THE PURITANS IN PLYMOUTH AND MASSACHUSETTS
It has been customary to regard the members of the colony of Virginia as
Cavaliers of the most ardent type, but, as has been shown, this is
scarcely correct, and amongst the Virginians there were many who did not
approve of either the actions of Laud or the dissimulation of Charles.
In much the same way it would be erroneous to ascribe to the New England
group a plebeian origin. The Virginian gentleman found his counterpart
in the New England colonies of Plymouth and Massachusetts. It is,
however, more true to describe these two colonies as the offspring and
embodiment of Puritanism, than to describe Virginia as purely
monarchical. In the northern colonies, congregationalism was the chief
form of religious worship, and this, as was natural, determined their
political form; it was no insurmountable step from a belief in
congregations to a belief in republics. The men who found this step so
easy were a very different pattern to the early ne'er-do-wells of
Virginian colonisation. The northern colonies were founded by the yeoman
and the trader, both of whom were patient, watchful, and ready to assert
with an Englishman's doggedness all political rights. These men formed
small organic communities filled with the very strongest sense of
corporate life. Not that these forms took an absolutely exact line, for
in some cases the community was a pure democracy with limitations and
restrictions; in others there was a very wide and modified oligarchy.
The men were the very best of settlers; they knew what they wanted, and
were ready to work and even sacrifice their lives to gain that object.
It is not surprising that in the New England colonies prosperity raised
its head long before it had come to Virginia, though the soil of the
latter was far more fertile than the sterile lands of the northern
group.
The Plymouth Company had been formed at the same time as the London
Company, but it had accomplished very little.[95] In 1607 it dispatched
an expedition under George Popham and Raleigh Gilbert to the River
Kennebec, in the territory afterwards called Maine. The climate,
however, did not suit the adventurers, and owing to the mismanagement of
the leaders and the indifference of the Company nothing came of the
undertaking. For thirteen years the Plymouth Company made no further
effort, but in 1620 it was entirely reorganised, placed upon a new
footing, and renamed the New England Company. This may have been caused
by two things. In the first place Captain John Smith had made a voyage
to New England in 1614; it was indeed that resourceful but perhaps
boastful adventurer who either gave the name by which the country was
afterwards known, or gave currency to an already existing though not
generally accepted title. "In the moneth of Aprill, 1614 ... I chanced
to arrive in _New-England_, a parte of _Ameryca_ at the _Ile of
Monahiggin_, in 43-½ of Northerly Latitude."[96] But even this voyage
and the several others that followed would not have been sufficient to
arouse the Plymouth Company. It was in truth a second and deeper cause
that started the reorganisation of a corporation that had so long lain
dormant. A new force had now entered into colonisation that was to do
much for the establishment of the Anglo-Saxon race in America. Religion
had sent men to convert the savages, but now religious persecution sent
men to make homes amongst those barbarians.
It is unnecessary here to discuss the rise of the Puritans as an
important sect in English history. They were those "whose minds had
derived a peculiar character from the daily contemplation of superior
beings and eternal interests."[97] They differed in nearly every respect
from the ordinary Englishman of the Elizabethan period, and yet they
were in many instances intellectual and well-bred. They saw, however,
that "they could not have the Word freely preached and the sacraments
administered without idolatrous gear," and so they concluded to break
away from the Church. It was this separation that gained for them the
name of Separatists, and brought upon them the punishment of the State.
To avoid this some sought leave from Elizabeth to settle in the land
"which lieth to the west," their object being to "settle in Canada and
greatly annoy the bloody and persecuting Spaniard in the Bay of
Mexico."[98] Such was the knowledge of geography about 1591, and it was
very fortunate for the would-be-colonists that nothing came of the
scheme. Two years later some Independents of London fled to Amsterdam,
where they hoped to exercise their religion unmolested. Soon after the
beginning of the seventeenth century the Nonconformists of Gainsborough
took refuge in the Low Countries, to be followed in 1606 by the
Congregationalists from Scrooby. They first found shelter in Amsterdam,
and later, some, choosing John Robinson as their minister, moved to
Leyden.
The laws of England had driven these men abroad, but they never forgot
the fact that they were Englishmen. They found their families growing up
around them and naturally imbibing foreign ideas. This fact deeply
pained the parents, who looked back upon their own happy youths in Tudor
England. They determined, therefore, to leave the Netherlands, and
William Bradford, their faithful chronicler, tells in quaint but honest
words why they were driven to this decision. "In y^e agitation of their
thoughts, and much discours of things hear aboute; at length they began
to incline to this new conclusion, of remooual to some other place. Not
out of any new fanglednes, or other such like giddie humor, by which men
are oftentimes transported to their great hurt & danger. But for sundrie
weightie & solid reasons."[99] The most serious of these reasons "and of
all sorowes most heauie to be borne; was that many of their children, by
these occasions (and y^e great licentiousnes of youth in y^t countrie)
and y^e manifold Temptations of the place, were drawne away by euill
examples into extrauagante & dangerous courses, getting y^e raines off
their neks & departing from their parents. Some became souldjers,
others took vpon them farr viages by Sea; and other some worse courses
... so that they saw their posteritie would be in danger to degenerate &
be corrupted."[100] It was for this reason, then, in particular, that
the people of the congregation of Leyden turned their thoughts to the
"countries of America which are frutful & fitt for habitation; being
deuoyed of all ciuill Inhabitants; wher ther are only saluage & brutish
men which range vp and downe, litle otherwise than y^e wild beasts of
the same."[101] And yet though they sought a home for themselves where
they might worship as they pleased, they were at the same time filled
with that missionary spirit which had encouraged Columbus and many
another adventurer to persevere. Their great aim was to lay "some good
foundation or at least make some way thereunto, for y^e propagating &
advancing y^e gospell of y^e Kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of
y^e world; yea, though they should be but even as stepping stones unto
others for y^e performing of so great a work."[102]
With these intentions the ever famous Pilgrim Fathers came to England,
bringing with them a document admitting the supremacy of the State in
religious matters. The wording of the clauses, however, was so artful
that these Puritans proved that though gentle as doves they were not
without the wisdom of the serpent. They obtained leave from James I. to
set out on their voyage; but they were financed by certain London
traders who were to receive all the profits for the first seven years,
when the partnership was to be dissolved. Until this dissolution the
whole band was to live as a community with joint property, trade, and
labour. A few labourers were sent out by the London partners, but the
group to which the term of Pilgrim Fathers strictly applies was composed
of forty-one Puritan emigrants and their families, who had, as a friend
said, "been instrumental to break the ice for others; the honours shall
be yours to the world's end."[103] The voyage of the _Mayflower_ is now
one of the most familiar events in the history of the British Empire.
The little vessel, accompanied by the _Speedwell_, which had to return,
sailed from Plymouth in August 1620. The original intention of the
emigrants had been to land on part of the shores of Virginia; but owing
to storms, the fragile character of the vessel, and the obstinacy of the
captain, they reached Cape Cod, "which is onely a headland of high hils
of sand ouergrowne with shrubbie pines hurts and such trash."[104] While
lying off this inhospitable promontory the emigrants with forethought
bound themselves together by a social compact, thus forming a true body
politic.
The Pilgrims landed at a spot "fit for habitation" in Cape Cod Harbour
on the 22nd of December. Exploring expeditions were undertaken by the
more adventurous under Miles Standish, a man after the type of Captain
John Smith, but less boastful and of sterner religious character. No
definite settlement was fixed upon and the people were therefore forced
to remain in the neighbourhood of Cape Cod, where they faced the winter
unprepared. Although their minister, John Robinson, had described them
months before as "well-weaned from the delicate milk of the Mother
country and inurred to the difficulties of a strange land,"[105] yet
their sufferings during those wild and stormy months must have been
terrible. Several of the party died, amongst them their first governor,
William Carver. His successor was the already mentioned chronicler,
William Bradford, who served the colony well and faithfully for twelve
years. He was the first American citizen of English birth who was
selected as governor by free choice. His strength of character, moral
rectitude, and lofty public spirit made him worthy of the high office
conferred upon him. Fortunately his first year of government was freed
from the burden of Indian attacks. The truth was that the Pilgrim
Fathers always preserved friendly relations with the neighbouring
Redskins; partly because they had been so reduced in numbers by
pestilence that they were never a serious danger, and partly owing to
Edward Winslow, one of the ablest and most highly educated of the
settlers, who had saved, by his knowledge of medicine, the Indian
chief's life, thus establishing from the first amicable relations.
Amidst the most heart-rending adversity the Pilgrim Fathers worked at
the communal industry, and struggled through those months of cold and
semi-starvation, helped no doubt by the fact that they were religious
enthusiasts filled with a sense of a divine mission. In May 1621
Bradford records the first marriage amongst the settlers, which was
conducted on somewhat novel lines, for "according to y^e laudable
custome of y^e Low-cuntries, in which they had liued was thought most
requisite to be performed, by the magistrate."[106] In November fifty
additional settlers came out from the Leyden congregation, and these not
only increased the difficulty of supplying food for everyone, but also
introduced a feeling of dissatisfaction with what they found. Bradford
had, however, the laugh on his side. On Christmas Day the Governor
called them to work as usual, but "the new company ... said it wente
against their consciences to work on y^t day." They were therefore
allowed to remain at home, the rest of the colony going out to work; but
when the governor came home at noon, "he found them in y^e streete at
play openly; some pitching y^e barr & some at stoole-ball and such like
sports. So he went to them and tooke away their Implements and tould
them that it was against his conscience, that they should play & others
worke."[107]
The settlers had indeed laboured hard and not in vain, for a definite
grant of their territory was issued by the New England Company, and
there was now no fear of their log-fort, their houses, or their
twenty-six acres of cleared ground being seized by the original members
to whom the land had been granted by James I. The little plot of ground
thus carefully tended seems to have been a real oasis in the wilderness.
An eye-witness, Edward Winslow, has drawn an ideal picture of the
settlement. "Here are grapes, white and red, and very sweet and strong
also; strawberries, gooseberries, raspas, etc.; plums of three sorts,
white, black and red, being almost as good as a damson; abundance of
roses, white, red and damask; single but very sweet indeed. The country
wanted only industrious men to employ."[108] With such a tempting
account it is not surprising that thirty-five new settlers went out in
1622.
The communal principle gradually began to break down. The younger men
did not care to work so hard and find that they gained no more than the
weak and aged; nor were the married men pleased with the idea of their
wives cooking, washing, and sewing for the bachelors. As early as 1623,
signs of the disappearance of the system were beginning to show
themselves; and by 1627 its break up was completed when the interests of
the London partners were transferred to six of the chief settlers with a
general division of land and live stock. The government of the
settlement was now placed on an assured footing; the laws were passed by
the whole body of freemen, who had also the double right of electing the
governor and a committee of seven assistants. Under the new methods the
colony throve apace, and three years after the change, two new townships
were formed and these sent delegates to an assembly which was primarily
composed of the whole body of freemen, but which, owing to the existence
of these delegates, gradually developed, until in New Plymouth there was
a proper bicameral legislature with a governor at its head.
The Plymouth colonists set "the example of a compact religious
brotherhood."[109] In 1636 they passed a code of laws which in no way
clashed with those of England, but applied more especially to the style
of life which they had adopted. The brotherhood extended its bounds year
by year, and hardly a score of years had passed since their first
landing before eight prim, clean, and comfortable towns had been built,
containing a population of about 3000 inhabitants. By this time the
Civil War had broken out in England, but the settlers were little
affected by it, for they lived their own quiet lives and went on their
way, filled with religious fervour and working hard to support
themselves.
After the Restoration, however, they felt bound to bestir themselves in
political affairs, and in June 1661 their general court sent a petition
to Charles II., asking him to confirm their liberties, explaining to him
that they were his faithful subjects "who did hither transport ourselves
to serve our God with a pure conscience, according to His will revealed,
not a three days' journey as Moses, but near three thousand miles into a
vast howling wilderness, inhabited only by barbarians." They concluded
their petition in the quaintest words, saying that if only the King will
grant their wishes, "we say with him, it is enough, our Joseph (or
rather) our Charles is yet alive."[110] The poverty of the Plymouth
brethren about this time is evidenced by their lack of funds necessary
for the renewal of their charter in 1665; and also in the fact that the
people were not able to maintain scholars for their ministers, "but are
necessitated to make use of a gifted brother in some places."[111]
Nevertheless in this same year they are computed to have had a fighting
force of 2500 men; and on two later occasions (1676 and 1690) they were
strong enough to make strenuous but ineffectual attempts to obtain a
charter from the Crown. The little colony that has perhaps the proudest
of all positions in American history was finally, in 1691, merged in its
more arrogant and pushing neighbour Massachusetts, and the land of the
Pilgrim Fathers lost its identity.
Just as Puritanism had been the cause of the foundation of New Plymouth,
so it was in the case of Massachusetts. Lord Macaulay has pointed out
that "the Puritan was made up of two different men, the one all
self-abasement, penitent gratitude, passion; the other proud, calm,
inflexible, sagacious."[112] The first type represented New Plymouth,
where Puritanism was distressed, and where its followers struggled
manfully but were self-abased. Massachusetts, on the other hand,
resembled the second type; here Puritanism was vigorous; the upholders
of the belief were aggressive, strong, determined, and pushing. Thus the
two colonies were not only different in character, but for that very
reason were destined to differ in prosperity.
As early as 1620, Sir Ferdinando Gorges and others had been interested
in the colonisation of New England; and in a document issued in the
following year, strict injunctions were laid down for the carrying out
of material fit for the foundation of a settlement. Thus, every "shipp
of three score tons shall carry w^{th} them twoe Piggs, two Calves, twoe
couple of tame Rabbetts, two couple of Hens and a cocke."[113] Nothing,
however, seems to have been permanently established, and within two
years this New England Company is said to have been "in a moribund
condition."[114] In 1623 some Dorchester traders started a fishing
station at Cape Ann, Massachusetts Bay. The manager was Roger Conant,
who had disagreed with his brethren in New Plymouth and had separated
from them. Three years later the scheme was abandoned; most of the
settlers returned except Conant and a small band who "squatted" at
Naumkeag, better known in later years as Salem. The failure of the
merchants did not discourage John White, incumbent of Dorchester, and he
determined to form a settlement for Puritans, from which there sprang
the colony of Massachusetts. Matters were at once hurried on, and in
1629 six Puritan partners obtained a grant of land from the New England
Company, which was to extend westward as far as the Pacific Ocean, then
believed to be but a short distance. One of the partners, John Endecott,
was selected to occupy the land. On his arrival he had some trouble with
an earlier but somewhat disreputable squatter called Morton, who had
formed a little colony, Merry Mount, where, apparently, his perfectly
innocent sports, such as dancing round the Maypole, annoyed the stern
New Englanders, and made them class such diversions as "beastly
practices." Endecott took strong measures, and as the Maypole was
particularly disgusting to the Puritan mind, he settled the matter by
hewing "down the _infelix arbor_."[115]
A royal charter was readily granted in March 1629, establishing the
Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay, but omitting to insist on the
Company's meetings being held in England. It was not a very great step,
therefore, to transfer the schemes of a mere trading company to the
principles of a self-sufficing colony; and before the end of the year
the interests of the traders passed into the hands of ten persons who
were particularly concerned in the prosperity of the colony, which in
the future was regarded as perfectly distinct from the Company. The
necessary preliminaries having been satisfactorily concluded, emigration
began at once. The character of the colonists was very superior to that
of the "riff-raff" that had been sent to Virginia. Some of the most
intellectual clergymen of the day took a deep interest in the
undertaking, a few indeed actually accompanied the three hundred and
fifty settlers who embarked for their new homes.
"The first beginning of this worke seemed very dolorous," writes the
chronicler, but the people were most fortunate in their choice of
governor, John Winthrop. He was a man of forty-three years of age, who
had received a good education at Cambridge and had some knowledge of the
law; he had passed the latter years of his life, before emigration, as a
Suffolk squire, and had been moulded in the school of Hampden. His
character was of the best, and he is revered as one of the strongest and
certainly one of the most lovable of the early settlers in America. He
was a thorough Puritan, but of that type of which Charles Kingsley wrote
and made so attractive. Like his brethren the governor showed humility,
but unlike so many he was sweet-tempered and moderate; not that he was
too gentle, for his decisive mind and sound constructive statesmanship
saved him from any appearance of weakness. It may be said, in short,
that Winthrop, as a man of wealth, of good birth, and of great
abilities, was the most remarkable Puritan statesman in colonial
history. He was assisted in his work by "the worthy Thomus Dudly,
Esq.,"[116] as Deputy Governor, and Mr Simon Brodstreet as Secretary.
Endecott's original settlement had been at Charlestown, where the
colonists had pitched some tents of cloth and built a few small huts;
but in 1630 Winthrop moved to Boston, which became the capital, and
within a few months eight small settlements were established along
Boston Bay.
A regular representative assembly with governor and assistants soon
became necessary, its importance being brought forward by the Watertown
protest. The freemen of this settlement refused to pay a tax of £60 to
fortify the new town of Cambridge, "and delivered their opinions, that
it was not safe to pay moneys after that sort for fear of bringing
themselves and posterity into bondage."[117] Thus it was seen that a
representative assembly was indispensable; it was not, however, until a
lost pig in 1644 had caused a petty civil suit which led to a quarrel
between the deputies and assistants that the Massachusetts parliament
became bicameral. Long before this the colony had been regarded with
disfavour in England. Archbishop Laud was only too ready to listen to
any stories against the Puritans; the colony was therefore solemnly
arraigned before the Privy Council and the three chief members were
questioned as to the conduct of the rest; and as an immediate
consequence the intending settlers of the year 1634 were not allowed to
sail without taking the oath of allegiance and promising to conform to
the Book of Common Prayer. The emigrants were willing enough to
subscribe to these as England was becoming unbearable. Laud with his
Arminian theories, Pym with his revolutionary ideas, and Charles with
his irresolution, were gradually causing a distinct emigration to what
the newcomers imagined was a land of peace. They arrived to find it in a
bellicose state, for the fact that a royal Commission of twelve, with
Laud at the head, had been appointed to administer the affairs of the
colonies, had so alarmed them that the colonists had started to fortify
Dorchester, Charlestown, and Castle Island.
Nothing perhaps is more astonishing than the bitter intolerance of those
who had fled to find toleration; but to the Puritan toleration was only
significant of indifference, and was therefore an abhorrent principle at
the very time he so sorely needed it. The religious dissensions during
the early years of the colony of Massachusetts illustrate the fanatical
and bigoted character of the Puritan quite as clearly as any particular
event or series of events in English history. It is painful to find even
in the first few months of the settlement, when Endecott was still in
command, many evidences of intolerance. John and Samuel Browne collected
a congregation and conducted the service according to the Book of Common
Prayer; but so horrible did this appear to Endecott that these luckless
men were expelled from the colony. Two years later political and social
rights were intimately connected with religious privileges by an
ordinance that no one was to be a freeman unless he belonged to a
church; and this was still further extended in 1635, so that no man
could vote at a town meeting unless he possessed the ecclesiastical
qualification.
Religious troubles were fomented, after 1631, by the able but bigoted
Roger Williams. He was a man of very considerable gifts, being both an
energetic and attractive preacher, but at the same time filled with an
intense hatred of Erastianism. As soon as he arrived he was chosen
minister of Salem, where he exhibited his imperfect sense of proportion
and gained for himself the title of "a haberdasher of small
questions."[118] His energy and impulsiveness led him astray, and the
more intellectual could hardly fail to see that his mind was incapable
of distinguishing the vital from the trifle. His political doctrines
forced him into extraordinary actions, such as that of persuading
Endecott to cut the cross out of the royal ensign; while at the same
time he not only denied the English sovereign's right to grant territory
in North America, but also with equal vehemence repudiated all secular
control in religious affairs. For four years the freemen of
Massachusetts quietly suffered Roger Williams' whimsicalities, but in
October 1635 their patience had come to an end, and the General Court of
the Colony banished him with twenty of his disciples, as his sympathetic
chronicler says, "and that in the extremity of winter, forcing him to
betake himselfe into the vast wilderness to sit down amongst the
Indians."[119] The kindly governor, John Winthrop, does not seem to have
approved of the verdict, for many years afterwards Roger Williams wrote
"that ever honoured Governour Mr Winthrop privately wrote to me to steer
my course to Nahigonset Bay.... I took his prudent motion as an hint and
voice from God, and waving all other thoughts and motions, I steered my
course from Salem (though in winter snow which I feel yet) unto these
parts, wherein I may say Peniel, that is, I have seene the face of
God."[120]
During the year 1635 three notable personages came to the colony. The
first was Henry Vane, the younger, "who," wrote Winthrop, "being a young
gentleman of excellent parts, and had been employed by his father (when
he was ambassador) in foreign affairs; yet, being called to the
obedience of the gospel, forsook the honors and preferments of the
court, to enjoy the ordinances of Christ in their purity here."[121] The
other two recruits were, John Wheelwright, a clergyman, and his sister
Mrs Anne Hutchinson, who was a woman of great learning and brilliance,
but by instinct an agitator of a most indiscreet and impetuous
character; although both acute and resolute, she allowed herself to be
carried away by her passion for theological controversy. Her religious
views were Antinomian and were strongly opposed to the doctrines of the
Puritans, who believed in justification by faith, strengthened by
sanctified works. To Governor Winthrop the distinction between the two
doctrines appeared to be a mere jargon of words, and he was not very far
wrong when he said "no man could tell, except some few who knew the
bottom of the matter, where any difference was."[122] Mrs Hutchinson
soon had a large following, including Wheelwright, Thomas Hooker, and
John Cotton, but the latter deserted her and refused to follow her in
all her heresies. In 1636 she was strongly supported by Harry Vane, who
was for a short time the governor; but in the following year both she
and her brother were tried before the General Court and were banished
as heretics.
Meantime the education of Massachusetts was not neglected, as is proved
by the foundation in 1636 of Harvard College at Cambridge, for "it
pleased God to stir up the heart of one Mr Harvard (a godly gentleman
and a lover of learning, then living amongst us) to give the one halfe
of his Estate (it being in all about 1700 _l._) towards the erecting of a
Colledge, and all his Library."[123] The building was erected rapidly
and was "very faire and comely within and without,"[124] says an
anonymous writer in 1641; but Charles II.'s commissioners do not seem to
have been so much impressed, as twenty years later they speak of it as a
wooden college. The great days of Harvard had not as yet arrived; nor
indeed was the learning more advanced even as late as 1680, for the
whole place is described by two Dutch visitors as smelling like a
tavern. "We inquired," they say, "how many professors there were, and
they replied not one, that there was no money to support one."[125] But
out of such small beginnings a great educational establishment rose
which has won for itself a famous name and added lustre to the annals of
the colony.
It seemed extremely likely that the war-clouds that had arisen in the
Old Country might drift across the Atlantic to New England. It was for
this reason that some sort of confederation between the colonies was
proposed; and in 1643 Massachusetts, New Haven, Plymouth, and
Connecticut formed the first New England Confederacy. A distinct desire
for religious and political unity had been in the air for some time,
not only because of the dread of Dutch and Indian attack, but also
because it was hoped that intercolonial quarrels might be checked, and a
firm and united attitude might be shown towards any encroachments on the
part of the British Government. There were, however, in this
confederation two essential weaknesses which sooner or later would
inevitably wreck the whole scheme. In the first place Massachusetts was
by far the largest, richest, and most prosperous of the colonies; it was
therefore called upon to contribute the largest share, but received no
more than the weaker and poorer members of the Union. Secondly, although
the federal government was exactly what was wanted, it could exercise no
direct control over the citizens of any particular colony. This latter
was probably the chief cause of the non-success of the confederation.
Maine and the settlements along the Narragansett Bay in vain pleaded to
be enrolled in the first United States; but they were refused as being
neither sufficiently settled nor possessing political order. The four
confederate colonies bound themselves by written conditions and were
denominated "The United Colonies of New England." It was obvious from
the very beginning that disagreement would come, if for no other reason
because of the struggle that was taking place in England. Massachusetts
was no more for the Parliament than for the King, while the other New
England colonies were as a whole sturdy supporters of Pym and his party.
Disagreement bred disagreement, as is seen in the proposal to fight the
Dutch in America, while Blake was winning fame in European waters. This,
however, was prevented by the commissioners of one colony standing out
against the opinions of the others. A similar lack of unity was only
too apparent in 1654, when Massachusetts consented to make war against
the Nyantic Indians, but the indifference and incapacity of their
captain caused general dissatisfaction among the rest of the
confederation.
The attitude of Massachusetts toward England during the Civil Wars was a
most unsatisfactory one; it was as it were prophetic of what was to
come. The contemptuous and haughty indifference shown by the colony to
Cromwell was not because of any deep-seated loyalty to Charles I.; it
was rather the exhibition of an independent spirit and a desire to leave
England and English affairs strictly alone, if they were allowed, in
turn, to live under the government of a governor and magistrates of
their own choosing and under laws of their own making. This feeling does
not seem to have been understood in England, and at the time of the
Restoration the colony was regarded as having been Parliamentarian in
its sympathies, whereas indeed it had been separatist. The Royal
Commissioners in 1661 found that Massachusetts "was the last and hardest
persuaded to use his Majesty's name in their forms of justice";[126] and
yet in February the King was petitioned to look upon the colonists
kindly and "let not the Kinge heare men's wordes: your servants are true
men, fearers of God and the Kinge, not given to change, zealous of
government and peaceable in Israel, we are not seditious as to the
interest of Cæsar nor schismaticks as to the matters of religion."[127]
The religion of Massachusetts was, at this time, of the narrowest and
most bigoted type. The colonists were intolerant of any opinion save
their own, and their cruel fanaticism was excited particularly against
the humble and law-abiding sect of Quakers. The General Court at Boston
regarded the Quakers as a positive danger to the State, and as people
"who besides their absurd and blasphemous doctrines, do like rogues and
vagabonds come in upon us."[128] In 1656 two Quaker women landed at
Boston; they were immediately treated with extreme brutality and finally
banished to the Barbadoes. This led to further definite enactments, and
at the instigation of some of the most intolerant clergy of Boston, an
act was passed imposing the penalty of death in cases of extreme
obstinacy. So brutal were the punishments inflicted even where no
extreme obstinacy was shown that it is probable that death was
preferable and welcomed by the ill-treated wretches who had fallen into
the hands of these fanatics. At the Restoration, Edward Burrough, an
English Quaker, took up the case of his brethren in Massachusetts, and
laid before Charles II. a list of brutalities that were only equalled by
the horrors of the Inquisition. We read of men being whipped
twenty-three times, receiving 370 stripes from a whip with three knotted
cords; two unhappy wretches were cut to bits by 139 blows from pitched
ropes, one being "brought near unto death, much of his body being beat
like unto a jelly."[129] Others were put neck and heels in irons, or
burnt deeply in the hand; some had their ears cut off by the hangman;
while many other free-born subjects of the King were "sold for bondmen
and bondwomen to Barbadoes, Virginia, or any of the English
Plantations."[130] Burrough succeeded in persuading the King to take
some action, and the Massachusetts Council was severely reprimanded for
the treatment it had meted out to the Quakers. As a result of the King's
interference the General Court at Boston determined in 1661 to act with
as much lenity as possible to the Quakers, but to prevent their
intrusion it was recognised that "a sharp law" against them was a
necessity.
During the last quarter of the seventeenth century the New England
Confederacy, including Massachusetts, was disturbed by all the horrors
of Indian warfare. In the year 1670 the Pokanoket Indians under their
chief Metacam, or as he was generally known, King Philip, became
unfriendly. For some time the warfare was not of a very serious
character, but at last in 1674 an Indian convert brought news of a
general attack, and paid the penalty of his fidelity to the English by
being murdered by Philip or one of his braves. The Indian chief now fell
upon the extreme south of New Plymouth, and fire, murder, and rapine
were common throughout the land. The Puritans of Boston, under their
Governor Leverett, saw in this terrible slaughter the hand of the Lord,
and in November the whole city passed a day of humiliation. Within the
chapels and homes their sins were openly acknowledged, but the people
showed more of the spirit of the Pharisee than of the Publican in this
humiliation before God. They penitently confessed that they had
neglected divine service, but what was to them still worse, they had
shown sinful lenity to the heretical sect of Quakers, and had indeed
invited the Almighty's wrath by an extravagance in apparel and in
wearing long hair. Pharisaical as this day of humiliation sounds, the
greater number of the people were probably genuine in their attitude
towards what they regarded as sin; and certainly when the time came they
were ready to prove themselves sturdy fighters. It was only natural that
the settlers should be successful in the end, for as a civilised people
they were better armed and better organised, but their victory was
delayed in the coming, and when the war was really over they found that
it had cost them dear. Edward Randolph writing at the time sums up the
English losses at a high figure. "The losse to the English in the
severall colonies in their habitations and stock, is reckoned to amount
to 150,000 l., there having been about 1200 houses burned, 8000 head of
cattle great and small, killed, and many thousand bushels of wheat,
pease and other grain burned ... and upward of 3000 Indians, men, women
and children destroyed."[131] King Philip, who had caused all this
destruction, was in 1676 hunted down and shot "with a brace of bullets
... this seasonable prey was soon divided, they cut off his Head and
Hands and conveyed them to Rhode Island, and quartered his Body and hung
it upon four trees."[132] With this last act of unnecessary barbarity
the Indian power was broken, and Philip's war was at an end.
Meantime the administration of New England had been vested in the hands
of special commissioners, whose powers were transferred to the Privy
Council. Under this system, revenue officers appointed in England were
sent out in 1675 to enforce the Navigation Acts, which were excellent as
a stimulus to English shipping, but were nevertheless retrograde with
regard to the colonies. Edward Randolph was despatched to America to
report upon the working of the colonial system under these famous laws,
and he showed, even as early as this, that the revenue acts were openly
violated by the people, who, a century later, were to be notorious for
their smuggling proclivities. Massachusetts was looked upon by the home
authorities with the strongest suspicion, which was still further
intensified by Edward Randolph's eight specific charges against the
settlers. (1) That they have no right to the land or government in any
part of New England, and that they have always been regarded as
usurpers; (2) that they have formed themselves into a commonwealth,
denying appeals to England, and refusing to take the oath of allegiance;
(3) that they have protected the regicides; (4) that they coin their own
money with their own impress; (5) that in 1665 they opposed the King's
commissioners with armed force; (6) that they have put men to death for
matters of religion; (7) that they impose an oath of fidelity to their
government; (8) that they have violated all the acts of Trade and
Navigation to the annual loss of £100,000 to the King's Customs. After
these charges had reached England, the agents of the Massachusetts
government, William Stoughton and Peter Bulkeley, were called upon to
answer the serious indictment. They pleaded that they were unable to
answer any other questions but those concerning the business on which
they had come; but they agreed that as private individuals they would
make some kind of defence, and at the same time promised, on behalf of
the settlers, amendment in the future. This submission only acted as an
incentive for further attack, and Randolph now charged the "Bostoners"
with denying the right of baptism to those not born in church
fellowship; and also with fining certain persons for absenting
themselves from the meeting-houses. The Committee of Trade and
Plantations next turned to the Charter of the colony, and this was
severely criticised; then the Laws of the colony were discussed, and
many illegal imposts were discovered. Amongst other things it was seen
that three shillings and fourpence was the fine levied for galloping in
the streets of Boston; that five shillings was demanded from those who
dared to observe Christmas Day, and that no less than £5 was the fine
for importing playing cards; with all of which they now found serious
fault, though it must be allowed that they tended to create "an ideally
holy and unhappy community."[133] All this time Stoughton and Bulkeley
were most anxious to return to America, but they were obliged to stay
all through 1678, and it was only in 1679 that they were able to leave,
because England was too busy with the Popish Plot to worry about the
affairs of the far distant Massachusetts. The matter, however, was by no
means finished. Randolph was determined to bring the colony to book; and
when he was again sent out in 1680 to supervise the customs he at once
renewed his charges. "The Bostoners, after all the protestations by
their agents, are acting as high as ever, and the merchants trading as
freely; no ship having been seized for irregular trading, although they
did in 1677 make a second law to prevent it."[134] He then says that
his life was threatened by these smugglers, and that as he has only life
and hope left, he is unwilling to expose himself to the rage of a
bewildered multitude. He concludes by beseeching for strong measures,
which he considers are essential, and "for his Majesty to write more
letters will signify no more than the London Gazette."[135] This appeal
had its effect, and the King practically threatened to land redcoats in
Boston "a century before their time, when there should be no Washington
to organise resistance, no European coalition to distract their
operations, and no French fleet and army to drive them from the
Continent."[136]
Even after this thundering declaration the actions of the settlers were
not always in accordance with strict loyalty, and in 1684, though their
agents loudly protested, the Court of Chancery decreed the Massachusetts
Charter to be null and void. James II.'s well-intentioned efforts
carried out in the wrong way by the wrong methods, and generally by the
wrong men, deprived him of popularity both in his home dominions and in
his growing Empire in the West. His great scheme for the colonies was
one of union; but his action was far more destructive than anything that
George III. ever proposed or imagined. The representative principle was
snatched from the youthful colonies; and they were deprived of their
legislative, executive and financial rights, which were given to a royal
Governor and Council, ruling an united province entitled New England,
and bearing a special flag of its own. The Governor appointed by the
King was Colonel Sir Edmund Andros, a very active and most capable
administrator, but an ardent churchman, and therefore particularly
unacceptable to the Puritan colonies of the New England group. He was by
no means a young man when he arrived to take over the administration in
December 1686, but with surprising energy he set about doing what he
could by extending the frontier against the Indians, and establishing a
line of garrisoned forts to keep them in awe. Discontent, however, was
visible on every side; Connecticut refused to give up its charter,
which, according to tradition, was hidden in an oak; while the town of
Ipswich, Mass. refused like Watertown many years earlier to pay taxes
without representation. When James issued his Declaration of Indulgence
some of the best of the Massachusetts colonists imagined that it meant
real toleration; Increase Mather was one of these. He had conducted the
diplomatic relations of the colony during the struggle over the charter;
he was well-beloved as the minister of the old North Church of Boston,
and as President of Harvard College. For these reasons he was once again
selected as mediator, and was deputed to plead with James on behalf of
his colony, but like so many in England he found that he had come on a
fruitless errand, and that genuine toleration was very far from the
thoughts of the Papist King.
The news of the Revolution in England in November 1688 aroused the
people of Massachusetts. Sir Edmund Andros, instead of accepting the
inevitable, arrested John Winslow, the bearer of the good tidings. The
discontent which had long been simmering beneath the surface now broke
out. The covetousness of the rulers, the ruination of trade, the
oppression of the people, and that "base drudgerie" to which they had
been put stirred them to a state of frenzy. Boston and Charlestown
armed; Andros was unable to quell the fury, and he was captured by his
subordinates, who claimed that "the exercise of Sir Edmund's commission,
so contrarie to the Magna Charta, is surely enough to call him to
account by his superiors."[137] In this the people of New England made a
mistake, for although Andros was sent over to England with a party of
his accusers, he was only examined by the Lords of the Committee for
Trade and Plantations, and was almost immediately released without being
finally tried.
The rule of William and Mary in England was acknowledged willingly in
Massachusetts. A new charter was granted to the colony, in which it was
stated that the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor and Secretary were to be
appointed by the Crown. The franchise was now based upon a property
qualification, and the religious oligarchy was swept away. The first
Council was nominated by the Crown, but in the future the members were
to be selected by the General Court. The little colony that owed its
origin to the Pilgrim Fathers was incorporated within the prosperous
bounds of Massachusetts, which from this date to the great schism
remained a Crown colony with distinct tendencies towards, and sometimes
clearly expressed desires of, emancipation and independence. "It was not
as though the colony complained of grievances which could be enquired
into and put right; it simply adopted towards England now openly and
now by equivocation an attitude of 'hands off.'"[138]
The first Governor of the new Crown colony was that romantic character,
Sir William Phipps. He was born in 1650 on a small plantation on the
banks of the Kennebec; he was one of twenty-six children, and until
eighteen years of age kept "sheep in the wilderness." There is little
doubt that from early times he was determined to succeed, and he always
prophesied that one day he would be the owner of a fair brick house in
Green Lane, North Boston. According to his earliest biographer he was
one of the most remarkable men of his day, being "of an Enterprising
Genius and naturally disclaimed Littleness: But in his Disposition for
Business was of the Dutch Mould, where with a little show of Wit, there
is much Wisdom demonstrated, as can be shewn by any Nation. His Talent
lay not in the Airs that serve chiefly for the pleasant and sudden Turns
of Conversation; but he might say as Themistocles, Though he could not
play the Fiddle, yet he knew how to make a little City become a great
One. He would prudently contrive a weighty Undertaking, and then
patiently pursue it unto the End. He was of an Inclination, cutting
rather like a Hatchet than like a Razor."[139] Such was the character of
this man, who, in 1683, found himself the Captain of a King's ship. In
1687 he was fortunate enough to discover a wrecked vessel filled with
treasure, and after being entertained and knighted by James II. he
returned to New England to build the "fair brick house" of which he had
foretold. After the resettlement of Massachusetts, which now
practically extended from Rhode Island to New Brunswick, excluding New
Hampshire, Phipps was appointed Governor. He owed his appointment to the
favour of Increase Mather, but it seems to have been welcomed generally,
for Phipps was at first popular, generous, and well-meaning. At the
outset he was confronted by difficulties that would have baffled a man
of far greater capacity. The taxation of the colony had not been
specifically mentioned in the charter, and the colonists seized upon the
opportunity to enact that no taxes were to be levied without the consent
of the Assembly. The home government immediately rejected this, and so
opened the door for the squabbles and recriminations eighty years
afterwards, which led to the separation of the American colonies from
the mother country. Gradually Phipps lost his popularity, which had to a
certain extent been founded upon his romantic history. He became brutal,
covetous and violent, and so in 1694 the Bostonians turned against him.
His temper had never been calm, and it is said that by the end of his
period of office he was engaged in violent quarrels with every man of
importance in the province.
The governorship of the colony between 1698 and 1701 was amalgamated
with those of New York, New Jersey, and New Hampshire. The Earl of
Bellomont was given supreme control, and won the goodwill of the people
by favouring the democratic party and recommending many reforms. His
special title to Fame is his suppression of the pirates along the
coasts, who according to Bellomont's complaint in 1698 had been
protected and encouraged by Benjamin Fletcher, Governor of New York. "I
have likewise discovered that protections were publickly exposed to sale
at the said rates to Pyrats that were of other companies ... and made
discovery of the bonds the Pyrates entered into to Coll: Fletcher when
he granted them Commissions."[140] Bellomont was determined to save the
colonies from these sea-wolves, and in 1701 he had the satisfaction,
just before he died, of bringing the infamous Captain Kidd to the
gallows.
The later history of Massachusetts must be left to the chapter on French
Aggression. The colony founded first as a trading Company by a few
adventurous Puritans had in seventy years become not only one of the
most prosperous, but also one of the largest of the thirteen States. It
had embraced several of the smaller and weaker settlements, the history
of one of which has already been traced; the story of the others has yet
to be told.
FOOTNOTES:
[95] See p. 24.
[96] Smith, _A Description of New England_ (1616), p. 1.
[97] Macaulay, _Essays_ (ed. 1891), p. 23.
[98] _Calendar of Domestic State Papers_, 1591-1594, p. 400.
[99] Bradford, _History of the Plimoth Plantation_, p. 15.
[100] Bradford, _History of the Plimoth Plantation_, p. 16.
[101] _Ibid._, p. 17.
[102] _Ibid._
[103] Quoted by J. R. Green, _Short History of the English People_
(1893), iii. p. 1051.
[104] Smith, _A Description of New England_ (1616), p. 27.
[105] Quoted by J. R. Green, _op. cit._, p. 1049.
[106] Bradford, _op. cit._, May 12.
[107] Bradford, _op. cit._
[108] Young, _Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers_ (ed. 1841).
[109] Thwaites, _The Colonies, 1492-1750_ (1891), p. 123.
[110] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1661-1668, p. 36.
[111] _Ibid._, p. 344.
[112] Macaulay, _Essays_ (ed. 1891), p. 23.
[113] _American Historical Review_, vol. iv. No. 4, p. 689.
[114] _Ibid._, p. 702.
[115] Doyle, _The English in America_ (1887), vol. i. p. 119.
[116] _A History of New England_ (1654), p. 38.
[117] Winthrop, _The History of New England from 1630 to 1649_. [1633,
Feb. 17.]
[118] Doyle, _Cambridge Modern History_ (1905), vol. vii. p. 17.
[119] _Simplicities Defence against Seven-Headed Policy_ (1646), p. 2.
[120] Massachusetts Historical Society, _Collections_, i.
[121] Winthrop, _The History of New England from 1630 to 1649_ (1853),
vol. i. p. 170.
[122] _Ibid._, vol. i. p. 213.
[123] _New England's First Fruits_ (1643), p. 12.
[124] _Ibid._
[125] _Journal of a Voyage to New York in 1679-80._
[126] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1661-1668, p. 344.
[127] _Ibid._, p. 9.
[128] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1661-1668, p. 32.
[129] Burrough, _A Declaration of the Sad and Great Persecution and
Martyrdom of the ... Quakers, etc._ (1660).
[130] Burrough, _A Declaration of the Sad and Great Persecution, and
Martyrdom of the ... Quakers_, etc. (1660).
[131] Hutchinson, _A Collection of Original Papers_, etc. (1769).
[132] _The Warr in New-England Visibly Ended_ (1677).
[133] Fortescue, Introd.: _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial,
1677-1680, p. xiv.
[134] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1677-1680, p. xviii.
[135] _Ibid._, p. 545.
[136] Fortescue, _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1677-1680, p.
xxi.
[137] Hutchinson, _A Collection of Original Papers relative to the
History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay_ (1769).
[138] Egerton, _A Short History of British Colonial Policy_, p. 62.
[139] Mather, _Magnalia Christi Americana, II._ (1702).
[140] O'Callaghan, editor, _Documents relative to the Colonial History
of the State of New York_ (1854).