[530] Church, _op. cit._, Dexter edition, i, p. 182, mentions the sale of an old Indian named “Conscience” to a native of Swanzey. Perhaps an exception was made in the case of this Indian, because of age. Another exception appears to have been made by the Plymouth Court, September 1, 1676, when Sergeant Rogers was allowed to keep his Indian man at his own house, provided he should produce the said Indian on demand of the court. Hough, _op. cit._, p. 186. Still another exception was made by the Plymouth Court at the same session granting Church the right to “some five or six Indians,” who, if their behavior was satisfactory, might remain in the colony and not be sold to foreign parts unless any of them should be proved to have murdered any of the English. One Indian named “Crossman” was especially mentioned, as he had been accused of murdering Mr. Hezekiah Willet. _Plymouth Colony Records_, xi, p. 242; Baylies, _op. cit._, ii, pt. iii, p. 188. [531] Pamphlet published in Cambridge in 1677, now in possession of the Boston Athenaeum. The full text is as follows: “At a court held at Boston in New England, the 29th of March, 1677. The council being informed that certain strange Indians, who have been in Hostility against us, or have lived amongst such, are brought into this Jurisdiction, and bought by several persons, which causeth much trouble and fear to the Inhabitants where they reside, and may be of dangerous consequence, not only to the Towns where they live, but to the whole Jurisdiction, if not timely prevented: “It is therefore Ordered that what person soever within this Jurisdiction shall hereafter buy or keep above ten days after the publication hereof, any such Indian, man or woman already bought, above the age of twelve years, without allowance from authority, shall besides the forfeit of such Indian or Indians, pay the fine of five pounds to the Treasurer of the Country, and the Constables of the several towns are ordered forthwith to publish this Order in their Precincts. By the Council, Edward Rawson, Secr.” [532] _Plymouth Colony Records_, v, p. 253. [533] _Ibid._, ix, p. 71. [534] Sylvester, _op. cit._, ii, p. 259; _Plymouth Colony Records_, v, p. 173. This action was opposed by Church, but without result. [535] Sylvester, _op. cit._, ii, p. 259; _Plymouth Colony Records_, v, p. 174. Church, _op. cit._, Dexter edition, i, p. 46. [536] Belknap, _The History of New Hampshire_, i, pp. 143, 245; _New Hampshire Provincial Papers_, i, p. 357; Williamson, _The History of the State of Maine_, i, p. 539; Sylvester, _op. cit._, ii, pp. 339–340; Shurtleff, _op. cit._, v, p. 115. Hubbard and Mather barely mention this affair. Hubbard, _op. cit._, pt. ii, p. 28; Mather, _Magnalia_, bk. 7, ch. 6. Williamson states that the propriety of the event was a “subject which divided the whole community; some applauded, some doubted, some censured, but the government approved.”