YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

ACQUIRED BY EXCHANGE

CONNECTICUT

AS A

CORPORATE COLONY

NELSON PRENTISS MEAD

DISSERTATION
Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Eequibbments foe
the degeee of doctob of philosophy in the faculty
of Political Science in Columbia TJniveesity

Press or
the New Era printing Company,
lancaster, pa.
1906

H43 lL9

CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION.
Continuity of the history of Connecticut  1
English colonization the result of private initiative  2
The proprietary and corporate types of colonial agencies. . . 2
The royal type a later development  3
Characteristics of the proprietary and royal types; the
democratic and prerogative elements  3
Characteristics of the corporate type; purely democratic. 4
Grouping of colonial types  5
The three corporate colonies ; their essential identity in form 5
The founders of Connecticut created a de-facto corporate
colony by conscious imitation of Massachusetts  6
The royal charter confirmed an existing government  6
Plan of work ; first to consider Connecticut as a type of the
corporate colony, and second to consider Connecticut in
its relations to the home government  6
CHAPTER I.
ORGANS OF LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION.
The General Court  7
Organization  7
The Massachusetts commission  , . . . 7
The "Corte" before 1639  7
The Court as organized by the Fundamental Orders 8
Special manner of organization  9
Changes made by the charter  11
Separation of the two houses  12
Meetings alternate between Hartford and New
Haven  13
Powers  13
Powers of the Massachusetts commission  13
Powers of the General Court before 1639  14
Erroneous idea of the independence of the towns. . 14
Powers granted by the Fundamental Orders  14
iii

IV CONTENTS.
The broad extent of these powers  15
The General Court the "supreme power of the
Commonwealth"  15
No Bill of Rights  15
Varied character of legislation  16
Much special legislation  16
Powers of the General Court in administration. . . 16
The General Court retains control of nearly all
branches of administration  17
Quarrel between the two houses over the power of
appointment  18
The royal charter made no material change in the
powers of the General Court  20
The charter not fundamental  20
Powers of the General Court not changed during
the eighteenth century  21
Governor  21
No distinct executive authority before 1639  21
Office of governor provided in the Fundamental
Orders  21
Qualifications  22
Powers  22
Summoned the General Court, but could not
adjourn or dissolve it  22
Presided over the meetings of the General
Court  22
Had no veto power  22
Had few administrative powers  23
Powers as provided by the charter  23
The governor's message  23
The governor's influence in the government
depended upon his personality  24
Council  24
The "particular court"  24
The council first provided by the charter  24
Frequent restatement of the council  25
Fear of a "standing" council  26
Powers of the council  26
Control of the council by the General Court  27

CONTENTS. V
Absence of council records during the eighteenth
century  27
CHAPTER II.
FINANCE AND CURRENCY.
Scope of the chapter  28
Sources op revenue  28
Direct taxes  ,  29
Land tax  29
Land assessed according to probable revenue  29
Classification of land  29
General property tax  29
Poll tax  30
Income or faculty tax  30
Crude manner of levying the income tax  31
Exemptions from taxation  31
Indirect taxes  32
Excises  32
Customs duties  32
A primitive protective tariff  33
Tonnage duties  34
Collection of revenue  35
The treasurer  35
The constable  35
Early manner of levying taxes  35
Inequalities of the system  35
The Grand List  36
"Fourfold" assessments  36
The listers and inspectors of lists  36
Excise and customs officers  37
Expenses  37
Provisions for defence  37
Salaries and pensions of soldiers  38
Military supplies  38
Forts and fortifications  38
Coast defence vessels  39
Large military expenses due to the inter
colonial wars  39

VI CONTENTS.
Salaries of officials  39
Small and irregular  39
Fear of stated salaries  40
Fees more important than salaries  40
Extra compensation and pensions  41
Expenses of colonial agents  41
Provisions for education  41
Provisions for the protection of the natives  42
Appropriations  42
Special appropriations for each expense  42
Controlled by the General Court  42
Auditing committees  42
Currency  42
Lack of a medium of exchange  42
Use of wampum  42
Use of commodities  43
Foreign coins  44
Pine tree currency  44
Variety of currencies in use  44
Act of Parliament regulating foreign coins  45
"Proclamation" money  46
Paper currency  46
First appearance in New England  46
First appearance in Connecticut  46
Frequent emissions  48
Efforts to encourage the circulation of the bills. ... 48
Counterfeiting and mutilation of the bills  49
Made legal tender  '.  50
The New London Society emits bills of credit ..... 51
Action of the colonial authorities in regard to them 51
A Connecticut land bank  52
"New Tenor" bills  53
Great depreciation of bills  55
Sinking of the paper currency  56
Issuance of interest-bearing notes  57
A further resort to fiat currency  58

CONTENTS. Vll
CHAPTER III.
LAND SYSTEM.
Title to land  59
Title based upon possession and purchase from the
natives  59
Restriction of the right to purchase from the Indians . . 59
Title confirmed by the royal charter  60
Colonial grants  61
The power to grant lands before 1639  61
The power granted to the General Court by the Funda
mental Orders  61
Two kinds of grants (a) to individuals, (6) to groups
of individuals  61
Individual grants more common in the seventeenth cen
tury  61
Grants to groups of individuals more important  61
Purpose of such grants  61
Activity of the General Court in settling new towns. . . 62
The relation of the General Court to the administration
of the public domain the same as in the other cor
porate colonies  f. 62
Town and proprietary grants  63
Variety of treatment in the different towns  63
In the older towns the land was regulated in the town
meeting  64
Distinction between proprietors and other inhabitants
toward the end of the seventeenth century  65
Contests between the commoners and non-commoners in
the different towns  66
Attitude of the General Court  66
Consideration of the New London petitions  67
Victory for the proprietors  68
Organization of the proprietors  68
Administration of land in the towns of the eighteenth
century  69
Division and sale of the "Western Lands"  70
Appearance of land speculators and absentee proprietors 72
Division of land  74
Character of land  74

vm contents.
Laying out of the town plot and the assignment of
home lots  75
Basis of division in the older towns  75
Individual grants  76
Common fields, fences and herds  77
Town commons  77
Restrictions upon alienation of land  78
Basis of division of land in the later towns  79
Common fields and herds less frequent in the later
towns  79
CHAPTER IV.
MILITARY AFFAIRS.
Administration of the militia  80
Powers of the Massachusetts Commission  80
Powers of the Court before 1639  80
Powers conferred on the General Court by the Funda
mental Orders  80
Provisions in the charter  80
Councils of war  81
Council controlled by the General Court  82
Contest over the control of the militia  82
Militia placed under the command of the governor of
New York  83
Visit of Fletcher to Hartford  83
Colony retains control of its militia  84
Organization of the militia  85
Militia system based upon the assize of arms  85
Trained bands  86
Troopers  87
Officers  88
Duties of the clerk  88
Regimenting of the militia  88
Trainings  90
Forts and fortifications  91
Forts at Saybrook and New London  91
Unsubstantial character of the fortifications  91
Fortified houses  93

contents. ix
Colonial "navy"  94
The sloop Defence  94
The brigantine Tartar  94
Indian wars of the seventeenth century  94
The Pequot war  94
Murder of Captain Stone  95
Murder of John Oldham  95
Expedition of John Endicott  95
The force under Major Mason  96
Capture of the Pequot "fort"  97
Dispersal of the Pequots  97
Significance of the struggle  98
Trouble with the River Indians and the Narragansett
tribes  99
Capture and death of Miantinomo  99
Philip's war  101
Comparison with the earlier struggles  101
Outbreak of the war  101
Local struggle around Mount Hope peninsula  102
Escape of Philip to central Massachusetts  102
Defence of the upper river towns by Connecticut. . 102
Friction between the Connecticut and Massachu
setts troops  102
Expedition into the Narragansett country in the
winter of 1675  103
Second expedition into the Narragansett country. . 104
Close of the struggle and its significance  104
Intercolonial wars  103
Comparison between the intercolonial wars and the
earlier Indian wars  105
Favorable geographical situation of Connecticut  106
First Intercolonial war  106
Connecticut troops sent to New York and Albany. . 106
Campaign of 1690 against Canada  107
Its failure  107
Trouble between Leisler and Fitz John Winthrop . . 107
Expenses of Connecticut in the war  108
Second intercolonial war  108

CONTENTS.
Friction between the Connecticut authorities and
the governors of New York and Massachusetts . . 108
Unsuccessful expedition against Canada in 1709 . . 109
Capture of Port Royal 1710  110
Disastrous expedition of 1711  110
Close of the war  110
War with the eastern Indians  Ill
Aid sent by Connecticut  Ill
Third intercolonial war  Ill
The abortive expedition to the Spanish main  Ill
Capture of Louisburg  112
Close of the struggle  113
Fourth intercolonial war  113
Appointment of commanders-in-chief of the col
onial forces  113
Expedition against Crown Point  114
Incapacity of Loudoun and Abercrombie  115
Campaign of 1759 and the fall of Quebec  116
Completion of the conquest of Canada  116
Troops furnished for garrison purposes  116
Connecticut troops in Pontiac's war  117

INTRODUCTION.
The central fact in the constitutional development of
Connecticut is its continuity. Any division of its colonial
history into periods must be largely arbitrary. From the
founding of the colony until its separation from the
mother country, a period of nearly one hundred and
fifty years, the institutional development of the colony
was a steady and natural growth. True, there was the
Andros regime, but this was merely a brief hiatus in the
colony's history, and its effect upon Connecticut institu
tions was practically nil. As a type of the New England
corporate colony, therefore, Connecticut possesses certain
advantages over its prototype Massachusetts. The prog
ress of the latter in the evolution of a Commonwealth was
seriously hampered, if not cut short, by the substitution
of the provincial charter of 1691 for the old corporate
charter. Connecticut, on the other hand, was allowed to
complete its colonial development largely independent of
external control. It would probably be an error to say
that Connecticut was in no way affected by the changing
attitude of the authorities in England in relation to
colonial matters. The growth of imperial control, and
the formation of more intimate relations between the
home government and the American colonies, which was
a feature of the English colonial policy during the latter
part of the seventeenth and of the eighteenth centuries,
unquestionably had its influence upon the internal de
velopment of the colony. Probably many ventures were
abandoned, and others not entered upon, because of the
fear of the interference from England. The colony lead
ers had an ever present example in Massachusetts of
1

Z CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
what too strenuous opposition to Imperial control was*
liable to result in, and they probably deemed it wiser to
bend than be broken. But this does not alter the essen
tial fact that Connecticut presents the spectacle of a self-
centered corporate colony, which, throughout its colonial
history, shaped its own institutions in its own way. That
this was done generally with wise conservatism, was due
in a large measure to the sagacity and good sense of the
colonists, and to the ability of the leaders who were called
to direct the affairs of state.
Connecticut has been referred to as a type of the New
England corporate colony. A word needs to be said as
to the chief characteristics of this type of colonial gov
ernment. English colonization during the seventeenth
century was the result of private initiative. The English
Crown was not directly a colonizing agency. It might,
and it did, encourage colonization, by making large grants
of territory, and by bestowing trade privileges and sub
ordinate rights of government, but the Sovereign was
slow to embark upon adventures involving considerable
financial outlay, with no great certainty of success. Such
exploits were left to more enterprising individuals. If
they succeeded, it would redound to the honor and pos
sible profit of the Crown ; if they failed the Sovereign was
not the loser.
Individual effort in colonization found expression in
two types of colonial agencies, the proprietorship, and
the corporate colony. It was only when colonization had
passed beyond the experimental stage, and the possibili
ties of profitable exploitation of the colonies had become
manifest, that the King took a direct interest in and con
trol of colonization. Such control implied the metamor
phosing of the two earlier types of colonial government
into a new type, which would bring the colonies into

INTRODUCTION. 3
closer relations with the mother country. This transi
tion introduced the third type, that of the royal province.
Viewed then from the standpoint of imperial control, the
three types of colonial government would be grouped, the
corporate and proprietary on the one hand, and the royal
on the other.
But there is another way of looking at the colonies,
namely, from the standpoint of their internal organiza
tion, leaving out of sight entirely, their relations with
the Home government. From this point of view, as will
be seen, a different grouping of the three types is neces
sary. The proprietorship was the earliest type of colonial
agency. The granting of large tracts of unsettled terri
tory was a convenient and inexpensive method of re
warding favorite courtiers or needy nobles. In making
such grants the fief was selected as the form of grant,
while in conferring subordinate rights of government, the
powers of the Counts palatine were selected as a model.1
This implied conferring upon the Proprietor semi-regal
powers; he, or they, became the head and source of all
governmental authority in the province. In essence the
government of the proprietary province was monarchical.
But in time there came to exist in all the proprietary
governments, generally by concession of the proprietors,
a democratic element. This was represented by the
lower, the elected, branch of the legislature. Conflict was
almost certain to develop between the monarchic element
in the government, represented by the Proprietor or his
deputies, and the democratic element in the legislature.
This conflict is the central thread in the constitutional
development of the proprietary provinces. What has
'Osgood, Proprietary Province as a Form of Colonial Government,
Am. Hist. Review, 1897.

4 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
been said of the internal organization of the proprietary
provinces, is equally true of the royal type, the King
merely taking the place of the individual proprietor. If
any distinction is to be drawn between the two types, it
would be that, owing largely to the more exalted and
powerful position of the King, the prerogative element in
the royal provinces was stronger than in the proprietary
provinces. In a broad sense the internal organization
of the two types was the same; neither was self -con
sistent, both contained elements which were discordant,
and harmony could be restored only by the elimination
of the democratic or the prerogative element of the sys
tem. As events proved, the latter was destined to give
away. When we come to examine the internal organization of
the corporate type, a marked difference appears. As the
fief and the palatinate were the models upon which the
proprietary grants were made, so the trading corporation
was the pattern for the corporate type. This implied
the centering of authority in a " General Court" com
posed of all members of the company, or all freemen of
the colony when the company and colony became one.
By this Court were chosen all the officials of the colony,
and from it radiated all the various functions of govern
ment. It became the very heart of the colony's political
body. In this type of colony, the immediate source of
authority was the colonists themselves, not the King nor
the proprietor. From the first, the democratic element
was supreme, the monarchic element entirely lacking.
There was then, nothing inherent in the internal structure
of the corporate colonies, which would lead to such a con
flict as has been indicated was inevitable in the royal and
proprietary provinces. It was an easy and natural
transition from the type of corporate colony, to the dem-

INTRODUCTION. 5
ocratic commonwealth. No material change was needed
to fit these colonies into their new places in the American
nation. Nothing more clearly shows this than the fact
that the cnly two corporate colonies, Connecticut and
Rhode Island, which remained such throughout the colo
nial period, retained their old corporate charters, as com
monwealth constitutions, one for more than forty years,
and the other for more than sixty years, after the sepa
ration of the colonies from England.1
From the standpoint of internal organization, then, the
three types of colonial government would be grouped;
the royal and proprietary provinces on the one hand, and
the corporate colonies on the other.
Of the three American colonies which are included in
the corporate type, 2 one, Massachusetts, was founded by
a corporation created in England, while two, Connecticut
and Rhode Island, were formed by the creation of a cor
poration in the colony. The three, however, became
identical in form, through the removal of the Massachu
setts corporation into New England, and its identification
with the colony.
During the first twenty-five years of the history of Con
necticut, the colonists lived under a de facto government
formed by the voluntary compact of the settlers. While
they lacked the guarantees of a royal charter, they were
also free from its restrictions. The colonists might, if
they chose, have struck out along lines radically new.
But this was not done. The founders of Connecticut were
1 Connecticut retained her charter as a state constitution until 1818,
Rhode Island until 1842.
2 Virginia though founded by a trading company did not attain the char
acteristics of a corporate colony, as the London Company did not remove
to Virginia and become merged with the colony. The two colonies of
Plymouth and New Haven, while they developed the internal structure of
corporate colonies, never received royal charters and in time became ab
sorbed, one by Massachusetts and the other by Connecticut.

6 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLON"?. I
Puritans to the core. Most of them had lived in the
Massachusetts colony for a greater or less period of time,
and were in general sympathy with the principles and
ideals of that colony. Nothing was more natural than
that they should reproduce in their new homes a gov
ernment similar in outline, if not in detail, to that of the
Bay Colony. That this was done, becomes apparent from
an examination of the records. In consequence, Con
necticut formed by conscious imitation of Massachusetts,
a government embodying all the essentials of a corporate
colony. Nothing was lacking but a royal charter to make
the de facto government de jure, and when through the
ability of John Winthrop, the younger, and the gen
erosity of Charles II, such a charter was obtained, it
merely confirmed an already existing condition of affairs.
It is the purpose of this study to trace out in consider
able detail, the internal development of Connecticut as a
type of the corporate colony. Emphasis will naturally
be laid upon constitutional questions ; economic and social
considerations only being touched upon as they affected,
or were affected by the constitutional development of the
colony. Secondly an attempt will be made to consider
Connecticut as a part of the British Empire; to show
how her position was, from the standpoint of imperial
control, an anomalous one; how the English administra
tors tried to bring the colony into closer and more har
monious relations with the home government, involving
several attacks upon the charter, and finally, how the
colony was enabled to avert these attacks and preserve
its institutions intact throughout the colonial period.

CHAPTER I.
Organs of Legislation and Administration.
The constitutional history of Connecticut begins with
the removal from Massachusetts in 1636-37 of the three
river towns of Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield.1
After residing in the bay colony for a number of years,
the inhabitants of these towns, for a variety of reasons,2
sought new homes on the banks of the Connecticut. In
granting permission to remove, the General Court of
Massachusetts appointed a commission of eight of the
prospective settlers, to order the affairs of the new settle
ments, for a period of one year.3 No attempt was made
by the parent colony, after the towns had left her juris
diction, to exercise any manner of control over them.
There is no evidence that the commission was account
able in any way for its acts to the authorities of Massa
chusetts. On May 11th, 1637, at the end of the year for
which the commissioners were chosen, there met at Hart
ford the first "Genrall Corte" of the infant colony.
This Court was probably summoned by the retiring com
mission, as this was one of their specified powers. The
new body consisted of six Magistrates, four of them
members of the old Commission, and nine Deputies
elected by the towns, the three from each town being
known as its "comitee."* The records do not indicate
the manner in which the Magistrates were chosen, but
1 The three towns while in Massachusetts and for a year after their
removal were called respectively, Newtown, Dorchester and Watertown.
2 Osgood, American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, I, 301.
3 Mass. Col. Rec, I, 170.
* Conn. Col. Rec, I, 9. 7

8 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
from a contemporary authority we learn that they were
elected by the Deputies.1 In this form the General Court
continued until the formation of the famous "Funda
mental Orders" in 1639.
In this "First Written Constitution" it was provided
that there should be a General Court, which should meet
in two stated sessions annually, and at such other times
as was deemed necessary. The spring session of the
General Court, known as the Court of Election, consisted
of all the freemen that wished to attend, and at this Court
were elected the Governor and Magistrates, and such other
officers as were from time to time provided. When the
elections had been completed, the Court organized for
legislation, and consisted simply of a Governor, at least
six Magistrates, and Deputies from the towns.2 The fall
meeting, and such others as were from time to time sum
moned by the Governor, were similarly organized. The
quorum of the Court when organized for legislation, was
fixed at at least four Magistrates, with the Governor or
a moderator, and a major part of the Deputies.
The composition of the Court of Election as a primary
electoral body, was soon changed. The spread of settle
ments had made a general meeting of the freemen incon
venient, and the practice of sending the votes of the free
men to the Court of Election by the Deputies of the towns
was early adopted.3 With this adoption of proxy voting
the distinction between the composition of the Court of
Election and the ordinary sessions of the General Court
practically disappeared.4
iConn. Hist. Soc. Colls., I, 13.
2 The constitution fixed the number of Deputies at four from the towns
of Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield and for such other towns as were
later admitted " as many as the Corte shall judge meete."
» Conn. Col. Rec, I, 346.
'- Bishop, History of Elections in the American Colonies, Columbia TJniv
Studies, III, 139.

ORGANS OP LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 9
The constitution specified in detail the manner in which
the Governor, Magistrates and Deputies were to be
chosen. The ballot was used in all elections. All persons
chosen to the Magistracy were required to be freemen
of the colony, and to have been formerly nominated in
some General Court by the Deputies or the Court as a
whole. In the election of Governor and Magistrates, the
person receiving the greatest number of votes was chosen
Governor; then the name of each person that had been
placed in nomination was voted upon separately, and all
those that received a greater number of affirmative than
negative votes, were chosen Magistrates, provided at
least six were so chosen.
The Deputies were chosen before each session of the
General Court by the admitted inhabitants of the towns,
at town meetings summoned for the purpose by the con
stables. The constitution also provided a special manner for
organizing the General Court. In case the Governor and
Magistrates should fail to summon the two stated ses
sions, and at such other times as the "occations of the
Commonwealth require," the freemen were empowered
to do so. Such a Court should consist of a majority of
the freemen, or their deputies, presided over by a Mod
erator chosen by the freemen.1
The constitution seems to distinguish two bodies of
electors. Only such as were "admitted freemen" could
take part in the choice of the Governor and Magistrates
at the Court of Election. On the other hand, all "ad
mitted inhabitants" of the towns had a voice in the
1 This provision, which was never put in practice, was an expression of
the democratic sentiments of the founders of Connecticut. It was probably
suggested by the controversy which was carried on in the early years of
the Massachusetts colony over the unlimited power of the Magistrates.
Osgood, American Colonies, I, 157.

10 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.

choice of deputies.1 This distinction, however, if it was
ever clearly recognized, in time disappeared.2
The Magistrates and Deputies sat and voted as one
body, and the latter which at first was double the number
of the former, and growing larger with the admission of
each new town, might if they saw fit, exert a preponder
ating control over legislation.3 This condition of affairs
continued until 1645, when the Magistrates were given
the negative voice, although they continued to sit with
the Deputies in one house, until the end of the seventeenth
century.4 The General Court, as organized by the Fundamental
Orders, continued with but slight change until the grant
ing of the Royal Charter. The quorum of the Assistants
' Col. Rec, I, 21, 23.
2 The admission of freemen was one of the functions of the General
Court. At first any person of proper age and " peaceable conversation "
might be admitted. In 1659 it was provided that only persons twenty-one
years of age, having a personal estate of 30 pounds, or those who had held
some office in the commonwealth might be admitted. Two years before
the same qualifications were required for " admitted inhabitants.'' In
1675 the property qualification was fixed at ten pounds estate in land, and
in 1689 at forty shillings. In the same year the power of admitting free
men was given to the local authorities. Any person possessing a freehold
estate to the value of forty shillings, upon presentation of a certificate to
that effect from the selectmen of the town where he resided should be
enrolled as a, freeman without any action on the part of the Court. With
this act the distinction between freemen and admitted inhabitants dis
appears. Col. Rec, I, 293, 331; II, 253; IV, 11; VII, 259.
The proportion of freemen to the total male population of voting age
is difficult to ascertain, but it was probably a small proportion. From the
formation of the Constitution to the granting of the charter, a period of
more than twenty years, there are on record but 229 names of persons
admitted as freemen. In 1669 the total number of freemen was one thou
sand seven hundred and eighty-nine out of a population of three thousand
males capable of bearing arms. In 1740 in a warmly contested election
there were four thousand votes cast while the male population of military
age was about fifteen thousand. Col. Rec, II, 518; N. Y. Col. Doc. Ill
262; Douglass Summary, II, 179.
'The number of Magistrates gradually increased from six to twelve.
* Col. Rec, I, 119.

ORGANS OF LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 11
in general Court was reduced in 1644 from four to three.1
In 1646 the General Court changed the time of holding
the Court of Election, from April to May.2 In 1654 it
was provided that in the absence of the Governor and
Deputy Governor, a major part of the Magistrates might
summon a meeting of the Court, which should be pre
sided over by a Moderator, chosen by the members of the
Court.3 In 1661 the General Court suggested to the free
men that the number of deputies be reduced one half,
but no action was taken upon the proposition.4
The Royal Charter, issued in 1662, made some minor
changes in the organization of the General Court. The
number of Magistrates, which had grown from six to
twelve, was fixed at the latter number. On the other
hand, the number of deputies was restricted to two from
each town.5 The Charter contemplated the choice of the
Governor, Magistrates and other officers, at a general
meeting of the freemen. This, as we have seen, had also
been provided in the Fundamental Orders; but the con
venient method of voting by proxy which had been
adopted, was continued despite the provisions of the
Charter. The changes in the organization of the General
Court subsequent to the granting of the Charter were,
with one or two exceptions, of but slight importance.
In 1689 a change was made in the manner of nominat
ing the Governor, Deputy Governor and Assistants,
whereby the nominations were made directly by the free
men.6 This provision lasted but three years, when the
^bid., I, 119.
'Ibid., I, 140.
3 Ibid., I, 256.
'Ibid., I, X2.
"Poore's Charters and Constitutions, I, 253 et seq. Col. Rec, II, 1.
e Col. Rec, IV, 12.

12 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
former method of nomination by the General Court was
restored.1 Five years later the method of direct nomina
tion was again resorted to.2 In 1698 The General Court
obtained the form it was destined to maintain throughout
the colonial era. It will be remembered that while the
Magistrates had been given the negative voice in 1645,.
they had continued to sit with the Deputies as a uni
cameral legislature. In 1698, however, the two houses
were separated.3 The Upper House, now often called
the Council,4 consisted of the Governor, Deputy Gover
nor, and the Assistants. The Lower House consisted of
the deputies from the towns, who were empowered to,
choose a speaker to preside over their deliberations, to
appoint all needful officers, and to make all necessary
rules for carrying on the business of the house. To each
ilbid., IV, 81.
2 Ibid., IV, 223. These changes were the result of a controversy be
tween the " aristocratic " and democratic parties in the colony. Samuel
Willis in several letters to Fitz John Winthrop throws some light on these
controversies. Willis was identified with the colonial aristocracy of the
time which felt that the democratic spirit was becoming too strong in the
colony. He suggested that a modification of the charter be obtained from
the King so that " persons of mean and low degree be not improved in
the chiefest place of civill and military affairs . . . but that persons of
parintage, education, abilitye, and integrity be settled in such offices." At
another time he writes : " Mr. Henry Woolcott and younge Mr. Chester both
secluded the Houses of Comons the last sessions in Octbr, and an eminent
syder-drinker in the roome of one and a person risen out of obscurity in
the place of the other." Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls., 6th Series, III, 17, 31.
3 Tire separation of the two houses was another movement on the part
of the colonial aristocracy. Willis in writing to Winthrop said, — " There
are two things effected since your Honr came to the Governmnt wch I
judge will much conduce to the wellfaire of the Colony if they be con
tinued: That the Magistrates and Deputies sitt distinct & that the justices
be stated and comissioned and not annually chosen, wch will much
strengthen the Governmt, when they are not at the despose of the arbitrary
humors of the people, and yet subject to be called to accompt by the
General Court or to be displaced for delinquency." Mass. Hist. Col., 6th
Series, III, 44.
* Not to be confused with the Governor's Council.

ORGANS OF LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 13
house was granted the negative voice,1 and a parity of
powers in legislation.2
Throughout the seventeenth century, the meetings of the
General Court had been held regularly at Hartford.3 In
1701 it was provided that the October session of the
Court should be held at New Haven, the spring session
continuing at Hartford.4 Ten years later this arrange
ment was discontinued, only to be reestablished the fol
lowing year,6 and in this form it continued throughout
the colonial period.
The powers of the commission which controlled the
affairs of the three river towns during the first year after
their migration, were stated in the law creating it. It
was empowered to administer justice, and to make such
orders "for the peaceable and quiett ordering the
affaires" of the plantations, in the granting of lots, reg
ulating trade, military discipline and defensive war. It
was also empowered to summon the inhabitants together
as a Court.6 From the records it is apparent that the
commissioners exercised most of the functions conferred
upon them. They regulated trade with the Indians,
swore in constables for the towns, provided for the main
tenance of military watches and trainings, gave names to
the towns, ratified certain church proceedings, and per
formed the duties of a court of justice and probate.7
The Powers of the General Court which displaced the
Commission are not set forth in any law or order, but it
i Col. Rec, IV, 282.
1 1 can find no warrant in the records for the statement that the
Deputies alone could initiate legislation granting money. Jones, History
of Taxation in Connecticut, J. H. U. 8., XIV, 375.
- Except during the first year of the colony's history when the meetings
alternated among the three towns. Col. Rec, I, 1, 2, 3.
* Col. Rec, IV, 343.
s Col. Rec, V, 328, 381.
e Mass. Col. Rec, I, 170.
' Conn. Col. Rec, I, 1-9.

14 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
assumed and exercised a still wider control over the
towns, than had the Commission. Its first act was a
declaration of war against the Pequot Indians. It fixed
the quota of men and supplies to be furnished by each
town; it levied a tax upon the towns, and chose a treas
urer to collect it. In short this General Court was, in all
essential points, a reproduction of its Massachusetts
prototype. There is no evidence in the records that the
towns bore any different relation to the General Court,
than was the case in the Bay colony. The theory, which
has been advocated by several writers of Connecticut
history, that Connecticut was founded by a federal union
of three independent towns, with residuary powers of
government in the localities appears to be entirely erron
eous.1 When in 1639 the people of Connecticut organized their
government on a more permanent basis, the powers of
the General Court were more definitely specified. It was
stated that in the General Court should reside "the su
preme power of the Commonwealth" to make and repeal
laws, admit freemen, dispose of the public land, inflict
punishments for crimes and misdemeanors, and "deale
in any other matter that concerns the good of this com-
onwelth," except the election of Magistrates, which
was done by the whole body of freemen.2 The power thus
conferred, or that which the legislature assumed, was
much greater than at the present day is thought safe or
x Johnston, Connecticut, a Study of a Commonwealth Democracy, 61.
For a full and clear examination of this question see Andrews Three
River Towns of Connecticut, J. H. V. 8., VII.
2 The interpretation placed by Dr. Bronson on this clause of the con
stitution, namely, that the "supreme power of the commonwealth" was
not in the ordinary General Court but only in the extraordinary Court
summoned by the freemen, does not seem to be justified if the tenth
article is read as a whole and in connection with the other articles of
the constitution. Bronson, Early Government in Connecticut, New Haven
Hist. Soc. Papers, III, 316 et seq.

ORGANS OF LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 15
expedient to grant to such bodies. Within its sphere the
power of the General Court resembled much more closely
that of the British Parliament to-day, than that of our
own federal or state legislatures. In a very real sense
it was the "supreme power of the commonwealth." The
founders of Connecticut did not conceive of a government
of three coordinate branches. The legislature was un
questionably the preeminent branch of the governmental
machinery. The executive and judicial branches were
in a large measure subordinate, rather than coordinate
parts of the government. Furthermore, the competence
of the General Court was not limited by the so-called con
stitution. Whenever the General Court felt that the
' ' Fundamentals ' ' should be altered, it was done with no
more apparent formality, than was required in passing
an ordinary law. No extraordinary majorities were re
quired, nor was it necessary to submit amendments to the
people for ratification.1 There were no individual rights
which the General Court was bound to respect. The idea
of an absolute sphere of individual immunity from all
governmental action, which forms such an essential part
of the modern American theory of government2 was
quite foreign to the political science of our Puritan an
cestors. That the legislators used their extensive powers to the
1 In the light of these easily ascertained facts, it seems strange that
so many writers have maintained that the constitution of 1639 was the
first example of a " written " constitution in history. In point of fact it
lacked the most essential characteristic of a "written" constitution, viz.,
that it was not the " Supreme law of the land " in the sense that it bound
the legislature as well as the people. In force the constitution was no
more than so many statutes. Johnson, op. cit., 63; Fiske, Beginnings of
New England, 127; Bancroft, Hist, of the U. S., I, 402; Bryce, Studies in
History and Jurisprudence, I, 170.
2 These immunities are contained in the so-called " Bills of Rights "
found in all modern American constitutions. No such Bill of Rights was
contained in the Connecticut instrument of 1639.

16 CONNECTICUT AS, A CORPORATE COLONY.
full, a brief examination of the records will reveal. To
the rulers of Connecticut no subject was too trivial, and
none too great to be considered a proper subject for legis
lation. From the making of war to the building of
bridges, and from the formation of towns to the regula
tion of wages, all questions which advanced or retarded
the sum of human happiness were undertaken with equal
facility by the Solons of Connecticut. For the most part
inexperienced in matters of government, the work of
the legislature was crude, and often not founded on any
fixed principles. Few laws were passed until the neces
sity for them was felt, and then they were applied to the
particular case under consideration, with the result that
much of the legislation was of the kind called special. A
great part of the legislation was initiated by means of
petitions. These petitions touched a great variety of
subjects, and each one was decided upon its merits. The
use of committees as a part of the legislative machinery
early became common, but the committee system was
never perfected to the extent which appears in the mod
ern legislative regimes.
Those functions of government which are usually
termed administrative, in distinction from the purely
legislative functions, were largely retained by the General
Court, and not given to the executive authorities. In
military administration, while a committee or council of
war was usually appointed, in times of danger, it was the
creature of the General Court, subject to its orders and
responsible to it for its actions. The administration of
financial affairs was from the first under the control of
the General Court. The collection and expenditure of
public revenue, the regulation of the monetary system,
and all the details of fiscal affairs, were completely con
trolled by the General Court. In judicial administra-

ORGANS OF LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 17
tion,1 the legislature again was supreme. Courts were
created, and their jurisdiction fixed by the General Court,
while the judges and justices, for the most part, were
appointed by the Court. In that department of adminis
tration which might be termed ' ' foreign affairs ' ' i. e., in
questions concerning the relation of the colony to its
neighbors, and to the mother country, the legislature
maintained control. The Governor, it is true, was the
medium through whom communications were sent, and
received, to and from the home government or the neigh
boring colonies, but he was responsible to the Court for
his acts, and referred all matters of importance to that
body. Finally, in the administration of internal affairs,
i. e., in providing for the health, peace and moral well
being of the people, the activity of the General Court
was detailed to the point of becoming burdensome.2 The
building and repairing of roads and bridges, and pro
visions for religion and education, were important func
tions of the legislature, while the interference of the Gen
eral Court in private business and personal affairs, was
of a nature that to-day would be considered intolerable.
The power of appointment, which at the present time
is more often associated with the executive than the legis
lative department, was in a large measure retained by
JBy this is meant not the ordinary procedure of the courts of justice,
but the creation and regulation of such courts. Goodnow, Comparative
Administrative Law, I, 1 et seq. The position of the General Court as a
part of the judicial machinery of the colony will be treated in the chapter
on judicial affairs.
2 One or two instances might be noted. In 1641 the General Court
ordered the constables of the towns to observe the persons in their towns,
and apprehend such as wore clothes " beyond their condition and rank "
and present the same to the Court for censure. In the same year the
Court having learned that the soil of the colony would produce hemp and
flax, ordered that every family should plant at least one spoonful of hemp
seed. The wages of laborers and mechanics were specified in detail and
any person accepting higher wages was open to the censure of the Court.
Col. Rec, I, 52, 61, 64, 65.

18 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
the General Court. Furthermore, in case of a vacancy in
an elective office, from death or other cause, the Assem
bly assumed the right to fill such vacancy.1 Upon the sepa
ration of the legislature into two houses, a serious and
prolonged dispute arose as to whether each house pos
sessed the negative voice in appointments and elections,
as was the case in legislation. In 1707, upon the death
of Governor Fitz John Winthrop while in office, a special
session of the General Court was called to fill the vacancy.
On this occasion, the votes of the members of both houses
were mixed together before they were counted.2 In 1716,
however, the two houses having failed to agree in the
choice of certain officers, the Deputies passed the follow
ing resolution.
"Resolved; That since ye Honble ye Upper House do
not think fit to agree with us in ye Appointment of sev
eral needful officers in this Government, This House de
sire and insist, That ye. Election of ye persons not yet
agreed upon may be now performed according to ye
privilege of ye Charter and ye Direction of ye law,
whereby is given to each member of this Assembly, an
equal Vote in ye Election, excepting only ye Govr. and
in his Absence to ye Deputy Govr., a double vote when
an Equivote shall happen."3 The Upper House would
not agree to this but voted to "consent to have it con
sidered in a Conference of both Houses, concluding that
it will be found inconsistent with the Charter."4
This appeal to the Charter by both houses is charac
teristic, but hardly convincing. The Charter did not
> A number of vacancies occurred as a result of the change in the manner
of choosing officials from plurality to majority vote in 1742 Col Rec
VIII, 453. ' *eC-*
2 MS. Rec. Civil Officers, I, 84.
3 Ibid., I, 145.
1 Ibid., I, 162.

ORGANS OF LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 19
contemplate the separation of the legislature into two
houses. This had been done by simple legislative action
in direct violation of the terms of the Charter. If the
legislature could effect such a fundamental change, it
was far-fetched to claim that it was beyond the com
petence of the legislature to alter a mere formal procedure
in elections.
For a number of years, at each session of the General
Court, the question recurred, and threatened to seriously
interfere with the governmental machinery.1 Finally, in
1723 a compromise was reached so far as it concerned the
choice of judges and justices. Either House could pre
pare a list of names, which was submitted to the other
House. The latter could strike out such names as it saw
fit, and add new ones, when the list was returned to the
House in which it originated, and the process continued
until a sufficient number of names were agreed upon by
both Houses.2 In principle, this was a victory for the
Upper House. The same year, however, the whole ques
tion arose again upon the choice of a successor to Deputy
Governor Gold, who had died in office. The Lower House
desired that the two Houses meet in a joint convention,
but this was refused by the Upper House. After some
discussion the Lower House gave way, and Jos. Talcott
was chosen Deputy Governor by the two Houses voting
separately.3 The matter became more serious the follow
ing year, when it became necessary for the General Court
1 Between 1717 and 1723 several compromise propositions were sug
gested by the Upper House but they were all negatived by the Lower House.
MS. Rec Civil Officers, I, 173, 175, 322, 327.
2 Col. Rec, VI, 328.
3 The Upper House chose Peter Burr who was negatived by the Lower
House which chose Joseph Talcott who was negatived by the Upper House.
The Lower House then chose Jonathan Law but the Upper House dissented.
The following day the Upper House chose Joseph Talcott with which the
Lower House concurred. MS. Rec. Civil Officers, I, 440, 441, 442.

20 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
to choose a successor to Gov. Saltonstall, who had died
suddenly of apoplexy. On this occasion the Lower House
stood firm in its contention that the election should be
held by the two houses in joint session, and the Upper
House finally agreed that "for the present occasion and
for no other purpose or intent whatever," the two houses
should be resolved into one assembly, and the election
should proceed as had been done formerly before the
separation of the Houses. The joint assembly then
chose Joseph Talcott, Governor,1 The difficulty recurred
with almost every election. The Lower House would re
iterate its "Charter Right to an election" by a joint as
sembly, but in most, if not all cases, the Upper House
was able to maintain its position.2 The question was not
finally settled during the colonial era.
The powers of the General Court which have been out
lined were not altered in any material respect by the
Royal Charter.3 To the colonists, the Charter was a
bulwark of defence against the encroachments of the
home government or the neighboring colonies, to which
they were quick to appeal in times of danger; but it was
not considered as a limitation upon the powers of the
General Court. In fact the Charter was no more "fun
damental" than was the original constitution. Its pro-
1 Col. Rec, VI, 483.
2 In 1748 there was a contest over the choice of Deputy Governor, none
of the candidates receiving a majority of the votes cast at the Court of
Election. After considerable bickering Roger Walcott was elected by the
two houses voting separately. MS. Rec Civil Officers, III, 140-143, 167.
8 The suggestion made by Dr. Baldwin that the charter contemplated
making the General Court merely an electoral and advisory body and
vesting the legislative power in the Governor and Assistants, is hardly
tenable. While such an interpretation might be drawn from the careless
wording of the instrument, no such meaning was placed upon it by the
colonial authorities and I have been unable to discover any contemporary
expression by Winthrop or the other colony leaders that such was the
intention of the authorities in England. Baldwin, Three Constitutions of
Connecticut, Neio Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, V, 186.

ORGANS OF LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 21
visions were changed or modified by the General Court
with the same freedom as had been done with the "Fun
damental Orders."1
The eighteenth century brought no material change in
the powers of the General Court. In fact the powers of
the legislature in the corporate colonies do not repre
sent a gradual development, as was the case in the
provinces. In the former the powers of the legislative
body were ample from the beginning, and the only prob
lem which confronted the colonists was how to maintain
these powers intact from the encroachment of the home
government. In this Massachusetts failed, while Con
necticut and Rhode Island, by more judicious use of their
powers, were enabled to maintain their liberal form of
government throughout the colonial period.
During the first three years of the colony's history no
distinct executive authority appeared. All the functions
of government, executive and judicial as well as legis
lative, were centred in the Massachusetts Commission
and in the Court which displaced the Commission. In
the Fundamental Orders the first attempt was made to
differentiate the functions of government. Here it was
provided that there should be a Governor chosen each
year by the freemen of the colony.2 Like the other magis-
1 Two important changes in the charter effected by the General Court
have already been noted, namely, the separation of the legislature into two
houses and the adoption of proxy voting. Professor Bryce says that the
colonists became accustomed to the idea of an instrument superior to the
legislature and the laws which it passed, because they possessed » charter
which could not be changed by the legislature. While in theory the
legislature was bound by the provisions of the charter, in point of fact, the
General Court, as has been seen, made fundamental changes in its pro
visions, and it must be admitted that there is no evidence that the
colonists, at least in Connecticut, became acquainted with the essentials
of a " rigid " or " written " constitution from their experience with a royal
charter. Bryce, op. cit., I, 170.
2 No mention is made of a Deputy Governor, but the Magistrate receiv
ing the greatest number of votes next to the Governor bore the title and
exercised the functions of a Deputy Governor.

22 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
trates, the Governor was nominated in some Court before
the Court of Election. He must, moreover, be a member
of some "approved congregation," and have been for
merly a magistrate. No person could be chosen Governor
more than once in two years.1 The Charter made no
change in the organization of the executive, except that it
specially provided for a Deputy Governor, as well as a
Governor. Upon the Governor fell the duty of summoning the two
regular sessions of the General Court, and also, with the
advice of a major part of the magistrates, at such other
times as was deemed necessary. While the Governor could
summon the General Court, he could not prevent its meet
ing, neither could he adjourn or dissolve it, without its con
sent. The Governor, or Deputy Governor, presided over
the sessions of the General Court. He could give "lib
erty of speech," put all questions to vote, and in case of
a tie have the casting vote. He did not have the power
to veto any act of the General Court. The Charter, in
theory, slightly increased the power of the Governor in
legislation. He only, or in his absence the Deputy Gov
ernor, could summon any General Court, and no Court
could be held without his presence or that of the Deputy
Governor. He was not given a casting vote in case of
a tie, but this power seems soon to have been reestab
lished.2 The Charter failed to state, as did the constitu
tion, that no General Court could be adjourned or dis
solved without its own consent.3 There is no evidence,
1This provision was another expression of the democratic sentiments
of the founders of Connecticut. In practice the restriction was of little
value. While in force there was a tolerably regular succession in the
offices of Governor and Deputy Governor, the incumbents merely changing
places each year. In 1660 the restriction was entirely removed by striking
out this clause of the constitution. Col. Rec, I, 346, 347.
"" « Code of 1672.
* This provision reappeared in the Code of 1672.

ORGANS OP LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 23
however, that the Governors subsequent to the granting
of the Charter, exercised any greater control over legis
lation than had those under the constitution. At no time
during the colonial period could the Governor be con
sidered a coordinate branch of the legislature. He was
simply the presiding officer of the Court, and, after the
separation of the legislature into two houses, of the
Upper House.
While it does not appear that the Governor communi
cated advice to the General Court in the shape of a
message at each session, this method was not infrequently
employed. Such communications were not materially
different from similar documents at the present day.
Information was given as to the general state of the
colony, communications from the home government and
the neighboring colonies were referred to the considera
tion of the Court, and advice was given regarding neces
sary legislation.1 At times the message was referred to
a committee of the Court which reported upon the recom
mendations.2 It has been noted that the General Court retained most
of the administrative functions of government in its own
hands. Here, as in legislation, the Governor did little
more than register the will of the legislature.3
A mere enumeration of the powers of the Executive,
however, would give a wrong impression of the actual
influence exerted by the Governor, as a part of the gov-
1 See messages of Gov. Fitz John Winthrop, Mass. Hist. Colls., 6th Ser.,
Ill, 157, 184, 290, and of Gov. Talcott, Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls., IV, 289.
See also MS. Rec Civil Officers, I, 97, 163, 286, etc.
2 MS. Rec Civil Officers, I, 171.
3 In 1721 Gov. Saltonstall claimed' that according to the charter the
Governor should nominate all officers appointed by the General Court,
but he agreed to submit to the opinion of the two houses. The court
decided that it could not accept the views of the Governor. MS. Rec Civil
Officers, 1, 286, 288, 290.

24 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
ernmental machinery. While his powers in the abstract
were slight, his influence was unquestionably, in most
instances, extensive. This influence depended in a large
measure upon the personality of the Executive and upon
his ability to maintain friendly relations with the legis
lature and direct the legislation which he could not con
trol. In most cases the persons chosen to the office of
chief magistrate, fulfilled these requirements admirably.
While the term of office was nominally one year it came
to be practically a permanent tenure.1 Rarely was a
person once chosen Governor retired, except by death
or some other infirmity. Chosen generally from among
the leading families,2 respected by the freemen who
elected him, there is abundant evidence in the records
that the chief magistrate wielded considerable influence
in shaping the affairs of the commonwealth.
From the foundation of the colony the Governor or
Deputy Governor, with the assistants, had met together
as a "Particular Court," but the functions of this body
were mainly judicial.3 It was not until the granting of
the Charter that the assistants appear distinctly as an
advisory administrative body to the Governor. The
Charter provided that the Governor or Deputy Governor,
and the assistants, should "apply themselves to take care
for the best disposing and ordering of the general busi
ness and affairs" of the colony. A few months after
1 After 1660 when the restriction preventing a person from being chosen
Governor more than once in two years was removed, there are but three
instances in which a person having been chosen Governor was not reelected
yearly for life.
2 A contemporary authority says,—" In all their elections of Governor,
councellcrs, representatives, judges and other public officers, by custom
they generally choose the most worthy." Douglass, Summary, II 158.
3 Col. Rec, I, 71, 81, 119, etc. The Fundamental Orders' stated that
the Governor and Magistrates should " administer justice according to the
laws here established, and for want thereof according to the rule of the
word of the Word of God."

ORGANS OF LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 25
the receipt of the Charter, the General Court constituted
the assistants a standing council "to act in emergt oc
casions that concerne ye welfare of this colony."1 From
the fragmentary records, it appears that the Council be
gan to act in matters of importance. By its order, a com
mittee was dispatched to the town of West Chester to
settle certain disputed questions. Orders were sent to
towns on the eastern end of long Island, warning them
to submit to the authority of Connecticut, and a rate was
ordered to be levied on these towns. The town of Wick-
ford was named by order of the Council.2 The activity
of the Council was, however, cut short by the repeal, two
years later, of the act under which it was constituted.3
The Council reappeared in 1675.4 To the Governor
and assistants were added two military officers and two
civilians. The powers of the body were more definitely
stated. They were to have "as full power as the Charter
will allow," to act in "all matters and things emergent"
provided their acts were not inconsistent with the Char
ter.5 The order constituting the Council was to remain
in force only until ih.e next meeting of the Court, at which
time the Council was again constituted with certain
changes in the names of individuals added, and without
any limitation as to time.6 In 1678 all names of private
citizens were stricken from the commission, and at each
session of the General Court from then until the coming
of Andros in 1687, the Governor and assistants were con
stituted a council.7 The General Court was careful to
1 Col. Rec, I, 397. The assistants appear to have been acting as a
Council before this act was passed. Ibid., I, 398; II, 331.
« Col. Rec, I, 406, 407, 424.
3 Ibid., I, 440.
' In 1673 there was created a Council of War which is not to be con
fused with the Governor's Council.
s Col. Rec, II, 261.
s Ibid., II, 270.
' The quorum of the Assistants was fixed at three. Col. Rec, III, 15.

26 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
restrict the powers of this body. In 1691 it was provided
that they could raise no money, nor make any alteration
in the Charter, and to these restrictions was later added
the provision that they should send no men out of the
colony, except in cases of emergency.1 This evident jeal
ousy of a standing council, shown by the General Court
reconstituting it at each session and specifying its powers
was, possibly, a reflection of the controversy over a simi
lar question in the early days of the Massachusetts
colony.2 Upon the resumption of government under the Charter
after the overthrow of Andros, the Council reappeared.
For a number of years, at each session of the Court, spe
cial acts constituting such a body were passed. At times
certain deputies or freemen were added to the assistants,
and on one occasion the Governor was empowered to
choose his own Council.3 The last time that the Council
was specifically "stated" was in 1719, though it appears
that the assistants continued to meet at intervals, as a
Council, throughout the eighteenth century.
At first the meetings of the Council were frequent,
often once a week, and its activity included the receiv
ing and naming of new towns, conferring land patents,
granting licenses to sell liquor, appointing fast days
and days of Thanksgiving, receiving and answering let
ters and orders from the authorities in England, the
colonial agents and the officials of the neighboring col
onies, issuing military orders, and ordering the payment
of public debts.4 On at least one occasion the Council
chose an official of the colony to fill a vacancy caused by
death.5 i Col. Rec, IV, 62, 489; V, 32, 53.
2 Osgood, American Colonies, I, 178.
3 Col. Rec, IV, 14, 399, 489; V, 22.
« Col. Rec, I, 407, 411; XV, 531 et seq.
« Ibid., XV, 558.

ORGANS OF LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 27
The Court from time to time ordered the Council to
perform certain specified acts. Thus they were required
to appoint an agent of the colony in England, to attend
to "laying in a stock of pork," and to look after the
"Gospelizing" of the Indians1 At first, it was customary
for the General Court to pass upon the acts of the Coun
cil,2 and, in one instance at least, its action was disap
proved.3 During the greater part of the eighteenth cen
tury, because of the dearth of records,4 we are left wholly
in the dark as to the activity of the Council. The fact,
however, that in the records of the General Court no ref
erence is made to the body for such a long period, would
incline one to believe that it had ceased to be an important
adjunct of the governmental machinery.5
'Col. Rec, V, 325, 337; V, 15.
2 Col. Rec, IV, 202, 205, 222, etc.
3 Ibid., IV, 284.
'There is no Council Journal extant between the years 1728 and 1770.
"The extant Council records after 1770 are of little interest and con
cern largely the ordering of the payment of public accounts. Col. Rec,
XIII, 355, 412, 504.

CHAPTER II.
Finance and Currency.
It is proposed under this heading to treat financial
history in its broadest sense. Besides an account of the
monetary system, an attempt will be made to outline the
principal sources of colonial revenue and expense, with
some account of the control of the public revenue. From
a constitutional standpoint, the consideration of these
questions is not as important in the corporate colonies, as
in the royal or proprietary provinces. In the latter, the
question of the control of the purse, was the most fruit
ful source of conflict between the democratic and prero
gative elements. All other issues were in a measure sub
ordinated to the money question. In the nature of things
such a conflict was not possible in the corporate colonies.
In these colonies the financial question is of interest
rather from the economic or social, than from the consti
tutional standpoint. Its consideration shows how a com
munity left largely to its own resources, having little
knowledge of the science of government and less of the
science of finance, tried to adjust revenue to expenditure,
and expenditure to revenue ; how it attempted in an hon
est but crude way to advance its material prosperity by
experimenting with a protective tariff, how it became in
fatuated with the paper money craze, and tried to extri
cate itself from the inevitable disaster.
Land was the first and throughout the most important
basis of taxation. Probably it was due to the fact that
land had little or no selling value during the early years
of the colony's history that it was assessed not according
28

finance and currency. 29
to its selling value, but according to some rough estimate
of its probable revenue.1 No attempt was made at first
to classify land according to its location or quality.
With the increase in population and the opening up of
less desirable land, the inequality of the old method be
came more and more apparent. It was not however until
16762 that a committee appointed for the purpose sub
mitted a report which was adopted by the General Court,
by which land was rated according to its use, quality,
locality and position.3 The schedule thus established was
somewhat modified in 1712, by which a new classification
was made according to locality, and more minute differen
tiation in the quality of the land.4 To the tax upon land
was early added a general property tax.5 This tax first
fell upon property that was incident to land, such as
houses and cattle, the latter being rated according to age.6
Gradually the scope of the tax was widened to include all
"visible" estate; mills, ships, cranes, wharves and "mer
chantable goods" were levied upon according to their
estimated values.7
1 This method of rating land according to estimated revenue continued
through the colonial era. Jones, Hist, of Taxation in Connecticut, J. H.
V. S., XIV, 354. A contemporary authority says that in assessing rates
land was valued at seven years income. Douglas, Summary, II, 177.
a In New Haven as early as 1640 land had been rated according to its
location. N. H. Col. Rec, I, 43.
"Meadow lands were rated at from 55s. to 20s. per acre, the best being
in Wethersneld; home lots from 40s. to 15s. per acre, Hartford and
Wethersfield being the highest; improved uplands used for tillage 25s. to
8s. per acre, the uplands of Hartford south side being the best; mowing
and pasture land at from 20s. to 10s. per acre ; all other " impropriated "
land at Is. per acre. Col. Rec, II, 294.
1 Col. Rec, V, 334.
5 In 1640 Mr. Allen was required to pay a tax on his land and " all
stocke as is resident or usually imployed in and thereupon." Col. Rec,
I, 53. "Col. Rec, I, 549.
''Ibid., I, 548. Property exempted from such taxation included: (1)
Cattle under one year of age, (2) hay and corn in the "husbandman's

30 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
The Poll tax early became a feature of colonial taxa
tion.1 In the code of 1650 all male persons above 16 years
of age, were taxed 2s. 6d. "by the head." The follow^
ing year the tax was reduced to 18d.2 Under Andros
in was raised to Is. 8d., but later reduced to 18d.3 In
1737 the manner of expressing the tax was changed.
Each person was placed in the list at 18 pounds for his
poll. A tax of Id. in the pound, returning the same
amount as before.4 Exemptions of particular individuals
or classes were made from time to time by the General
Court.5 The Connecticut lawmakers, and a large portion of
these doubtless were land owners, with a desire to lessen
the burden of taxation on land and property, early
turned their attention to such persons "who by the ad
vantage of their Artes and Trades" were able to bear
some part of the colony expenses. In the code of 1650
a faculty or income tax first appears.6 Here it was pro
vided that "Butchers, Bakers, Bruers, Victuallers,
Smiths, Carpenters, Taylors, Shoemakers, Joiners, Bar-
hand," (3) vessels owned in the colony employed in whale or cod fishing
four months of the year, (4) all estates used for ecclesiastical, educational
or charitable purposes, (5) all houses and barns except warehouses, (6)
each trooping horse. Col. Rec, I, 433, 549; VIII, 133; XIII, 365 Jones,
op. cit., 22.
1 The poll tax first appeared in Massachusetts in 1646. Mass. Col. Rec,
II, 173.
2 Col. Rec, I, 229.
3 Ibid., Ill, 406.
4 Ibid., VIII, 133.
"These included Magistrates, ministers, elders, the rector of Yale
College, and such persons as were disabled by " sickness, lameness or other
infirmity." To these were added from time to time particular persons
who had suffered some misfortune, as loss by fire. Col. Rec, I 548- III
215; VIII, 133.
"In 1649 New Haven adopted an income tax. Both the Connecticut
and New Haven laws were almost verbatim reproductions of an earlier
Massachusetts law. N. H. Col. Rec, I, 494; Conn. Col. Rec, I 549-
Mass. Col. Rec, II, 173.

FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 31
bers, Millers and Masons, with all other manuall persons
and Artists" should be rated "for their returns and
gains" in proportion, as other persons paid for the pro
duce of their estates. In time the scope of the tax was
increased. In 1725 all "allowed" attorneys were rated
according to their ' ' faculties, ' ' the least practitioners at 50
pounds and others proportionately.1 In 1757 it was or
dered that all persons "who let out money at interest"
should be rated according to their gains.2 Listers had used
largely their own discretion in fixing the amount of fac
ulty or income tax. Such a system, even though honestly
administered, was bound to give rise to dissatisfaction.
To remedy these evils, the General Court in 1771, speci
fied in detail the rates of income taxes.3 In this form the
faculty tax continued to the end of the century practically
unchanged. The faculty tax, the operation of which has
been outlined, was at best, a crude attempt to shift a part
of the burden of taxation from the property holding
class. It became in many instances an inequitable and
burdensome tax. It was not an income tax in the modern
sense of the term. No attempt was made to ascertain
the actual profits or earnings of particular individuals,
but the levy was made on certain assumed earnings. 4
Exemptions from, and abatement of taxes were a com
mon feature. Besides personal exemptions, some of which
have been noted, it was customary to free whole towns
from colony rates for a greater or less period of time.
Specific reasons were always given for such exemptions.
i Col. Rec, V, 525; VIII, 133.
2 Ibid., XI, 14.
3 Traders and shop keepers were to be rated at 10 per cent, of the
cost of all goods sold at retail, except produce and manufactures of the
colony. Wholesale traders, artificers and tavern keepers were rated ac
cording to their annual profits. Col. Rec, XIII, 513.
* Seligman, Colonial and State Income Taxes, Pol. Science Quarterly,
June, 1895.

32 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
Such were for the "encouragement" of a new plantation,
to help build a meeting house, or school houses, for the
building of a mill, or because a town had suffered from
fire, Indian ravages or other calamities. Poor persons
might be allowed an abatement of their taxes upon the
recommendation of the select men of the town, in which
case the amount abated was paid by the town.1
Excise and custom duties formed a less important part
of the colony revenue. The system of indirect taxation,
if the scattered laws dealing with the subject may be
called a system, developed late in the colonial period. In
general, the purpose of the indirect taxes was to relieve
the burden of direct taxation.
As early as 1638 a tax had been laid upon the beaver
trade, and in 1646, an excise on wine.2 During the An
dros regime, the laws relating to excise were more de
tailed, but not different in character, and throughout the
18th century, the principle of the excise continued with-'
out material change.3 The first customs duty was that
levied upon wines in 1654.4 In 1662 a duty was laid upon
tobacco. The same year all laws imposing duties were
repealed, and free trade was established throughout the
colony. This experiment, however, lasted only until the
next session of the Court, when the old duties were re
established.5 During the Andros regime, the only change
affected was in increasing and specifying the duties on
'Col. Rec, I, 185, 348; II, 113; III, 2, 240. Ibid., XIII, 94.
2 Col. Rec, I, 20, 31, 146.
3 Ibid., Ill, 409; X, 408, 451; XII, 296.
'Ibid., I, 255. In point of fact the first customs duty was an export
duty on goods passing down the Connecticut River. This was, however,
merely a temporary duty levied for the special purpose of defraying the
expenses of the purchase of Saybrook from Mr. Fenwick. The attempt
to collect this duty involved the colony in a serious dispute with Massa
chusetts. Col. Rec, I, 119, 120, 170; II, 59. Trumbull, op. cit., I, 184,
194, 508; Palfrey, Hist, of New England, II, 240, 242.
6 Col. Rec, I, 380, 391, 395.

FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 33
liquors.1 In 1696 the Court ordered that all foreigners
bringing goods into the colony to sell, should pay a duty
of 2 per cent, of the value of the goods, which was changed
two years later to 12|s. on 100 pounds' worth of goods.2
At the same time foreigners were interpreted to mean
all those who were not inhabitants of the colony. This
law might be considered as an embryo form of the pro
tective tariff. It was probably, however an attempt to
place non-residents on an equal footing with the inhabi
tants who were required to pay the faculty or income
tax on merchandise sold in the colony.3 In 1714 a heavy
export duty was laid on barrel, pipe, and hogshead staves,
exported to any of the New England colonies, New York
or New Jersey. The stated objects of this act were two
fold: (1) To preserve the timber of the colony, and (2)
to encourage direct exportation from the colony to the
West Indies.4 In 1735 a duty of 16d. per gallon was laid
on rum imported in vessels not owned in the colony, and
8d. by those owned in the colony, but this act was repealed
the same year.5 In 1747 the Court imposed a duty of 5 per
cent, on goods imported from the neighboring colonies,
and if by non-resident importers 1_ per cent., while to
encourage direct importation from England and Ireland,
a bounty of 5 per cent, was granted, but the following
year the act was repealed.6 In 1757 the General Court
i Ibid., IV, 249.
2 Ibid., IV, 167, 251.
3 In 1713 an act passed the upper house of the legislature placing a
duty of 5 per cent, on all goods brought into the colony by non-residents.
This was negatived in the lower house. Journal of the upper and lower
houses, October, 1713.
* Col. Rec, V, 434. The following year similar duties were laid on
planks, ship timber and boards. In 1747 the duties on these articles were
increased. Ibid., V, 499; IX, 286.
*Ibid., VII, 565; VIII, 7.
e Ibid., IX, 285, 393. There were excepted from this tax slit-iron, nails,
salt, steel, beaver, leather, deer-skin, dry and pickled fish, train oil, whale
bone, rice, tar, turpentine, window-glass and lumber.

34 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
once more imposed a duty of 5 per cent, on merchandise
brought into the colony either from the neighboring col
onies or abroad. Whether this act was repealed or not,
does not appear, but in 1768 another act similar in all
respects, save in the number of articles excepted from
the law, was passed. This law, however, lasted but two
years, the colony agent having written to Gov. Trumbull,
that it had given great offense to England.1 Amidst all
this indecision and more or less haphazard legislation
relating to revenue, one or two things seem to be toler
ably clear. The colony officials in an honest effort to
stimulate the commerce and trade of the colony, sought in
a crude manner to exclude the products of the neighbor
ing colonies, and to an extent, those of the mother coun
try, but none of the laws enacted for the purpose remained
in force for a sufficient length of time to prove the truth
or fallacy of the principle involved. The evident caution
shown by the authorities in dealing with the subject was
probably due not to any fear of "monkeying with the
tariff buzz-saw," but to them, the more conscious fear
of interference by the authorities in England.
Another form of indirect taxation which appeared
during the colonial period, was tonnage duties. During
the Andros regime, a, tonnage duty of 12d., or a pound of
powder, per ton was levied on all vessels not owned in
New England.2 This act, somewhat modified, remained
in force after the resumption of government under the
Charter. In 1744 a tonnage duty was levied to supply
powder for the fort at New London, in 1757 a similar duty
to support a colony war vessel, and in 1760 for erecting
and maintaining a lighthouse at New London.3
'Col. Rec, IX, 285; XI, 10; XIII, 72, 299; Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls 5th
Series, IX, 387.
2 Col. Rec, III, 410.
* Ibid., IX, 75; XI, 10, 469.

FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 35
Finally, of the minor sources of revenue, a word might
be said. Fines, which especially during the early years of
the colony's history, were imposed for a variety of of
fenses. There were fines for absence from trainings, de
fault of arms and ammunition, immoderate drinking, sell
ing arms and ammunition to the natives, for bachelors who
kept house without consent of the authorities, for profanity
and contempt of authority.1 An almost negligible revenue
was obtained during the early years from tribute exacted
from the Indians, for damage done by them.2 During
the eighteenth century, the sale of public lands added
some income to the colony treasury.3
At the head of the administrative machinery for gath
ering colonial revenue was the treasurer. By him the
writs were issued to the collectors in the different towns.4
The constable early became the chief collecting officer in the
towns.5 Prior to 1650 when a tax was to be levied the Gen
eral Court fixed upon the sum necessary to be raised and
this was proportioned among the towns6 by a committee
composed of an equal number of persons from each town.
This simple system was soon found to have its disad
vantages. Granting that an honest effort was made to
apportion the tax equitably, only a crude estimate of the
relative ability of each town could be made. With the
increase of population, and the formation of new towns,
such a system was bound to become inequitable, if not
positively unjust. To remedy these evils a system already
in practice in Massachusetts was adopted. This was
the principle of the Grand List. In each town were
chosen three or four men as listers. These listers were
i Col. Rec, I, 29, 49, 50, etc.; II, 119, 257, etc
2 Ibid., I, 52, 303, 316.
3 Ibid., VIII, 135.
* Ibid., I, 12.
« Ibid., I, 550.
s Ibid., I, 25.

36 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
required to prepare a list of all males over 16 years of
age, with a true estimation of their estates, both real and
personal. At a specified time, one of the listers (later
a deputy of the General Court) from each town, met at
Hartford for the purpose of correcting and equalizing
the lists, which were then returned to the towns for assess
ment.1 Upon the list prepared in the manner indicated,
was levied the country rate. This assumed the form of
a certain percentage of the list. For a number of years
the usual per cent, was Id. on the pound. With the slow
growth of the Grand List, the amount returned from
such a tax was a tolerably fixed quantity. In time this
amount became known as "a rate" or "a whole rate,"
and when a greater or less amount was required for pub
lic expense, a multiple or a fraction of the "rate" was
levied.2 Great care was taken by the colonial authorities to
have all persons bear their just share of the public
expense. Any persons who failed to hand in a correct
list of his estate was rated "will and doom," that is, at
the discretion of the listers.3 Later (1703) was intro
duced the custom of assessing all estate omitted from the
list at four times its value. From this came the "four
fold" assessments which are met with frequently in the
records.4 Failure to pay rates within a specified time
made the property of the individual liable to be levied
upon by process of distress, beginning with the seizure
of merchandise or cattle, then lands and houses, and
finally the person of the individual.5 Then there appeared
1 Col. Rec, I, 548.
2 Thus in 1652 a half a rate was ordered, and in 1653 a rate and a
half. Col. Rec, I, 236, 249. Later, however, the custom of reduplicating
the rate was dropped, and the per cent, was raised or lowered as occasion
required. Col. Rec, I, 285, 307, 324, etc.
» Ibid., IV, 6.
« Col. Rec, IV., 439.
6 Ibid., I, 550 ; Jones, op. cit., 388.

FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 37
the Inspector of Lists. The functions of this officer were
to verify and correct the work of the listers.1 Constables
were required to return the colony rate to the Treasurer
by the last day of June each year.2 In order that the
constables might reach non-resident land holders, they
were given (1719) the same jurisdiction throughout the
colony as they exercised in their own towns3. The con
stables were held to strict accountability for collection of
all rates, and in case of deficiency, their property was
liable to be levied upon by the Treasurer, who in turn was
responsible to the General Court.4
The excise and customs duties were collected by spe
cial officials. In 1659 the Court appointed "Custom
Masters" in nine towns.5 In 1698 the Governor was
authorized to appoint one collector of excise in each
county. The power of appointment was later transferred
to the County Courts, and then to the towns.6 In 1747
the Court authorized the Governor to appoint a collector
of customs in each county, and later this power was trans
ferred to the towns, and the number increased to one
from each town.7 In 1776 the Governor was made head
naval officer, with power to appoint under collectors in
certain specified towns.8
Provisions for defence, formed perhaps the largest
single item of expense. Under this heading were in
cluded, salaries and pensions of soldiers, military sup-
1 Ibid., V, 81, 440, 503. Special inspectors were at first chosen, then
the work was assigned to the deputies of the General Court, and finally
the office was merged with that of lister. Jones, op. cit., 370.
2 Col. Rec, I, 113, 551.
3 Ibid., VI, 154.
' Ibid., I, 551.
5 Ibid., I, 332. In 1665 the treasurer with the deputies from Hartford
were authorized to farm out the customs. Ibid., II, 15.
elbid., IV, 262; V. 56; VII, 562.
1 1bid., IX, 283; XI, 11.
s Col. Rec, XV, 280.

38 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
plies, appropriations for the building and repair of forts
and fortifications, and the maintenance of armed vessels
for coast defence. It had been customary from the first
to grant specified salaries to soldiers and officers when in
active service, and such continued to be the practice
during the whole colonial era. The General Court would
usually fix the rate of pay at the beginning of each expe
dition or campaign.1 Besides the regular salaries, not
infrequently extra compensation in the shape of gratui
ties and bounties was granted to the soldiers.2 There is
no record of any general pension act having been passed
during the colonial period, but a considerable number of
special pension acts were passed for the relief of in
dividual soldiers or their families.3 During the earlier
years of the colony's history, the supply of arms and
ammunition was largely a charge upon the localities.
Enactments requiring the possession of arms and ammu
nitions by all male persons able to bear arms, were of fre
quent occurrence.4 When, however, the intercolonial
wars of the eighteenth century greatly extended the scope
and expense of military operations, the cost of equipping
and supplying the militia became a more and more im
portant item of colonial expense.5
The forts and fortifications in the coast and frontier
towns, were maintained partly by local taxation, and
partly by colonial grants.6 The building and equipping
'Col. Rec, I, 11, 15; V, 80, 83, 93, etc; IX, 93, 110, etc.; X, 317, 345,
etc. 2 Ibid., X, 450, 495, 599; XI, 94.
3 Ibid., XI, 37, 86, 110, etc. MS. Rec. War, III, 134 et seq.
4 Col. Rec, I, 3, 15; IV, 18.
0 There was a constant complaint of a, lack of arms and ammunition,
and appeals were made to the home government for aid. MS Rec War
VI, 26, 76. '
0 The principal forts were at Saybrook and New London. These forts
were maintained partly by the tonnage duty and partly by special grants
of the Court. Col. Rec, 19, 129, 400.

FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 39
of armed vessels for coast defence, was an expense of
minor importance.1 Down until the opening of Philip's
War, the expenses for defence were comparatively light,2
but this war, followed by the long series of intercolonial
wars which opened with the last decade of the seventeenth
century, entailed upon the colony a large and continuous
expense for military affairs. Connecticut was favored by
her geographical position, not being so immediately ex
posed to the attacks of the French and Indians, as were
her neighboring colonies on the north and west, but she
was always generous in supplying men and money for
purposes of mutual defence.3 The absence of records
makes any estimate of military expenses for the four
intercolonial wars, hardly more than a guess,4 but there
is no doubt they were a heavy burden, and offered an
excuse, if not a justification, for Connecticut's disastrous
experiments with paper currency.
Next to the expenditure for military purposes, prob
ably the most important item of expense was in providing
for the salaries and expenses of the colonial officials.
Salaries at first were irregularly paid, and generally
small in amount.5 The Governor's salary which in 1700
1 See chapter on military affairs.
2 The highest rate up to that time was 2%d. in the pound, but as a
result of that war the taxes rapidly increased. In 1675 they had risen
to 12d. in the pound and in 1678 to 18d. in the pound. Col. Rec, II, 269,
292, 401.
5 During part of the first intercolonial war from 1688 to 1696 Connecti
cut expended 7759 pounds 14s. 9d. in assisting the neighboring colonies.
Col. Rec, IV, 191 note; MS. Rec. Foreign Correspondence, II, 60; War, III,
10a, 10b. During three years of the second intercolonial war Connecticut
expended about 18,000 pounds in the defence of the Massachusetts towns.
MS. Rec War, II, 67a, 67b.
4 Trumbull estimates the expenses of Connecticut in the first inter
colonial war at more than 12,000 pounds, and in the last intercolonial war,
after deducting parliamentary grants, at 400,000 pounds. Trumbull, op.
cit., I, 397; II, 455.
6 In 1641 a salary was first paid to the Governor. It consisted of 160
bu. of corn. Col. Rec, I, 69. At the opening of the eighteenth century

40 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
was 140 pounds, had risen to 250 pounds in 1728; 300
pounds in 1730 and 350 pounds in 1736. Much of this ap
parent increase, however, was more than offset by the
rapid depreciation of the bills of credit, in which salaries
were paid.1 It does not appear from the records that
there was any considerable extension of the salary system
during the eighteenth century. The salaries, particularly
of the executive officers, were granted for no longer period
than one year, and later semi-annually.2
This evident fear of stated salaries was probably anal
ogous to that which appeared in the neighboring colonies
of Massachusetts and New York, though with no good
reason for such fear. Throughout the colonial history
of Connecticut fees formed a more important part of the
income of officials, than did salaries. The Secretary and
the Magistrates, were especially dependent upon fees.3
Besides the salaries and fees, extra compensation in the
form of gratuities or pensions, was not infrequently
the salaries of the various officials were, annually: Governor 140 pounds,
Deputy Governor 50 pounds, Secretary 10 pounds, Sheriff 10 pounds,
Speaker of the House 30s. for each session, Clerk of the General Court
50s., Treasurer 10 pounds and 16 pounds for " riding the circuit." Col.
Rec, IV, 330.
1 Gov. Saltonstall had a long dispute with the General Court concerning
his salary. He claimed that the salary of 200 pounds was granted " in
or as money," and that he should not suffer because of the depreciation
in the bills of credit. The Court, however, did not see fit to agree with
him. Col. Rec, 443 note. In 1733 Gov. Talcott complained to the General
Court of his inability to support himself on the salary granted to him
because of the depreciation in the currency; and the Court granted him
an extra 100 pounds. Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls., IV, 289. MS. Rec. Civil
Officers, II, 216.
2 After 1740 it was customary to grant salaries semi-annually at the
two stated meetings of the General Court.
3 The secretary, for example, received 2s. 6d. for each copy of public
orders sent to the towns; Is. for each entry of public laws and orders;
2s. for affixing the public seal to documents, or Is. if to public orders; Is'.
for writing each military commission, Is. 6d. for each justice's commission;'
and 3s. for each petition to the General Court. Col. Rec, IV, 313. For
a detailed list of the fees of the various officials see Col. Rec, IX, 287 et seq.

FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 41
granted to colony officials and other persons for some
special work performed for the colony.1 Pensions took
the form of exemption from taxation for a given period,
or for life, or freedom from rates combined with a grant
of money.2 The increased activity during the eighteenth
century of the authorities in England in relation to colo
nial affairs, and the frequent attacks which were made
upon the charter of Connecticut, necessitated the almost
continuous employment of a colonial agent in England,
and the payment of his salary and expenses was an item
of some importance in the colony's expenses. The money
appropriated for these purposes, was given with no very
good grace, and the General Court jealously watched the
use to which it was put.3
Although the provisions for education were a charge
upon the towns, there are numerous instances of grants
made by the General Court, for the support of schools.
This was especially the case in providing for the support
of Yale College.4
A minor expense was incurred by the colony in working
out the details of its policy towards the natives. Before
the close of the seventeenth century, the Indians within
the borders of Connecticut had ceased to be a menace to
the white settlers. On the other hand, the natives needed
i Col. Rec, IX, 260; XI, 55, 172, etc, MS. Rec Finance and Currency,
I, 48. Such items as the following are not uncommon. The Court allowed
Dr. Carrington 9s. " for medicine given to a sick man at New Haven "
and to Serjt. John Ball 15s. "for dieting of him for three weeks." Col.
Rec, IV, 401.
2 Col. Rec, IV, 409, 530, etc.; V, 177, 349, etc
3 Col. Rec, V, 413, 414, 523, etc MS. Rec. Finance and Currency, III,
38, 50, 270, etc.; II, 168.
* Col. Rec, II, 176, 312; IV, 97; V, 353, 529, etc. In 1733 the Court
appropriated the money received from the sale of the seven townships in
the western lands for the support of schools, and in 1766 the money re
ceived from the excise on wines and liquors was similarly given. Col. Rec,
VII, 459; XII, 463.

42 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
to be protected from unscrupulous whites. The General
Court appointed overseers for the different tribes, to
look after their interests, and appropriated money for
educating the natives and instructing them in the prin
ciples of the Christian religion.1
In defraying these various expenses, the General Court
passed special appropriations for each item as it was
presented. It does not appear that any attempt was
made to classify expenses, and pass general appropria
tion bills.
It had been the practice from the first, for the General
Court to keep a close supervision over the collection and
expenditure of the public revenue. This was done gen
erally by a committee appointed by the General Court,
to audit the accounts of the treasurer.2 During the
fourth intercolonial war, a special auditing committee
known as the Committee of the Pay Table, was appointed
to adjust the accounts of the treasurer for all expenses of
a military character.3
During the earlier years of the colony's history, the
settlers were practically unsupplied with metallic cur
rency. To supply this deficiency and remove the incon
veniences of barter, resort was early made to wampum
and merchandise as a medium of exchange. Wampum or
"peage" consisted of small spiral shells, about an eighth
of an inch in diameter, and arranged on strings and
fibres. The shells were either black or white, the value
of the former being generally twice that of the latter.4
i Col. Rec, VI, 188, 563; VII, 102, 181, 242, etc This subject will be
treated more fully in the consideration of Indian affairs.
2 Col. Rec, I, 30, 68, etc.; Ill, 49, 72, etc.; VI, 19, 48, etc.
3 Col. Rec, X, 366.
* Weeden, Economic and Social Hist, of New England, I, 32. Bronson,
Hist, of Connecticut Currency, New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, I, 3. The
fathom of wampum was 60d. worth, and was a variable amount according
as the value of the beads was fixed by law. If it was six beads to the

FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 43
Used first in their dealings with the natives, these shells
soon became a recognized currency among the colonists,
and were exchanged for merchandise, labor and taxes.
They passed at rates fixed by statute, which were altered
from time to time as the supply varied.1 After the mid
dle of the seventeenth century, wampum begins to dis
appear as a medium of exchange, but in smaller trans
actions, and in the more remote settlements, it continued
in use throughout the seventeenth and into the eighteenth
century.2 In the more important business transactions,
and in the payment of taxes, merchandise took the place
of specie. The articles chosen were wheat, rye, oats,
Indian corn, peas, beef, pork, beaver, etc. The prices at
which these articles were to pass were fixed from time to
time by the General Court. The payment of taxes in
merchandise, necessitated the maintenance of a colony
magazine or store house, to keep the products in until
they should be disposed of.3 Throughout the seventeenth
and into the eighteenth century until the appearance of
paper currency, farm products continued to be used in the
payment of taxes, and for the exchange of commodities.4
penny then three hundred and sixty beads made a, fathom. Weeden,
Indian Money as a Factor in New England Civilization, J: H. V. S., II,
385. 1 In 1637 the rate was three beads to the penny, in 1640 four to the
penny, and in 1642 six to the penny. Col. Rec, I, 13, 61, 79.
2 It was in use as late as 1704 and possibly later. Bronson, op. cit., 4.
The decline of wampum as a circulating medium was due to the decreasing
commercial relations of the natives and the whites, and to the increase in
the quantity of metallic currency which found its way into the colony,
especially from the West Indies. Weeden, Economic and Social Hist, I, 45.
3 In 1667 the General Court proposed to " hire » chamber for keeping
the Country Rate in the respective towns." Col. Rec, II, 64.
4 In 1710 the General Court required rates to be paid in specie or bills
of credit, but in 1720, and again in 1723 we find a tax levied payable in
grain. Upon the sinking of the paper currency in 1757 it was found
necessary to resort to commodities once more in the payment of taxes.
Col. Rec, V, 157; VI, 223, 431; XI, 9.

44 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
Some foreign coin found its way into the colony, and
its exchangeable value was regulated by enactment of
the General Court.1 Most of these foreign coins were
worth far less than their supposed intrinsic value, as a
result of the washing and paring of coins, which was then
so common.2 To the foreign coins was added the "Pine
Tree Currency" of Massachusetts.3 It is uncertain at
what time the "Bay Shillings" became common currency
in Connecticut, but it was probably somewhat before the
end of the seventeenth century.4 It was not until some
time after they had become generally current in the
colony, that they were officially recognized by the General
Court. By the code of 1702, it was provided that they
should pass current at the rate at which they were
stamped. The appearance of New England and foreign coins,
did not displace ' ' country pay " as a means of dis
charging debts and paying taxes. As a result, several
currencies were in existence, and prices of commodities
were regulated according to the currency offered in pay
ment. The following quotation from "The Private
Journal of Madam Knight, on a journey from Boston to
New York, in the year 1704," is of interest. "They (the
people) give the title of merchant to every trader who
rate their goods according to the time and specie (kind)
1 In 1643 the Court ordered that "good rialls of f and reix dollars"
should pass at 5s. Col. Rec, I, 86. The intrinsic value of these coins
was 4s. 6d. Bronson, op. cit., 22; Dewey, Financial Hist, of the U. S, 20.
In 1683 the Court ordered that " for the future all pieces of eight Mexicoe,
pillar and Civill pieces " should pass at six shillings each, and " all good
pieces of Perue " at five shillings. Col. Rec, III, 119. Mexico pieces of
eight were worth 4s. 6%d„ Seville pieces " old plate " 4s. 6d, " new plate "
3s. 7y2d, and Peru pieces 4s. 5d. Bronson, op. cit., 26.
2 Bronson, 22.
3 The Massachusetts mint was established in 1652. Felt, Historical
Account of the Mass Currency, 31.
4 Bronson, op. cit., 19.

FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 45
they pay in, viz: pay, money, pay as money,1 and trust
ing (that is they have a pay price, a pay as money price,
and a trusting price). Pay is grain, pork, beef, etc., at
the prices set by the General Court that year; money is
pieces of eight ryals or Boston or Bay Shillings (as they
call them) or good hard money as sometimes silver coin
is termed by them, also wampum, (viz. Indian beads)
which serves for change. Pay as money, is provisions as
aforesaid, one third cheaper than as the Assembly in
General Court sets it, and trust, as they and the merchant
agree for time. Now when the buyer comes to ask for
a commodity, sometimes before the merchant answers
that he has it, he says, 'is your pay ready?' Perhaps
the chap replies yes. 'What do you pay in?' says the
merchant. The buyer having answered, the price is set ;
as, suppose he wants a six penny knife; in pay, it is
twelve pence; in pay as money, eight pence, and in hard
money, its own price (value) six pence."2
To all this variety of currency must be added the paper
currency, which did not make its appearance in Con
necticut until five years after the above was written.
The fluctuation and variation in the value of foreign
coins at different times, and in the different colonies,
caused great inconveniences in trade.3 To remedy this,
Queen Anne, in 1704, upon recommendation of the Board
of Trade, issued a proclamation, fixing the value of for
eign coins then current in the colonies. In 1707 the proc
lamation was passed by parliament, and a penalty of six
1 Bronson is of the opinion that " pay as money " and " money " were
one and the same thing.
2 Quoted in Bronson, 22.
3 The Spanish milled dollar which took the place of the eight-real piece
was valued in New England and Virginia at 6s, in New York and North
Carolina at 8s, in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland at 7s. 6d, and
in South Carolina at 4s. 6d. Gouge, A Short Hist, of Paper Money and
Banking, 6.

46 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
months imprisonment and 10 pounds fine was to be in
flicted upon any one receiving or paying out any of the
coins, at a higher rate than that fixed in the statute.1
From this law came the expression "Proclamation" or
"lawful" money, which is met with so frequently in the
records during the eighteenth century.
In 1690 paper currency first made its appearance in
the American colonies.2 It was in that year introduced
in Massachusetts, to defray the expenses of the expedi
tion against Canada. Connecticut did not "follow the
Bay Horse " until near the close of the second inter
colonial war.
In June, 1709, the General Court, then in session at New
Haven, enacted the following law:
"Forasmuch, as by reason of the great scarcity of
money, the payment of the public debts, and charges of
this government, especially in the intended expedition to
Canada, is made almost impracticable; for remedy
whereof, be it enacted, . . . That there be forthwith im
printed, a certain number of bills of credit of this Colony,
in suitable form from two shillings to five pounds, which
in the whole shall amount to the sum of eight thousand
pounds, and no more; which bills shall be indented and
stamped with such stamps as the Governour and Council
shall direct, and be signed by a committee appointed by
this Court, or any three of them, and of tenor following,
that is to say No. ( ) 20 s.
This indented bill of 20 shillings, due from the Colony of
i Bronson, op. cit., 26. Statutes at Large, 6th Anne, Chap. 30.
2 Felt, op. cit., 49. Traces of paper currency have been found in Massa
chusetts as early as 1646. These notes were probably issued by private
individuals. Of their form and value we know nothing. Proceedings of
the American Antaquarian Society, April, 1866. Weeden credits John
Winthrop, Jr, with being the real founder of paper currency in America.
Weeden, Economic and Social Hist, I, 317.

FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 47
Connecticut in New England, to the possessor thereof,
shall be in value equal to money, and shall be accordingly
accepted by the treasurer and receivers subordinate to
him, in all public payments, and for any stock at any time
in the treasury. Hartford, July the twelfth ; Anno Domini
1759. By order of the General Court. J. C. '
J. H. * Committee.
J. E. J
And so mutatis mutandis for a greater or lesser sum."1
For some reason the words "in all public payments"
were omitted in the first issues of the bills. The fol
lowing year (1710) the General Court, probably fearing
that the omission would discourage their acceptance, pro
vided that the bills should "be as good and effectual to
all intents and purposes ... as they would have been
if the said words so omitted as aforesaid, had been in
serted fully, and at large in the said bills."2 To en
courage the acceptance of the bills, they were accepted
"in all public payments" (afterward interpreted by the
General Court to mean simply payment of taxes) at an
advance of 12d. in the pound.3 8,000 pounds were ordered
in the first issue, 4,000 pounds to be used in defraying
the indebtedness of the colony, and 4,000 pounds held for
further disposal. As a fund for securing and redeeming
the bills, a rate of lOd. in the pound was levied, one half
to be paid in 1710, and the other half in 1711. Before a
year had passed after the first issue, there was again a
"great scarcity of money," and the Court ordered 11,000
'Col. Rec, V, 111. For reprints of several bills of credit see Memorial
Hist, of Hartford Co, I, 324, 325.
2 Col. Rec, V, 157.
3 Trumbull states that "in all other payments (other than public pay
ments) they were to be received as money." If by this he means that the
bills were made legal tender he was mistaken. Trumbull, op. cit., I, 474.

48 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
pounds more of the Bills of Credit to be issued, and as a
fund for redeeming them, a rate of 12,000 pounds was
levied to be paid "within the term of 6 years . . . and
so much thereof in each of the said 6 years, ' ' as the Gen
eral Court should order.1
From this time on for a number of years, at each ses
sion of the General Court, a greater or less amount of
the bills were issued, and old bills drawn in by taxation
reissued.2 Every effort was made by the General Court
to encourage the circulation of the bills. Besides placing
a premium on them in the payment of taxes, the Court
ordered in 1709 that all salaries of officials which had
formerly been paid in "country pay" should be reduced
one third and paid in the bills of the colony, unless ex
pressly stated that they were to be paid otherwise.3
Again the following year the Court ordered that all rates
for drawing in the bills of credit should be paid "either
in bullion or at the rate of 8 sh. the ounce, troy, or in
bills of public credit, created as aforesaid, and in no
other manner."4 By this latter act, "Country Pay" or
commodities, were excluded from the Treasury in the
payment of faxes. In 1713 the General Court ordered the
imprinting of 20,000 pounds in bills of credit on a new
plate, to be exchanged for the old bills then outstanding,
which it was discovered had been counterfeited.6 While
i Col. Rec, V, 127.
'Ibid., V, 182, 226, 228, 252, etc. During the first intercolonial war
there were issued in all 34,000 pounds in bills of credit, and at the end
of the war there were still outstanding about 20,000 pounds. Bronson,
op. cit., 33. Col. Rec, V, 378.
3 Col. Rec, V, 128.
4 Ibid., V, 157. The same year, however, this was modified to read
instead of bullion " money as it shall generally pass in New England."
This change was made, probably, because it was found that rating silver
at 8s. per ounce was contrary to the act of Parliament. Bronson, op cit
33; Col. Rec, V, 166.
6 Col. Rec, V, 378. The following drastic act was passed for the punish
ment of counterfeiters. Any person convicted should have his right ear

FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 49
this issue was ordered exclusively for changing the old
bills, the Court, from year to year, drew upon the fund
for ordinary expenses, which necessitated more issues of
the new bills, when the old ones appeared from time to
time at the treasury for redemption. Between 1713 and
1732, 46,000 pounds in bills were issued, all with the osten
sible purpose of sinking the old bills, but of this amount,
nearly 30,000 pounds had been used in defraying colony
expenses.1 Owing to the scarcity of small change, the colony bills
had been halved and quartered, and the parts circulated
at a proportionate value. To prevent this mutilation of
the bills, the General Court ordered that the treasurer
should not honor any quartered bills.2 The practice,
however, seems to have continued.3
To add to the increasing volume of paper currency, the
bills of credit of the neighboring colonies, found their way
into Connecticut. In 1719 these bills received official rec
ognition from the General Court, when it was provided
that the "Country Rate" should be paid in the colony's
bils of credit at an advance of 5 per cent., or in the true
bills of Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island or New
Hampshire, without advance.4
It has been noted that the earlier issues of the
Connecticut bills of credit, were not made a legal
cut off, be branded with a C on the forehead, committed to the work house
for life, and be whipped every time he should leave it without permission,
have his estate forfeited and be debarred from trading. Col. Rec, VI, 467.
1 Bronson, op. cit., 36. In a report of the Board of Trade to the King
in 1737, it was stated that in 1731, according to the printed Book of Acts
sent by the colony to the Board, it appeared that there were outstanding
48,994 pounds 4d. in Bills of Credit from which no fund had been provided
for redemption. I can find no justification for this statement. Talcott,
Papers Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls, V, 166 note.
2 Col. Rec, VII, 39.
"Ibid., VIII, 34, 133.
4 Ibid., VI, 145. " Country Pay " appeared again this year in the pay
ment of rates, but three years later it was once more excluded.

50 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
tender. In 1718, however, the General Court, consid
ering that for want of a proper means of exchange, the
bills had obtained a very general currency in private
trade and dealing, and to encourage their further use,
ordered that after November 1, 1718, no debtor should
have execution passed on his estate if he offered to pay
his debts in full in the bills of credit, except in contracts
where it was expressly stated that payments should be
made in silver or some other medium.1 This was an in
genious way of accomplishing by indirection what the
officials evidently feared to do directly. The colonists
wanted to obtain all the supposed benefits from the paper
currency, but still hesitated to come out boldly and de
clare the bills a full legal tender. They doubtless felt that
they were pursuing a course which would not be looked
upon favorably in England.
New schemes were continually brought forward for
increasing the supply of these very convenient bills.
There was a constant complaint of a "lack of a proper
means of exchange." Massachusetts in 1714, and Rhode
Island in 1715, had established what were essentially
colonial land books.2 Bills of credit of the colony were
loaned to private individuals on mortgage security, and
the payment of annual interest, which latter was used to
help defray the colony expenses. It was not long before
this plan found favor in Connecticut. In 1726 the Lower
House of the Assembly proposed the formation of a
"bank" similar to those which had been established in
the neighboring colonies, but the proposition was rejected
by the more conservative Upper House. Two years later
1 Col. Rec, VI, 74. The law was made retroactive for all debts con
tracted subsequent to July 12, 1709, when the Bills of Credit were first
issued. The act was to remain in force until 1727, but later this time
was extended to 1735. Col. Rec, VII, 208.
2 Arnold, Hist, of Rhode Island, 53, 56. Felt, op. cit., 67.

FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 51
the Lower House again considered the matter, appointing
a committee to elaborate a scheme for raising a "bank"
of 100,000 pounds. The whole matter, however, was
blocked in the Upper House, which stated that it did
not deem it wise to proceed with the plan, in view of the
fact that complaints were then pending before the King
in Council, concerning the issuance of bills of credit by
the different colonies.1
The advocates of an expanded currency, however, ac
complished their designs in another direction. In 1730
there was formed in New London an association of some
sixty merchants, which was incorporated under the name
of ' ' The New London Society United for Trade and Com
merce."2 This society, in imitation of the colony, soon
began to issue bills of credit. These bills appear to have
circulated freely as currency.3 It was not long, however,
before the colonial authorities took notice of what was
being done. Gov. Talcott ordered the sheriff of Hartford
County to summon the society before a special meeting
of the legislature, to show cause why they should not be
ordered to refund to the possessors of their bills the sums
paid for them.4 The General Court decided that the So
ciety had exceeded its powers in issuing the bills, and
its charter was revoked. A law was then passed pro
hibiting any similar action by private individuals, or as
sociations in the future.5 The question was then con
sidered, as to how the almost worthless outstanding notes
1 MS. Rec Finance and Currency, II, 50, 146, 150.
2 Col. Rec, VII, 390.
3 Caulkins, Hist, of New London, 242 et seq. Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls,
IV, 279. A facsimile of a bill of the New London Society is printed in
Col. Rec, VII, 420.
4 Conn. Hist. Soc Colls, IV, 268.
3 Col. Rec, VII, 421. An attempt was made to revive the New London
Society within one month after its dissolution, but the General Court
voted that " it would not be to for the peace and health of the govern
ment '' to reestablish it. Ibid., VII, 449.

52 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
of the company might be drawn in.1 The General Court
held the members of the Society responsible to the posses
sors of the bills, but it was deemed expedient to aid the
former in sinking the Society bills. With this purpose in
view, the General Court authorized the issuance of 30,000
pounds in bills of credit of the colony ; 15,000 pounds were
placed in the hands of a committee, to be loaned to mem
bers of the society, who should hand over to the com
mittee society bills to an amount equal to that borrowed
from the colony. The loans bore interest at 6 per cent.,
and were secured by mortgages on land to twice the
amount of the loan.2 At the next session of the Assembly
in 1733 it was ordered that the remaining 15,000 pounds
should be distributed equally among the five counties.
A committee in each county was authorized to loan the
notes to the inhabitants of the towns, in sums from fifty
to one hundred pounds, secured by mortgages on land, to
double the amount of the loan. Interest at the rate of 6
per cent, was charged.3 Another issue of 20,000 pounds
during the same year appears to have been loaned upon
the same conditions.4
Whatever justification might be offered for loaning the
colony bills to the defunct New London Society, no valid
reason can be given for the colonial officials once more
"trotting after the Bay Horse," in establishing a colony
land bank. The debtor class, always increasing with a
depreciating currency, had evidently obtained the upper
hand, and the demand for a greater "medium of ex
change" could not be resisted by the Assembly. The
1 The amount of the Society's bills in circulation was, probably, about
10,000 pounds. Davis, A Connecticut Land Bank of the Eighteenth Cen
tury, Quarterly Journal of Economics, XIII, 81.
2 Col. Rec, VII, 450, 452.
3 Ibid., VII, 455.
* Ibid., VII, 462; Bronson, op. cit., 44.

FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 53
colonial authorities had discarded, if they had ever appre
ciated, all sound principles of finance.
From October 1635 to May 1740, no new issues of bills
were authorized.1 In 1739, began the third of the series
of intercolonial wars, and with it once more began the
merry grind of the paper currency mills. In May, 1740,
4,000 pounds in bills were issued, and the following
July 15,000 more.2 These were the last of the so-called
"Old Tenor" bills.
Possibly it is needless to state that there had been a
steady, almost a disastrous, depreciation in these bills,
during the period under consideration. Silver, which in
1710 was worth 8s. an ounce had risen in 1739 to 26s.3
The colonial authorities felt that something must be done
1 In October 1635, 25,000 pounds were issued, to be used in sinking bills
then outstanding which had again been counterfeited. In 1739 an order
passed the Upper House for emitting 10,000 pounds in new bills, but it
was negatived in the Lower House, probably because the amount was con
sidered too small. In the same year another complicated scheme for
loaning Bills of Credit was proposed by the Lower House but negatived in
the Upper House. Col. Rec, VIII, 17. MS. Rec Finance and Currency,
III, 57, 58, 67, 102.
2 Col. Rec, VIII, 295, 327. In 1740 Gov. Talcott in answer to inquiries
from the Board of Trade sent a detailed account of the yearly emissions of
Bills of Credit from the first issues down to 1737. Dr. Bronson analyses
this table and shows it to be misleading. Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls, V, 209
et seq. Bronson, op. cit., 50.
3 The following table is of interest as showing the steady advance in
price of silver, or conversely the steady decline in the currency.
1708, Sept, one ounce plate worth 8s. currency.
1710, May, one ounce bullion worth 8s. currency.
1721, May, one ounce plate worth 12s. currency.
1724, July, one ounce silver worth 15s. currency.
1729, July, one ounce silver worth 18s. 2d. currency.
1732, May, one ounce silver
1739, June, one ounce silver
1742, Dec, one ounce silver
1742, Dec, one ounce silver
1743, Feb, one ounce silver
1744, Dec, one ounce silver
Bronson, op. cit., 52.

worth 18s.

currency.

worth 26s.

currency.

worth 26s.

currency.

worth 28s.

currency.

worth 28s.

currency.

worth 32?.

currency.

54 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
to stem this ever-decreasing value of their favorite cur
rency. Curiously enough the expedient adopted was the
issuance of more paper to provide as they once more said
for the ' ' great scarcity of a medium of exchange. ' ' Rea
soning, perhaps, that some mere change in wording of the
bills, some stronger fiat expression, would in some mys
terious maimer prevent further depreciation, the General
Court provided for the emission of the so-called "New
Tenor ' ' bills. These bills were distinctly stated to be legal
tender "in all payments and in the Treasury." On the
face of the bills it was stated that they were "equal in
value to silver at eight shillings per ounce."1 30,000
pounds in these bills were ordered to be struck off, 8,000
pounds were used in defraying the colonial expenses, and
the remaining 22,000 pounds were distributed among the
countries to be loaned to the freeholders on mortgage
security of double value, with interest at 3 per cent, an
nually. At the outset, this new venture received a check
by an order sent by the Board of Trade, ordering that the
legal tender clause be stricken from the bills. This was
done, and at the same time the court ordered the with
drawal, of the new bills from circulation, by exchanging
them for old tenor bills, at the ratio of 2_ of the latter, to
one of the former.2
For four years after 1740, no new emissions of bills of
credit appeared, possibly because it was feared that more
drastic action would be taken by the home government.3
1 Col. Rec, VIII, 319.
2 Ibid., VIII, 359.
3 In 1740 the House of Commons addressed the King requesting that he
send orders to the different colonial governors requiring that they should
assent to , no act for issuing Bills of Credit in lieu of money, unless a
clause be inserted that such act should not take effect until approved by
the King. The King acted in compliance with this request. Conn. Hist.
Soc Colls, V, 245, 296.
This order could have no effect in Connecticut where the Governor did

FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 55
The continuance of the war with Spain, and, what was of
greater moment to the colonies, the entrance of France in
to the struggle in 1744, excused, if it did not necessitate,
a further resort to paper currency. It is wearisome and
unprofitable, to note in detail the successive emissions of
new bills. In all Connecticut issued during the third
intercolonial war, 131,000 in bills of credit, of which 109,-
000 were of the so-called ' ' New Tenor. ' n
The financial affairs of the colony were fast reach
ing a crisis. Nothing could stop the constant and rapid
depreciation of the paper currency. Silver which could
be bought in 1739 at 28s. per ounce, in paper, had
risen in 1744 to 32s. and in 1749 to 55s.2 The credit
of the colony was utterly ruined; trade and commerce
were demoralized. Contracts could not be safely made,
for no one knew what would be the value of the cur
rency from day to day. With the close of the war in
1748, the colony officials began to think of some plan for
extricating the colony from the intolerable condition of
affairs. Here again Connecticut followed as she had
done so often before the lead of Massachusetts.3 It was
provided by the Assembly, May, 1749, that all money that
should be received from England to reimburse the colony
not have the power to approve or disapprove the acts of the Assembly. In
the then existing condition of affairs, however, the colonial authorities
probably deemed it wise not to call the attention of the authorities in
England to the weakness of the executive and the absence of any means of
imperial control in the colony.
> The New Tenor bills were not used in ordinary business transactions,
and did not depreciate as badly as the Old Tenor bills. They came finally
to be worth in the proportion of three and one half of the latter to one
of the former. Bronson, op. cit, 64, 65.
'Ibid., 65.
3 In 1 748' the plan suggested by Thos. Hutchinson was adopted in Massa
chusetts. The money which was received from England to reimburse the
colony for its expenses in the war was used for sinking the Bills of Credit.
Bronson, op. cit., 66; Felt, op. cit., 124.

56 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
for the expenses of the late war, should be used for sink
ing the outstanding bills of credit.1 800,000 pounds were
appropriated by Parliament in 1747 to reimburse the
colonies for their expenses in the Louisburg expedition,
of which sum Connecticut received some 28,000 pounds.2
According to the auditors' report, there were outstand
ing over 340,000 pounds in bills of credit.3 The Assem
bly had provided that of the amount received by the
colony from England, one half should be sold for bills of
credit, and one half for silver coin, the latter to be used
by the Treasurer in redeeming the bills of credit. All
bills brought into the treasury were to be burned. To
sink the remainder of the bills, three three-penny taxes
were levied, payable in the bills of credit in 1751, 1752,
and 1753.4 The colony bills that were brought into the
treasury by taxes, were paid out in discharging the ordi
nary colony expenses until 1753. In that year the Assem
bly, urged on probably by the further hostile attitude of
the home authorities, took the final step by ordering that
all taxes should be paid thereafter in lawful or "procla
mation" money, and that those who were forced to pay in
colony bills, they should be accepted at the rate of 14s. 7d.
"New Tenor" or 51s. "Old Tenor" for 6s. lawful money.
At the same time, it was ordered that no more of the
bills should be issued from the treasury for any purpose.5
1 Col. Rec, IX, 447.
2 Arnold, Hist of Rhode Island, II, 170; Bronson, op. cit., 69.
3 Col. Rec, X, 65.
4 Col. Rec, IX, 447. These taxes seem to have been more than sufficient
to provide for the remaining bills, for two thirds of the taxes payable in
1751 and 1752 were abated by the Assembly. Ibid., X, 65, 128.
• Col. Rec, X, 157. In 1751 Parliament, which had been considering
the subject of colonial currency, enacted a statute prohibiting the Gov
ernors of the New England colonies from assenting to any act for the
issuance of Bills of Credit, except for current expenses which were to run
for a period not longer than two years, or in cases of emergency for a
period of five years. Statutes at Large, 14, George II, Chap. 37.

FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 57
The colony thus emerged from the paper money craze by
the simple, though dishonorable, expedient of paying
one ninth of its obligations, and repudiating the other
eight ninths.
Before all of the old bills had been called in, war again
broke out between England and France, and the colony
was once more put to it to provide for the extraordinary
expenses of the government. The system of borrowing
money without interest, had exploded; but some means
had to be devised to meet the increasing burden of ex
pense, due to the war. The plan adopted was much more
sound than any which had been previously tried. In
January, 1755, the Court voted to issue 7,500 pounds in
interest-bearing treasury notes. In form the notes were
as follows: No. ( ) 20s.
The possessor of this Bill shall be paid by the Treas
urer of the Colony of Connecticut, Twenty Shillings Law
ful Money, with interest at 5 per cent, per annum, by the
8th day of May, 1758. By order of the Assembly at New
Haven, January 8th, 1755.
For sinking the bills, a tax of 2d. on the pound was
granted, payable in the new bills or lawful money, by the
last day of August, 1757.1
In March, 1755, the Assembly again took up the con
sideration of the colony's financial condition. There was
still in the Treasury some 5,000 pounds in gold and silver
hypothecated for the redemption of the old colony bills.
In order to liberate this money to defray the colonial ex
penses, the Assembly ordered that the Treasurer should
tender to persons presenting colony bills for redemption,
interest bearing colony notes, payable in three annual
installments in the years 1756, 1757 and 1758. Taxes
i Col. Rec, X, 329.

58 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
sufficient to sink ihe notes at maturity were ordered, pay
able in lawful money, colony bills, or commodities.1 Dur
ing the continuance of the war, frequent resort was made
to these colony notes for defraying the expenses of the
government. They were all of the same tenor, bearing
interest at 5 per cent., and payable at a stated time.
There is no evidence that payment was postponed on any
of the notes, or that they were re-issued when once
brought into the Treasury. In strictness these notes did
not form a part of the currency, but were in the nature of
colony bonds, varying in value, as such instruments do
to-day, according to the time they had to run, the inter
est accrued and the confidence of the buyer in the maker
of the bonds.2 There is, however, evidence that they
served as money in the discharge of debts.
After 1764, the emission of these notes ceased until
1770, when a new issue of 10,000 pounds was ordered, and
the interest reduced to 2| per cent. This would indicate
that the colony's credit had improved.
The following year the colony inaugurated a new era
of fiat money; non-interest bearing notes were agian re
sorted to, after an interval of twenty-five years.3 Down
to the Revolution, however, this new venture did not re
sult in disaster. The notes were not issued in large
amounts, were redeemable within two years, and do not
appear to have depreciated in value.4
1 Ibid., X, 339.
2 Bronson, op. cit., 82.
3 Col, Rec, XIII, 516.
* Bronson, op. cit., 84.

CHAPTER III.
Land System.
When the inhabitants of the three river towns left
Massachusetts for their new homes upon the banks of
the Connecticut, they settled upon territory to which they
had no title, except a squatter's right of possession. In
the absence of any Royal Charter or grant from the
New England Council, the colonists early turned their
attention to strengthening their right of possession, by
purchasing the claims of the native proprietors. There
is no evidence that the founders of Connecticut accepted
the views of Roger Williams, that a valid title could only
be obtained by purchase from the Indians, but they pos
sessed themselves of the native title, as the only one that
could be obtained under the circumstances. Unquestion
ably the colonists were also prompted by a spirit of fair
ness towards the Indians, in paying them for their land,
for even after the granting of the Royal Charter in 1662,
when the title of the colonists to their land no longer
rested upon occupation and purchase, there was uniform
action in extinguishing the Indian title, by purchase and
treaty.1 It was early recognized that much confusion would
result from indiscriminate purchases of land by in
dividuals from the natives. The Indians were none too
careful about selling the same land several times to dif
ferent purchasers, and many conflicting claims resulted.2
To avoid such confusion of titles, the colonial authorities
'Col. Rec, II, 151, 254; IV, 305, 526.
2 Lamed, Hist, of Windham Co, I, 195, 150.
59

60 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
attempted to restrict the purchase of land from the In
dians to those who had received the consent of the Gen
eral Court.1 These orders of the General Court, however,
seem to have been "honored more in the breach than in
the observance." It is true that there are instances
where persons or groups of persons, applied to the Court
for authority to purchase land from the Indians,2 but
unauthorized purchases undoubtedly continued, and it
must be confessed that the action of the General Court,
would incline one to believe that it did not consistently
enforce its own orders.3
By the end of the first quarter of the eighteenth cen
tury, practically all the Indian claims to the territory
of the colony had been extinguished by purchase or
treaty, some of them several times over.4
For more than twenty-five years, the colonists of Con
necticut held their lands merely by de facto possession
and native purchase.5 In 1662, however, through the
efforts of John Winthrop, the younger, a Royal Charter
was obtained, confirming to the colony not only the land
which they occupied, but also annexing to it the formerly
independent jurisdiction of New Haven. The Charter
granted the land to be held as "of the Manor of East
Greenwich" in free and common soccage on the condition
' Col. Rec, I, 402; II, 151; IV, 305.
2 MS. Rec Towns and Lands, IV, 66, 68.
3 After repeatedly forbidding unauthorized transfers of land from the
natives, the General Court in 1706 ordered that if any person who had
made such an illegal purchase should present an account of it to the Court
no advantage would be taken of it. The following year this act was re
pealed. Col. Rec, V, 4, 30.
* Cothren, Hist, of Ancient Woodbury, 21.
«I pass by the somewhat mythical claim based upon the Warwick
patent. For a discussion of this patent see Johnston, Connecticut, 88 et
seq; Peters, Hist of Conn, 25 et seq.; Hoadley, Warwick Patent,' Acorn
Club Publications, No. 7.

LAND SYSTEM. 61
of the payment of one fifth the gold and silver found in
the colony.1
Prior to the formation of the Fundamental Orders the
inhabitants of the three river towns appear to have acted
upon their own initiative in making purchases of land
from the natives. Neither the Massachusetts Commis
sion nor the Court which displaced it seems to have con
trolled the granting of land. After 1639, however, all
unoccupied land became public domain, and by the Fun
damental Orders, the right to dispose of such land was
given to the General Court.2
The parceling out of the land of the colony was accom
plished in two ways, first, by grants to individuals, and
second, by grants to groups of individuals. The indi
vidual grants, which were very common during the first
fifty years of the colony's history, were in the nature of
pensions, salaries, gratuities, or for the encouragement of
some commercial enterprise.3 These grants were often
made by the General Court in the most indefinite way,
allowing the grantee to choose the land wherever he
pleased, so long as it did not prejudice any former
grant.4 As we approach the end of the seventeenth cen
tury, individual grants of land by the General Court be
come less common, but do not entirely cease.5 By far
the most important manner of dividing the colony lands
was by means of grants to groups of individuals with the
object of forming new plantations. These grants were
usually made in answer to petitions from actual or pros-
1 Poore's Charters and Constitutions, I, 252 et seq. ; Cheyney, The Manor
of East Greenwich, Am. Hist Rev., Oct, 1905.
2 Col. Rec, I, 25.
"Ibid., I, 276, 323; II, 200, 214; III, 233.
* Thus we find 150 acres to be taken up "where it doe not damnify
the Indians nor ye plantation," and again " where he can find it in Con
necticut limits." Col. Rec, I, 340, 372.
' For grants subsequent to 1700 see MS. Rec. Towns and Lands, III.

62 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
pective settlers of a new plantation. J If the petition was
approved by the Court, a committee was generally ap
pointed to view the proposed plantation, to see if the
location was suitable, to consider the number of inhabi
tants it would accommodate, and to lay out the town plot
and home lots.2 The General Court might, and often
did, direct more fully the formation of a new town. It
was common for the Court to restrict the time in which
the settlers should occupy and improve their grants.3
The manner in which the land should be divided among
the settlers was at times specified by the General Court.
Thus it was ordered that each proprietor should have
"equal and even shares" of the lands in Ridgefield.4
In granting the plantation at Litchfield, the Court
ordered that the township should be divided into 60
"rights," three of which were to be reserved for pious
purposes.5 In settling the town of Waterbury, the com
mittee of the General Court controlled the plantation for
five years.6 Add to the above activities of the Court the
appointment of surveyors to fix the bounds of town
grants, the settlement of disputes between towns as to
their respective boundaries, and the occasional minute
direction in special cases, and we have a substantially
complete view of the land system, so far as the colony
was concerned. In short, the land system of Connecticut
was similar in all respects to that of the other corporate
colonies of New England.7 In these colonies there ap
peared no systematic attempt to obtain a revenue from
1 Occasionally the General Court took direct action in settling a town
ship without a petition. Col. Rec, V, 180 ; VI, 63.
2 Col. Rec, II, 210; V, 55, 160.
3 Ibid., II, 128.
• Ibid., V, 121.
3 Ibid., VI, 127.
8 Anderson, Hist, of Waterbury, I, 150.
' Osgood, American Colonies, I, 425 et seq.

LAND SYSTEM. 63
the public domain. Land was granted freely to the
settlers, and seldom leased or sold by the colony. Quit
rents and alienation fines formed no part of the revenue
of the corporate colonies. It is true that during the
eighteenth century public land was not granted with such
a free hand in Connecticut as had formerly been the case.
It became common, in fact even the rule, for the colony
to require some compensation for land grants,1 but there
is no evidence that the colony aimed to obtain a per
manent revenue by leasing the public lands, nor do any
officials distinctly charged with the administration of
the public domain appear.
We come now to consider the manner in which the
land granted to groups of individuals was distributed;
how individual ownership displaced joint ownership. It
is in this connection that the real importance of the land
system appears. It is to be expected that the different
localities in working out an agrarian policy would vary
in some essential points, and in many details. Such being
the case, it is difficult to make a general statement as to
the land policy, which would apply equally to all the
towns. There was, however, enough similarity of treat
ment to justify us in speaking of a land system. Fur
thermore, there was sufficient difference between the
territorial policies of the towns formed during the seven
teenth century and of those formed during the eighteenth
century to warrant us in treating them separately.
It has been noted that the settlement of a town was
usually occasioned by a petition from prospective or
actual settlers. These settlers formed a reasonably
definite group, and we are met at the outset with the
question— were these petitioners granted the land as
1 The most noteworthy of the sales of public lands was that of the
seven townships sold at public auction in 1737. Col. Rec, VIII, 134, 170.
See also Col. Rec, VI, 194; MS. Rec. Towns and Lands, II, 273.

64 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
proprietors in fee simple, or were they acting merely as
trustees for the town in its corporate capacity? During
the first fifty years of the colony's history, the question
did not appear to be of much importance. In most of
the towns the grantees included all, or nearly all, the free
men of the town, and under these circumstances a town
meeting would be at the same time a meeting of the pro
prietors. As a result it became customary in most of
the towns during the seventeenth century to make allot
ments of land and provide for the regulation of the un
divided land in the town meeting.1 The attitude of the
General Court, moreover, seemed to confirm the view
that the towns should have the power to regulate their
common lands. In 1639, in defining the powpr of towns,
the General Court stated that the "Towns of Hartford,
Windsor and Wethersfield, or any other Towns within
this jurisdiction, shall each of them have power to dispose
of their own lands undisposed of."2 Again, in 1643, the
General Court ordered that as the condition of the plan
tations required that much of the land should be improved
in common, each town should, before the next meeting of
the Court, choose seven "able and discreet men to take
the common lands belonging to ech of the seurall townes,
respectively, into their serious and sadde consideration."3
As we approach the end of the seventeenth century,
however, the distinction between the original settlers and
their descendants, and those who came in after the settle-
1 Hartford Town Votes, 39, 42, 46, et passim; Adams-Stiles, Hist, of
Wethersfield, I, 95 ; Andrews, Three River Towns, J. H. V. S., VII ; Allen,
Hist, of Enfield, passim; Steiner, Hist, of Guilford, 174; Colchester, Town
Rec, passim; Caulkins, Hist, of Norwich, 95; Cothren, Hist, of Ancient
Woodbury, 145.
2 Col. Rec, I, 36.
3 Col. Rec, I, 101. It is possible that this referred merely to the
sequestered town commons, but it does not appear from the records that
such was the meaning of the provision.

LAND SYSTEM. 65
ment of the towns, becomes more marked. Land had in
creased in value with the increase in population. The
number of inhabitants who were not descendants of origi
nal settlers was constantly augmented. As a result we
find developing in most of the towns three distinct classes
of inhabitants: first, the original settlers or "proprie
tors," their heirs, assigns and successors; second, ad
mitted inhabitants of the town, who were not proprie
tors; third, transients, who were neither proprietors nor
admitted inhabitants.1 The first two classes formed the
active part of the population of the town. The pro
prietors were, relatively, a fixed group, while the ad
mitted inhabitants were constantly increasing. In the
natural cours.e of events, the latter would soon come to
hold the balance of power in the town meeting, and as the
administration of the land had become a function of the
town meeting, they would control the distribution of the
undivided land.
The proprietors, in order not to lose control of the
land, set up the claim that the grant made by the General
Court, was to the original settlers, their heirs, assigns
and successors in fee simple, and not to the town in its
corporate capacity, and that the proprietors should have
the exclusive right to grant the undivided land in the
town. In some of the towns where the Proprietors were
still in the majority, no effective opposition was made to
their claims,2 but in towns where the non-commoners
equalled or outnumbered the proprietors, the pretensions
1 Dr. Stiles in 'his recent thorough study of Wethersfield makes a four
fold division (1) proprietors, (2) freemen of the commonwealth, (3) ad
mitted inhabitants of the town not freemen of the commonwealth, (4)
householders. This classification does not include the transient resident,
who, though he received scant courtesy from the town, was still a portion
of the population. Adams-Stiles, Hist, of Wethersfield, I, 41.
2 In Windsor undivided land was granted exclusively by the proprietors.
Andrews, Three River Towns.

66 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
of the latter were not quietly acquiesced in. In Simsbury,
as early as 1672, a controversy arose as to whether the
"outlands" belonged to the original proprietors, or to
the inhabitants of the town generally. At a town meet
ing held in April, 1672, it was voted to divide a portion
of these lands among the inhabitants of the town; simi
lar divisions were also voted in 1680 and 1688, against
all of which the proprietors protested ineffectually. The
question again arose in 1719, when a committee appointed
for the purpose reported, and the town voted, that "the
right of disposal of common or undivided land, is and
shall be in all such and them only who can derive their
right so to do, either from an act of the General Assem
bly, and their heirs and assigns, or those who have been
admitted inhabitants, and their heirs and assigns, or shall
hereafter be admitted inhabitants with that power and
right expressly inserted in the town's vote of admis
sion."1 To this action of the town the proprietors took
exception. The town, however, continued to grant the
undivided land until the action of the General Court sus
tained the contention of the proprietors, after which the
remaining common lands were managed and conveyed
exclusively by the proprietors. Similar controversies
were carried on in New London, Canterbury, Ashford and
other towns.2
It was in connection with the struggle in New London,
that the question was brought before the General Court in
1719 for final settlement by petitions from both the town
and the proprietors.3 The attitude of the General Court
1 Phelps, Hist, of Simsbury, 80.
2Caulkins, Hist of New London, 263; Larned, Hist, of Windham Co,
I, 156; Ibid., I, 214 et seq.
8 MS. Rec. Towns and Lands, III, 174-184. Gov. Saltonstall strongly
supported the proprietors of which he was one. See his protest against
the action of the town in dividing the common lands. MS. Rec. Towns
and Lands, III, 239.

LAND SYSTEM. 67
had been at first, as we have seen, that the towns were
empowered to regulate and dispose of the common lands.
The first indication of a change of view on the part of
the Court was in 1685, when patents were first issued
to the various towns.1 In these patents it was stated
that the land in the towns was granted ' ' to the said pro
prietors inhabitants, their heirs and assigns."* In con
firming the patents of several towns in 1703, the follow
ing even stronger expression was used: "all and every
the several above mentioned lands with all rights and im
munities contained in the above mentioned patent, shall be
and remain a full and clear estate of inheritance in fee sim
ple to the several proprietors of the respective towns."3
The next expression of the General Court upon this
important question, was in answer to the New London
petitions. When the petition of the town was first pre
sented long debates ensued, the Upper House favoring
the proprietors and the Lower House favoring the town. 4
The Court finally ordered that, it "being a matter of so
great weight and general concern as to effect the gener
ality of the towns, ' ' consideration of the question should
be postponed until the next session of the Court.5 At
the following session it was resolved that the patent to
the town did ' ' confirm the lands in said township to each
and every proprietor in such towns, and to such as have
any distinct propriety there though not living in such
towns . . . also all lands not divided or disposed to hold
as tenants in common ; all of which undivided lands were
confirmed to them, the said proprietors, their heirs and
1 Probably the reason for the issuance of the patents was to guarantee
the titles to land that had been granted, before the colony's charter was
vacated by Quo Warranto proceedings which were then pending.
2 Col. Rec, III, 177.
3 Col. Rec, IV, 443.
'- MS. Rec Towns and Lands, III, 174 et seq.
s Col. Rec, VI, 131.

68 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
assigns, so that no person by becoming an inhabitant
afterwards could have any right to dispose of any land
in said town by voting in a town meeting."1 But the
General Court ordered that all titles to land which had
been previously obtained by town votes were to be valid.
The proprietors having carried their point, in many of
the towns they took steps to organize themselves in a
more permanent manner. Proprietors' meetings were
held distmct from the town meetings, and the regulation
and disposal of the undivided land was thenceforth con
trolled exclusively by the proprietors. The corporate
character of the proprietors was recognized by the Gen
eral Court in a number of acts. The proprietors were
required to hold a meeting upon the application of at
least five of their number; they were empowered to levy
taxes upon themselves, and to choose a clerk duly sworn
to record their proceedings.2 At a proprietors' meeting
a moderator and clerk, and usually a treasurer, were
chosen. Much of the business of the proprietors was
transacted by means of committees. Thus committees
were appointed to provide for the division of the common
lands, to look after the common fence, to search out and
prosecute trespassers, to survey grants and lay out high
ways, etc.3 Attorneys were also appointed by the pro
prietors to prosecute and defend all actions brought in
the name of the proprietors.
While the proprietors in any given town were, in
theory, the heirs, assigns and successors of the original
settlers, and hence tended to become a close corporation,
in many of the older towns the theory did not agree with
1 Ibid., VI, 189.
2 Ibid., VI, 25, 379, 424.
3 See Proprietors Rec. of New Hartford, Norfolk, Canaan, Guilford and
other towns.

LAND SYSTEM. 69
the facts. Through lack of records in some towns it was
impossible to discover who were the original settlers, and
in such cases the taxable inhabitants at a given time were
reckoned as proprietors.1 Furthermore, the proprietors
not infrequently added to their numbers. Thus in 1713, the
proprietors of Colchester voted to add some twenty-four
persons to the list of proprietors.2 In Waterbury we find
a distinction made between the original proprietors called
"Grand Proprietors" and those later admitted called
"Bachelor Proprietors." The latter shared in the divis
ions of common lands, but had no voice in granting land.3
We have thus far examined the administration of the
land system, as it developed in the towns of the seventeenth
century. The attempt has been made to show that, while
at first the towns in their corporate capacity regulated
the territorial policy, by the end of the century the pro
prietary system had become general. In many of the
older towns, however, the greater part of the common
land had been distributed before the proprietors obtained
exclusive control, and hence their activity was consider
ably restricted. It is when we reach the towns formed
during the eighteenth century, that we find the system
of proprietary holdings most fully developed. We come
now to consider these towns.
The territory from which the greater number of the
towns of the eighteenth century were formed was the so-
called "Western Lands, "covering approximately the pres
ent county of Litchfield. All of this vast territory compris-
xIn Guilford the body of the proprietors was fixed by town vote in
1697, and included all those that were settled planters in 1686. Steiner,
Hist, of Guilford, 174. In New London such persons as were land holders
in 1703 when the town patent was granted were considered proprietors.
Caulkins, Hist, of New London, 263.
2 Colchester, Prop. Rec, April 28, 1713.
"Anderson, Hist, of Waterbury, I, 280; Bronson, Hist, of Waterbury,
116.

70 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
ing over 300,000 acres, had been granted by the General
Court to the towns of Hartford and Windsor, in 1675.1
This grant was made in anticipation of the loss of the
charter, and in order to prevent the lands from falling
into the hands of Andros. Not much attention was paid
to the territory, until after the opening of the eighteenth
century. The land was rugged, and other more desirable
territory was available for settlement.
The first attempt made by the Hartford and Windsor
patentees to improve their grant, was in the settlement
of the town of Litchfield in 1719. The General Court
while granting the privilege of settling this town, prac
tically rescinded, at the same time, the former extensive
grant to the two towns.2 The inhabitants of Hartford
and Windsor, resisted3 this act of the General Court, and
the title to the lands was in dispute until 1726, when a
compromise was reached by dividing the territory be
tween the two towns and the colony.4 The territory re
served to the colony embraced the present towns of
Canaan, Norfolk, Goshen (including Warren) and about
two thirds of Kent, while Hartford and Windsor received
the present towns of Colebrook, Hartland, Winchester,
Barkhamsted, Torrington, New Hartford and Harwinton.
These towns may be taken as typical of nearly all the
towns formed during the eighteenth century, and an ex
amination of the system of land administration in these
towns will suffice as showing the chief characteristics of
all towns formed during this period.
In 1732, the towns of Hartford and Windsor made a
division of their portion of the Western Lands, by which
1 Col. Rec, III, 225.
'Ibid., VI, 127.
3 Trumbull gives an account of *, riot at Hartford caused by the dis
pute over the title to this territory. This story, however, has been dis
credited. Trumbull, II, 96; Boyd, Annals of Winchester, 11.
'Ibid., VII, 44, 337.

LAND SYSTEM. 71
the townships of Hartland, Winchester and New Hart
ford, and the eastern half of Harwinton, went to Hartford,
and the townships of Colebrook, Barkhamsted, Torring-
ton and the western half of Harwinton, fell to Windsor.
In the same year the General Court authorized the in
habitants of Windsor, and the following year the inhabit
ants of Hartford, to meet and make partition of their
land to individual proprietors.1 The taxable inhabitants
of the two towns were then divided into seven "com
panies," each owning a township. The share of any
individual in a company, depended upon the amount of
his ratable estate in Hartford or Windsor.
The manner in which the part of Western Lands reserved
to the colony was disposed of, and proprietorships created,
is of interest, as characteristic of the way in which prac
tically all the remaining public domain was parceled out.
In 1737 the General Court ordered that the five town
ships on the east of the Housatonic River, and the two
on the west,2 should be sold at public auction in certain
specified towns of the colony.8 Six of the seven town
ships were divided into fifty-three "rights" or shares.4
Three of the rights in each township were reserved, one
for the use of the ministry, one as a gratuity to the first
minister, and one for the support of the town school.
The remaining fifty rights were sold to the highest
bidders. The Court, however, fixed certain minimum
prices for each right, ranging from 30 to 60 pounds. Cer-
1 Col. Rec, VII, 387, 445.
2 The five townships on the east side of the river were Norfolk, Canaan,
Goshen, Cornwall and Kent; the two on the west Sharon and Salisbury.
3 Norfolk at Hartford, Goshen at New Haven, Canaan at New London,
Cornwall at Fairfield, Kent at Windham, Salisbury at Hartford, Sharon
at New Haven. All the townships seem to have found purchasers except
Norfolk which was not finally sold until nearly twenty years later. Col.
Rec, VIII, 135; X, 320.
4 Salisbury was divided into twenty-five rights.

72 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
tain restrictions were placed upon prospective purchas
ers. They were required to be inhabitants of the colony,
to settle themselves or their agent and live three years
in the town in which they purchased land, to build a house
of certain specified dimensions, and clear and fence at
least six acres of land.1
The method thus employed of distributing the public
land might be termed the ' ' eighteenth century plan, ' ' and
from it developed certain characteristics which were
markedly different from those of land system in the
older towns. Perhaps the most striking distinction in
this respect between the older and later towns, was the
appearance in the latter of absentee proprietors, and the
land speculation incident to such proprietorship.
In the older towns the proprietors were, to a large ex
tent, actual settlers, and their land holdings were confined
largely to the town in, which they lived. In the towns
formed during the eighteenth century, however, the pro
prietors bought land in a township having no intention of
settling there. The land was purchased merely upon
speculation, and it was common to find a large part of
the land in a township change hands before any settle
ment had been made.2 Proprietors' meetings were held
where a majority of the proprietors lived,3 and this was
often not in the town of which they were proprietors.
1 Col. Rec, VIII, 134 et seq.
2 Not one of the 106 original proprietors of Winchester ever dwelt in
the town, and only one son of a proprietor ever had a permanent residence
there. Boyd, Annals of Winchester, 31. Of the twelve proprietors of
Union only one was an actual settler. Lawson, Hist, of Union, 39. Of
the 41 original proprietors of Sharon about one half became residents.
Sedgwick, Hist, of Sharon, 24. In 1761 the proprietors certified that of
the 25,000 acres of land in Cornwall from eleven to twelve thousand acres
were owned by non-residents. MS. Rec. Towns and Lands, VIII, 278. See
also Orcutt, Hist, of New Milford, 70; Atwater, Hist, of Kent, 17; MS.
Proprietors Rec. of New Hartford, 11 et seq.
3 The meetings of the proprietors of New Hartford were held at Hart
ford from 1732 to 1738. The first meetings of the Goshen proprietors were

LAND SYSTEM. 73
The distinction between the proprietors' meetings and
the town meetings, and their spheres of activity, were
very much more clearly marked in the towns of the eigh
teenth century, than was the case in the older towns.
Seldom or never do we find the town meetings in the
later towns interfering in the regulation or distribution
of the common land. The exclusive right of the pro
prietors to deal with these questions was generally con
ceded from the outset. Disputes between the towns and
the proprietors did arise, but these were usually concern
ing the right of the town to tax the proprietary lands.1
An outcome of the tendency to land speculation was the
delay which resulted in the settlement of some of the
towns. Land being held largely for a speculative in
crease in value and not for actual settlement, long periods
of time elapsed between the sale of a township and its
actual settlement.2
The proprietors as a body, in the later as in the older
towns, continued their activity as long as there remained
common or undivided land. At first their meetings were
frequent, but as the successive divisions of common land
constantly diminished their holdings in severalty, their
activity decreased and meetings were held less and less
frequently.3held at Litchfield, of the Cornwall proprietors at Hartford, of Norfolk
proprietors at Simsbury, of the Canaan proprietors at Wethersfield, and
of the Kent proprietors at Windman. MS. Prop. Rec. of New Hartford,
Norfolk and Canaan. Hibbard, Hist, of Goshen, 30; Gold, Hist, of Corn
wall, 20; Atwater, Hist, of Kent, 22.
1 MS. Rec. Towns and Lands, III, 136, 195 ; MS. Prop. Rec. of New
Hartford, August 6, 1744; Lawson, Hist, of Union, 50.
a Winchester, one of Hartford's towns in the Western Lands, was not
settled or divided until twenty-nine years after the division of the Western
Lands. Boyd, Annals of Winchester, 31. It was nine years after the sale
of Union before any attempt was made to divide the land among the pro
prietors. Lawson, Hist, of Union, 38.
3 Meetings of the proprietors of Norfolk were held regularly twice, or
oftener, a year until 1768, then no meeting is recorded until 1804, and then

74 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
Thus far in the treatment of the land system, emphasis
has been laid merely upon the question of administration.
In this treatment the attempt has been made to show
that the activity of the colonial authorities in adminis
tering the land system was little more than supervisory,
while the real direction and administration of the land
was left to the localities. Furthermore that in the towns
the system of proprietary administration had displaced
the town administration of land by the end of the seven
teenth century. The system of proprietary control which
became general during the eighteenth century, was in all
essential points analogous to the administration of the
land system in the proprietary provinces.1 The pro
prietors in the Connecticut towns were a reproduction on
a smaller scale of the proprietors of Maryland and Penn
sylvania. While the elaborate administrative machinery
of the latter did not appear in any of the Connecticut
towns, still the aims of the proprietors in each case were
identical, namely, to obtain a revenue from their lands.
We come now to consider the manner in which" the land
of a township was distributed among the individual pro
prietors. Here again a distinction will be made between
the earlier and later towns.
The character of the land in any township varied ac
cording to its location and topography. In most of the
older towns which were situated on or near rivers or
streams, the land might be classified roughly under the
following heads : (1) Meadow or marshy land ; (2) cleared
upland; (3) uncleared or wooded land. Upon the cleared
at intervals of ten years or more until 1856. Meetings of the Canaan pro
prietors were held at intervals of two or three months until 1765, then
irregularly until 1804. MS. Prop. Rec. of Norfolk and Canaan. See also
Caulkins, Hist, of New London, 263 ; Allen, Hist, of Enfield, I, 92 • Steiner,
Hist, of Guilford, 175.
1 Osgood, American Colonies, II, 16 et seq.

LAND SYSTEM. 75
upland was usually located the town plot, home lots, and
planting grounds. The meadow furnished hay and pas
turage, while in the wooded land were pastured the swine,
sheep and young cattle.1
The first step in the settlement of a town was the laying
out of the town plot and the assignment of home lots.
This, as we have seen, was often done by a committee of
the General Court.2 The home lots varied greatly in size
in the different towns, and often within the same town.
In Guilford they ranged from 1 to 10 acres; in Wall-
ingford and Enfield they were uniformly 10 or 12 acres ;
in Litchfield 15 acres, while in Woodbury the inhabitants
were divided into six "ranks," the home lots of the differ
ent ranks being 25, 20, 18, 16, 12 and 10 acres.3 Generally
the location of a person's home lot was determined by
chance, but not infrequently the minister or other promi
nent settler would be allowed first choice.4 After the
home lots had been granted, the upland and meadow was
subject to grant. Here again the division was usually
made by lot. The circumstances which determined the
size of a person 's home lot, as well as his share of meadow
and upland, varied in different towns. Occasionally,
though not often, a rigid equality was observed in the
assignment of home lots and other land.5 Generally, in
the earlier divisions, an attempt was made to proportion
a person's share to his investment, or activity in forming
the plantation, or his ability to advance the interests of
the community. As time passed, the amount of a per
son's taxable estate became the common index for de-
1 Osgood, American Colonies, I, 437.
2 Col. Rec, II, 210; V, 55, 160.
3 Steiner, Hist, of Guilford, 49; Davis, Hist, of Wallingford, 81; Wood
ruff, Hist, of Litchfield, 18; Allen, Hist, of Enfield, I, passim; Cothren,
Hist, of Ancient Woodbury, 39.
4 Caulkins, Hist, of New London, 59.
s Col. Rec, V, 55, 121; Andrews, Three River Towns, J. H. V. S., VII.

76 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
termining his share in the undivided lands.1 In Walling-
ford the whole population was divided into three "ranks."
The persons in the first "rank" paid double the amount
of taxes of those in the lowest "rank," and one third more
than those of the middle "rank." Land was then divided
among the ranks in the proportion of 4, 6, and 8.2 In
Guilford, in the fourth division of land, the rule was that
there should be given one acre of land for every pound in
the list, 18 acres for each male child, and 10 acres for each
woman or female child.3
There appeared in some of the towns a desire to prevent
too large an accumulation of lands in the hands of a few
persons. In the "Articles of Association and Agree
ment, ' ' entered into by the planters of Waterbury, it was
provided that no person should subscribe to more than
100 pounds' allotment.4 In Guilford it was provided
that no one should put in his estate above 500 pounds to
"require accommodation in any division of lands."5
Seldom, or never, was all the undivided land of a town
granted in one division; successive divisions were made
as occasion demanded. As a result it was common to
find a person's estate distributed about the town in a
number of small tracts.6
Besides the regular division of land in which all, or
a majority, of the inhabitants shared a large number of
individual grants appear in the records of the different
towns. These grants were made sometimes to accommO-
1 Norwalk Town Records, December 12, 1687 ; Andrews, Three River
Town, J. H. V. 8., VII ; Lamed, Hist, of Windham Co, I, 37.
2 Davis, Hist, of Wallingford, 81.
3 Steiner, Hist, of Guilford, 173.
4 Bronson, Hist, of Waterbury, 8.
6 Steiner, HistJ of Guilford, 49.
6 One Isaac Gleason possessed some twelve separate portions of land
in different parts of the township of Enfield. Allen, Hist, of Epfield i'
137 et seq.; Compare Osgood, American Colonies, I, 449.

LAND SYSTEM. 77
date new settlers, at others to equalize a person's share
in a regular division because of deficiency in the quality
of the land, and again to poor settlers that did not share
in the general distribution.1
A result of the manner of dividing land which has
just been described was that a considerable portion of the
land would remain for a greater or less period of time
undivided. The fencing and regulation of this common
land was an important function of the town or proprie
tors' meetings. Furthermore, it was customary, when a
given portion of common land had been divided among
the proprietors, to allow the land to remain in one com
mon field. Each owner improved his own part of the
common field in his own way, and after the crops had been
removed, it was the custom to depasture the field, allowing
each owner to turn in a number of cattle proportioned to
his acreage of land in the field.2 Of the common fence
each proprietor was required to build and keep in repair
an amount proportioned tp the amount of his holding in
the field. The fences were viewed at regular intervals by
fence viewers, and fines were imposed on those proprietors
who failed to keep their portion in repair.3 Besides the
proprietary fields which lay in common, there were the
town "commons." The latter were certain amounts of
land sequestered by vote of the town or proprietors for
the use of the town generally. These commons furnished
pasturage, firewood, timber, stone, etc., to the inhabitants
of the town without any reference to their proprietary
ownership. These commons were maintained in some
towns for many', years, but finally were divided as the
i Hartford Town Votes, 197, 212, 238; Derby Rec, 28, 29, 78, etc;
Allen, Hist, of Enfield, I, 283.
2 Adams-Stiles, Hist, of Wethersfield, I, 113; Eggleston, Land System
of the New England Colonies, J. H. V. S., IV, 594.
3 Steiner, Hist, of Guilford, 246. See a good description of common
fields and fences in Bronson, Hist, of Waterbury, 47 et seq.

78 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
other proprietary lands.1 The maintenance of common
herds and herdsmen was a characteristic accompaniment
of the system of common fields. The cattle and sheep of
a town were placed in one or more herds under the charge
of regularly chosen town herdsmen and shepherds.2
An interesting feature of the land system of the older
towns was the restrictions which were placed upon the
right of an individual to alienate his land. As the entire
right of commoners both in the divided and undivided
lands might be sold or transferred, it was deemed neces
sary in order to prevent undesirable persons from becom
ing land holders and possible inhabitants of the town, to
restrict the right of a person to dispose of his land at
will. In 1659 the General Court provided that no person
should sell his land until he had first offered it to the
town in which the land lay, and the town had refused to
purchase it.3 To this general enactment the towns added
other restrictions. From the first, Hartford had required
the consent of the town to the sale of lands.4 In Enfield
a person was required to occupy his grant of land seven
'Adams-Stiles, Hist, of Wethersfield, I, 113 et seq.; Bronson, Hist, of
Waterbury, 79 et seq. An interesting controversy occurred over the
division of the town commons in Hartford in 1754. The descendants and
successors of the "Ancient Proprietors" claimed the right to divide the
commons among themselves, and proceeded to lay out a division. The
"Inhabitants Proprietors," or tax paying inhabitants, disputed this
division and proceeded to lay out the commons to the taxable inhabitants.
This soon produced a number of suits in the courts to determine the
title. After various decisions, generally in favor of the Ancient Pro
prietors, a compromise was reached by which the town purchased the
rights of the Ancient Proprietors. The land was then distributed, prob
ably, among the taxable inhabitants. MS. Documents in the library of
the Conn. Hist. Soc
2 In New London the cattle were placed in two herds each with a
keeper. Caulkins, Hist, of New London, 82. See also Allen, Hist of
Enfield, I, 328; Steiner, Hist of Guilford, 240.
3 Col. Rec, I, 351.
4 Hartford, Town Votes, February 21, 1636.

LAND SYSTEM. 79
years, and also obtain the consent of the town before he
could sell it.1
Coming now to the divisions of land in the towns formed
during the eighteenth century. It will be remembered
that it was usual during the eighteenth century for the
General Court to sell townships instead of freely grant
ing them. These townships, as we have seen, were usu
ally divided into a certain number of "rights," each
right entitling the purchaser to an equal share in the
land of the township. Thus the basis for the division of
land was exclusively investment, not ability or taxable
estate, as had been common in the older towns. Naturally
this resulted in much greater uniformity in the size of
home lots and other holdings. The successive divisions
of land followed each other with greater rapidity in the
later than in the older towns.2 The frequent transfer of
land holdings was a feature of the land system in the
towns of the eighteenth century. Ofter, an entirely new
set of proprietors would participate in the third and later
divisions of common lands, than had taken part in the
first division. Common fields, fences, and herds were
much less a feature of the town economy of the later than
of the earlier towns. This was due in part to the fact
that the colonists had emerged from the primitive condi
tions of land cultivation, but more largely to the fact
that in many of the later towns the proprietors being
non-residents or speculators, did not improve their
holdings.
1 Allen, Hist, of Enfield, I, 62. See similar provisions. Caulkins, Hist.
of Norwich, 102; Davis, Hist, of Wallingford, 80; Cothren, Hist, of
Ancient Woodbury, 40.
2 There were twelve divisions in Canaan, eight of them in the first
seven years after the settlement of the town. In Norfolk there were eight
divisions, in New Hartford five, in Kent ten and New Milford fourteen,
most of them at short intervals. MS. Prop. Rec of Canaan, Norfolk and
New Hartford; Atwater, Hist, of Kent, 17; Orcutt, Hist, of New Mil-
ford, 13.

CHAPTER IV.
Military Affairs.
The organization and administration of the militia was
one of the many functions of the Legislature. Prior to
the formation of the Fundamental Orders, the Massachu
setts committee had assumed as full control over military
as over civil affairs. Watches were ordered, the posses
sion of arms and ammunition was required, and regular
trainings were instituted.1 The "Courte" which dis
placed the Commission, likewise exercised full sway in
military affairs. Its first act was to declare "an offensiue
war" against the Pequot Indians.2 The "Fundamental
Orders" did not specify the regulation of military affairs
as one of the functions of the General Court, but it was
comprehended under the general grant of power "to make
laws and repeal them." The terms of the charter were
more specific in dealing with this subject. It was stated
that the "Chief Commanders, Governors and Officers"
of the colony could assemble "in Warlike posture" the
inhabitants; appoint and commission officers to command
them; repel invasion by sea and land, and declare mar
tial law when occasion should require.3 It will be noted
that a strict interpretation of these provisions would place
the control of the militia in the hands of the executive,
and such it would be reasonable to suppose was the in
tention of the authorities in England. In the colony no
such meaning was placed upon the words, and the power
1 Col. Rec, I, 2, 3, 4.
2 Ibid., I, 9.
3 Ibid., II, 9.
80

MILITARY AFFAIRS,. 81
of the Legislature in the administration of military affairs
was in no respect lessened.
In times of actual conflict, the General Court found it
necessary to delegate its powers of military administration
to special committees or "Councils of War." The first
mention of such a body was in 1663, when the General
Court, in anticipation of trouble with the Dutch at New
York, appointed a committee to act "in all necessary
concernments, both military and civil, ' ' in the interval of
the General Court. In strictness this was not distinctly a
' ' Council of War. ' n Again in 1665 the General Court ap
pointed a committee, in anticipation of a Dutch invasion,2
to order the militia in the interval of the court. The follow
ing year a similar committee was appointed. These were
called "Committees of the Militia," and there appears
to have been at least one such committee in each country.3
The threatened invasion did not materialize, and it does not
appear that the committees were called upon to perform
any important duties. In 1673, once more in anticipation of
war with the Dutch, the first distinct "Councell of Warr"
was created. It was composed of the Governor or Deputy
Governor, and assistants, with five military officers. It was
empowered to establish and commission officers, proclaim
martial law, and to organize and direct the contemplated
expedition to Long Island.4 During Philip's war, the
Council of War seems to have been merged in the Gov
ernor's Council, which took an active part in directing the
1 For the sake of clearness it might be well to note again the distinction
between the Governor's Council and the Council of War. Both might and
did exist at the same time. The latter was created only in times of
danger and had purely military powers, while the former existed in both
peace and war and might exercise both military and civil powers. Col.
Rec, IV, 442.
2 This was the threatened invasion of De Ruyter. Smith, Hist, of New
York, I, 37.
3 Col. Rec, II, 21, 44, 69, 182.
4 Ibid., II, 219, 220.

82 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
military operations during that struggle. This was true
also during the first of the intercolonial wars.1 At the
opening of the second intercolonial war, however, a dis
tinct Council of War again appears.2 In 1704 were cre
ated County "Committees of Safety" which were em
powered to "consult, advise, direct and comand in all
affairs proper for a comittee of saftie in time of warre."
These committees appear to have looked to the particular
defence of the county frontier.3 During the third and
fourth intercolonial wars, both the general and county
councils continue as a feature of the military ad
ministration.4 While the powers conferred upon the various commit
tees or councils were broad, they were always under the
control and direction of the General Court. The latter,
when in session, was constantly active in disposing and
directing the military forces, and issuing orders to the
Council of War.5
In connection with the control and direction of the
colonial militia, an interesting and important controversy
arose toward the end of the seventeenth century, which
continued at intervals throughout the colonial period. As
will be seen, the wars in which the colony was involved
during the first fifty years of its history, were merely local
Indian struggles, which, at most, required only the com
bined activity of the New England colonies. With these
wars the authorities in England were not immediately
concerned. No aid was received from the mother country,
' Ibid., II, 261, 270, etc.; IV, 6, 14, 18, etc.
2 Ibid., IV, 442, 458.
3 In appointing the Committee of War for Hartford Co, the General
Court stated that it should have power to send out what soldiers were
needful, not exceeding sixty except in case of invasion, to defend the
frontiers and to appoint officers for such soldiers. Col. Rec V 33
4 Ibid., IX, 30, 75; X, 319, 334.
Ibid., IV, 349; V, 85; IX, 71.

MILITARY AFFAIRS. 83
and no attempt was made by the home government to direct
the military affairs of the colonies, either by an appoint
ment of a commander-in-chief or by the dispatch of instruc
tions. The colonists were left alone to work out their own
salvation. With the advent of the intercolonial wars in the
last decade of the seventeenth century, however, a wholly
different condition of affairs appeared. These wars were
much more than purely local struggles affecting New
England. Besides being on a much larger scale than any
of the previous wars, they were destined to decide the
colonial supremacy of two of the leading European na
tions. In these wars the authorities in England took an
immediate and active interest. At the outset it became
apparent that any efficient military activities requiring
long and continued service would be impracticable, if not
impossible, under the system of divided authority which
obtained in the colonies, and particularly in the corporate
colonies of New England, where there were no royal
officials to carry out the orders of the home government.
With a view to obtaining some measure of cooperation
among these colonies, at the opening of the first inter
colonial war Governor Fletcher, of New York, and Gov
ernor Phips, of Massachusetts, were authorized to com
mand the militia of Connecticut.1 Phips did not seek to
enforce this part of his commission, and it was soon with
drawn.2 Fletcher was more persevering. He arrived in
New York in 1692, and came to Hartford in October of
the following year, to publish his commission. The de
mand of Fletcher was submitted to the General Court
1 Trumbull, op. cit., I, Appendix XXV; R. I. Col. Rec, III, 296; Docu
ments Relating to the Colonial History of N. Y, III, 827.
2 Phips wrote to the Governor of Connecticut acquainting him with his
commission, and the Court answered, that having received no commands
from his Majesty concerning the matter, they would maintain their
chartered rights. Col. Rec, IV, 77; MS. Rec. War, II, 158, 159, 162.

84 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
then in session, which body replied, "that finding in your
Excellencies Commission no Express, Superseding of the
Commission of the Militia in our Charter ... we cannot
but conceive it our duty ... to continue the militia as
formerly; till by our Agent now sent for in England, we
shall receive further Orders from Their Majesties, ' n The
determined stand taken by the colonists caused Fletcher
to attempt to conciliate them. He offered to place the
command of the militia under Governor Treat, and further
stated that "he has neither the power or intention to in
vade any of their civil rights," but added that "I may
assure you that I will not set a foot out of the colony till
I see an obedience paid to this commission by all such as
are loyal subjects of his majesty, and will distinguish the
rest."2 There is a more than doubtful tradition related
by Trumbull of the strenuous manner in which Fletcher
was treated.3 However, the Colonel reached the conclu
sion that it would be useless to force the matter further,
and he returned to New York without having accomplished
his object.
In the meantime Fitz John Winthrop had gone to
England to petition the King to allow Connecticut to re
tain control of her militia.4 Within a few weeks the
Privy Council, on advice of the Lords of Trade, limited
Fletcher's right over the Connecticut troops to the extent
of including in his command, 120 men to be furnished by
Connecticut "at all times during the war."5
» Col. Rec, IV, 113.
2 Ibid., IV, 114.
3 Trumbull, I, 393. Compare Palfrey, Hist, of New England, 226 note;
Doc. Rei. to the Col. Hist, of N. Y, IV, 69 et seq.; Calendar of State
Papers, America, 1693-1696, particularly Col. Bayard's account of
Fletcher's proceedings at Hartford.
* Calendar of State Papers, ibid., 277 ; Doc. Rei. to the Col. Hist, of
N. Y, IV, 102; Mass. Hist. Soc Colls, 5th Series, VIII, 327, 330.
s Calendar of State Papers, ibid., 283 ; Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls, 5th Series
IX, 176; Doc Rei. to the Col. Hist, of N. Y, 103 et seq.

MILITARY AFFAIRS. 85
Lord Bellomont's commission,1 like those of Phips and
Fletcher, included the command of the Connecticut militia,
but he made no attempt to enforce this part of his com
mission. In most, if not all, the commissions of the suc
ceeding Governors of New York, a clause was inserted
vesting in them the command of the Connecticut militia.
Usually the Governors made no attempt to enforce this
power. Occasionally, however, the matter was brought
to the attention of the Connecticut officials. Lord Corn-
bury, in a letter to the Board of Trade, asked for a com
mission to nominate the militia officers of Connecticut,
and also suggested that an act of Parliament be passed
for regulating the militia in all the colonies.2 Neither
of these suggestions was acted upon by the home govern
ment. Governor Burnet, in 1722, seems to have sent a
demand for the command of the militia, but with no ap
parent result.3 As late as 1766 we find Governor Moore,
of New York, attempting to enforce this part of his com
mission, only to meet with as little success as his pre
decessors.4 The possession of arms and ammunition by all adult
males, and, with some exceptions, universal military ser
vice lay at the basis of the militia system of the colony.5
•New Hampshire Prov. Papers, II, 343. Doc. Rei. to the Col. Hist.
of N. Y, IV, 261.
2 Doc. Rei. to the Col. Hist, of N. Y, IV, 884, 912; V, 60.
3 Col. Rec, VI, 334; MS. Rec. War, III, 177.
* Doc. Rei. to the Col. Hist, of N. Y, VII, 818, 819.
6 At first all male persons between the ages of sixteen and sixty, except
Commissioners and church officers, were required to train. The following
exemptions were later made. Deputies to the General Court during their
term of service, constant seafaring men, Indians and negro servants,
assistants, clerks of the trained-bands, transient persons, persons over fifty-
five years of age (later fifty years), allowed attorneys, the rector and
students of Yale college, justices of the peace, masters of art, allowed
physicians and surgeons, schoolmasters, one miller for each grist mill,
constant herdsmen, sheriffs, constables, constant ferrymen, lame or other
disabled persons. Col. Rec, I, 15, 62, 316, 349, 350; II, 229; III, 83; V,
83; VII, 344; VIII, 36, 379.

86 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
During the early years of the colony's history, the expense
of furnishing arms and ammunition to the militia fell
upon the individual or the locality where he resided.1
Large numbers of enactments might be cited, which aimed
to enforce the possession of arms and ammunition in the
various towns. With the advent of the larger military
activities of the latter part of the seventeenth and eight
eenth centuries, the duty of supplying of arms and ammu
nition became more and more a function of the colonial
authorities. The earliest and throughout the most important branch
of the militia was the "trained bands" or infantry com
panies. At first all persons in a town, liable for military
service, were formed into the "trained band" of the town.
With the increase in population, the militia in the larger
towns was divided into two or more companies.2 There
appeared to be considerable pride, possibly some jeal
ousy, concerning the precedence of the "trained bands"
of the different towns. In 1662 the General Court or
dered that the Hartford "trained band" should have the
" prehemenence " of all the companies in the colony; fol
lowed by the companies of Windsor, Wethersfield and
Farmington in the order named.8 In 1674 it was pro
vided that the trained bands of the county towns should
rank first in the county, except where the Major should
i At first every person liable to military service was required to have
a musket, bandoleers, two pounds of powder and one hundred and twenty
bullets. Col. Rec. I, 3, 15, 542. The match-lock and pike, which were the
weapons in common use at first, had almost disappeared by the end of the
seventeenth century, being displaced by the fire-lock musket, carbines and
pistols. Osgood, op. cit., I; Col. Rec, VIII, 379.
2 The trained-band, eventually, came to consist of sixty-four men be
sides officers. If there was more than one company in a town they were
often called the East Company, West Company, etc. Col. Rec, VIII 381-
MS. Rec. Militia, I, passim.
3 Col. Rec, 1, 390.

MILITARY AFFAIRS. 87
have a "peculyer" company, in which case it should
lead at all general musters.1
The first mention of troopers in Connecticut was in
1657, when the Court authorized the listing of such as
desired to form a troop of horse. The following year
some thirty-seven names of persons living in the three
towns of Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield, were
presented to the Court and confirmed as troopers.2
There was no considerable increase in the number of
troopers during the seventeenth century. In 1680 there
were but sixty in the whole colony, although it was
stated that plans had been formed for raising three
more troops of forty men each, one in each county.3 By
the general act reorganizing the militia, adopted in 1739,
it was provided that there should be a troop of not more
than sixty-four men, including officers, attached to each
of the thirteen regiments into which the militia was
divided. Besides the regular troopers, mention is made
of dragoons. These appear to have been certain picked
men mounted for special service in times of danger.4
As early as 1642 we find the General Court providing
an "Artillary Yard" where the artillery company should
train. The records are silent as to the character and size
of this body, and it probably soon disappeared as a sepa
rate organization.5
i Col. Rec, II, 238.
2 Ibid., I, 299, 309. In New Haven there had been one small troop of
horse which seems to have disappeared after the union with the River
Towns. N. H. Col. Rec, II, 173, 218, 302, etc. The equipment of a
trooper consisted of a horse, saddle, bridle, holsters, carbine, belt and
swivel, a case of pistols, a sword or cutlass, flask or cartridge-box, one
pound of powder, twenty flints, a pair of boots and spurs. Col. Rec,
VIII, 380.
» Col. Rec, III, 295; MS. Rec. Foreign Correspondence, I, 19.
<Col. Rec, II, 267; IV, 19.
s Col. Rec, I, 71. In New Haven there had been an auxiliary company
of artillery which probably disappeared after the union. Levermore, The
Republic of New Haven, J. H. V. 8., VI, 56.

88 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.

1

The officers of the trained bands and troops were
chosen by the members of the company or troop, and con
firmed by the General Court.1 Some special mention
needs to be made of the duties of the clerk. He it was
that called the roll of the company on training days, noted
any defects in arms and ammunition, and distrained fines
for any defects. He was required to keep a list of the
soldiers and officers in his company, and report the same
to the chief county officer, and later to the chief regimental
officer.2 During the seventeenth century, the militia of Con
necticut was not distinctly regimented. Just before the
opening of King Philip's War, however, the trained
bands in each county were combined for purposes of gen
eral training, and the combined forces were spoken of as
"regiments." These general trainings were under the
direction of Majors, who were, practically, regimental
officers.3 During the Andros regime no material change was
made in the organization of the militia, except that
Andros assumed supreme command of all the military
forces. For some reason not apparent, there seemed to
be a prejudice against any reorganization of the militia
which would disturb the time-honored trained bands of
the towns. Possibly it was local pride or jealousy which
blocked the way to a more efficient organization of the
colonial militia. All explanations must, however, be
largely conjectures, for the records throw no light on the
matter.
1 Col. Rec, I, 151. The officers of an infantry company were, usually,
a captain, lieutenant, ensign, one or more sergeants and corporals, and a
clerk. The officers of a troop were a captain, lieutenant, ensign, cornet,
quartermaster, sergeants, corporals, and a clerk. Col. Rec, VIII, 381-383.
2 Ibid., I, 542; V, 165; VIII, 379.
3 Col. Rec, II, 238. There appeared also the Sergeant Majors, who
occupied the position of Lieutenant Colonel. Col. Rec, III, 61- IV 51-
Conn. Hist. Soc Colls, IV, 357.

MILITARY AFFAIRS. 89
In 1722 the question of the appointment of Colonels
and Lieutenant Colonels in the different counties was con
sidered by the General Court. The matter was^however
laid over until the following session, when no further
action seems to have been taken.1 Between 1722 and
1727 a number of attempts were made to regiment the
militia, but they were usually defeated in the Upper
House.2 Again in 1735 a definite plan for dividing the
militia into thirteen regiments, proposed by a joint com
mittee of the two houses, was voted down in both houses.3
It was not until the threatened outbreak of the third
intercolonial war (1739) that the act reorganizing the
militia system was adopted by the General Court.4 This
act provided that the Governor should be Captain Gen
eral, and the Deputy Governor, Lieutenant General of
all the military forces of the colony. The militia was
divided into thirteen regiments, each commanded by a
Colonel, Lieutenant Colonel and Major, appointed by the
Assembly, and commissioned by the Governor. To each
regiment was to be attached a troop of horse not exceed
ing sixty-four men and officers.
With the increase in population, and the settlement of
new towns, additional regiments were formed. In 1767
the fourteenth regiment was organized, in 1769 the
fifteenth, in 1771 the sixteenth, and in 1774 the seven
teenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first and
twenty-second.5 The duty of supplying arms and ammunition to the
soldiers, in times of war, devolved upon the Treasurer.6
1 Col. Rec, VI, 335, 361.
2 MS. Rec Militia, I, 202, 210, 303, 349, 362.
3 Col. Rec, VIII, 277 note.
'Ibid., VIII, 277.
'Ibid., XII, 607; XIII, 238, 512; XIV, 261, 328.
e Ibid., II, 464; IV, 349; V, 85; IX, 71.

90 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
The same officer generally performed the duty of Com
missary General in distributing food to the soldiers.1 It
was customary for the General Court to appoint special
commissaries, or a committee of commissaries for each
expedition.2 The colonial militia, organized in the manner indicated,
was subject to frequent training, particularly during the
early years of the colony's history. Soon after the settle
ment of the colony, it was provided that the train bands
should be exercised once a month; unskillful persons
oftener.3 This was found to place too great a burden on
the inhabitants, and the number of days was reduced to
ten in a year, then to six, and finally to four.4 In addi
tion to the company trainings, general trainings of all
the militia, and later regimental trainings were provided
for. 6 Absence from trainings, defects in arms and ammu
nition, disobedience of orders, and other breaches of dis
cipline, were punished by the infliction of fines, or severer
forms of punishment.6 The system of watching and
warding which in time of peace was an adjunct of the
police force, became in time of danger, an important part
of the military organization. The watch was maintained
during the night, and if need be during the day also. It
ilbid., II, 453, 506; X, 445.
'Ibid., IV, 458; VIII, 324; IX, 89; XI, 124; MS. Rec War, IV, 68, 71,
etc 3 Col. Rec, I, 4.
lIbid., I, 15, 30; IV, 250. In 1761 the number of trainings was re
duced to two days a year, but three years later the old law was reestab
lished. Col. Rec, XII, 248, 607. In anticipation of the Revolution twelve
half-day trainings yearly were provided. Ibid., XIV, 32.
6 In 1644 it was provided that there should be a general training of
all the militia once in two years. For the purpose of such general train
ings the militia was organized by counties. In the act regimenting the
militia it was ordered that there should be regimental trainings once in
four years. Col. Rec, I, 266; II, 238; VIII, 384.
6 For a detailed and interesting list of such punishments see Col. Rec,
II, 292.

MILITARY AFFAIRS. 91
was the duty of the watch to look out for any sudden
attack by the Indians, or other enemies, and in case of
danger to give the alarm by a prearranged signal.1
The question of providing permanent fortifications for
the coast towns of the colony, had early been considered
by the colony officials. The first of the coast towns to be
fortified was Saybrook. Some rude works had early
been constructed there, to keep it from falling into the
hands of the Dutch.2 In 1644 Connecticut purchased the
town and fortification from George Fenwick, one of the
Warwick patentees. The other fort mentioned in the
records during the seventeenth century, was that at New
London. This first comes into prominence at the opening
of the first intercolonial war.3
Wood entered largely into the building of the forts.
With mud or earth embankments, and little or no
masonry, the forts were anything but substantial in char
acter. At best the appellation fort was a misnomer, and
usually they were allowed to fall into a sad state of decay.
The following report of a committee appointed in 1693
to investigate the condition of the fort at Saybrook, is
probably not an overdrawn picture of the general dilap
idated condition of the colony's defences.
"Wee find that such are the Ruinous decayes of ye
said ffort, that the small matter of charge by your honour
proposed will bee all togither insignificant and worth less
both to their Majesties and this Colonye's Interest, the
1In the act settling the militia enacted by Andros, it was provided
that in case of an alarm, four muskets or small arms should be discharged,
or one " great gun " fired, accompanied by the beating of a drum. Col. Rec,
III, 432. Compare Levermore, op. cit., 51; Steiner, Hist, of Guilford, 417;
Col. Rec, I, 2, 560; IV, 18; VIII, 387.
2 In 1633 the Dutch from Manhattan sailed up the Connecticut River
and erected a, block house on the present site of Hartford. Trumbull,
I ; Morgan, Conn, as a Colony and » State, I, 84.
3 Col. Rec, IV, 19, 48, 73, etc.

92 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
Gates are all down but one, and one of them gone, both
Wood and iron therrof ye hooks of ye greate Gate stole ;
most of ye Iron of one of ye Cariages with all the iron of
another, taken away; the Platformes all Rotten and un-
servisable; part of ye stone wall yt supports the mount
fallen down, most of the mud wall decayed, with the
Palasados agt itt ; about Four Rodd of plank Wall on the
north that never was done, and Lyes open, the Jack, Jack
staff and Piller to be repaired with new, most of ye great
shott pilfered and gone, and according to our favourable
judgmt doe Compute ye Charge, to be noe less than Fifty
pounds to put itt in a defensiue posture, all which etc."1
Little or no improvement was made in either of the two
principal forts during the eighteenth century. In 1709
both the forts at New London and Saybrook were in an
advanced state of decay.2 In 1728 the General Court ap
pointed a committee to inspect the fort at New London to
see whether it was advisable to repair the old fort or build
a new one, but nothing seems to have been accomplished.3
During the long interval of peace between the second
and ' third intercolonial wars, the defences of the coast
towns were almost completely neglected. With the out
break of hostilities, the colonists were once more aroused
over the defenceless condition of their ports. A large
number of petitions were sent to the General Court, re
questing aid in repairing the fortifications.4 In a petition
of the inhabitants of New London, it was stated "That
ye Town and Port of New London is in a very naked and
defenceless Condition . . . Convincing us that we Live
Carelessly without walls or Strongholds, or other de-
1 MS. Rec. War, II, 184.
2 Ibid., Ill, 72, 73.
3 Col. Rec, VII, 216.
« MS. Rec. War, IV, 1-51.

MILITARY AFFAIRS. 93
fence under Heaven, and are unworthy the Care of
Providence without the exercise of prudent . Endeavours
for the Safety of our Lives and fortune."1 In answer
to these petitions the General Court ordered the purchase
of some cannon to be placed in the New London fort.2
In 1756 Governor Fitch reported to the Board of Trade
that the only fort in the colony was a "small battery"
at New London, containing nine guns, three unfit for use;
twenty-two carriage guns, and twelve swivel guns taken
from the colony sloop. No mention is made of Saybrook,
probably because it had fallen into such bad condition that
it had been abandoned as a fort.3
In the interior towns, particularly in the more remote
and exposed settlements, certain selected houses were
"fortified." The fortification usually consisted of a log
wall built a short distance from the house, all around it.
The wall was carried up ten or twelve feet in height, with
such openings as were necessary for discharging muskets.
In times of danger the inhabitants would repair to the for
tified houses at night, returning to their homes during
the day.4 This method of interior defence was quite gen
eral during King Philip's war. Fortified houses also
appear during the first and second intercolonial wars,
especially in the frontier towns. During the last two in- ;
tercolonial wars, in which there was little fear of the Con- j
necticut towns suffering, the fortification of houses seldom
appeared.5 i Conn. Hist. Soc Colls, V, 219 et seq.
2 Col. Rec, VIII, 71; Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls, V, 337.
3 Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls, I, 282.
4 Davis, Hist, of Wallingford, 350; Steiner, Hist, of Guilford, 421;
Cothren, Hist, of Ancient Woodbury, 66, 78; Caulkins, Hist, of New Lon
don, 183; Bronson, Hist, of Waterbury, 102.
* There is a reference to fortified houses in the extreme northwestern
township of Salisbury during the third intercolonial war. Col. Rec, IX,
198.

94 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
Of a colonial "navy" little need be said, as nothing
which could be dignified by that name appeared during
the colonial period. During the seventeenth century the
only mention of a war vessel was a frigate of ten or
twelve guns provided by Connecticut and New Haven in
1653, when there was fear of an attack by the Dutch.1
Toward the end of the second intercolonial war, Connecti
cut tried to arrange with Rhode Island to provide a guard
ship to protect the coasting trade between Boston and
New London. Rhode Island did not see fit to cooperate,
and Connecticut provided one alone.2 At the opening of
the third intercolonial war, the General Court ordered that
"a strong swift and large" sloop be procured for the de
fence of the coast. The sloop was built at Middletown and
named the Defence. It acted as a coast defence ship,
capturing at least one French vessel, made a cruise to
Cuba in 1741, took part in the capture of Louisburg in
1745, receiving 5,000 pounds as prize money, and was
finally disarmed and sold at auction in 1748 for 4,860
pounds.3 During the last of the colonial wars, a brigan-
tine named the Tartar was purchased and fitted up with
the guns taken from the Defence. This ship was only
kept two years when it was sold at auction for 800 pounds.4
Such was the extent of the colonial navy.
Hardly had the pioneers of Connecticut become settled
in their new homes, when "an offensiue warr" was de
clared against the Pequot Indians. This tribe inhabited
the southeastern part of the colony in what is now New
London County. They were the most numerous and war
like of the native tribes of Connecticut.5 The preliminary
'New Haven Col. Rec, II, 14; Trumbull, I, 213.
2 Col. Rec, V, 207, 306.
3 Col. Rec, IX, 355, 411; Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls, V, 356.
4 Col. Rec, XI, 62, 295; MS. Rec War, VII, 191; VIII, 239.
3 The best estimate of their fighting strength is about six hundred
warriors. De Forrest, Hist, of the Indians of Connecticut, 58.

MILITARY AFFAIRS. 95
events leading up to the struggle might be briefly noted.
One Capt Stone, in 1633, had come from Virginia to
trade on the New England coast. After a short stay in
Massachusetts he sailed with a Capt. Norton to the Con
necticut River. The Indians appearing friendly, were
allowed to board the ship. Probably the too free dispensa
tion of "fire water" led to the massacre of the Captain
while in a drunken stupor, and a fight between the In
dians and the rest of the crew. In the midst of the
"melee" the vessel was blown up by a quantity of powder
being ignited.1 Difficulties which the Pequots were then
in, both with the Dutch and their own dependent tribes,
predisposed them to desire peace with the English. Rep
resentatives of the Pequots visited Massachusetts in an
effort to arrange a treaty with the English. Finally,
after telling a plausible story about the murder of Stone,
and agreeing to surrender the murderers, an agreement
was made and signed by which the English agreed to
make settlements in the Pequot country and send vessels
to trade with the natives.2 The latter agreed to pay to
the English 400 fathoms of wampum, 30 otter and 40
beaver skins. Neither party to the treaty fulfilled its
conditions. Trouble was precipitated by the murder of
one John Oldham, a trader, by the Indians on Block
Island.3 The Pequots were accused of harboring the
murderers of Oldham. An expedition was fitted out under
John Endicott which first proceeded to Block Island,
where nothing further was accomplished than the destruc
tion of some Indian wigwams and corn fields.4 Proceed
ing then to the Pequot country they touched at Saybrook,
where they were joined by Lieut. Gardiner in command of
i Winthrop, Hist, of New England, I, 123; De Forest, op. cit., 77.
2 Winthrop, op. cit., 147-149.
3 Winthrop, I, 189; Trumbull, I, 71.
« Mass. Hist. Colls, 4th Series, VI, 5, 6. Winthrop, op. cit., I, 192-194.

96 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
the garrison at that point. The Indians did not suspect
the cause of the Englishmen's visit, and no opposition was
made to their landing. Endicott made his demands
known, which, naturally, were refused by the natives. In
the resulting struggle about all that was accomplished was
the destruction of the Indian wigwams and corn, and the
arousal of the thirst for vengeance in the Indians.1 The
Pequots resolved to form an alliance with their old enemies
the Narragansetts, and sent two sachems to the latter tribe
for that purpose.2 Their plans were forestalled by the
Massachusetts colony arranging a treaty of alliance with
the Narragansetts through the influence of Roger Wil
liams.3 The Pequots having failed in their design to bring
about a general Indian war, turned their attention to
making reprisals upon the nearest English settlement,
the garrison at Saybrook. Here a succession of raids
were made, several stragglers from the fort killed, out
houses and crops destroyed, and the garrison kept in vir
tual state of siege 4 Early in 1637 the Indians made their
appearance further up the Connecticut, and killed and
captured several of the inhabitants of Wethersfield.5
Following these disasters the General Court declared war,
and ordered the raising of a force of 90 men, under the
command of Major Mason."6 Massachusetts and Plymouth
had agreed to send aid, the former raising 200 men and
the latter 40 men.7 The Connecticut troops were joined
by about 70 Indians under the Mohegan sachem Uncas.
¦Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls, 4th Series, III, 141; Ibid., 4th Series, VI, 10.
2 Hubbard, Narrative of the Indian Wars, 29.
3R. I. Hist. Soc. Colls, III, 160; Winthrop, op. cit., I, 198.
Mass. Hist. Soc Colls, 4th Ser, III, 142 et seq.; ibid., 4th Ser, VI, 15
et seq.; Trumbull, I, 72 et seq.
5 Trumbull, I, 77; Winthrop, I, 218; Mass. Hist. Colls, 2d Ser, IV, 30.
e Col. Rec, I, 9.
' Winthrop, 1, 222.

MILITARY AFFAIRS. 97
Mason with his small band sailed down the Connecticut
and thence proceeded along the coast, passing the Pequot
country, and landing among the Narragansetts. Having
received permission from the latter to march through
their territory in order to attack the Pequots from the
rear, he proceeded without waiting for the Massachusetts
contingent which had been dispatched overland. On the
march he was joined by some of the Narragansett In
dians. Having reached the Pequot country, it was
learned that the natives had two "fortified" places. One
of the "forts" near Groton was attacked before daybreak,
taking the Indians by surprise and throwing them into
confusion. The order was finally given to fire the pali
sade, and most of the Indians perished miserably in the
flames.1 Mason and the Connecticut contingent returned
to their ships, and sailed home. The Massachusetts forces
under Capt. Patrick, which had come from Narragansett
with the fleet, proceeded overland to Saybrook.
The remnant of the Pequots determined to abandon
their old homes and seek refuge towards the west. The
colonists determined to pursue and exterminate them.
Massachusetts voted to raise a force of 120 men under the
command of Capt. Israel Stoughton.2 This force landed
at the mouth of the Pequot River, surrounded a swamp
in which were concealed a party of Pequots, killed the
warriors and sold the women and children as slaves.
Proceeding westward they were joined by a Connecticut
force under Mason. The Pequots were driven westward
and finally surrounded in a swamp near Fairfield. Sas-
sacus, the leader of the Pequots, escaped westward, where
'The number of persons that were killed has been estimated variously
at from three to seven hundred. De Forest, op. cit., 133. For full ac
counts of this campaign see Mason, Hist, of the Pequot War Mass. Hist.
Soc. Colls, 2d Ser, VIII, 133 et seq. De Forest, op. cit., 119 et seq.
2 Winthrop, I, 232.

98 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
he was afterward killed by the Mohawks. The remainder
were either killed or captured and the most powerful of
the tribes of Connecticut Indians was thus completely
crushed. Some of the captives were sold as slaves, others
were distributed among the Mohegan and Narragansett
tribes.1 This war, if it can be dignified by that name, had made
certain facts apparent. The Indians with their primitive
weapons, were no match for the Englishmen with fire
arms. Furthermore the settlers had learned that one
tribe of natives could be used to annihilate another. The
Indians had not come to look upon the whites as a com
mon enemy to their race. Before the final struggle be
tween the settlers and the Indians of southern New Eng
land occurred, the conditions had decidedly changed to
the disadvantage of the whites. Through the cupidity
of some of the colonists, the Indians gradually became
supplied with fire arms. Furthermore the natives had
learned, in a measure, by bitter experience, the necessity
of presenting a united front against their common foel
It was under these changed conditions that the last, and
by far the greatest, struggle between the natives and the
whites in southern New England, took place. This was
the so-called King Philip's War.
Before discussing this final struggle some mention
needs to be made of the Indian troubles from the close
of the Pequot War, to the opening of Philip's War.
Some of the wandering Pequots had found their way
back to their old lands, and had built a village. This was
contrary to treaty agreement, and the General Court dis
patched a force of 40 soldiers under Major Mason, to
break up the village, and disperse the Indians.2 The
'Mason, op. cit., 145 et seq.; Hubbard, op. cit., 42 et seq.; Winthrop, I,
232 et seq.
2 Col. Rec, I, 32.

MILITARY AFFAIRS. 99
band was broken up and the village destroyed with little
difficulty.1 The colonists were kept almost in constant
turmoil and strife with various tribes, as a result of tak
ing Uncas and the Mohegans under their protection.
Other tribes were envious of the increased influence and
power of Uncas. Among these were the Connecticut
River Indians under Sequassen, and the Narragansetts
with Miantinomo at their head. Uncas first clashed with
Sequassen, resulting in the defeat of the latter, the death
of several of his warriors, and the burning of their wig
wams.2 This precipitated a war between Uncas and the
Narrangansetts. The colonists held aloof from this
struggle, allowing the Indians to settle their differences
in their own way. By a piece of strategem on the part
of the wily Uncas, the Narragansetts were defeated and
their leader captured.3 Carrying his captive in triumph
to Hartford, Uncas laid before the Magistrates the ques
tion of the final disposal of the prisoner. It was decided
to refer the matter to the next meeting of Commissioners
of the United Colonies. This body decided that Mian-
tonomo should be killed. He was handed over to Uncas,
and a deputation of two Englishmen was appointed to
accompany the party to see that the execution was done
in a decent manner.4
The eastern settlements of Connecticut became in
volved in the struggle between the Dutch at New Nether
lands, and the Hudson River Indians.5 The Dutch en
listed the services of the famous Indian fighter Capt.
i Mason, op. cit., 149-151.
2 Winthrop, II, 130; De Forest, 187.
'Trumbull, I, 129 et seq.; Winthrop, II, 131 et seq.
'Trumbull, I, 133; Winthrop, II, 134.
s This was the struggle precipitated by the foolhardy action of Gov.
Kieft in murdering the Indians that had taken refuge on Manhattan
Island. Brodhead, Hist, of N. Y, I, 350 et seq.

100 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
Underhill, who brought the struggle to a close by the
overwhelming defeat of the Indians near Stamford.
Trouble between the Narragansetts and the Mohegans
did not end with the death of Miantonomo. Constant at
tempts were made by the former to avenge the death of
their leader. In 1644 the Commissioners of the United
Colonies, summoned representatives of both parties be
fore them, to arrange some sort of accommodation. A
truce was agreed to for one year, and a promise made
that thirty days' notice of hostilities would be given to
the Governor of Massachusetts.1 This agreement was
not kept. The Narragansetts joined by the Nehantics
laid waste the territory of the Mohegans. It was not
until the Narragansetts were threatened with the same
treatment that had been given the Pequots that they were
brought to terms.2 In 1654 trouble broke out between the
colonists and the Nehantics, growing out of the war of
the latter with the Long Island Indians. A force of Eng
lish sent down into the Nehantic country, was sufficient
to bring the Indians to terms.3 From this time on until
the outbreak of Philip's War, except for the almost con
stant conflicts of Uncas with various Indian tribes, which
were usually settled by threatened or actual interference
of the English, the settlers were not engaged in any strife
with the natives.
All the conflicts which have been briefly outlined, were
but slight skirmishes or preliminaries to the great strug
gle which opened in 1675, and continued almost inces
santly for more than a year. It is not proposed to give
a detailed account of this celebrated contest, but only to
briefly outline the part taken in it by Connecticut.
i Hazard, 25, 26.
2 Ibid., II, 28-44 ; Caulkins, Hist, of New London, 23-26.
3 Hazard, II, 308-381.

MILITARY AFFAIRS. 101
This struggle presents several new considerations.
First, the Indians, as has been noted, had become well
supplied with firearms, and had learned, in a measure,
to combine for mutual protection against the whites.
Then again, this struggle, viewed in a broader light, was
significant. It was the one great Indian War of the
seventeenth century, which tested the combined efforts
of the New England colonies. Here became apparent the
inherent difficulties of carrying on a warfare requiring
the combined efforts of the several colonies. New Eng
land individualism never appeared to less advantage than
in carrying on extensive military operations. It is an
axiom of military science that divided authority is fatal
to effective warfare. In no function of administration is
centralization so essential as in the direction of military
forces in time of war. In New England there was no
central authority, outside the vague control exercised by
the commissioners of the New England Confederacy.
Under these circumstances effective campaigning was
seriously handicapped. There were bound to be local
jealousies and differences of opinion as to the manner
in which operations should be conducted. With all the
possibilities for friction and disagreement, the wonder is
that there should have been as effective cooperation as
appeared. The common danger to all parties concerned
probably is accountable for this fact. It was not until
the larger military operations of the eighteenth century,
when the danger was no longer equally distributed, that
the fatal weakness of the New England system became
fully apparent.
At the beginning Philip's war was a local struggle
around Mt. Hope peninsula in the Plymouth colony.
Massachusetts came to the aid of Plymouth. Philip was
forced to cross to the eastern shore of Narragansett Bay,

102 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
and take refuge in a swamp.1 The Massachusetts troops
then proceeded down into the Narragansett country to
force that considerable tribe to agree to a treaty with the
English. The only effect of this manoeuvre was to en
sure the hostility of the Narragansetts, who up to that
time had not given clear evidences of joining Philip.
Philip, who had taken refuge in the swamp, made good
his escape and proceeded into central Massachusetts.
Joined by the Indians in this section, the war now as
sumed more serious proportions, and its spread to the
Connecticut valley opened the phase of the struggle in
which Connecticut was most immediately concerned. The
Massachusetts towns in the Connecticut valley were
logically an extension of the northern border of Connecti
cut rather than of the western border of Massachusetts.
Between these towns and the true western frontier of
Massachusetts was a tract fifty miles wide of uninhabited
country. News of "an attack upon Quaboag (Brookfield)
moved the Council of Connecticut to dispatch forty men
to Springfield to aid the Massachusetts towns. To these
were added several bands of Pequots and Mohegan In
dians, who remained faithful to the English throughout
the struggle.2 In August, in anticipation of a raid by the
Indians in the northern Connecticut Valley, the Council
ordered the dragoons and other forces which had been
raised under Major Treat to proceed northward.3
A good instance of the lack of any general plan of cam
paign or effective cooperation was shown at the outset.
Major Treat had hardly started on his march when he was
recalled to search for some Indians that were seen lurking
about Hartford.4 In the meantime, an attack had occurred
1 Osgood, American Colonies, I, 549.
2 Col. Rec, II, 345, 348.
3 Ibid., II, 356.
4 Ibid., II, 359, 360.

MILITARY AFFAIRS. 103
on Deerfield, and Treat was ordered northward again.
Differences of opinion also arose between the Connecti
cut and Massachusetts authorities, as to the method of
carrying on the campaign. Connecticut objected to hav
ing her troops used for garrisoning the Massachusetts
towns, and insisted upon more active measures. Upon
rumors of a general uprising of Connecticut Indians,
Major Treat was again ordered to return to Hartford
with a portion of the Connecticut forces. In his absence
trouble developed between Lieut. Seely, in command of
the Connecticut troops, and Capt. Appleton, of the Massa
chusetts contingent. Seely refused to take orders from
Appleton, referring to Treat as his superior.1 Upon the
return of Treat, the difficulty seems to have been settled.
In November, 1675, the scene of activity was shifted
to the Narragansett country. The actions of this tribe
gave rise to the conviction that they were not observing
the treaty to which they had been forced to agree. A force
of 1,000 men, of which Connecticut furnished 315 whites
and 150 Mohegans, was dispatched against the Narragan
setts. The Indian fort was in a swamp near the present
town of North Kingston. After a sanguinary battle the
fort was taken by storm and burned.2 There was much
suffering among the soldiers through the severity of the
weather and lack of supplies. Some of the soldiers had
deserted, and when a fresh levy was called for there was
much complaint and some difficulty in obtaining the re
quired quota of 500 men.3 The resulting midwinter raid
into the Narragansett and Nipmuck country accomplished
no decisive results.
i Ibid., II, 374, 381.
2 The English lost seventy killed and one hundred and fifty wounded.
Of these killed forty were Connecticut men. Bodge; Trumbull, I, 337
et seq. 3 Col. Rec, II, 394 et seq. ; MS. Rec War, I, 34a.

104 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
In the spring of 1676 the Connecticut troops were again
employed in the Narragansett country, one of their im
portant achievements being the capture of the Narragan
sett chief Canonchet. In May a force under Major Tal
cott, combined with a Massachusetts force, ranged the
upper country, but with no material results. In June
Major Talcott again left Hartford and made a success
ful raid through the Narragansett country, capturing and
killing some 238 Indians.1 The backbone of the struggle
which was now broken was finally terminated by the
dramatic death of Philip.2
In the brief summary which has been given of the one
important Indian war of the seventeenth century, there
are one or two points which need to be emphasized. From
the standpoint of administration— and this is the phase
of the subject with which we are most immediately con
cerned—the fundamental weakness of the New England
system had become sufficiently manifest. While toler
able unity of action had been maintained, it was accom
plished at times with much difficulty. One colony, Rhode
Island, had not been asked, and had taken no part in the
struggle. The others, and particularly Connecticut, had
shown a commendable spirit of individual sacrifice for the
common good. But after all has been said the fact re
mains that, had the struggle been on a more pretentious
scale, or had the colonists been confronted by an enemy
more nearly their equal, the possibilities of discord which
pertained to the system of divided authority would almost
inevitably have resulted in disaster for the colonies.
With the last decade of the seventeenth century opened
the long series of wars between England and France, all
1 Col. Rec, II, 458.
2 Trumbull, I, 367. The struggle continued among the eastern settle
ments in New Hampshire and Maine until the summer of 1678 Bodge
op. cit., 296-341.

MILITARY AFFAIRS. 105
of which were reproduced in the colonies of each country
in the New World.
Before considering these different struggles, some gen
eral considerations need to be noted. The Indian wars
which have been reviewed were contests simply between
the English colonists and the natives unaided by any
European power. The colonists, moreover, in these wars
had been left entirely to their own resources, both as to
means and methods. Neither aid nor interference came
from England. With the advent of the colonial wars all
this was changed. The Indians were now joined by a
powerful European nation. On the other hand, the Eng
lish colonists received aid, and what is of more impor
tance, direction from the home government.1 The colonists
were no longer left to themselves in planning and execut
ing their military operations. They were called upon to
take part in campaigns in the conception and management
of which they had little to do. They were now for the
first time participating in the larger activities of the
British Empire. The isolated position in which the col
onists, and particularly those of New England, had been
left during the greater part of the seventeenth century
was, in a measure, changed. There had been developed in
England, as will be indicated in another connection, a
more uniform colonial policy, involving the closer depen
dence of the colonies on the mother country. No other
colonies were so greatly affected by this change as the
corporate colonies of New England. There was a total
absence of any imperial official system in these colonies,
and, if any such system was to be provided, there must be
a material modification of their internal organization. It
is not proposed in this connection to trace in detail the de
velopment of imperial control, but simply to point out how
1As will be seen, the control of colonial military operations by the
authorities in England did not become prominent until the second inter
colonial war, and was not fully developed until the last intercolonial war.

106 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
the intercolonial wars showed the necessity for such con
trol, at least in the department of military administration.
Geographically Connecticut had an advantage over
most of the other colonies. On the north and west she
was protected by the colonies of Massachusetts and New
York. Her southern coast was vulnerable, but, as events
proved, there was little to be feared from that quarter.
In none of the wars was the territory of the colony invaded
or devastated by the enemy. Such part as Connecticut
took in the wars was either in defence of her neighboring
colonies or in the different offensive campaigns for the
reduction of Canada.
In 1689, less than three months after the Prince of
Orange had been seated on the English throne, war was
declared between England and France. Count Frontenac,
who had lately succeeded to the government of Canada,
immediately prepared to dispatch raiding parties of
French and Indians into New York and New England. In
the latter the French were aided by the eastern Indians,
who had been at war with the English colonists for the
past two years.1 Leisler, who had assumed the govern
ment of New York upon the deposition of Andros, appealed
to Connecticut for aid. Connecticut, sympathizing with
his cause, dispatched ten men to help garrison the fort at
New York and a company of soldiers under Capt. Bull to
Albany to guard the frontier.2 A part of the Connecticut
force was at Schenectady when the massacre at that place
occurred.3 Upon receiving news of this calamity, Con
necticut sent two hundred reinforcements to Albany.4
1 Palfrey, Hist, of New England, III, 567; IV, 29 et seq. Connecticut
came to the aid of Massachusetts in the war with the Eastern Indians
with two hundred men. Col. Rec, IV, 2, 3, 4.
2 Col. Rec, III, 255; Doc. Rei. to the Col. Hist, of N. Y, III, 589.
O'Callaghan, Documentary Hist, of N. Y, II, 20, 43.
3 Connecticut lost five men killed and five captured in this assault. Col.
Rec, III, 463.
4 Ibid., IV, 16, 26.

MILITARY AFFAIRS. 107
The most important enterprise during the war in which
Connecticut took part was the abortive expedition against
Montreal in 1690. This expedition had been planned at a
meeting in New York of commissioners from that colony
and the colonies of New England.1 The land force con
sisted of 800 English and 1,800 Indians, under the com
mand of Fitz John Winthrop. When the Connecticut con
tingent reached Wood Creek on Lake Champlain, the
appointed place of rendezvous, it was found that the
Indians had not appeared. Furthermore, the canoes
necessary to transport the troops were not on hand and
the supplies which New York had engaged to provide
were inadequate. Sickness among the troops added to
the difficulties. In these circumstances a council of war
was called by Winthrop and a retreat was determined
upon. Upon the arrival of Winthrop at Albany it appears
that Leisler, enraged at the failure of the enterprise,
ordered the arrest and court martial of Winthrop.
Trumbull states that after being kept in confinement for
several days Winthrop was rescued by some Mohawk
Indians "to the universal joy of the army." 2 When the
news of Winthrop 's arrest reach Connecticut the General
Court dispatched a letter to Leisler demanding the im
mediate release of the general.3 Upon an examination of
the case by the Court, Winthrop was fully vindicated.4
4 There appear to have been some Connecticut troops in the naval ex
pedition under Phips which was sent out in conjunction with Winthrop's
expedition. Sewall, Letter Book Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls, 6th Ser, I, 126.
2 Trumbull, I, 384. There seems to be no question that Leisler actually
arrested Winthrop. The story of his rescue, however, may have originated
in Trumbull's known penchant for the dramatic. See Winthrop's Journal
of his march to Wood Creek; Mass. Hist. Soc Colls, 5th Ser, VIII, 312
et seq. Also Doc. Bel. to the Col. Hist, of N. Y, IV, 193 et seq.; Mass.
Hist. Soc. Colls, 5th Ser, VIII, 307 et seq.; ibid., 5th Ser, I, 440; Palfrey,
op. cit., IV, 221.
3 Trumbull, I, Appendix, XXIV.
4 Col. Rec, IV, 38; O'Callaghan, Doc. Hist, of N. Y, II, 300, gives
Leisler's version.

108 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
During the remainder of the war Connecticut was
almost constantly called upon to furnish aid to her neigh
boring colonies, and usually the colony responded gener
ously. In 1691 Connecticut declined to send 150 men to gar
rison Albany on the ground of poverty and the exposed
condition of her own frontiers.1 In 1692 Fletcher arrived
as Governor of New York, and the difficulty over the com
mand of the militia of Connecticut, which has been re
ferred to, naturally led to strained relations between him
and the colony officials,2 but Connecticut continued to
send aid to New York throughout the war.3 Contribu
tions of money and supplies, with troops, were likewise
sent to Massachusetts.4 The total expenses of Connecti
cut in this ten years of war has been estimated at more
than 12,000 pounds, nearly all expended for operations
outside of her own borders.5
In 1701 began the second intercolonial war, better known
as Queen Anne's war. The year after the war started
Joseph Dudley was appointed Governor of Massachusetts
and Lord Cornbury Governor of New York. The rela
tions of Connecticut with these two men were, to say the
least, not cordial. In 1703 the colony had sent 100 men
to aid Dudley in the war against the eastern Indians.6
Difficulties almost immediately arose, Dudley insisting
that the Connecticut troops while in Massachusetts should
be under his orders.7 Cornbury, on the other hand, was
continually complaining of his inability to get aid from1
Connecticut.8 The statements of both these men undoubt-
1 Doc Rei. to the Col. Hist, of N. Y, III, 786.
3 Fletcher continually complained of the difficulty of obtaining aid from
Connecticut. Doc. Rei. to the Col. Hist, of N. Y, IV, 157, 174, 243.
3 Col. Rec, IV, 87, 160, 217.
'Ibid., IV, 64, 89, 129, 216.
5 Trumbull, I, 397.
"Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls, 6th Ser, III, 139, 153, 163.
' Ibid., 6th Ser, III, 273.
3 Doc. Rei. to the Col. Hist, of N. Y., IV, 1061, 1070.

MILITARY AFFAIRS. 109
edly have to be taken with considerable reservation. They
were, at the time, engaged in a combined attempt to over
throw the charter of Connecticut, and their representa
tions were unquestionably not disinterested.1 When, in
1707, Dudley requested aid from Connecticut in a contem
plated expedition against Canada the General Court flatly
refused, stating that they had not been consulted in plan
ning the expedition, and further that they had been at
considerable expense in defending the western frontier of
Massachusetts.2 In 1709 the English Government for the first time took
an active part in the war in America, and, as events
proved, it was to be an inglorious beginning. A general
plan had been arranged for the subjugation of Canada.
Twelve hundred men were to be equipped in Massachu
setts and Rhode Island, which force was to attack Quebec.
Fifteen hundred men from Connecticut, New York, New
Jersey and Pennsylvania were to march against Quebec.3
To these was to be added a sufficient English fleet. In the
colonies everything was prepared. Connecticut's contin
gent of 350 men was armed and equipped4 and sent to
Wood Creek, the place of rendezvous of the western force.
After a long wait for the help promised from England,
news was received that the fleet and troops were needed
at home. With this intelligence the expedition was
abandoned and the forces at Wood Creek, which had
i In 1705 through the activity of Dudley and Cornbury a series of
complaints had been made against Connecticut and Rhode Island with a
view to overthrowing their charters. A bill introduced in Parliament
for the purpose of vacating all colonial charters. Through the efforts of
Sir Henry Ashurst, the agent of Connecticut, the bill failed to pass the
House of Lords. Trumbull, I, 411 et seq.; R. I. Col. Rec, IV, 12, 16;
Palfrey, IV, 367 et seq.
2 Col. Rec, V, 17, 18.
3 Doc. Rei. to the Col. Hist, of N. Y, V, 72.
* Col. Rec, V, 91, 123.

110 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
suffered much from an epidemic sickness, retreated. The
whole costly expedition had come to nothing.
The following year (1710) the project was renewed. A
force under Col. Nicholson, made up of New England
troops, with a few small English vessels and a regiment of
royal marines, proceeded to Port Royal, which, after a
week 's siege, was forced to surrender. 1 This success stimu
lated the authorities in England to greater efforts. In 1711
a fleet of fifteen men of war and forty transports with some
five thousand troops, arrived at Boston. The colonists
responded generously. A meeting of the Governors and
military officers was held at New London to decide on
the quota to be furnished by each colony and provide for
supplying the expedition with food.2 Connecticut's quota
was fixed at 360 men, which number was promptly raised.3
As in the previous expeditions, the Connecticut contin
gent joined the forces in New York for an attack on
Montreal. The fleet which left Boston in due season con
veying seven thousand troops, while proceeding up the St.
Lawrence river, lost its way in a fog and some ten or
eleven of the ships were driven on the rocks and nearly
1,000 persons drowned. This disaster caused the with
drawal of the remainder of the fleet and the land force
which had gathered near Lake Champlain. Thus the
third attempt to subdue Canada had ended in dismal fail
ure. 4 The following year the war was closed by the treaty
of Utrecht. During the war Connecticut, besides furnish
ing her quota of men in the several Canadian expeditions,
had almost constantly kept troops in Massachusetts to
guard the western frontier.5
Palfrey, IV, 277. Connecticut furnished three hundred men in this
expedition. Col. Rec, V, 164.
2 The Journal of this congress is printed in Doc. Rei. to Col Hist of
N. Y, V, 257.
8 Col. Rec, V, 247. The Journal says three hundred men.
4 Palfrey, IV, 278; Trumbull, I, 441 et seq.
s Col. Rec, V, 167, 295, 300, 326.

MILITARY AFFAIRS. Ill
With the cessation of hostilities, there was to be a period
of more than twenty-five years of peace between England
and France. In the colonies, however, trouble was con
stantly arising between the English and the eastern In
dians, urged on by the French. In 1722, as a result of"
many depredations by the natives in Maine, the General
Court of Massachusetts declared war against the eastern
Indians.'1 When applied to for aid in prosecutmg the war,
Connecticut declmed on the ground that ' ' the war was not
such an invasion of the frontiers, as was understood by
his Majesty in his instructions" to the governor of Mass
achusetts.8 The colony agreed, however, to send troops
into Hampshire County to protect the frontier towns.
Further urgent requests for aid met with no better suc
cess, Connecticut maintaining that she had not been con
sulted before war was declared, and was not satisfied as
to its justice.3 The struggle was finally ended in 1725. 4
In 1739 war broke out between England and Spain.
It was determined to send an expedition to the Spanish
West Indies and South American colonies and the New
England colonies were called upon to furnish four regi
ments.5 The quota for each colony was not fixed, as it
was stated that they "would not set bounds to their Zeal
for the Service. ' '6 Of the 1,000 New England troops that
joined this ill-fated expedition, two hundred were from
Connecticut.7 The land force, consisting of twelve thou
sand soldiers under Lord George Cathcart,8 joined the
'- Acts and Resolves of Prov. of Mass. Bay, II, 258.
2 Col. Rec, VI, 335, 336; MS. Rec War, III, 178-188.
3 Col. Rec, VI, 503.
' Palfrey, IV, 443.
« See letter of the Duke of New Castle to Gov. Talcott. Conn. Hist.
Soc Colls, V, 191.
e Ibid., V, 230.
' Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls, V, 269, 304; Col. Rec, VIII, 324.
¦ He died on the voyage south and was succeeded by Gen. Wentworth.

112 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
considerable fleet of Admiral Vernon at Jamaica. After
some delay, during which the forces were decimated by
the tropical climate, it was determined to lay siege to the
Spanish fortress at Cartagena. After an ineffectual
siege, characterized by incompetence, if nothing worse,
on the part of the commander, the fleet and the remnants
of the army returned to Jamaica. Of the New England
contingent scarcely one tenth ever returned home.1
In 1740 this war became merged in the general Euro
pean struggle over the Austrian Succession. As was to
be expected, England and France took opposite sides in
the strife, but it was not until 1744 that war was formally
declared between them, and once again the rival colonies
in America were engaged in the struggle. Governor
Shirley laid before the General Court of Massachusetts
a plan for the reduction of the French fortress at Louis-
burg. The proposal was received with amazement by the
Court and voted down as being quite beyond the re
sources of the colony. The scheme however was received
with favor by the people and the General Court finally
consented.2 Aid was sought from the other colonies but
only the New England colonies responded; Connecticut
with 500 men, and the sloop Defence.3
The combined colonial force under Wm. Pepperell of
Massachusetts,4 arrived safely at Canseau within fifty
miles of Louisburg. The troops were detained a month
waiting for the ice to break up. In April the forces were
materially strengthened by the arrival of Commodore
1 Trumbull, II, 288.
2 Palfrey, V, 62 et seq.
3 Col. Rec, IX, 83, 84. The Massachusetts contingent was 3,250 men;
Rhode Island promised 300 men but they did not appear until the cam
paign was over; New Hampshire furnished 300 men and New York con
tributed ten small guns. New Jersey and Pennsylvania sent some pro
visions. Palfrey, V, 64.
* Roger Walcott of Connecticut was second in command.

MILITARY AFFAIRS. 113
Warren with several English men of war. After a siege
of seven weeks the fortress was forced to capitulate.1
The news of the capture naturally caused great rejoicing
throughout New England, but this joy was changed to
chagrin when it was learned that by the treaty of peace
the fortress was given back to the French. The capture
of Louisburg raised once more the vision of the subjuga
tion of Canada. The proposal was favorably entertained
in England, and help was promised. The colonies voted
to raise some 8,000 men, Connecticut's quota being 1,000,
but the failure of the English force to arrive, and an
alarm from another quarter caused the abandonment of
the expedition.2 Before any further military operations
could be planned, the war was closed by the treaty of
Aix La Chapelle.
With the advent of the last of the intercolonial wars,
an important step was taken by the home government to
bring about closer cooperation and greater efficiency
among the colonial troops. The previous wars had
abundantly shown the weakness of the system of divided
responsibility and control which prevailed in the colonies.
Some of the colonies had contributed willingly to the
cause of general defence, while others had been far less
generous. Usually the loyalty of the colonists was in
direct proportion to their sense of immediate danger.
With a view to remedying these evils the authorities in
England determined to place the colonial troops under
a commander-in-chief appointed in England and to send
to the colonies a considerable force of regular troops.
1 Palfrey, 70 et seq. ; Trumbull, II, 282. Connecticut furnished in all
1,150 men in this enterprise. Col. Rec, IX, 83, 128, 155.
2 News had reached the colonies of the despatch of a large French fleet
to ravage the whole Atlantic coast. This caused the colonists to look to
the defence of their coast towns. Nothing came of the expedition, the
French fleet meeting with disaster before it reached the New England
coast. Palfrey, V, 86.

114 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
The plan while sound in principle was unfortunately ex
ecuted. The first commanders, Braddock, Shirley, Lou
doun and Abercrombie, were all incompetent, and their
successive failures did not increase the loyalty or effi
ciency of the colonial troops. But with the accession of
Pitt to power in England, leaders of real ability were sent
to the America, and the final subjection of Canada was
the reward.
The last and most important of the struggles for col
onial supremacy in the New World opened in 1754, two
years before war broke out between England and France
in Europe. Only that phase of the war which imme
diately concerned New England, and particularly Con
necticut, will be touched upon here.
Of the three expeditions planned in 1755, one against
Fort Duquesne, one against Niagara, and one against
Crown Point, we are immediately concerned with the last.
A force of about three thousand men, mostly from Mas
sachusetts and Connecticut, under the command of Wil
liam Johnson of New York, were dispatched to attack
Crown Point. They reached Wood Creek where they
were surprised by a French force under Dieskau. The
too confident French General attacked the English who
were protected by rude intrenchments. After an obsti
nate conflict the French gave way and were pursued
through the woods by the New England men. Johnson,
who had been wounded early in the struggle, received full
credit for this victory, although the real leader was Gen
eral Phineas Lyman of Connecticut.1
In the winter of 1755 Shirley met the colonial gover- .
nors at New York,2 and plans were discussed for the cam-
1 Connecticut sent 1,500 men in the expedition and later 1,500 rein
forcements. The losses of Connecticut in the Battle of Lake George were
fifty-nine killed, wounded and missing. Col. Rec, X, 344, 398; Doc Rei
to the Col. Hist, of N. Y, VI, 1006.
"There appeared only the governors of Connecticut, New York, Penn
sylvania and Maryland. Palfrey, V, 144.

MILITARY AFFAIRS. 115
paigns of the following year. The plans, however, were
frustrated by the displacement of Shirley as commander-
in-chief, and the appointment of the Earl of Loudoun
with Gen. Abercrombie, second in command. This action
followed shortly after the declaration of war between
England and France. Against these incompetent officers
was matched the Marquis de Montcalm who succeeded
Dieskau. Loudoun remained inactive during the year 1756. The
following year the plan of campaign was changed. In
stead of marching against Crown Point an expedition was
fitted out for a descent on Louisburg, but the undertaking
utterly failed, Loudoun returning without striking a blow.1
In the absence of Loudoun, Montcalm made his famous
descent upon Fort William Henry, resulting in its cap
ture.2 The great danger to which the northern colonies
were exposed by this disaster required energetic efforts
on the part of the colonists to defend their frontiers. No
less than twenty thousand troops were raised, of which
Connecticut furnished five thousand.3
Meanwhile a change in the ministry of England had
placed Pitt in power, and with this change a more ener
getic policy in prosecuting the war was inaugurated.
Loudoun was displaced by Abercrombie, who proved to
be no more competent than his predecessor. One disas
trous, almost humorous, campaign demonstrated the inca
pacity of this officer, 4 and he was displaced by Sir Jeffrey
Amherst, who had but recently effected the capture of
Louisburg.5
1 This Connecticut contingent in this abortive expedition was 1,400 men.
Col. Rec, X, 598.
2 Palfrey, V, 152.
3 Col. Rec, XI, 92. See letter from Pitt Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls, I, 329;
Doc Rei. to the Col. Hist, of N. Y, VII, 329.
4 Palfrey, V, 160.
s Ibid., V, 163.

116 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY.
The campaign of 1759 involved three movements, one
under Gen. Prideaux against Fort Niagara, a second
under Amherst against Ticonderoga and Crown Point,
and a third under Wolfe, directly against Quebec. A
Connecticut contingent of five thousand men was with
the army of Amherst.1 With little difficulty Ticonderoga
and Crown Point fell into the hands of the English. The
force under Amherst was relieved of the necessity of pro
ceeding to Quebec, having received intelligence that that
place was already in the hands of Wolfe. With these
events the conquest of Canada was assured. In the spring
of 1760 Amherst marched with a force of ten thousand
regulars and provincials2 against Montreal. With slight
resistance this last stronghold of France was taken and
all the French possessions in Canada passed to the
British crown.
The conquest of Canada did not close the war. In 1761
a requisition for a new levy of troops was made, which
troops were used in repairing the forts, which had fallen
into the hands of the English, and for garrison purposes.3
In 1762 another request for troops was received, and
Connecticut with commendable generosity again raised
2,300 men.4 One thousand of this force, with 1,300 from
New York and New Jersey under the command of Major
General Lyman, took part in the expedition against Ha
vana.5 Few of the troops that engaged in this campaign
ever returned to Connecticut.6
i Col. Rec, XI, 222.
2 Connecticut had raised five hundred men for this campaign. Col. Rec,
XI, 349.
3 Ibid., XI, 480. See letter from Pitt, Doc. Rei. to the Col. Hist, of
N. Y, VII, 452; R. I. Col. Rec, VII, 262. Connecticut raised 2,300 men.
4 Col. Rec, XI, 614. A bounty of five pounds was also offered to those
who would join the regular army. Ibid., XI, 622.
s War had again broken out between England and Spain in 1762.
« Trumbull, II, 449.

MILITARY AFFAIRS. 117
Early in 1764 a request was received for troops to join
the forces of Amherst which were operating against the
Indians on the western frontier.1 At first the General
Court did not see fit to comply with the request as the
colony "was not exposed by its situation" to danger.
Finally, however, it was agreed to raise two hundred and
sixty-five men, who, probably, never left the colony, as the
struggle had been brought to a close.
1 See letter from Halifax, New Hampshire Prov. Papers, VII, 28.

VITA.
The author of this monograph was graduated from Public
School 55, New York City, in 1894 ; attended the College of the
City of New York, 1894-1899, graduating with the degree of
B.S. ; pursued post-graduate courses in the faculty, of Political
Science, Columbia University, receiving the degree of A.M. in
1903, and Ph.D. in 1906 ; taught in the New York public schools
1899-1902 ; appointed tutor in the department of history, Col
lege of the City of New York, 1902-1906 ; instructor, 1906-.

119

a39002 000096it39b

¦|IWI|l*»WM»l>'IIMIWHIlll I"