from the published work “as containing matters of a nature unfit for publication.”8 Third, the limitation of publication to 250 volumes, most of them consigned to scattered government repositories, virtually guaranteed that the records would continue to languish in practical obscurity.9 It is hoped that the present work will resolve these issues.
The original manuscript of the New Haven records, consisting of approximately 250 folio-size pages, remains in the archives of the Connecticut State Library.
History of the Colony
A comprehensive history of the New Haven Colony is beyond the scope of this work,10 but some knowledge of that history is essential to understanding the trials conducted under the colony’s authority.
The Colony of New Haven, which existed from its founding in 1638 to its union with the neighboring Connecticut Colony in 1665, resulted from a lifelong friendship between two English Puritans. John Davenport, a vicar of the English church, and Theophilus Eaton, a wealthy London merchant, were, in Cotton Mather’s indelible phrase, the “Moses and Aaron” of the new community.11
Davenport (1597–1670) was a nonconformist, seeking to conform the church to biblical rules. Puritans like himself fell into disfavor under Charles I, and many of them looked to New England with the idea of founding biblically based communities there. Davenport’s childhood friend Eaton (1590–1658) had become wealthy through trade in Europe and was attracted by the possibilities of additional trade in the new world. “Thus a secular as well as a religious interest prompted the enterprise.”12
Under the leadership of Davenport and Eaton, a company of believers and traders sailed for Boston in 1637. Their stay in the Massachusetts Bay Colony appears not to have been congenial, and in 1638 they departed that colony to establish their own settlement at Quinnipiack Harbor on the northern shore of Long Island Sound, the location of modern-day New Haven.
For about a year, the colonists were occupied in building their new town, planting fields, and establishing an uneasy truce with the native inhabitants. In 1639, they turned to the task of establishing the rules by which the “plantation” was to be governed.
On June 4, 1639, the freemen of the plantation, about seventy in number, met in a large barn in New Haven “to consult about settling civil Government according to God.”13 It was agreed that “the Scriptures do hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in all duties which they are to perform to God and men.”14 A “fundamental agreement” was made that “Church members only shall be free burgesses, and they only shall choose among themselves magistrates and officers to have the power of transacting all public civil affairs of this plantation, of making and repealing laws, dividing inheritances, deciding of differences that may arise, and doing all things and business of like nature.”15
On October 25, 1639, seven men “who were in the foundation of the church” met to establish a formal civil government.16 These pillars of the church proceeded to recognize a “court”17 consisting of “all those that have been received into the fellowship of this church since the gathering of it” plus members of other “approved” churches.18 The “fundamental agreement” of 1639 was recognized as the basis of the plantation’s government.
Theophilus Eaton was chosen as “magistrate” for the term of one year. His charge, given to him by Davenport, was that of Deuteronomy 1:16–17: “Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.”
Robert Newman, Matthew Gilbert, Nathaniel Turner, and Thomas Fugill were chosen as “deputies” to assist the magistrate. Thomas Fugill was also chosen as “public notary.” His obligation in that capacity was “to attend court and from time to time to keep a faithful record of all passages and conclusions of the court.” Fugill’s faithful adherence to this task established a tradition of excellence in reporting that has made the present work possible. Robert Seely was chosen as “marshal.” His charge was “from time to time to warn courts according to the direction of the magistrate, to serve and execute warrants, to attend the court at all times, and to be ready and diligent in his person or by his deputy to execute the sentences of the court.” All officers were to be elected annually at a “General Court” of the plantation to be held during the last week of October.19
Prior to 1643, the term “New Haven” pertained to the town of that name. After that year, the name referred both to the town and to the more expansive “New Haven Colony.”20 The colony now encompassed a total of six towns: the town of New Haven, the towns of Branford and Guilford to the east, the towns of Milford and Stamford to the west, and the town of Southold on the North Fork of Long Island.21
On October 27, 1643, the magistrates and deputies of the six towns entered into a “fundamental order” elaborating on the “fundamental agreement” of 1639. Only “planters” who were members of “approved churches” were to be “free burgesses” with the right to vote. Only church members could occupy positions of “power or trust,” although all free planters would have the right “to their inheritance and to commerce.”22
The free burgesses of each town were to choose church members to be “ordinary judges, to hear and determine all inferior causes.” This latter term referred to civil cases involving less than twenty pounds and criminal cases involving corporal punishment or minor fines. Appeals from these judges could be made to the Court of Magistrates for the entire jurisdiction.
The Court of Magistrates consisted of the governor of the colony, the deputy governor, and magistrates elected by the free burgesses of the towns. The court was to meet twice a year in New Haven “for the trial of weighty and capital cases” and the hearing of appeals from the ordinary judges of the towns. Its decisions were subject to appeal to the General Court.
The General Court was “the last and highest” for the jurisdiction. It consisted of the governor, the deputy governor, all of the magistrates in the jurisdiction, and two deputies for each town, chosen by the free burgesses of that town. The General Court convened twice a year, on the first Wednesday in April and the last Wednesday in October. Its charge was to “with all care and diligence provide for the maintenance of the purity of religion and suppress the contrary.” It also had the power to make and repeal laws and to execute such laws throughout the colony.23
The General Court was thus not simply a judicial court of highest jurisdiction. The modern notion, drawn from Montesquieu, of separate legislative, executive, and judicial authorities,24 had no application to the New Haven Colony. The General Court combined all three functions in the same governing body.
Theophilus Eaton was elected governor of the colony. He would hold that position until his death in 1658.
In 1645, the General Court pronounced that “it was agreed, concluded and settled as fundamental law, not to be disputed or questioned hereafter, that the judicial laws of God, as they were delivered by Moses, and expounded in other parts of scripture, so far as they are a fence to the moral law … shall be accounted of moral and binding equity and force, and as God shall help shall be a constant direction for all proceedings here and a general rule in all courts of Justice how to judge betwixt party and party and how to punish offenders, till the same may be branched out into particulars hereafter.”25 We shall see to what extent this official principle actually guided the colony’s jurisprudence.
Prior to 1656, the General Court’s 1645 statement of “fundamental law” provided the official standard by which the magistrates of the New Haven Colony were to be guided in their decisions. No printed compilation of statutes existed. While the biblical standard proved helpful (perhaps too helpful) in some cases—notably bestiality cases, which were governed by specific scriptural edict—it was of minimal practical assistance in the much wider array of cases to which no specific biblical rule applied.