“We, whose names are underwritten, being chosen by the town, to set the disposal of the Indians now in town, we agree, that Roger Williams, Nathan Waterman, Thomas Fenner, Henry Ashton, John Mowry, Daniel Abbott, James Olney, Valentine Whitman, John Whipple, sen., Ephraim Pray, John Pray, John Angell, James Angell, Thomas Arnold, Abraham Mann, Thomas Field, Edward Bennett, Thomas Clements, William Lancaster, William Hopkins, William Hawkins, William Harris, Zachariah Field, Samuel Winsor, and Captain Fenner, shall have each a whole share in the product. Joseph Woodward, and Richard Pray, each three fourths of a share. John Smith, miller, Edward Smith, Samuel Whipple, Nelle Whipple, and Thomas Walim, each half share. “Inhabitants wanting to have Indians at the price they sell at Rhode-Island or elsewhere: “All under five years, to serve till thirty; above five and under ten, till twenty-eight; above ten to fifteen, till twenty-seven; above fifteen to twenty, till twenty-six years; from twenty to thirty, shall serve eight years; all above thirty, seven years. ROGER WILLIAMS, THOMAS HARRIS, sen. THOMAS ANGELL, (his mark.) THOMAS FIELD, JOHN WHIPPLE, jr. _August 14, 1676._” We cannot, at this day, determine, fairly, the question, how far the sale of the Indian captives was necessary or just. It is, however, painful to our feelings; and we cannot but be surprised and sorry, to see the name of Roger Williams connected with such a transaction. In May, 1677, Mr. Williams was elected an Assistant, but he declined, on account, probably, of his age. About this time, he wrote thus to the town of Providence: “I pray the town, that the place of meeting be certain, and some course settled for payment; that the clerk and sergeant be satisfied, according to moderation, that the town business may go on cheerfully; that the business of the rate (paid by so many already) be finished; that the old custom of order be kept in our meetings, and those unruly be reproved, or upon obstinacy, cast out from sober and free men’s company; that our ancient use of arbitration be brought into esteem again; that (it being constantly reported, that Connecticut is upon the gaining of his Majesty’s consent to _enslave us to their parish worship_) we consider what we ought to do.”[355]