts. The
little army of the colonists then entered the territory of the
Narragansetts, and from the reluctant tribe extorted a treaty
of neutrality, with a promise to deliver up every hostile
Indian. Victory seemed promptly assured. But it was only the
commencement of horrors. Canonchet, the chief sachem of the
Narragansetts, was the son of Miantonomoh; and could he forget
his father's wrongs? Desolation extended along the whole
frontier. Banished from his patrimony where the pilgrims found
a friend, and from his cabin which had sheltered exiles,
Philip and his warriors spread through the country, awakening
their race to a warfare of extermination."

_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(author's last revision),
part 2, chapter 5 (volume 1)._