Transcript:Savage, James. Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England/v4p74

JOHN, Cambridge, prob. br. of Edward, m. 4 Oct. 1649, Rebecca, d. of
Samuel Greenhill, had Rebcca; Sarah, b. 5 Mar. 1656; John, 22 Jan.
1658; Violet; Elizabeth bapt. 29 July 1660; Edward, b.31 July 1662; Samuel,
bapt. 3 July 1664; Thomas, b. 30 Apr. 1666; Deborah; Abigail; and
Hannah. His w. d. 22 Dec. 1689, and he m. Martha, wid. of Arthur

Corbet, and Wm. Spurstowe on 14 Mar. 1644, conflicts with the possibility of their
having on 10 Dec. preced. grant. and convey. similar, aye the same, power and authority
to an antagonist. comp. Still, it is not only the conflict we inquire about, but
the case with wh. the weaker side prevail.; and so the perservering scrutiny next finds
remarka. "the forbearance of Mass. to found any practical claim upon it." Great
sagacity is observa. in suggest. of the reason by the elaborate writer,--"to have been
the caution of her magistra. a. involv. them in an admissn. of the lawfulness of the authty.
intrusted to the Parliamenta. Commissnrs." Here seems much more refinement than
solidity; but all need of such exercise of skill was taken away very soon, when it was
found that the pretended patent was only a flimsy fabrication. Dr. Palfrey had
on the former p. refer. to a letter in Gov. Winth's. Hist. II. 193, from the E. of
Northumberland and eleven others of the princip. leaders in affairs, of wh. eight were
not Commissnrs. of plantations, and took notice that only three whose names are
sign. to the spurious parchm. as Commissnrs. unit. with that recommend. of Ro.
Williams to friend. treatm. and therefore puts an inquiry--Were the Commissnrs.
cautious a. compromis. their dignity by demand. of Mass. what she was not unlikely to
deny? I can ascribe no such exquisite craft to our friends in Eng. epecial. bec. in
Nov. 1646 the Commissnrs. Order of 15 May preced. (relat. to Gorton and Holden),
so clear. asserts the wrong in views of Mass. "We find withal that the tract of ld.
call. the Narraganset Bay (concerning wh. the questn. is arisen), was divers yrs. since
inhab. by those of Providence, Portsmouth, and Newport, wh. are interest. in the
compl. and that the same is wholly without the bounds of the Mass. patent gr. by his
Majesty." This is on the page in Winthrop II. 281, next to that quoted by the modern
hist. to explain why Mass. would not take a charter.
Deep. as is felt the shame for such deception, that led our governm. to inform Williams
of the recent reception (27 Aug. 1645) of a charter, dat. 10 Dec. 1643, giv. to
Mass. the Narraganset Bay, and a certain tract of ld. wherein Providence and the isl.
of Quidy were includ. as in Palfrey II. 217 is plainly told, we may well exult at the
speedy triumph of equity and right in R. I. and Providence Plantations (feeble as
that side seem) over the formidab. array of the four provinces confederat. Fiat
justitia.
Conecticut and Plymouth, wh. were each stimulat. to claim part of this territo.
that now forms one of the glorious. old thirteen U.S. (at least, the greater part by one
and the remainder by the other) seem easi. to have discern. the futili. of such claims;
and believe that Gov. Bradford has not permit. even a word on the right of his
col. over R. I. to appear in his copious Hist. The love of justice and a true sense
of honor soon brought Gov. Winthrop to relinquish the whole jurisdict. E. of the
Pawcatuck riv. It is curious to read the modesty of statement by the recet hist. of
R. I. in the instructive pages 118 and 119 of Gov. Arnold. The sanctity of that
parchm. was assumed at Providence, in 1859, as it had been in 1645, at Boston;
but henceforward I hope, that neither patriotism nor timidity will be called to believe
a lie.