“At Narraganset, the 24th of the first month, commonly called March, the second year of the plantation or planting at Moshassuck, or Providence; Memorandum, that we, Canonicus and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of Narraganset, having two years since sold unto Roger Williams the lands and meadows upon the two fresh rivers, called Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, do now, by these presents, establish and confirm the bounds of these lands, from the river and fields of Pawtucket, the great hill of Notaquoncanot, on the northwest, and the town of Mashapaug, on the west.[143] We also, in consideration of the many kindnesses and services he hath continually done for us, both with our friends of Massachusetts, as also at Connecticut, and Apaum, or Plymouth, we do freely give unto him all that land from those rivers reaching to Pawtuxet river; as also the grass and meadows upon the said Pawtuxet river. In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands.” The mark (a bow) of CANONICUS. The mark (an arrow) of MIANTINOMO. In the presence of The mark of SOHASH. The mark of ALSOMUNSIT. “1639. Memorandum. 3d month, 9th day, this was all again confirmed by Miantinomo. He acknowledged, that he also [illegible][144] and gave up the streams of Pawtucket and Pawtuxet, without limits, we might have for our use of cattle. Witness hereof, ROGER WILLIAMS, BENEDICT ARNOLD.” The lands thus ceded to Mr. Williams he conveyed to twelve men, who accompanied, or soon joined, him, reserving for himself an equal part only. Before we narrate the particulars of this transaction, a few remarks are necessary. It appears from the tenor of the deed, and from other evidence, that the original sale included only the lands mentioned in the first part of the deed. These are said by the sachems to have been “sold” to Mr. Williams. The grass and meadows on Pawtuxet river are said to be given to him, in consideration of his services. An interesting question, which occasioned much debate in the early times of the colony, claims consideration here. Were the lands, ceded by the sachems, so conveyed, that they became the property of Roger Williams himself, and might he, with justice and honor, have sold or retained them, as he pleased? An answer to this question will throw light on his subsequent conduct. The conveyance in the deed is made to him alone. The title, consequently, was vested in him, so far as the instrument went. But this fact does not decide the point. It was a subject of accusation against him, that the conveyance was not made to him and _his associates_. Did he, then, act on behalf of others, as well as for himself?