Dinsmore Documentation presents Classics of American Colonial History

Author:	Weeden, William B.
Title:	Early Rhode Island: A Social History of the People.
Citation:	New York: The Grafton Press, 1910.
Subdivision:	Chapter IV
	HTML by Dinsmore Documentation * Added August 9, 2004
	←Chapter III Table of Contents Chapter V →

CHAPTER IV

THE COLONY AND THE TOWN OF PROVIDENCE. 1648-1710

We may turn back to the story of Providence after the adoption of the first charter in 1647, when discussions around the ton-mill, where there was “a parliament in perpetual session,” were developing new communal life. The first houses about Roger Williams’ Spring and along the Towne Street without doubt were of logs halved together at the corners.¹ Having only one room they were roofed over with logs or thatched on poles. The chimney was probably of logs, outside at the end and plastered with clay. The houses succeeding these log huts were similar—they being a single or “Fire Room.” One end was almost given up to the stone chimney and cavernous fireplace. These conclusions of Isham and Brown correspond with those of Mr. Dorr, though the architects investigated independently and by different methods.

There were no larger houses of the comfortable type introduced from Connecticut, as we have noted at Newport. Mr. Don found in the probate records that houses until the last decade of the seventeenth century had two apartments only, a “lower room” and a “chamber.” Often there were no stairs, and a ladder communicated. Most dwellings were destroyed in 1676 by the Indians, and the pioneer work of our plantation had to be repeated. One of the most interesting dwellings built about 1653 survived

¹ Isham and Brown, “Early R. I. Houses,” p. 16.

the ravage of King Philip’s War, and until our own time. It was known as the Roger Mowry house, or tavern, and recently as the Abbott house. It was a small building, and originally had a huge stone chimney. It was the first licensed tavern, where town meetings were held and the council assembled. Roger Williams gathered people there for worship.

To enter into this pioneer living we must remember that these planters made their habitations and the furniture chiefly with their own hands.² They framed the solid chests and tables—rude but strong—which stood on the sanded floors. The clumsy but hospitable old English settle³ lifted its high back at the family table; then by the fireplace it afforded a room and partial exclusion from the fierce wintry drafts. In summer it was moved out of doors, and helped to make the evening cosy and agreeable. Regular chairs were a luxury—many having none, some possessing one or two. John Smith, the miller and town clerk, had four. The inventory of John Whipple, inn-keeper, recorded in 1685 “three chaires.” The way of living and the comforts were such as English yeomen of the period enjoyed. There was little table linen. The ancient wooden trencher held its place—little disputed by earthern ware or “puter.” Culinary utensils were limited, and the ancient iron pot served in many functions. No early inventories carried silver plate or carved furniture, as in Massachusetts; for Providence was striving hard to maintain life by agriculture alone.

Living was very simple, except when some large political

² “R. I. Hist. T., No. 15,” Dorr, p. 28.

³ “It is, to the hearths of old-fashioned cavernous fireplaces, what the east belt of trees is to the exposed country estate, or the north wall to the garden. Outside the settle candles gutter, locks of hair wave, young women shiver, and old men sneeze. Inside is Paradise.”

question involving colonial administration forced the little community to go beyond its own narrow affairs.

An ordinance⁴ in 1649 compelled every man to mend and make good the highway “before his house Lot or Lots.” Suits at law regulated differences, for the attorney’s fee for preparing a cause and pleading was fixed at 6s. 8d.; “if any man will have a lawyer he shall pay 1s.”

We have noted the secondary proprietors, who received a gift of twenty-five acres, and they are voted in from time to time. In 1650 it was enacted⁵ that in future all men received should pay for their “home-share 1s. per acre and 6d. per acre for the rest not exceeding twenty-five acres.” Outside their lots and farms, privilege of pasture on the common lands helped the semi-pastoral cultivation. Rates were 3d. for cows, 1d. for swine and 1d. for goats on the common, assessed in 1649, and collected by the town constable. There was much legislation concerning the commons, and in 1650, it was forbidden to take off lumber or timber. As the cattle ran in a common herd literally, marks identifying the ownership were quite important. These were formally enrolled on the records of the town. Many only cropped one ear in some way, but others introduced an elaborate device; as a crop from the top of the right ear, and a halfpenny behind under the ear. Another has a flower de luce on the left ear. The sale of liquors, to Indians especially, caused constant annoyance and tinkering of statutes. Entertainment of travelers and strangers seemed to be a burden requiring supervision, before taverns were regularly installed and maintained. An ordinance in 1650 allowed any one to sell “without doores”; but if “any man sell Wine or strong Liquors in his house, he shall also entertain strangers to bed and

⁴ “Early Rec.,” Vol. II., 44.

⁵ Ibid, p. 53.

board.” Notice for sale ankers (10 galls.) liquors by sundry persons appear from 1656 to 1664. In all American hostelry, while the weary and hungry traveler might need rest and food, the necessary profit has come from the alcoholic thirst of the majority.

At the only town-meeting when Roger Williams appears as moderator June 24, 1655, the sale of wines or liquors to Indians was absolutely forbidden, under a penalty of six pounds, one half to the informer.

In 1657 Mr. ffenner was allowed by vote to exchange a six-acre lot at Notakonkanit bought of “Goodman lippet” for — acres. The distinctions Mr. occasionally old English Goodman and Yeoman frequently were used, but the differences marking the titles were not altogether clear.

In common names, English uses prevailed. As might be expected Gideon, Daniel, John, James, Simon, Zachariah; Mary, Rebecca, Esther, Ruth were frequent. A person might be denominated or designated by these familiar words, but the extraordinary fashion of the Puritans appeared occasionally. What conceit, fancy or ideal spelled out Mahershalalhashbaz? It might be considered unique, were it not recorded twice before 1680. A name preserved through many generations of honorable men, according to tradition, marks an event in colonial history. Richard Waterman set to keep the garrison at Warwick “firmly resolved” to hold out to the last. In reminiscence he named his son “Resolved.”⁶

The apprentice system was important in this period of colonial life. When unkindly fate had left lad or girl without parental care, he or she was bound out in order to learn. We shall note many interesting examples in the life at Portsmouth. In 1659 at Providence

⁶ Moses Brown MSS., “R. I. H. S.”

William Field took in charge William Warner, who was bound “his Secretes to keep and not to frequent Taverns or Ale-Houses, except about my said master’s bussenes.” At the end of his subjection, he was to receive the customary freedom suit of clothing.

The community of interest and feeling which makes a state, appears to have been of slow growth, in our plantation of Providence. Clarke was not fully paid for his proper expenses. Roger Williams was obliged to berate the town they “ride securely by a new cable and ankor of Mr. Clarke’s procuring” and refused his just claims. In 1660 when the charter had been working a dozen years or more, a petition was sent to the commissioners at Portsmouth asking release from an assessment of £30 toward building a common prison at Newport, which “will be in no ways beneficiall to us.” Moreover, Providence was expending £160 for a bridge over the Moshassuck which was completed in 1662. The colony would not relieve the plantation from its proper burden and a tax for £35 was laid in 1661 to discharge the responsibility.

The community of the plantation at Providence grew out of the determination of Williams and his near associates to have absolute freedom of conscience. They must live, whether worshipping freely or under theocratic tyranny as they conceived it. Williams’ own views of practical government were simple and notably naïve, whenever he came into conflict with the proprietors. Without doubt, he had expected greater practical authority in the town than had fallen to him. He attempted in that time to assert political influence in a community which had no religious establishment. Mr. Dorr⁷ sagaciously points out that he expected substantial

⁷ “R. I. H. S.,” New Series, IV., p. 81.

results without due causes. He forgot that a theocracy plants its feet on the earth and that the civil power made John Cotton the foremost man in Massachusetts. Yet Williams in inmost conviction, cared far more for the spiritual than for the material conditions of life. This appears in most striking form, as he writes his friend Major John Mason in Connecticut in 1670.⁸ Whatever might be his deficiency as statesman and executor of civil law, certainly the seer and prophet spoke in him.

A controversy in the turbulent winter 1654-1655 suggests much in the development of our early history. We should bear in mind that two main parties at this time were constantly struggling for control of the town meeting. One led by William Harris and Thomas Olney represented the Proprietors or original purchasers under Williams’ “Initial deed.” The other led by Roger Williams and Gregory Dexter generally consisted of small freeholders admitted afterward.⁹ All these men had resolute wills, while Harris and Olney had much executive ability. This difference began early, and for some two-score years, disputes growing out of these peculiar, differentiated land-titles convulsed the little plantation. Many small freeholders believed with Williams that the lands bought from the Indians were a virtual trust for the whole body of freemen. Proprietors on the contrary held that the lands were administered by the central authority in town meeting, for the benefit of private owners who had paid for them. The economic principle of ownership and the larger political motive involved in government, did not coincide in practical action.

Williams was never able to induce the town meeting to decide on any definite and particular sale of lands.

⁸ Ante, p. 9.

⁹ Cf. “R. I. H. S.,” New Series, Vol. III., Dorr, “Proprietors and Freeholders.”

The Proprietors insisted on their view and they alone acted on such propositions. It appears from Williams’ own writings¹⁰ that the smaller freeholders came to Providence with no clear understanding of their relations to the first Proprietors. The “Initial deed” created no definite trust. Instead of such legal obligation, there was in Williams’ mind a moral duty—an inference. In the absence of coercive judicial power, this was “the weak point of all Williams’ machinery.”

The first organization of our Plantation in Providence —a voluntary association or “town fellowship,” without coercive force—was ill adapted for the political regulation of a community, in which there were many discontented people. The small freeholders were hazy about rights in public property and they fed their goats and swine on the common; taking thence, timber, firewood and other supplies. “Common” in Providence was not in the legal sense an “incorporeal right” of pasturage or other profit on land of another or of the town, but it meant unenclosed or nonimproved land claimed by the Proprietors.

There was a process of development going on step by step, as was indicated in the twenty-five-acre agreement of 1645. Then the pressure of Massachusetts and the fear of intervention on the part of England, warned both proprietors and freeholders that mutual concession must be made. Whatever the technical proprietary right might be, the sensible forecasting American saw that a monopoly could not avail, when the whole institution of property was supported only by voluntary association. The disputes tended toward settlement, by the creation of new classes of citizens, who, though they might be lower in property qualification, could vote if respectable.

¹⁰ Cf. Mr. Dorr.

By 1649, there were oxen enough in use to compel the dwellers on Tone Streete to make a good highway before each estate. In the autumn of 1654 there was a tumult occasioned by a voluntary training. The record says Thomas Olney, John Field, William Harris and others were implicated. In the names reported, we see the proprietary party, striving for order according to their own notion. Those remonstrating against their action sent a paper to the town asserting “that it was blood-guiltiness and against the rule of the gospel, to execute judgment upon transgressors against the private or public weal.” This not only rebuked a particular executive act, but would have upset the authority of all civil society. These aberrations of his followers drew from Williams an expression which the learned and sedate Arnold well defines to be a “masterly” analysis of the limits of civil and religious freedom. It shows moreover that though executive facility might be lacking in Williams, the preacher and prophet yielded in him, to the greater powers of the civilized man.

¹¹ This admirable statement sufficiently rebukes the main detractors of Williams. A society based on these divine principles, could never go far astray though it might indulge individual aberrations. A generation later, Cotton Mather busied himself in slurring Rhode Island for its many social defects. He wrote like one blind, who had never seen the light.

Reinforced by this moral support of Williams, the party in power—the proprietors—forebore wisely and condoned the civic offense. It was voted, “that for the Colony’s sake, who have since chosen Thomas Olney an assistant, and for the public union and peace’s sake, it (the tumult and disturbance) should be passed by, and no

¹¹ Ante, p. 9.

more mentioned.”¹² Thus, the temperance and compromise of true politics worked itself out, among these hardy exponents of the human will.

The effect of such disputes on practical politics and daily living was shown in the matter of Henry Fowler’s marriage. For the greater part of the seventeenth century, there was so little religious organization that banns could not be published before a congregation.¹³ Accordingly, notice of this ceremony, so dear to all Anglo-Saxons, was literally civic, and was made to the town meeting, June 4, 1655.¹⁴ Fowler was warned to the Court to answer for his marriage without due publication. He answered that, “the divisions of the town were the cause,” and the town remitted the penalty. Mr. Don considers this a “bold and successful answer.”

As bearing on industries we may observe that Thomas Olney, Jr.,¹⁵ was granted a house lot in 1655 “by the Stampers” provided he would “follow tanning.” This lot gave water power which was not all used until sixty years later in 1705.

There was constant difficulty through sincere effort to reconcile communistic (in our phrase) desires with proprietary rights in the growing settlement. We may well study the meager records of divisions of land, so far as we can. We remember¹⁶ that in 1645, twenty-five-acre or quarter-right purchasers were admitted to “equal fellowship of vote” with the first purchasers. This class received in every division of land one-quarter part as

¹² Staples, “Annals,” p. 113.

¹³ Marriage was legally a civil contract throughout New England. Generally the statutes required the banns to be published at two town meetings.

¹⁴ Early Rec. Prov., Vol. II., p. 81.

¹⁵ Dorr, “Planting and Growth,” p. 50.

¹⁶ Cf. Ante, p. 37.

much as a full purchaser. The number of purchasers of both kinds never exceeded 101 persons. They were admitted at various times on various terms; the date of the last admission cannot be determined. March 14, 1661-2, an act¹⁷ was passed to divide the lands “without the seaven mile line.” In this outside division the “twenty-five-acre men” were allowed each “a quarter part so much as a purchaser,” paying one-quarter of the charge for confirmation. The right arose from “commoning within the seven mile bounds,” only those having full right of commoning within, being equal to a purchaser. The grant was allowed on condition that each should break up one-half acre of “his home lot before next May 12 mos.”

The communistic sentiment noted in the original allotment, was manifest in various movements for democratic equality. The home-lot of five acres, the distant meadow or six-acre lot, the “stated common lot,” together with land-dividends among the proprietors, all resulted in numerous small estates, widely separated. Economically, the yield was not equal to that of the Pawtuxet settlement, where the methods were more like those of ordinary pioneers. Pawtuxet for the first eighty years, paid nearly as much tax as the much larger Providence. And the effect on the future development of the plantation was more important and far reaching. While the elaborate system of home-lots created strong local attachment it cultivated prejudice as well. All the limitations of farming life, extended into, warped and biassed a community, which should have grown into a commercial center two generations before it actually did. The proprietors clung to every habit and privilege, driving the settlement outward and westward, as the

¹⁷ “Early Rec. Prov.,” Vol. III., 19.

expanding commercial life compelled progress of some sort.

Let us remember that, then nowhere in the world perhaps were the two greatest motives affecting human society at work so freely and practically as in the little colony and especially in the plantation at Providence. Freedom of conscience and desire for land animated the settlers there, and often struggled for mastery. The individual sacrifices of Williams, Gorton and the Quakers for soul-liberty are well known.

Religious organization among the planters at Providence had little influence until commerce had fairly begun in the eighteenth century. Politically the associated religionists acted in the town meeting as proprietors or freeholders. There was nothing like the direct influence of a Puritan congregation, or its indirect movement, in what we call public opinion. About twelve families sympathized with Williams in forming the early Baptist society, but the majority refrained from all religious association. William Harris, after Williams the most influential citizen, belonged to no religious body after seceding from the Baptists. Williams kept on with the Baptists only about three months, and was known as a “Seeker.” Mr. Dorr, a conservative churchman, severely criticised all these movements, but we must consider his facts.¹⁸ He said the worshipers of Liberty had some noisy declaimers like Hugh Bewett, and some political agitators like Gregory Dexter who were revolutionary in England. There were two Baptist churches in Providence as early as 1652;¹⁹ one of the six and the other of the five principle Baptists. The First Church kept its continuous life. It differed from the communion in Newport.

¹⁸ “R. I. H. S.,” New Series, Vol. III., 204.

¹⁹ Staples, “Annals,” p. 410.

July 10, 1681, the record²⁰ is preserved of a long disputation based on scriptural texts between Pardon Tillinghast, Gregory Dexter and Aaron Dexter of Providence and Obadiah Holmes of Newport. Providence contended, whether “repenting believing Baptized Disciples are visible members of Christ’s body and have right to Fellowship breaking of bread and prayer, we deny according to our understanding of your sense.”

Political force as embodied in citizens, is necessarily wiser and more enlightened than the mere grasp of a land-holder. It was obliged to recognize that man as well as property must join in making a state, and that actual freemen must be encouraged. At an early (unknown) date, the suffrage had been restricted to married men. The young men—probably then in the majority—were discontented under the restriction for nine years. In the fifties it was decreed that “all inhabitants not as yet accounted freemen should be liable to do service not only military but mending roads and like hard work.” In the mid-century, the plantation had three distinct classes of voters not sympathizing,²¹ proprietors, quarter-rights men, and small freeholders at large. These divisions not only marked estates, but social distinction and privilege as well. The newest freeholders were smallest in estate and least in political influence. Meetings sometimes included proprietors in the same persons. In later days, only proprietors could vote on questions involving “common lands.”

Inevitably there was political agitation and social friction between these varied and variable persons seeking liberty and the practical privileges of freemen. Each home-circle was a debating school where talk served instead

²⁰ Moses Brown MSS., Vol. XVIII, p. 247, R. I. H. S.

²¹ Staples, p. 218.

of books to draw out the mind. As an ample fire roared in the massive chimney, or a blazing pine knot lighted the eager faces, all contemporary history, all theology in fixed fate or foreknowledge absolute, was discussed by these new Americans. But at the town mill these educated wranglers met in more serious controversy. The intense English ambition for possessing land, the political passion of a freeman, were here exercised in exciting discussions. Sometimes opinion degenerated into license, as we have noted at the training in autumn 1654. But generally questions were threshed out in these wholesome if exciting discussions, and were decided in some fashion at the turbulent town meeting.

Manners as well as morals and statutes were matter of lively interest. The natural man was disciplined in some way, and reduced into new forms of social order. To wit “that they that whisper or disturb ye Court or useth nipping terms, shall forfeit six pence for every fault.” More strenuous was it, when if “any man shall strike another person in ye Court, he shall either be fined ten pounds or whipt.”

We cannot repeat too often, nor mark too forcibly, these new and complex modes for educating and evolving a citizen; for forging out a working member of the body politic. All these moral and political influences acting on the first generations of planters, positively affected their descendants. State heredity is even more powerful than individual descent. Roger Williams, Gorton, George Fox, Coddington and William Harris in the seventeenth century, issued in Stephen Hopkins of the eighteenth, and Thomas W. Don, of the nineteenth. The latter, a conscientious patriot in theory, in practice became a civic rebel.

The pregnant disputes between proprietors and freeholders

were gradually wearing out and a final process of economic adjustment prevailed over the crude communistic theories, which had vexed the life of the early plantation. The date is not positive, but about 1665.²² A town ordinance laid out a four-mile line within the old seven-mile line. A second or “50 acre division was made by lot to every ’purchaser.’” Lime rock was to be left in common. As usual, discussion outside had prepared the voters for these propositions. The result in town meeting was concord and not the strife of old time. The day arrived, with no lack of quorum at the inn, where the freemen assembled; while intense curiosity preserved order. Before formalities began “arose the gaunt and picturesque figure of the founder.” Williams’ stock arguments against the “usurpation of the proprietors” would not hold now, for he was partaking as a “purchaser.” He “witnessed” against the “prophaning of God’s worship by casting lots.” The stalwart prophet had nothing more to say of “up streams without limits” or of the “fellowship of vote.”

We may note a very interesting episode in crude law-making. May 27, 1667,²³ in town meeting a will was made for Nicholas Power, who died intestate some ten years earlier. Endeavors had been made meanwhile to settle the estate under the general laws of the colony; but the widow would not consent and the council had not power to compel her. At last a will was made as above stated. As Judge Staples²⁴ remarks, where the power was obtained, does not appear, but it was exercised repeatedly, not only in Providence, but in other towns,

²² “Early Rec.,” Vol. III., 93.

²³ Early Rec. Prov.,” Vol. I., 31.

²⁴ “Annals,” p. 124.

”Wills so made were not simply divisions and distribution of the intestates’ estate among heirs, but in some instances specific bequests and devises were made, and estates for life, in tail and fee created, as the council supposed the interests of all concerned required.” This practice continued into the nineteenth century in the smaller towns. It was a return to social ethics, when the law for individuals failed to award justice. It served the time well, and was almost never abused.

Staples²⁵ cites in 1662 a privilege given one Hackleton to burn lime, from stone taken from the commons, as the earliest notice of that manufacture. The kiln was near Scoakequanoisett. All lime rock was for some years kept in common, but was ultimately conveyed with the lands. Mr. Bowditch thinks lime from shells or probably from stone was made as early as 1648. There was little lime produced until brick building was introduced a half century later. Probably the earliest list of tools belonged to John Clausen, a Dutch carpenter, about 1660.²⁶ Froe, bench hook hammer, 1½ × 1 inch augers, narrow axe, hallowing plane, cleaving and moulding do, three other sorts, chizells, gouge, three Brest wimble bitts, a joynter plane. This list shows the condition of carpentry. Wm. Carpenter, an English-bred carpenter, came from Amesbury and built a house for Wm. Harris before 1671 (probably).

The authority of the crown was demonstrated for the first time, by the visit in 1665 of a royal commission—Nicolls, Cartwright and others. The commissioners met a better reception than in Massachusetts, and their proposals for the general guidance of the General Assembly

²⁵ Staples, “Annals,” p. 613.

²⁶ Field, “Providence,” Vol. III., 583.

were promptly accepted, as being “in perfect unison with the principles of Rhode Island.”²⁷

Much controversy with Connecticut for possession of the Narragansett country, vexed the colony for several years. Connecticut was favored by some of the local residents about Wickford and incidentally by William Harris. He offended his own colony so much by this action that he was imprisoned at Newport and not allowed bail. He was finally released and restored to office, when the Quakers controlled the politics of the colony in 1672.

An indication and permanent sign of progress in the plantation was in the erection of Weybosset Bridge in 1672. This was a great effort for the little community. Expedients for a bridge had been maintained by tolls from strangers and contributory work from townsmen; one day’s work of man and team per year, for each family. Roger Williams showed his customary public spirit,²⁸ by assuming the burden of the bridge under these conditions in 1667-8. A committee had previously failed in getting support to care for the bridge.

After Williams and Gorton, the most positive and formative influence in early Rhode Island, was the society of Friends. The “cruel and sanguinary laws” of Massachusetts drove out these pilgrims—harmless in our view—and they flocked into Newport. Here they found a free atmosphere and many people with minds open for the reception of their ideas. In England, the seventeenth century had gathered from Geneva and Holland the most illuminating as well as the most vague doctrines of the Protestant faith. Anabaptist and Antinomian—though frequently used—were vituperative names, rather than

²⁷ Brigham, “R. I.,” p. 113.

²⁸ Staples, “Annals,” p. 144.

terms philosophical and descriptive. In England and America, these floating doctrines were best represented by the society of Seekers with which Roger Williams finally associated himself. But Williams never could formulate his own large conceptions into dogmas capable of founding solid societies.

These elevated incorporeal ideas possessing the individual soul were gradually concentrated in the “inner light” of George Fox. This asserted a constant communion of the spirit with its creator—moving independent of all constraint and of all ecclesiastical control. That mere crotchets should incumber these true spiritual conceptions was inevitable. But notwithstanding some individual vagaries, the Friends or Quakers as then called were an immense influence for good, and especially in our colony. As above indicated in treating of education,²⁹ the Friends self-regulated in themselves were especially beneficent in a self-governed community that lacked self-control.

At Newport, the seed sown by Anne Hutchinson had prepared ample growths for the Quaker propaganda. In the course of development the Baptist church had been separated, a part holding to regular ordinances under John Clarke, and others like Coddington and Easton adopting Quaker tenets. The great apostle of the “inner light,” George Fox, visited there in 1672, and was the guest of Governor Easton. For the reasons stated, he found himself quite at home and the “people flocked in from all parts of the island.” When he came to consider Providence, though it had no established church and no hierarchy, he soon discovered theological wheels within wheels, and that every man his own priest may become a very priestly factor. On his visit there

29 Ante, p. 68.

the reformer said the people “were generally above the priests in high notions.” They came to his meeting to dispute and, in his own words, he was “exceeding hot, and in a great sweat. But all was well, the disputers were silent, and the meeting, quiet.”³⁰ The silence could not last long, for the storm was gathering. Williams challenged Fox on fourteen points of doctrine; seven to be publicly discussed in Newport and seven in Providence. Williams rowed himself to Newport in one day—a wonderful feat for a man over seventy. Fox had departed, but his followers debated with Williams for three days and then concluded at Providence. The result was an easy victory for each, in the opinion of both. Williams summed up in a volume, whose title “George Fox digged out of his Burrowes” shows the cheap controversial wit of the time. For with his disciple Burnyeat replied in “A New England Firebrand Quenched.”

The arguments and figures of rhetoric stand to this day, but the propaganda then went with the Quakers. Men like William Harris in Providence took up the doctrines. A week-day meeting was established in Providence in March, 1701, and a “fair large meeting house was built in 1704.”³¹ From 1672 to 1676, the colonial politics were controlled by the Friends, and it was mainly due to their non-combative policy that the colony was so poorly prepared to meet King Philip’s War.

In 1665, the controversy began in 1657,³² between William Harris and the party of freeholders was much aggravated, and it lasted until his death in 1681, at times convulsing the whole colony.³³ As has been noted,³⁴

³⁰ Brigham, “R. I.,” p. 117.

³¹ Staples, “Annals,” pp. 423, 424.

³² Staples, “Annals,” p. 118.

³³ Brigham, pp. 113-116.

³⁴ Ante, p. 79.

the Proprietors and Freeholders were generally at variance, but these contests involved great personal bitterness as well as self-interest.

William Harris with his brother Thomas came in the ship Lyon. According to tradition, the family were “harsh and irregular of feature, brawny, resentful and pertinacious in temperament, and, in speech rasping.” Harris’ own writing is preserved; it is most individual, thoroughly his own and is even more difficult of interpretation than the ordinary chirography of the seventeenth century. It is thoroughly elegant, as would hardly be expected from the above rendering of the family traits.³⁵ Like many strong men of his time, he was educated by affairs and not by the schools, had great facility in business and a fair knowledge of English statute law. His books³⁶ were few but useful; bibles, concordance, dictionary, surveyors learning and legal treatises including Coke on Lyttleton, medical treatises, several on “faith,” “nature’s Explecation,” “the effect of war,” “contemplation moral and devine.” Evidently this was a collection much used by a busy man of affairs who thought for himself.

The main contention of Harris was that the “initial deed” in its clause “up the stream of Patuxet and Patuckett without limits we might have for our use of cattle” gave not only a right of pasturage, but the land in fee simple. To further this the contestants bought “confirmation deeds” both for lands and rights of pasturage of the degenerate sachems coming after

³⁵ “He brought to whatever he undertook the resources of a great mind and, to all appearance, the honest convictions of an earnest soul. On this account he was a more dangerous opponent and required stringent measures to suppress the errors of his political creed.”—Arnold, Vol. I., 262

³⁶ “Early Rec. Prov.” Vol. VI., p. 75.

Canonicus and Miantinomi, extending twenty miles westward from Fox’s hill. Roger Williams always solemnly protested that possession of the land was never intended by the great sachems in the conveyance for the “use of cattle.” This seems reasonable either in the seventeenth or twentieth century.

In 1667, the quarrel broke out anew in the town meeting, the factions being led by William Harris and Arthur Fenner. The two parties chose contesting delegates to the General Assembly. If our forefathers had not reporters and newspapers, they revelled in pamphlets, fiercely polemical. The Fenner party issued a most bitter one, “The Firebrand Discovered.”³⁷ This fiery distinction was a customary title, eminent, but not honorary conferred on William Harris. As this contestant was strong in law as well as in language, he induced the Governor to call

³⁷ We may cite a few sentences from this dissertation, written by Williams doubtless, for they correspond with his statements in “George Fox digged out of his burrowes.” These phrases show the way of thinking and method of expression among neighbors in the Plantation, “ffirst his nature, he is like the salamander always delighting to live in ye fire of contention. 2, his nature qualities and conditions doth further appeare, he is a Quarilsome man (beat Adam Goodwin, an officer). 3, he is like the raging sea casting forth mire and dirt. Men of high degree or lowe degree; he casth on them foole, knave, base fellowe, scounderill or the like. 6, you question with ahasuerus who is he, we answer with Queen Esther, the enemie (Esther, VII., 5-6). The firebrand is this wicked Harris, commonly called Mr. William Harris.”—R. I. H. S. Col, Vol. 10, p. 78.

In this Pawtuxet controversy involving Proprietors’ interests, a whole literature was developed. In 1669 Harris took part by protesting against a paper presented by Gregory Dexter “an instrument and a soveren plaister or against our Rights in lands, lawn, ye Common law, statut law of England, and our rights in Magna Charta soe soundly confirmed by 32 parliaments. . . . I not only take myself bound to protest against ye said poysonous plaster but also to complayne of Gregory Dexter for his notoryous crime against ye King’s law and peace.”—“Mr. Harris.”—Ibid, pp. 93, 94.

Copy of the Record Signed by Roger Williams in His Only Service as Town Clerk.

a special session of the General Assembly, which was the court also, and lodged a suit against his opposers. But the legislative and judicial petard gave him a sorry “hoist”; for the tribunal chose Fenner’s delegates from Providence, cleared the charges against him, and discharged Harris from the office of assistant. In addition, on petition of the town of Warwick, the assembly fined Harris £50. for imposing an extra session on the colony in the busy season of the year. Harris was chief of the committee to collect from the colony the tax to pay John Clarke’s expenses in England, while procuring the charter, and had made himself especially obnoxious to Warwick.

The town of Warwick was particularly delinquent in this affair; one of the most discreditable episodes in our colonial history.³⁸ Doctor John Clarke’s expenses in England, while procuring the royal charter, the secured foundation of the colony, had been slowly paid and never were fully liquidated. Yet no one deserved more from the planters than this esterprising, wise and forecasting statesman. Roger Williams berated Providence that, they “ride securely by a new Cable and Ankor of Mr. Clarke’s procuring” and refused his first just claims. He wrote Warwick a letter, powerful and befitting in our view,³⁹ but “pernitious” in the view of the town, who protested against it unanimously. Warwick had some reasons for objecting to its proportion of the tax. But these reasons did not prevail with the General Assembly, which ordered a letter “to provoke and stirr them up to pay.” This caused some noteworthy proceedings—curious even for Rhode Island. Warwick considered a letter from the committee on tax in 1669 “as if it had

³⁸ Durfee, “Judicial History R. I.,” p. 124.

³⁹ “R. I. H. S. Pub.,” Vol. VIII., 147.

been indicted in hell.” Unanimously the town ordered the “Clarke to put it on a file where impertinent papers shall be kept for the future; to the end that those persons who have not learned in the school of good manners how to speak to men in the language of sobriety (if they be sought for) may be there found?⁴⁰ This sublime courtesy from a debtor who was arraigned “out of hell” might have graced a Chesterfield. This “impertinent file” became a customary parliamentary instrument. That it was lost, is a misfortune; for its peremptory and excellent system of classification might have enlightened these modern times. In another connection this remarkable instrument appears as “the dam-file.”

The disputes of Warwick with the colony were contingent to the constant controversy of Wm. Harris against Williams and his associates. Harris availed of every circumstance to push his own polemics. Now in 1672, he became the ally of Connecticut⁴¹ in her attempts to get possession of the Narragansett country. The planters there inclined toward the movement of Connecticut. The government of the colony was changed on this issue, the moderate Quakers joining with the Narragansett planters who favored Connecticut; Easton becoming Governor in place of Arnold. But subsequently the people checked this unwise movement, and repelled the action of Connecticut. Harris was styled “traitor” and imprisoned by his opponents, after the controversial methods of the time; but he hardly committed overt treason. These transactions in town and assembly meetings seem very petty now. We are to remember that, not only was the citizen uneducated in the modern political sense, but he had much to unlearn that had been

⁴⁰ Arnold, I., 336n.

⁴¹ Brigham, p. 121.

forced into him by feudal usurpation and ecclesiastical oppression. The democrat was coming to his own through all sorts of vagaries. The process was petty and defaced the body politic on many occasions, but it formed a practical working democracy.

We should notice the social function of the colonial tavern, everywhere necessary and nowhere more important than in the little community at Providence. The intense individuality of the planter must have some social vent and opportunity for expression. The modern club, caucus and festive church meeting were anticipated mostly in the taverns of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

The first inn in the colony was licensed to William Baulston at Portsmouth in 1638.² In March, 1655-6, the colony passed an ordinance, closing bars at nine o’clock. But the Assembly probably found that taverns were better regulated by local authority, for in 1686 all laws relating to excise on liquors, keeping taverns and selling arms to Indians were repealed.

Gatherings at the town mill and later at the better taverns afforded a constant round of discussion and gave play to social excitement. A very curious sidelight is thrown on Providence society by a town ordinance in 1679. The religious excommunication of Rhode Island imposed by the other colonies of New England was so severe that the planters were often impelled to impose ordinance and law to maintain public decorum. Others thought so ill of our colonists it was necessary to show that they thought well of themselves. This act enjoined employment of servants for labor on the first day of the week; all sporting, gaming or shooting was likewise forbidden—simple and proper, civic regulation. But for

⁴² Arnold, Vol. I., p. 129.

taverns all tippling was suppressed on the Sabbath “more than necessity requireth.” We may readily imagine that a fierce discussion on proprietary rights or an evolution of Calvin’s institutes might produce a stomach ache requiring necessary flip or toddy.

The acrimony of the town meeting was lighted up by an occasional joke. Regulating the Common lands was a constant annoyance. Pigs especially disturbed the over-burdened administration. In debating an ordinance to fence them out, Wm. Harris said, “I hope you may goe looke as Scoggine did for ye haare.”⁴³ Scogan’s Jest Book was one of the most popular chap-books in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

The regulation of traffic in liquors was a constant source of trouble. An act July 3, 1663,⁴⁴ declared some sellers to be so “wicked and notorious as to deserve to be Branded with the name of Jaackes Cleansers.” Circumstantial evidence and the testimony of Indians have always troubled jurists. In these cases the planters made one positive good out of two possible evils. For it was provided at this time that the testimony of “an Indian, circumstances agreeing with such testimony” should convict under the ordinance of 1659.

In 1675 and the year following, Rhode Island was shaken to its foundations and the plantation of Moshassuck at Providence was destroyed for the time. The concentrated Indian uprising known as King Philip’s war, greatly injured Massachusetts and Rhode Island, while it ruined the native Indians. There were grievances on both sides, as always when barbarism encounters civilization. Philip and Canonchet in no wise equalled old Canonicus, one of the greatest North American aborigines.

⁴³ “R. I. H. S. Col.,” Vol. X., p. 75.

⁴⁴ “Early Rec. Prov.,” Vol. III., p. 38.

We shall never know what might have occurred in the thirties, had the Indians resisted the English outright; but in the seventies to hurl savages against the solid growth of English civilization as Philip did, was simple madness. These desperate contests have been amply recorded and we may only refer to the voluminous history. Ellis and Morris⁴⁵ have shown that the slaughter of the Narragansetts at the swamp fight was not as complete as was formerly imagined; but the impairment of the nation caused by the whole war was thorough. Scanty remnants finally settled in Charlestown, leaving the rich territory of aboriginal thousands. The mainland, about and through which the Indians lived, was a very theater of war. The power of government and administration of affairs was on the island controlled by the Quakers, and it was five times as wealthy as the other plantations. Whatever place—and it should be a very worthy place—we may assign the Quakers, in the building of individual character and in religious development, their function and their doings in political government have brought failure, wherever their principles have been enforced. According to Richard Smith, a prominent settler in Narragansett, “the Governor of Rhode Island being a Quaker, thought it perhaps not lawful either to give commission or to take up arms; so that their towns, goods, corn, cattle were by the savage natives burned and destroyed.”⁴⁶ Governor Coddington was old and the ruling citizens comfortable, quite willing to rest and be thankful. Moderate garrisons would have saved Providence, Warwick and outlying Narragansett, but the mainland was left to sorry fate.⁴⁷ Narragansett and Pawtuxet were cleared;

⁴⁵ King Philip’s War.

⁴⁶ “R. I. C. R.,” Vol. III., p. 51.

⁴⁷ Brigham, pp. 125-129.

Warwick kept one house, while Providence had not above three.⁴⁸

The wretched and monotonous litigation over proprietary rights and disputing plantations was not lessened by conflicting titles, left by the devastation of fire. Wrangling disputes over rights to the land continued to vex the community for some ten years.

“Whatever may have been their motive in deserting the mainland towns—whether it was political enmity, Quaker antipathy against war in general, or a selfish desire to preserve their homes—such action did much to foster an alienation between the mainland and the Island which hindered a united colony growth for many years.”⁴⁹ In 1676 died John Clarke, scholar, physician, minister and statesman; above all a pure patriot. Al-ways in public affairs, his “blameless self-sacrificing life” left him without an enemy, although in these times strife everywhere prevailed.

Woman, the true helpmate of those days, was not in the best position when she was “unattached.” The maiden, the unmarried female or spinster, was not in the best circumstances when she did not spin at her own wheel. The wills show many curious arrangements, where the maidens were controlled by a rigid family discipline.

⁴⁸ Rates assessed in 1678 show the relative conditions of the towns. Newport £136, Plymouth £68, New Shoreham and Jamestown each £29, Providence £10, Warwick and Kingston each £8, East Greenwich and Westerly each £2.

A flotilla of sloops and boats was employed by the General Assembly to sail around the Island and defend it. “This is the first instance in the history of the Colonies where a naval armament was relied upon for defence. It was the germ of a future Rhode Island squadron, one century later, and of an ultimate American navy.”—Arnold, Vol. I., p. 409.

⁴⁹ Brigham, p. 127.

Zachary Roades, in 1662,⁵⁰ able to give his daughters handsome legacies for the time, bound the will of the spinsters in summary fashion. To his eldest daughter Elizabeth he gave £80 at 21 years, or at marriage. To Mary and Rebecca £60 each on same conditions. But, if either “shall Marry or match themselves with any Contrary to ye Mind of their mother or of my two overseers (executors), then it shall be in their Mother’s what to give them, whether any thing or No.” Independent but not free spinsters; if concord followed there must have been some forbearance among those many wills.

Sometimes consent of parents was advertised in the notice of banns. Feb. 1, 1680,⁵¹ it comes from another colony, “I, John Wooddin of beverly in the covnty of essexe in New England doe not see now anything but that lawrence clinton and my daughter may proceed in the honorable state of matrimony,” cited from the “second publishing.”

The hardest municipal task—beyond early theological differences or proprietors’ disputes for lands—was in the control of sexual immorality. Persons offending in one town were handed over to the next en route. June 17, 1682,⁵² Ephraim Prey and Elizabeth Hoyden of Braintree were caught in flagrante delictu. The father of the girl agreed to remove her with Prey to his home in Braintree by June 22, at sunset, or both culprits would have been delivered to the next constable (at Rehoboth) “to be Conveid to their dwellings.”

In some cases, proceedings were very dilatory. Richard Bates⁵³ appears April 25, 1683, having “a woman

⁵⁰ “Early Records Prov.,” Vol. IV., p. 80.

⁵¹ Ibid., Vol. VI., p. 27.

⁵² Ibid., p. 43.

⁵³ Ibid., pp. 100, 107, 113.

100

abideing with you” and both were ordered off July 25. With his “pretended wife” he was questioned for contempt and obtained a stay of execution until Oct. 21. In December he was granted further courtesy until March 31. We can only suppose that the facts were not positively as bad as the judgments specify. Meanwhile the offenders must have gained some kind of better recognition from the neighbors, or this lax procedure would not have been allowed.

Mary Bellowes having come into town with a young child and “no bond for town’s security,” was ordered off in four weeks. This sentence was afterward extended about 8 months, July 12, 1683. Abigall Sibley,⁵⁴ with her child, was ordered off. Thomas Cooper published his intention of marriage with Abigall, which was forbidden, because he had “manifested himself a person infamous in that he hath forsaken a sober woman, who is his wife.” Mistress Abigall, with her child, appears again, Dec. 13, “entertained by Thomas Cooper.” Her time of removal was extended to the first Monday in March, “not to live with Thomas Cooper” meanwhile.

Mr. Dorr notes the increase of creature comforts after King Philip’s War. Kitchen utensils and other improvements in the household showed more abundance. Frying pans, gridirons, spits and skillets manifested the departure from the boiling pot, and to some housewives these utensils appeared to be extravagant. Abigail Dexter, administratrix, valued in 1679, “a frying pan, a skillet and other trumpery,” at 10s.

There were few candles to burn, some of them being made of bayberry tallow. In 1681 the town-meeting forbade making tar from pitchwood beyond ten gallons per man for his own use on his own land. Pitchwood was “a

⁵⁴ “Early Records Prov.,” Vol. IV., pp. 109, 114.

101

great benefit for candle light “As naval stores were then greatly desiderated in all countries; this shows how little the agriculturists appreciated the commercial possibilities of their own land.

Tobacco was generally raised by the farmers and appeared upon the inventories in small quantities. Mostly for domestic use, in some instances it was gathered for export. Ephraim Carpenter, probably a small shopkeeper, had in 1698, 313 lbs. at 3d. £3. 18. 3. In “cotten wooll,” which was always coming from the West Indies, he had a value of 3s. 6d. Flax was grown as table linen became a necessary comfort. Linen-wheels for spinning were common.

Mr. Dorr notes that long after King Philip’s War there were meetings of the town held under the buttonwood tree opposite Crawford Street.⁵⁵

We may note rates of taxation and prices of commodities. In 1663,⁵⁶ £36 was levied toward the expenses of John Clarke, while procuring the charter in England. Pork was received at 28s. per cwt.; wheat at 4s. 6 per bu.; peas at 3s. 6; butter at 6d per lb. In 1664,⁵⁷ the rate was £130, levied according to the apportionment of the General Assembly. Wheat and peas were unchanged and pork was at £3.10 per bbl. Horses and cattle were received at prices equivalent.

In 1678-9⁵⁸ for a rate of £20, the prices were for oxen £4; cows and 3 yrs. old, £3; horses and mares, 4 yrs. old, £3; swine, 15s.; sheep above 1 yr., 4s. Improved planting land was at £3 per acre and vacant land not improved 3s. per acre. Mr. Richman⁵⁹ records the positive fall in

⁵⁵ “Planting and Growth,” p. 94.

⁵⁶ “Early Records Prov.,” Vol. III., p. 91.

⁵⁷ Ibid, p. 58.

⁵⁸ Ibid, Vol. VIII., p. 41.

⁵⁹ “R. I.—Its Making,” p. 537.

102

prices of food from 1676 to 1686, after the ravages of King Philip’s War had passed away. Good pork was at £2.10 per bbl.; good beef, 12s. per cwt.; peas, always a staple, 2s.6. per bu.; wool, 12d. to 6d.; butter, 5d. to 6d. The abundance of other articles shows agricultural increase, and the relatively small decline in butter indicates a demand produced by more comfortable living.

Sept. 1, 1867,⁶⁰ the rate was £33.9.6. Silas and Benjamin Carpenter jointly paying £1.3 and Stephen Arnold £1.1.10, the highest individual taxes. Oct. 31, 1687, for another rate of £16.12.2. Indian corn was taken at 2s. per bu.; rye, 2s. 8; beef at three halfpence per pound; pork, 2d.; butter, 6d. For the rate of £37.12.3 in August, 1688,⁶¹ apparently they had rated more persons or had increased the portions of the majority, for Silas and Benjamin Carpenter stand at 16s.9 and Stephen Arnold at 17s.6; these magnates being reduced.

The disputes about land titles between Providence and Pawtuxet⁶² complicated the struggles of Proprietors and Freeholders, besides creating every possible difference among the direct contestants. Suit and cross suit, writ of ejectment with timid ineffective service, embarrassed these times and convulsed the community. The vigorous William Harris generally got his verdict, but failed in obtaining practical execution from the feeble administrators of law. This shows that public sentiment leaned against him.

We ought to look into the “Plea of the Patuxet Purchasers,” before the King’s Commissioners, Nov. 17, 1677.⁶³ This whole document illustrates the curious

⁶⁰ “E. R. Prov.,” Vol. XVII., p. 103.

⁶¹ Ibid., p. 12.

⁶² Arnold, Vol. I., p. 432-438.

⁶³ “R. I. H. S. Pub.,” Vol. I., 185 et seq.

103

compound of English law and judaic interpretation which prevailed in the mind of New England . . . “The said discomposed Soules that so Object, do not believe such a bound. If any, my Charity toward them, as to their Actions or wisdom not being so simple in doing as Saying.” The essential argument is given in summing up. “That the words (might have for our use of cattle) doth give a property in a sound sense by words of Scripture 35 of Numbers and 3d verse, ’And the City’s shall they (have) to dwell in and the suburbs of them shall be for their Cattle.’ Verse 3d.”⁶⁴ This was the outcome of the simple privilege “up streams for cattle” given by Canonicus to Roger Williams.

But in this fishing upstream for land, both parties went into muddy waters according to Mr. Richman. By “erratic and erring process in the field” seeking “where is the head of the Wanasquatucket,” Roger Williams and Arthur Fenner in 1678 surpassed William Harris “that master of tergiversation at his own game.”⁶⁵

At Christmas in 1679, Harris, in pursuit of “more specific execution,” went to England for the fourth time. On his passage he was taken by Algerine corsairs, who were even more ferocious than the Christians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In the summer of 1681, he was ransomed, released and went to London, where he died in three days from debility induced by his captivity. The ransom was mainly paid by the colony of Connecticut, for which he was acting abroad in the disputed Narragansett boundary. The ransom was afterward repaid by his family. In 1680 he wrote, “Deare wife and Children let us Cast our Care on god without distracting feare, thouh I should here dy yet god lives, and I am not

⁶⁴ R. I. H. S. Pub.,” Vol. I., p. 211.

⁶⁵ R. I. H. S. Col.,” Vol. X., p. 19.

104

without hope but that I may see you againe, let us pray fervently and Continually to god that is able to deliver and soe I commend you all to god all way.”⁶⁶

Could there be a more pathetic situation? Bad, as were the greedy claims and angry quarrels of Pawtuxet and Providence—the barbaric Saracen was worse. And the fierce individual contestant out of this turbulent colony, was nevertheless in his heart the gentle Christian father commending all to his heavenly Father in pure faith.

Mr. Richman⁶⁷ has studied the Harris and Williams controversy in every detail and probably knows more about it than any one. He is severe in his view of Harris. Let us quote the words of Arnold, whose judgment cannot be neglected, “Thus perished one of the strong men of Rhode Island. He filled a large space in the early history of the Colony, as an active, determined man, resolute in mind and vigorous in body, delighting in conflict, bold in his views of the political dogmas of his time, fearless in his mode of expressing them, striking always firmly, and often rashly, for what he believed to be the right. His controversy with Roger Williams was never forgotten, and scarcely forgiven, by either of these great men, and presents the darkest blot that rests upon their characters.”⁶⁸

Mr. Dorr’s general view of these differences and conflicts is just; for the system was more at fault than the men. Lack of legal knowledge, still greater lack of judicial organization and executive power, inevitable in a

⁶⁶ “R. I. H. S. Col.,” Vol. X., p. 321.

⁶⁷ Cf. “R. I. H. S. Col.,” Vol. X., pp. 11-127, for hls study with original documents.

⁶⁸ Arnold, Vol. I., p. 437.

105

colony forced by circumstances into irregular existence; noble motives struggling with ordinary greed and necessity of living—all these compelling forces produced the disputes of Providence Plantation, too often ending in a quarrel.69 But let us not dwell on these minor shadows. These individuals were great as a whole, if faulty in detail, and they wrought even better than they knew. While recognizing the smaller defects, let us cherish the grand result.

In the years 1677 and 1678—contemporary with the withdrawal of Harris—there occurred the deaths of three most prominent citizens. Samuel Gorton,⁷⁰ one of the most remarkable “men that ever lived,” passed away. With the vision of a seer, his mental astuteness, his scriptural learning, his deep reverence for established law, made of him an extraordinary conserving radical.

Quite unlike was Governor Benedict Arnold, who had lived at Newport twenty-five years, removing there from Providence. He was not moved by the arguments of George Fox and followed John Clarke politically, opposing the usurpation of Coddington. President of the colony under the patent, he was named governor in the second charter, and was elected by the people seven times. The confidence of his constituents proves his integrity and political sagacity. One act alone—his reply to the inhuman and arrogant demand of the United Colonies, for

⁶⁹ Cf. Chief Justice Thomas Durfee, “Judicial History,” p. 18. The influence of Newport in the early history of the State has not been appreciated. The rest of the colony was very heterogeneous, the home of soul-liberty being the home of rampant individuality. Newport had “higher civic or communal sentiment, a more educated public spirit, a profounder political consciousness.” The best lawyers, ablest politicians and public men lived there. Sectional, local “Rhode Island men” broadened out at Newport, as government went on.

⁷⁰ Ante, p. 40.

106

the expulsion of Quakers from Rhode Island,⁷¹—would give him a high, permanent place in history.

Governor William Coddington died in office. As he built the first brick house in Boston, so he laid the foundations of Newport on a solid basis, being pioneer in her commerce. In his course as judge, he probably made the first code of laws, which lasted for generations, and without which we may safely assume, Rhode Island never could have been developed. But in the significant words of a judicial descendant, “he had in him a little too much of the future for Massachusetts, and a little too much of the past for Rhode Island, as she then was.”⁷² This tendency resulted in the vagary of “Usurpation.” He became a Friend and in his latter years was again active in public affairs, in a legitimate way. As we have noted above,⁷³ Rhode Island owes him a great debt.

When life was monotonous and news-prints were unknown the talk of Towne Streete was of constant interest. Beyond this, scandal, slander and gossip too often filled the air and occasionally went on record. August 27, 1684,⁷⁴ S. Bennett was obliged to retain John Whipple, Jr., an attorney to defend him against the suit of Bridget Price. In September, Bridget signing with an X declares that the said Bennett in his own home charged her with being “a thiefe, a ———, and a vagabond.” Even Boston furnished its share to these proceedings, for Thomas Clarke in “his pewtour’s shopp “there, had an altercation with one Mary Brattle (not connected with Brattle Sq. probably) and followed her to Providence, where he arraigned her through the busy attorney Whipple,

⁷¹ “R. I. Col. Rec.,” Vol. I, pp. 376-380.

⁷² C. J. Job Durfee, “Historical Discourse,” p. 16.

⁷³ Ante, p. 64.

⁷⁴ “E. R. Prov.,” XVII., p. 41.

107

Nov. 24, 1684.⁷⁵ Whipple deposed for Clarke that in the said shop Mary Brattle demanded the “key of a house of office.” Clarke refused and Mary gave him “very Taunting speeches.” In answer, Clarke said, “prateing hossey.” Then Mary called Clarke “Beggers Bratt, and Cheate, and sayd shee kept a better man to wipe her shoees.” Then the said Clarke bid her get out, “for yov are prateing hossey, for yov had need to have had a hundred pounds Bestooed upon you at a boardeing scoole; to learn manner and breeding then shee ye said Brattle called ye sayd Clarke Rouge and soe went out of ye shopp.” The views of Clarke on education indicate the standard of culture prevailing among Boston pewterers.

However simple the social proceedings of the plantation, man and woman were sometimes unaccommodating in their vital intercourse. Whatever Margaret Abbott’s faults may have been, her explicit consort Daniel shines forth in no favorable light. Aug. 7, 1683,⁷⁶ Abbott records his woes. “Through her Maddness of folly and Turbulency of her Corrupt will, Destroying me Root and Branch, putting out one of her owne Eyes to putt out Both mine. And is since departed takeing away my Children without my Consent and plots to Rifle my house to accomplish her Divelish Resolution against me.”

The spirit of peace hovered over another couple even in temporary estrangement. In this methodical fashion, they wore no sackcloth, but coming before their townspeople, they laid these substantial foundations for new marital relations. It is to be hoped that gay Cupid smiled on sober Justice, Dec. 29, 1699.” Agreement between

⁷⁵ “E. R. Prov.,” XVII., p. 53.

⁷⁶ Ibid, Vol. XVII., p. 37.

⁷⁷ Ibid, Vol. V., p. 9.

108

George Potter of Mashantatuck and Rachel his wife. She had with his “Consent and in hope of More peaceable liveing withdrawne herselfe and removed to Boston for sometime; and now finding it uncomfortable⁷⁸ so to live and I being desireous to Come together againe, doe here for her further in Couragement and to prevent after Strifes and Alienations propose these Artickles. 1. She has given some things to her children. I shall never abraid her or seek a return to them. 2^ly. Our house and land, if I dye before my wife she shall have it during widowhood and bearing my name. In case of Marriage, she shall enjoy 1-3, other 2-3 to my nearest Relations—at her decease her 1-3 to return. 3^ly. I will not Sell or Mortgage any house or lands. 4^ly. I promise to dwell in all loveing and quiet behavours. All Moveables as Cattell and household goods vessels or Boates she shall possess solely at my decease.”

The wife on her part appreciated such liberal treatment and showed that she was not making a merely formal or ineffectual contract.

“5^ly. I Rachell Potter if it appear I have disposed of more than one bed since our departure, said bed shall be returned.”

In treatment of the poor, especially those fallen from a better estate, the finest qualities of the planters stood out in full relief. The support of the poor caused a substantial portion of every rate assessed. Once within the town, the poor were well cared for, though the burghers were constantly struggling against tramps, vagabonds and persons whom they did not choose to admit as citizens.

⁷⁸ Mark the delicate variations and subtle suggestion in this renewed courtship. Both “uncomfortable” and he ready to give further encouragement. Modern Newport might learn some things of old Providence.

109

However illiberal or undesirable this municipal hostility appears to be now; then it seemed to be the only mode of ruling a plantation.

We cannot follow in detail the administration of particular cases, though they are interesting and often pathetic. A negro, not enslaved, had rights, for Samuel Beep’s servant appealed to the town, Feb. 19, 1672,⁷⁹ Reep having refused to “Receue him or Releaue him for his presant nessety.” John Joanes⁸⁰ frequently appears, declining into the vale of years, and always as “our Ancient Neighbour.” Dec. 24, 1677, repairs were ordered for his house to make it “comfortable for the winter.” Nov. 24, 1680, the same ancient neighbour is allowed maintenance according to “his minde and will.” The old gentleman’s will could still prevail over the committee, for he repudiated their arrangement Dec. 15, and asked for an inventory of his estate. In April the poor “neighbour” submitted to the inevitable resigning estate to the town. House and lot were sold by “inch of ye Candle, highest bid, £17.6. May 3, 1684⁸¹ His inventory showed £8.4.1, of which £2.4. was in wearing apparel. Jan. 27, 1682-3, Joseph Smith received a grant of forty feet square on Towne Streete—as they were constantly being made—on condition that he lay a row of “steping’s stones along the fence of John Joanes’ lot.”

Wm. Harris died in London, but we may cite from his inventory, January 21, 1681,⁸² some items which are interesting from every point of view. He had a story and a half house, with many barns and cribs well stored and perhaps the largest estate in the colony, leading a

⁷⁹ “E. R. Prov., Vol. VIII., pp. 23, 88, 89, 123.

⁸⁰ Ibid, Vol. III., p. 227.

⁸¹ Ibid, Vol. VI., p. 122.

⁸² “Early Rec. Prov.,[”] Vol. VI., p. 75.

110

most active and enterprising life. Pewter was the main article in the outfit of table and kitchen, and his stock was worth £2. 0. 4., including syringe at 5s. 6d., and a chamber pot at 1s. 6d. These durable conveniences were common and in this instance coincided in value with a copper candlestick. This metal was unusual, and the porringer—a dish so much used in pewter—stood at 1s. Brass kettles and candlestick £1. 0. 6., and this metal as well as iron was used in almost every kitchen; there was also wooden and earthen ware. We have referred to Harris’ library, which was then far better than that of the ordinary man of affairs. Fortunately, the list may be given in detail. 1 Dixonary 6s.; London Despencettorey 8s.; Chururgion’s mate 10s.; Norwood’s Tryangles 5s.; 1 Bible 2s. 6d.; 1 Great do 5s.; 1 Contemplations Morall and devine 2s. 6d.; Cooke’s Commentarey upon littleton £1. (this was given to Thomas Olney); The Compleat Concordance Clarke 8s.; Touchstone of wills 2s.; 3 bookes 1s.—1 naturs Explecation; 1 treatise of faith; 1 ye effect of warr; 5 books 6s.—Gentleman Jockey, Gospel Preacher, New England Memorial, Method Physic, Introduction Grammar, Lambath’s perambulations, not valued; Statute poulton £1. 15.; Declarations and Pleadings 3s.; The Executors Office 2s.; Exposition law terms 2s.; layman’s lawyer 2s.; Saw juryers 1s. 6d.; Justice Restored 1s. 6d.; Dallon’s Country justice 5s. A set of surveying instruments.

A collection of books in a community where they were scarce; it was very strong in law, moderate in theology and ethics, sufficient in medicine and surgery, useful in surveying; altogether the mental nutriment of a powerful citizen who touched life on all sides.

As Wm. Harris was in the way of the time a statesman, Thomas Olney, called Senior in distinction, was a politician

111

and manager of men. One of the original thirteen proprietors with Williams and Harris, the first treasurer of the town; he was often town clerk, when the clerk was the mainstay of order, and of such propriety as prevailed. He was very acrimonious in the dispute with George Fox and the Friends. His disputation mingled politics with doctrine in a manner worthy of an ecclesiastic. He was always prominent in the affairs of plantation and colony. October 9, 1682,⁸³ his inventory showed the moderate personal estate of £78. 9. 5., of which only £3. 17. was in wearing apparel. There was a change in the dress of this class of citizens in the next score of years. In the pioneer period and until after King Philip’s War, the planters were homely in all their habits of life. Brass was represented in 3 kettles £1. 6.; in a candlestick and other articles 5s. Pewter dishes £1., with 1 dozen trenchers 6d. The furniture was meager, 2 old joynt chairs and a joynt stool 3s. 6d.; 1 great chair 1s.; 1 “fourme” 6d.; 1 small table 4s. There was no loom or spinning wheel, but considerable evidence of home-made cloth. As 2 3/4 yds. Carsey 13s.; 10 1/2 yds. blanketing £1. 5.; 4 yds. woollen homespun 7s.; 2 1/2 yds. home-made cloth 4s. 2d. Almost 2 yds. white fulled cloth 4s. Dry hides, including what Thomas Olney took to tan; £2. 14. in money and 4 cows at £10. Evidently he farmed only for his own household, and commingled other interests, as in tanning, weaving, etc. He did not read as Harris did, for his library was small, even in a small environment of books. One bible 4s.; 3 old pieces bible 2s. Three books—Ainsworth’s Annotations, a Concordance, “fisher’s Ashford Dispute”—were valued at £1 10. Though church connections were few and not very binding, the Scriptures were clearly used in a practical way. In the

³³ “Early Rec. Prov.,” Vol. VI., p. 90.

112

dearth of printed matter, pieces and bits of Bibles and Testaments were appraised in many inventories.

In the same month passed on John Smith, the miller; not so conspicuous or famous, but an influential factor in the communal life of the early plantation. Before there was a room of size in a dwelling, or a tavern to accommodate loiterers and talkers, the town-mill gathered a throng who discussed the whole affairs of those concerned—political, religious, or social. Seated on bags of grain, they did not mind the rumbling of the stones, as they disputed and threshed out matter for a future town meeting. John Smith, of the widely extended name, hospitable and hearty, must have made happy the early townsmen assembled for these rare opportunities. His estate was £146. 5. 3.,⁸⁴ the corn-mill, house over it and all appertaining was valued at £40; one-seventh part of the saw-mill adjoining £3. 10. The furnishings were simple, 2 bedsteads and bedding £2.; 1 do and bedding “in ye lower Roome” £3; Brass and copper kettles £2. 16.; 2 tubs and tobacco 5s. 6d. Flax 10s. Cattle with 2 mares, 3 young horses, 16 swine £22. 9. “Ye Booke of Martirs” 15s. Old bible, “some lost and tome, 9d.”

In 1688, died Roger Williams the founder. He built the state even better than he knew—and his knowledge was great for his time and opportunity. The principles he conceived and set forth were larger than any man; as the centuries have shown.

An important function in the early life of New England lay in the making of apprentices; binding out a minor to learn an “art or mystery.” When children were bereaved, it often created a temporary home for a waif, and finally gave him capacity for a good livelihood.

After the vocation of a smith, one of the greatest

⁸⁴ “Early Rec. Prov.,” Vol. VI., p. 72.

113

needs was for a weaver. Cloth making was carried on in nearly every household, and sometimes experts went about using the family looms. Again, there were shops for weaving yarn taken from farmers who carded their own wool and spun it on domestic wheels.

July 3, 1674,⁸⁵ there appears a name well known in textile industry. Moses Lippitt, with the consent of his father-in-law, Edward Sairle, and Anna Sairle, his mother, was apprenticed to William Austin for fifteen and one-half years and two months to learn the “art and trade” of a weaver. There were the usual covenants and at majority he was to have his freedom and “two sufficient Suites.” If Austin should die, he could assign Lippitt for the balance of his term.

March 30, 1696, John Sayles took Job Liddeason for 14 years, who promised to keep his master’s secrets, not to contract matrimony, nor frequent taverns or ale houses, nor absent himself night or day. Sayles on his part was to give the “Nessessaryes to an apprentice doth belong” and to “endeavour to learne him to Read and write.”⁸⁶

Jan. 11, 1708-9,⁸⁷ Thomas and Hannah Joslin took Jerusa Sugars from her mother; who was to pay them £8 in silver and 40s. in a yearling heifer. The payment was changed Jan. 20 to £10. silver. The child was about one year old, and was to receive sufficient board, lodging and apparel for a servant. The Joslins were “carefully her to keepe” and to learne “the said Jerusa Sugars the art and mistry of a Tailor, well and sufficiently to make apparill both for Men and Women and to learne her to Read well.” At eighteen years of age, she was to receive two sufficient sutes.”

³⁵ “Early Rec. Prov.,” Vol. V., p. 292.

³⁶ Ibid, p. 147.

³⁷ Ibid., p. 18.

114

Richard Arnold in his will, 1708, directed his son Thomas to free the negro Tobey in February, 1716-7, when he would be 25 years of age, and should receive two suits of clothes.

Nov. 25, 1687,⁸⁸ Gideon Crawford, a Scotchman, was granted liberty to “Reside and here to follow his way of dealeing in goods.” This was a memorable event, for he was the first to develope an orderly trade among the not too liberal planters of Providence. Commerce was not unknown, for William Field, in his will, May 31, 1665,⁸⁹ gave to his “cousin Thomas now at Providence, all that Cargo that is now upon sending to the Barbados.” And in further bequest gave to his wife “that which is as Yett coming to me from the Barbados.” But the traces of exports are few, and though Mr. Dorr excludes them altogether in his view of industrial progress in the latter seventeenth century, commerce prevailed, if it was not important. The community pursued agriculture too closely, and suffered from the contracted ideas prevailing in consequence. It was not until 1711, when Crawford and his imitators had taught the value of enlarged intercourse with the world that Nathaniel Browne established ship-building at the head of the “Great Salt River.”

The most definite account of Rhode Island exports appears in William Harris’ testimony in London before Sir J. Williamson,⁹⁰ in 1676. This was carried on from Newport, but Providence must have profited indirectly through the demand created for produce. There were more sheep in Rhode Island than anywhere in New England. Wool was exchanged with France for linen. Deerskins,

⁸⁸ “Early Rec. Prov.” Vol. V., p. 170.

⁸⁹ Ibid, Vol. VII., p. 225.

⁹⁰ “Col. Br., State Papers, 1675, 1676,” pp. 221, 222.

115

sugar, and logwood went to England for cloth and iron ware. Horses, beef, pork, butter, cheese, flour, peas, and biscuit went to Barbados for sugar and indigo. There was “a great trade” in cod, haddock, and mackerel with West Indies, Barbados, Spain, and the Straits. I think much of this fish came from Massachusetts in exchange for West India goods. He mentions obtaining linsey-woolseys and other coarse cloths from Massachusetts.

Citizens of another sort were admitted occasionally, though many were refused. William Ashly and his wife were driven out from “Wels” by Indian depredations to Boston. Then they came to our plantation, where Abraham Hardin permitted them to unload their house-hold goods, “which I took to be a loving-kindness in distress.”⁹¹ He asked for a habitation in 1693.

The Indians, though much weakened, were a factor and caused alarms in the quiet life of the plantation. April 3, 1697,⁹² there had been “a late in Curtion and invasion by the Cruel and Barbarous Indian Enemies” The Council appointed twenty prominent citizens to command ten men each, and to “scout, kill and destroy.”

We have noted the political organization of government under the charter. Quite as important was the character of the judicial system introduced then.⁹³ The chief officers were a President and four assistants—one from each town—making a General Court of Trials for the Colony. This was the origin of our present Supreme Court; lesser tribunals appealing to it. As showing the curious interplay of English legal procedure, with the planters’ notions of independence and town government,

⁹¹ “Early Rec. Prov., Vol. XVII., p. 146.

⁹² Ibid, p. 163.

⁹³ Durfee, “Judicial History R. I.,” (Tracts), p. 11, et seq.

116

there had been a mingling of the head officers of a town with the Court, and they had sat together. This was remedied after 1647 by rules “to add to the comely and commendable order of the Court.”

The General Assembly had full governmental powers, and consisted of the Governor, Deputy-Governor, ten assistants, and a body of deputies The deputies, or house in modern parlance, were a purely legislative body; the Governor, Deputy-Governor, and assistants (senate) had magisterial duties as well. After the old court became mainly a tribunal for appeals, the new court exercised original jurisdiction.

In 1749 a change in organization was effected. From the Governor, Deputy and ten assistants, five judges, a chief and four associates were selected. In 1781 final separation was made between legislature and judiciary, for members of either house of the Assembly were forbidden to sit as justices of the Supreme Court.

The earlier judges included Roger Williams, Samuel Gorton, John Clarke; not lawyers, but men of broad culture for the time. Perhaps they were quite as useful in a common world as the strictly trained Puritanic jurist, steeped in Judaic precedent and tradition. The whole system was a local and essential outgrowth of the soil. The orderly sense of law, transported with every English immigrant, was incorporated with an intense individual desire of the citizen to imprint his own ideal of immediate justice on every public act. Some of the most vital issues of Rhode Island life—potential for good or evil—were born just here.

We should note that this remarkable creation of a substantial judiciary out of very rough material, which worked out justice according to English law, was accomplished by men outside the lines of Catholic or Protestant

117

education. Churches do much good, as well as some ecclesiastical harm. In Massachusetts and Connecticut they educated the people. Outcast Rhode Island must educate itself, not by academic forms, but through the business of a hard, stringent life. A university was impossible, but nature lived and moved all about these men. After all, to do is better than to construe or to imitate. William Harris, Thomas Olney, Arthur Fenner, Pardon Tillinghast, the cooper-preacher, and many less conspicuous, took and assimilated life from the kernel.

A record book of the “Ancient Court of Last Resort” has been preserved fortunately at Newport.⁹⁴ All the cases are curious and some indicate remarkable efforts to apply a large humane spirit to the inevitable burdens of the law. In the period 1672-1678, Stephen Sabeere of Newport, obtained judgment against Wm. Blandin £7. 14. 6. N. E. silver. However modern civilization may err in treatment of the debtor, its humane intention is a great gain over the severity prevailing two centuries since. In the procedure with Blandin, clumsy though it was, the Court was trying sincerely to distinguish between a disaster and a crime. It laid down the general proposition “poor persons that have not to pay their debts, shall not lie languishing in prison.” The Court adjudged, considering “the debtor’s poverty, and creditor’s due debt, not for profuse expenses, but for diet for himself and wife, do order.” Blandin was to work out his debt “on carpentry upon this island, being boarded by the creditor.” And there were minute provisions for valuing work and trading in Sabeere’s timber to help “work out.” Altogether, it was a careful finding of justice in the concrete, and in advance of the times in procedure, whether of Massachusetts, Connecticut, or England.

⁹⁴ Durfee, p. 124, et seq.

118

Indictments for the “vague misdemeanor denominated contempt of authority” were common. Theft was severely punished. Uriah Clemence, for stealing a watch, was sentenced to be “severely whipped and if the fine of £12. be not paid” the general treasurer was directed to “sell him for a servant for the full term of 7 years.” It was the custom of the time to impose heavy fines, and the alternative of servitude was occasionally enforced. Whipping was imposed for various crimes, and the punishment for theft generally included a twofold restoration of the property. There are traces of the Talmudic method, in trying to pry into the intention of an offender.

Sexual offenses prevailed abominably; thirteen indictments being recorded in one term, 1672. The same tendency appeared in other colonies, especially on the records of Plymouth. As Judge Durfee remarks, they were largely due to the “vacuity of life.”

The execution of the law appears to have been quickened in general about 1685.⁹⁵ In Providence the “towne was destitute” of stocks. It ordered Samuel Whipple to provide lumber and John Dexter to finish them. In 1687 Anne Waters, a married woman, was “transported” for felony. The care of her young child was assumed by the town.

In 1684 and 1685 there appears an interesting instance of law changed and formed anew out of public opinion, in the loss of Wm. Dyre’s suit. A public officer, he had seized the estates of eight Jews for “alienage,” but the verdict was rendered for the defendant Jews. The Jews petitioned the General Assembly for relief. It voted that they “might expect as good protection here, as any stranger, not of our nation, ought to have, being obedient to ’the laws.’” As the Jews had been most useful residents

⁹⁵ “Early Rec. Prov.,” Vol. VIII., pp. 142, 174.

119

largely engaged in commerce at Newport for more than thirty years, their questionable position under the law shows the generally eccentric treatment of this remarkable race.

We may cite the words of C. J. Thomas W. Durfee,⁹⁶ whose learned, calm, and judicious conduct in its turn, duly contributed to the results achieved. “Step by step the judiciary has gone on gradually consolidating and developing itself to answer to the growing and varying needs of the state. Our ancestors held that a judiciary like any other political institution exists not for itself, but for the work which it has to do. Such a growth is according to the law of evolution, by progressive adaptations.”

In 1663 the proprietors passed an ordinance reserving 106 acres land for the maintenance of a school. It does not appear that action followed. The first schoolmaster was Wm. Turpin, who became representative to the General Assembly in 1722; town clerk in 1727. June 11, 1684, he agreed to furnish Peregrine Gardner with board and schooling for one year for £6. The record referred to the grant of land for the “use and benefit of a school-master,” which was the “occasion of my settling at this town.” He maintained the “worthy art of learning,” but there was no transfer of land. In 1694 John Dexter and others obtained a grant for a schoolhouse on Dexter’s Lane (now Olney Street), but no action is recorded. Judge Staples⁹⁷ found no evidence of a public school in the seventeenth century.

Soon after the middle of the century, planters built a “house in the woods,” even when they had regular residence in town. Arthur Fenner⁹⁸ has a house of this kind

⁹⁶ “Judicial History,” p. 153.

⁹⁷ “Annals,” pp. 492-494.

⁹⁸ Isham and Brown, p. 24.

120

in 1655 at Cranston, near the village of Thornton. After King Philip’s War he could safely build a comfortable one in 1677; and the first shelter probably survived in the leanto. The first type of houses described on Towne Street, in the period of building toward the end of the century, grew along the ground, before rising into a full second story. Generally there were four apartments. Chimney in the center or at the side, and more or less chambers. There were also a few narrow ones of two stories, with two rooms on each floor, a garret above and a leanto. Thomas Olney, one of the most wealthy planters, dying in 1682, had a “parlour,” a kitchen “and chamber.”⁹⁹ There were evidences of comfort, not only in the massive chimney and occasional end wall, but in windows placed irregularly, yet showing better—the active life therein.

It is unfortunate that we have not better records of an annual fair in Providence. September 28, 1696,¹⁰⁰ one was held and Captain William Hopkins was appointed “Clarke of the Market.” Olney’s, Turpin’s, and Whipple’s inns were centers of public excitement throughout colonial times, where people gathered and information was circulated. By these resorts the temporary market-place was constituted and stalls were set in the public highway. It was an interesting phase of early communal life, and doubtless took effect in the habits and manners of the rural citizens.

December 12, 1699,¹⁰¹ the inventory of Stephen Arnold, a wealthy man in Pawtuxet, is worth noting. The lands do not appear, but the personal estate was £495. 11. 1., of which £130. was in gold and silver, £146. 5. 3. in “money

⁹⁹ Probate Rec., Vol. I., p. 33.

¹⁰⁰ Doer, “Planting and Growth,” p. 190.

¹⁰¹ “Early Rec. Prov.,” Vol. VI., p. 207.

Cæsar House.
Type of the houses built in the latter part of the seventeenth century.

121

due by bills” Plate now appears worth £17. Pewter and Glasses £4. 5. His wearing apparel, better than the average, stood at £12. Books £6. In cattle and sheep he had £76. 10., without horses; £10 in home-made cloth, and two stocks of bees at £1.

In a personal estate of £68. 16. 2. four years earlier the male apparel was £5. 11., and the wife’s adornment only £3. 3.

In rebuilding the town after King Philip’s War, there was a decided advance in the architecture and provision for comfortable living. William Harris’ house, one of the better sort, was a story and one-half high. His barns were even more ample than his dwelling. The confined, rough structure of the early pioneers had been succeeded by a house of several rooms, and in many cases the peculiar leanto (often called “linter”) was added. The chimney was large and usually at the end;¹⁰² at this time and in the beginning of next century. There were several historic houses of this period which lasted well into modern times. T. Fenner’s at Cranston, built in 1677, Eleazer Whipples at Lime Rock, built in 1677, Edward Manton’s at Manton, built in 1680, Eleazer Arnold’s at Moshassuck, built in 1687, Thomas Field’s at Field’s Point, built in 1694.

There were horse carts and wheeled vehicles in wealthy estates before 1700;¹⁰³ but they were little used. Saddle and pillion were better adapted to the bridle-paths, which Madam Knight found so difficult when she journeyed through our colony from Boston to New York on horseback in 1704. She came with the post-rider from Dedham, Mass. “We found great difficulty in Travailing,

¹⁰² Isham and Brown, “R. I. Houses,” pp. 16, 30.

¹⁰³ Dorr, p. 123.

122

the way being very narrow, and on each side the Trees and bushes gave us very unpleasant welcome with their Branches and bows.”¹⁰⁴

Intercourse in the seventeenth century tended toward canoes and boats along the waters of the Bay, rather than to bridle-paths on shore.

Toward 1700 and thereafter, we have ample inventories of the planters’ estates; which will assist in working out the change of living, as we pass from agriculture to commerce. Shipbuilding, begun in 1711, marks this passing of a community.

The peculiar probate customs have been noted.¹⁰⁵ A practical illustration is recorded in 1676.¹⁰⁶ Resolved Waterman, of Providence, had died intestate at Newport in 1671. The Town Council then “made a will,” allotting to the widow Mercy the enjoyment of the house and lot, other lands and meadows, with the cattle for her “maintenance and ye bringing vp of ye orphans five small children.” Samuel Windsor had persuaded the widow Mercy to reinforce her lone estate, and “publication of marriage” was made. As the former council did not formally “perfect their agreement,” this council virtually confirms the former action. It also voted to carry out the items in will of the grandfather, Richard Waterman.

Silk grass beds were frequently used. One appears in 1695.¹⁰⁷ with a feather bolster and pillow “much worn,” all to the value of 16s. All the money found in this case was laid out in the funeral, but the party was respectably dressed, for his apparel was valued at £8. 5. Outfits of tools showed the improvement in carpentry in the

¹⁰⁴ Journal, p. 30.

¹⁰⁵ Ante, p. 87.

¹⁰⁶ “Early Rec.,” Vol. VIII., p. 227.

¹⁰⁷ “Early Rec.,” Vol. XVII., pp. 63, 159.

123

second generation. Wm. Carpenter, of Pawtuxet, had £2. 16. worth, including “tenn ogegers Greater and Smaller” at 12s. in 1685.

The most careful provision was made for widows, and minute changes were prescribed in case they married again. August 21, 1694,¹⁰⁸ Thomas Man devised various legacies of lands and goods to his sons and daughters. To the widow was given the use of all the household goods, while she remained a widow. In event of marriage three-quarters of the household goods was bequeathed to the five daughters and one-quarter to their mother. The personal estate amounted to £149. 11. 6.

February 1, 1695-6, Wm. Vincent left £4. 6. in wearing apparel, £1. 10. in pewter, 12s. in bookes, out of a personal estate of £63. 2. Explicitly and with excellent brevity the appraisers recorded:

“As to debts wee know not

“As to money wee find not.”

The prudent Ephraim Carpenter¹⁰⁸ had only £3. in wearing apparel, with “Boots and Portmanle” 7s. 6d. He was a small shopkeeper, probably, having 313 pounds tobacco at 3d., £3. 18. 3. and 3s. 6d. in “Cotten Wooll.” Shortly after, Valentine Wightman appeared, leaving wearing apparel at £4. 2. “Kash” in N. E. Coyne £38.6. “Kash” in Spanish Money £42. 8. One testament, part of a bible and another small book, in all only 3s.

Curious and interesting forecast was often manifest in arrangements for inheritance between parents and children. June 26, 1701,¹⁰⁹ Joseph Aldridge and J. A., Jr.,

¹⁰⁷ “Early Rec.,” Vol VII., 185.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid, pp. 177, 195, 202.

¹⁰⁹ Ibid, p. 206.

124

both signing with marks make over “to son,” the house-lot and orchard of about 20 acres, retaining the use of one-half the orchard. The son was to maintain three cows for the use of his father and mother for life and to plow one acre for them. Aldridge had other property and other children.

Arthur “ffenner,” a country gentleman, residing on his estate in Cranston, died in 1703. His inventory is worth considering, as he was a military man in public life, as well as a farmer. The personal estate was £166. 8s. He had 3 shirts, 5 waistcoats, 7 pair breeches, 1 pair drawers, 3 loose coats; and he walked bravely in boots and spurs with a buff belt, and he could adorn himself with 3 pair silver buttons. There were some shoes and other articles bringing up his wardrobe to £8. 6. In money £2. 15. The great bible stood at £1. 18., a statute book £2. 10., 7 small books 19s.; a respectable library for such a man in times not given to much reading. Bridle, saddle, port-mantle and “male pillion” £1.; 2 guns and 1 pistol £2. Warming pan 8s., 3 greatchairs and 7 small at 12s.; 2 spinning wheels and cards 8s. In cattle and horses £49. 16., with some horses and mares “not yet found,” being on the common. In farm produce 29 loads hay and 1 stack stalks £20. 12.

A fair supply of chairs was common now for well-to-do people and they were a comparative luxury a generation earlier. In a small farmer’s estate, where the personal was £93. 3. with wearing apparel at £4. 2., there were 4 chairs at 5s. and a small table at 3s.; 1 joynt-stool at 1s. 8. The “joynt-stool” was almost invariably represented from the beginning. It was made of parts morticed and inserted together, and probably was of home construction.

Major John Dexter had the large personal estate of

125

£757. 19. 6., in 1706. His wardrobe was £9. 1. 6., reinforced with a cane when he walked, worth 14s.; and he could choose between a sword and belt at £4. 6., and another at 16s. When he mounted his hone, saddle, bridle, boots, spurs and portmantle stood at £11. 10. This was a brave outfit for a farmer, but he was forehanded, having in cash £168, and in bills for money lent £343. 8. 6. A concordance and several books £1. 17. Now appears silver in 2 “Dram Cupps” 15s., and “some glass cupps.” Without doubt silver plate was used early in Newport, and it appeared in a Portsmouth inventory in 1667. Dexter had a moderate farming outfit, including 25 goats and 7 kids (unusual as this period), with 56 sheep and 30 lambs.

August 9, 1711, William Turpin died “intested,” and the more delicate problem, occasioned by a mother-in-law, must be met. These settlements of intestate estates are especially significant, for they directly indicate the state of public opinion. There were the widow Anne and three children, one a son. Wm. Turpin, the son, agrees¹¹⁰ with his mother-in-law to allow her the room now occupied by her in his father’s house for life, with one good bedstead, 1 good feather bed and bolster, 2 pair good sheets, 1 pair good blankets, “cupple” good pillows, 2 pillow beers, 1 good coverlid, to be “her own estate.” To maintain her for life, with sufficient victuals and drink and washing and suitable attendance. The benefit of the fire to go to and from and abide by it, with “free Recorse to and from said Roome.” To allow her £40. current silver, to be paid £10. annually for four years. If she be sick so that “she must Improve a Phisitian,” that charge to be borne out of her own estate.

In the seventeenth century, feather beds were of the

¹¹⁰ “Early Rec.,” Vol. VII., p. 180.

126

very most important personal effects. After a roof for shelter and a fire in the chimney, the best comfort was to be found in a good nest of feathers. Samuel Whipple’s inventory¹¹¹ affords an example, for it contains 4 feather beds and complete outfit £38. 5., and one flock bed complete £3. 10. Wearing apparel averaged £6. to £7. for the ordinary citizen. Unless there was positive poverty it did not generally fall below, and the well conditioned man seldom wore better clothing in the agricultural period. After commerce widened out, we shall see a change. Military men had swords, belts, etc., in addition. Elisha Arnold left £4. 2. in 3 small guns, sword, “bagginit and cadous box.” He had more than the usual number of 5 spinning wheels with old cards and “woosted” combs, all worth £3. 1. His brass ladle, pots and kettles of iron and brass, with dripping pan and frying pan, stood at £11. 12. In cattle, horses, sheep, and swine he had £78. 5., with “money and Bills and Plate” £25. 1. 4. in 1711.¹¹²

February 27, Thomas Harris,¹¹³ a leading citizen, divided his estate between five sons and three daughters. To his other sons he gave outlying lands; to Henry one-half of his homestead house and 120 acres, the other half to Elnathan, his wife, for life, and afterward to Henry. Three “purchase rights of common” were given to the five sons. To his daughter, Amity Mors, £20. in money. To his two daughters unmarried, Elnathan and Mary, he gave each one feather bed and furniture, £20. in money, one-half a weaver’s loom with its tackling. His wearing apparel was appraised at £7. Henry Harris and the widow were executors, receiving the personal

¹¹¹ “Early Rec.,” Vol. VII., p. 25.

¹¹² Ibid., p. 44.

¹¹³ Ibid., p. 48.

127

property, cattle, one negro at £10. and they were to liquidate the debts.

Occasionally we perceive the infelicity of common life. December 30, 1711,¹¹⁴ Thomas Cooper gives his son Robert 5s. and no more “by Reason he has disobeied my Corn-ands and left me in a strait of time before he was of age.” There was a Bible at 4s., and there were very few books in the earlier inventories. Three spinning wheels and a pair of cards at 10s. Many inventories have flax and small quantities of tobacco, as grown by the farmers. Cooper’s whole personal estate was £96. 11. 5.

The men usually signed their names, and the women as generally signed with a mark X. They were educated, or rather brought up in conspicuous families. The men got their training from everyday life; but women employed at the dairy, the spinning wheel or the loom, had not as good an opportunity. In provisions made for apprentices,¹¹⁵ we have seen how much reading and writing was desiderated. The inventory of Solomon Thornton dates two years later than our period, but it reflects so fully the life of this time that we may study its details. His personal estate was £147. 5. 2., of which £1. 8. 6. was in money, and in wearing apparel he had expended £8. 5. One loom and its tackling stood at £2. 10. A small parcel of worsted with “other yarn,” flax, wool, and 1 woollen wheel was worth only 4s. Probably Thornton bought yams to supply his weaving. Worsted combs appear in many of the farmers’ inventories. There were three pieces “new cloath” ½ yards—“Cursey and plaine fulled,” 3 yds. ozen brigs, 14 yds. tow cloth, in all £4. 9. 6. In yarns 7½ lbs. worsted £1. 11. 6.; 3 lbs. hose do with 19½ lbs. colored £1. 13. In wool 9½ lbs. worsted £1. 3. 6.;

¹¹⁴ “Early Rec.,” Vol. VII., p. 123.

¹¹⁵ Ante, p. 113.

128

17 lbs. “sheep’s wooll”—. There was a large supply of pewter in lots, as a pewter “Tanker” and two beakers, two dram-cups and a salt cellar, “9 spoones being one occamy (alchemy) and the Rest Pewter,” all valued at 12s. Some wooden and a lot of earthen ware, a cream pot, 3 earthen pans, an earthen jug and 5 glass bottles, all worth 5s. Six new pewter platters were appraised at £2. 8., with a small quantity of flax and tobacco at £2. 1. Glass bottles appear frequently, but no drinking glasses as yet. Wooden and earthen ware served for kitchen utensils, with pewter for the better table service. A few years later we shall see a more elaborate arrangement and a better service for the table.

In 1695,¹¹⁶ apparently the first monthly meeting of the Town Council was ordered by the Town. The ferry at the narrow passage over the Seekonk was in the possession of widow Mary Edmond in 1696, when the “King’s Post” was permitted to pass free of ferriage. This was the first public post and marks the increase of intercourse in the developing plantation. Prisons were erected in 1698 and 1705 northwest of the present Benefit Street. The year 1700 marks a most significant departure from the individuality shown in burial customs of the early settlers. Nearly every family had a burial-ground of its own—generally in or near its home-lot in our plantation. The parish churchyard of England had been followed in the other colonies by common burial places, attached or at least near to the meeting-house. It was a feature of communal life and partook of the ecclesiastical sanctity descended from the Roman through the Protestant church. In Providence, death even could not end separatism; and a common burial-ground could not be attained until commerce began to relax the prejudices

¹¹⁶ Staples, p. 184.

129

of the individuals, whose ancestors had been driven out from Puritan commonwealths. Now the land on the Moshassuck and eastward to the Pawtucket highway by Archibald Walker’s was appropriated “for a training field, burying-ground and other public uses.” The present North Burial Ground is a part of this tract and gradually the family cemeteries were abandoned in favor of it. Of the colony tax of £400 ordered in 1701, £65 was assigned to Providence, showing complete recovery from the depression after King Philip’s War. A subscription amounting to £21. 9. was opened for rebuilding Weybosset Bridge in 1705. Gideon Crawford subscribed £6. This method of raising funds must have been abandoned, as only fourteen citizens responded.

Weaving was recognized as an important function in colonial life.¹¹⁷ Land was assigned early to “a weaver,” and we have noted that Wm. Austin took an apprentice in 1674 for the “art and trade.” “John Angel, weaver,” was appointed by the town to serve in place of the “Towne Sargant,”¹¹⁸ an important official early in the eighteenth century.

An interesting instance shows custom and the interplay of necessary regulations in a farming community. Stray cattle and horses were a constant trouble. Often impounded, sometimes they were sent to Rehoboth or elsewhere, and the charges collected. There are nearly one hundred pages of record, 1678-1746,¹¹⁹ devoted to cattle

¹¹⁷ Division of labor began to manifest itself as the century went out. In 1700 Joseph Smith was granted 3 acres near Wanskuck for a weaver’s shop. A fulling mill had then been operated for some time. Jan. 27, 1703-4 (”R. I. H. S.,” New Series, Vol. IV., p. 214) Wm. Smith was ranted a lot 40 ft. square for a “weaver’s shop.” He was to build within one year and follow his trade.

¹¹⁸ “Early Rec. Prov.” Vol. XVII., p. 291.

¹¹⁹ Ibid., Vol. IX., pp. 103-197. Enrolment of Deaths, Marriages, and Births, 1679-1724 appears in “Early Records,” Vol. V., p. 203.

130

marks and the taking of strays. Valuations of horses varied from £1. when afflicted with the pole evil, to £6. and £7. July 7, 1909¹²⁰ occurs a case which shows the conflict of rules. Ames Thornton, of Providence, complains that a sorrel white face jumped fences and continually damaged his grass. There being no pound, he was obliged to “secure him in my yard.” He learned the owner had gone .to Block Island, “a Souldiar, therefore could not proceed against him as a stray, but as a ’Trespasser.’,” Thornton would keep the horse, valued at 25s. for, one year, when, unless the damages were paid, he would ask the authorities to dispose of him.

The century did not exhaust the pest of wolves, for the bounty was paid for killing fourteen in 1687.

Gradual increase of commerce is indicated by the frequent grants of “ware house lots” about 1697-1698. The proprietors, acting slowly, as always, took each to himself a lot for a warehouse and sometimes a wharf in Weybosset or on the Towne Streete. These were not distributed by the favorite lottery, but the petitioner generally took the water lot opposite his own homestead. February 17, 1703-4,¹²¹ the influential Thomas Olney, town clerk, obtained a resolution which attempted to check the granting of these lots and confine them to “those who may legally vote.”¹²²

¹²⁰ “Early Rec. Prov.,” Vol. IX., p. 177.

¹²¹ “R. I. H. S.,” New Series, Vol. IV., p. 211.

¹²² A resolution was enacted by the Purchasers & Proprietors July 27, 1704 (E. R., Vol. XI., p. 88), that no more wharf lots should be granted on salt water, north of Town Wharf (about present Crawford St., and west of the River), “Because there is so Constant a Passing to cross the Water (and back) from Wayboysett side to the Towne with Cannoes and Boates, Rideing and Carting and Swimming over of Cattell from side to side; and the streame often times Running so swift, and many times Rough water by Reason of stormy Winds.”

131

Farming life still encumbered the ways of the settled plantation. So late as 1715, goats, swine and horses belonging to the freeholders “ran riot in the woodlands.” The dread of absorption by Connecticut had kept back westward communication. The Plainfield highway voted in 1706—begun 1709-10, showed the passing of this prejudice.

Movement for a road to Woodstock and Killingly, Conn., indicates progress. But the backward condition of Providence is clearly shown by the fact that they still sent for medical and surgical aid to Rehoboth, then including a part of Attleboro.¹²³ But as the centu^ry turned the old “tumults and heats”¹²⁴ of town meeting ended. The seething and fermenting process of the early plantation had worked out a community, not of the most orderly kind, but sufficient for tolerable government. Institutions were established slowly; but the time had passed when an individual—however great might be an institution unto himself. Mr. Dorr’s significant phrase, “the planting and growth of Providence,” may be considered as worked out and completed with the century. The greatest personal influences like Williams, Gorton, and Coddington had long passed by. The secondary men also had finished their work. William Harris was far unlike the men bred at Cambridge or the new order being formed at Harvard; but he had grown up in the school of affairs, and had been much in England, engaged in large transactions. He read not only law, theology and medicine, but turned the pages of the “Gentleman Jockey.” There was something cosmopolitan in this hearty pioneer. Most planters read Scripture and concordance, but Thomas Olney, manager of meetings and incipient ruler of men, could unbend,

¹²³ Dorr, “Planting and Growth of Providence,” p. 77.

¹²⁴ Ibid., p. 212.

132

while soothing his politician’s spirit with the Independent Ainsworth’s “Annotations” on the Psalms and Song of Solomon.

Coddington was on the whole the largest and most effective link between the practical life of the Old World and the forming growth of the new community on Narragansett Bay. Commerce at Newport, introduced by him and powerfully conducted by the Quakers, was opening the way for the very best colonial life of the next century. The most casual survey of this developing commonwealth should include the remarkable outgrowth of the judiciary. It moved on the old lines of established law, but administered penal measures in a humane spirit—far advanced over the olden courts or ecclesiastical procedure.

Meanwhile the poorer agriculture of Providence Plantation was painfully expanding toward a larger development, as commerce should widen out the little community in the early eighteenth century. The forming period had passed with scanty help from the learning of Europe; such as this was, it would be had no more in the expanding period next to come. Men like the cooper-preacher Pardon Tillinghast carried over the average citizen until new American life could produce the Hopkinses, the Browns, and their fellows.

←Chapter III Table of Contents Chapter V →

Dinsmore Documentation presents Classics of American Colonial History