{"1": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3698", "width": "2315", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "COLLECTIONS\\nOF THE\\nRhode Island Historical Society.\\nVOLUME IX.\\nPROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND.\\n1897.\\nMonograph", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "iu.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "THE PROPRIETORS OF PROVIDENCE,\\nAND THEIR\\nCONTROVERSIES WITH THE FREEHOLDERS.\\nHENRY C. DORR.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATIONS.\\nJohn H. Stiness, Chairman.\\nAmasa M. Eaton,\\nAmos Perry,\\nWilfred H. Munro,\\nFred A. Arnold,\\nJ. Franklin Jameson.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "At the annual meeting of the Rhode Island Historical\\nSociety, January 12, 1897, it was voted:\\nThat the Publication Committee be and is hereby author-\\nized and instructed to publish the paper of Mr. Henry C.\\nDorr, on the Controversy between the Proprietors and the\\nFreeholders of Providence, as Vol. IX. of the Society s Col-\\nlections, together with such preface and index as are approved\\nby Mr. Dorr also,\\nThat the thanks of the Society be extended to Mr. Dorr\\nfor this valuable contribution to the early history of the\\nProvidence Plantations, and also to those members of the\\nSociety who defray the expense of this publication.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "THE PROPRIETORS OF PROVIDENCE, AND\\nTHEIR CONTROVERSIES WITH THE\\nFREEHOLDERS.\\nCONTENTS.\\nThe Peculiar Title to the Lands,\\nThe Initial Deed,\\nThe Arbitrators Proposals for a Form of Govern\\nment,\\nSamuel Gorton in Providence,\\nSecession at Pawtuxet,\\nProgress under the Charter of 1644,\\nEndeavors of Vane and Williams,\\nThe Proprietors Claim to Lands west of the Indian\\nLine,\\nThe Controversy of Williams and Harris,\\nThe Sachems confirm the Grants; Freemen and Pur\\nchasers,\\nThe Seven-Mile Line and the Four-Mile Line,\\nNew Contentions under the New Charter,\\nIndian Wars; the Proprietors become a Corporation\\nGrowth under the Proprietors,\\nSummary and Conclusions,\\npages.\\ni-ii\\n21-26\\n27-32\\n33-35\\n36-56\\n57-64\\n65-72\\n73-77\\n78-86\\n86-95\\n95-104\\n104-113\\n113-128\\n128-136", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS.\\nTHE PROPRIETORS OF PROVIDENCE, AND\\nTHEIR CONTROVERSIES WITH THE\\nFREEHOLDERS.\\nThe earliest controversy of the Plantations was between\\nthe Proprietors and the Freeholders. During two generations v\\nit disturbed the quiet of the town meeting and the harmony\\nof private life, and, more than anything beside, delayed union\\nand success. It arose out of the peculiar title to the lands.\\nIts ill consequences long survived it. Its details are now\\nforgotten, and many of its historical records have perished.\\nBut it is worthy of remembrance, if only as an illustration of\\nthe fact, that of all political blunders, those of the founders\\nof a State are the most permanent in influence and the most\\ndifficult of remedy.\\nThe troubles of the townsmen had a beginning earlier than\\nthe Plantation itself. Such an undertaking requires, and has\\neverywhere else received, forethought, organization, and re-\\nsources. It cannot be extemporized, or adventured suddenly\\nand in haste. Such was Williams s own view of his project.\\nWhile yet a resident of Plymouth (1631-32), he had known\\nCanonicus, and had received assurance of the favor and aid\\nof the great Sachem of the Narragansetts. Williams then\\ncontemplated a settlement at Acquetneck, and had ever since-\\nbeen occupied in slowly maturing his scheme. Sometimes\\nhe thought of going alone into the wilderness, as to a mission\\nto do good to the natives souls.* A little reflection must\\nhave taught him that this was but a day-dream. He must\\nhave seen that with such a country and such a bay, neither\\nEngland, France, Holland nor Massachusetts would very long\\nMy soul s desire was, to do the natives good. Answer of Roger\\nWilliams to the Declaration of William Harris against the Town of\\nProvidence, p. 53, Rider s Hist. Tract No. 14.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "2 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nleave him alone in Narragansett. At the time of his banish-\\nment, Williams had no definite scheme for his colony. The\\ncontroversial temper which he had manifested did not attract\\nthe organizing spirits of Massachusetts to any enterprise\\nwhich was to be subject to his control. He had need to con-\\nsult with men of liberal views in England, for England was\\nnot wholly Puritan. These could have aided him with capital\\nwith men skilled in mechanic arts, and with those competent\\nto found and to conduct a system of education which was,\\nmost of all, needed in such a colony as he proposed. While\\nhe was slowly developing his plans, he suddenly received\\nnews of an order for his arrest. He saw that his last oppor-\\ntunity had come. Had he waited until his return from London\\nhe would have found the only refuge in New England closed\\nagainst him by Massachusetts.* [See his letter to Mason,\\n1670.] He says that he lost ;^iooo by the breaking up of his\\nbusiness. His arrangements of his private affairs must be\\nmade upon the instant. Directions must be given at once for\\nthe conduct of a trading-house, very considerable for those\\ndays. His family must be provided with temporary support,\\nand his leave-taking with such of his friends as could be\\nassembled must be gone through. The colony at Mooshas-\\nsuc was founded within six hours. All these arrangements\\nwere hurried through during one short winter day, and he\\nwent forth alone and unprovided, into the winter night, no\\none knew whither. He could be assured of the companionship\\nof but few who could be of service to his undertaking. Dur-\\ning the next spring, he was pressed with the labor of planting\\nat Seekonk. He had little leisure and few facilities for corres-\\npondence, and but few men fit to plan a new social organiza-\\ntion. Some whom he asked or permitted to follow him, he\\nwould not have invited had he known them better, for they\\ncertainly were of little use. Some, well qualified for the\\nwork, were probably dissuaded from it by their knowledge\\nthat beside the terror of the wilderness they must encounter\\nthe hostility of Massachusetts, and the loss of old friendships\\n*Williams was not expecting a speedy removal to R. I. at the time of\\nhis banishment, and had made no preparations for it.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 3\\nthere. A departure to Mooshassuc seems to have been re-\\ngarded among the Bay people, very much as the men of\\nthis generation looked upon a settlement in Utah.\\nHad Williams been able to collect his substance, and to\\nmature his scheme, he would have directed his steps towards\\nAcquetneck. The Mooshassuc was not his first choice. Had\\nhe done so, as he had once intended, he would have found\\ngreater resources of every kind. The varied materials of the\\ncolony might have been united in one town, for which they\\nwere not too many. It would have possessed greater breadth\\nand comprehensiveness than belonged either to Providence\\nor to Newport, and would have gained a wider audience from\\nthe beginning. The settlement at Mooshassuc would have\\nbeen later in date, and its history unlike what it is.*\\nWhen the unforeseen events suddenly befell him, Williams\\nhad not, like Massachusetts, a charter, with a tolerably well\\ndefined boundary, with full right of soil and jurisdiction. He\\nwas not unaware of the infirmity of his title. In one of his\\nearliest letters to Governor Winthrop,f he speaks of his\\noccupancy as merely provisional until we hear further of\\nthe King s pleasure concerning ourselves. Their govern-\\nment was a mere agreement, the inhabitants to pay ^os.\\napiece as they came. It was Williams s first intention to apply\\nto the government of England for a charter. But he felt no\\nassurance that a charter would be granted, embodying his\\npolitical ideas, or that the people would be allowed to elect\\ntheir officers from among themselves. To the Crown no ap-\\nplication was made until 1644, and then only in union with\\nNewport. During several years the Plantation suffered the\\nevils of a want of legal organization, and of security of title.\\nAfter Williams had built by the spring at Mooshassuc, it was\\nstill legally competent for any other Englishman with a com-\\npany of followers, to encamp on Fox s Hill and set up a rival\\ngovernment with an authority as good as his own. The\\n*When the place was first called Providence, does not appear.\\nThere is no vote to that effect to be found among the fragments of the\\nearly records.\\ntNarragansett Club s ed., pp. 5, 6.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "4 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nking might have confirmed the title of either, upon terms\\nwholly subversive of their principles of government. It is\\nprobable that only the troubles of the times prevented this\\ninterference. Williams seems to have thought that an Indian\\ntitle was a sufficient protection. He seems not to have\\nbeen aware that as against the English government he and\\nhis company were only trespassers upon unoccupied lands of\\nthe Crown. Williams had no knowledge of English law, and\\ndid not consider that if any dispute arose over the title to\\nthe soil, the final decision would be given by the Privy Coun-\\ncil or by the king s commissioners according to the rules of\\nthe common law, by which his proceedings were void ab initio.\\nThe despotic rule of Massachusetts had forced the settlers of\\nRhode Island into the undesirable position of giving the first\\nexhibition of Squatter Sovereignty in the new world. It\\nwas a still greater misfortune of the new State, that the sud-\\ndenness with which it was founded left no opportunity to settle\\nthe principles of its organization. The new home had not yet\\nbeen purchased, and future relations at home and abroad\\nwere in a state of uncertainty. The Planters at Mooshassuc\\nwere agreed upon but one principle, and that a negative one\\nas to what the State should not do. They were agreed as to\\nthe foundation of a free commonwealth, but had given little\\nattention to details. They did not clearly comprehend their\\nrelations with each other. Hence, at a very early day, the\\ngerms of many controversies began to develop themselves.\\nThus, in a letter to Governor Winthrop (of 1636 or 1637),\\nWilliams asks his opinion on Whether I may not lawfully\\ndesire this of my neighbours, that as I freely subject myself\\nto common consent, and shall not bring in any person into\\nthe town without their consent, so also that without my con-\\nsent, no person be violently brought in and received Wil-\\nliams felt the highest respect for the character of Governor\\nWinthrop and consulted him on the gravest matters. He\\nwould never have proposed any trivial or hypothetical ques-\\ntion in their correspondence. It would seem that he had\\nalready submitted this question to the town meeting, and\\nthat the power of veto upon admissions of new freemen had\\nbeen denied him. It would have given him the future control", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 5\\nof the town. On the other hand, Harris and his associates\\nalways maintained and believed that Williams made his pur-\\nchase from the Sachems, only as the agent of the whole\\nbody. The founder was to have no authority superior to that\\nof one of his followers. In justice both to Williams and to\\nHarris, these difficulties of the early planters should be re-\\nmembered, and the ample opportunities for mistakes and\\nmisunderstandings which they afforded.*\\nAll thoughts of homesteads and estates were delayed, by.\\nwant even of an Indian title. So soon as he was able, in the\\nearliest days of the Plantations, Williams sought an interview\\nwith the chief Sachems, and obtained from Canonicus and\\nMiantonomi a gift, or at least a promise, of land sufficient for\\na town. This agreement was of unknown date and is not\\nnow extant. Judge Staples thought that it was merely ver-\\nbal. Upon such an insecure foundation, nothing could be\\nbuilt. Canonicus was old, his less trustworthy successor\\nmight retract his guaranty. Another negotiation was opened,\\nip the Second year of our Plantation, at which only Wil-\\nliams and the Indians were present. A memorandum was\\nprepared it was no deed. It was solemnly attested by the\\nSachems in the presence of Indian witnesses.! It is in these\\nwords\\nAt Nanhiggansic the 24th of the first month, commonly\\ncalled March, in y Second yeare of our Plantation, or plant-\\ning, at Mooshausic or Providence.\\nMemorandum, that we, Canonicus Miantunomi, the\\ntwo chief Sachems of Nanhiggansick, having two years since,\\nsold unto Roger Williams, y= lands meadows upon the\\ntwo fresh rivers called Mooshausic Wanasquetucket, doe\\nnow by these presents, establish confirme y^ bounds of\\nthose lands, from y^ river fields at Pautuckqut, y= great hill\\nof Notquonchanet, on y^ Northwest, the town of Mausha-\\npauge on y= West.\\nAs also in consideration of the many kindnesses ser-\\nvices he hath continually done for us, both with our friends\\n*I have already described in Rider s Hist. Tract No. 15, the mode of\\nplanting and building the town, and need not repeat what was there said.\\ntR. I. Col. Records, Vol. I., pp. 18, 19, 26.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "6 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nat Massachusetts, as also at Quinnichicutt, Apaum or\\nPlymouth, we do freely give unto him, all that land from\\nthese rivers, reaching to Pautuxet River, as also the grass\\nmeadows upon y\u00c2\u00ab said Pautuxet River. In witness whereof\\nwe have hereunto set our hands.\\nY^ Mark of t: Cannonicus.\\nf\\nY^ Mark of I Miantunnomi.\\nIn the presence of\\nThe Mark of j Soldash.\\nThe Mark of i Assotemewit.\\n1639. Memorandum 3^^ Mo. 9 day. This was all again con-\\nfirmed by Miantonomi; he acknowledged his act and hand, up\\nthe streams of Pawtuckqut, Pawtuxet, without limits, we\\nmight have, for use of cattle.\\nWitness hereof Roger Williams.*\\nBenedict Arnold.*\\nThe first memorandum (it was no deed in a legal sense)\\nwas probably the work of Williams alone. The second memo-\\nrandum, unlike the first, has no mention of the place of its\\nexecution, and has no Indian witness. Probably it received\\nthe assent of Miantonomi at one of his visits to Providence,\\nand William Harris, who was in communication with Bene-\\ndict Arnold (neither of them lovers of Indians), suggested the\\nlast clause which was the origin of such bitter controversy\\nduring the next forty years. Such was Williams s opinion as\\nto its authorship.| The first memorandum was prepared\\nwithout such legal advice as Williams might have obtained.\\n*They were the only two men in the Colony who understood the lan-\\nguage of the Indians.\\nfSee Williams s second letter to John Whipple, Rider s Hist. Tract No.\\n14, pp. 27, 29, 30, 31,33, 34, 44-", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 7\\nHe did not consult with William Harris, with whom his quar-\\nrel had not yet begun. Harris s ready and correct use of\\nlegal phraseolgy, suggests that he might have had the train-\\ning of an attorney, or of an attorney s clerk. John Throck-\\nmorton* had been an officer of an English Municipal\\nCorporation.! He had made large purchases of real property\\nin Massachusetts and elsewhere, and must have known the\\nproper terms of an ordinary purchase deed.ij: Governor Wins-\\nlow of Plymouth, was a good friend to Williams, and knew at\\nleast the rudiments of English law. Any of these could\\nhave told him that his boundaries were vague, confused and\\nalmost certain to become the subjects of controversy, that\\nhis grant had no words of inheritance, and at Common\\nLaw gave him only a life estate. It does not seem to have\\noccurred to him that a defect in such a title would be finally\\nadjudicated, not between himself and the Sachems, in an In-\\ndian Council or in a Providence town meeting, but between\\ntwo parties of Englishmen ^between himself or his assignees\\non the one side, and some other Englishman setting up an-\\nother Indian purchase or title by occupancy or possession on\\nthe other and that the controversy would finally be deter-\\nmined by the king s courts, according to the rules of English\\nlaw. A matter of such grave importance would have justified\\ndelay in order to send to England for appropriate forms of\\nconveyance. But Williams had an obstinate will and an irrita-\\nble temper, and was very impatient of opposition. As we shall\\nsee in several instances hereafter, so on this occasion, Wil-\\nliams, as was his wont, took counsel with no one, even where\\nthe rights of others were affected by his action. He ven-\\ntured alone into the wilderness to the Indian stronghold at\\nNarragansett, and secured such a title as his own unaided\\nforesight permitted.\\n*At one time, Throckmorton was the owner of one-half of Prudence\\nIsland.\\nfSee George Fox digged out, p. 13.\\ntSee Weeden s Social History of N. E., Vol. I., p. 109.\\n\u00c2\u00a7See letter of Richard Scott, Appendix to Fox s New England Fire-,\\nbrand quenched, He must have the ordering of all their affairs, or else\\nthere would be no quiet agreement among them.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "8 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nThe first memorandum was vague and inconsistent in its\\ndescription of the property conveyed. It seems to have been\\nunsatisfactory to the associates of Williams. A long delay\\nfollowed, and after two more years, the second memoran-\\ndum, called a confirmation, was obtained from Miantonomi,\\nwith the additional words, up streams without limits, we\\nmight have, for the use of cattle. This confirmation\\nwhich the cautious barbarian did not subscribe, was merely\\na certificate by Williams and Benedict Arnold, of what the\\nSachem had said in their presence.* Williams has left no ac-\\ncount of his reasons for subscribing a document which he\\never afterward so greatly disapproved. The second memo-\\nrandum had no legal validity, was mere hearsay. But it was\\naccepted at last by the purchasers, in despair of obtaining\\nany thing else. The Planters Williams among them never\\nreposed the same confidence in Miantonomi, as in the great\\nSachem Canonicus. It was deemed expedient to procure the\\nconfirmation of the heir to the Narragansett throne, as no\\none could be sure as to his future disposition. His prospect\\nof long life seemed fair. No one anticipated his murder by\\nthe consent or order of the United Colonies, with the approval\\nof the elders. f His renewed assent to his gift or grant was\\nregarded by all parties as worth purchasing, as a security for\\nthe future. It was readily given, and as against the Indians,\\nthe title seemed to Williams to be complete. William Harris,\\nwith greater forecast than his neighbors, saw at once that the\\nlands within the bounds of the Indian purchase were insuffi-\\ncient for an English plantation. Canonicus was willing to\\ngive a larger tract, but the inferior sachems in the neighbor-\\nhood of Providence, made such a clamour that the gift was\\ncurtailed, as in the memorandum. Williams says expressly,\\nthe sachems and I, were hurried (by y envie of some against\\nmyselfe) to those short bounds, by reason of y^ Indians then\\nat Mashapog, Notakunhanet Pawtucket, beyond whom the\\n*William Harris says that a deed was after drawn up in proper form,\\nand was tendered to Williams, but that he refused to execute it.\\nfSee Savage s Winthrop.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 9\\nsachems could not then go, c.* Harris undertook to supply\\nthe defect by the clause which gave occasion to so much\\nwrath in the future. The words attracted but little attention\\nat the time. It was claimed at a later day by the Proprietors,\\nthat they gave to Williams s grantees the entire fee simple of\\nthe town, from the west side of the Seekonk River to the\\nColony of Connecticut. We shall meet this clause again,\\nup streams without limits, c., the question whether the\\nrights which it conveyed were corporeal or incorporeal.\\nAs if these embarrassments were insufficient, the Indian\\ngrantors of Mooshassuc knew nothing of the English lan-\\nguage, and had no written discourse of their own. There is\\nlittle reason to believe that they understood their concession\\nin the same sense in which it was received and paid for by\\nthe English settlers. The Indians were Socialists in theory\\nand practice. All their land belonged to the nation or tribe,\\nwith only a temporary tiser by the individual members. To\\nthe end, they never comprehended or approved the exclusive\\nand individual property everywhere asserted by the English-\\nman, and never ceased growling over its inconvenience to\\nthemselves.\\nBut whatever doubts may have been suggested by the title\\nto the soil, the material wants of the settlers for the time\\nsuspended all other topics. They had lived two years in those\\nfilthy smoakie holes, the Narragansett wigwams, and the\\ncompanions of Williams were eager to begin their work.\\nThey could do little until they had obtained an allotment of\\ntheir homesteads. Williams had procured a title exclusively\\nin himself and their first controversy with him was now to\\nbegin. Its discordant elements came to view in the earliest\\ndays of the town. This is Williams s account of its earliest\\npolitical organization f\\nThe condition of myself, and those few families here plant-\\ning with me, you know full well. We have no patent, nor\\ndoth the face of magistracy suit with our present condition.\\n*See Williams s second letter to John Whipple, Rider s Hist. Tract,\\np. 27.\\nfSee Williams s letters, Narr. Club s ed.. Vol. VI., p. 4; Williams to\\nWinthrop, p. 4, 1637.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "lO RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nHitherto, the masters of families have ordinarily met once a\\nfortnight consulted about our common peace, watch\\nplantings, by mutual consent have finished all matters with\\nspeed peace. Now of late, some young men, single persons,\\nof whom we have much need, being admitted to freedom of\\ninhabitation promising to be subject to the orders made by\\nconsent of the householders, are discontented with their es-\\ntate, seek the freedom of voting also, equality, c.\\nThe first settlers had on some unknown day, restricted\\nthe suffrage to married men, who were also heads of families\\na restriction far from welcome to the class, young and ener-\\ngetic but of little wealth, who are the majority in every\\nnew Plantation. Their request was denied and they remained\\nin a state of discontent during nine years. They were then\\nenfranchised by a popular commotion which ended the vol-\\nuntary association, or town fellowship, and had well nigh\\nwrecked the Plantation itself. As to the number of these\\nyoung men at the time when Williams wrote to Winthrop,\\nwe are not informed, but they must have been a considerable\\nproportion of the planters of those early days.\\nThe founder and many of his associates had not much in\\ncommon. His purpose was threefold first, to establish a\\na free community in which the State should have no author-\\nity in matters of religious belief second, as akin to this, to\\nafford a refuge for fugitives who sought a like enjoyment of\\nthe freedom of conscience third, the religious and moral\\nelevation of the Narragansetts. He was not ambitious of\\ncivil office as the founder of a colony, or of landed wealth,\\nsuch as was the ambition of every one at home. His follow-\\ners did not share his unselfish purposes. Their experience\\nof the abuse of power in Massachusetts had made them im-\\npatient of all authority whatsoever. With unyielding per-\\ntinacity, they watched over their own liberties, and provided\\nhomesteads only for themselves. The majority manifested\\nlittle sympathy with Williams, except in his negative opinion\\nas to what the State should not do. No religious society was\\norganized until the autumn of 1638. Out of nearly sixty house-\\nholders only twelve united with Williams in its formation.\\nDuring the whole of the seventeenth century, its members", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0022.jp2"}, "23": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. II\\nwere a small minority of the townsmen and numbered so few\\nadherents that they met in the small dwellings of those days,\\nand a meeting-house was not required until A. D. 1700. The\\nTown Meeting would give no invitation to fugitives from\\nreligious intolerance, and set apart no tract or reservation for\\ntheir benefit. All who came hither, came at their own risk,\\nand upon their own responsibility.* The townsmen were not\\nhistorical scholars, but they had seen enough of history en-\\nacted in old England to be assured that modern martyrs were\\nnot always the most agreeable tenants or neighbors, and that\\nthey often appear to greater advantage in chronicles and\\nepitaphs than anywhere else.\\nThe motives which urged most of the planters of Mooshas-\\nsuck, seem to have been rather political than religious. They\\nhad come to Providence for religious liberty, but only a few\\nof them showed much desire for an active exercise of its\\nrights by setting up any religious assembly. Their chief\\nanxiety was to escape from the despotism of Puritan elders,\\nand their goverment was only in civil things. With the\\nNarragansetts, the settlers at Mooshassuc felt little sympa-\\nthy. Their chief interest in their barbarous neighbors was\\npecuniary in the trade in beaver-skins and in liquors so ener-\\ngetically denounced by Williams. Only Williams, and Bene-\\ndict Arnold, the Indian interpreter and trader, understood\\ntheir barbarous rockie speech. f The excessive imports of\\nwines and spirits, far beyond the consumption of the English\\nsettlers, and all duly entered in the town records, prove\\nwhat was the chief staple of the Indian trade These fully\\njustify Williams s censures of the practices of his fellow-\\ntownsmen and his forebodings of a bloody retribution. Not\\none of them gave him any aid in his mission or was an enthu-\\nsiast in any like purpose.\\nWith these diversities of character and objects, we may\\n*In the autumn of 1638, thirteen persons formed the Baptist Society.\\nIn 1637, there were fifty-four householders in Providence purchase. The\\nexact number of the population is not known.\\ntSee George Fox digged out, Narr. Club s ed., p. 465.\\nJSee Early Records of the Town of Providence, Vol. II., p. 22 and\\nIndex.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0023.jp2"}, "24": {"fulltext": "12 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nwell believe that Williams and his associates did not readily\\nagree in the ownership or disposal of the estate which had\\ncome into their hands. In order to see more distinctly their\\nmutual relations, let us look at the events of the time.\\nMooshassuc had no charter. The people could not incorpo-\\nrate themselves or assume any of the powers of sovereignty.\\nThere were as yet no other towns capable of uniting in a\\nlegislature and of wielding for a time some part of the royal\\nprerogative. No union with Newport was in view there\\nwas no prospect that there would be any. Great nations were\\nlittle desirous of colonies of such microscopic dimensions.\\nThere was not even a town government. The settlers felt\\nsuch a dislike for the regime of Massachusetts, that they\\nwould tolerate nothing but a voluntary association, or town-\\nfellowship. How then could Williams secure the great\\nobject of his life, and the planters the object of theirs.? He\\nwanted little for himself, but how could he secure the build-\\ning up of a town by a people who could not bear heavy taxa-\\ntion, and who could hope for few wealthy emigrants Disputes\\nabout such matters probably caused the long interval between\\nthe Sachems Memorandum and Williams s Initial deed.\\nThere must have been a dispute at the outset of a grave\\ncharacter, that these homeless settlers denied themselves\\nany fixed abodes until it was determined. There was first of\\nall (as we have seen), the question of the authority of Wil-\\nliams to veto the admission of new inhabitants and then,\\nwhat was the meaning of the Initial deed But at length,\\nfinding that they could extract nothing else from him, the\\ntownsmen accepted the conveyance, such as it was, with all\\nits uncertainties of meaning. Its boundaries are merely a\\nreference to those in the Sachems gift, with no explanations\\nto make them clearer. Nothing can be inferred from the want\\nof a seal, or witnesses, or of words of inheritance. These\\nwere not in general use in Providence, until regular legal\\nforms were introduced, in another generation. The deed of\\nWilliams to his associates was in these words\\n*From the 24th of March, 1637, to 8th of October, 1638.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0024.jp2"}, "25": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 1 3\\nTHE INITIAL DEED FROM ROGER WILLIAMS OF THE LANDS\\nPURCHASED OF CANONICUS AND MIANTONNOMI.\\nMemorandum. That I, R. W., having formerly purchased\\nof Canonicus and Miantonomi, this our situation or planta-\\ntion of New Providence, viz. the two fresh rivers Wonas,\\nand Moosh and the grounds and meadows thereupon, in con-\\nsideration of ^30 received from the inhabitants of said place,\\ndo freely fully pass, grant and make over, equal right\\npower of enjoying and disposing the same grounds lands\\nunto my loving friends and neighbors S. W. WA. TJ. RC.\\nJ G, IT, WH WC TO FW. R. W. and E. H. and such others\\nas the m^ajor part of us shall admit into the same fellowship\\nof vote with us. As also I do freely make pass over equal\\nright power of enjoying disposing the said land ground,\\nreaching from the aforesaid rivers unto the great river Paw-\\ntuxet with the grass meadow thereupon, which was so\\nlately given granted by the two aforesaid Sachems to me.\\nWitness my hand\\nR. W.\\nThe original of the Initial deed is not extant. The\\nrecorded copy is without date.* It appears that the deed was\\ndelivered 1637. In another conveyance made for some un-\\nknown reason, on the eighth of the 9th month, 1638, Wil-\\nliams again grants the same lands to such others as the major\\npart of us shall admit into the same fellowship of vote with\\nus.\\nHere began the great controversy of the Plantations. What\\ndid this mean Who were the grantees t What their charac-\\nter and capacity and what was their estate They are men-\\ntioned only by their initials, as if individuality and personality\\nwere not regarded. Williams ascribes this singularity in his\\ndeed to haste and want of time a strange reason, in a\\nmatter of such importance, and which was utterly denied by\\nHarris. The consideration of \u00c2\u00a3^0 was an entire sum. Such\\n*Staples s Annals of Providence, pp. 31, 33.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0025.jp2"}, "26": {"fulltext": "14 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nas might be paid by a single corporate grantee, and not by-\\nsingle purchasers, in minute shares. The only succession de-\\nscribed by the deed was not a personal succession to one\\nand his heirs, but a corporate succession to a perpetual\\nbody, continued in being by the vote of the entire fellowship,\\nwhich has successors but no heirs* Williams conveys to such\\nothers as the major part shall admit into the same fellow-\\nship of vote with us. These words describe the acts of a\\ncorporate body or guild, which could act by majorities (as\\nmere tenants in common could not), and which could dispose\\nof its estate only for the use of the whole corporation. If\\nthe whole of the Initial grantees were to hold merely\\nequal undivided shares, as tenants in common, how could\\nthose who were afterwards admitted to the same fellowship\\nof vote devest the estate already vested in the first grantees\\nA mere vote of a town meeting could not transfer vested es-\\ntates from one freeholder to another. How was any reserva-\\ntion to be made for future sufferers for conscience sake if\\nall the proprietary lands had been already vested in private\\nownership Williams, as he always maintained, undoubtedly\\nbelieved that he had transferred his Indian purchase to an\\nassociation to hold it in trust until a future town was ready\\nto receive it.\\nIn the Initial deed, Williams only refers to the first\\nMemorandum of the Sachems purchase, without mention\\nof the second, containing the clause up streams without\\nlimits. If he had believed that any part of his grant was\\nincorporeal or a mere right of pasturage, he would have done\\nwisely to mention his belief in his memorandum. He would\\nhave thus saved himself from future censure and mortifica-\\ntion. But he was not a lawyer. In his Initial deed he\\nspeaks of his whole purchase as consisting of lands and\\ngrounds, and nowhere explains in any extant document that\\nhe was conveying an estate which was in any part incorporeal.\\nHe always insisted that the sum of ;^30 was received by him\\n*Harris says that the ^30 was only the sum paid to Williams, but that\\nthe sum paid to extinguish the claims of the Indians made the entire cos;\\nto the townsmen ^160.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0026.jp2"}, "27": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 1 5\\nas compensation for his labor and expense in visiting the\\nSachems and in procuring the grant, and not for the purchase\\nof the land from him by the townsmen. The Proprietors\\nor Purchasers were to pay each thirty shillings for their\\nhomelots six-acre lots and farming lands (lOO acres\\neach) and for no more. He had no intention of parting with\\nthe whole purchase, which had cost so much pains and labor\\nfor the sole benefit of men who were chiefly strangers to\\nhim, and to whom he was under no obligations, in order that\\nthey might make dividends among themselves, as sharehold-\\ners in a private company.\\nIn this view of his conveyance to his associates, Williams\\npersisted during the remainder of his life. He lost no oppor-\\ntunity of proclaiming it. Only a few passages need to be\\nquoted, which sufficiently prove that Williams believed that\\nhe had conveyed his purchase in trust to his followers as a\\nsociety and not as individuals.\\nI. On the seventh of the 9th month, 1657, Williams exe-\\ncuted a deed to James Ellis, of his lands at Whatcheer,\\nwhich he had received from the town.* He inserted in this\\ndeed a recital of factsnot at all necessary to his conveyance,\\nbut which he intended as a manifesto to be preserved in the\\ntown book a memorial of his original purpose. In it are\\nthese words, He parted with his whole purchase unto the\\nTownship or Commonalty of the then inhabitants.\\nII. In the original agreement establishing the voluntary\\nassociation of the settlers at Providence, to which Williams\\nwas a party, we read The town by five men shall give\\nevery man a deed for all his lands lying within the bounds of\\nthe Plantations, to hold it by, in after ages.\\nIII. In his letter to John Whipple, 24th of August, 1669,^\\nWilliams insists that the disposal of the land should be by\\n*Early Records of Providence, Vol. III., pp. no, in, 112.\\nfSee Staples s Annals, p. 37. Letter to John Whipple, Rider s Hist\\nTract No. 14, p. 16.\\nJStaples s Annals, p. 42.\\n\u00c2\u00a7Fifth of 5th mo., 1640, R. I. Col. Records, Vol. I., p. 27, Sec. i.\\nIfRider s Hist. Tract No. 14, p. 38. MS. in the Library of the R. I.\\nHist. Society.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0027.jp2"}, "28": {"fulltext": "l6 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nthe freeholders at large, in the town meeting. Grant that\\nthere have been discourses agitacions many, about y^ lands\\npurchases, yet is it not reasonable righteous in all men s\\neyes. Y since there are so many purchasers who ordinarily\\ndoe not others y will not come to y^ Towne Meeting, yet\\ntheir consent should be had, and y^ consent of y^ majorities\\nshould determine y^ matters of their purchase, oblige the\\nminor differing from them. I understand not yet of the\\ndammage of a farthing y any of you have sustained, or are\\nlikely to do, from those whom you count your adversaries.\\nThis passage relates to the claim of the Proprietaries to an\\nexclusive right to vote in the town meeting upon all matters\\nrelating to the proprietary estate.*\\nIV. Williams is still more emphatic in his declarations\\nrespecting the Initial deed, in his answer to the Declara-\\ntion of William Harris against the Town of Providence,\\nseventeenth 9th mo., 1677, so called. f\\nAs to my selling them Pawtuxet Providence It is not\\ntrue that I was such a fool as to sell either of them especially\\nas W. H. Saith, like an Halter in a market, who gives\\nmost. The truth in the holy presence of the Lord is this.\\nW. Harris (W. H.), pretending religion, worried me with\\ndesires that I should admit him others into fellowship with\\nmy purchase. I yielded agreed that the place should be\\nfor such as destitute (especially for conscience sake), that\\neach person so admitted, should pay 30^ country pay, towards\\na town stock, and myself have ^^30. towards my charges which\\nI have had, ;^28. in broken parcels in five years. Pawtuxet I\\nparted with, at a small addition to Providence (for then that\\nmonstrous bound or business of up streams without limits\\nwas not thought of). W. Harris the first twelve of Provi-\\ndence were restless for Pawtuxet, I parted with it upon the\\nsame terms, viz. for the supply of the destitute, I had a\\nloan of them (then dear), when these twelve men, (out of\\npretence of conscience my desire of peace) had gotten the\\n*This will be mentioned again.\\nfRider s Hist. Tract No. 14.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0028.jp2"}, "29": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 1 7\\npower out of my hands, yet they still yielded to my grand\\ndesire of propagating a public interest, confessed them-\\nselves but as feoffees for all the many scores who were\\nreceived afterwards,\u00e2\u0080\u0094 paid the 30i not to the purchasors so\\ncalled, as Proprietors, but as feoffees for a Town Stock:\\nWilliam ffield the builder of this house, others, openly told\\nthe new comers that they must not think that they bought\\nsold the right to all the lands meadows in common, lOO\\nacres presently, power of voting, all for 30^ but that it\\nwent to a town public use, c.*\\nIt is needless to multiply citations from Williams to prove\\nhis understanding of his deed to his associates. But they\\nhad other views of their own rights and interests, and would\\nnot abandon them without contest. They have left no diaries\\nor letters, except a few by William Harris. It appears suffi-\\nciently from Williams s own writings that they had come to\\nProvidence with no clear understanding of their mutual rela-\\ntions.! Williams says in his answer, He {i. e., Wm.\\nHarris) chargeth Roger Williams for taking the land of\\nProvidence in his own name, which should have been taken\\nin the name of those which came up with him. Whether this\\nwere a correct view of the matter or not, it is certain that\\nmany of the ablest of the planters of Mooshassuc enter-\\ntained it. They were confronted at the outset with the ques-\\ntions whether this were to be an Indian mission under the\\ndirection of Williams or a town, and how far Williams s opin-\\nions were to be authoritative or decisive. They began with\\nthe debate as to whether the soil were individual property or\\ncorporate, like the land now held by the city at Field s\\nPoint, the Dexter Asylum, or Roger Williams Park. It was\\nWilliams s habit, as we shall see, to act upon his own opin-\\n*The house where Williams was then writing, was at that time the\\nhouse of Thomas ffield. It was afterwards fortified and was the\\ngarrison house during Philip s War. It was the largest house in\\nProvidence. It stood upon the lot where the Providence Bank now\\nstands, at a short distance eastward from the street. The last of the Field\\nowners sold the property to Joseph Brown. Through his family it\\ncame to the Providence Bank.\\ntSee also Rider s Hist. Tract No. 14, pp. 53, 55, 56 57.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0029.jp2"}, "30": {"fulltext": "l8 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nions or impulses without consulting others, however their\\nrights might be affected by what he did. So it was with re-\\nspect to this vague and ineffective Initial deed. But here\\nhe had his opponents at a disadvantage. He alone had any\\ninfluence with the sachems, and the townsmen must take\\nsuch a deed as he chose to give them or lose the territory\\naltogether. No other person could obtain a grant of it.\\nThey hesitated during several months. Harris says in his\\nanswer, or plea to his majesty s court, that Williams s writ-\\ning initials in his deed was a mere pretence of haste that\\nhe promised a more formal deed, but that when one was drawn\\ntendered to him he refused to sign it. At last the towns-\\nmen sullenly acquiesced, accepted the Initial deed, and\\nresolved to indemnify themselves in some way. They did so\\neffectually.\\nThere was something to be said in their behalf. From the\\nhasty manner of the foundation there had been no definite\\nunderstanding of the views of both parties as there should\\nhave been. They had all lost something, the greater part of\\ntheir substance and all their prospects in Massachusetts.\\nThey doubtless looked for some compensation for their suf-\\nferings beyond the thirty shillings worth of wilderness land\\nwhich Williams had allowed to each of them. The Initial\\ndeed created no express trust. This was only Williams s\\ninference. There were no means of enforcing the applica-\\ntion to public purposes of money arising from the sale of\\nlots. Here, in the absence of any coercive judicial power,\\nwas the weak point of Williams s whole machinery. The\\ncreation and management of city property had been famil-\\niar in England for centuries. But Williams did not seek\\nadvice from any quarter as to the proper mode of applying\\nreal estate to specific objects. He had consented to a mere\\ngovernment by arbitration, and he had no means of prevent-\\ning the diversion of his grant to any purpose whatsoever. He\\nhad required no covenants or conditions from his grantees,\\nand they, or Harris at least, soon perceived the weakness of\\ntheir obligations.\\nTheir title was not such as they had expected or desired,\\nbut as they could obtain no other, they went on under its", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0030.jp2"}, "31": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. IQ\\nsecurity to build and plant. There was no question at the\\ntime that the estates within their bounds were both perma-\\nnent and corporeal.\\nThat there was dissatisfaction at the first seems evident\\nfrom the fact that the Pawtuxet purchase was contempo-\\nraneous with the Initial deed. Williams has not left it a\\nsecret that the beginning of the town was not in harmony\\nand peace. The grave question was left unsettled whether\\nthe new domain was to be the property of the whole society\\nand of its political successors of the same fellowship of\\nvote, the few original settlers receiving only small allot-\\nments of homesteads and farms, or whether they and their\\nheirs were to be tenants in common of the whole purchase,\\nfor their own private use. Williams seems to have been even\\nalarmed at the dissatisfaction which he had created among\\nhis followers by the vague phraseology of his Initial deed,\\nfor which he would substitute no other. There was a wide-\\nspread uncertainity as to the future. New purchasers were\\narriving to partake of the freedom of Mooshassuc. These\\nfound the whole tract claimed by a few purchasers, or pro-\\nprietors, who could at their pleasure exclude any one from\\nthe soil. These last were equally discontented with the\\nsmall allotments which had been made to them. The separa-\\ntion between Proprietors and Freeholders at large began\\nthus early. This is Williams s explanation* in his defence\\nagainst William Harris I have always been blamed for\\nbeing too mild, the truth is Chase Brown [a misprint for\\nChad Brown], a wise Godly soul, now with God, with my-\\nself, brought the murmuring after-comers the first monop-\\nolizing twelve to a oneness by arbitration, chosen out of\\nourselves, Pawtuxet was allowed (only for peace s sake) to\\nthe first twelve, and the twelve gave me a share, which I ac-\\ncepted, after the arbitration. Something must be done to al-\\nlay the excitement, and Pawtuxet lands were the price of peace, f\\nBy an agreement as informal as any of the preceding, and\\nperhaps of uncertain date as to month and day, the meadow\\nground at Pawtuxet, bounding upon the fresh river upon\\n*Rider s Hist. Tract No. 14, p. 58.\\ntSee Bartlett s R. I. Col. Records, Vol. I., pp. 19, 20, 21.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0031.jp2"}, "32": {"fulltext": "20 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nboth sides, is to be impropriated unto 13 persons being now\\nincorporate with our Towne of Providence. The purchase\\nmoney for Pawtuxet (^^20) was to be paid to Roger Williams.\\nHarris and the first twelve comers were thus in some\\nmeasure consoled by the grant of large and valuable estates\\nfor the small homesteads which were their allotments under\\nWilliams s deed. Among the Pawtuxet men were those who\\nretained the greatest sympathy with the civil and religious\\nideas of Boston, as they proved at no distant day. No new\\ntown was created. Like every thing else, this was left to the\\nfuture. The bounds of the Pawtuxet purchase were so\\nvague and unskillful that they furnished the material for a\\ncontroversy which lasted more than seventy years. But they\\npurchased a present peace and nothing more was expected.\\nHad the far-seeing project of Williams been adopted, and had\\nthe Indian purchase been made a trust-fund, held by the\\ntown, there would have been, during two or three generations,\\nsome revenue first, for highways and bridges and other\\nworks of immediate necessity which would have attracted\\nimmigration, and afterwards for schools and other public\\ninstitutions, without which free government was impractica-\\nble. The other alternative, which in the end was chosen,\\nwas the diversion of the whole estate to the profit of a pri-\\nvate corporation, without regard to the interest of the com-\\nmonwealth. Williams, like his followers, was borne away by\\nenthusiasm for a rule by popular consent and arbitration.\\nWhen it was too late he found that the unenlightened major-\\nity of his followers could act at their own pleasure. They\\nwere parties, witnesses and judges in the popular courts\\nwhich they established.\\nThe twelve grantees of Williams s Initial deed soon\\nlearned by experience that their rough and impracticable es-\\ntate could only be managed by a society. During some years\\nmost of the new comers who had the means of purchasing\\nproperty, were admitted into the Town Fellowship and\\nbecame purchasers, or proprietors. Immigrants were not\\nvery many, and during several years the Proprietors were in\\nfact the town. So long as this arrangement served their pur-\\npose, they readily agreed that the lands were conveyed to\\nthem as a society.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0032.jp2"}, "33": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 21\\nThe report of arbitrators at Providence, containing pro-\\nposals for a form of government, agrees that the disposing\\nof the lands belonging to the Town of Providence shall be\\nin the whole inhabitants, by the choice of five men, for\\ngeneral disposeall. But those who were not Proprietors were\\nnot yet voters, and it was not then foreseen that they would\\nbe. Some expenditures for surveys and for the care of the\\nestate were needed at an early day. The Proprietors who\\nconstituted the Town fellowship, soon formed a private\\nsociety for the care of their estate and to determine whom\\nthey should admit into their number. Through the original\\ndefectiveness of the town records and the destruction of\\ndocuments, in 1676, and in later times, the beginning of the\\nProprietors association cannot now be ascertained, nor the\\ncircumstances of its origin. It was during many years zeal-\\nous and adroit in its management of the town meeting and\\nwas not less so after the Proprietors had ceased to be a ma-\\njority of the freemen and while enough of the estate remained\\nto be a subject of attack or controversy.\\nThere was little variety in the occupations of the members\\nof the Town fellowship. It was without skilled artizans,\\nmechanics or professional men, and, save Williams, it had no\\nman of liberal education. It had no coercive authority\u00e2\u0080\u0094 had\\nnot even a constable, but was merely a voluntary association.\\nIt was subject from its earliest days to violent discontents\\nand disturbances. The purchasers from Williams, the origi-\\nnal twelve and their successors, insisted upon the sole en-\\njoyment of the fellowship of vote, in the town meeting.\\nThe landless younger portion of the society still claimed that\\nthey should not be excluded from the body politic, as we\\nhave seen that they claimed at the beginning.! No State or\\nsociety lasts long before its members break into at least\\ntwo parties, and Mooshassuc was no exception to the rule.\\nThere appeared at an early day the germs of two parties,\\nwhich grew stronger as the town increased, and kept it in\\nperpetual turmoil. Some were disappointed in what they\\nfound here, and some were captious and discontented. Some\\n*Bartlett s R. I. Records, Vol. I., Sec. 2, p. 28.\\ntWilliams s letter to Winthrop, 1636-7.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0033.jp2"}, "34": {"fulltext": "22 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nhad come from Massachusetts to escape its intolerance and\\nthe arbitrary rule of its magistrates and elders. Beyond this,\\nwhich was but negative, they had but few positive opinions\\nin common. About twelve families sympathized with Wil-\\nliams in his religious opinions, but the majority kept aloof\\nfrom all associations of the kind. Some were noisy declaim-\\ners, like Hugh Bewitt, only in their element in a contro-\\nversy which seemed the more welcome as it was the more\\nprofitless, and who seemed better fitted to receive tolera-\\ntion than to give it. Some were political agitators like Greg-\\nory Dexter, who had spent their lives in revolutionary\\ndebates in England, and whose ideas concerning the founda-\\ntions of civil authority and property were shadowy and indis-\\ntinct. Many of the small freeholders shared with Williams\\nin the belief that the lands purchased from the Narragansetts\\nwere held by the Proprietors assembled in town meeting only\\nin trust for the whole body of the freemen admitted to\\ninhabitancy. Against all these were the Proprietors or\\nPurchasers, who claimed that the land was administered\\nonly by the town meeting, for the sole use of those who had\\npaid for it and who had borne the burden of the settlement.\\nSome of these were among the most prominent citizens, and\\nmen of no little ability. They saw that Williams s purchase\\nwould one day be of far greater value, and desired to secure\\nfor their children the benefit of their fathers labor. They\\ncontended that their purchase from Williams was their own\\nprivate estate. These parties were in full activity until the\\nIndian war, which brought an unexpected solution of much\\nof the difficulty. They were permanent, for they represented\\ninterests of a permanent character. The feeling that they\\nwere unjustly treated could not be allayed, while the less\\nwealthy freemen saw the most valuable purchases of woods\\nand waters restricted to the few, who could limit their own\\nnumbers and apportion the domain among themselves.\\nThe agreement subscribed by the second comers, or\\nthe second set admitted, contains the terms of fellowship\\nwe can scarcely call it citizenship in the voluntary\\nassociation at Mooshassuc*\\n*See Bartlett s R. I. Col. Records, Vol. I., p. 14.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0034.jp2"}, "35": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 23\\nThe precise time of the arrival of the party of second\\ncomers, or the second set admitted, is not known. It\\nincluded Chad Brown, William and Benedict Arnold, John\\nField, William Wickenden and others, afterwards conspicu-\\nous in town and colony. This was the agreement of the\\nsecond comers: We, whose names are hereunder, desir-\\nous to inhabit in the Town of Providence, do promise to sub-\\nject ourselves, in active passive obedience, to all such\\norders or agreements as shall be made for public good of the\\nbody in an orderly way, by the major consent of the present\\ninhabitants, masters of families, incorporated together in a\\ntown fellowship, and others whom they shall admit with\\nthem, only in civil things. The whole Government was to be\\nby consent and arbitration, and the right of voting was re-\\nserved to heads of families. All others admitted subscribed\\nsome similar writing or agreement. As immigrants arrived\\nafter 1638, few indeed in numbers during the first years,\\nthey were subjected to a strict examination by the town\\nmeeting. During several years this town meeting was com-\\nposed of Purchasers i. e., holders of Proprietors shares\\nalone. Their scrutiny was rigorous. Little was left unknown\\nas to the candidate who he was, whence he came, and how\\nmuch he brought with him. If he possessed sufficient means,\\nfew objections were interposed. Solvency has at all times\\nheld the same place in Rhode Island which Puritan orthodoxy\\nonce occupied in Massachusetts. If an aspirant to the town\\nfellowship showed himself to be in no danger of becoming\\nchargeable to the public, his future brethren charitably con-\\ncluded that he was sufficiently orthodox to have his abode\\namong them. After being admitted as an inhabitant he\\nthen applied to the Proprietors as a distinct association for\\nleave to become a purchaser of a Proprietor s right, or\\nshare. To each person thus admitted, there was measured\\nout by the Proprietors surveyors, one hundred acres of\\nmeadow or other land, a six acre lot, or a stated common\\nlot, as near as might be to his homestead, and a house lot,\\nor home share, of about six acres with a front of from sixty\\nto eighty feet on the Town streete, and extending back-\\nward to the swamp, where is now Hope Street. The proprie-", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0035.jp2"}, "36": {"fulltext": "24 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\ntors surveyors were directed to make their returns to the\\ntown meeting. As appurtenant to these grants, the new\\nproprietor had also his fractional share in the purchase\\nmoney arising from future sales of Proprietors lands. He\\nwas not required by any law, deed, or custom to account for\\nit to the town treasurer. The town meeting in due time con-\\nfirmed the surveyors return, and the vote was entered in the\\nTown booke. The survey and its confirmation were gener-\\nally the sole evidences of the title. Few deeds were executed\\nin Providence during the years of the first charter. Only one\\nbook was used for all public records. The meetings of the\\nsame persons as proprietors of the purchase and as freemen\\nof the town were holden at the same time and place. They\\nboth had the same moderator and clerk and were in all re-\\nspects but one body, save that in later days, when the owners\\nof small freeholds had become voters, the Proprietors only\\nwere admitted to vote upon matters relating to the so-called\\ncommon lands. The proceedings of both bodies were en-\\ntered indiscriminately in the Town booke, and it is not\\nalways clear in which capacity an act was done.\\nThe most conspicuous figures in this contentious little\\nassembly were Roger Williams, William Harris and Thomas\\nOlney. All of them were men of resolute will, and Harris\\nand Olney had no little executive ability, in which Williams\\nwas especially wanting. Williams was at the head of the\\npopular party and Olney and Harris were the leaders of the\\nProprietors. Olney found that the care of his religious soci-\\nety did not require so much of his attention as to prevent his\\ntransacting a large part of the business of the town in the\\ntown clerk s office and elsewhere. In that age politics were\\ncontrolled by religious doctrines, which also colored all Eng-\\nlish radicalism. This did not then as now attack the great\\nbiblical institution of landed property, or even the English\\nmodification of it. Olney, who stood in the front rank of the\\npolitical liberals of his day, was as firmly devoted to the landed\\ninterest in Providence as the staunchest churchman could\\nhave been. The lines which then divided political parties\\noften coincided with those of religious sects. The Proprietors", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0036.jp2"}, "37": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 2$\\ndence, who was one of the heads of its only religious society,\\nwas wholly devoted to their interests. Harris had equal in-\\nfluence over that increasing body of freemen, whose devo-\\ntional spirit was their least conspicuous characteristic. As\\ntime went on the Proprietors at large became weary of the\\ncontentions about private matters, which formed so large a\\nshare of public business. Thus says Williams, 24th August,\\n1669, so called Grant that there have been discourses\\nagitations many, about y^ lands and purchasers, yet is it not\\nreasonable righteous in all men s eyes, y since there are\\nso many purchasers who ordinarily doe not others that will\\nnot come to y^ towne meeting, yet their consent should be\\nhad, the consent of that majoritie should determine the\\nmatters of their purchase, oblige the minor, differing from\\nthem. All such absentees were willing to leave their inter-\\nests in the charge of Olney and Harris. At a very early\\nperiod the whole body of Proprietors become strongly organ-\\nized, with able and sagacious representatives. These retained\\ntheir leadership during life and handed it on to successors in\\na generation when the Proprietors were far less than the ma-\\njority of the town.f\\nOther causes for the scanty attendance at the town meet-\\nings might be found. In the early days of the town each\\nhouseholder was authorized to leave one man of his family at\\nhome on town meeting and training days, as a safeguard\\nagainst Indians. It was, as years went on, yet more difficult\\nto procure a quorum in an assembly where all legislative, ex-\\necutive and judicial business was transacted by the same\\nbody as was also that of sales and exchange of lands. Special\\nmeetings could also be called on the requisition of any free-\\nman who fancied that he had an affair of his own of sufficient\\nimportance to be inflicted upon his neighbors.\\nThese rude political arrangements, with all their difficulties\\nabout boundary lines, majorities and special town meetings,\\n*Williams, as we have seen, always desired that the majority of the\\nwhole town meeting should decide upon sales of the town lands, and not\\nthe majority of the Proprietors alone, but he met with no success unto\\nthe end of his days.\\nfEarly Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 77.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0037.jp2"}, "38": {"fulltext": "26 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nanswered the purpose of the settlers, so long as their num-\\nbers were but few. The written memorials of the first ten\\nyears of the town, are now, if they have not always been,\\nvery scanty and imperfect. They give a vague and indistinct\\nview of its affairs. Yet there are indications that controver\\nsies were numerous and acrid even at that early day. The\\nvoluntary association, or town fellowship, which endeav-\\nored to supply the place of government, but without coercive\\nforce, was but ill adapted to a community in which there was\\nany considerable number of discontented people. It could\\nonly work harmoniously so long as the association of Propri-\\netors was nearly coextensive with the town. The machine\\nwas in danger of going to pieces so soon as any considerable\\nbody of the inhabitants refused farther assent to a voluntary\\nagreement, by which the townsmen were subjected to a close\\ncorporation of the first settlers. This occurred at an early\\nperiod, but we have scanty information respecting the\\ndetails.\\nThe doctrine that civil government was nothing but a vol-\\nuntary agreement, and that judicial authority was mere\\narbitration, did not tend to strengthen the State. Disorders\\nbegan at an early day, and the town had no courts or magis-\\ntrates which could repress them, not even a constable.\\nYoung and landless men looked with envy upon Proprietors\\nwho were, or claimed to be, the sole owners of the unsold\\nlands, and would not, if they could, prevent it, endure a mo-\\nnopoly of what seemed to be the gifts of nature. In England,\\nat that day, when old opinions and institutions were becoming\\nunsettled and were ready to fall, obscure religious fanatics\\nbegan to hold forth doctrines about property, which all\\nChristian denominations now repudiate and which belong\\nonly to the platform of atheism and anarchy. Some few,\\nsuch as these, may have found their way to Providence, even\\nat that early day. The smaller freeholders felt little scruple\\nin helping themselves from the common lands whenever\\nthey needed timber, firewood or supplies, or food for their\\ngoats and swine, then a large part of their sustenance. Some\\nof their acts were prompted by recklessness and malice,\\nsuch were the cutting down of trees bearing surveyor s land-\\nmarks. The Proprietors made, it seems, some feeble attempts", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0038.jp2"}, "39": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 27\\nto restrain trespassers. They only succeeded in irritating\\nand increasing the prevailing discontents.* Enmity between\\nclasses went on and the acrimonious discussions which at-\\ntended it. Every thing was prepared for an onslaught upon\\nthe voluntary association, so soon as a leader should appear.\\nHe was not far to seek, for it was an age of revolutionary\\nideas. I have in a former paper reviewed at some length the\\nlife and character of Samuel Gorton, Little more needs to\\nbe said at present than that he was possessed of more literary\\neducation than any of the founders, save Williams. He was\\nacquainted with Hebrew and with the Greek of the New\\nTestatment, and had a large acquaintance with the contro-\\nversies then resounding upon every side. He could suggest\\ndoubts and difficulties respecting a great variety of religious\\ntopics, although he had no well-defined system of his own.\\nIn law and politics he understood his rights as an English-\\nman, better than did Williams or the Proprietors, or the\\nelders and magistrates of Massachusetts. He knew that they\\nhad no right to banish or expel him from their territory, and\\nagainst them he appears to have asserted no propositions\\nwhich he could not legally maintain. He avowed monarchical\\nopinions of the old Biblical pattern and showed small respect\\nfor any colonial government which had not legal authority,\\nmeaning thereby, the sanction of the crown. He deferred\\nto the authority of Massachusetts, for Massachusetts had a\\ncharter and was administered in the king s name. Gorton\\nwell knew that in the view of Westminster Hall, the Propri-\\netors of Mooshassuc were only squatters upon the king s\\ndomain, who were bent upon closing it against all other\\nsquatters but themselves. He had never become a party to\\ntheir voluntary association, for he knew that it was merely\\nvoid. He then, as at all other times, showed the courage of\\nhis convictions and a wonderful talent for being disagreeable\\nto all whose belief and practices differed from his own. He\\nwas always ready to defy any authority which did not proceed\\nfrom the Crown. He was no anarchist or bawler of what he\\ndeemed a philosophical theory of property and rights, to be\\nput in force at the expense of other people. If he told the\\n*A11 these things happened after the incorporation of the town, and\\nthere is no reason to doubt that they were even more common before it.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0039.jp2"}, "40": {"fulltext": "28 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nProprietors of Mooshassuc that their land monopoly was in-\\nvalid, that they had no rights by a private agreement of their\\nown to exclude the king s subjects from the king s domains,\\nhe was not far from the truth. We know the character of his\\ndoctrine only by its reflex effect upon Williams and Harris.\\nHe was himself a landholder. He was no otherwise an atheist\\nor fomenter of sedition than as any one who denied the au-\\nthority of Massachusetts elders would have been so repre-\\nsented by them, or than as one who claimed against them the\\nrights of a British subject under the common law.* Gorton\\nwas no moneyless adventurer. His father had been a Lon-\\ndon merchant and a member of a guild, and his own wealth\\n(from the length and persistence of his legal controversies in\\nEngland) seems to have exceeded that of any of the Propri-\\netors of Mooshassuc. Gorton settled in Providence sometime\\nbefore the 17th of November, 1641, and in January, 1642, he\\npurchased land at Pawtuxet. Soon after his arrival here he\\nbegan, as was his wont, to look about him for what was rotten\\nin the State, and there was no lack of those who were ready\\nto point it out to him. There were here young men discon-\\ntented with their political disabilities, who had not found\\nhere the equality which had been promised them, or which\\nthey had promised to themselves. Others had found no sat-\\nisfactory administration of justice. Gorton felt little respect\\nfor the doctrinal peculiarities of either Williams or of his\\nopponents, and was quite their equal as a disputant. In a\\nsociety which numbered such leading men as Gregory Dex-\\nter, he was in no want of aid in an attack upon the rule of\\nthe Proprietors. The outbreak was not sudden. The way\\nhad been prepared for it by the discussions of the title of\\nWilliams s grantees, and by the unfriendly relations of the\\nearly freemen. The landless young men gave to Gorton ready\\naudience. The excitement spread among the small freehold-\\ners, and soon Williams was apprehensive that their whole\\n*His banishment from Massachusetts and from Plymouth is not to his\\ndiscredit. It was a proceeding unknown to the common law, and was\\ninflicted upon many whom we do not esteem the less on that account.\\nHe was legally right in his contentions in Massachusetts and Plymouth.\\nHis error was, in supposing that the elders and magistrates would re-\\nspect any law but their own arbitrary will.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0040.jp2"}, "41": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 29\\npolity would be at an end. The topics of Gorton s discourses\\nhere are nowhere distinctly set forth. They were probably\\nnot unlike those which he had discussed elsewhere the want\\nof any legal foundation for political rule. He found here no\\nreligious establishment to be an object of attack, but the so-\\ncalled town fellowship was even more objectionable than\\nthat of Newport or even than the Corporation of Massachu-\\nsetts Bay. It is obvious that the old grievance of the pro-\\nprietors title to the whole territory and their virtual monopoly\\nof power were at the bottom of all the trouble. There is no\\nimprobability in Winthrop s account of its beginning.*\\nSome attack had been made by the Proprietors upon those\\nwho allowed their swine to run at large upon the common.\\nThis was followed by forcible resistance and the uproar be-\\ngan, Winthrop was probably misinformed in his statement\\nthat the parties came armed into the field, or that it was a\\ncontest into which any religious element at that time en-\\ntered. The settlers did not care enough about ministers\\nor denominations to iight either for them or against them.\\nThere was no need of armed resistance to the majority, or of\\na violent or bloody revolution. The town and its officers\\nwere but a voluntary association, and by the refusal of a\\nminority to fulfill their agreement, the town fellowship\\nwas at an end. There was, as yet, no legislature and no coer-\\ncive force in any quarter. Massachusetts and Connecticut\\ndid not interfere. They were content to look on and wait\\nuntil the Rhode Island towns fell to pieces, and then, as at\\nPawtuxet and Newport, they could come in and gather up the\\nfragments.\\nWe know not how long the tumult lasted. The town rec-\\nords of that time have perished, even if they have not been\\nvoluntarily suppressed. Their affairs must have seemed well-\\nnigh desperate when the leading Proprietors could have\\naddressed their letter to the government of Massachusetts,\\nasking its aid and protection. By this address it appears\\n*Winthrop s Journal (Savage s ed.), Vol. II., p. 59, The trouble in\\nProvidence began about a trespass of swine.\\ntLegislation upon this subject was frequent during the early years of\\nthe town.\\ntThe letter of William Field, William Harris and eleven others, is\\ncontained in second Vol. R. I. Hist. Coll., Appendix II., pp. 19 to 23.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0041.jp2"}, "42": {"fulltext": "30 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nthat there were daily tumults and affrays, caused by the at-\\ntempts of the freemen, under stress of necessity, as they\\naverred, to obtain subsistence for themselves and their cat-\\ntle from the wild lands, and by the endeavors of the Proprie-\\ntors to arrest the depredators, followed by their forcible\\nresistance, so that the peace of the town was at an end.\\nWinthrop s Journal, by Savage,- Vol. II., p. 59 We told\\nthem that except they did subject themselves to some juris-\\ndiction, either Plymouth or ours, we had no calling or war-\\nrant to interfere in their contentions. Winthrop speaks of\\nthe writers the leading Proprietors as the weaker\\nparty, as they undoubtedly were. The dignified reply of\\nMassachusetts taught to all parties a useful lesson by which\\nthey did not fail to profit in the near future.\\nThis is the only public document of the controversy which\\nis extant. It suflficiently exhibits the public alarm and excite-\\nment when the men who had fled from Massachusetts five\\nyears before, now besought its armed interference in their\\nbehalf.\\nIn the midst of the panic, Williams did not lose his self-\\npossession. Perhaps he was not wholly displeased at what\\nseemed the overthrow of those who had thwarted his own\\ncherished designs. He did not unite in the letter to Massa-\\nchusetts. His only reference to the whole affair is in his\\nprivate correspondence with Governor Winthrop (Narra-\\ngansett Club s ed., Williams s letters, p. 141), Providence,\\nMarch 8, 1646,* concerning Samuel Gorton. Master Gor-\\nton having foully abused high low at Aquidneck is now\\nbewitching bemadding poor Providence, both with his un-\\nclean foul censures of all the ministers of this country\\n(for which I myself have in Christ s name withstood him)\\nalso denying all visible external ordinances, in depth of\\nfamilism, against which I have a little disputed written,\\nshall (the Most High assenting) to death. Paul said of Asia\\nInhabitants of Providence (almost all) suck in his poison\\nas at first they did at Aquidneck. Some, few myself with-\\nstand his inhabitation town privileges, without his confes-\\n*There seems to be some error in the date as printed. Gorton was in\\nEngland from 1644 to 1648, prosecuting his suit against Massachusetts.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0042.jp2"}, "43": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 3 1\\nsion reformation of his uncivill inhuman practices at\\nPortsmouth. Yet the tide is too strong against us I feare\\n(if the framer of hearts help not), it will force me to little\\nPatience, a little isle near to your Prudence, c. It seems\\nthat after civil broils had in some degree subsided, Gorton\\nresumed his polemics upon doctrinal matters and that from\\ntheir effect upon the general opinions of the townsmen, Wil-\\nliams s alarm began. His sympathy with the men by whose\\narbitrary will he had been banished, and who not long after-\\nwards murdered Miantonomo, whipped Obadiah Holmes, the\\nBaptist, and hanged Quakers on Boston Common, will be\\nremarked by the reader of this extract. There is but little\\nother reference to Gorton in Williams s extant letters.* But\\na natural termination came to this tumult also. The volun-\\ntary association was as powerless to give redress to the poor\\nfreemen as to the proprietors. After some weeks or months\\nof disturbance it left both where they began. Gorton s lack\\nof executive ability and his restless disposition, did for the\\nProprietors more than they could have done for themselves.\\nHe saw a more inviting prospect in Pawtuxet and Warwick.\\nHe speedily availed himself of it and withdrew Williams\\ncame to the aid of his old opponents and assisted in restoring\\norder. (See his letter, p. 149, Narragansett Club s edition.)\\nThe Proprietors who had converted his public trust into a\\nland speculation had looked on with dismay. They now took\\nheart again as they found that other parties were ready to\\njoin them in an effective government. They saw that they\\ncould not safely reject all the lessons which they had learned\\nin England and in Massachusetts. If they hoped to exist as\\na community they must have a government.\\nThis cloud passed over, but all parties saw that they must\\nmodify their projects and make some concessions. The\\nProprietors learned that their monopoly would avail them\\nlittle in a community where property had only the support of\\na voluntary association. The dissentients saw that they could\\nnot afford to give to Massachusetts any opportunity for in-\\ntervention, and all that unless they put some restraint upon\\n*See also Winslow s Hypocrisie Unmasked, p. 150, and Williams s\\nletter to the town of Providence, urging peace between the parties.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0043.jp2"}, "44": {"fulltext": "32 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\ntheir tendency to disorder, England, then becoming Puritan,\\nwould soon interfere in a fashion not agreeable to any, and\\nwould probably introduce among them a class of fellow-\\ncitizens and public officers whose notions of religious freedom\\nwere very unlike their own. Some of the Proprietors, like\\nWilliam Harris, were capable of thought upon political sub-\\njects. They saw the necessity of a legal foundation for their\\nestablishment and of including some who were not of their\\nown body. It was evident, that in order to a harmonious town\\ngovernment, the right of voting could not be vested in the\\nProprietors or the house-holders alone. Heretofore, those\\nwho had been received as inhabitants, had, if they pos-\\nsessed the means, purchased proprietor s rights, or shares,\\nand had become members of their society. The second\\ncomers, before mentioned, had brought some property with\\nthem. They had accepted the situation as they found it,\\nwere zealous supporters of Harris and Olney, and gave little\\naid to Williams in maintaining his theory that the Indian\\npurchase was to be town stock. Some provision must be\\nmade for the young men of whom we have much need,\\nmentioned by Williams, who were from time to time arriving\\nin yet larger numbers and who had but little to invest in\\nlands. The Proprietors were divided in opinion. The follow-\\ners of Thomas Olney opposed all concessions, but they were\\noverruled by the more enlightened forecast of William Har-\\nris (See Williams s second letter to John Whipple, in Rider s\\nTract No. 14). The dispute ended by the creation of a new\\nclass of citizens who might become voters, with lower quali-\\nfications, which should be within the reach of all reputable\\ncitizens.\\nThe 9th of the nth month, 1645 (January 19, 1645-6).\\nWe whose names are hereafter subscribed, having obtained\\na free grant of twenty-five acres of land apiece with right of\\ncommoning according to the said proportion of land from the\\nfree inhabitants of the Town of Providence, do thankfully\\naccept of the same, do hereby promise to yield active\\npassive obedience to the authority of (King Parliament)\\nestablished in this Colony, according to our charter, and to\\nall such wholesome laws orders that are or shall be made\\nby the major consent of this Town of Providence, as also not", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0044.jp2"}, "45": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 33\\nto claim any right to the purchase of the said Plantations nor\\nany privilege of vote in the town affairs, until we shall be\\nreceived as freemen of the said town of Providence. This\\nagreement was drawn up after the granting of the first\\n(called the Earl of Warwick s) charter, but before any govern-\\nment had been organized under it. Many signatures of dif-\\nferent dates are appended to the Quarter-rights men s\\nagreement. They might be admitted to vote, but not to a\\nfull right of common. It was not intended to create a perma-\\nnent class, but only to quiet a present trouble; and it accom-\\nplished its purpose. The effects of Gorton s agitation in\\noverthrowing the voluntary association or town fellowship\\nwere permanent and beneficial. But his old enemies never\\nforgave him for what he had done towards their downfall\\nand carefully treasured up their wrath.\\nWhen the hubbub in Providence was quieted it was not\\neasy to induce the other plantations to agree to a union with\\nso turbulent a town. The disorders of Providence furnished\\nto the men of Pawtuxet one of the chief pretexts for their\\nsecession to Massachusetts. Their cause of dissatisfaction\\nhad been at first only a question of land titles or boundaries.\\nBut in September, 1642, some of the Pawtuxet people\\nseceded to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. The town was\\nbrought into a speedy contest with its old enemies at Boston.\\nOnly a specimen need be given of the inconveniences which\\nher dissentions brought upon Providence, during many dis-\\nastrous years. Thus, so late as November 14, 1655. Town\\nMeeting-! Mr. R. Williams, Moderator. Ordered that the\\ngathering of the rate at Pawtuxet be suspended until a letter\\nbe sent to the Massachusetts. Town Meeting Records\\nApril 27, 29, 1656. At a Quarter Court, Mr. Roger Williams,\\nModerator it is ordered upon receipt of a letter\\n*A right of common is an incorporeal right of pasturage or other\\neasement or profit in the land of another person or of the town. What\\nthe people of Providence called the common or the common land\\nwas the soil itself of which the Proprietors claimed to be tenants in com-\\nmon. It was not a common in any legal sense, but only unenclosed\\nand unimproved land claimed by the Proprietors.\\ntEarly Records of Providence, Vol. II., pp. 90, 93.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0045.jp2"}, "46": {"fulltext": "34 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nfrom the Governor of the Bay, that a man be sent thither to\\ntreat about the business of Pawtuxet, Thomas Olney was\\nthe commissioner. Mooshassuc was forced to submit to the\\ncommands of Massachusetts to her great injury and loss.\\nDuring several years she derived no revenue from her most\\npopulous dependency. The secession of Pawtuxet lasted\\nuntil 1658. The planters there had then discovered that\\ntheir gain by absorption into the larger province would be\\nbut small. They grew weary of the contemptuous patronage\\nof Massachusetts and of their inferior position in a colony\\nfrom which they had hoped for greater freedom and security.\\nMassachusetts was willing to let them go and troubled them\\nno more. A like dissatisfaction prevailed in Newport even\\n,after the Earl of Warwick s charter, and led to equally dis-\\nastrous results in the secession of Coddington. The laws of\\nNewport were not unlike those of Providence, but she was\\nmore vigorous in their execution. She made no boast of\\nbeing a voluntary association, but submitted to it only as a\\nnecessity. The people of Newport were never in cordial\\nsympathy with those of Providence in relation to many sub-\\njects pertaining to religion and learning and social life.\\nThey readily listened to emissaries from Plymouth who urged\\ntheir separation from turbulent Providence and a union with\\ntheir more orderly neighbors of Plymouth. These things be-\\nlong to the history of the colony not of the town, but they\\nrequire notice as part of the evil results of the attempts in\\nProvidence to live without law and to govern without a gov-\\nernment. After they had regained the control of the town\\nmeeting the Proprietors were supported by all parties in\\ntheir endeavors to effect a union with the other towns. War-\\nwick was not reluctant, but the people were few. It was not\\neasy to induce the people of Newport to join in an applica-\\ntion for a colonial charter. The founders of Newport counted\\namong themselves some who had been high in social station in\\nBoston, and they did not hesitate to give utterance to their\\nopinions about Mooshassuc. Some years passed before any-\\nthing could be accomplished, but the obstacles were at last\\novercome. Gorton says (and he is generally accurate in his\\nstatements) that the Newport men were disturbed by the", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0046.jp2"}, "47": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 35\\nname of the new colony. It was the colony of Providence\\nPlantations. Newport feared that the younger, but more\\nnumerous and wealthy, town was to become subordinate to\\nthe older, but smaller and poorer and more disorderly Provi-\\ndence. Newport assented at last, and a charter was obtained\\nin 1644. But the reluctance of the islanders was so persist-\\nent, that no organization could be effected until 1647. Some\\nof the adherents of the voluntary association in Providence\\nhad learned little by experience, and could not be induced to\\nabandon the town fellowship, even for greater security of\\ntitle, until 1649 the year of the incorporation of the town\\nof Providence. It was now to have a common seal and a\\nconstable s staff. These ancient signs of authority added\\nsomething to the force of government.* More important was\\nthe legislative permission to make penal enactments at their\\npleasure. The Proprietors readily seized the opportunity\\nthus given for the protection of their own estate. After the\\npenalties enacted by the Proprietors against depredators upon\\nthe commons, the other voters were not the cause of much\\napprehension. The Quarter-rights men were uneducated,\\nof humble means, and unable to offer any effectual resist-\\nance to the organized body of Proprietors led by Olney and\\nHarris. But the distinction of classes among the voters out-\\nlasted the first generation. Their dissentions in the town\\nmeeting and the town street from time to time broke forth\\nwith a violence which (from Williams s allusions), we may\\nbelieve, did not always end in words. It mattered not how\\nthe young men voted upon ordinary matters, so long as they\\nhad no votes upon questions relating to the Proprietary\\nestate. Soon every thing went on as before. The position\\nof the Proprietors was rather strengthened than otherwise,\\nby the enlargement of the constituency. The young men\\nof Williams s letter found their privileges not wholly a\\ngain. On the ist 2d day in June, 1656, it was ordered\\nthat all inhabitants, though not as yet accounted freemen in\\nthis towne, yet shall be liable to be chosen to doe service in\\n*Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., pp. x., 112, 113,114. 27, 2d\\nMo., 1649. Our constable is to have a staff whereby he is to be known\\nto have the authority of a town s constable.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0047.jp2"}, "48": {"fulltext": "36 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nthis towne; i. e., in mending roads and the like hard work,\\nalthough not voters a species of impressment after the\\nfashion of the time.\\nThe number of citizens was somewhat increased by the\\nsales of the property of individual proprietors, as they found\\ntheir private estates inconvenient, or as they died or left the\\ncolony. Thus, within a few years, there were three distinct\\nclasses of voters, who had little sympathy with each other\\nthe Proprietors, the Quarter-rights men, and the small\\nfreeholders at large. These were social distinctions as well\\nas differences in estates. The Proprietors soon perceived\\nthat they had nothing to fear from the small freeholders. At\\na town meeting, May 15, 1658, which was under the control\\nof their own body, for Thomas Olney was elected Moderator,\\nit was ordered that all those that enjoy latids in the juris-\\ndiction of this town are freemen. f The social influence and\\nprestige and such education as could be found were with the\\nProprietors, the first owners of the soil. The new freeholders\\nwere men of small estates, who had been admitted to resi-\\ndence and to purchases by the consent (the charity as they\\ndeemed it) of the proprietary class. Few of them were\\nheard in the town meeting or proposed any of its votes.J\\nAs times went on, the Proprietors ceased to be unanimous.\\nA minority of them supported the opinions of Williams. But\\nthe Proprietors on the other hand could always control the\\nvotes of a sufficient number of the small freeholders. In the\\ntown meetings none but Proprietors could vote upon any\\nmatter touching the proprietary estate. A troublesome free-\\nholder could be quieted by a sale of land upon easy terms or\\nfor a nominal consideration, and thus the Proprietors were\\nenabled, during many years, to maintain their authority\\nunimpaired.\\nThe rule of the Proprietors had become so well established\\nafter Gorton s excitement, perhaps in consequence of it,\\nthat they felt no apprehensions, and went on to develop\\n*EarIy Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 94.\\nfEarly Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 112.\\nt During many years the towns fixed the qualifications of their own\\nvoters.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0048.jp2"}, "49": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 37\\ntheir institutions in their own way. However, some among\\nthem may have dreamed of an ideal liberty the world had as\\nyet never seen, and of a rule by merely amicable agreement,\\nyet the founders could not escape from the traditions and\\nthe rivalries of their own race and country. Landed prop-\\nerty had been for centuries the ambition of the Englishman.\\nIt was then, as it has been ever since, the only possession\\nwhich has afforded permanent personal and family distinct-\\nion. The London merchant accumulated the profits of Fleet\\nStreet and the Strand that he might purchase the manors of\\nworn-out feudal families and found a new peerage for himself\\nand for his heirs. The serjeant hoarded his fees from the\\nstrifes of Westminster Hall for a like decoration of the\\nchancellorship or chief-justiceship which was in prospect be-\\nfore him. A like ambition pervaded all the prosperous\\nclasses in England soldiers or civilians. The same could\\nnot be done in an American colony, but everywhere, in the\\ndays when moneyed wealth had not reached its modern de-\\nvelopment, landed estates were the foundation of social rank\\nand influence. The English ideal was perhaps most com-\\npletely realized in the royal province of New York. But it\\nwas recognized and respected even in the humble beginnings\\nof the plantations at Mooshassuc. Its founders availed them-\\nselves of such means as were at their command, and the\\nlanded polity which they founded lasted, with few changes,\\nduring nearly two hundred years. They were not consciously\\nfounders, but their scheme of government developed itself\\nspontaneously out of existing facts. It was not established\\nby law or charter and was copied from nothing which the\\ntownsmen had seen in England or in Massachusetts. It was\\nnot an ascendency of great landholders, for there were none;\\nnor was it a despotic rule of magistrates and elders. All\\nthese they had left behind. When the colony was first organ-\\nized,* it styled its polity a democracie; that is to say, a\\nGovernment held by y free and voluntary consent of all, or\\ny^ greater part of y^ free inhabitants. This word Democ-\\nracie has served many uses, some of them very unlike those\\nof the present day. In Athens, men talked about democracy\\n*Vol. I. Bartlett s Colonial Records, 1647, ^^^y 19-21.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0049.jp2"}, "50": {"fulltext": "38 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nin a city state, one-half of whose inhabitants were slaves.\\nSouth Carolina might have done the same. They meant by\\nit an equality of political rights only among the members of\\nthe free or ruling classes who were within the pale of the\\nConstitution and members of its guild or corporation, what-\\never the condition of those who were without it the servile\\nelement might be. If the dominant class were graded with\\npermanent ranks, titles, guilds, professional, mercantile and\\nliterary, it was an aristocracy. But if the ruling class had no\\nlegal titles or distinctions, however wide might be the dis-\\ntinction of social rank, personal inequality did not prevent\\nits being styled a democracy even though the laboring classes\\nwere slaves. The third generation of the landed democracy\\nof Rhode Island offered little opposition to the establishment\\nof slavery so soon as the people could afford it, as the first\\ngeneration had sanctioned the distinction of the Proprietors\\nand the Quarter-rights men.\\nIt was not easy to weld so many dissimilar materials into one\\ntenacious mass. Men who had lived thirteen years in a vol-\\nuntary association with the theory that goverment was only a\\nmere agreement, binding only upon those who had subscribed\\nit, were not easily induced to submit even in civil things\\nto a coercive jurisdiction, though authenticated by a common\\nseal and a constable s staff. Obstinate old habits were\\nnot easily overcome. Few seem to have given much thought\\nto their new relations with each other or with their neighbor\\ncolonies or with their associated towns.\\nThey were more anxious to conceal their proceedings from\\nthe government of England than to enquire how far they\\nwere entitled to her protection or subject to her control.\\nThere was little unity of ireligious opinion which might have\\ngiven cohesion to jarring political elements. Massachusetts\\nhad gained this element of strength by excluding dissenters.\\nThe Baptists, the first society organized here by Williams,\\nwere not the majority of Providence. They numbered only\\nthirteen families in a community of over fifty householders,\\nand soon there was a secession even among them. The re-\\nligious disputes among the townsmen, and which here as\\nelsewhere displayed a rancour now unknown, added bitter-", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0050.jp2"}, "51": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 39\\nness to political controversy.* Thomas Olney, Sen., was one\\nof the successors of Williams in his small society. William\\nHarris was one of the seceders. Satisfied with that brief\\nexperience, he united with no other congregation to the end\\nof his days. These were the two leaders of the Proprietors.\\nUnity in secular interests superseded all religious differences\\nbetween them. Olney apparently influenced the more relig-\\nious, and Harris the secular, element in politics. They were\\nboth able men and conducted the affairs of the Proprietors\\nwith vigor and success. Williams rarely suffered his per-\\nsonal resentments to grow cool. During many years when he\\nhad occasion to speak of Chad Brown, it was always with\\nkindly remembrance, gratitude and respect. For Thomas\\nOlney, his successor, he has no words of pleasant recollection.\\nWhere he has need to speak of him it is with the mere mention\\nof his name. The first Thomas Olney, an elder in Williams s\\ncongregation, was a man of courage and tenacity of purpose.\\nBy his executive ability as clerk of the town and of the Pro-\\nprietors he continued to the end of his days a leader in the\\naffairs of both. Together, Olney and Harris were more than\\na match for Williams, Dexter, and their supporters.\\nThe community at Mooshassuc had little to distract its\\nattention from its one great topic of debate. It was far\\naway from England heard little of what was going on\\nthere, and that little long after the event. With Massachu-\\nsetts their intercourse and correspondence were infrequent.\\nTheir chief anxiety was whether the Bay people intended\\nto seize and annex their territory. They had no great po-\\nlitical questions of their own. Religious topics the great\\npolitical topics of the 17th century were, by general con-\\nsent, excluded from the town meeting. They had ample\\n*See Backus s History of the Baptists, Vol. III., p. 217. The unruly-\\npassions of some among them e., the Baptist Society in Providence),\\nwith other things, caused such scruples in Williams s mind in about four\\nmonths that he refrained from administering or partaking of special ordi-\\nnances in any church ever after as long as he lived though he would\\npreach the gospel and join in social worship with those who agreed with\\nhim, all his days.\\nSee also Geo. Fox s A New England Firebrand quenched, pp. 63-68,\\n69, 127.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0051.jp2"}, "52": {"fulltext": "40 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nleisure to reiterate what had been said often enough in the\\ntowne streete and at the town mill without changing the\\nopinion of any voter as to his own rights or those of the\\nProprietors.\\nThe landed democracy proceeded in their own time and\\nway. Even after the purchase of Mooshassuc their position\\nwas still insecure. The eagerness of Massachusetts to acquire\\nthe territory around Narragansett Bay, was unabated during\\ntwenty years. The principles of Rhode Island were gaining\\nsome converts in Massachusetts and Plymouth and inspired\\nanxiety and alarm among the magistrates and elders. What\\ncould not be done by force might be effected by emigration.*\\nWhat its charter would not permit might be accomplished by\\na few scores of emigrants. These, becoming purchasers, might\\nsubvert the institutions of Providence and set up those of\\nthe Bay people in their stead. Some security must be\\nprovided and the Proprietors in town meeting had done it\\neffectually. 1637. 16 die 4th mo. (as soon as a treasurer\\nhad been provided for expending the town s stock 2d year\\nof the Plantation.! Item that none sell his field or his lot\\ngranted in our liberties to any person but an inhabitant,\\nwithout consent of the town. [It then consisted chiefly of\\nProprietors.] This restriction was needed, the householders\\nbeing as yet but few, that the control of the town might not\\nfall into the hands of new comers hostile to the opinions of\\nthe founders. But in effect during two generations it gave\\nto the Proprietors alone the power to determine who should\\nbe the future voters. In another subject of their legislation\\ntheir wisdom is less conspicuous. They were none of them\\n*The right of voting was then (during the first charter government of\\nMassachusetts) restricted to such freeholders as were church members,\\nwho very soon became a small minority of the people. The secular char-\\nacter of the institutions of Rhode Island were a continual incitement to\\nthe dissenters of Massachusetts.\\nfNo originality was required in inventing contrivances for this purpose.\\nThe same means which had been used by the towns of Massachusetts in\\norder to prevent any but Puritans taking up their abode in them were\\nequally efficacious in Rhode Island in excluding Puritans themselves.\\nSee Adams s Three Episodes of Massachusetts History, Vol. II., p. 647.\\nPrivate persons were not permitted to sell their lands without the con-\\nsent of the town.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0052.jp2"}, "53": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 4I\\nmerchants and did not desire that their children should ever\\nbe. The Proprietors of Mooshassuc had the courage of their\\nconvictions. From the first they showed no hesitation in\\nadopting measures which would prevent or delay the rise of\\na commercial town in which their own association might be-\\ncome insignificant or might vanish away. It was right that\\nthe town meeting should prevent trespasses upon the home\\nlots which it had granted, and reckless waste of timber.*\\nSuch as these were their earliest regulations c. g.\\\\\\nIt is agreed that two men should be deputed to view the\\ntimber on the common and such as have occasion to use\\ntimber should repair unto them for their advice and counsel\\nto fell timber fit for their use, between the shares granted\\nand mile end cove. J\\nThat from the sea or river in the West end of the Town\\nunto the Swamp in the east side of the fields that no person\\nshall fell any wood or timber before any particular man s\\nshares end {i. e., on this side of the swamp, now Hope\\nStreet). Item. That any timber felled by any person, lying\\non the ground above one year after the felling, shall be at\\nthe Towne s disposeing, beginning at the twenty third die of\\nthe month above written. This is the earliest police regu-\\nlation of the town now extant and was a reasonable restraint\\nupon mere waste of timber and trespasses upon property,\\nsuch as are common in all new countries. But as times went\\non, the agricultural Propri^etors had become firmly established\\n*Adams s Three Episodes of Massachusetts History, p. 658. A. D.\\n1646. There were similar laws in many Massachusetts towns against\\nexporting timber.\\nfVol. I. Bartlett s Colonial Records of Rhode Island, p. 5. This was\\nthe style of the enactments of the town fellowship agreed.\\nJThere were large intervals between the shares then allotted and the\\nwater side at the south end of the town. It was built up at first only on\\nthe east side of the river which was at the west end of it. The home\\nlots at the south end were not yet sold, in P^bruary, 1637-8, or even allot-\\nted. They were too remote from the centre.\\n\u00c2\u00a7There were regulations for the same purpose the preservation of\\ntimber\u00e2\u0080\u0094 and nearly in the same words in many of the Massachusetts\\ntowns, from which these may have been transcribed. See Weeden s So-\\ncial and Economical History, Vol. I., p. 109.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0053.jp2"}, "54": {"fulltext": "42 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nas the chief men of their respective neighborhoods, and such\\nthey intended to remain. They gave no invitation to mer-\\nchants such as they had known in Boston and Salem, whose\\nwealth would eclipse their own, and who might subvert their\\nreligious liberties, which in those days found little favor with\\nthe prosperous classes anywhere. After a few years the\\ntown meeting at the dictation of the Proprietors began to\\nuse the prohibition to fell timber trees as a restraint upon\\nshipbuilding and commerce.* Thus, 27th nth mo. 1650. At\\na Quarter Court, Ordered [this was the style of the newly\\nincorporated town meeting] that no person whatsoever,\\nwhether townsman or other shall carry or cause to be carried\\neither directly or indirectly off the common, any fencing\\nstuff, botts, pipestaves, clapboards, shingles, pitchlights or\\nany other sort of building timber out of this Plantation with-\\nout leave from the town, and if any be found so doing, he\\nor they shall forfeit to the Town for every tun of fencing\\ntimber or other building timber, after the rate of 10 shillings\\nper tun, for every hundred of clapboards 10 shillings, for\\nevery hundred of shingles after the rate of 2s. 6d., for every\\nhundred weight of pitch wood after the rate of 3i t\\nThis order of the town included Proprietors as well as\\nall others. As it did not answer the purpose of the agricul-\\ntural Proprietors that the place should become a mart of\\ntrade, they withheld from sale one of its chief staples. There\\nwas no lack of timber, the whole country was a great forest\\nwith only occasional openings of meadow land. Such enact-\\nments from time to time renewed, effectually prevented\\ntrade with the West Indies and the Spanish Main, for which\\ntimber, planks and barrel staves were prime necessities. The\\nleast danger of the town was that of a want of fuel or build-\\ning material. Yet the Proprietors reserved to themselves\\nthe power to consent to its use as an article of commerce.\\nThey very sparingly (if at all) granted the permission even\\nto their own members. They were successful in their nar-\\nrow policy. The town was not inferior in resources to any\\n*Early Records of Providence, Vol. IL, pp. 54, 57, 61.\\nfEarly Records of Providence, Vol. IL, pp. 54, 61. See also the order\\nof the town meeting, 27th nth mo., 1651.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0054.jp2"}, "55": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 43\\nof the seacoast towns of New England. But through this\\nrestrictive legislation it had no fisheries, such as gained the\\nearliest wealth of Massachusetts. Nor was there any ship-\\nping in the bay, save the vessels of other colonies, until the\\nclosing years of the 17th century. This may serve as a speci-\\nmen of the proprietary zeal for the public interest. They\\nwere not less vigilant in protecting their own. The legisla-\\nture in the charter of incorporation had authorized the town\\nto enact penal laws at its own discretion. The Proprietors\\navailed themselves of the opportunity for securing their own\\nestate. They established fines, for those days severe, the\\nburden of which fell upon the smaller freeholders. Such were\\nthe penalties for felling timber, for allowing swine and goats\\nto run at large in the commons, and later for cutting the thatch\\nbeds at the mouth of the Wonasquatucket. An act of this\\nsort upon the land of a private freeholder was but a trespass,\\nthe subject of a civil action. Done against the estate of the\\nProprietors it became a criminal offence and could be visited\\nby the full power of the law such as it was, in those days.\\nThe proprietary rule was now so well established that there\\nwas no fear of resistance even to an enactment like this\\n7th 6th mo. 1650.* Ordered that a rate be levied upon the\\nestates of men only, excepting lands that lie in common, and\\nthat the Town Council shall rate the same. f Thus the Pro-\\nprietors secured exemption from taxes for all but their indi-\\nvidual estates, notwithstanding their claim of the common\\nlands as their own private property and their receiving for\\ntheir own use the proceeds of the sales. We might believe\\nthis to have been an act of surprising boldness and unwisdom\\nhad it not been quietly endured by the freeholders until the\\nend of the 17th century. Precisely how this exemption was\\nborne we cannot ascertain from the town records. It was\\nsilently dropped when the Proprietary estate was much di-\\nminished. The same men who contended against Williams\\nthat their purchase from him was their individual property,\\n*Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 50.\\ntFrom the use of this word f}ten, it was some years later argued that\\nwomen were exempt from taxation, and the claim was in part, during\\nseveral years allowed.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0055.jp2"}, "56": {"fulltext": "44 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nnow exempted it from public burdens as if it had been as he\\nasserted, a town stock. The small freeholders could not\\nresist the Proprietors. The information doubtless spread\\nthrough the neighbor colonies that the inferior freemen in\\nProvidence bore an undue share of the public burdens, both\\nof town and colony rates, and may, in part, account for the\\nsmall number of those who sought to avail themselves of the\\nfreedom of the plantations.\\nBefore many years, other equally singular notions about\\nrights to real property became current among these un-\\nlearned legislators. Some of the Proprietors were not exempt\\nfrom them, and were ready to enforce them upon those of\\ntheir own brethren for whom they felt but little regard.\\nThere were no charges against Joshua Verin of being in any\\ndefault in payment of taxes upon his private estate (his pro-\\nprietary lands were not taxable), yet many of the townsmen\\nwere of opinion that his proprietary share might be forfeited\\nby mere non-residence. He had left the colony after he had\\nbeen censured for violating the liberty of conscience. From\\nSalem he addressed the following letter to the townsmen,\\nwhich was read at the town s Quarter-day meeting, April 27,\\n1651\\nGentlemen Countrymen of the Town of Providence\\nThis is to certify you that I look upon my purchase of the\\nTown of Providence, to be my lawful right. In my travel I\\nhave enquired and do find it recoverable according to law, for\\nmy coming away could not disinherit me.* Some of you can-\\nnot but recollect that we six which came first, should have\\nthe first convenience. As it was put in practice by our house\\nlots second by the meadows in Wonasquatucket River.\\nAnd then those that were admitted by us, into the purchase,\\nto have the next which were about but it is contrary to law,\\n*Weeden s Social and Economical History of New England, Vol. L,\\np. 270. In the earliest settled towns of Massachusetts it was not an un-\\ncommon condition of the sales to the first grantees, that the lands should\\nbe forfeited if certain improvements were not made within a definite\\ntime. But such cases were not like that of Verin. He had been in pos-\\nsession by himself or by his agents during more than ten years\u00e2\u0080\u0094 had built\\nfor himself a house. And it is not charged against him that his taxes\\nwere in arrears.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0056.jp2"}, "57": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 45\\nreason equity, for to dispose of my part without consent.\\nTherefore, deal not worse with me, than with the Indians, for\\nwe made conscience of purchasing it of them, and hazarded\\nour lives. Therefore we need not, nor any of us ought to be\\ndenied of our purchase. So, hoping you will take it into seri-\\nous consideration and to give me reasonable satisfaction.\\nI rest, yours in the way of right and equity,\\nJoshua Verin.\\nFrom Salem, the 21st November, 1650.\\nMen of understanding could not fail to see the disastrous\\nconsequences to the town (and to themselves also), of such a\\nprecedent as this. Who of them could foretell what might be\\ndone by a popular majority, if he himself should become un-\\npopular in his turn Forfeitures and confiscation were\\nfamiliar in old England in that age, and this might be the\\nbeginning of the like practices here. It required the influence\\nof William Harris, Thomas Olney, Epenetus Olney, and later\\non of John Whipple, to prevent the appropriation of Verin s\\nestate by the town meeting.*\\nThe curt answer of Gregory Dexter, the town clerk, shows\\nthat some proceedings had been commenced.! The Town\\nof Providence having received, read considered yours\\ndated the 21st November 1650, have ordered me to signify\\nunto you, that if fou shall come into court, prove your\\nright, they will do you justice. per me\\nGregory Dexter, Town Clerk.\\nIn this case the townsmen would have adjudicated a claim\\nin which they were themselves plaintiffs. Gregory Dexter\\nwas one of the radical leaders of his times, and probably a\\npromoter of the suit against Verin. When the Proprietors\\nrecovered their old ascendency they dropped Dexter from the\\nclerkship, a place of great influence and profit for those days.\\n*See Bartlett s Colonial Records of Rhode Island, Vol. I., p. 17.\\nVerin s letter contains some historical details concerning the plantation\\nwhich are not elsewhere preserved.\\nfEarly Records of Providence, Vol. II., pp. 55, 56.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0057.jp2"}, "58": {"fulltext": "46 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nJohn Whipple came to Providence from Dorchester, Mass.,\\nin 1659. He brought with him a larger property than was\\ncommonly possessed by the immigrants of that day. He was\\nreceived as an inhabitant of the town, purchased a Proprie-\\ntors share,* and soon became a leading citizen and a zealous\\nsupporter of Harris and Olney. [Williams s second letter to\\nWhipple, Rider s Tract No. 14.] Williams says that he was\\na constant speaker in town meetings (p. 42), and evidently\\nregarded him as one of his chief opponents. He was licensed\\nto keep an inn, and during many years kept the principal one\\nin Providence in what is now Constitution Hill. He was\\na man of ability and influence and his inn became the politi-\\ncal centre of the town. It seems probable that Williams\\naddressed his letters to Whipple, that they might become\\nmore widely known in what was then the chief club-house of\\nthe village. He died May 16, 1685.\\nBefore many years the town meeting began to use the\\nprivileges which it had granted to the twenty-five acre\\nmen, as a means of correction and discipline. Thus, Oc-\\ntober 27, 1659. Thomas Olney, Sen Moderator.\\nForasmuch as there hath been a Complaint made by some of\\nthe inhabitants, unto this Court against John Clawson for\\nmaking ttse of the Common, it is therefore ordered by this\\npresent court, that the Deputies or Deputy of the Towne\\nshall forthwith forewarne the said John Clawson to forbear\\nin any wise to make use of any of the Common. f It does\\nnot appear what was the head and front of John Clawson s\\noffending. His name appears in the list of the twenty-\\nfive acre men. He had probably not rightly estimated the\\nextent of his privileges and made an excessive and indiscreet\\nuse of them. He was therefore wholly deprived of them and\\nwas thenceforth to draw no firewood or other household\\nstores from the common land. This forfeiture of his rights\\nVJ2L.S ex post facto and illegal, but such slight technical diffi-\\nculties were of little account before the popular and unlet-\\ntered judges of those days. By what right they could, deprive\\none of their co-tenants of his due proportion of common is\\n*Early Records of Providence, Vol. IL, p. 117, July 27, 1659.\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0j-Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 126.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0058.jp2"}, "59": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 47\\nnot now apparent. But they did it notwithstanding.* For us,\\nwho have but lately celebrated the centennial of a constitu-\\ntion well provided with restraints upon the violation of con-\\ntracts and the appropriation of private property to public\\nuses, it is difficult to keep in our recollection while reading\\nour early records, that during an hundred and fifty years\\nthere was no check upon the absolute power of a colonial\\nassembly, except the uncertain and capricious interposition\\nof a royal veto. In Rhode Island, even this security was\\nwanting. We may meet with acts of its wholly secular legis-\\nlation, quite as despotic as any of those of which its founders\\nhad complained under the rule of Massachusetts and its\\nelders, or in old England under the monarchy of Charles the\\nFirst.\\nThese two cases of Verin and Clawson are sufficient exam-\\nples of the acts legislative and judicial, which were charac-\\nteristic of the first regime in the plantations. They were\\nattended by arrangements equally unsafe for the management\\nand transfer of real property. Every thing in the early\\nrecords shows the handiwork of men without experience in\\nsuch duties. Their early enactment, that no purchaser should\\nsell his lot without leave of the town meeting, was justified\\nby the danger that in a small community, unprotected by a\\ncharter from the Crown, a sufficient number of freeholds\\nmight be acquired to give to a hostile colony the political\\ncontrol of the town. But this was the only security provided\\nby law. The transfers of property were without formality or\\nprecision. No deed was thought necessary until the days of\\nthe second charter. As the stated common lots were but\\nsmall (of some ten or twelve acres each), and were widely\\nseparated, they did not add much to the wealth of the set-\\ntlers. From the constant petitions to exchange or to relay\\nthem, it might be inferred that they were often a hindrance\\nto the culture of the soil.f\\n*This proceeding against John Clawson seems very much like a speci-\\nmen of Massachusetts justice, as dispensed by the magistrates and elders.\\nThey were ready to make their law for the occasion, without much en-\\nquiry whether it were ex post facto or otherwise, provided that it suited\\ntheir own notions of what the case required.\\nfFor examples see Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 55. Roger\\nWilliams asked for liberty to exchange his lands, Sept. 30, 1667.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0059.jp2"}, "60": {"fulltext": "48 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nThe Land Records of Providence, now extant, date from\\n1643. The earlier ones perished in the burning of the town\\nin 1676.* These records are contained in two ancient books,\\ncalled the booke with brass clasps, and the long booke with\\nparchment covers. Only a few specimens can be quoted but\\nthese show the mode of proceeding in those days.f Thus\\nThe 27th nth mo. 1644. William ffield sold unto William\\nWickenden all the share of land called six acres lying upon\\nthe hill called Fox s Hill, bounding on the east southeast\\nwith the land of Francis Wickes, and on the north north-\\neast with the highway. J On the west and northwest, with\\nMile end cove on the south with the sea.\\nThis entry is without seal, signature or covenants. It is a\\nmere certificate by the town clerk, to which the whole town\\nmeeting were the witnesses. The early transfers, not deeds,\\nwere mere certificates like this. The boundaries of estates\\nwere perishable and liable to speedy disappearance. During\\nmany years wolf traps, or pits and mere stakes or heaps\\nof stones were frequently named as monuments. Black and\\nwhite oak trees were comparatively permanent.\\nThe 14th of the 2d month, 1643, at our Monthly Court,\\nbefore us the Deputies, we record that William ffield sold\\nunto Thomas Olney, one (ten) acres of ground lying upon the\\nsouth side of the river called Wonasquatucket, bounding upon\\nthe land of Thomas Olney on the east, a mere bank on the\\nsouth, of the land of Jane Leare on the west, a slip of\\nmeadow of Thomas Olney on the North.\\nThe 28th of April, 1654. John ffenner sold unto Robert\\nColwell, the house houselot which was formerly Richard\\nFray s, lying between Edward Inman s John Smith s.\\n*See the report of the town s committee, appointed soon after Philip s\\nWar, to ascertain what public documents remained.\\nf Early Records of Providence, Vol. IL, p. 5.\\nJEarly in this century this was named Wickenden Street.\\n\u00c2\u00a7Twenty years later the Proprietors became anxious about the evi-\\ndence of their titles and desired better securities. On the 4th of June,\\n1666, the town meeting voted that all who desired them, whether Propri-\\netors or twenty-five acre men, might have deeds from the town clerk.\\nEarly Records of Providence, Vol. IIL, p. 84.\\nII Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 6.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0060.jp2"}, "61": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 49\\nSame day, William Burrough acknowledges to have sold unto\\nArthur ffenner and to Henry, Brown, one share of meadow\\nlying at Neuticonkonet, adjoining unto Pachaset River, with\\nfive twenty acres of upland lying on the east on the west\\nside of the meadow. 27th January, 1648. Thomas\\nAngell of Providence, sold unto James Matteson, a five-acre\\nlot lying on the east side of the land which Thomas Clement\\nliveth upon, bounded on the east with the land of Benedict\\nArnold, on the north with the sea, as is manifested by a deed\\nunder his hand. This was rare and exceptional.\\nThe primitive practice was now changing, as appears by the\\nmention of a deed. These were private transfers. The Pro-\\nprietor s method was not much more precise\\nOn the same day, Thomas Harris in the face of the\\ncourt acknowledgeth that he hath sold unto Thomas Clement\\nthat land which the said Thomas Clement now dwelleth\\nupon. No boundaries are given. These open and public\\ntransfers doubtless served in early times as a security against\\nfraud and as a preventive of litigation. They also effectually\\nprevented any sales to strangers. July 24th, 1658,\\nRichard Pray hath taken up the sharpe piece of land lying\\nnear the place where Richard Waterman s great canoe was\\nmade, for a share of meadow, it being laid out by the Town\\nDeputy, it being bounded on the south with a white oak at\\neach corner, also on the north with a white oak at each cor-\\nner, on the west with a black oak tree. [This was in the\\nneighborhood of the present Steeple Sfreet.] These primi-\\ntive land owners felt greater confidence in the perpetuity of\\nneighborhoods and homesteads and in the clearness of their\\nown recollections than is common among their descendants\\nin these latter days. After nearly a quarter of a century of\\nexperience, they had become aware of the importance of form\\nand accuracy, and the transfers are better specimens of the\\ndraughtsman s skill. Whatever was faulty in the work of the\\nconveyancer, was but little aided by that of the Proprietors\\nSurveyors. The rude instruments of those days produced\\nboundaries which later generations often found it difificult to\\nidentify as those described in their ancestors deeds. Gen-", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0061.jp2"}, "62": {"fulltext": "50 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nerations passed away before these irritating controversies\\nwere laid to rest. To avoid dissentions the Proprietors were\\nliberal in their allotments to themselves and to their grantees.\\nBy an order of the Town Meeting, then wholly controlled by\\nthe first purchasers,* and which order continued in force\\nduring many years, the rod was to be measured by the\\neighteen-foot pole, both in estates and in highways. This\\nis still apparent when ancient surveys are re-measured. The\\nProprietary grants were small and the home lot was often\\nwidely separated from the stated common lot, or from the\\nfield of ,one hundred acres. Hence, there were frequent\\napplications from the grantees to the Town Meeting, that is,\\nto the grantors themselves, for leave to surrender or ex-\\nchange their fields for others in nearer neighborhoods to\\ntheir home lots. Thus, Roger Williams, 2d June, 1657,\\nEarly Records, pp. 105, 106, asked and received permission\\nto surrender and exchange his allotment. After thirty years\\nthere was not much improvement. January 6, 1670-71, laid\\nout to Thomas Clemence, by John Whipple Sen Surveyor,\\nfive acres of lowlands more or less, being measured by the\\n18-foot pole, it lying being on the North side of Wanas-\\nquatucket River, against the place called the Goatom, it\\nbounding on the south side with the aforesaid Wanasqua-\\ntucket river, on the north with the Common, 81 on the\\nsouth east, partly with the Common, partly with the afore-\\nsaid river. It being bounded on the Western corner, with a\\nmaple tree, standing by the aforesaid river side, bounding on\\nthe northern corner with a rock, [which side of it so as\\nto range to a red oak tree which standeth by the Wonasqua-\\ntucket riverside, which tree is on the North side of the river\\naforesaid, against the North eastern end of the hill commonly\\ncalled Solitary hill. This land in form and manner as be-\\nfore expressed, was laid out to Thomas Clemence for a five\\nacre lot, due to him from the Towne of his purchase right.\\nRecorded by with the Town s consent January 27 1670-\\nor 71. t This example shows many of the uncertainties to\\nwhich conveyances were then liable.\\n*Early Records of Providence, Vol. III., pp. 197, 198.\\nfEarly Records of Providence, Vol. III., pp. 161, 162.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0062.jp2"}, "63": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 5 1\\nWhatever defects or uncertainties of bounds could not be\\nascribed to the surveyors, were amply accounted for by pre-\\nvious purchases in the neighborhood. The Purchasers\\ngrantees often believed not without reason that their\\nlines were overlapped by new grants or surveys. (Early\\nRecords, Vol. II., p. in.) Sometimes reckless or revengeful\\npersons felled the oak trees which were the sole witnesses of\\ntitles. The ill-feeling against the Proprietors, which their\\nexclusive claims had engendered, gave too much reason to\\nbelieve that this was often prompted by malice.* Hence,\\narose the necessity for penal enactments against any one\\nwho had entitled himself to the ancient curse against him\\nwho removed his neighbour s landmark. The willful fell-\\ning of an ancient tree marked by the surveyor, was an offence\\noften equivalent to the destruction of a deed or the forgery\\nof a record.f\\nAfter a few years, the Proprietors and their successors be-\\ngan to complain that their home lots fell short of the legal\\nmeasure, not reaching the dimensions of the six acres to\\nwhich each one was entitled. It is observable that the com-\\nplaint is always of a deficiency and never of an excess. If\\nany thing of this sort were observed it speedily passed from\\nrecollection. It was never made a subject of complaint\\nagainst the surveyors. No offer to restore it appears any-\\nwhere upon the records.\\nThese proceedings affected men s titles to their home-\\nsteads and were never free from clamor and dispute. As\\nfarms became numerous, controversies about bounds multi-\\nplied in the same proportion, and a special town meeting\\nmight be called for any one of them. At length these be-\\ncame so frequent and wasted so many valuable hours in de-\\nbates of interest only to private litigants, that the townsmen\\nwould not leave their homes in planting time or harvest, at\\nthe summons of the Town Sergeant.^ As a measure of relief,\\n*Harris says that the small freeholders had borne none of the expenses,\\nburdens and troubles of the first purchasers, and wished to have the same\\nbenefits as if they had.\\nfSee Early Records of Providence, Vol. III., pp. 197, 198.\\nJSo much time was spent in adjusting the boundaries of new grants,\\nand the Town Meetings became such an annoyance, that it was ordered", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0063.jp2"}, "64": {"fulltext": "52 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nit became necessary to enact that so many as should appear,\\neven at a Quarter-day Meeting, should be a legal quorum.\\nThe discussion of these tedious surveys must often have\\nbeen accomplished in the presence of the ten or even of the\\nseven drowsy freeholders who could be persuaded to attend,\\nin order to save the meeting from failure. The fact that those\\nwho had little else to do and whose opinions were of the\\nleast weight and value, were often a large part of the assem-\\nblage, did not tend to sweeten the tempers of the contestants.\\nIt threw the responsibility of the proceedings chiefly upon\\nthe town clerk, who was also the clerk of the Proprietors, and\\nthus tended to a concentration of power, perhaps not wholly\\nneedless in such an ill-organized community.\\nDuring twenty years (from 1640 to 1660), these dreary\\ndebates went on about public and private titles, at the Town\\nMeeting and at the town mill. To whom did the Town s\\nunsold acres belong Little that was new could be said and\\nthe old straw was threshed over and over again. Neither\\nparty felt more confidence in the Town Meeting Courts, in\\ntheir knowledge or their independence, than in the arbi-\\ntrators of the old voluntary regime. Questions purely ju-\\ndicial, like Verin s, became affairs of town politics. At no\\nperiod of the dispute did any party propose an appeal to\\nEngland. They were never anxious to attract the attention\\neither of Charles I. or the military aristocracy of Cromwell,\\nstyled the State. The laws of real property had not been\\nchanged under the Commonwealth or under Cromwell, and\\nduring his rule some of the ablest of the old Common law-\\nyers, Sir Matthew Hale among them, sat upon the Upper\\nBench. Not to mention the costs, the results seemed too\\nuncertain, so great had been the legal irregularities on both\\nsides. The townsmen therefore kept the whole controversy\\nand its issues in their own hands, and contented themselves\\nwith gaining such advantages as they might in the Town\\n27th October, 1656, that if on the Quarter Days Company appear not\\naccording to a former law, then such as meet may proceed to act.\\nOctober i, 1657, because of the often and present great difficulties in\\ngetting ten to make a town meeting, that if upon lawful warning, Seven\\nonly meet, their meeting shall be legal. Early Records, Vol. II., pp.\\n98, 108.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0064.jp2"}, "65": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 53\\nMeeting. There some maintained, as Williams had always\\ndone, that his purchase was a town stock or public fund,\\nof which the Proprietors were only trustees, although they\\nhad usurped the absolute ownership of the whole domain.*\\nThis party was numerous among the small freeholders and\\nsometimes had the majority on the great Town s Quarter\\nday and election day. They do not appear to have been\\nmuch restrained in language or to have possessed legal or\\nexecutive ability. The Proprietors were wary and sagacious\\nand were better advised and led.f Williams and Gregory\\nDexter, the champions of the small landholders, found an\\novermatch at all points in William Harris and Thomas Olney.\\nIf Williams asserted that he had intended to create a\\ntown stock or trust fund, Harris had law enough to answer\\nhim, that he had expressed no such purpose in the Initial\\nDeed, and that a new condition or covenant or construction\\ncould not be inserted in it by a subsequent declaration of one\\nparty. If Williams claimed that his wishes were to be de-\\ncisive, as to the management of the estate, many were ready\\nwith the reply, that he had invited them into the wilderness\\nand ought to have declared thett what his purposes were, and\\nnot to have kept them secret until it was too late to retreat.\\nThey had endured their sufferings and losses, had thrown\\naway all chances and opportunities in Massachusetts and ex-\\npected to be repaid. I They in effect did tell him that he had\\ncreated no trust and no means of enforcing the application\\nof the purchase money arising from the sale of lots to the\\nuses of the Town. Here was the weak point in Williams s\\nmachinery. He could not prevent the diversion of the fund\\nto any other purpose. Courts and Town Meetings, parties\\nand witnesses were all the same persons. They had entered\\ninto no covenants and they meant to insist upon the title as\\n*See Williams s Answer, as he calls it, in the case of William Har-\\nris against the Town of Providence. (Rider s Historical Tract No. 14,\\np. 56.)\\nt Harris had some law books which he had carefully studied. One of\\nthem was Coke upon Littleton, the great bible of the real property\\nlawers of old time.\\nIHarris says (MS. letter) that their expenses in buying off Indian\\nclaims were \u00c2\u00a3160 above what they paid to Williams.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0065.jp2"}, "66": {"fulltext": "54 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nthey had received it.* There was something to be said, and\\nit was said harshly and sharply on both sides. Williams had\\ndoubtless intended we have his constant assertion of it\\nthat the beneficial enjoyment of his purchase should be co-\\nextensive with the town or fellowship of vote. He looked\\nforward to a common interest of all the householders in the\\nownership of the town lands. Their revenues from sales to\\nnew comers were to be a fund for public improvements, as\\nroads, bridges, c., in aid of taxes which must fall heavily\\nupon a new and poor community. They were not to be merely\\nthe dividends of a private company. But Williams had com-\\nmitted his purchase to a society which could tolerate nothing\\nbut a voluntary association, which could give him no legal\\nredress. He positively denied that the first purchasers had\\npaid for any thing but their own homesteads, and maintained\\nthat he had no intention of converting the town stock into\\na private estate for a mere fraction of its people. His de-\\nsign was far-seeing and statesmanlike, but it passed his legal\\nskill to give effect to it. It is equally true that he had not\\nexpressed his design in the Initial Deed with sufficient\\nclearness, if he had expressed it at all, and that he had trusted\\ntoo far to his influence over his associates. (It is uncertain\\nwhether they knew what his exact purposes were when they\\ncame here. See his letter to Winthrop, before quoted.) They\\ncould reply that his work could not be done without them\\nthat they had suffered the same hardships that they were\\nbut ill-compensated for them by small allotments of land\\nwhich he had valued at only thirty shillings each that his deed\\nto them of the Indian purchase should have been made upon\\nmutual consultation and agreement, while he had only ten-\\ndered them a conveyance which suited his own theories.f\\nWilliams had probably anticipated the possession of a\\n*Williams had forced the Initial Deed upon them and they meant\\nto hold him to the letter of his bargain.\\nflf Williams could quote Scripture as authority in a question of con-\\nveyancing, so also could Harris. He called attention to the fact that the\\nwords for the use of cattle, were the same as those used in the book\\nof Leviticus to describe the possessions of the Levites, which were, ac-\\ncording to the law of Moses, absolute and perpetual estates. Leviticus,\\nchap. 25, V. 34. Numbers, chap. 35, v. 3.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0066.jp2"}, "67": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 55\\ngreater authority in the town than had fallen to his share.\\nThis was a new experience for him the attempt to retain\\npolitical influence in a community which had no religious\\nestablishment. Heretofore, he had lived only in States in\\nwhich religion was supported by law, and he had enjoyed the\\ndeference which its officers received from their fellow-\\ncitizens. He forgot that only the aid of the civil power had\\nmade John Cotton the foremost man in Massachusetts. Some\\nyears went by before the effect of his new development was\\nfully perceived, and Williams saw that his opinion was now\\nonly that of a private citizen like his neighbors. They had\\nleft Massachusetts in order to rid themselves of the author-\\nity of the puritan ministers, who, when their reasonings failed\\nto convince, could invoke the aid of the civil magistrates.\\nWilliams was not in the habit of consulting with other men\\nor of being influenced by their judgment even when their\\nrights were affected by his action.* He found that to be\\noverruled by a majority, whom he knew to be his inferiors in\\nculture and in experience, was a hard lesson to be learned.\\nIt need not surprise us that he sometimes displayed an irrita-\\nbility, natural enough, but to be regretted in a founder and a\\nlegislator. He was indignant at the defeat of the cherished\\nproject of his life, and he was not in the habit of giving to\\nhis emotions any subdued expression. It was not the cus-\\ntom of those days to be choice in epithets when one s feelings\\nwere excited, and he was no exception to the fashion of his\\ntime. His example furnished a precedent and a temptation\\nto others. Unity, even in matters relating to their own in-\\nterests, was destroyed.! There were no vessels, not even\\nfishing craft, such as Massachusetts in her earliest days pat-\\nronized and encouraged. Population did not flow in to avail\\nitself of the freedom of Mooshassuc. Men would not coop-\\nerate even in building up the town. As for example Mr.\\nffoote, who had learned the craft in England, proposed to set\\nup iron works in a region now known to us as Cranston. Wil-\\nliams favored the project, but the local feuds were so bitter\\n*See Richard Scott s letter in Fox s New England s Firebrand\\nQuenched.\\nfSee Bartlett s Colonial Records.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0067.jp2"}, "68": {"fulltext": "56 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nthat the townsmen would not join even in this useful work,\\nand the projector departed, it seems, to aid in building up the\\nfortunes of New Jersey. (The Proprietors built no vessels\\nfor themselves and would not allow any others to pay a price\\nfor the timber or to engage in any commercial business.)*\\nAs might have been expected, there were but few indications\\nof increasing population. Immigrants were not many, and of\\nthose who fixed their abode here not many sought admission\\nas freemen of the colony. f\\nEven in these latter days the benignity of men s spirits is\\nlittle increased by so many adverse circumstances. The con-\\ntroversy about the town lands went on, in its only forum, the\\nTown Meeting, and at the only other place of concourse,\\nthe town mill. No practical measure was presented to give\\na solution to the difficulty. There were only debates which\\nthreatened to be as endless as they were useless, and which\\nsometimes proceeded from abuse to violence. Williams was\\nnot without skill in the old 17th century art of reviling, in\\nscripture language, and we may well believe that many of his\\nfellow-citizens were not far behind him.\\nThis went on until 165 1. The colony was now satisfied\\nthat better securities were required to protect it against its\\nneighbors and against itself. In that year Roger Williams\\nand John Clarke were sent to England as agents of the colony\\nto obtain, if possible, a new and better charter. Williams\\nsoon learned that there was not at that time much hope of\\nobtaining from the Puritan government a charter embody-\\ning his own cherished ideas. During many months he per-\\nsevered in the attempt, and the latter part of his sojourn in\\nEngland was passed at Belleau, the country-seat of Sir Henry\\nVane. While there the chief topic of Williams s conversation\\nmust have been furnished by the affairs of New England, and\\nhe set forth his own views of Rhode Island politics with his\\naccustomed warmth and zeal. At the close of his visit to Bel-\\n*Weeden (Soc. and Econ. History of N. E.), Vol. i, pp. 137, 151, cites\\nauthorities to prove that vessels were built in Newport so early as 1646-\\nBut in Providence there were none until the 17th century was drawing\\nto a close.\\nfWm. Harris says, that just before the Indian War (1676), the popula-\\ntion of the township was about five hundred souls. (MS. letter.)", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0068.jp2"}, "69": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 57\\nleau, which was also the end of his visit to England, Williams\\npersuaded Vane to embody in a letter his views of the con-\\nduct and behavior of the people of Rhode Island. The facts\\non which his censures were grounded were furnished by Wil-\\nliams. Harris and Thomas Olney were not there to modify\\nthem or to suggest that there might be another side to the\\ncontroversy. However partial it might be in setting forth\\nthe views of Williams alone, the letter does honor to Sir\\nHenry Vane s feeling in behalf of the distracted colony. It\\nwas the sharpest letter ever addressed to the people of Rhode\\nIsland.* Vane keenly reproves them for their divisions,\\nheadiness, tumults, disorders, and injustice, and\\nasks, Are there no wise men among you No public, self-\\ndenying spirits that at least upon the grounds of public\\nsafety, equity and prudence, can find out some way or means\\nof union and reconciliation for you among themselves before\\nyou become a prey to common enemies? He judges that it\\nmust be a high and dangerous distemper for which kind\\nand simple remedies are ineffectual. He advises the appoint-\\nment of commissioners to adjust their difficulties. But none\\nsuch could be found in Rhode Island. Massachusetts and\\nConnecticut were willing to see the dispute go on, in hope\\nto profit by it, however it might end. There were disquiets\\nand disturbances in every part of the colony, and the parties\\nto each were ready to apply Sir Henry Vane s censures to\\ntheir adversaries. If we should at this day attempt to dis-\\ntribute his reproaches of the townsmen of Providence among\\nthose to whom they belong, we might very plausibly ascribe\\nthe headiness and injustice to the Proprietors, and the\\ntumults and disorders to the freeholders of the Town. By\\nbeing their bearer, Williams adopted and approved the cen-\\nsures. Whether it were politic to expose his own influence to\\nfarther attack, we need not enquire. That it had this effect\\nis evident from his own mournful letter to the Town of Prov-\\nidence, written August, 1654. It is said, I am as good as\\nbanished by yourselves and that both sides wished I might\\nnever have landed, that the fire of contention might have had\\nno stop in burning. This letter is in Williams s best man-\\n*Sir Henry Vane s letter was dated at Belleau, 8th February, 1653-54.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0069.jp2"}, "70": {"fulltext": "58 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nner. He was self-restrained and guarded in his utterances\\nin public documents. It was in his private acts and writings\\nthat he displayed his ill-judgment. There was one suggestion\\nin the letter of Sir Henry Vane to which it behooved the\\ntownsmen to give heed. They did so. They were in danger,\\nsays he, of becoming a prey to common enemies. Vane\\nknew what was going on in England. At the council boards\\nof Cromwell, Massachusetts and Connecticut were at work to\\nobtain the revocation of the charter of Rhode Island. If they\\nwere successful, its territory would be divided, and its relig-\\nious guarantees swept away. All knew that Cromwell was\\nthe fast friend of Massachusetts, and that the danger was not\\nideal. The men of Providence yielded to the necessity, and\\nconsented to the submission of one of their controversies\\nwith William Harris to a court named by the Governor of the\\nUnited Colonies. They became for a time more restrained\\nand decorous in their proceedings, and then relapsed into\\ntheir old habits.\\nSir Henry Vane s letter was addressed to the Colony and\\nnot to the Town, and there was no necessity for the Town to\\nanswer it.* Dexter s reply is evasive. He passes over in si-\\nlence the disturbances in Providence, and meekly confesses\\nthe sins of Coddington and Dyer in Newport. He asserts\\nthat Providence had always been true to the liberties for the\\nsake of which it had been founded. This was true enough,\\nbut not relevant, as there had been no complaint against\\nProvidence on that account. Dexter had reason for omitting\\nthe mention of a controversy in which his own share had been\\nboth conspicuous and unwise. Williams s popularity and in-\\nfluence suffered a temporary eclipse, but it revived, for he\\nwas a man too valuable and important to be thrown aside.\\nAs respects the townsmen, much of their turbulence and\\ntheir tendency to quarrels and even to outbreaks in the\\nQuarter-day Meetings, may charitably be ascribed to inexpe-\\nrience. In Massachusetts, none but members of the Puritan\\nparishes were voters while the first charter lasted, and the\\n*Williams s letter to Vane was dated August 27, 1654. It was written\\nby Williams and signed by Dexter as Town Clerk. Dexter probably\\nmade some small additions or changes.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0070.jp2"}, "71": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 59\\nearliest freemen of Mooshassuc numbered among themselves\\nbut few of these. The graduates of the English Cambridge\\nand of the American Harvard exacted the deference of the\\nuneducated men, and those who did not yield it had small\\nopportunity of a hearing in the Town Meetings. These were\\nruled by the fortunate possessors of wealth, culture and sanc-\\ntity, and a man of humble station had small opportunity to\\nacquire political experience. When some of these withdrew\\nto Mooshassuc it is not surprising that they lacked self-con-\\ntrol in matters where their interests or their passions were\\nconcerned. Two hundred and fifty years ago experience in\\npublic affairs was possessed by comparatively few. The Leg-\\nislature of Massachusetts was open only to the elect, and the\\nmagistrates and elders permitted little adverse debate in par-\\nish meetings. There was but one religious society in Provi-\\ndence and that was but a small one. There was no other\\nplace for speech or discussion, and in the Town Meeting per-\\nsonal interests and passions sometimes broke over control\\namong .these unrestrained disputants. The townsmen were, as\\na body, more moderate than their leaders, and when they seri-\\nously disapproved, their censure fell equally upon Williams\\nand upon Harris, upon Olney and upon ffield, the leaders, both\\nof the Proprietors and of the freeholders. At the present day\\nevery school has a society of some sort amongst its boys, and\\none of their earliest lessons is, the method of conducting the\\nbusiness of a public assembly. Any thing of this kind would\\nhave been esteemed presumption by those who practiced the\\nstern family discipline of the 17th century. The future rulers\\nof the Town were left to pick up their political education in\\nthe rough school of experience. They did so but slowly in\\nthe first generation at Mooshassuc.\\nThe earlier records contain allusions to brawls and disturb-\\nances. They sometimes involved the leaders of both parties.\\nOne specimen will suffice June 4, 1655, R. Wil-\\nliams, Moderator. Whereas there hath been great debate\\nthis day about Tho. Olnie, Robert Williams, Jno. ffield, Will\\nHarris and others, concerning the matter of a tumult and\\ndisturbance in the winter under a pretence of voluntary train-\\n*Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 81.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0071.jp2"}, "72": {"fulltext": "60 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\ning, it was at last concluded by vote, that for the colony s\\nsake, who hath chosen Thomas Olnie an assistant, and for\\nthe public union and peace sakes, it should be passed by and\\nno more mentioned. It was now June Quarter-day, and this\\nparticular quarrel seems to have kept the town in a ferment\\nduring three or four months. The disputants have left tra-\\nces of their ability behind them. Thomas Olney added polit-\\nical to religious reasons for not cherishing a warm affection\\nfor Williams. The irritable temper of Williams sometimes\\novercame his judgment, and where pugnacity was required,\\nwhether in word or action, William Harris was equal to the\\noccasion.\\nHe was not always responsible for such occurrences. The\\nlanguage used by Gregory Dexter and his party was much more\\nirritating. But Harris never declined his share in a controversy\\nwhen it arose. On this day, Williams had the opportunity of\\nlearning the opinions of his neighbors by hearing a discussion\\nof his own conduct by such disputants as Harris and Richard\\nScott, and of taking the vote upon a resolution which was\\nequally a censure upon himself, upon his own party and upon\\ntheir adversaries. That this particular brawl had begun early\\nand lasted long may be learned from an entry upon the same\\npage. [Early Records, Vol. H., p. 8l] Whereas Henry Fowler\\nwas warned to the court to answer for his marriage without\\ndue publication, and he pleaded that the divisions of the town\\nwere the cause of his so doing, the town voted a remission of\\nhis penalty. June 4, 1655. This was a bold and justly suc-\\ncessful answer to the townsmen. From want of religious\\ncongregations, publications of marriages were made in town\\nmeeting during the greater part of the 17th century. This\\nwas the first business in the order of the day. They were\\nmade by the Town Sergeant, whose stentorian voice was\\ndeemed more fit for the purpose than that of the elderly mod-\\nerator. Henry Fowler was a young man of just twenty-one\\nyears. He had grown up with Mr. ffoote, the ironmaster be-\\nfore mentioned, probably as his apprentice, and still lived at\\nhis house. As he failed to secure a hearing for his publica-\\ntion by the sergeant, he and his friends waited no longer. He\\nwas married without it at Mr. ffoote s house the same even-", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0072.jp2"}, "73": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 6l\\ning. His defence in substance was, that the Town Meeting\\nwas so disturbed by the fathers of the village that even the\\npublication of marriages became impossible. If they would\\nsee the young men respect the law, they should themselves\\nfirst afford an example. The townsmen accepted the reproof\\nand remitted the penalty. Williams was justly indignant at\\nthe conduct of both parties to this affair, at the pusillanimous\\nbehavior of the moderator and the sergeant in failing to\\nenforce silence and make the publication, and at the lawless\\nacts of the bridegroom and his friends. This is a specimen\\nof the manner in which men had learned to conduct them-\\nselves under the voluntary association in Mooshassuc in the\\n17th century. This may suffice for an example. Other dis-\\nturbances arose during the first century of the town. But\\neven when they are mentioned in the letters of Williams,\\nthey are charitably omitted from the town record.\\nSome other discords there were, between Williams and the\\nProprietors, respecting the administration of their estate.\\nWilliams had desired at the beginning that this should be a\\nplace of refuge for those distressed for conscience. The\\noffer, if ever expedient, was so no longer. The Presbyterians\\nasked for no refuge in the colonies eastward of New York.\\nThe Puritan had his peculiar abode in New England, where\\nhe had become a persecutor in his turn. All sober-minded\\npeople who chose to emigrate were welcomed. But Wil-\\nliams did not yield up his fancy that a large reservation\\nshould be provided for those of other countries who were in\\ndistress of conscience. How a proper discrimination could\\nbe made among the applicants, does not appear. Emigrants\\nfor conscience s sake, were, in that generation, more extreme\\nand often more turbulent and pugnacious than they are at\\npresent. Many could not distinguish between their consciences\\nand their passions. Those who were most likely to come in\\nlarge numbers, were precisely those whom foreign govern-\\nments would be least desirous to retain at home. Some had\\nbeen soldiers, many blended religious notions with those of\\nanarchy and sedition in a fashion now gone by. The fami-\\nlists or family of love, enjoyed in their day a reputation\\n*In the Dictionary of National Biography (MacMillan), may be", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0073.jp2"}, "74": {"fulltext": "62 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nnot unlike that of the emigrants to Utah in recent years. The\\nfifth Monarchy men, were of very various characters and\\nconditions, for Sir Henry Vane has been reckoned among\\nthem. They were not so much an organized sect, as holders\\nof an opinion widely diffused and liable to become dangerous\\nin times when old institutions were breaking up and no one\\nknew what was coming in their place. The conception of\\ngovernment among the men of the fifth monarchy, was a\\nperversion of the biblical vision in the Book of Daniel. After\\nthe rise and fall of the four great monarchies, Babylonian, As-\\nsyrian, Macedonian and Roman, was to come the kingdom of\\nthe Messiah. How was this kingdom to be set up and by whom\\nIt was not clear to all men that the Roman empire was even\\nthen at an end, and what means were to be employed to in-\\naugurate its successor This party had two wings, one ready\\nto employ physical force for bringing in the kingdom, the\\nother seeking to attain their end by peaceful and legitimate\\nmeans. Of the first description was Harrison, the Parliamen-\\ntary General, who was willing to resort to the holy text of\\npike and gun, for setting up the kingdom of Christ in Eng-\\nland. But he stood in too great awe of Oliver Cromwell to\\nmake the attempt. Europe had not long before emerged from\\na religious war of thirty years. It seemed to many that every\\nobject, religious or political, could be obtained by military\\nforce. There was fighting everywhere and all sorts of fanat-\\nics dreamed of accomplishing their purposes by armed insur-\\nrection. Their conception of religious liberty was vastly\\nunlike that of Williams. If by any chance they could have\\ngained a foothold here his institutions would have vanished\\naway like shadows. In England a multitude of dazed fanatics,\\nmilitary and others, were ready to join in an uprising which\\nwould have ended as such enterprises generally do. They\\nmade no general insurrection, but were so strong and restless\\nas to give uneasiness to the Puritan governments, so long as\\nthere were any. In such a condition of affairs, it would have\\nbeen a proceeding of very doubtful wisdom to offer an invita-\\ntion to a multitude in England who thought themselves dis-\\nfound an account of Henry Nichlaes or Nicholas, the founder of the\\nFamilists or Family of Love, which will give all the information\\nwhich is necessary.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0074.jp2"}, "75": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 63\\ntressed for conscience, but who had really little toleration\\nfor any opinions but their own, and who would have been far\\nmore formidable antagonists to the social order of Rhode Isl-\\nand than Gorton. If intelligence had reached London that a\\nlarge reserve had been set apart in Rhode Island for persons\\nwho had suffered from State arrests or prosecutions, and that\\na sure refuge and maintenance were awaiting them there,\\nexaggerated as these tales would have been in the transmis-\\nsion, there would have been danger of a large emigration\\nof anarchists as undesirable as those of our own day. They\\ncould come in such numbers that a small and weak colony\\ncould neither control nor expel them and its institutions if\\nassailed by the fifth-monarchy men, would, in no long time,\\nhave been superseded by those of the Massachusetts or Crom-\\nwellian pattern. These were the most numerous and most\\nformidable of the fanatical sects of the period. There were\\nothers equally ready to gain their ends by force. Men who\\nlived in a steadfast faith in an approaching conflagration of\\nthe world, would not have been scared by such trifles as a\\nmere confiscation of property. This danger was not merely\\nimaginary in that generation. The Proprietors would never\\nassent to Williams s proposal of a large reservation for the\\nbenefit of persons distressed for conscience. It was neces-\\nsary to be assured by their own examination, what consciences\\nthey had, and that there were not too many of them. The\\nTown Meeting would never allow Williams or Clarke to pub-\\nlish any such invitation in England. Among Williams s let-\\nters of this period is one of unknown date, in which he\\ncomplains that a tract which he desired to be reserved as a\\nrefuge for the persecuted was about to be sold by the Pro-\\nprietors. Harris and Olney knew something about their own\\ngeneration in England. They refused to aid a project like\\nthis or even to let its existence be known. It is difficult to\\ncondemn their judgment. The Proprietors were sustained by\\nthe freeholders, and the scheme came to an end.* The Pro-\\nprietors, however, did make some reservation from their es-\\ntate, but with views wholly secular, for the relief of the\\n*Thus another of Williams s chief designs in the Plantations at Moos-\\nhassuck proved a failure, being defeated by his grantees.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0075.jp2"}, "76": {"fulltext": "64 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\ntownsmen and especially of the less wealthy citizens. It was\\ndesigned to afford them some provisions of fire-wood and\\nother domestic supplies, and to allay discontents, to which\\nthe Proprietors were not insensible. The only persons to be\\nbenefited were the residents of the town, and their bodies\\nonly, and not their consciences, were to be regarded. Thus, on\\nthe 7th of February, 1658, an order was made in the Town Meet-\\ning for certain lands on the Wonasquatucket to be in perpet-\\nual common. It was not then carried into effect, for, says\\nThomas Olney, which said order by reason of damage which\\nour Town records sustained in the late Indian War hath mis-\\ncarried. It appears, however, from some extracts yet remain-\\ning from the Proprietors records, that, in 1658, a large tract\\nof land, containing a thousand acres or more, was stated per-\\npetually to lie in common. It embraced a considerable part\\nof what is now North Providence and terminated with the hill\\nnorth of the Cove and Great Point. This order was lost or\\nmiscarried in the Indian wars. But the Proprietors meeting\\non the second day of December, 1685, in view of the neces-\\nsity of some lands perpetually to be and lie in common, near\\nunto our town for the use and benefit of the inhabitants,\\nenacted and ordered that all the tract mentioned\\nafore, which was then in common, should forever remain and\\nbe in common, and that all parts of said tract which were\\nthen taken up, by any person, which should at any time\\nthereafter be laid down to common, should continually so\\nremain, which order was declared irreversible without the\\nfull and unanimous consent of the tvhole number of the pur-\\nchasers. This last was a very common formula, easily dis-\\nregarded. The reservation was wholly secular in its purposes.\\nIt remained entire until the 13th of March, 1724. We shall\\nsee what then became of it. (See Town Meeting Records,\\n1823, Book 9, pp. 279-80. A report of a committee drawn up\\nby the late Judge Staples.)*\\n*There was now some movement towards the most promising fields in\\nthe valley of the Blackstone, but its river was too large for the men of\\nthat day. They could not use or control its immense power, and with\\ntheir humble capital they did not need it, and could not improve it. Their\\nsawmills and gristmills were better served by the narrower streams in the\\nwestern part of their territory, and towards them was the first movement\\nof emigration.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0076.jp2"}, "77": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 65\\nWith all its discouragements the town was slowly increas-\\ning, and its population was moving in every direction into the\\nproprietary lands. Chad Brown and others had made pur-\\nchases of lands beyond the western boundary of Williams s\\nIndian deed and had purchased from the native occupants\\ntheir growing crops and whatever else they claimed. (See\\nWilliams s first letter to John Whipple, II. Bartlett s Colonial\\nRecords, p. 293.)* Some of these had established their home-\\nsteads outside of Williams s purchase and had obtained a\\ntitle from the Proprietors. As many other colonists had done,\\nthey confounded property with jurisdiction and continued to\\nvote in the Providence Town Meetings, although they did not\\nreside within the boundaries of Williams s purchase. They\\nwere allowed or encouraged to do so by the Proprietors. In\\nthis they were not inconsistent, for they claimed that the\\nwhole country west of them was theirs in fee simple, under\\nthe second memorandum in the Sachem s deed, up\\nstreams the streams of Pautuckqut and Pawtuxet with-\\nout limits we might have for the use of cattle. The Propri-\\netors were glad of any accession to the number of those who\\nsettled in the uninhabited territory, who gave some value to\\ntheir unsold lands and became supporters of their proprie-\\ntary title. The Proprietors had always claimed that the words\\nof the memorandum vested in them not a mere right of\\npasturage but a corporeal estate, a fee simple in the soil itself.\\nSo long as the population was very small the question excited\\nlittle interest. The small freeholders who supported the\\nopinions of Williams, had taken it for granted that the soil\\nwest of the Indian boundary still belonged to the Narragan-\\nsetts, and that a new purchase from them would vest the\\nwhole property in the Town (not in the Proprietors), up to\\nthe Connecticut line. They were astonished and indignant\\nat the claim of the Proprietors, that it was their own already,\\nand that the inequality of estates and conditions was to know\\nno end. They denied that the settlers on the west side of\\nthe Indian line were residents of the Town of Providence,\\nor possessed any right to vote. The constituency of the\\ntown was thus drawn in question and a new and yet more\\nheated controversy began. Harris and Olney resolutely con-\\n*See Williams s letters to Winthrop, p. 330, Narr. Club s ed.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0077.jp2"}, "78": {"fulltext": "66 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\ntended that they had acquired the whole territory through\\nthe Initial Deed from Williams. A new disputant now\\ntakes a prominent part in the debate.* Gregory Dexter had\\nreceived a home lot in 1637, and had signed the first compact\\nin 1640. He was one of Williams s successors in his religious\\nsociety. He was addicted to warmth, if not to violence of\\nlanguage, and had sufficient indiscretion to ruin any party\\nwhich he undertook to lead. In a temporary defeat and un-\\npopularity of the Proprietors, he had become town clerk,\\nholding the most important and influential office in the town.\\nDuring Williams s absence in England, Dexter, by his fluency\\nand readiness in public address, became the chief of the party\\nof the freeholders, and the controversy lost nothing in vigor\\nand virulence. It had now lasted fifteen years. It seemed\\nthat something should be done for its adjustment, and Dex-\\nter felt himself called to do it. As town clerk, Dexter had\\npossession of the town book, and could insert in it such doc-\\numents as he thought proper for public information, whether\\nor not they had been adopted by the town. He seems to have\\nimagined that he could bring on or force a settlement of this\\nirritating dispute, and drafted his offensive propositions in\\nappropriately offensive language. They are not the resolu-\\ntions of a Town Meeting or in any manner official, but were\\nfor general circulation and for permanence as a political plat-\\nform or manifesto.\\n(See Williams s second letter to John Whipple, Rider s\\nHist. Tract No. 14.) The Sovereign Plaister was undoubt-\\nedly the composition of Dexter. He alone of his party could\\nventure on a Latin quotation It expresses the opinion of\\nWilliams and of those who sympathized with him. He de-\\nclares his approval of its propositions, but is carefully silent\\nas to the language in which they are expressed.!\\n27th 2d mo. 1653. So Gregory Dexter wrote its Salus\\nPopuli Siiprcma lex. An instrument, or Sovereign Plaister, to\\n*As a printer, in London, Gregory Dexter had been brought into con-\\nnexion with religious disputants at a time when their strifes were espe-\\ncially virulent. He was not well fitted for the work of a peacemaker in a\\ndistracted colony.\\nfEarly Records of Providence, Vol. IL, p. 72.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0078.jp2"}, "79": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 67\\nheal the manifested present sores in this town or Plantation\\nof Providence, which do arise about lands, and to prevent the\\nfurther spreading of them, both amongst ourselves, and the\\nwhole colony, necessary forthwith to be improved and ap-\\nplied, lest this town should fall into grevious sores or gan-\\ngrenes to the hurt of the whole colony, and thereby, this\\ntown, which was the first in this Bay, become the worst, and\\nthat only about land in the wilderness. Per Gregory Dex-\\nter (then Recorder).\\nAfter this harsh and irritating introduction of a proposal\\nof peace. Dexter proceeds to give his opinion touching the\\nconduct and claims of the Proprietors.\\nWhereas, it doth manifestly appear that all the acts, or-\\nders and records which are written in the Town Book are\\ncalled the Town acts, orders and records, and therefore law-\\nful, binding, c., of what nature and condition soever they be,\\nwhether just or unjust, healthful or hurtful, to the body;\\nand,\\nWhereas, we upon serious consideration, being the major\\npart of the town aforesaid, finding several acts, orders and rec-\\nords acted in the town s name, to be of thi\u00c2\u00a7 nature and con-\\ndition, viz. so destructive to the common benefit and peace\\nof this town, and being so unreasonable, dishonest and unlaw-\\nful that we cannot according to the rules of common prudence\\nand humanity, but declare against them. ist. That act to\\ndivide to the men of Pawtuxet 20 miles is hereby declared\\nagainst as unjust and unreasonable, not being healthful but\\nhurtful to the body.\\nUpon their construction of the Initial Deed, the Paw-\\ntuxet lands were, in the estimate of the freeholders, as ex-\\npressed by Dexter, so much taken from the general town\\nstock or fund and given exclusively to a small body of Pro-\\nprietors. This (No. i), if it means anything, is a suggestion\\nof a confiscation or resumption of the Pawtuxet purchase.\\n2d. W^hereas, great and manifold troubles hath befallen\\nboth to ourselves and the whole colony by reason of that\\nphrase up streams without limit we might have for the use\\nof our cattle for preventing of future contention, we de-\\n*Dexter forgot that his friend Williams was a party to it.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0079.jp2"}, "80": {"fulltext": "68 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nclare that the bounds are limited in our town evidence, and\\nby us stated about twenty years since, and known to be the\\nriver and fields of Pawtucket, Sugar loaf hill, Bewitt s brow.\\nObservation Rock, Absolute Swamp, Orfoord s and Hipsie s\\nrock and the men who were appointed to set it, were Chad\\nBrown, Hugh Bewitt, Gregory Dexter, Wm. Wickenden, and\\nfurthermore determine that our construction (original\\nwriting obscure) of the Deed, and also that privilege for the\\nuse of cattle [from time] to time declared to us, so it shall be\\nrecorded and no otherwise, and no other privilege by virtue\\nof the said phrase, to be challenged by this town, viz. that if\\nthe cattle went beyond the bounds prefixed in the said deed\\ngranted to him, the owners of the cattle should be no tres-\\npassers, the cattle going so far in one day to feed as they\\nmight come home at night.*\\n3d. And whereas, some of us have desired of the colony\\nleave to purchase for this town some enlargement, which was\\ngranted, and by the great diligence of our neighbour Wil-\\nliams with the natives more land is bought adjoining to the\\nsaid bounds, and the purchasers have met and agreed about the\\nequal dividing of them, as appeareth by their three conclusions\\nfirst, that all men that have paid equal share shall have equal\\nin this division of 50 acres to each purchaser, whether they\\nbe twenty-five acre men or other, even so we agree it shall be,\\nany former agreements or acts to the contrary notwithstand-\\ning, and furthermore that all the other acts and agreements\\nmade and concluded upon by the purchasers in their several\\nmeetings touching these lands, betwixt the said old bounds\\nand the seven mile line, is hereby declared by us, so that it\\nshall be, in all respects, all former or later act or acts, agree-\\nment or agreements, thing or things done. Record or Rec-\\nords to the contrary notwithstanding.\\n4th. That no disposal of lands, or recording of lands or\\nchanging of lands shall be accounted this Town s acts, unless\\nthe number of 21 of the Purchasers appears and that, only\\nrespecting these lands within the said old bounds Townivards,\\nany former act to the contrary notwithstanding.\\n*Dexter and his followers did not or would not see that this proposal\\n(No. 2) would have opened the territory to settlers and purchasers from\\nMassachusetts, as well as from among themselves.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0080.jp2"}, "81": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 69\\nBy this conciliatory proposal it seems that the small free-\\nholders desired to narrow the proprietary purchase to Wil-\\nliams s original bounds, and to make a new purchase beyond\\nit, in which all classes. Proprietors, c., twenty-five acre men\\nand freeholders should come in on equal terms rich and\\npoor alike.*\\nThere is a singular inconsistency in the dates mentioned\\nin this document. In Dexter s third proposition, he refers to\\nthe seven mile line. This line was not established until\\nMay 14, i66o,f while the Sovereign Plaister, was presented\\nApril 27, 1653. The Sovereign Plaister is undoubtedly\\ngenuine and of this year, for it is referred to by Williams in\\nhis letter to the Town, a few weeks later, in the same year.\\nI can only conjecture that in its original form, it was even\\nmore restrictive of the proprietary claim, and that when Dex-\\nter and his party learned that it could never be carried\\nthrough the Town Meeting or the Legislature, it was thought\\nnecessary some years later to modify it and to offer a com-\\npromise which extended the rights of the Proprietors as far\\nwest as the seven mile line, and that the paper copied into\\nthe Town Book was altered accordingly. This was not an\\nalteration of a public record, for it had as yet no authority\\nfrom the Town Meeting. The document as we have it seems\\nto be a revised version of the original. (See Williams s sec-\\nond letter to Whipple.)\\nDuring the absence of Williams in England, Dexter had\\nacquired or assumed the leadership of the popular party in\\nProvidence. In the heat of political excitement, he had be-\\ncome more extreme in his opinions and more violent in his\\nlanguage. The Sovereign Plaister alone remains, by which\\nwe can estimate the sobriety of his judgment, and the re-\\nsults of his success. Soon after this paper was put in circu-\\nlation, Williams arrived in Providence. He was the bearer of\\nSir Henry Vane s letter, which probably increased the ex-\\ncitement already existing. He could not have been long in\\nMooshassuc without hearing of the Sovereign Plaister and\\n*This (No. 4) would have made sales and transfers by the Proprietors\\nmuch more difficult, some times impossible.\\nfEarly Records, Vol. II., p. 129.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0081.jp2"}, "82": {"fulltext": "70 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nits irritating effects. He saw the blundering of Dexter and\\nhis party in using language of so harsh a character in a mat-\\nter which affected the titles and homesteads of so many of\\nthe foremost townsmen. [In later years Williams was careful\\nto restrain his approval to the proposals of Dexter, saying\\nnothing about their language.] Letter to John Whipple. Ri-\\nder s Hist. Tract No. 14, p. 37. What matter of force was\\nthere in Mr. Dexter s* three proposals for peace and accom-\\nmodation Were they not honest, equal and peaceable to\\nany that minded not their own cabins more than the common\\ngood of our poor tossed Barke St vessell.? Williams had am-\\nple opportunity to observe the temper of his fellow-townsmen\\nas this new documeut circulated among them. (p. 37.) Our\\npeace was like y*= peace of a man which hath a tertian ague.\\nEvery other day yea sometimes every meeting we were all on\\nfire, and had a terrible burning fit, ready to come to blows,\\nabout our lines, about our lands, and y^ twenty-five acre men\\npurchasers, as yo ^selves have confessed, c. Williams\\nsaw the injury which Dexter had done to the cause of the\\nfreeholders, by his indiscreet zeal in their behalf. In his let-\\nter to the Town soon afterwards, he expressed himself as\\nready to abandon the claims which had been made but the\\nauthor of them did not yield, and Williams to the close of his\\nlife was not satisfied of their injustice. (See second letter to\\nWhipple, in Rider s Tract No. 14, p. 37.) The controversy\\nwent on as did the brawls in the Town Meeting. If we were\\nto conjecture when the tumults and heats of these assem-\\nblies reached their height, we may believe that it was upon\\nthe very day when the Sovereign Plaister was spread be-\\ntween the shoulders of the body politic.f\\nNotes upon the Sovereign Plaister. First. The extension\\nof the Pawtuxet lands to the twenty mile line (afterwards\\nthe Connecticut border) did not affect any right of Provi-\\ndence men, according to Dexter and Williams s own theory\\n*It seems by this, that Dexter s proposals were originally but three,\\nand that the fourth was added at a later day.\\ntThere is nothing in the Sovereign Plaister, except its rancour, which\\nwould not be regarded as unconstitutional in a party platform of the\\npresent day.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0082.jp2"}, "83": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 7 1\\naccording to them, the land was open to purchasers. The\\nPawtuxet men had availed themselves of the opportunity in\\nbuying the land belonging to the Indians on the west of Wil-\\nliams s Indian line. This act of the Pawtuxet men saved the\\nland to the colony. Dexter hints at resumption, and Wil-\\nliams says (letter to Whipple), that some in the Town\\nStreet [talked about revoking the Pawtuxet purchase, and\\nsome said that the 25 acre men had paid an equal peny\\ntherefore should have an equal purchase. Dexter seems to\\nhave forgotten, if he had ever known, the legal maxim, fieri\\nnon debet, factum valet, or that a public grant once com-\\npletely vested in possession should ever afterwards be main-\\ntained. He did not know that a grant of fifteen years\\nstanding could not be revoked without a shock to all rights\\nof property, which would have been most injurious to the\\nhonor and credit of the colony, and perhaps have led to another\\nsecession more disastrous to it than that of Coddington.\\nSecond. Up streams without limits, c. This was an at-\\ntempt to force the Town Meeting to decide a matter of\\njudicial cognizance only, and to force a re-sale of lands which\\nthe Proprietors had already sold. With their lands the set-\\ntlers west of Williams s Indian line would have lost their\\nrights to vote without a re-purchase. There was something\\nto irritate everybody. The Proprietors were sufficiently in-\\ndignant already. The twenty-five acre men, little as they\\nor their boys may have regarded the restrictions upon their\\nrights of common, yet stood by the Proprietors whenever\\ntheir title was drawn in question. They justly regarded their\\nown expectations of property west of the seven mile line,\\nunder the Proprietors deeds, as worth more than any thing\\nwhich Dexter could promise them of gains at the Proprietors\\nexpense. They gave no support to Dexter or to Williams.\\nThe small freeholders who caused most of the trouble,* had,\\nas Harris says, come in at a later day, and purchased small\\nholdings. They were now clamorous, although they had no\\n*The Town Meeting could not be persuaded to adopt the Sovereign\\nPlaister, in its original form. It was not until June 3, 1667, that the\\nTown Meeting Voted ordered it to be recorded in the Records of the\\nTown with the alterations which subsequent events had made necessary,\\nit was so recorded.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0083.jp2"}, "84": {"fulltext": "72 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nlegal claims, having bought their land with all its encum-\\nbrances upon it, and having borne none of the burdens of the\\nfirst planters. The most prominent citizens, as Chad Brown,\\nWickenden, Abbott, had made no complaints and had not en-\\ndeavored to repudiate their bargain. The members of Wil-\\nliams s former religious society must have been scandalized\\nby the injurious reflections cast by Dexter upon his fellow-\\nmember, Thomas Olney. Some of the Proprietors were also\\nof the society, and a new emotion must have been awakened\\namong them by an agitation equally offensive to their piety\\nand their interests. It may explain what is obscure, through\\nthe loss of their early records, that not long afterwards, Greg-\\nory Dexter ceased to be an elder, and that Thomas Olney,\\nwhom he had publicly charged with dishonesty was chosen\\nin his stead.* Although no practical result came of these\\ncontests, yet there was something to excite alarm. There\\nwas no check upon confiscation in those days. There had\\nbeen enough of it in England. There might be here, as ap-\\npears by Verin s case. The loss of his homestead and invest-\\nments was threatened, solely by reason of his non-residence.\\nWhen Olney, Harris and John ffield were forced to unite in\\norder to avert the danger with which Dexter threatened the\\nsecurity of property, it could not be foreseen whose estate\\nmight be wrested from him by the Town Meeting.f The\\nProprietors, however, irritated by the Sovereign Plaister,\\nretained their self-control and made no reply or protest. They\\nchanged none of their methods. There was not much de-\\nmand for farms or homesteads (See Harris s letter, MS.),\\nbut such as there was, the Proprietors were ready to supply\\nit, as if nothing had happened. They went on with their\\nsales and no one hesitated to accept them. Their calm\\nindifference was probably more irritating to Dexter and Wil-\\nliams than any number of resolutions or tracts. However\\nimpassive in appearance, they did not forget insults, and\\nnourished their wrath until the time came for its exhibition,\\n*Benedict s History of American Baptists, Vol. I., p. 478.\\ntSee Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 105. The Proprietors\\nwere in the minority on that day, for Arthur Fenner, the leader of the\\nfreeholders, was chosen moderator.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0084.jp2"}, "85": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 73\\nMay, 1657. Williams s next encounter with William Har-\\nris was one of his own seeking, and was one of the most\\nunfortunate passages of his life. It displayed a vindictive-\\nness, which, notwithstanding his occasional warmth of lan-\\nguage, was not usual with him. In May, 1657, while president\\nof the colony, he appeared at the General Court of Commis-\\nsioners, which was also the highest judicial tribunal, with an\\nimpeachment against Harris for high treason against Oliver\\nCromwell. It was subscribed only Roger Williams, Presi-\\ndent. He then became the prosecutor as well as the presid-\\ning judge. The attorney general (the general attorney as they\\nthen called him) did not appear in support of the accusation,\\nnor any one as prosecutor or witness. It was the work of\\nWilliams alone, and is an example of his manner of acting\\nwithout foresight and without consultation or advice. All\\nthat is now known of this impeachment, is contained in a\\nMS. letter from Harris to Captain Dean, of London, of Nov.\\n14, 1666. Harris says that it contained observations like\\nthese There had been twenty English gentlemen executed\\nat Tyburn that had not done so much as William Harris had\\ndone. He also shows in his said indictment, what dismem-\\nbering and disembowelling there should be in such cases.\\nHarris also complains of Williams s perversion and falsifying\\nof his words. He says that Williams sent a copy of his\\ncharges to Sir Henry Vane, who charitably said he thought\\nhe was beside himself, and that he did willingly mistake me\\nsaying I was against all governments. It appears that, far\\nbefore he indicted me for high treason, he indicted me first\\nfor contempt of all governments and it being demanded\\nwhether guilty or not guilty, I answered, not guilty.\\nAnd the verdict of the jury was not guilty. Yet afterwards\\nhe indicted me upon his former ground, for high treason, as\\nbeing against all government, which falsely he said, in the\\njudgment of the jury. His difference and mine grew by rea-\\nson of some simple, harmless people that will not defend\\nthemselves, but suffer all things and will not fight, nor\\nswear, nor take an engagement to any governor or govern-\\nments, for which cause, Mr. Williams would have sent them\\nto England, for which cause he indicted them therefore I", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0085.jp2"}, "86": {"fulltext": "74 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nwrote to him telling him of his former large professions of\\nliberty of conscience, c. Whereupon his great wrath and\\nwickedness came forth, and yet remain.\\nHarris was evidently alarmed. This is apparent from his\\nown letters, and from his last will. In this he used all the\\nskill of the conveyancer to put his ample estate in strict\\nsettlement avowing his purpose that it should be free from\\nany further danger of forfeiture or confiscation. Harris had\\ngood reason for anxiety, for no one could foresee the decision\\nof unlearned judges, swayed by the passions of the people\\nwho elected them. It might, however, be safely predicted,\\nthat they would take care of themselves, as in fact they did.\\nImpeachment was a popular remedy in that age for chronic\\npolitical disorders, and Williams thought that it would have\\na salutary effect in Mooshassuc, by ridding him of his chief\\npolitical opponent. The court was embarrassed. If reports\\nshould reach England, exaggerated as they would be, that\\nRhode Island was merely a nest of traitors, the story would\\nbe turned to account by the neighbor colonies, as a sufficient\\nreason for a revocation of the charter, and a partition of the\\nterritory, followed by an establishment of the Massachusetts\\nregime. The judges felt that it was necessary to do, or at\\nleast to say, something, and speedily adjourned the matter for\\na full hearing at its session in July, at Warwick. They ordered\\nHarris to appear there, and doe require the General Attorney\\nto take notice of the case, and to take out a Summons, to re-\\nquire Mr. Roger Williams there to appeare and to make out\\nhis charge face to face. Under this grave accusation, Harris\\nwas subjected to no restraint, but was only required to give\\nsecurity for his appearance. The general attorney did take\\nnotice of the case, by carefully avoiding it altogether. It\\nseems that Harris had written a booke or tract, which was\\nnever printed, but which had only been circulated in MS. and\\nwhich is not known to be now extant. We have no informa-\\ntion of the places or the extent of its publication, or of the\\neffect which it produced.\\nAt the July session, at Warwick, Harris appeared. He was\\na bold man and never hesitated to avow any thing which he\\nhad done or written. It was ordered by the court that he\\nshould reade his booke, and Mr. Williams shall view the", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0086.jp2"}, "87": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 75\\noriginal. Probably he accompanied his reading by comments\\nin his sharp and rasping manner. There was no other evi-\\ndence, and he was called upon for no farther defence. The\\nprudent general attorney took notice of the case and was\\ndetained by urgent private business, from both sessions of\\nthe court at which this affair was pending, a thing never\\nbefore or since heard of at the Rhode Island bar. He had\\ntoo clear a view of the evil to come to the Cromwellian gov-\\nernment. What if some turn of fortune should bring the\\nKingsmen once more into power What would then be-\\ncome of the political fortunes of the office holders in Rhode\\nIsland He kept carefully aloof and the court appointed a\\nsubstitute. The case was conducted by Williams, although\\nhe was president or governor at the time. Williams averred\\nthat Harris had maintained that he who can say, it is my\\nconscience, ought not to yield subjection to any human order\\namong men. This seems to have been Williams s inference\\nfrom Harris s booke. As Cromwell s rule seemed then to\\nbe the only possible one, whoever denied that denied all hu-\\nman government whatever. Williams imputed to Harris the\\ninferences which he himself drew from the pamphlet. This\\nwas the very injustice of which he himself had complained\\nwhen it was committed by the elders of Massachusetts. The\\ncourt was ill at ease. The judges saw the expediency of quiet-\\ning the whole affair and referred the booke to two of their\\nown number, with instructions to report upon it by four\\no clock the same afternoon. The committee accomplished\\ntheir task and the court delivered their judgment with toler-\\nable expedition for the heat of a July day. (See Vol. I., Bart-\\nlett s R. I. Col. Records, p. 364.) Concerning W. Harris, his\\nbooke and speeches upon it, we find therein delivered as for\\ndoctrines having much bowed the Scriptures, to maintain\\nthat he who can say, it is my conscience, ought not to yield\\nsubjection to any human order amongst men. Whereas the\\nsaid Harris hath been charged for the sayd booke wordes,\\nwith high treason, and inasmuch as we being so remote from\\nEngland, cannot be so well acquainted with the laws thereof,\\nin that behalfe provided, as the State now stands, though we\\ncannot but consider his behaviour therein to be both con-", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0087.jp2"}, "88": {"fulltext": "76 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\ntemptuous seditious, we thought best thereupon to send\\nover his writings with the charges his reply, to Mr. John\\nClarke, desiring him to commend the matter, in our Common-\\nwealth s behalf, for farther judgment as he shall see the cause\\nrequires, and in the mean time, bind the said Harris in good\\nbonds, to the good behaviour, until therein, sentence be\\ngiven. By this trimming decision, the court decide nothing\\nbut the judges are careful to offend neither party, Kingsmen\\nor Cromwellians. They cast the whole responsibility upon\\nJohn Clarke. He was a man of sense, and he saw cause to\\ndo nothing. Probably these documents never left his hands.\\nAntiquarian research in English archives has not discovered\\nthem. The loss of William Harris s booke has deprived us\\nof much information respecting the limits of free discussion\\nconsidered permissible by the founder of the State. By these\\nindiscreet proceedings, taken upon his own responsibility\\nwithout consultation with others, Williams had endangered\\nthe colony, and he was the chief sufferer. He was not re-\\nelected as president of the colony the next year, nor ever\\nagain. In later days, when Charles H. had been quietly re-\\nstored, and the people of Rhode Island were in the enjoy-\\nment of a charter more liberal than any which a Puritan\\ngovernment would ever give, Williams was the subject of\\nmuch acrimonious remark, and he does not seem very suc-\\ncessful in explaining away his share in this transaction. The\\nfreeholders, whose advocate he was, lost through his indis-\\ncretion the support of the Foxians mostly Kingsmen), dur-\\ning their long control of the government. The prosecution of\\nHarris, Williams would gladly have forgotten but the Qua-\\nkers, in whom there was as much of the Old Adam as in\\nmost other people, were never weary of reminding him of it.*\\nInferences very different from those of Williams s were\\n*The Quakers had good reason to be interested in his case, for\\nthe doctrines imputed to Harris, were not unlike those held by many or\\nmost of themselves. Harris intimates that if it had been in his power\\nWilliams would have banished them from Rhode Island. They were still\\nbut few and weak, but when a few years later, their day of power came,\\nthey remembered the friendship of Harris, and carried him and his party\\nof Proprietors safely through all their difficulties.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0088.jp2"}, "89": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 77\\ndrawn by the Quaker readers of William Harris s booke.\\n(See New England s Firebrand Quenched.) These asserted\\nthat he had only maintained that the Parliament without the\\nking had no claim upon their allegiance. If this were a cor-\\nrect representation, Harris had anticipated by an hundred\\nyears one of the chief doctrines of the American Revolution.\\nHarris was a Kingsman, as were most of the Quakers.\\nThey smypathized with Harris, who had the wisdom to culti-\\nvate their friendship, and who had their support in future\\ncontroversies with Williams. The warrant against Harris\\nshows that the chief motive for the prosecution was, his being\\na Kingsman, as were Coddington, Gorton and most others\\nof that day, who saw in Cromwell only the supporter of Massa-\\nchusetts and her principles. (See Fox s New England s Fire-\\nbrand Quenched, p. 282 Vol. I. Bartlett s R. I. Col. Records,\\np. 361.)\\nIt is impossible to believe that Harris (See Arnold s Hist,\\nof R. I., Vol. I., pp. 362, 363) cherished designs subversive of\\nproperty and magistracy. His private estate was the largest\\nin Providence, and he was ever seeking to add to its value.\\nIn his public acts he was always a supporter of law and\\norganization. The charge of turbulence and anarchy is incon-\\nsistent with the whole tenor of his life. The ingeniously\\nambiguous statement of the court concerning what might be\\ndeemed treason in England, may be deemed a censure of the\\nmilitary oligarchy which then bore rule, and which made any\\nthing treason at its will. Their declaration might be useful to\\nthe judges if the time should come when the times should\\nchange in favor of the Kingsmen. The General Court of\\nTrials was not swayed by the passions of the towne streete.\\nThey needed to be on good terms with Cromwell while his\\nday lasted, but like many others they saw that it was drawing\\nto an end and they bade him farewell without regret. [He\\ndied 1658.]\\nIf there were any sense of humor among the spectators of\\nthe proceedings against Harris it must have been a grotesque\\nexhibition when the chief court of a community which toler-\\nated greater latitude of opinion than any other in the world,\\nengaged in trying one of the chief citizens for high treason\\nin bowing the Scriptures.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0089.jp2"}, "90": {"fulltext": "78 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\n(Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 112; p. 121.) In\\n1658, the Proprietors had learned that they had nothing to\\nfear from the small landholders. At the town meeting, May\\n15th, Mr. Olney (one of the chief Proprietors) being modera-\\ntor, it was ordered that all those that enjoy lands in juris-\\ndiction [not merely within the bounds] of this town are free-\\nmen. This confirmed the right of suffrage to those who had\\nmade purchases beyond Williams s Indian line, and indirectly\\noverruled and rejected one of the most important claims in\\nDexter s Sovereign Plaister. The Proprietors let the small\\npurchasers understand that they stood in no awe of them.\\nOctober 27, 1659. For as much as there hath been a com-\\nplaint this day, by some of the inhabitants against John\\nClawson, for making use of the common* (he was a twenty-\\nfive acre man it is therefore ordered by this present court\\nthat the Deputies or Deputy of the Town, shall forthwith\\nforewarn the said John Clawson to forbear in any wise to\\nmake use of any of the common. (Early Records of Provi-\\ndence, p. 126.) This was an exercise of discipline without\\nlaw, over one of the less wealthy freemen. It was both sum-\\nmary and severe. If it were enforced, Clawson and his house-\\nhold would have been deprived of his fuel and fencing mate-\\nrial and of many household supplies. At a later day, when the\\ntown offered bounties for the heads of wolves and foxes, the\\nsmall freeholders and their boys, who knew the haunts of wild\\nanimals, were thus officially invited into the Proprietors\\nwoodlands. Once admitted they were not easily dislodged\\nand remained there for their own purposes and during their\\nown pleasure. Swine and goats were still turned upon the\\ncommon to get their living in their own way. As times went\\non the evil did not decrease and we shall see farther unavail-\\ning attempts to abate it.\\nThe harsh invectives against obnoxious Proprietors now\\nso frequent in the Town Meetings and at the Town Mill,\\n*In many English manors there was a custom that a commoner who\\nhad put more cattle on the common than his right proportion, might be de-\\nbarred from commoning for a limited time, and should pay a reasonable\\nfine. But Clawson was a freeholder and a tenant in common, and Provi-\\ndence was not a manor, and had no commoners in the EngHsh sense of\\nthe word.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0090.jp2"}, "91": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 79\\nStirred up the passions of those who were dissatisfied with\\nthe land titles. These were wont to show their anger by-\\nmeans wholly unjustifiable.\\n(Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. in.) Providence,\\n27th of the 2d month, 1658. It is ordered that if any per-\\nson or persons shall from this time forward, be so bold and\\nhardy as to pluck up or break down any bound stake, or cut\\ndown any tree which is the bounds of any man s lands or\\nbetween neighbour and neighbour, the said party so offend-\\ning being complained of to the Town Deputies, or convicted\\nby two witnesses, shall pay or forfeit to this Towne, the sum\\nof twenty shillings for every stake, stone, tree or bound, and\\nthe same to be taken away, or distrained of, by the constable\\nof the said Towne, by a warrant from any two of the three\\nmagistrates hands, or else whoever doth neglect the same,\\neither not giving or serving, the Distress of either Deputy,\\nGeneral Assistant or Constable, shall pay unto the Towne\\nTreasury, the said money aforesaid.\\nIt seems to have been difficult to enforce this law for the\\nprotection of the Proprietors estates. Popular sympathy was\\nrather with their opponents.\\nDuring twenty years the Proprietors had urged Williams\\nto give them a title more satisfactory or intelligible than the\\nInitial Deed, and he had steadily refused. He had always\\ndisapproved what he deemed their misuse of his purchase\\nfrom the Indians, and would have no farther dealings with\\nthe authors of it. With individuals among them, as Chad\\nBrown, c., he had always maintained friendly relations but\\ntowards the society and its leaders his hostility was uniform\\nand constant. They now abandoned hope of any aid from\\nhim, and determined to supply any defects in their title by\\nascending to its source. The Indians had now become\\nfamiliar with English spirits and gew-gaws, and were ready\\nto procure them by parting with the lands which they had\\nheld so tenaciously twenty years before. In 1659, the suc-\\ncessors of Canonicus gave deeds of confirmation to the Pro-\\nprietors, such as they had long sought in vain. [These deeds\\nmay be read at large in Vol. I., Bartlett s Col. Records, pp.\\n35-38, and in Staples s Annals.] It is only needful to say of\\nthem, that they confirm the Initial Deed in the sense in", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0091.jp2"}, "92": {"fulltext": "80 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nwhich the Proprietors had always construed it. They con-\\nvey to a line twenty miles west of Fox s hill both lands\\nand rights of pasture. The grantors were the degenerate\\nheirs of Canonicus and Miantonomo, and were ready to listen\\nto any proposals from Rhode Island or Massachusetts, as\\ntheir wants or their vices might prompt them. Williams\\nalways spoke contemptuously of these confirmation deeds,\\nbut for a reason which stirred up the wrath of Thomas Olney\\nand the Town Meeting, and which, if true, would have been\\nmost injurious to the whole colony. It was that the Indians\\nhad subjected themselves to Massachusetts, and had no longer\\nany tribal lands to convey* (See Williams s letter about\\nWayunkeke to the Town of Providence, and Rider s Tract\\nNo. 14, p. 32, letter to John Whipple.)\\n27th 8th mo., 1660. The confirmation deeds never re-\\nceived the scrutiny of any royal commissioners or court of\\nlaw. Had they undergone it they might have raised trouble-\\nsome questions about the right of the sachems to dispose of\\ntheir tribal lands, without the consent of their people. In\\ndoing this even Canonicus had been cautious and restrained.\\nAs deeds of conveyance, these deeds do not seem to have\\nadded greatly to the security of the proprietary title. They\\nmay have had some effect in preventing farther tampering\\nwith the Rhode Island Indian by the agents of Massachu-\\nsetts, and by discouraging the attacks of freeholders of Prov-\\nidence who were unable to judge of their validity and who\\nthus overestimated their value. When they had served these\\npurpose they were quietly laid away in the Proprietors ar-\\nchives and were never heard of more.f\\n*In a MS. letter, Harris says that Williams bought the islands of Pru-\\ndence, Patience and Hope from Canonicus and Miantonomo, which was\\nwholly inconsistent with his subsequent claim, that the sachems had no\\npower to sell lands. Coddington in like manner bought Newport. Massa-\\nchusetts treated with him, and Miantonomo granted to Benedict Arnold,\\nlands south of the Pawtuxet River, before William Arnold had induced\\nPomham and Soconoco to submit to the English.\\ntBoth the Proprietors and the twenty-five acre men, in their proportion\\n(one-fourth), were assessed for the money paid to the sachems for their\\ndeeds of confirmation. As they had gained a quarter share in the profits,\\nso also they assumed a quarter part of the liabilities of the proprietary\\nshares. (See Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 127.)", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0092.jp2"}, "93": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 8l\\nIt seems that a long credit was needed by many Propria.\\ntors, as well as emigrants to the Plantations who purchased\\nsmall farms from them. There is recorded in the town-meet-\\ning book (27th of April, 1659) a list of The names of all\\nsuch as have paid all their purchase money and have quit-\\ntances.* During this summer the Proprietors received an\\naccession to their number, who brought a larger amount of\\nproperty than was usual at that day. He, during many years,\\naided the Proprietors in their counsels and fought their bat-\\ntles in the town meetings with great vigor and steadiness.\\nJuly 27th, 1659.1 This day, John Whipple Senr. is received\\ninto this Town 3. purchaser, to have 2i purchase right of land.\\nHe came from Dorchester, Massachusetts, and brought with\\nhim the Massachusetts notions of property, and of the need\\nof care in its transmission. He soon became prominent in\\nthe town meetings, and Williams (second letter to Whipple,\\nRider s R. I. Hist. Tract No. 14) regarded him as one of the\\nmost troublesome of his enemies. He was licensed to keep an\\ninn in the days when the holder of the position was one of the\\nmost important public functionaries. His house, on what is\\nnow Constitution Hill, was long the chief political centre of\\nthe town. Town meetings and councils, courts and legisla-\\ntures often assembled there. He died May 16, 1685.\\nWilliams was now ready to abandon Gregory Dexter s im-\\npracticable scheme of confiscation, for he had during some\\ntime meditated a proposal of his own. He had corresponded\\nwith Governor Winthrop, of Connecticut, in order to enlist his\\nsympathy with the project if not to engage him to take some\\nshare of the lands. The Governor had eV idently approved of\\nthe design, and some even hoped that he might be persuaded\\nto make his abode in Rhode Island, and to become its chief\\nmagistrate. He was a learned man of large and liberal mind\\nand could have rendered services to the State to which none\\nof its citizens was equal. The Planting of a new towne,\\nwas now Williams s remedy for the disorders of the old one.\\n(Williams s letters, Narr. Club s ed., 27 Oct., 1660.) The\\nplace chosen was Wayunkeke, a tract in the southern part of\\n*Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., pp. 31, 32.\\nfEarly Records of Providence, Vol. II.. pp. 117, 140.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0093.jp2"}, "94": {"fulltext": "82 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nwhat was afterwards called Smithfield. Its bounds cannot\\nnow be identified. The new township was to be purchased\\nfrom the Indians, as if their title was still subsisting, and\\nwas to contain reserves for persons distressed for con-\\nscience. This project would have led to important results\\nif it had been practicable. It would have gathered into one\\npermanent organization a corporation of all the enemies of\\nthe Proprietors of Providence would have given them two\\nrepresentatives in the General Assembly, and as the towns\\nwere little subject to its control, would have left Wayunkeke\\ntown meeting virtually at liberty to dispose of the Proprie-\\ntors lands within its limits, at its own pleasure. These con-\\nsequences Williams perhaps did not foresee, as he does not\\nmention them, but they did not escape the foresight of Har-\\nris and Olney. Williams thus sets forth the scheme in a\\nletter to the town, 27th of the 8th month, 1660. (Early Rec-\\nords, Vol. II., p. 134.) [Extract.] As to our new planta-\\ntion, let us consider if Niswoshakit Wayunkeke ye land\\nthereabout may not afford a new and comfortable Plantation.\\nTo this end, I pray you to consider if the inhabitants of\\nthese parts, with most of the Cowesets Nipmucks, have\\nlong since forsaken ye Narragansett Sachems, subjected\\nthemselves to Massachusetts. Williams could scarcely hope\\nthat the Proprietors would consent to a new purchase of the\\nland which they had so long regarded as their own. But he\\nhad now another enemy on whom he had not .counted in for-\\nmer quarrels. Newport during two centuries felt little inter-\\nest in the town of Providence, or if she ever professed any,\\nit was only to oppose whatever the plantation at Mooshassuc\\nmost desired. Not until the third of the last century had\\npassed away would Newport, or any of the southern towns\\nunder her control, suffer a division of the town of Providence\\nwhich would add to the political influence of the northern\\npart of the State Only the colonial assembly could establish\\na new town, and any application in that quarter was hopeless.\\nBesides this, the Quakers were now the rising influence in the\\ncolony, and were soon to govern it according to their own\\npleasure, during many years. No party championed by Wil-\\nliams could hope for anything from them.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0094.jp2"}, "95": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 83\\nThe Proprietors saw the danger of the theory that the\\nIndians were still the owners of the soil. If they were at lib-\\nerty to sell it to a new colony from Providence, they could\\nalso sell to a new company from Massachusetts, which could\\neasily outbid Mooshassuc, and obtain a foothold here from\\nwhich they could not be dispossessed, and from which they\\ncould be a perpetual menace to Providence.* The Proprietors\\nand their leaders were ever alert and vigorous and they lost\\nno time. Their views and apprehensions are best stated in\\ntheir own words. This is from the prompt reply of Thomas\\nOlney. October 27 29, 1660, ordered approved by the\\nTown Meeting, Quarter Court October 27th, 1660. Ordered\\nthat upon a writing sent to this Towne by Mr. Roger Wil-\\nliams, bearing date the 27th of October, 1660, that Thomas\\nOlney Sen William Harris Arthur Fennerf shall draw up\\na writing in answer unto the said Roger Williams, his writ-\\ning, and it shall be sent unto him from the Town, and shall\\nbe subscribed by the Town Clerk. The copy\\nthereof followeth\\nSir We received your letter it being read in the ears of\\nour Towne they considered this answer. That from these\\nwords in our evidence taken by you, which are these The\\nlands upon Mooshausuck Wonasquatuckett which land,\\ncomprehend Musuassacutt Country, are ours already.\\nwhen we plant there, we will agree with the Indians\\neither to remove or fence. 2 ly Whereas you say the Indians\\nhave subjected to the Bay, we say they were subject to the\\nNanhegansett Sachems when you bought the Land which\\nwe now have, and yourself propose yet to buy. And we know\\nthat if we let go our true hold already attained, we shall (if\\n*At this very time the Atherton Company, a Massachusetts corpora-\\ntion, was dealing with the Indians in Narragansett for their lands, and\\nsetting up a pretended mortgage upon their territory from the Narragan-\\nsett Sachems. (1659-60 Vol. I. Bartlett s Records, pp. 429-30; 438-39;\\n1664, p. 128.)\\nfArthur Fenner, who was of the committee to draw up this letter, was\\none of the popular party and usually acted with Roger Williams against\\nWilliam Harris. He was fully aware of the danger of recognizing the\\nIndian title as still subsisting. (Early Records of Providence, Vol. II.,\\nP- I34-)", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0095.jp2"}, "96": {"fulltext": "84 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nnot ourselves yet our posterity) smart for it, we conceive\\nherein that we do truly understand what yourself doth not.\\nAnd if your apprehension take place, as we hope it never\\nwill, in those your proposals, we haply may see what we\\nconceive, you desire not, the ruin of what you have given\\nname to, (viz.) poor Providence. As for the Natives complain-\\ning, we have not yet wronged them, any farther than satis-\\nfaction, that we know of, nor shall not, what their wrongs to\\nus are, we have hitherto rather smothered than complained.\\nYet we must tell you that we shall not be adverse to any fair\\ngratuity, either to take them off their fields or otherwise,\\nalways having respect to the act of the Sachem, whom you\\nhave formerly so much honored. And herein if you can ac-\\ncomplish we shall be ready to assist with further pay, upon\\nour former groundes, otherwise we shall not meddle, and\\nforbid any, so to do. Thus in love though in briefe, returned.\\nWe rest your neighbours. The Town of Providence.\\nPer Me, Tho. Olney Sr. Clarke, in behalf of the Town Oc-\\ntober the 27th. To Mr. Roger Williams These.\\nWilliams was always occupied with the interests of the\\nIndians and regarded the land titles from their point of view.\\nHe never, it seems, became aware of the danger incurred by\\nleaving the property in their hands. He proposed to buy a\\nsecond time the Indian tribal lands and offered nothing to\\nthe Proprietors, whose rights he did not recognize. He could\\nscarcely hope that they would agree for the benefit of other\\nand later immigrants, who had always been hostile to them,\\nto a new purchase of the lands which they had so long re-\\ngarded as their own. The Proprietors, with the support of\\nthe Quarter-rights men, had now the control of the town\\nmeeting. They insisted upon their former claim of absolute\\ntitle to the upper waters of their rivers, and would offer\\nnothing more than a gratuity to the Indians to induce them\\nto remove quietly. The Proprietors were fully, and perhaps\\nrightly, persuaded that the maintenance of their own title\\nwas essential to the safety or even the existence of the town.\\nBesides this it was not certain that the new plantation would\\nbe more peaceful than the old. So many unquiet spirits, if\\nthey found no subject of dispute with Providence, would read-", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0096.jp2"}, "97": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 85\\nily discover causes of quarrel among themselves. The proj-\\nect of a new town found little favor, and this last attempt at\\ncompromise failed like its predecessors.\\nThe townsmen were becoming somewhat straightened in\\ntheir resources, and in February, 1658 (see Early Records,\\nVol. III., pp. 21, 22), common was established on all lands\\nremaining unsold, on the west side of Mooshassuc River.\\nThis was but a partial relief, and available to but few. Some-\\nthing was attempted in the town meeting in aid of a new\\nplantation at Wayunkeke, March 14, 1661-62. (Early Rec-\\nords of Providence, Vol. III., pp. 19, 38.) A committee was\\nappointed to view the lands about Wayunkeke, and to see\\nwhere it will be convenient to place a towne how the towne\\nshall be placed and in what manner, to bring in their re-\\nport. Each of the committee was to have three shillings a\\nday for his pains. But a farther examination did not confirm\\nWilliams s favorable opinion of Wayunkeke and the planta-\\ntion of Smithfield was delayed until the early years of the\\nlast century.\\nIt was evidently time for the Proprietors to do something\\nfor the enlargement of the town. Thus far they had only\\nstood upon the defensive. There were no signs of prosperity.\\nThe western boundary of town and colony were still indefi-\\nnite. There were no vessels, no fisheries, no market for\\ntimber. There was little profit in anything. Even with the\\naid of penal laws, such an estate in the wilderness could not\\nbe maintained. The oversight and police necessary to pro-\\ntect the land against depredation were heavy charges upon\\nthe incomes of those days. The Proprietors could not re-\\nstrain their own townspeople, much less could they impose\\nany check upon their neighbors of Massachusetts, who\\ncrossed the Blackstone River and felled and carried off their\\nchoicest cedars. Little redress could be obtained from any\\ncourts of the Bay. One quotation may suffice as to plun-\\nderers nearer home. March 28, 1664. Continual complaint\\nCometh to this towne, about the great abuse that is done to\\nmeadows of men in general, which is certainly known to be\\ndone by swine rooting the said meadows up, c. (Vol. III.\\nEarly Records of Providence, pp. 51, 52, 57, 58.) Then follows", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0097.jp2"}, "98": {"fulltext": "86 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nanother prohibition of swine on the common land, which\\nproved as futile as any of its predecessors. By this law of\\nthe town of March 28, 1664, swine were to be forfeited if\\nfound going at large upon the common. The law was repealed\\nOctober 27, 1664, because, as the town records say, many\\ninconveniences are likely to ensue. Probably giving occa-\\nsion to breaches of the public peace. When they could endure\\nthese annoyances no longer, the Proprietors began to look\\nabout them for some better method of managing an estate\\nwhich was too unwieldly for the force at their command.\\nThey found it in a new policy, which in later years had an\\nimportant influence upon the history of the town and colony.\\nDown to this time the uncertainty of Williams s Indian\\nboundary had given inconvenience to private purchasers near\\nNeuticonkonitt Hill and elsewhere. These things must be\\nset in order before any new arrangement of the Proprietors\\nestate. One of the earliest troubles was with their own\\nvoters. Even the lists of the freemen were not kept with\\naccuracy. Town Meeting, March 26, in the year 1660.\\n(Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 125.) Thomas\\nOlney, sen-^- Moderator Ordered that the clerk\\nshall draw up the names of the Purchasers and the names of\\nthe five twenty acre men, and to sever their names dis-\\ntinctly. A landed oligarchy was already formed. It was of\\nthe highest importance that no person should find a place in\\nthe official list of Proprietors who had not a Proprietors\\nright or share. None other was entitled to be inscribed\\nthere, and the ordinary freeholder was not permitted to vote\\nin town meeting upon any question which respected the Pro-\\nprietors estate. So long as this distinction was observed,\\nthe Proprietors were secure. The severance between the\\nnames was of importance, both political and social. On May\\n14, 1660, Town Meeting (Early Records of Providence,\\nVol. II., p. 129), It is ordered by the present Assembly,\\nthat the bounds of this Town of Providence for the first di-\\nvision, be set from the hill called ffoxes hill, seven miles upon\\na West line, at the end of the West line to go upon a\\nstraight line. North unto Pawtucket River, and upon a straight\\nline South, unto Pawtuxet River all the lands beyond", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0098.jp2"}, "99": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 87\\nthose bounds prefixed according to our deeds,* to be disposed\\nof as this town shall see cause, any former law, or clause\\ntherein to the contrary notwithstanding. This was the old\\nseven-mile line. It was established in anticipation that a\\nnew town would some day grow up beyond it, of which it was\\nto be the eastern boundary. It is now the dividing line be-\\ntween Cranston, Johnston and Smithfield on the east, and\\nGlocester, Foster, and Burrillville on the west. With some\\ntrifling deviation, due to re-surveys, it remains as it was estab-\\nlished more than 230 years ago. The Proprietors had become\\naware that they could make nothing of their outlying wil-\\nderness in the existing state of emigration. They were\\nanxious to disembarrass themselves of these distant wood-\\nlands, and to concentrate their attention upon the portion\\ncalled Providence Towne, which would be the first to rise\\nin value. No more of the old proprietary shares were to be\\ngranted in the new lands, to excite the enmity of twenty-five\\nacre men or smaller landholders. The old Proprietors were\\nto retain all their former authority in the town street. In\\nfact, they gained even more, as no others were to be admit-\\nted. The change of policy was not immediate. Every thing\\nmoved slowly in those days and especially among an untaught,\\nagricultural people. The townsmen were to be accustomed\\nby degrees to the new system. Those Village Hampdens\\nwere wont to be somewhat tumultuous in the exhibition of\\ntheir political feelings, and as they increased in numbers the\\nProprietors became more anxious to avoid occasions of offence.\\nNot until January 27, 1663, two and one-half years later, was\\nit deemed politic to introduce this resolution At a Quarter\\nCourt, It is ordered by this present Assembly, that from this\\nday forward, there shall not be any more people accommoda-\\nted with land as Purchasers, within the bounds of this Towne,\\nthat this order be not repealed without the full consent of\\nthe whole number of the Purchasers. (Early Records, Vol.\\nIII., pp. 48,49)\\nThe number of Proprietors had now reached one hundred\\nand one, at which it ever after remained. The society was\\neven now uncomfortably large. Some of its members were\\n*Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 129.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0099.jp2"}, "100": {"fulltext": "88 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\ndissentients from the policy of its old leaders, and a new gen-\\neration could not be expected to be more conciliatory. Olney\\nand Harris must have explained in some manner how the\\nsuccession of the estate was preserved to those who were\\nentitled to the fellowship of vote, according to Williams s\\nInitial Deed but I have found no trace of it. With this\\norder there came to an end another design of Williams,\\nthat his purchase should be a public trust, to be administered\\nby the future citizens. The Proprietors had long before\\nformed a permanent society, limited in number, and private\\nin its objects. It now was so avowedly. They could act with\\nall needful force and unanimity, as their designs could no\\nlonger be thwarted by new shareholders. Some time passed\\nby before they avowed their new policy, and in this instance\\nit was needful to provoke no opposition. But the western\\nline of the colony must first be established before their par-\\ntition of their estate could begin, and an acrimonious contro-\\nversy with Connecticut was in the way. Some doubts may\\nhave been entertained among the Proprietors themselves as\\nto their new measures, and they proceeded with their wonted\\ndeliberation. Their surveys in the wilderness could not be\\nprosecuted in winter, and they had the whole future before\\nthem with little other public business to distract their atten-\\ntion. (Very little else of public interest appears on the\\ntown books of this time.)\\n[See Bartlett s Col. Records, Vol. I., p. 417. Providence,\\nMay, 1659.] The Colonial Assembly had appointed a com-\\nmittee of four men to mark out the western bounds of the\\ncolony and notice was given to Governor Winthrop of Con-\\nnecticut. Probably nothing had been done as yet under the\\ncolonial commission, when the town meeting (Early Records,\\nVol. II., p. 127. April and May, 1660)* Ordered\\nthat six men shall be chosen to go next 2d day, come seven\\nnights, set the bounds of our Plantation twenty miles from\\nffoxes hill, westward, up in the country. This was their\\n*Thomas Harris, Sr., was moderator of the April 27th and May 14th\\ntown meetings. He was of the party of William Harris and Thomas\\nOlney. The Proprietors evidently had the control of the meeting for\\ntheir votes of April and May, 1660, effectually destroy the authority of\\nthe Sovereign Plaister, if it ever had any.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0100.jp2"}, "101": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 89\\nonly instruction now extant. The town had no authority,\\nonly the colony could act in a matter of this kind. The\\ntownsmen probably erected some monuments to give warning\\nto the colony and to Connecticut of the extent of their\\nclaim they could do no more.\\nSo closely were their controversies connected with all pub-\\nlic interests that every event brought some new dispute be-\\ntween Williams and Harris. Harris had charged Williams\\nwith inconsistency in approving or supporting the establish-\\nment of the twenty-mile boundary line, as he had always\\nmaintained that the Plantations had no claim to any territory\\nwest of the line of the Initial Deed, save a mere right of\\ncommon up streams without limits, c. Williams s answer\\nwas, that he approved the twenty-mile boundary because the\\nIndian Sachems of Warwick had conveyed to the English set-\\ntlers there lands to an equal distance westward from the War-\\nwick shore. This seems a very insufficient reason. It is not\\neasy to discover any rights which could be acquired by Provi-\\ndence by or under deeds of the Warwick Indians relating to\\nanother territory. But the controversy was now closed and\\ncould never more be made a subject of debate. (It was prac-\\ntically decided by the colony in appointing a committee to fix\\nthe boundary line twenty miles to the westward of ffoxes\\nhill.)\\nAfter this resolute assertion by the Proprietors, in the\\nname of the town, of their determination to appropriate to\\ntheir own use the whole of Williams s purchase, he could do\\nno more. The infirmities of age were beginning to press\\nheavily upon him, and he made little attempt to protract a\\ncontroversy which threatened to embitter his latter days.\\nThe Proprietors had now been during more than twenty years\\nin possession of the disputed territory, and an attempt to dis-\\npossess them might endanger the peace or even the fran-\\nchises of the colony. After a delay, which could not have\\nbeen the pleasantest years of his recollection, he yielded to\\nnecessity. On the 20th of December, 1661, Williams exe-\\ncuted a new deed, but not according to the wishes of his\\ngrantees. He now, with the concurrence of his wife, con-\\nfirms his former deed of 1637, for himself and for his heirs,", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0101.jp2"}, "102": {"fulltext": "90 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nto the original purchasers by name.* Williams s second deed\\nhad a seal and other formalities and a release of dower. But\\nthe succession under it was to be in the same society and\\nfellowship of vote as before. This point he would never\\nyield, and it does not appear to have been asked of him. The\\nProprietors already deemed their title strong enough without\\nthe second deed, and it was scarcely ever mentioned again.\\n(Williams s first deed. I. Bartlett, 1638, p. 19. His second\\ndeed was of 1661, 20th of December. Early Records, Vol.\\nHI., p. 7.)\\nHaving approximately fixed the colony s western border\\nand the seven mile line, which marked the least valuable por-\\ntion of the territory, and having effectually prevented any\\nincrease of their own numbers, the Proprietors went on at\\ntheir leisure to disembarrass themselves as a society of the\\nwestern part of their domains. (Early Records, Vol. HI., pp.\\n18, 20.) March 7, 1661. It is ordered that John Sayles,\\nArthur ffenner, William Wickenden, John Brown, Valentine\\nWhitman Thomas Olney Jun shall meet together and\\norder about the division of the lands lying without the bounds\\nwhich are prefixed for the town how it shall be divided\\nin what manner, what part every man shall have, and to\\nbring in their conclusion unto the town, the next sixth day. f\\nThe committee were not neglectful of their work, and on the\\nnext sixth day it is ordered that, all the lands which\\nshall be divided, without the seven-mile line shall be di-\\nvided by papers, according as it shall fall to every man so to\\nstand. A question now arose as to the rights of the\\ntwenty-five acre men. They had much in common with\\nthe Proprietors and their votes had carried the Proprietors\\nsafely through their controversy with Dexter, Williams and\\n*The whole title of the Proprietors had been in strict law only a pos-\\nsessory one. It was now sufficiently strengthened by the lapse of twenty\\nyears, which barred any ejectment suit against them. Williams s second\\ndeed was needless. The title was now perfect without it.\\nf On the same day with an accurate foreboding of the calamities await-\\ning the town, it was voted, Deeds which concern this town shall be\\nenrolled in our Towne Booke, and shall also be conveyed unto the Gen-\\neral Recorder, to be enrolled in the General Records. A singular con-\\nfusion of thought, as to the power of town governments to impose duties\\nupon colonial officers.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0102.jp2"}, "103": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 9 1\\nthe freeholders, and they were now to receive the first instal-\\nment of their reward. They had been made a separate class\\nof voters before the seven-mile line was established, and\\nit was necessary to make some new provision for them now\\nthey had become formidable from their numbers. The\\nProprietors fixed the rights of the Quarter-rights men, ap-\\nparently without any consultation with them. They acqui-\\nesced as they had always done in the determination of those\\nwhom they had always recognized as the true lords of the\\nsoil. (Early Records, Vol. III., p. 20.) It is ordered that\\nthe right of the 25 acre men is, each man a quarter part so\\nmuch as a purchaser without the seven mile line (paying a\\nquarter part of the charge for the confirmation) [z. e., the\\nmoney paid for the confirmation deeds of the Indian Sachems]\\nthe which right doth arise by virtue of their commoning,\\nwhich is within the seven mile bounds, according to the order\\nwhereunto they have subscribed their hands. Only those\\nwho were received with 2, full right of commoning within the\\nseven mile bounds, are equal with a purchaser without the\\nseven mile bounds, in lands commoning, paying equal part\\nto the confirmation, with the purchaser. In making this divi-\\ndend no regard was shown to the ordinary small freeholder,\\nwho had bought from private landholders. He had no inter-\\nest or share in the proprietary estate, and no right to vote in\\ntown meeting upon any question concerning it. The lands\\neast of the seven mile line were henceforth to be more care-\\nfully reserved from sale, awaiting the possibilities of the fu-\\nture. New settlers were welcomed, but to be content with\\nfarms beyond the limits of civilized life, unless they were\\nwere ready to offer^higher prices than had hitherto been giv-\\nen. At the same time an order was made in the town meet-\\ning prohibiting sales of the common lands yet unsold in\\nProvidence neck (Early Records, Vol. III., p. 21) between\\nthe Seekonk and the Mooshassuc. This order was not to be\\nrepealed without the unanimous consent of the Proprietors\\nor purchasers and no more of the obnoxious Purchasers or\\nProprietors shares were to be created.\\nBut much remained to be done, before there could be a\\ndivision or dividend of lots. A survey of lands in the wilder-", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0103.jp2"}, "104": {"fulltext": "92 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nness went on slowly in those days. There were many rocky\\nuplands which no man would acccept and many brooks and\\nlimerocks of which many would gladly become owners. An\\nhundred and one tracts of tolerably equal value were required\\nfor the Proprietors alone. Since the beginning of the town,\\nno matter of importance had required the adjustment of so\\nmany details. Some were eager for the first choice. It was\\nagreed by the town meeting (February 12, 1665), that Wil-\\nliam Hawkins and John Steere should have it, provided they\\npaid their dues to the Proprietors, before the drawing.* Roger\\nWilliams was to be only the third in drawing. The Proprie-\\ntors made their own conditions and caused them to be con-\\nfirmed by the town meeting. Quarter Day, April 27, 1664.\\n(Early Records, Vol. III., pp. 53, 54.) It is ordered that 50\\nacres of upland shall be laid out to every Purchaser of this\\nTown, from the 7 mile line eastivard, and none to be laid\\nout nearer unto this town than three miles from the said line\\neastwardly, every 25 acre man to have a quarter part so\\nmuch as a purchaser, every man to take his place as it fall-\\neth unto him by papers, none to be laid out until seven\\nmonths after this day [here follow boundaries] also what\\nmeadow is within this seven mile line, three miles eastwardly\\nas aforesaid, shall be laid out by equal proportions, making\\ndistinction between the Purchasers, the 25 acre men. As\\nalso what meadow is found within the seven mile line, that is\\nto say, 3 miles eastwardly from it, as aforesaid, shall be laid\\nout unto every man, answerable unto his proportion, that is\\nto say the purchasers answerable to theirs, the 25 acre\\nmen answerable to theirs. Also we agree that whosoever\\npays not in their money which is behind, about the land\\ncleared, shall both lose their money which is behind, about\\nthe land cleared, shall both lose his place in choice, and also\\nno lands to be laid out to him, until it be satisfied. Some\\nof the Proprietors were in a low pecuniary condition, and it\\nseemed to their solvent brethren a hardship that these should\\ndraw dividends before they had paid the purchase money of\\ntheir shares. (Early Records of Providence, Vol. III., pp.\\n66, 67.) The order excited dissatisfaction. It expressed the\\n*Early Records of Providence, Vol. IIL, p. 69.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0104.jp2"}, "105": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 93\\nwishes of Harris and Olney and of the most wealthy of the\\nProprietors. But it created dissension and threatened farther\\ndelay. It was repealed in great part in the following Janu-\\nary. (Vol. III., Early Records, pp. 66, 68.) Another example\\nof the want of stability of the early legislation of the town.\\nThe limerocks were to remain in common. (Early Records,\\nVol. III., p. 93.) All difficulties being overcome the Proprie-\\ntors drew another line, three miles nearer to the town of\\nProvidence. This line was called the four mile line, and the\\nterritory was called the second division or fifty acres di-\\nvision, situate, lying and being between the seven mile\\nline and the four mile line, set by order of the town of\\nProvidence. Nothing since the planting of Providence had\\nfurnished so much business to the town meeting, had been\\nso often postponed, or fills so much space in the records.\\n(Vol. III., Early Records of Providence, February 19, 1665,\\npp. 72-74)\\nThe great day came at last. There was no lack of a quo-\\nrum at the inn where the freemen were assembled. The Pro-\\nprietors or purchasers under Williams s deed, who held the\\nentire unsold fee simple of the town the twenty-five acre\\nmen, longing for some increase of property and for a corres-\\nponding rise in the world, and rightly regarding this as an\\nearnest of other like benefits to come the small freeholders\\nwho had little more than small lots or gardens purchased of\\nsome more prosperous owner, who had found small profit in\\nholding them or who had left the town, and who could only\\nlook on as spectators of a ceremony in which they had no\\nshare, were all, with very different feelings, eager for the\\ngreat event of the day. Curiosity to see what was coming\\npreserved order. Before the formalities began there arose in\\nthe midst of the assembly, the gaunt and picturesque figure\\nof the founder. Age and infirmity were already pressing\\nheavily upon him the burden of his long and laborious ser-\\nvice of the colony. In the presence of them all he witnessed\\nnot now against the usurpation of the Proprietors, of which\\nhe was partaker, but against the prophaning of God s wor-\\nship by casting lots. He had no more to say, at least in\\npublic, of up streams without limits, or of the fellowship", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0105.jp2"}, "106": {"fulltext": "94 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nof vote. All these questions he knew had been decided\\nagainst him, if not judicially, yet by public opinion and he\\nurged them upon the town meeting no more. Few others saw\\nany caricature, still less any imitation of divine worship, in\\nthis eager grasp after prosperity. We may well believe that\\nall smaller matters, even the publications of marriages, were\\nhurried through without ceremony, and that the great busi-\\nness of the day was speedily begun. The solid men of the\\nplantation, the Proprietors and purchasers, claimed the first\\nattention. Ninety-three of these drew papers for lots east\\nof the seven mile line. Among the earliest of those who\\ndrew papers, was Gregory Dexter, although the whole pro-\\nceeding was in contravention of the doctrines which he had\\nfor so many years maintained, and was wholly subversive of\\nhis favorite Sovereign Plaister. Williams, whose conscience\\nwas in a disturbed condition, and one Reddock, who was\\ncharged with not paying his dues, were given leave to draw\\ntheir shares at a future day. The remaining six Proprietors,\\nto whom no such opportunity was given, may have shared in\\nWilliams s scruples or may have been in arrears with their\\npayments. Next in order were the twenty-five acre men.\\nThey received their portion at the second table, as it were.\\nBut they made no complaint, satisfied that their investment\\nin quarter shares had been so far a good one, and with an\\nadded opportunity of helping themselves from the Proprie-\\ntors common. The small freeholders offered no opposition,\\nlooked on with such edification as they might and reserved\\ntheir wrath for town meeting and election days. They were\\nwell aware of the advantage which the early institutions of\\nthe town gave them. None of the deeds of these shares could\\nbe recorded, except by vote of the majority in town meeting,\\nand the irate majority resolutely withheld their consent dur-\\ning several years. Their doings at elections we shall pres-\\nently relate.* At the session of the Assembly at Newport,\\nafter the spring election, two delegates presented themselves\\nfrom the town of Providence. There had been two town\\nmeetings and two town clerks. William Harris and Arthur\\nFenner the assistants of Providence had generally been\\n*See Bartlett s Records, Vol. II., 1667, p. 200.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0106.jp2"}, "107": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 95\\nopposed to each other in town politics and had probably called\\nthe rival town meetings. The assistants were also ex-officio\\nmembers of the town council. Only the meeting called in\\nthe interest of the Proprietors was recognized by the General\\nAssembly or has any record in the town book. William Harris\\nand Arthur ffenner appeared as champions of the opposing par-\\nties, and charged each other with rowtes at the elections.\\nThe proceedings are briefly recorded and were closed by a\\nletter of admonition from the Assembly to the town of Prov-\\nidence. The whole affair reached only this lame and impo-\\ntent conclusion.\\nThe letter of the Assembly had little effect in calming the\\nheated passions of the townsmen. The details are not pre-\\nserved but we can readily comprehend what followed in the\\nTowne Streete, by the proceedings of the General Assembly.\\nWilliams next tried his skill in peacemaking. (Town meet-\\ning, March 8, 1668.) Voted that the presentation in verse,\\npresented by Roger Williams unto the Towne, this day, be\\nkept among the Records of this Towne. The verses had\\nbut a brief existence and perished in the burning of the town.\\nThis was not the least valuable document lost in the Indian\\nwar. Why may not this precedent be revived, and this un-\\nworked vein of poetry be re-opened If there be among us\\nyouthful aspirants for immortality, why should they not ad-\\ndress their strains to the Common Council. Perhaps even\\nthe Board of Aldermen may be so softened as to yield un-\\nlooked-for answers to their requests.\\nSome extraordinary remedy seemed to be demanded by the\\ndisquiets of Providence. At the General Assembly in May,\\n1669, it was Ordered that Mr. John Clarke be requested to\\nwrite unto the inhabitants of the Towne of Providence, to\\npersuade them to a peaceable composure of that uncomfort-\\nable difference that is between them. Mr. Clarke could\\nhave told them, that those who had granted the charter of\\nthe colony had already seen their mistake and would welcome\\nany opportunity to take it away. (Bartlett s R. I. Records,\\nVol. II., pp. 288, 289, 293, A. D. 1669.) This well-meant en-\\ndeavor failing like its predecessors, it became difficult to\\nforecast the future.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0107.jp2"}, "108": {"fulltext": "96 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nThe contentions about the proprietary lands were all the\\nwhile going on. (Early Records, Vol. III., p. 136.) February\\n15, 1668. Arthur ffenner Moderator. The bill presented by\\nHenry Browne, Thomas Hopkins Sen Shadrack Manton is\\nexcepted, that each person may take up their land according\\nto the former order, without prohibition of common. Voted\\nordered that the former bill is excepted {i. e., refused) in\\ngiving liberty that all common shall be free without any\\nprohibition.\\nThere is little that is pleasant in these details of town\\naffairs. The strife went on until 1669, the- disorders of the\\ntown meeting apparently increasing, until the freeholders\\nseemed ready for another violent outbreak like that in Gor-\\nton s time. Their cause was just then severely injured by\\ntheir old champion Gregory Dexter. His conscience had now\\nbecome so tender that he refused to pay taxes for the support\\nof government. William Harris had not forgotten Dexter s\\nSovereign Plaister, of sixteen years before, which had stig-\\nmatized himself and his brethren with dishonesty and oppres-\\nsion. He eagerly seized the opportunity to retaliate upon his\\nold opponent and to prove that he and the Proprietors were\\nthe only upholders of property and law. In Harris s conduct\\nthere was always more of thQ fortiter in re than of the siiaviter\\nin modo. Procuring a lawful appointment he levied the tax\\nupon Dexter s estate. The vigor and severity of his proceed-\\nings gave occasion to Williams to speak with equal censure\\nof them both.* The partizans of each doubtless concurred in\\nWilliams s disapproval of their adversary. The letters to\\nWhipple were apparently of a semi-public nature, being in-\\ntended to be read at Whipple s Inn, the great centre of infor-\\nmation in those days.\\nThe confusion in Providence had now reached such a\\nheight that the legislature became alarmed. They saw that\\nthe discords of a single town were endangering the privileges\\nof the colony. The evil days described in Sir Henry Vane s\\nletter seemed to have returned. Such disorders unchecked\\nwould cause the forfeiture of the charter, and nothing like it\\ncould be hoped for again. The Assembly at Newport (27th\\n*In his letter to John Whipple.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0108.jp2"}, "109": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 97\\nOctober, 1669) determined at last to make some show of firm-\\nness. On the last election day, two town meetings had been\\nassembled in Providence, each with an official calling himself\\nthe town clerk. As usual, only the meeting which repre-\\nsented the Proprietors has any record in the town book. The\\nclerk of one meeting certified that there had been no election\\nof the other, that deputies had been duly chosen. It seems\\nthat the day was not ended until there had been a resort by\\nangry partisans to arguments more forcible, if not more con-\\nvincing, than those of mere words. The legislature refused\\nto receive the deputies from Providence as not being duly\\nelected, and then made an earnest endeavor to secure peace.\\nProbably, the Quakers of Newport prompted these efforts.\\nThe General Assembly sadly resenting the conduct of its\\noldest town, expressing its alarm at the grievous symptoms\\nthat appeared, of the dangerous contests, distractions, di-\\nvisions among our antient loving honored neighbours, the\\nfreemen inhabitants of the Towne of Providence, whereby\\nthe said Towne is rendered in an incapacitie for transacting\\ntheir own affairs in any measure of satisfactory order, with\\npeace quietness, consequently unable to help in the\\nmanaging ordering public affairs by Deputyes, that ought\\nto be by them sent to the General Assembly, and jurymen\\nto the Court of Tryalles, whereby there is, or seems to be a\\nbreach in the whole upon consideration whereof, upon\\nfinding that the case of the said inconveniances ariseth from\\ndisagreement dissatisfactions about divisions dispositions\\nof landes, wherein it is impossible that either party can be\\nclear from giving taking occasion of offences, and it is\\naltogether unlickly they will compose the differences, without\\nsome judicious men and unconcerned in the premised con-\\ntest be helpful by their counsell to that end. The Assembly\\nthereupon appointed five commissioners and requested and\\ncommissioned them to proceed to Providence, and there to\\nendeavor to persuade the parties to an arbitration, or to call\\na meeting of the freemen, and to hold a meeting of all the\\nfreemen, and to elect town officers and town deputies to the\\nAssembly (p. 287, c.). And to the end that it may appear\\nhow much we desire the same, the Court doe order that all", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0109.jp2"}, "110": {"fulltext": "98 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nindictments or actions which have arisen, concerning or hav-\\ning relation to the difference aforesaid in the Town of Provi-\\ndence, shall be waived at present no farther prosecution be\\ntherein, until the Assembly shall meet hoping in the\\nmean time that all animosities will be extinguished.\\nThis well-intended scheme utterly failed. At the March\\nsession in Newport (1699, pp. 292, 293), the Assembly ap-\\npointed two commissioners to ascertain who were the legal\\nvoters of Providence, and to hold an election for deputies to\\nthe May session.\\nThe general sergeant of the colony was directed to be\\npresent, but we are not informed as to his ability to enforce\\nhis commands. The labors of the colony s five commission-\\ners were in vain. Neither the Proprietors nor the twenty-\\nfive acre men would make any compromise which would\\ninvolve the title to their estate. The irritation of the small\\nfreeholders was equally extreme.\\nThe commissioners appointed from the leading citizens of\\nNewport, visited Providence and strove, with such eloquence\\nas was at their command, to accomplish the benevolent de-\\nsign of the Assembly. The townsmen were not accustomed\\nto pay much deference to the wishes or the exhortations of\\nNewport. They were too near to the days of Coddington s\\nsecession and remembered too well the readiness of Newport\\nto abandon the first principles of Rhode Island and to sub-\\nject herself to Plymouth. The disorganization of Providence\\nhad proceeded far. The town could hold no election, and now\\nduring several months there had been no town clerk, treas-\\nurer, sergeant or constable. The townsmen were left to their\\nown discretion and self control, which (as appears from the\\nnumerous indictments then pending) could not always be\\ntrusted. The only town authority then remaining, the town\\ncouncil, took possession of the records and only delivered\\nthem up to John Whipple, when duly elected. (Early Records\\nof Providence, Vol. III., p. 151 pp. 149, 150; December 15,\\n1669.) Newport was now under the political control of the\\nfollowers of George Fox. We may imagine the effect of a\\nmoral lecture given by a committee of Foxians to the adher-\\nents of Roger Williams.\\n*Vol. IL, p. 292, Bartlett s Col. Records.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0110.jp2"}, "111": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 99\\nAt the election holden by the State officials, William Har-\\nris and Arthur ffenner were candidates for the place of second\\nassistant. There was a difference of opinion among them, as\\nto which had been elected by the majority of qualified voters,\\nand they both being not very free to accept upon such\\ndoubtful tearmes, thereupon by the Assembly, Mr. R. Wil-\\nliams was chosen assistant. In reading the memorials of\\nthese by-gone controversies we may see cause to be glad that\\nthe Plantations had sent forth no encouragement to the re-\\nligious enthusiasts of the 17th century, who imagined them-\\nselves distressed for conscience. Not many of them\\nfavored the settlement of controversies upon principles of\\npeace and non-resistance. It would be difficult to estimate\\nthe consequences if the crowds who thronged the meetings\\nof Fox and Burnyeat had been favored with discourses from\\nthe expectants of the 5th monarchy, or of the family of\\nlove.\\nThough the adjustment of the quarrel in 1669 decided in\\nexpress terms no principle of colonial law, yet it was effectual\\nand final. It was felt by both parties that the success of the\\nProprietors was complete. The Assembly would do nothing\\nin aid of the small freeholders who were the partisans of\\nWilliams. No interest which claimed as its champion the\\nauthor of George Fox digged out of his Burrows could\\nhope for any thing from the Foxian legislature at\\nNewport, and the Proprietors were now well assured\\nthat they could appropriate Williams s Indian purchase\\nat their pleasure. They went on accordingly, first to\\nremove any clouds upon their title. During sixteen years,\\nthe Sovereign Plaister had remained upon the town rec-\\nords, as it had been inserted there by Dexter, without any\\nauthority but his own. The Proprietors had taken no notice\\nof its injurious assertions. It seems probable that they\\nwould have continued to disregard it. But it appears to have\\nbeen quoted in the General Assembly at Newport as evi-\\ndence of the public judgment of Providence. On the 15th\\nday of December, 1669 (Early Records, Vol. III., pp. 148,\\n149), the town meeting was once more assembled. The Pro-\\nprietors were in the majority, for Thomas Olney, Jr. (their", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0111.jp2"}, "112": {"fulltext": "lOO RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nlife-long champion), was moderator. William Harris, also,\\nwas not wanting to the meeting. On that day it was voted\\nordered, that whereas this Assembly having received infor-\\nmation that there is a record in our Towne Booke, in the\\n126 127 pages of that Booke, wherein is the Combination,\\nwhich record is a writing entitled an instrument or Sovereign\\nPlaister, and was endorsed Thomas Clemence, the Towne\\nhaving viewed a copy of the sd record, considering the\\nsame, the matter therein, doe find it to be the most destruc-\\ntive to the peace of our Plantation, the joint agreements\\nof our Towne, the orders thereof, the which, the Towne\\ntaking into serious consideration doe find the said matter to\\nbe utterly unwholesome illegal, and doe hereby declare the\\nsaid record to be wholly void, null, any agreement order\\nor record at any time made, or any clause therein, to the\\ncontrary notwithstanding. This was an authentic record\\nnever revoked or questioned by the town. It put an end\\nto attempts by the freeholders to defeat the wishes or\\nacts of the Proprietors. Henceforth they administered their\\nestate in their own way for what they deemed to be their own\\nadvantage. Gregory Dexter could not have looked back with\\nmuch satisfaction over his sixteen years labor. He had com-\\nmitted a gross impropriety by inserting in the town book a\\nprivate document of a libellous character, without any author-\\nity but his own. The vote of the town meeting was official\\nand authoritative, and there was no hope of its reversal. The\\nSovereign Plaister was never heard of more. The fore-\\nsight of William Harris in cultivating the friendship of the\\nQuakers and of a class of small proprietors, the twenty-five\\nacre men, in union with the larger, had accomplished its\\noffice.\\n(Early Records of Providence, Vol. HI., p. 156, 27th July,\\n1670.) The dissatisfied freeholders were not the only com-\\nplainants. The unskillfulness of the early surveyors, and the\\ntardiness of their action, caused loud complaints among the\\nProprietors themselves. Some of them found other shares\\noverlapping their own or intruding into their place. No no-\\ntice seem to have been given of the times of laying out the\\nmeadows, and the usual irregularities ensued. Not until the", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0112.jp2"}, "113": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. lOI\\ninterference of the town meeting did it seem possible to ac-\\ncomplish the work with speediness and peace. The usual\\nquarrels about the boundaries of farms seem to have super-\\nseded quarrels over controversies of greater moment.*\\nNothing of historical interest occurred during the next two\\nor three years. It seems that those who participated in the\\ndividend of lots, were not all of them satisfied with the re-\\nsult. In 1672 there were rumors that another was in contem-\\nplation. It was not viewed with gratification by those who\\ncould only look on while the town lands were divided among\\na limited number of the older inhabitants. Old grievances\\nwere not yet allayed. In view of what had passed, Edward\\nSmith, of the family at the Town Mill, addressed his counsel\\nor remonstrance to the town meeting. He had begun life as\\na twenty-five acre man, but when he prospered he had ac-\\nquired a Proprietor s share. He held liberal views of the\\npolicy to be adopted in dealing with the different classes of\\nlandholders. (Early Records of Providence, Vol. III., pp.\\n225, 226.) 27th January, 1672. Mr. Arthur ffenner. Moderator,\\nVoted that the bill presented unto the Towne by\\nEdward Smith, shall be put upon the records of the Towne,\\nthat each man s land, according to the desire made mani-\\nfest in that bill, be recorded in the Towne Booke as their\\nlawful right and inheritance, to them their heirs, forever.\\nProvidence, the 27th of the nth mo., 1672. This was Edward\\nSmith s proposal. A reasonable, seasonable ready way\\nof encouragement to Planters in their labour in this our\\nPlantations, of Providence, presented to the Town Meeting.\\nNeighbours Whereas there has been, yet is, an un-\\ncomfortable difference in this towne, about a new division of\\nlands, which you all sufficiently know, and in the time of this\\ndifference both sides hath laid out 50 acres to divers men,\\nsome of these lands are known to be relaid, more feared,\\nwhich proveth a great discouragement to laborious men, for\\nencouragement therefore to the industrious, do you, my\\nneighbours, resolve, determine, these two things first, that\\nall these several shares of land, laid out in the new division\\nto Planters, by both sides, shall stand, which shares consist-\\n*See petition of Epenetus Olney and the town order upon it.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0113.jp2"}, "114": {"fulltext": "102 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\ning of 50 acres, less or more, not exceeding 60, that\\nPlanters on both sides to whom the said 50 acres was first laid\\nout, that land shall be his proper right, whether the said re-\\nlaying by either side was wilfully, ignorantly or under what\\npretence soever done, any former act or acts, thing or things,\\nrecord or records made to the contrary notwithstanding.\\n2d y, that provision be made for recording the said 50 acre\\nshares in the Town s booke, to those men to whom they\\nwere first laid out, so much of the forest to be suddenly\\nsubdued by the laborious, become a fruitful field, which is\\nthe desire of your neighbour, Edward Smith. It appears\\nfrom this statement of the difficulty, that some of those who\\nwere disappointed in the shares which they had drawn, had\\ncaused them to be relaid, in more desirable places, taking\\nto themselves many of the best sites that some of the Pro-\\nprietors held tenaciously to their newly acquired lots, neither\\nselling nor cultivating them, and that immigration of labo-\\nrious men was discouraged. The poorer townsmen found\\nit no easier to acquire lands than it had been before. As no\\nland transfers or titles could be perfected in those days with-\\nout a vote of the town meeting, allowing them to be recorded,\\nthe dissatisfied party among the townsmen had thus found\\nmeans to delay during several years the registration of the lots\\ndrawn by obnoxious Proprietors.* The Proprietors who had\\nrelaid or exchanged their shares, were by the resolution\\nof Edward Smith, remanded to their original drawings. No\\nfarther hindrance was to be given to their registration. This\\npower of a town meeting over freehold estates, thus summa-\\nrily exercised at the request of Edward Smith, gives a view\\nof the despotism of a landholder s government in those days.\\nArthur ffenner was the chief of the liberal party. His elec-\\ntion as moderator shows that they were in the majority at\\nthat meeting. The adoption of Edward Smith s resolution,\\nproves that all parties were now resolved to avoid further\\ncontention upon this subject and that the Proprietors had\\n*None but the Proprietors were entitled to vote upon matters concern-\\ning the proprietary estate, but when lots had been drawn by individuals,\\nthey ceased to be parts of the proprietary estate, and were subject to the\\nvotes of the entire body of small freeholders.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0114.jp2"}, "115": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. IO3\\ngained in substance all that they had claimed. The kindli-\\nness of spirit manifested by Edward Smith, probably gained\\nthe adoption of his proposed compromise. The dividend was\\nconfirmed, all lots were now to be secure, but only as they\\nwere at first drawn. A dissatisfied Proprietor was not to be\\npermitted to exchange or relay his drawing, and thus to\\nselect for himself one of the most desirable homesteads, in-\\nstead of the chance benefit of the lottery. Even a Proprietor\\nmight be displeased at the greediness of some of his brethren,\\nwho, having drawn what they considered little better than\\nblanks among the Proprietors chances, made that a pretext\\nfor helping themselves to the finest sites in the Plantations.\\nPerhaps the unanimity in adopting Edward Smith s resolu-\\ntion may be in part thus explained.\\nSo great a dissension had been created by the first divi-\\ndend that some years elapsed before there was an attempt at\\nanother. The Proprietors waited until 1675. They had es-\\ntablished yet another division of their estate, situate, lying\\nbeing between the seven mile line the four mile line set\\nby order of the Town of Providence. In order to pacify\\nevery one, on the 6th of April, 1675, it was Voted ordered\\nthat unto every one that hath a right in those lands beyond the\\nseven mile line, set by the Town of Providence, shall be to\\neach right one hundred fifty acres of upland, laid out to\\nthem, any law or laws formerly made to the contrary notwith-\\nstanding. It does not appear whether the twenty-five acre\\nmen were becoming unquiet again. The designation had now\\nbecome inapplicable and little more is heard of them in\\nthat character.\\nOn the 1 2th of April, 1675, eighty-one Proprietors drew\\npapers for fifty-acre lots west of the seven mile line. The\\nbusiness was not then completed. On the 24th of May, 1675,\\nthe Proprietors alone drew papers for lots between the\\nfour mile line and the seven mile line. There were ninety-\\nfive proprietors living eastward of the seven-mile line. They\\ndid not then hanker after estates in the near neighborhood of\\nan Indian frontier, even although they were to be had for\\nnothing. It was long before they were offered another oppor-\\n*This included the twenty-five acre men.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0115.jp2"}, "116": {"fulltext": "104 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\ntunity. At the dividend in April, 1675, protest was offered\\nin behalf of Joshua Verin, by Thomas Harris, Sr., and\\nThomas Olney, Jr., Epenetus Olney, and John Whipple,\\nasserting his right to a Proprietor s share, which, it would\\nappear, some of the townsmen still wished to subject to for-\\nfeiture for non-residence. More enlightened views of property\\nwere now prevailing, and Verin was allowed his claim as one\\nof the original planters of Mooshassuc* Little else occurred\\nduring the present year. There was little or no excitement\\nabout the draught. The final adjustment of their rancor-\\nous old quarrel was drawing near, in the natural order of\\nevents.\\nThe Narragansetts were already restless and little was\\nneeded to provoke a general uprising of the New England\\ntribes. The following order may show the state of affairs in\\nProvidence. Town Meeting, October 14, 1675. Arthur\\nffenner. Moderator. Ordered that six men every day shall\\nbe sent out of the Towne to discover what Indians shall come\\nto disquiet the Towne, and that every housekeeper and all\\nmen residing in this Towne shall take his turn, he that\\nshall refuse to take his turn, shall forfeit to the Towne for\\nevery day s default, five shillings, and that it shall be taken by\\ndistraint, by the constable and that this order shall stand in full\\nforce until the Towne order to the contrary. The end was\\nalready near when the town meeting imposed this heavy burden.\\nThe weak and vain Canonchet, disregarding the counsel of Wil-\\nliams, set about to establish a military reputation for himself.\\nThe manner in which he did it belongs to the history of the\\nState.f In due time came the ravaging of Narragansett and\\nCoweset, and, in March, 1676, the burning of Providence. Suf-\\nfice it to say, that with their habitations there perished most\\nof the property of the planters. For the moment the hopes of\\nthe townsmen seemed to be at an end. Some of them left\\nProvidence, never to return. It offered few inducements to\\nsettlers during many coming years. When it revived, a tax of\\n;^io was deemed sufficient for its ability, while Newport had\\n*The names of those who drew papers for shares of land west of\\nthe seven-mile line are given in the records of 24th of May, 1675.\\ntDr. Stone has so thoroughly investigated the subject of the burning\\nof Providence that it need not be done again.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0116.jp2"}, "117": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. IO5\\nlost little or nothing. Those who came back to rebuild the\\ntown were chiefly the first planters at Mooshassuc and at\\nPawtuxet and their families. These were the depositaries of\\nits earliest traditions and they raised it up anew upon its old\\nfoundations. In the general ruin there came, almost for the\\nfirst time, a period of union and peace. Even Williams and\\nHarris could act together in a committee for the disposing\\nof Indian slaves. While some were removing to other and\\nstronger colonies, the Browns, Arnolds, Angells, Olneys,\\nCarpenters, Rhodeses, came back to do their work over again,\\nand they did it effectually. The old Proprietors were still\\nrecognized as the legitimate rulers of the town, and long\\nyears after the rebuilding, they were still as rigid as their\\nfathers in their scrutiny and rejection of applicants for the\\nfellowship of vote, and for permission to purchase lots and\\nto become inhabitants. One or two examples will suffice\\n1681-2. Voted Granted unto William Hudson formerly an\\napprentice to Joshua ffoote, leave liberty to buy land of any\\nfree inhabitant of this towne, settle among us. It is\\ngranted unto Daniel Jenckes that he hath liberty of the\\ntowne allowed him to dwell abide with his brother Jenckes\\nwhereby he may learn perfect his trade at his brother\\nJoseph Jenckes.\\nWith the revival of the town, some of its old troubles re-\\nappeared in full activity. Organized opposition to the Pro-\\nprietors now sunk into displays of private malice. As before\\nthe war in 1676 there were (nth March, 1675-6) many in-\\ntruders and trespassers upon the newly opened lands west of\\nthe seven-mile line. Four persons were appointed to warn\\noff and to remove trespassers. It was necessary to bring the\\nwhole tract into private ownership, ffenner Smith, Ephraim\\nCarpenter and Thomas Olney, Jr., were of the first who filled\\nthis undesirable office. How long this frontier police was\\nmaintained does not appear.\\nSome unexpected consequences followed the Indian war.\\nThe colony recognized no successors to king or sachem.\\nThere was no longer any fear of their bargains or alliances\\nwith Massachusetts. No Indian claims to lands were any\\nlonger regarded. The fields up streams without limits", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0117.jp2"}, "118": {"fulltext": "I06 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nwere now the fee simple of the Proprietors, as Harris had\\nalways maintained. There was now no Indian chief whose\\ntitle deed would have been sought or accepted, and all fears\\nof a new purchase from them, west of the plantations, were\\ndispelled. Henceforth the colony knew the Indians only as\\ntramps and vagrants, and at a later day (when they had ceased\\nto be Indians and were becoming negroes) as wards.\\nOther influences were coming in of which the former gen-\\neration of townsmen had known nothing. Charles II. had\\nnow been several years upon the throne. Republicanism\\nwas crushed and silenced for a century to come. The golden\\nage of the English aristocracy had begun. The English Rev-\\nolution of 1688-9 carefully kept itself free from every taint\\nof democracy or equality. Property now ruled instead of\\nPuritanism. No voice from English literature or politics gave\\nsympathy or encouragement to the principles upon which\\nAmerican society had been founded. Governments were\\neverywhere harsh, peremptory, based everywhere upon landed\\nestates or military force. The so-called English Common-\\nwealth had been no exception. In such an age the society\\nof Proprietors of Providence was not obsolete or antiquated,\\nor necessarily unpopular. It was not possible to set up any tol-\\nerable imitation of English political institutions on this side\\nof the sea, but the colonies found no difficulty in forming an\\noligarchy in accordance with their own wealth and their own\\nnotions. In fact, municipal corporations everywhere were\\nruled by contrivances very like in principle to those of the\\npurchasers of Providence. There was no democratic party\\nanywhere. The newest religious party was that of the Qua-\\nkers. They were monarchical in their tendencies and earnest\\nseekers after the good things of this world. They had their\\nown way in Rhode Island.\\nIt will suffice merely to mention the Proprietors dividends\\nof the following years. On the 17th day of March, 1683-4,\\ndraughts were made for shares of land west of the seven mile\\nline, among the proprietors, including Joshua Verin. One\\nhundred Proprietors, Roger Williams, 2d, among them,\\ndrew lots. He had, it seems, reconsidered his father s scru-\\nples, and took his share with the rest. Perhaps he reasoned", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0118.jp2"}, "119": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. IO7\\nthat as the Narragansetts were now extinct, he could, with a\\ngood conscience, claim his part in their inheritance. Changes\\nwere now passing over the plantations at Mooshassuc. The\\nolder generation who had borne the burdens of its early\\nyears was passing away. Williams came no more to the town\\nmeeting and Thomas Olney was no longer heard at the Town\\nMill. Harris died alone, but, we may trust, not without friends,\\nin a foreign land. With the old party leaders much of their\\nbitterness passed away. The questions over which they had\\nquarreled had found their own solution. The new age had\\ninterests of its own. They did not fight over again the battles\\nin which their fathers had worn out their lives. The Indian\\nwar had left behind it a plentiful crop of troubles in every\\ntown. Their Indian land titles had been far from satisfactory\\nand did not improve in value in the hands of speculators from\\nMassachusetts. The present moment of peace and goodwill\\nseemed an appropriate one for closing all controversies over\\nthem. The opportunity was readily seized, and was handled\\nwith a skill which would haved done no discredit to modern\\npoliticians. The Quakers had control of Newport and its de-\\npendencies, of which they were the chief landholders, and\\nthey sympathized with the friends of Harris. Each town was\\nto have what its great men wanted. In 1682 an act passed\\nthe Assembly at Newport on the 3d day of May, entitled,\\nAn act confirming the grants heretofore made by the inhab-\\nitants of the Towns of Newport, Providence, Portsmouth,\\nWarwick and Westerly, and to enable said Towns to make\\nprudential laws and orders for the better regulating their\\nTown affairs.\\nWhereas in the 15th year of the Reign of our Royal\\nSovereign Lord Charles the 2d of Blessed Memory, there\\nwas a Charter granted to this his Majesty s Colony of Rhode\\nIsland Providence Plantations in New England, in which\\nwas contained many gracious privileges granted unto the free\\ninhabitants thereof, amongst others of the said priviledges,\\nthere was granted unto the General Assembly of said Colony,\\nfull power authority to make ordain laws suiting the\\nnature, constitution of the place, in particular to direct,\\nrule order all matters relating to the purchase of lands of", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0119.jp2"}, "120": {"fulltext": "I08 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nthe native Indians And this present Assembly taking into\\ntheir serious consideration that the lands of the several\\nTowns of Newport, Providence, Portsmouth, Warwick\\nWesterly were purchased by the several inhabitants thereof\\nof the native Indians, chief Sachems of the Country, before\\nthe granting of the said charter, so that an order or direction\\nfrom the said Assembly could not be obtained thereon, and\\nit having been thought necessary and convenient for the rea-\\nsons aforesaid, that the lands of the aforesaid towns should\\nby an act of the General Assembly of his Majesty s Colony\\nbe confirmed to the inhabitants thereof, according to their\\nseveral respective rights and interests therein Be it there-\\nfore enacted by this present Assembly, c.. That all the\\nlands lying being within the limits of each every of the\\naforesaid Towns of Newport, Providence, Portsmouth, War-\\nwick Westerly, according to their several respective pur-\\nchases thereof, made obtained of the Indian Sachems, be,\\nhereby is allowed of, ratified confirmed to the Proprie-\\ntors, of each of the aforesaid towns, and to each every of\\nthe said Proprietors their several respective rights and\\ninterests therein, by virtue of any such purchase or purchases\\nas aforesaid to have to hold all the aforesaid lands by vir-\\ntue of the several purchases thereof, with all the appurte-\\nnances, c. to them belonging, or in any wise appertaining,\\nto them the aforesaid Proprietors, their heirs, assigns for-\\never, in as full large ample manner to all intents, con-\\nstructions purposes whatsoever, as if the said lands\\nevery part thereof had been purchased of the Indian Sachems\\nby virtue of any grant or allowance obtained from the Gen-\\neral Assembly of this Colony after the granting of the afore-\\nsaid charter And whereas there is within several of the\\nTowns within this Colony, considerable of lands lying yet in\\ncommon or undivided, for the more orderly way manner\\nfor the several Proprietors their managing the prudential\\naffairs thereof, for the more effectual making of just\\nequal division or divisions of the same, so that each every\\nof the Proprietors may have their true equal part pro-\\nportion of rights that the exact boundaries of each\\nevery man s allotments when laid out to him, may be kept", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0120.jp2"}, "121": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. IO9\\nin perpetuum. It is further ordered enacted by the author-\\nity aforesaid, that it shall may be lawful for the Proprietors\\nof each every such Town within this Colony being con-\\nvened by a warrant from under the hand seal of an Assistant,\\nor Judge of the Peace in such Towns the occasion thereof\\nbeing specified in the warrant for them or the major part of\\nthem to meet, to choose or appoint a clerk, c., a surveyor\\nor surveyors, c., such or so many other officers as they\\nshall judge needful convenient for the orderly carrying on\\nand management of the whole affairs of such community, and\\nin like manner to proceed from time to time as need shall\\nrequire. And it is further ordered that each every town\\nwithin this colony shall hereby are fully Impowered to\\nmake ordain all such acts or orders for the well manage-\\nment Rule ordering all prudential affairs within their or\\neach of their respective bounds limits as to them shall\\nseem most meet convenient. Always provided, in these\\ncases, such acts orders are not repugnant or disagreeable\\nto the laws of the Colony.\\nOther sections of this act provide for the other towns.\\nEverything is here confirmed and made valid as the Proprie-\\ntors desired. All objections to the sachems titles were now\\nremoved, never to be heard again.\\nThe Proprietors were now a corporation. They could act\\nby majorities could no longer be controlled or visited by the\\ntown meeting, but only by the Legislature, which was full of\\nthe representatives of towns having corporations like their\\nown. They were now popularly styled The Proprietors.\\nThe name of Purchasers, referring to an event long passed,\\nbecame obsolete. They could divide their estate at their own\\npleasure. The lands up streams without limits were\\nassured to them, and no courts could question their title, or\\nsuggest any constitutional scruples.\\nThe corporation made no change in its policy or its\\nmethods. They still discouraged all pursuits but those of\\nfarmers, as they had done from the beginning. Thus, De-\\ncember 14, 1681, All inhabitants or strangers are prohib-\\nited from making coale or tar from pitchwood, c., except to\\nthe quantity of ten gallons for his own use. \\\\ex. gr. see", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0121.jp2"}, "122": {"fulltext": "no RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nFebruary 24, 166 1.] It had been the old practice of the\\ntown, during the summer, that the people (i. e., the free-\\nholders) were allowed to pasture their cattle in Providence\\nNeck, paying for the damage that they doe. This was\\nstill permitted. On the 17th of July, 1682 (p. 6$), an order\\nof the town meeting recites that Many persons to ye greate\\ndamage of ye Towne of every commoner therein, through\\ntheir covetousness, do irregularly at unreasonable times, cut\\nye thatch, growing upon ye towne s common, thinking to\\nbenefit themselves, and to damnific ye commons belonging\\nto ye towne, and thereby in a little time will ruinate the\\nsame to ye Towne s great damage. The penalty was a\\nforfeiture of all the thatch so cut and ten shillings for every\\nload, to be paid to the town treasury. This annoyance lasted\\nthrough several generations. Against these offenders the\\nauthority of the law could be successfully invoked, as the\\nthatch-beds were in full view of the Towne Streete. [See\\nTown meeting Records, July 27, 1704.] Swine and goats\\nwere the chief pests of the eary Proprietors, who, in spite of\\nall their prohibitions, saw these reckless marauders wasting\\ntheir meadow lands, f\\n(At this time, A. D. 1682, the west side of the Towne\\nStreete was not built up. The houses on the east side of\\nit stood upon a high bank looking down upon the shore and\\nover the waters of the cove, 7th April. July 27th, 1704,\\nDaniel Mathewson of Providence, for ;^30 conveys lands on\\nthe south side of the salt water cove which lieth before\\nthe row of houses in said Providence Towne,\\nTheir orders were time and again renewed and revoked.\\nThe people resisted the forfeiture of a valuable part of their\\n*Before the division of the town of Providence, that part of it lying\\nbetween the Seeckonck and the Mooshassuc was called in deeds and\\nrecords Providence Neck.\\nfA new generation has now grown up which remembers nothing\\nof the ancient thatch-beds on the north side of the cove, and on the\\nbanks of the Wanasquatucket. They were once among the most valu-\\nable possessions of the Proprietors, yielding a sure income. Their\\ndestruction, caused by the narrowing and filling of the cove on the build-\\ning of the Worcester Railroad, 1843-5, was one of the first changes in\\nthe scenery of the old town.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0122.jp2"}, "123": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. Ill\\nsubsistence and during the first century of the town its rec-\\nords abound with complaints of the aggressions of the small\\nfreeholders and preserve memorials of the unavailing endeav-\\nors of the Proprietors to protect their domain. Their exclu-\\nsive rights, the rural freemen never learned to respect.\\nProtection was impossible, for there was no efficient police,\\nand the proprietary lands were everywhere unenclosed. Far\\non in the next century, so long as any considerable part of\\nthem remained unsold, we meet with orders like this Feb-\\nruary 6, 1710-11, Swine found on the common without\\nyoke or ring in the nose, to be forfeit. In its earlier days\\nthese prohibitions,, and others like them, were not without\\ntheir terrors, for the town meeting was alike informer, wit-\\nness and judge. Years after the Proprietors had withdrawn\\ntheir affairs from its cognizance, they still, as the chief land-\\nholders, controlled its decisions. In 1710 (May 22),* they\\nordered that Goates are not to go at liberty on ye common.\\nThe goates still supplied a large portion of the meat of\\nthe poorer citizens, who were not to be allowed to feed them\\nat the Proprietors expense. In 1720, geese made their ap-\\npearance on the common and fell under the same condemna-\\ntion. July 27, 1720. No goose is to go upon the commons\\nhighways or waters, or on any other persons land, on penalty\\nof forfeiture. These are a few, but sufficient, specimens of\\nthe legislation of the Proprietors for the protection of their\\nestate. All was in vain. The freeholders persisted in cut-\\nting timber in the unguarded forests and their owners vainly\\nthreatened those who felled their oaks and pines. The swine\\nof the freeholders made havoc of the meadows, and the nar-\\nrow policy of the Proprietors left them with little sympathy\\nor redress. The smaller freeholders furnished most of the\\njurors, and we may be assured that they did not incline\\nstrongly against their own brethren in a legal contest with a\\nProprietor. These are specimens of the ills which befell the\\nlandholders of those days. They were increased by the loss\\nof many evidences of title, at the burning of the town. This\\n*We cannot blame the Proprietors. The goates devoured the\\nyoung seedlings and after a few years their ravages would have become\\napparent in the total disappearance of the forests. It was fortunate\\nthat other meats became plentiful before this mischief was done.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0123.jp2"}, "124": {"fulltext": "112 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nwas deplored by Thomas Olney at the town meeting of\\n1684, as a cause of many succeeding troubles. Bound-\\naries in the wilderness were irrecoverably lost, and a re-ad-\\njustment could only be effective after a long and irritating\\ncontroversy of Proprietors with freeholders, or with each\\nother. In those early days wealth had its anxieties as well as\\nnow. Some of these arose from unskillfulness or want of\\ncare, as thus March 17, 1683-4. By a vote of this day it\\nappears that the business of the draught of the 150 acres on\\nthe west side the seven-mile line was so imperfect that each\\nman s turn cannot be known, by reason that several\\nnames are wanting, by which it cannot appear that they ever\\nhad any draught, and some appear named more than once,\\nas if they had two draughts, and some twice numbered. Let\\nus not enquire the name of the town clerk of those days or\\nwhy the landholders paid so little attention to their titles.\\nWe may not blame them if they deemed the property to be\\nof little value. We may be content to learn that the whole\\ndraught was declared void and null, and that a second\\ndraught was ordered to be made.*\\nIt might be of interest to say something of the methods\\nand amount of taxation by which those early freemen main-\\ntained their social order. It is not now possible to give any\\nfull account of it, the papers of the town treasurer having\\nshared the fate of the other documents of the old town.\\nGreat irregularities in levying and collecting taxes were com-\\nmon during the first century of the town. June 13, 1681, ex.\\ngr. John Whipple chosen Moderator Whereas our\\nMagestrates, with some others, took upon them to make a\\nrate (as it is said by Town order) and have rated such as by\\n*December 2, 1685. On a question being made as to an order about\\nlands, made in 1658, concerning all the lands on the west side of the\\nMooshassuc, it is recited that said order by reason of damage which\\nour town records sustained in the late Indian War hath miscarried.\\nJuly 27, 1686. A title which had once been recorded was ordered to be\\nagain recorded from the recollection of the town clerk, who asserted that\\nhe had seen it. 1678. Daniel Abbott desires to transfer a return of\\nhis land into the new book from the old, which is much defaced by the\\nIndians, for the more security. His request was granted by the\\ntown meeting.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0124.jp2"}, "125": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. II3\\nTown s order they had not to doe to rate, some being not\\nfreemen, some widdows, some other. Voted by y towne,\\nthat no person or persons whatsoever, shall be rated to pay\\nSergeant s wages or houserent, that are not ireemen of this\\ntowne, or have paid their equal proportion to each of them or\\nany of them that they have paid any order to y*^ contrary\\nhereof in any wise not withstanding.\\nSOME FRAGMENTS ILLUSTRATING THE GROWTH OF THE TOWN\\nUNDER THE RULE OF THE OLD PROPRIETARY MEETINGS.\\nDecember 28, 168 1. Voated by ye Towne that there be a\\nsufficient highway kept for ye Towne s use, of 3 poles wide\\nfrom ye towne streete to ye waterside, that ye Towne if they\\nsee cause, may set up a warfe at the end of it, in the most\\nconvenient place that may be, and in order thereunto, the\\ntwo surveyors Thomas ffield are appointed to state the\\nplace lay it out, and make return to ye Towne Meeting, ye\\nnext Quarter day or as soon as they can doe it. This was\\nby the town, but it needed the assent of the Proprietors\\nbefore any of their own land could be taken. This was a lo-\\ncal improvement designed to give access to the meadows of\\nWeybossett. The warfe and ferry long preceded the\\nbridge. The ferry-boats plied between the towne streete\\nand Weybossett Street all the intervening distance has\\nbeen filled up in modern times. The Proprietors had land\\nenough yet undivided and unimproved on the west side of\\nthe river, but let them have the credit of this bit of enter-\\nprise.\\nUnder the narrow and rigid rule of a society like this,\\nenterprise became impossible. If any of the young men\\nwere infected with it, their only resource was to seek a habi-\\ntation elsewhere. There was no reason why Providence\\nshould not have found in the fisheries and in navigation\\ngreater diversity of occupation and breadth of ideas. Its\\nmaritime advantages were equal to those of Salem, of New-\\n*Any consideration of this subject would occupy too large a space and\\nlead us too far from our present subject.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0125.jp2"}, "126": {"fulltext": "114 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nburyport, or of New London, all active in nautical adventure\\nfrom the beginning but at the close of the seventeenth cen-\\ntury, when the town had some fourteen hundred inhabitants,\\nthere was not among them the owner of a single sea-going\\nvessel. The proprietary estate had been in many ways a\\nheavy burden. The sons of those who had rejected the en-\\nlightened project of Williams, now began to perceive that they\\nhad only postponed the day of their own prosperity. As\\nthey rid themselves of swamp and meadow, rocky and upland,\\nthe townsmen began to study the resources of the Bay. For\\nsixty years few had joined them but beside occasional pur-\\nchasers of small farms. Such was the only property offered\\nin the market of Providence. After Philip s war, some saw\\nthere were other and better things within their reach than\\nthe Indian liquor trade, so vigorously denounced by Williams.\\nIt was in the power of the townsmen to encourage other\\nforms of industry, by promoting iron-works, and the produc-\\ntion of naval stores. But the older generation still desired\\nnone of these things, and consulted only what they conceived\\nto be their own interests, by sales to approved emigrants, or\\nby dividends of lots among themselves.* Their policy was\\nuniform and consistent. So late as 1662, the town meeting\\nhad ordered that, no person whatsoever, whether towns-\\nmen or other shall carry or cause to be carried either directly\\nor indirectly off the Commons any fencing stuff, butts, pipe-\\nstaves, clayboards (sic), shingles, pitch-lights, or any other\\nsort of building timber out of this Plantation, without leave\\nof the town and a heavy penalty was provided for the\\ntransgressor. This was a virtual prohibition of shipbuilding.\\nThe first Proprietors all farmers had no desire to encour-\\nage the foreign or even the coasting trade. So it was still.\\nTwenty years later they adhered to the same policy. Gabriel\\nBernon, a shipowner and merchant, proposing to set up the\\nmanufacture of naval stores, desired for that purpose a lease\\n*The Proprietors so/d lots to their own members on the same terms as\\nto others, but when the lots were given /reefy it was always by an equal\\ndividend to each one of them. This had been an old custom. It was\\nre-affirmed by the Proprietors on the 6th of March, 1693-4. They then\\nvoted that no individual Proprietor should have any land laid out for\\nhimself, but that an equal allotment should be made to all.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0126.jp2"}, "127": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. II 5\\nof pine woods near Pawtucket. In that age of maritime ad-\\nventure and war, Boston men were growing rich by shipment\\nof masts, spars, tar, and turpentine to England. Why should\\nnot Providence have a share in the profit But the Proprie-\\ntors in control of the town meeting peremptorily refused the\\nrequest. This was their resolution on January 27, 1703-4\\nWhereas Mr. Gabriel Bernon exhibited a bill desiring of\\nthis Towne to grant him the use of all the pine trees on the\\nblack hill, from thence to Pawtucket River, within our\\nPlantation, to leake them and make pitch of the turpentine,\\nalso grant him 20 acres of land near that place. The\\nTowne did not see cause to grant the bill.\\nThey were not all equally narrow in their views, and some\\nof the younger Proprietors occasionally joined with the free-\\nholders in thwarting their associates. But still the older\\nProprietors maintained their authority, while the influence of\\nthe seventeenth century ruled the town. There were occa-\\nsional signs that a new generation was growing up.\\nAs the ordinary freeholders increased in numbers, they\\nmade new aggressions upon the lands of the Proprietors west\\nof the seven-mile line. The number of Proprietors was still\\nlimited to loi, and their means of self-protection did not\\nimprove. They built no houses, made no leases, gave no\\nsites to the town, and derived their income only from their\\nsales. This age has been accustomed to regard its small\\nlandholders as a conservative body. It was not so in New\\nEngland in the seventeenth century, as it is not in Old Eng-\\nland of the nineteenth. Some of these saw that if Provi-\\ndence hoped to gain any rank among the New England\\ntowns, it must find some other occupation besides that of\\nquarreling over its land titles. As the old generation slowly\\ndisappeared, whose names ever are associated chiefly with\\nthese local strifes, topics appear in the town meeting book\\nwhich had found no mention in former days. It is only from\\nfragments like these that the history of the Proprietors can\\nbe traced, when the writings of Fox and Williams aid us no\\nmore.\\nDuring their earlier years the Proprietors gave little of\\ntheir estate to any purposes of public benefit. The first of", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0127.jp2"}, "128": {"fulltext": "lib RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nthese was the Town Mill, which, however, was a necessity of\\ntheir own as well as of the freemen at large. They made no\\nimprovements and gave no aid to those who would make\\nthem, even though it might promote the increase of the\\ntown. In order to promote decorum in public meetings, Wil-\\nliams had desired to separate the town meeting from the\\ntavern which- had been its only shelter. To this end, he\\noffered to make a contract with the town to erect a building\\nof convenient size. His project was for a time entertained,\\nbut, through what influences we know not, before it could be\\neffected, the Proprietors or town meeting discharged and\\nreleased him from his undertaking without cooperation or\\nthanks. (See January, 1666, Early Records of Providence,\\nVol. III., p. 92.) They gave no aid to this useful design\\neither of lots or timber, and it was nqt revived during sixty\\nyears. In 1695-6, Quarter day, January 27th, some of the\\nmore enlightened inhabitants asked of the town meeting a\\nspot of land, as they called it, to set a schoolhouse on,\\nabout the highway called Dexter s Lane, or about Stamper s\\nHill. The Proprietors authorized them to take forty feet,\\nsquare, but offered no building material, which would have\\nbeen more valuable, and left the benevolent projectors to ac-\\ncomplish the work as they might. They were not successful.\\nThe fathers of the town never perceived that small gifts,\\nfrom their estate would have increased the value of the whole\\ndomain. They gave no aid of lots or timber for the building\\nof wharves or bridges or public works, nor allowed any one\\nto fell trees for such uses. They waited for other men s im-\\nprovements to make their own estate more valuable, while it\\nwas still exempted from the taxes which were borne by the\\nrest of the community. Long after the beginning of the\\neighteenth century, so long as they met with the town meet-\\ning, at which they wielded the power of the town, they de-\\nnied residence in it to every one who did not please their\\nfancy. One or two examples may suffice At a Town Meet-\\ning, Quarter day, October 27, 1705, Thomas Olney, Moderator,\\nSamuel Mead desired of the town to accommodate him with\\nforty or fifty acres of land, or what they see cause. The\\nPurchasers Proprietors having considered his bill, do not see", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0128.jp2"}, "129": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. II 7\\ncause to accommodate him with any land. Samuel Ralph\\nhaving desired for an accommodation of lands, but the Pro-\\nprietors do not see cause to grant it. It might be thought\\nthat one who offered to buy or to cultivate fifty acres of wild\\nland was not a useless or undesirable citizen, but in many\\nsuch cases the application was rejected, apparently, for no\\nbetter reason than personal dislike. [Those who would be-\\ncome inhabitants of the Plantations were still forced to buy\\nland directly from the Proprietors. This alone gave them a\\nfoothold. The freemen who had already bought, seldom sold\\ntheir homesteads in those days. The greater number of\\nrecorded sales were still directly from the Proprietors. The\\ndeeds were still returned by the Proprietors surveyors and\\nconfirmed by the town meeting, before they could be\\nrecorded.]\\nThe generation then living (1702) were a little more liberal.\\nApril 27, Quarter day, twenty acres were granted, but for\\nlife only, to John Tabor, on account of the burning of his\\nhouse goods. He was an ancient inhabitant, is mentioned\\nwith respect, and was in danger of becoming a charge upon\\nthe town. But such displays of generosity were infrequent.\\nNow that in a new generation a demand for town lots had\\nsprung up, though it was but small, the private meetings of\\nthe purchasers and proprietors became more frequent. These\\nwere appointed at other times than those of the regular\\ntown meetings, and were only for the purpose of consider-\\ning matters relating to lands. (See January 27, 1693-4.) The\\nProprietors had many questions before them which do not\\nvex citizens of modern days. They enquired not merely as\\nto the solvency of the buyer, but as to his fitness for becom-\\ning an inhabitant of the town. Such doubts were not always\\nsolved without difference of opinion and debate.\\nSixth March, 1693-4. It is ordered that after the last\\nday of April next at the first opportunity convenient, the\\nPurchasers surveyor may proceed to lay out the land on the\\nwest side of the seven-mile line, 150 acres to each right,\\ngiving notice of the same, that each person may repayre to\\ntake his turne, according to his draught or lott. Arthur\\nffenner had become impatient of the chances of the proceed-", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0129.jp2"}, "130": {"fulltext": "Il8 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nings, and laid out land for himself. His acts were adjudged\\nto be illegal. This dividend was ordered privately, and with-\\nout consultation with the town meeting. Sales of town lots\\nwere frequent during this year. Whoever has any curiosity\\nrespecting the dividend of this year, may find the order of\\nthe Proprietors respecting it, in the records of December 28,\\n1694. The town was not yet very prosperous, and it was\\nnecessary to give some encouragement to craftsmen.* April\\n27,1696. Thomas Olney, Moderator. It is granted\\nunto Joseph Goldsmith at his request, that he may have lib-\\nerty to set up a smith s shop upon the common between\\nThomas Harris, his lott, and Samuel Whipple s house, pro-\\nvided he damnifieth not the highway. This was in the part\\nof the town street, now called Constitution Hill. We\\nhave many illustrations from the records that the townsmen\\nof those days were not so delicate in their sensibility to\\nannoyance by sights or sounds or odors as their descendants\\nin our day. We have now sufficient evidence of the new di-\\nrection in which young ambition was seeking success. April\\n27, 1697. Thomas Olney, Moderator. Whereas Ar-\\nthur ffenner hath desired ye grant of a ninety foot lott on\\nWaybossett side, near Muddy bridge, the Towne have con-\\nsidered his request doe conclude that each Proprietor ought\\nto be equal in those sort of lotts, according to proportion,\\ntherefore doe defer ye matter to farther consideration a\\nway may be so considered ordered that each Proprietor be\\nso accommodated, there being several bills before depending\\nfor a way for like grants. The old practice was becoming\\nburdensome. An enterprising Proprietor who wished to un-\\ndertake some mercantile business must first assume the labor\\nof procuring a general dividend, and still be uncertain\\nwhether he should draw the lot which he wanted, or that\\nthe Proprietor who had drawn it would sell it to him, Ar-\\nthur ffenner had renewed the old agitation. On the 7th of\\nFebruary, 1697-8, a committee was appointed for a grant of\\nforty-foot lotts, called warehouse lotts. On the 7th of Feb-\\n*Had there been much demand for mechanical labor, the artificers\\nwould have come without encouragement.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0130.jp2"}, "131": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. I IQ\\nruary, 1697-8, it was ordered that the Purchasers and Pro-\\nprietors meet together on the loth of March to consider of\\na division of land on the seven-mile line, and to take order for\\neffecting the same. loth of March. Ordered that each per-\\nson who shall have right to land on ye west side of ye seven-\\nmile line, pay in i shilling for running ye western line of our\\nPlantation, before he shall have any land laid out on ye west\\nside of ye 7 mile line. The population was still so scattered\\nthat the boundary was not well marked and needed renewal.\\nIt seems that the old Proprietors were not always more\\nprompt in their payments than some of their posterity have\\nbeen, and that they sometimes needed to be sharply reminded\\nof the fact.\\nWhen lots were wanted for some use deemed public, the\\ntown meeting, disregarding the old law, now began to help\\nthemselves out of the Proprietors estate, and to be charitable\\nat their expense. Sometimes they still permitted an influen-\\ntial citizen to exchange his lot for a better one. We have\\nalready remarked upon the want of any constitutional protec-\\ntion to property in those days, and the Proprietors, so long\\nas their lots were still numerous, were careful not to risk\\ntheir popularity by refusal of a favor. A few examples will\\nsuffice: July 27, 1699. Whereas J. Olney hath this day\\ndesired of the Towne to accommodate him with a lot, forty\\nfoote square to set a smith s shop upon, what other use,\\nmay be made of the same, the Towne having considered the\\nbill, in consideration that the sdadjohn Olney hath not land\\nin the town to build upon, and the town being desirous that\\nhe should follow his trade of a smith in ye towne, doe grant\\nunto the said John Olney that he shall have a forty foote lott\\nin the Western end of the lane called Dexter s lane, neare\\nabout the place where the stocks now stand, and so to be\\nlaid out, as it may not damnify the highway. The family\\ntook care of their poor relations at the public expense.\\nIn an age of constant war and dread of French invasion,\\nmilitary exercises were everywhere popular. Several training\\nfields were provided out of the proprietary estate, on the\\nwest side of the town. These were not very extensive, none\\nof them exceeding three acres in extent. The evolutions", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0131.jp2"}, "132": {"fulltext": "I20 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nthere performed could have caused little alarm to Canada or\\nto France. January 27, 1698-9. The town meeting grants\\nthree acres for a training place. July 27, 1699, another train-\\ning field was established west of the Mooshassuc. The next\\nyear saw the most valuable gift as yet made by the Proprie-\\ntors. It was proposed by Thomas Olney, doubtless with\\ntheir assent. Let it not detract from their merit and their\\nforecast, that this was the most barren and desolate sandhill\\nin the town of which no one, during sixty years, had shown\\nany inclination to relieve them. In the month of June, 1700,\\nthe North Burying Ground was established. It was to re-\\nmain in perpetual common for a training field and for the\\nburial of the dead. Notwithstanding their declaration of\\ntrust, the town sold a part of the land at the south end of\\nthe field, but the city has made a more ample purchase at\\nthe north, and its perpetuity is well assured. So conserva-\\ntive were the old townsmen of their primitive custom of\\nsepulture, that little use was made of the new cemetery dur-\\ning twenty years, except for military purposes. Gravestones\\nand monuments of any kind were then so few that it cannot\\nbe determined when interment at the north end became\\nthe usual practice of the town. Many of the old Proprietors\\nhave there their resting places let it preserve a kindly re-\\nmembrance of one good deed of care and thoughtfulness for\\nthose who were to follow them.\\nThe Proprietors town property was now in some danger of\\nmelting away, from the liberal grants of the town meeting.\\nStrangers to their society who sought to enter upon mercan-\\ntile pursuits which were generally declined by the Proprietors\\nwere now presenting petitions for warehouse lots, by the\\nwaterside. There were long rows of these lots as yet unoc-\\ncupied, in the unnamed swamp, where are now Weybosset\\nand Westminster streets, and on the west side of the town\\nstreet, opposite to the home lots on the east side. Buyers\\nwere impatient of the rule of the Proprietors and the town\\nwas standing still. The freeholders now persisted in voting\\nupon all questions relating to the sales of proprietary lands.\\nIt was not always easy, in a thinly attended town meeting to\\ndetermine who the Proprietors were. They might be caught", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0132.jp2"}, "133": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 121\\nunawares, when few of their number were present, as no\\nprevious notice seems to have been required of a motion to\\ngive away or sell one of their lots. By their liberal grants\\nfrom the commons, the freemen were threatening the se-\\ncurity of estates which the Proprietors would not willingly\\nsuffer to pass from their control. It became necessary to\\ndivide these among themselves, if they would retain them in\\nany form. In 1697-8, petitions for warehouse lots were be-\\ncoming frequent and the slow-moving Proprietors would sell\\nonly in their own time and way. In that year they divided to\\neach of themselves, a warehouse lot in Waybossett or in the\\ntown street. This was not by lottery, but they generally\\ngranted to each of their number the water lot opposite his\\nhomestead. These were of the width of forty feet, and little\\nforethought or care was shown in leaving alleys between\\nthem for future access to the river. These narrow lanes are\\nan inheritance from the old agricultural proprietors. For\\nmodern streets we are indebted to the new commercial free-\\nmen. The aggressions of this new class of townsmen did\\nnot ceasCj and in 1703-4, February 17th, the Proprietors car-\\nried this resolution in the town meeting. It was drawn up\\nin this rasping and peremptory manner, by Thomas Olney,\\nthe town clerk. Whereas several persons have exhibited\\nbills desiring a grant to them of Warehouse lots it hath been\\nconsidered that the land in this Town belongs to the Pur-\\nchasers (as to what lies in common undivided), and that those\\npersons who may legally vote in matters as to government\\nmay not have to doe to act voate in the disposition of lands,\\nas it may plainly appear by several passages in our Towne\\nRecords. Therefore if they are inclinable to propagate their\\ndesire (if they see cause), they may apply themselves to the\\nPurchasers at their meeting. (The original record is in the\\nhandwriting of Thomas Olney.) The law which separated\\nthese two classes of voters marked also the social distinction\\nwhich prevailed without complaint or cavil during the colo-\\nnial time.\\nIn the eighteenth century, now begun, the old tumults\\nand heats in the town meetings came to an end. The legal\\nstatus of the proprietary corporation was now everywhere", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0133.jp2"}, "134": {"fulltext": "122 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nrecognized. It had only to fear the depredations of secret\\nplunderers, who, in the absence of a police, were not easily\\nrestrained.* So late as February, 17 15, the swine of the\\nfreeholders ran riot in the wood lands, which in their unen-\\nclosed condition seemed to invite attack.f\\nThe thatch beds of coarse reedy grass, growing about the\\ncove and along the Wonasquatucket, were, from an early pe-\\nriod, regarded as a valuable possession by the Proprietors,\\nand by the town. Each party had beds exclusively its own,\\nwhich it guarded with jealous care.ij: In July, 1685, there had\\nbeen farther efforts by the town meeting to prevent cutting\\nthe grass by any but those who were authorized by the re-\\nspective owners. As the town grew larger, and the modest\\ndwellings of those days more numerous, the loss was sensibly\\nfelt by the treasuries of both town and proprietary. The fol-\\nlowing vote (July 27, 1704), shows something of their mutual\\nrelations, at least as respected one not unimportant source of\\nrevenue. Whereas, by several persons of this town there\\nhath been this day, a bill exhibited to the purchasers, now\\nmet, that by them care might be taken for the orderly cutting\\nof the thatch-grass on the thatch-beds which are within our\\ntownship of Providence, so that each Purchaser Proprietor\\nin the commons belonging to in said Township may have his\\nproportion of the said thatch-grass according to his propor-\\ntion of comon which he hath within said township, not for\\nthose who have a smaller or lesser part or right in the comon\\nto deprive these, of those just parts of the said thatch-grass\\nwho have a greater more full right to ye said comons, but\\nsuch purchaser or proprietor may have of the said thatch-\\ngrass proportionable according unto what his right of comon\\nis therefore for the propagation thereof, the Purchasers now\\nmet doe order appoint Mr. Joseph Williams, Major John\\n*February 26, 1710-11. Swine were to be restrained from going on the\\ncommons without yoakes and rings.\\nfMay 22, 17 10. Ordered that no goates shall be left to goe at liberty\\non ye common, but shall be confined within their owners land. (So also\\nof horses.) The number of such voates proves that they were not\\nenforced.\\nIJuly 17, 1682, a fine of ten shillings was imposed upon every one who\\ncut the thatch-beds without authority.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0134.jp2"}, "135": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 1 23\\nDexter Captain Thomas ffenner, to draw up in writing,\\nsome method way how in what order, the matter pre-\\nmised may suitably be affected and to propose it to the pur-\\nchasers at their meeting on Monday the 14th of August next.\\nIn order thereunto, it is hereby ordered that the Purchasers\\nshall meet together on Monday the 14th day of August\\nnext. On the same day order was taken for the building\\nof a bridge from the Town side of the salt water in Provi-\\ndence Towne, adjoining against the west end of the lott\\nwhere Daniell Abbott his dwelling house standeth, so\\nacross the water unto the hill called Weybossett Hill.\\nA committee was appointed to solicit contributions from the\\nprincipal inhabitants. Like most attempts to raise money\\nfor public works by voluntary contribution, this one met with\\nno success. The Proprietors offered neither lots nor timber,\\nand the people waited patiently during several years to come.\\n(The first bridge extended from the Towne Streete, to the\\npresent opening of Weybosset Street, and the successive\\nbridges have been shortened with the gradual filling up of\\nthe river.)\\nThe prosperity of the Proprietors was probably not much\\ndiminished by the depredations of swine and goats. But as\\ntime went on there were new and more serious causes of ap-\\nprehension. During sixty years they had been occasional\\nsellers of small parcels of swamp and meadow. They were\\nnow the chief holders of town lots, and many freemen who\\nwere not of their society were anxious to procure homesteads\\nfor themselves and for their friends. The town was enlarg-\\ning its borders. The hundred and one Proprietors had long\\nceased to be the majority of the town meeting, and the admo-\\nnitions of Thomas Olney, that the freemen who were not of\\ntheir number had no right to vote away the domain of the\\nProprietors, were failing of their effect. These were unwil-\\nling to provoke the resentment of the freemen, who had\\nlearned the power which the old institutions of the town gave\\n*It is to be feared that the limited skill and eloquence of Major Dex-\\nter and Captain ffenner were unable to restrain the householders, whose\\nhumble dwellings were in need of new roofs, from helping themselves to\\nthis spontaneous product of the earth, wherever they might find it.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0135.jp2"}, "136": {"fulltext": "124 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nthem. The old law by which all deeds were invalid until\\nthey had been approved by the town meeting, was still in\\nforce. If the Proprietors were not as liberal in their gifts\\nof lots as the popular majority desired, it was in the power\\nof the town meeting to delay or prevent all their dividends\\nand sales. This had been done in one instance where they\\nhad prevented a division during nearly two years, by refusing\\nto record the deeds. The society was not desirous of any\\nrenewal of the strife. But such votes as the following were\\nbecoming rather too frequent On the Town s Quarter day,\\nThursday, January 27, 1703-4, Thomas Olney, Moderator\\nA lot forty feet square was granted to William Edmunds to\\nset a blacksmith shop on it, within the space of one year\\nfrom this day, the which if he fails of so doing, then the said\\npiece of land shall return again to the Towne. This lot lay\\nbetween the lands of Joseph Whipple, half-way up what is\\nnow Constitution Hill, and the prison-house, at the head\\nof it. On the same day a lot forty feet square was granted\\nby the Town Meeting to William Smith for a weaver s shop.\\nThe conditions were the same, to build within a year, and to\\nfollow his trade. Such votes savoured too much of the com-\\nmunistic theories of modern days. This was a cheap and\\neasy method of being charitable at the expense of other peo-\\nple, and the resort to it was becoming more frequent. The\\nadmonition of Thomas Olney produced no effect, and in a\\nfew years the danger became threatening.\\nThe Proprietors still clung tenaciously to their old agricul-\\ntural pursuits and habits, and did not welcome the new age\\nwhich was coming in. The wilderness beyond the seven-\\nmile line was yielding to the axe and plough, and already\\nafforded some little trade to the town street. It was now\\nsought, not so much to prevent the sale of timber as to con-\\nfine it as a monopoly to its chief owners.* As the Proprie-\\n*February ye 6th, 1709-10. It is ordered that no strangers nor\\nany other person who is not interested in ye Common of our Plantation,\\nof his own right, shall cut down, carry away, or make improvement of,\\nany cedar or pine timber, or any other sort of Timber in our Township,\\nor its Comon, unless they have grant from ye body of ye purchasers\\nproprietors and if any shall presume to act contrary to this order, they", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0136.jp2"}, "137": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 1 25\\ntors neither built nor improved nor enclosed, most of their\\ncorporate property outside the town streete had grown\\nup into woodland. They were the chief holders of timber\\nlands of which they desired to make some advantage in the\\nage of navigation which was before them. The freemen\\nshowed little inclination to aid the Proprietors in guarding\\ntheir estate, and as the younger and more active citizens\\nthey had learned some political devices which would have\\ndone no discredit to a later day. Thus, the Proprietors ap-\\npointed a private meeting of their own, at an early hour in\\nthe morning, to make arrangements for acting in concert in\\nthe town meeting of that day. The younger men, it seems,\\nwere earlier risers than their elders, and thus thwarted their\\ndesign. At a Towne Meeting, June ye 6th, 1709.\\nThe Meeting is adjourned to ye 9th instant in ye morning,\\nbefore the Purchasers meeting begins.\\nWhile the Proprietors estate lasted, the thatch-beds were\\na continual source of annoyance as well as profit, and the\\nassociation endeavored to rid itself of them, as they had done\\nwith the farm lands beyond the seven-mile line. This is an\\nextract from a resolution of July 27th, 1706 Ordered that\\nevery particular share of said thatch-bed shall be divided\\nout to each person who are proprietors, according to their\\nproportion, between this day and the first of May next ensu-\\ning, and each person to pay his share of money for the di-\\nviding,] before he receiveth his (part This part of the\\nthatch-beds that beyond the cove seems to have given\\nno farther trouble. A single owner could watch his own por-\\ntion far more effectively than a committee or the agents of\\nthe Proprietors could keep guard over the whole.\\nBut the old vexations remained. Few would trouble them-\\nselves to make, still less to enforce, laws intended solely for\\nshall be liable to be dealt withall in a due course of law by legal prose-\\ncution. Neither shall any person who is interested in the commons of\\nour towne, grant leave to any stranger or give to act with any ye timber on\\nye towne s Commons, as aforesaid unless it be with ye consent of ye body\\nof ye said Purchasers Proprietors.\\n*Eight o clock, A. M. was not an unusual hour for the town meeting.\\ntThis payment was for surveyors and other expenses. They had\\nnothing to pay for the land itself.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0137.jp2"}, "138": {"fulltext": "126 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nthe benefit of the Proprietors estate. The ravages of swine\\n(see for example January 27, 1712) upon the unenclosed com-\\nmons were again before the town meeting. The Proprietors\\nwere now a hopeless minority. They were chiefly residents\\nof the compact part of the town, while the freemen, their\\nold enemies, controlled the remainder. They could now expect\\nlittle from the town meeting, and could only stand on the\\ndefensive and protect themselves. They hesitated long.\\nThomas Olney, the second of the name, had spent all his\\nbest years in the office of town clerk. He was the depositary\\nof the town s traditions, and knew all its land titles and its\\nlocal history. He was in all things a lover and a preserver\\nof things gone by. He had lived through its controversies\\nand its disasters, and had learned sufficient law to guard it\\nagainst serious mistakes.* He remembered the time when\\nhis father, Thomas Olney, and his proprietary brethren had\\nbeen the whole town meeting. His own life had been spent\\nin the support of their interests while they were a declining\\nminority in numbers, and now through his sagacious pur-\\nchases he was probably the wealthiest among them. He\\ncould not endure any radical change in the Proprietors rela-\\ntions with their fellow-townsmen, although he knew that\\ntheir political ascendency had hopelessly gone by. Such was\\nhis authority among them while he lived, that no separation\\ncould be accomplished. When he was laid to rest in the\\nquiet of his home lot, on the hill side, his surviving\\nbrethren yielded to a necessity which he could not or would\\nnot see. In 1718 (the precise date cannot now be ascertained),\\nthe Proprietors withdrew their affairs from the cognizance\\nand control of the town meeting. The landed corporation\\nnow elected its own clerk and began its own series of records,\\nby which they hoped to secure their property and perpetuate\\nthe memory of their acts.f In what form their withdrawal\\nwas signified we know not, for nothing respecting it appears\\nupon the town book. After using the town s machinery\\n*In his last will he mentions my law book called Coke upon Little-\\nton, which had been a gift from William Harris.\\nfThey probably believed that they could thus escape the effect of the\\ntown law which subjected all deeds to a vote of approval by the town\\nmeeting, before they could be entered upon the town records.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0138.jp2"}, "139": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 1 27\\nfor their own interests, during nearly fourscore years, they\\nparted with this curt and summary intimation that they\\nneeded it no longer. Thenceforth they set up for themselves,\\nas a private land company.\\nIt may surprise one who remembers their incorporation\\nunder the act of 1682, that no doubt or question was sug-\\ngested as to their legal right to do this. The imbecility of\\nthe Colonial Courts of Rhode Island was never more signally\\nmanifested. But no one knew law enough in those days to\\nmake any objections. The courts were merely popular assem-\\nblages, with judges not better informed than their neighbors.\\nThe utmost which could now be feared was a hot dispute in\\nthe town meeting. The Proprietors knew well with whom\\nthey were dealing and no ill consequences followed.*\\nTheir position after the separation from the town meeting\\nwas better than ever before. The town had not hesitated\\nwhen it served its purpose to use their land as a charitable\\nfund. But they could not transfer the lot of one private\\nowner to another, and these aggression and gifts by the town\\nmeeting, once frequent, now came to an end. As Judge Sta-\\nples has observed, the Proprietors never objected to the\\ntown s taking to itself a lot which was needed for public\\nuses, whether permanent or transitory. Far on in the last\\ncentury, the town had little corporate property of its own,\\nexcepting its bridges and wharf and a small school house\\nholding its public meetings at the chief inns. Its public\\nfunctionaries, the town clerk, treasurer, c., kept their offices\\nand papers in their own houses, to the great detriment of\\nthe public archives. A temporary hospital was a sufficient\\nprovision for occasional visitations of yellow fever or small\\npox. The public demand for such sites was infrequent, and\\nit was but a trifling burden on the liberality of the corpora-\\ntion. It was a gain to the Proprietors if the town took one\\nof their lots and improved it, and thus made their other\\nestates more valuable. They made no objections or claims\\nfor compensation when lands were taken for roads for the\\n*The Legislature would do nothing for Providence. The town was\\nalways unpopular, and its town meetings and its parties had little to hope\\nfor from the General Assembly.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0139.jp2"}, "140": {"fulltext": "128 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nferry at Narrow passage, where is now Red Bridge for\\nthe pest house, as they called it the schools, the jail house,\\nthe town wharf, the market place; the dock or wharffe,\\nwhereon stands the old City Hall. (The prison lot, now the\\nsite of the police office, was given by the Proprietors of Prov-\\nidence in 1753, west of the Court House and adjoining the\\ncove. The jail was erected by the colony on the west end of\\nthis lot and partly over the water. See Staples s Annals,\\npp. 180, 201.) On the other hand, the Proprietors never built\\nor enclosed, or incurred any expense whatsoever. The town\\nmeeting caused but little detriment to the Proprietors, for\\nthe old townsmen were to the last degree frugal in their tax-\\nation and expenditure.\\nWith this new organization, all continuous history of the\\nProprietors comes to a sudden close. Through whose fault\\nor negligence I know not, their records have utterly perished,\\nnot a fragment surviving to the present day. They preserved\\nmany illustrations of Colonial usages and ways of life, which\\ngained in interest for the antiquary, long after they ceased\\nto be of value to the conveyancer. Nothing remains from\\nwhich to prepare a narrative of the decay and extinction of\\nthe once powerful society. The records of its old adversary,\\nthe town meeting, preserve occasional reference to its acts.\\nThese, however, are not many. The Proprietors, as their\\nstrength decayed, carefully avoided conflict, still more, col-\\nlision with the town, especially such as might provoke aggres-\\nsion or illwill. They ordered their sales after their old ways\\nand methods, living prudently upon a capital now augmenting\\nin value, but of which one or two generations would see the\\nend. (See Staples s Annals, p. 36.) In 1718, another div-\\nidend was made, after the old fashion. One hundred and one\\nhouse lots upon the southerly and easterly sides of what is\\nnow called Weybosset Street, and on the west side of the\\ntowne streete, extending northwardly beyond the site\\nof the late Canal Market, and on the south side of\\nOlney s Lane, were distributed, one to each Proprietor s\\nshare. All these lots seem to have been accounted as of\\nequal value. The centre of the town was then at the north\\nend, near the Town Mill and the bridge at Wapwaysett, now", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0140.jp2"}, "141": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 1 29\\nRandall Street. The land on the west side of the towne\\nstreete, north of Mile-end Cove, was platted and divided\\ninto warehouse lots. In most cases, these were sold by\\nthe Proprietors to the owners of the houses opposite, on the\\neast side of the street. Other lots were sold freely to such\\nas desired them. Sometimes a dividend was made to each\\npurchase right, or share. The site of his lot was left to\\neach Proprietor to choose for himself. As of old, it was then\\nsurveyed by the Proprietors surveyor, allowed by the Propri-\\netors and recorded by the Proprietors clerk. Many of those\\nwho bought from them, did not regard their records as a suffi-\\ncient security, and caused their deeds to be again recorded\\nin the books of the town clerk. Through sales and dividends,\\nmost of the lots upon the chief thoroughfares now passed\\ninto private ownership. But so late as June 6th, I757 it is\\nmentioned, with apparent dissatisfaction, in the town records,\\nthat very much land in Providence Neck was still unenclosed\\nand unsold.\\nThe association had now entered upon its best and most\\nprosperous days. During the third decade of the last cen-\\ntury, the nominal price of a lot in or near the towne street,\\nwas ;^30 or }^2 as large a nominal sum as Williams had\\nreceived for the whole purchase, a century before. The com-\\nmercial period of the town had begun. Houses of two stories\\nin height were now everywhere superseding the humble\\ndwellings of the primitive land owners, and Spanish sugars,\\nwines and cloths from the West Indies and the Spanish main\\nwere offered in the shops of the town street.\\nThe Proprietors were still the chief land owners and their\\ntitle deeds the most numerous. During the first half of the\\nlast century, a Proprietor s share seems to have been one\\nof the most valuable inheritances in Providence, its capacity\\nfor yielding nourishment being far from exhausted. With\\nthe old generations old controversies had passed away. A\\nnew cause of irritation from without had united the Proprie-\\ntors and the freeholders. The new freemen, beyond the\\nseven-mile line, the successors of the 25 acre men of\\nformer days, kept alive their old griefs and avenged them\\nupon the men of the town street Proprietors and free-", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0141.jp2"}, "142": {"fulltext": "130 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nholders alike. The commercial interests of the town now\\nformed a compact union to oppose the issue of illimitable\\nreams of paper money, by which the country party sought to\\nrelieve its own improvidence and insolvency at the expense\\nof the honor and credit of the colony. The real money so\\nmuch as there was of it was in the compact part of Prov-\\nidence Town, and the country sought, with too much success,\\nto thrust its own burdens upon its old enemies.\\nDuring many years the never-failing topic of the thatch\\nbeds near the cove and the river valleys was the chief point\\nof contact of the Proprietors with the town meeting. This\\ncoarse, reedy grass always yielded some revenue, and was of\\nsome interest to that economical assembly. Some of those\\nthatch beds had been claimed by the town and had been\\nyielded to it by the Proprietors, and so in other years, but\\nwhen or how, cannot now be ascertained. During the last\\ncentury their rental or income had a conspicuous place in the\\ntown s accounts. Thus 30th of August, 1748. It is voated\\nordered that Richard Waterman, Town Clark, do let,\\nlease out the Town s lands, at the place called the Grate\\nPoint in Providence, to the highest bidder, for the space of\\nseven years, that he sign execute a lease to such persons\\nas he shall agree with, and that he sign such lease on behalf\\nof the Town. Last Tuesday of August, 1769: The thatch\\nat the Great Point high bank, sold to James Angell for\\ntwenty four shillings lawful money. 1767, 6th of July: The\\nthatch belonging to the Town, sold this day in open Town\\nMeeting to Knight Dexter for \u00c2\u00a36s, old tenor.\\nThere are not many now remaining among us who remem-\\nber the old Grate Poynt. It was a long and not unpic-\\nturesque cape, as the boys called it who flocked thither,\\nfresh from their geographies, for their daily swim after\\nschool hours. The cape projected into the cove in a\\nsoutherly direction, and was still overgrown with the ancient\\nthatch grass. The water was clear and pure, and afforded to\\na long succession of school boys our first lessons in aquatic\\nexercises. The cape disappeared when so large a portion\\nof the cove was filled up for the building of the Worcester\\nRailroad, 1843-44.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0142.jp2"}, "143": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. I3I\\nThe thatch beds had their historical associations. They\\nwere the last remnant of the reserve for which Williams\\nfought so stout a battle. With the separation of the proprie-\\ntorship from the town meeting came the end of the reser-\\nvation which he had fondly hoped would be a refuge for\\npersons distressed for conscience. We have seen that\\nthough the early Proprietors assented to a reservation for\\nthe use of the townsmen, they would never consent to its\\nappropriation to any particular class, and never gave to Wil-\\nliams or Clarke authority to make such an offer in England.\\n(See Town Meeting Records, Vol. IX., p. 278.) It appeared\\nby the Proprietors Records, that in 1658 a tract of land con-\\ntaining a thousand acres or more was stated perpetually to\\nbe lie in common, embracing a large part of what is now\\nNorth Providence and terminating with the hill north of the\\ncove and Great Point. This order was lost or it miscarried\\nbecause of the Indian War. The Proprietors meeting on\\nthe 2d day of December, 1685: In view of the necessity of\\nsome lands perpetually to be lie in common, near unto our\\nTown, for the use and benefit of the inhabitants, enacted\\nordered, that all the tract mentioned afore, which was then\\nin common, should forever remain be in common, that\\nall parts of said tract which were then taken up by any per-\\nson which should at any time be laid down to common, should\\ncontinually so remain; which order was declared irrever-\\nsible without the full unanimous consent of the whole\\nnumber of the Purchasers. It appeared by the Proprietors\\nrecords that, notwithstanding this order, at a Proprietors\\nmeeting, 13th March, 1724, a committee was appointed by the\\nProprietors to divide the said stated common among the Pro-\\nprietors themselves. This committee wasted no time, and on\\nthe 15th of June, reported a division and a plat. This plat was\\naccepted, allowed and confirmed by a clear vote and lots\\ndrawn for the different shares. Upon the examination of this\\nplat there appeared to have been left a small piece of land\\n(the southern and eastern extremities of Great Point) un-\\ndivided, of which the town kept possession as part of the\\n*This was a very common formula in those days and not very much\\nregarded.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0143.jp2"}, "144": {"fulltext": "132 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\ncommon stated in 1658, until the year 1747, leasing it and\\nreceiving the rents, issues and profits. On the i8th of May,\\n1747, a vote was passed by the Proprietors for the sale of\\nthis land, and a committee was appointed who sold it to Noah\\nWhipple for ^57, old tenor. It appears (Town Records Vol.\\nIX., p. 279) that at the next term of the Inferior Court of\\nCommon Pleas for the County of Providence, an action of\\ntrespass and ejectment was brought by Noah Whipple\\nagainst John Whipple, then in possession as lessee of the\\ntown, by lease dated 29th of January, 1 740-1. There was a\\nverdict for the defendant on a plea of possession. The plain-\\ntiff did not enter or prosecute any appeal. From that time\\nuntil 1 82 1 it appears from the votes of the town and from\\nthe conveyances of adjoining lands, that the town are the\\nowners of a piece of land situate at that place. This is a\\nspecimen of the confusion which existed in divers places as\\nto the town s and the Proprietors property. It was due to\\nthe ignorance of both bench and bar in those days. When\\nany such matter came to a practical issue, the Proprietors\\ngenerally had the worst of it. The exact quantity of the\\nabove tract the town s committee in 1823 could not ascer-\\ntain. But it appears that the town had a right to about five\\nacres. The heirs of Nathaniel Smith of Providence were in\\npossession of part of the said five acres, being about one and\\nthree-quarters, and the heirs of John Brown claim two acres.\\nSaid Smith and Brown and their grantees had been in pos-\\nsession of the said lands for a long time previous. The value\\nof the land is not sufficient to warrant a suit for its recovery\\nby law. (From a report of a committee appointed by the\\ntown meeting, August, 1823 Vol. IX., Town Meeting Rec-\\nords, pp. 279-80 to examine the title to the thatch beds\\nbelonging to the town.) The late Judge Staples was one of\\nthat committee. He was the Proprietors clerk and fur-\\nnished the extract, one of the very few which remain, from\\ntheir book of records. One and one-quarter acres were all\\nthat was left undisputed. Thus ended a far-sighted project\\nfor the public good, which Williams had conceived with per-\\nhaps not well-considered benevolence, and which the first\\ngeneration of Proprietors had left as their chief contribution", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0144.jp2"}, "145": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 1 33\\nto the charities of the town. Whatever hopes there may have\\nbeen of parks or pleasure grounds, or gifts to public utility,\\nhave long since faded away. (See Town Records, Vol. IX.,\\np. 265 see Book of Plats, Weybosset Street to the water.)\\nThe third generation of Proprietors divided all into small\\nallotments for themselves. They were suffered to do as they\\npleased, with but little dissent, as the wealthy landholders of\\nthose days generally were. They probably wondered at the\\nenmity which they sometimes excited.\\nThis is the last dividend of which any record remains. The\\ncourts of that day knew nothing of trusts or of the manner\\nof enforcing their execution. Through their ignorance this\\npoor remnant was all which remained of the liberal reserva-\\ntion by the first Proprietors for the beneiit of the town which\\nthey had planted.\\nTheir history has few more recorded incidents. Other inter-\\nests had surperseded theirs in the regard of a new generation.\\nFrom 1730 to 1760 their sales were frequent and profitable.\\nA Proprietors share was still one of the best inheritances\\nin the Plantations. Descendants of Browns, Arnolds, Olneys,\\nAngells and Watermans, found, year by year, new reasons\\nfor blessing the memory of their exiled ancestors, and were\\nconsoled for their fathers sufferings by substantial dividends\\nfrom their estates. The seven-years war (1756-1763), like\\nmost others, created an artificial prosperity. It crowded the\\nwharves of Providence with prizes taken by privateers, and\\nthe temporary excitement caused some demand for house\\nlots in a day in which nothing was known of bonds or shares.\\nThis was followed by the usual torpor and stagnation. The\\nRevolution paralyzed commerce. According to the late Mr,\\nRowland, not a single house was built here during seven\\nyears. As the years went on, the lessening number of their\\ndeeds, and the more obscure character of the property con-\\nveyed, indicated that their capital was wasting away. Their\\nconveyances, which filled so large a space in the earlier vol-\\numes of the town records, now become comparatively few,\\nand at the end of the century almost disappeared. After the\\nrevival of the commerce of the town, with the wars of the\\nFrench Republic and Empire, an occasional deed may be", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0145.jp2"}, "146": {"fulltext": "134 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nfound on record, but the corporation of Proprietors was the\\ngreat landholder no longer. Young men of a new genera-\\ntion the last which had any participation in their affairs\\nwere now coming into public life. One of these was the late\\nGovernor Philip Allen. He represented a Proprietors share,\\nwhich had long been held by his family. He was fond of\\nlocal history and carefully preserved its details. He attended\\nthe meetings of the Proprietors until the last. The business\\nof the society steadily decreased, and they made up for its\\ncomparative unimportance by the time which they occupied\\nin doing it. There came to their assemblies men whose births\\nhad been registered in the early decades of the last century.\\nThese brought their recollections of old events, customs and\\ntraditions, and who gave their youthful memories of ancient\\nmen who in their own early days had seen Williams, Harris,\\nand the patriarchs of the town. The old corporation had as\\nmuch the appearance of an antiquarian or historical society as\\nof an assembly for business. When the colonial generation\\nhad passed away, the periodical meetings had little value or\\ninterest for the younger members, who had active employ-\\nment of their own. They were still held, but the life of the\\nsociety was ended. There was still some remnant of its old\\nprestige. So late as 1 815 it had still sufficient vitality to main-\\ntain its right against the town in its share of the ancient\\nthatch beds. (Town Meeting Records, Vol. VHL, p. 348.)\\nMonday, July 24th, 1815, a committee was appointed to fix\\nthe bounds of the thatch beds above Weybosset bridge with\\nthose of the Proprietors.\\nThere were possibilities of dormant or contingent rights,\\nwhich the corporation might assert against the town or\\nagainst private citizens. Nearly seventy years ago some at-\\ntempts of this kind were made, chiefly under the direction of\\nMr. Philip Crapo, then a well-known practitioner at the bar.\\nHis claim was, that the town had taken Dorrance Street, or a\\npart of it (formerly called Muddy dock), without compensa-\\ntion to the Proprietors. Other dormant claims to lands which\\nhad been appropriated by the town, would have been revived,\\nif this had been successful. But all such hopes proved delu-\\nsive. Those who remember the late Mr. Crapo, his grotesque", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0146.jp2"}, "147": {"fulltext": "PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 1 35\\nappearance and his peculiar style of oratory, will appreciate\\nthe fact that he met with little success in awakening public\\nsympathy for a cause in itself sufficiently unpopular. Courts\\nwere not more favorable to it than the public from which the\\njurors were to be drawn. Soon after the failure of these at-\\ntempts, the Proprietors meetings altogether ceased. The\\nlast, of which there was any record, was in 1832, and then\\nthis ancient chronicle of grievances and hates was finally and\\nforever closed.\\nThe freeholders were now the owners of every valuable\\nacre and waterfall. Little remained which was of sufficient\\nvalue to justify the expense of litigation. During the earlier\\nyears of this century, the Proprietors plats were in frequent\\nrequisition in the law suits about boundaries with their mon-\\numents of black-oak trees and heaps of stones of which the\\nrural landholders were so fond. The bounds of the Proprie-\\ntors surveyors had lacked every requisite of permanence,\\nwhile estates had descended from father to son, durmg sev-\\neral generations. When the original monuments had decayed,\\nthe landholders could set their stone walls as they pleased,\\nwithout consulting the Proprietors, who had no funds to ex-\\npend upon lawsuits. If any swamp, then regarded as useless,\\nor rocky upland not worth cultivation yet remained unsold,\\nthe statute of possession has long ago confirmed the adverse\\ntitle of its occupants, and the society and its claims are at\\nrest together. It might be difficult to determine when it be-\\ncame extinct. The late Judge Staples was the last holder of\\nthe once dignified and influential office of Proprietors clerk.\\nIn his time it had sadly shrunken and shrivelled from its\\nancient importance. He was little more than a guardian of\\nits records;and a preserver of its traditions. During his long\\nprofessional life he carefully protected its remains. In his\\nAnnals he made no mention of its faults, and passed over\\nwithout reference what he could not defend or eulogize. He\\nleft no successor. No antiquarian has sought to preserve the\\nmemory of the Proprietors since he, their last mourner,\\nwas borne to the grave.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0147.jp2"}, "148": {"fulltext": "136 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.\\nThis is a summary, I hope not an unfair or partial one,\\nof the progress and end of the old Society of the Proprie-\\ntors of Providence, its earliest corporation once powerful,\\nbut now almost unknown. What good it may have done, I\\nhave endeavored to mention in its time and place. The work\\nwas not burdensome, for their deeds of benevolence were few\\nand far between. Their public services did not justify their\\noriginal possession of the entire freehold of the town or their\\nsubsequent incorporation by the State (1682). They never\\nrose to the perception that even liberal gifts of their unsold\\nacres to purposes of public utility would have hastened the\\ngrowth of the Plantations, and thus have been more prof-,\\nitable than a dividend among themselves. All that they,\\naccomplished had been better done by the town itself. Some\\nlong-enduring estates grew up to the comfort of private fam-\\nilies, but little was done to promote the education or well-being\\nof a community which had begun with no other capital. The\\none hundred and one had successfully grasped nearly the whole\\nof the original purchase, by which Williams had hoped to\\nsupply the want of private wealth. They built no monument,\\nto themselves. Whoever passes through our streets to-day,\\nand asks for the memorials of the planters of the town, will\\nfind no park or school or structure, or public work, or gift\\nto charity or learning, for which their successors owe any\\ngratitude to them. In the days of their prosperity they for-\\ngot to do any thing for the town which they had planted, and\\nit in like manner has forgotten them.", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0148.jp2"}, "149": {"fulltext": "GENERAL INDEX.\\nAbbott, 72\\nDaniel, 112, 123\\nAbsolute Swamp, 68\\nAcquetneck, i, 3\\nAllen. Philip, 134\\nAngell, 105, 133\\nJames, 130\\nThomas, 49\\nApaum, 6\\nAquidneck, 30\\nArnold, 105, 133\\nBenedict, 6, 8, 11, 23, So\\nWilliam, 23, 80\\nAssotemewit, 6\\nAthens, 37\\nAtherton Company, 83\\nBaptists, 38\\nBay people, 39, 40\\nBelleau, 56\\nBernon, Gabriel, 114\\nBill of, 115\\nBewitt, Hugh, 22, 68\\nBewitt s Brow, 68\\nBlackstone River, 64, 85\\nBoston, 20, 33, 42\\nBrown, 105, 133\\nChad, 19, 23, 39, 65, 68, 72, 79\\nHenry, 49, 96\\nJohn, 90, 132\\nBurnyeat, 99\\nBurrillville, 87\\nBurrough, William, 49\\nCanada, 120\\nCanonchet, 104\\nCanonicus, i, 5, 6, 8, 13, 79, 80\\nCarpenter, 105\\nEphraim, 105\\nCharles I, 47, 52\\nCharles II, 76, 106, 107\\nCharter, Earl of Warwick, 32, 34\\nChurch, 10, n\\nClarke, John, 56, 63, 76, 95. 131\\nClawson, John, 46, 47, 78\\nClemence, Thomas, 50, 100\\nClement, Thomas, 49\\nCoddington, 58, 71, 77, 80, 98\\nColonial Assembly, 88\\nCommissioners, general court of, 73\\nCommon, 78\\nlands, 24, 26, 43, 91\\nlots, 47, 50\\nConfirmation, 8\\ndeeds, 80\\nConnecticut Colony, 9, 29, 57, 58,\\n81,88\\nConstitution Hill, 81, 124\\nCotton, John, 55\\nCourt of Trials, 77, 97\\nCoweset, 104\\nCranston, 55, 87\\nCrapo, Philip, 134\\nCromwell, Oliver, 52, 58, 62, 73, 75\\nDean, 73\\nDeeds, 47, 52, 79, 80, 89, 90, 94, 124,\\n133 135; see Initial Deed.\\nDemocracie, 37, 40\\nDexter, Gregory, 22, 28, 39, 45, 53,\\n58, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 78, 8i,\\n90, 94, 96, 99, 100\\nJohn, 123\\nDexter Asylum, 17\\nDexter s Lane, 116, 119\\nDisposers, 21\\nDorchester, Mass., 46, 81\\n(137)", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0149.jp2"}, "150": {"fulltext": "138\\nGENERAL INDEX.\\nDyer, 58\\nEdmunds, William, 124\\nEllis, James, 15\\nEngland, i, 2, 7, 22, 26, 31, 32,\\n38, 39. 56, 5S, 62, 66, 69, 72,\\n5 131\\nEurope, 62\\nFamily of Love, 62\\nFellowship of vote, 14, 88, 93,\\nFenner, Arthur, 49, 83, 90, 94,\\n96, 99, loi, 102, 104, 117, 118\\nJohn, 48\\nThomas, 123\\nField, 59\\nJohn, 23, 59, 72, 113\\nWilliam, 48\\nField s Point, 17\\nFifth Monarchy men, 62, 63\\nFifty-acre division, 93\\nFirst Memorandum, 14\\nFoote, 60\\nJoshua, 105\\nFoster, 87\\nFour-mile line, 93, 103\\nFowler, Henry, 60\\nFox, 99, 115\\nGeorge, 98, 99\\nFox s Hill, 3, 48\\nFrance, i, 120\\nFreeholders, i, 19, 53,59, 65, 67,\\n7i.9i 93. 94, 96,98,99) 100,\\n112, 115, 120, 122, 129, 135\\nFreemen, 36, 113\\nGeneral Assembly, order of, 95\\nGlocester, 87\\nGoatom, 50\\nGoldsmith, Joseph, 118\\nGorton, 28, 29, 31, 34, 36, 96\\nSamuel, 27, 30\\nGrate Poynt, 130\\nHale, Sir Matthew, 52\\nHarris, Thomas, 49, 118\\nsenior, 88, 104\\nWilliam, i, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17\\n19, 20, 24, 25, 28, 31, 32, 35\\n45, 46, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63,\\n69,\\nHarris, William, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76,\\n77, 82, 83, 88, 93, 94, 95, 96, 99,\\n100, 105, 106, 107\\nbooke 74, 75, 76, 77\\nHarrison, 62\\nHawkins, William, 92\\nHipsie s Rock, 68\\nHolland, i\\nHolmes, Obadiah, 31\\nHome lot, 50, 51\\nHopkins, Thomas, Sr., 96\\nHowland, 133\\nHudson, William, 105\\nInitial Deed, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20,\\n53, 54, 66, 67, 79, 88, 89\\nInman, Edward, 48\\nJenckes, Daniel, 105\\nJoseph, 105\\nJohnston. 87\\nKingsmen, 75, 76, 77\\nLand records, 47, 52\\nLeare, Jane, 48\\nLime rocks, 93\\nLine, see Four and Seven.\\nLondon, 2, 28, 73\\nManton, Shadrack, 96\\nMashapog, 8\\nMassachusetts, i, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10,\\n12, 18, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,\\n33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 4\u00c2\u00b0, 43, 47, 53,\\n55, 57, 58, 75, 80, 82, 83, 85, 105\\nMathewson, Daniel, no\\nMatteson, James, 49\\nMaushapauge, town of, 5\\nMead, Samuel, 116\\nMeeting-house, 11\\nMemorandum, first, 5\\nsecond, 6\\nMiantonomi, 5, 6, 8, 13, 31, 80\\nMoosh River, 13\\nMooshassuc, 3,4,5, 9, n, 12, 17, 19,\\n21, 22, 27, 28, 34, 37, 39, 40, 41,\\n55, 59, 61, 69, 74, 82, 83, 85, 91,\\n104, 105, 107, 112, 120\\nColony, 2\\nMusuassacutt Country, 83", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0150.jp2"}, "151": {"fulltext": "GENERAL INDEX.\\n39\\nNanhegansett Sachems, 83\\nNanhegansick, 5\\nNarragansett, 2, 7, 104\\nsachems, 82\\nwigwams, 9\\nNarragansetts, i, 10, 11, 22, 65, 104,\\n107\\nNarrow passage, 128\\nNeuticonkanet, 5, 8, 49\\nNeuticonkonitt Hill, 86\\nNew England, 43, 56, 61, 115\\nNew Jersey, 56\\nNew London, 114\\nNew York, 37, 61\\nNewburyport, 114\\nNewport, 3, 12, 29, 34, 35, 58, 80, 82,\\n94, 107, 108\\nAssembly, 96, 97, 98, 99\\nact of, 107\\nNipmucks, 82\\nNiswoshakit, 82\\nNorth Burying Ground, 120\\nNorth Providence, 64, 131\\nNotakunhanet, 8, 49, 86\\nNotquonchanet Hill, 5\\nObservation Rock, 68\\nOlney, 105, 133\\nEpenetus, 45, 104\\nJohn, 119\\nThomas, senior, 24, 25, 32, 34, 35,\\n3^, 39. 45. 46, 48, S3. 57. 59. 60,\\n60, 63, 64, 65, 72, 78, 80, 82, 83,\\n84, 86, 88, 93, 107\\njunior, 90, 99, 104, 105, 116,\\nu8, 121, 123, 124, 126\\nPachasit River, 49\\nPautuckut, 5, 6, 65\\nPawtucket, 8, 68, 115\\nRiver, 86\\nPawtuxet, 6, 16, 19, 28, 29, 31, 33,\\n34. 6s, 105\\npurchase, 19, 20, 71\\nRiver, 6, 13, 80\\nPhilip s War, 114\\nPlaister, Sovereign, 66, 67, 69\\nPlantations, i, 2, 3, 5, 117, 133, 136\\nPlymouth, i, 6, 7, 30, 34, 40, 98\\nPomham, 80\\nPortsmouth, 107, io8\\nPray, Richard, 48, 49\\nProprietors, i, 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24,\\n25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35,\\n36, 38, 39. 40, 4 42, 43. 44, 45.\\n49.50. 51.53. 56,57. 61,63,64,\\n65, 66, 69, 71, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82,\\n83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92,\\n93. 94, 95. 96. 97. 99. 1\u00c2\u00b0\u00c2\u00b0. 102,\\n103, 105, io6, 108, 109, no, III,\\n112, 113, 114, 115, n6, 117, 118,\\n119, 120, 121, 123, 124, I2S, 126,\\n128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134\\nProprietors association, 21\\nclaim, 9, i6, 67\\nmeetings, end of, 135\\nrights, 23, 32\\nrecords, 131\\nshare, 129, 133, 134\\nsurveyors, 49\\nvote of, 132\\nProvidence, 3, 5, 6, 8, 16, 17, 21, 28,\\n30, 33. 34. 38, 44. 49. 58, 59, 67,\\n77, 79, 82, 83, 84, 89, 93, 94, 96,\\n97, 98, 104, 106, 107, 108, 113,\\n115, 122, 129\\nNeck, no, 129\\nPlantations, 34, 107\\nTowne, 20, 23, 32, 87, 130\\nPurchasers, is, 22, 23, 87, 91, 92, 93,\\n94, 109, 1 16, 122, I2S, 131\\nQuakers, 76, 82, 97, 100, 107, 112\\nQuarter Court, 33\\norder of, 27, 42\\nQuarter Day, 92, 113, 116, 117, 124\\nmeetings, 44, 52, 58\\nQuarter-rights men, 33, 35, 36, 38,\\n84, 91\\nQuinnichicutt, 6\\nQuorum, 2$\\nRalph, Samuel, 117\\nRecords of lands, 47, 52, 100, loi,\\n104\\nproprietors, 126, 128, 134, 135", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0151.jp2"}, "152": {"fulltext": "[40\\nGENERAL INDEX.\\nReddock, 94\\nRevolution, 133\\nRhode Island, 4, 23, 38, 40, 47, 57,\\n58,63,74,75,76,80,81,98, 107\\nColonial Courts of, 127\\nRhodes, 105\\nSachems memorandum, 5, 12,65\\nSalem, 42, 45, 113\\nSayles, John, 90\\nSchool-house, 116\\nScott, Richard, 60\\nSecession, 33, 35\\nSecond comers, 22, 23, 32, 33\\nAgreement of, 22, 23\\nSecond memorandum, 6, 65\\nSeekonk, 2, 91\\nRiver, 9\\nSeven-Years War, 133\\nSeven-mile line, 68, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93,\\n94, 103, 112, 119, 125, 129\\nSlavery, 38\\nSmith, Edward, loi, 102, 103\\nresolution of, loi, 102\\nFenner, 105\\nJohn, 48\\nNathaniel, 132\\nWilliam, 124\\nSmithfield, 82, 85, 87\\nSoconoco, 80\\nSoldash 6\\nSolvency, 23\\nSouth Carolina, 38\\nSovereign Plaister, 66, 69, 70, 72,\\n78, 88, 94, 96, 99, 100\\nSquatter Sovereignty, 4\\nStampers Hill, 116\\nStaples, W. R., 5, 64, 127, 132, 135\\nStaves, 42\\nSteere, John, 92\\nStone, Dr., 104\\nSuffrage, 10\\nSugar-loaf Hill, 68\\nSurveyors, 50, 51, 100, 109\\nTabor, John, 117\\nTar, 109\\nThatch-beds, no, 125, 131, 134\\nThrockmorton, John, 7\\nTimber, 42, 85, 124\\nTown booke, 24, 81\\nDeputy, 49, 78, 79\\nFellowship, 10, 20, 21, 26, 29,\\n33.35\\nMeeting, 11, 21, 50, 56, 59, 61, 65,\\n72, 78, 80, 83, 86, 107, 113, 124,\\n125\\nOrder of, 83, 88, 92, 104, 114,\\nii7 123\\nCourts, 52\\nTown Mill, 52, 56, 78, 107, 116\\nStocks, 17, 44, 53, 54\\nStreet, no\\nTraining-ground, 120\\nTwenty-mile boundary, 89\\nTwenty-five acre men, 46, 69, 71,\\n80, 92, 93, 94, loi, 129\\nTyburn, 73\\nUtah, 3, 62\\nVane, Sir Henry, 56, 57, 58, 62, 69,\\n73.96\\nVerin, Joshua, 44, 45, 47, 52, 72,\\n104, I 06\\nVillage Hampdens, 87\\nWapuaysett, 128\\nWarehouse lotts, 118, 120, 129\\nWarwick, 31, 74, 89, 107, 108\\nWaterman, 133\\nRichard, 49, 130\\nWayunkeke, 80, 81, 85\\nWest Indies, 129\\nWesterly, 107, 108\\nWeybossett Hill, 123\\nmeadows of, 113\\nWhipple, John, 15, 32, 45, 46, 65, 66,\\n70, 98, 104, 112, 132\\nsenior, 50, 81\\nJoseph, 124\\nNoah, 132\\nSamuel, 118\\nWhitman, Valentine, 90\\nWickenden, William, 23, 48, 68, 72,\\n90\\nWickes, Francis, 48", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0152.jp2"}, "153": {"fulltext": "GENERAL INDEX.\\n14]\\nWilliams, Joseph, 122\\nRobert, 59\\nRoger, 1-22, 24-28, 30-33, 35, 36,\\n38,39. 43, 46, 50,5 53-66, es-\\nse, SS, S9, 90, 92-96, 98, 99, 104-\\n107, 114, 115, u6, 129, 131, 132,\\n134, 136\\nhis first deed, see Initial\\nDeed.\\nWilliams, Roger, his second deed,\\n89, 90\\nRoger, 2d, io6\\nWinslow, Gov., 7\\nWinthrop, John, 3, 4, lo, 29, 30, 54,\\n81\\nWonas River, 13\\nWonasquatucket, 64, 83, 122\\nRiver, 5, 44, 48, 50", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0153.jp2"}, "154": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0154.jp2"}, "155": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0155.jp2"}, "156": {"fulltext": "1906", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0156.jp2"}, "157": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0157.jp2"}, "158": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0158.jp2"}, "159": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3543", "width": "2191", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0159.jp2"}, "160": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3636", "width": "2290", "jp2-path": "proprietorsofpro00dorr_0160.jp2"}}