|
|
| Prev
| SHEPARD, SHEPPARD, SHEPHERD or SHEPHERD
| Next
|
| Volume 4, Page 73
|
|
and Corbet, in equal. solemn act of 22 July 1647, with the two
Earls of Warwick and Manchester, Winthrop II. 319;- and the same
four in a prior letter of 25 May 1647, Winthrop II. 320, implicit. deny
any such grant to Mass. So that we have seen of the nine denounc.
the spurious act, and four of them twice over, and the two Earls even.
thrice. Prob. the parchm. was sent by one or both of the former Mass.
agents, Hugh Peter and Thomas Welde; but I ought not to charge on
either of them an intent to deceive, unless a false date led irresistab.
to such deduct. It was only a draft or project of a patient, it might be
said; but that 10 Dec. 1643 was a Sunday. A judicial blindess
seems to have attend. base or childish attempts at forgery in the remarka.
instances of tak. the Lord's day for date of the magnific. grant of all New
Hampsh. 17 May 1629, usual. call. the Wheelwright deed,--the petty
convey. to Brewster of only eighty acres at Portsmouth, 6 Dec. 1629,-and
this charter or patent to rob. R. I. of all the terrio. both E. and W. of
Narraganset Bay, 10 Dec. 1643. SIC SEMPER INJUSTIS. A subsequent
or aft. thot. was, indeed, the contrivance of Welde in his famous issue
of "Antiomians and Familists, & c." near. a. the same time. But such
jugglery is more to be expect. in a controversial pamphlet, than a solemn
State docum. Rogues must always dread the sun, and sometimes the
almanac.* The w. of S. was Margaret, and he d. Sept. 1650, she surv.
* A brief note (on the first word of the last sentence of this invalua. docum.
"Yeomen"), by Mr. Felt, is very significant. It proves that Chaucer, wh. d. 244 yrs.
bef. employ. the term for Given. Aft. Chaucer it was not prob. used in many cases;
but between the time of Bloody Queen Mary, and booby King James, it must have
given way to our modern word. The use of it proves too much by a great deal, if
intend. to indicate the issue of the deed Dec. 1643 bef. that of Mar. 1644. In those
94 days our languge did not so rapid improve; but near twelve times as many
months, I suppose, our generous had supersed. the barbarous term, at least insolemn
acts of States; and we all feel, that the right of existence in a large community
should not be sett. by a point of verbal criticism.
Since the foregoing was written, I have gained the benefit of the sec. Vol. of the
Hist of N.E. and find that Dr. Palfrey (whose inspection nothing escapes) had felt
more than one difficulty on this subject. A valua. note on p. 217 states, "resecting
this patent," "there are some things obscure." He then adopts the suggest. that
"it was prob. obt. by Welde," concur. with the presumpt. express. in the Rec. of
R. I. II. 162, but aggravates the palpable obscure by a most reasona. conject. that it
was "without authority from Mass; Yet it would seem very odd, that a solemn
patent conveying jurisdict. from the sovereign power of Eng. to the colony of Mass.
over the whole of the present state of R. I. should be solicit. by a private man for
her without any commiss. thereunto. Next, the acumen of the historian observes,
that "Williams's patent CONFLICTS with it; and we are left without informat. as to
the cause wh. could have led to such an inconsistency on the part of the Commissioners."
Certain. that act of the E. of Warwick, Sir Arthur Hesselrige, Samuel Vassal, Miles
|
|
