A website from the Massachusetts Historical Society; founded 1791.

Papers of the Winthrop Family, Volume 4

101
John Winthrop to John Wheelwright 1
JW Massachusetts Bay Company General Court Wheelwright, John

1639-03

Sir,

Your lettere about Winnacunnet I imparted to our General Court, who taking the same into Consideration have vpon mature deliberation ordered this answer to be returned to you.

1: It is verye strange to vs, that our lands which we have granted vs by his majesties Patent, and which we have divers years since taken possession off, and declared them both by public order of Court which some of your Company being then members of our Colony might or ought to have taken notice of: and others who are strangers might have doone the like by our erecting a house vpon the place, should now be Challenged by a new found title taken from the Indians: which Course how it will stand with Religion, good neighbourhood, or common honesty we leave to your selues and others to Judge, being not forward to express the Iniury which we iustly conceive hath been offered us herin.

2: Though we are not bound to plead our title of what we possesst before our neighbours who were after vs, yet to manifest our desire (as far as in vs lyes) to live peaceably with all men we are content to declare what right we have. 1: we challenge it by vertue of our Patent as lying within 3 miles of the most n: parte of the river of merrimack, which though we have not yet surveyed, yet by relation of all who have travayled vp that River (and particularly mr. Wm. Hilton and mr. Joselin and Mr. Edw. Johnson) the place in question is within these bounds and more to spare then we intended to make vse off.

2: we challenge it by our possession, which we took peaceably, built a house vpon it, and so it hath continued in our peaceable possession ever since without any interruption or Claim of any Indian or other, which being thus taken and possessd as vacuum domicilium gives vs a sufficient title against all men.

3: For your title from the Indians, we deny it to be of any validity.

1: You cannot derive a good title to those Indians from whom you claym but men shalbe able to prove as good an Interest in some other Indians.

2: we deny that the Indians heere can have any title to more lands then they can improve, which we have stood vpon from the first, though to take away occasion of offence in some who are not so well satisfied herin, and for 102other Considerations we have been content to give them some consideration in that kind. For clearing of this we conceive that man hath an interest to land 2 wayes: by a naturall right when God gave the earth to the sonnes of men, all men by this have a like right, by vertue whereof any man may make vse of any part of the earth, which another hath not possessed before him and illegible with it as our fishermans stages and his possession determineth his interest The other is a Civill right, when men growing into Civill societies and by attainment of Artes and trades have therby means to improve more lands, and to illegible mens Interests to posteryty etc. if you object that they have Commenced etc. any there which are Civill Actions we Answear 1. that one or even some morall Actions make not a Civill bodye and ergo no Civill relation, no more than memory labour obedience to Commands, etc. doe declare a horse to be a reasonable Creature. These natives have no other but a naturall right, and that is only to so much land as they have means to subdue and improve.

1. A Civill relation cannot appertain to an incivill subiect: if it be obiected that a fool or rude man may have a civill right etc. it is granted, but that is by vertue of his illegible in some Civill body otherwise he cannot therefore it is that the bodye is illegible to supply his defecte by appointing him a gardian, not only himself2 but improvement of his estate: if you object again

2. God gave the earth etc. to be subdued, ergo a man can have no right to more than he can subdue: if it be again objected that then it were lawfull in England etc: to take from any man such lands as he cannot vse. It is denyed vpon the former ground, for though the particular person cannot yet the Civill bodye can, and will, withhold not any our Indians for their whole bodye have no artes Cattle or other menes to subdue and improve any more of those lands then they plant with Corne.

Ca. March, 1638/39
1.

W. 1. 126. For the dispute between the town of Exeter, New Hampshire (of which John Wheelwright was chief settler), and the Massachusetts Bay Colony regarding the title to the land at Hampton, New Hampshire, where a settlement had been begun in the fall of 1638, see Journal, I. 293–294, 306; also printed in D.J.W. at 283 and 296 .

2.

The words “not only himself” have been substituted in the original manuscript for “to the end that the body may not be damnified for want of due.”