and its results upon the state of society in Massachusetts Bay Colony
and its agents to England:
"The Massachusetts' agents presently returned, bearers of a royal
letter, in which the King recognized the Charter and promised oblivion
of past offences. But he demanded the repeal of all laws inconsistent
with his due authority; an oath of allegiance to the royal person, as
formerly in use, but dropped since the commencement of the late civil
war; the administration of justice in his name; complete toleration for
the Church of England; the repeal of the law which restricted the
privilege of voting, and tenure of office to Church members, and the
substitution of property qualification instead; finally, the admission
of all persons of honest lives to the sacraments of Baptism and the
Lord's Supper.
"The claimants for toleration, formerly suppressed with such prompt
severity, were now encouraged, by the King's demands in their favour,
again to raise their heads. For the next thirty years the people of
Massachusetts (Bay) were divided into three parties, a very decided,
though gradually diminishing majority (of the Congregationalists, the
only "freemen") sustaining with ardour the theocratic system, and, as
essential to it, entire independence of external control. At the
opposite extreme, a party, small in numbers and feeble in influence
(among the "freemen"), advocated religious toleration--at least to a
limited extent--and equal civil rights for all inhabitants. They
advocated, also, the supremacy of the Crown, sole means in that day of
curbing the theocracy, and compelling it to yield its monopoly of power.
To this party belonged the Episcopalians, or those inclined to become
so; the Baptists, Presbyterians, the Quakers, and other sectaries who
feared less the authority of a distant monarch than the present rule of
their watchful and bitter spiritual rivals. In the intermediate was a
third party, weak at first but daily growing stronger, and drawing to
its ranks, one after another, some former zealous advocates of the
exclusive system, convinced that a _theocracy_, in its stricter form,
was no longer tenable, and some of them, perhaps, beginning to be
satisfied that it was not desirable. Among the earliest of these were
Norton and Bradstreet, the agents who came back from England impressed
with the necessity of yielding. But the avowal of such sentiments was
fatal to their popularity (among the Congregational "freemen"), and
Norton, accustomed to nothing but reverence and applause, finding
himself now looked at with distrust, soon died of melancholy and
mortification." (Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap.
xiv., pp. 455, 456.)]
[Footnote 128: Collection of Massachusetts, etc., Civil Society, Vol.
VIII., Second Series, p. 53.]
[Footnote 129: Collections of Massachusetts, etc., Civil Society, _Vol_.
VIII., Second Series, pp. 59, 60.]
[Footnote 130: From the representations made respecting the state of
affairs in the New England colonies, the appointment of this Commission
was decided upon after the restoration of the King, and the agents of
those colonies were informed of it. Col. Nichols, the head of the
Commission, stated in his introductory address to the Massachusetts Bay
Court, May 2, 1665, that "The King himself and the Lord Chancellor
(Clarendon) told Mr. Norton and Mr. Bradstreet of this colony, and Mr.
Winthrop of Connecticut, Mr. Clarke of Rhode Island, and several others
now in these countries, that he intended shortly to send over
Commissioners." (_Ib._, p. 56.)]
[Footnote 131: It was in refutation of such reports that Col. Nichols
made the statements quoted on a previous page; in the course of which,
referring to the slanders circulated by persons high in office under the
Court, he said: "Some of them are these: That the King hath sent us over
here to raise _£5,000 a year out of the colony_ for his Majesty's use,
and 12d. for every acre of improved land besides, and to take from this
colony many of their civil liberties and ecclesiastical privileges, of
which particulars we have been asked the truth in several places, all of
which reports we did, and here do, disclaim as false; and protest that
they are diametrically contrary to the truth, as ere long we shall make
it appear more plainly."
"These personal slanders with which we are calumniated, as private men
we slight; as Christians we forgive and will not mention; but as persons
employed by his Sacred Majesty, we cannot suffer his honour to be
eclipsed by a cloud of black reproaches, and some seditious speeches,
without demanding justice from you against those who have raised,
reported, or made them." (_Ib._, p. 56.)
These reports were spread by some of the chief officers of the Council,
and the most seditious of the speeches complained of was by the
commander of their forces; but they were too agreeable to the Court for
them even to contradict, much less investigate, although Col. Nichols
offered to give their names.
Hubbard, the earliest and most learned of the New England historians,
says:
"The Commissioners were but four in number, the two principal of whom
were Colonel Nichols and Colonel Cartwright, who were both of them
eminently qualified, with abilities fit to manage such a concern, nor
yet wanting in resolution to carry on any honourable design for the
promotion of his Majesty's interest in any of those Plantations whither
they were sent." (Massachusetts History Collection, Vol. V., Second
Series, p. 577.)]
[Footnote 132: The following is a copy of the Royal Commission, in which
the reasons and objects of it are explicitly stated:
"Copy of a Commission from King Charles the Second to Col. Nichols and
others, in 1664.
"Charles the 2nd, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland,
France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc.
"To all to whom these presents shall come, Greeting: Whereas we have
received several addresses from our subjects of several colonies in New
England, all full of duty and affection, and expressions of loyalty and
allegiance to us, with their humble desires that we would renew their
several Charters, and receive them into our favourable opinion and
protection; and several of our colonies there, and other our loving
subjects, have likewise complained of differences and disputes arisen
upon the limits and bounds of their several Charters and jurisdictions,
whereby unneighbourly and unbrotherly contentions have and may arise, to
the damage and discredit of the English interest; and that all our good
subjects residing there, and being Planters within the several colonies,
do not enjoy the liberties and privileges granted to them by our several
Charters, upon confidence and assurance of which they transported
themselves and their estates into those parts; and we having received
some addresses from the great men and natives of those countries in
which they complain of breach of faith, and acts of violence, and
injustice which they have been forced to undergoe from our subjects,
whereby not only our Government is traduced, but the reputation and
credit of the Christian religion brought into prejudice and reproach
with the Gentiles and inhabitants of those countries who know not God,
the reduction of whom to the true knowledge and feare of God is the most
worthy and glorious end of all those Plantations: Upon all which
motives, and as an evidence and manifestation of our fatherly affection
towards all our subjects in those several colonies of New England (that
is to say, of the Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Plimouth, Rhode Island,
and Providence Plantations, and all other Plantations within that tract
of land known under the appelation of New England), and to the end we
may be truly informed of the state and condition of our good subjects
there, that so we may the better know how to contribute to the further
improvement of their happiness and prosperity: Know ye therefore, that
we, reposing special trust and confidence in the fidelity, wisdome and
circumspection of our trusty and well-beloved Colonel Richard Nichols,
Sir Robert Carre, Knt., George Cartwright, Esq., and Samuel Maverick,
Esq., of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, have
made, ordained, constituted and appointed, and by these presents do
make, ordain, constitute and appoint the said Colonel Richard Nichols,
Sir Robert Carre, George Cartwright, and Samuel Maverick, our
Commissioners, and do hereby give and grant unto them, or any three or
two of them, or of the survivors of them, of whom we will the said
Colonel Richard Nichols, during his life, shall be alwaies one, and upon
equal divisions of opinions, to have the casting and decisive voice, in
our name to visit all and every the several colonies aforesaid, and also
full power and authority to heare and receive and to examine and
determine all complaints and appeals in all causes and matters, as well
military as criminal and civil, and proceed in all things for the
providing for and settling the peace and security of the said country,
according to their good and sound discretion, and to such instructions
as they or the survivors of them have, or shall from time to time
receive from us in that behalfe, and from time to time, as they shall
find expedient, to certify us or our Privy Council of their actings or
proceedings touching the premises; and for the doing thereof, or any
other matter or thing relating thereunto, these presents, or the
enrolment thereof, shall be unto them a sufficient warrant and discharge
in that behalf. In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to
be made patent. Witness ourselfe at Westminster, the 25th day of April,
in the sixteenth yeare of our reigne." (Hutchinson's History of
Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., Appendix xv., pp. 535, 536.)]
[Footnote 133: The following are extracts from the report of the
Commissioners who were appointed to visit the several colonies of New
England in 1666:
"_The Colony of Connecticut_ returned their thanks to his Majesty for
his gracious letters, and for sending Commissioners to them, with
promises of their loyalty and obedience; and they did submit to have
appeals made to his Majesty's Commissioners, who did hear and determine
some differences among them. All forms of justice pass only in his
Majesty's name; they admit all that desire to be of their corporation;
they will not hinder any from enjoying the sacraments and using the
Common Prayer Book, provided that they hinder not the maintenance of the
public minister. They will amend anything that hath been done derogatory
to his Majesty's honour, if there be any such thing, so soon as they
shall come to the knowledge of it."
"_The Colony of Rhode Island and Providence_ Plantations returned their
humble thanks to his Majesty for sending Commissioners, and made great
demonstration of their loyalty and obedience. They approved as most
reasonable, that appeals should be made to his Majesty's Commissioners,
who, having heard and determined some cases among them, referred other
some in civility to their General Court, and some to the Governor and
others; some of which cases they again remitted to the Commissioners to
determine. All proceedings are in his Majesty's name; they admit all to
be freemen who desire it; they allow liberty of conscience and worship
to all who live civilly; and if any can inform of anything in their laws
or practices derogatory to his Majesty's honour, they will amend it."
"_The Colony of New Plymouth_ did submit to have appeals made to the
Commissioners, who have heard but one plaint made to them, which was
that the Governor would not let a man enjoy a farm four miles square,
which he had bought of an Indian. The complainant soon submitted to the
Governor when he understood the unreasonableness of it."
"_The Colony of Massachusetts Bay_ was the hardest to be persuaded to
use his Majesty's name in the forms of justice. In this colony, at the
first coming of the Commissioners, were many untruths raised and sent
into the colonies, as that the King had to raise £15,000 yearly for his
Majesty's use, whereupon Major Hawthorne made a seditious speech at the
head of his company, and the late Governor (Bellingham) another at their
meeting-house at Boston, but neither of them were so much as questioned
for it by any of the magistrates." ... "But neither examples nor reasons
could prevail with them to let the Commissioners hear and determine so
much as those particular cases (Mr. Deane's and the Indian Sachems),
which the King had commanded them to take care of and do justice in; and
though the Commissioners, who never desired that they should appear as
delinquents, but as _defendants_, either by themselves or by their
attorneys, assured them that if they had been unjustly complained of to
his Majesty, their false accusers should be severely punished, and their
just dealing made known to his Majesty and all the world; yet they
proclaimed by sound of trumpet that the General Court was the supremest
judiciary in all the province; that the Commissioners pretending to hear
appeals was a breach of the privileges granted by the King's royal
father, and confirmed to them by his Majesty's own letter, and that they
would not permit it; by which they have for the present silenced above
thirty petitioners which desired justice from them and were lost at sea.
"To elude his Majesty's desire for admitting men of civil and competent
estates to be freemen, they have an Act whereby he that is 24 years old,
a housekeeper, and brings a certificate of his civil life, another of
his being orthodox in matters of faith, and a third of his paying ten
shillings besides head-money, at a single rate, _may then have the
liberty to make his desires known to the Court_, and then it shall be
put to vote. The Commissioners examined many townships, and found that
scarce three in a hundred pay ten shillings at a single rate; yet if
this rate were general it would be just; but he that is _a church
member, though_ he be a servant, and pay not _twopence, may be a
freeman_. They do not admit any who is not a Church member to communion,
nor their children to baptism, yet they will marry their children to
those whom they will not admit to baptism, if they be rich. They did
imprison and barbarously use Mr. Jourdan for baptising children, as
himself complained in his petition to the Commissioners. Those whom they
will not admit to the communion, they compel to come to their sermons by
forcing from them five shillings for every neglect; yet these men
thought their paying one shilling for not coming to prayers in England
was an unsupportable tyranny." ... "They have made many things in their
laws derogatory to his Majesty's honour, of which the Commissioners have
made and desired that they might be altered, but they have done nothing
of it[134]. Among others, whoever keeps Christmas Day is to pay a fine
of five pounds."
"They caused at length a map of the territories to be made; but it was
made in a Chamber by direction and guess; in it they claim Fort Albany,
and beyond it all the land to the South Sea. By their South Sea line
they entrench upon the colonies of New Plymouth, Rhode Island and
Connecticut; and on the east they usurped Capt. Mason's and Sir
Ferdinardo Gorges' patents, and said that the Commissioners had nothing
to do betwixt them and Mr. Gorges, because his Majesty neither commanded
them to deliver possession to Mr. Gorges or to give his Majesty reason
why they did not." ...
"They of this colony say that King Charles the First granted to them a
Charter as a warrant against himself and his successors, and that so
long as they pay the fifth part of the gold and silver ore which they
get, they shall be free to use the privileges granted them, and that
they are not obliged to the King except by civility; they hope by
writing to tire the King, Lord Chancellor, and Secretaries too; seven
years they can easily spin out by writing, and before that time a change
may come; nay, some have dared to say, who knows what the event of this
Dutch war will be?"
"This colony furnished Cromwell with many instruments out of their
corporation and college; and those that have retreated thither since his
Majesty's happy return, are much respected, and many advanced to be
magistrates. They did solicit Cromwell by one Mr. Winslow to be declared
a free State, and many times in their laws declaring themselves to be
so."
(Hutchinson's Collection of Original Papers relative to the History of
Massachusetts Bay, pp. 412-420.)]
[Footnote 134: The Commissioners specify upwards of twenty anomalies in
the book entitled the "Book of the General Laws and Liberties concerning
the Inhabitants of Massachusetts," which should be altered to correspond
with the Charter, and the relations of the colony to England. A few
specimens may be given: That the writs and forms of justice be issued
and performed in his Majesty's name; that his Majesty's arms be set up
in the courts of justice within the colony, and that the masters of
vessels and captains of foot companies do carry the colours of England,
by which they may be known to be British subjects; that in the 12th
capital law, if any conspire against our Commonwealth, _Commonwealth_
may be expunged, and "against the peace of his Majesty's colony" be
inserted instead of the other; that at p. 33, "none be admitted freemen
but members of some of the Churches within the limits of their
jurisdiction," be made to comprehend "other than members of the
Congregational Churches;" that on the same page, the penalty for keeping
Christmas so directly against the law of England, be repealed; that page
40, the law for settling the Indians' title to land, be explained, for
it seems as if they were dispossessed of their land by Scripture, which
is both against the honour of God and the justice of the King. In 115th
Psalm, 16, "Children of men" comprehend Indians as well as English; and
no doubt the country is theirs till they give it up or sell it, though
it be not improved.]
[Footnote 135: They were not so poor as when, just 30 years before,
they, by the advice of their ministers, prepared to make armed
resistance against the rumoured appointment over them of a Governor
General of New England.]
[Footnote 136: They were not more "remote" than when they wrote to their
friends in England as often as they pleased, or than when they addressed
the Long Parliament four years before, and twice addressed Cromwell,
stating their services to him in men and prayers against Charles the
First, and asking his favours.]
[Footnote 137: The words "full and absolute power of governing" are not
contained in the Royal Charter.]
[Footnote 138: Emigrants generally transport themselves from one country
to another, whether across the ocean or not, at their own charges.]
[Footnote 139: It is shown in this volume that they never had the
"undoubted right" by the Charter, or the "undoubted right in the sight
of God and man," to abolish one form of worship and set up another; to
imprison, fine, banish, or put to death all who did not adopt their
newly set up form of worship; to deny the rights of citizenship to
four-fifths of their citizens on religious grounds, and tax them without
representation. How far they invaded the "undoubted right" of others,
"in the sight of God and man," and exceeded their own lawful powers, is
shown on the highest legal authority in the 6th and 7th chapters of this
volume.]
[Footnote 140: These references are acknowledgments on the part of the
Massachusetts Bay Court, that they had been kindly and liberally treated
by both Charles the First and Charles the Second.]
[Footnote 141: They here limit their compliance with the six conditions
on which the King proposed to continue the Charter which they had
violated, to their "conscience" and "the just liberties and privileges
of their patent." But according to their interpretation of these, they
could not in "conscience" grant the "toleration" required by the King,
or give up the sectarian basis of franchise and eligibility to office,
or admit of appeals from their tribunals to the higher courts or the
King himself in England. They seize upon and claim the promise of the
King to continue the Charter, but evade and deny the fulfilment of the
conditions on which he made that promise.]
[Footnote 142: But they rejected the King's commission of inquiry,
refused the information required; and they modestly pray the King to
accept as proof of their innocence and right doings their own
professions and statements against the complaints made of their
proscriptions and oppressions.]
[Footnote 143: The threat at the beginning of this, and also in the
following paragraph, is characteristic; it was tried, but without
effect, on other occasions. The insinuations and special pleading
throughout these paragraphs are amply answered in the letters of Lord
Clarendon and the Hon. R. Boyle, which follow this extraordinary
address, which abounds alternately and successively in affected
helplessness and lofty assumptions, in calumnious statements and
professed charity, in abject flattery and offensive insinuations and
threats, in pretended poverty amidst known growing wealth, in appeals to
heaven and professed humility and loyalty, to avoid the scrutiny of
their acts and to reclaim the usurpation of absolute power.]
[Footnote 144: Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol.
VIII., Second Series, pp. 49-51.]
[Footnote 145: Collections of Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol.
VIII., Second Series, pp. 103-105.]
[Footnote 146: The petition entire is inserted above, pp. 153-159. Mr.
Hutchinson gives this petition in the Appendix to the first volume of
his History of Massachusetts Bay, No. 16, pp. 537-539; but he does not
give the King's reply.]
[Footnote 147: Mr. Endicot died before the next election. He was the
primary cause of the disputes between the Massachusetts Bay Colony and
the Parent Government, and the unrelenting persecutor of all who
differed from him in religious worship. He was hostile to monarchy and
all English authority from the beginning; he got and kept the elective
franchise, and eligibility to office, in the hands of the
Congregationalists alone, and became of course their idol.
The King's suggesting the election of a Governor other than Endicot was
a refutation of their statements that he intended to deprive them of
their local self-government. The following is Neal's notice of the death
of Mr. Endicot: "On the 23rd of March, 1665, died Mr. John Endicot,
Governor of the Jurisdiction of Massachusetts. He arrived at Salem in
the year 1628, and had the chief command of those that first settled
there, and shared with them in all their hardships. He continued at
Salem till the magistrates desired him to remove to Boston for the more
convenient administration of justice, as Governor of the Jurisdiction,
to which he was frequently elected for many years together. He was a
great enemy of the Sectaries, and was too severe in executing the penal
laws against the Quakers and _Anabaptists_ during the time of his
administration. He lived to a good old age, and was interred at Boston
with great honour and solemnity."--Neal's History of New England Vol.
II., p. 346.]
[Footnote 148: The same year, 1662, in which Charles the Second sent so
gracious a letter to the Governor and Council of Massachusetts Bay, he
granted Charters to the colonies of Connecticut and Rhode Island, in
both of which perfect liberty of conscience and religious liberty was
encouraged and provided for, evincing the settled policy of the
Government of the Restoration in regard to the New England colonies. The
annalist Holmes says:
"1662.--The Charter of Connecticut was granted by Charles II. with most
ample privileges, under the great seal of England. It was ordained by
the Charter that all the King's subjects in the colony should enjoy all
the privileges of free and natural born subjects within the realm of
England." (Holmes' Annals, etc., Vol. I., pp. 320, 321.)
So liberal were the provisions of this Charter, that as Judge Story
says: "It continued to be the fundamental law of the State of
Connecticut until the year 1818, when a new constitution of government
was framed and adopted by the people." (Commentaries on the Constitution
of the United States, Vol. I., Sec. 88.)
_Rhode Island._--Rhode Island had two English Charters, the
circumstances connected with both of which were very peculiar. Its
founder, Roger Williams, had been banished from the jurisdiction of
Massachusetts Bay.
"Rhode Island," says Judge Story, "was originally settled by emigrants
from Massachusetts, fleeing hither to escape from religious persecution,
and it still boasts of Roger Williams as its founder and as the early
defender of religious freedom and the rights of conscience. One body of
them purchased the island which gave name to the State, and another the
territory of the Providence Plantations from the Indians, and began
their settlements at the same period, in 1636 and 1638. They entered
into separate associations of government. But finding their associations
not sufficient to protect them _against the encroachments of
Massachusetts_, and having no title under any royal patents, they sent
Roger Williams to England in 1643 to procure a surer foundation both of
title and government. He succeeded in obtaining from the Earl of Warwick
(in 1643) a Charter of incorporation of Providence Plantations; and also
in 1644 a Charter from the two Houses of Parliament (Charles the First
being driven from his capital) for the incorporation of the towns of
Providence, Newport, and Portsmouth, for the absolute government of
themselves, but according to the laws of England."
But such was the hostility of the rulers of Massachusetts Bay that they
refused to admit Rhode Island into the confederacy of the New England
colonies formed in 1643 to defend themselves against the Indians, the
Spanish, the Dutch, and the French; yet they had influence enough with
Cromwell to get the Charter of Rhode Island suspended in 1652. "But,"
says Dr. Holmes, "that colony, taking advantage of the distractions
which soon after ensued in England, resumed its government and enjoyed
it without further interruption until the Restoration." (Holmes' Annals,
etc., Vol. I., p. 297.)
"The restoration of Charles the Second," says Judge Story, "seems to
have given great satisfaction to these Plantations. They immediately
proclaimed the King and sent an agent to England; and in July, 1663,
after some opposition, they succeeded in obtaining a Charter from the
Crown."
"The most remarkable circumstance in the Charter, and that which
exhibits the strong feeling and spirit of the colony, is the provision
for _religious freedom_. The Charter, after reciting the petition of the
inhabitants, 'that it is much in their hearts (if they may be permitted)
to hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state
may stand, and be _best maintained, and that among English subjects with
full liberty_ in religious concernments, and that true piety, rightly
grounded upon Gospel principles, will give the least and greatest
security to sovereignty,' proceeds to declare:
"'We being willing to encourage the hopeful undertaking of our said
loyal and loving subjects, and to secure them in the free exercise of
all their civil and religious rights appertaining to them as our loving
subjects, and to preserve to them that liberty in the true Christian
faith and worship of God which they have sought with so much travail and
with peaceful minds and loyal subjection to our progenitors and
ourselves to enjoy; and because some of the people and inhabitants of
the same colony cannot, in their private opinion, conform to the public
exercise of religion according to the liturgy, form, and ceremonies of
the Church of England, or take or subscribe to the oaths and articles
made and established in that behalf; and for that the same, by reason of
the remote distances of these places, will, as we hope, be no breach of
the unity and uniformity established in this nation, have therefore
thought fit, and do hereby publicly grant and ordain and declare, that
our royal will and pleasure is, that _no person within the said colony_,
at any time hereafter, shall be any wise molested, punished, disquieted,
or called in question for any differences in opinion on matters of
religion, but that all and every person and persons may, from time to
time, and at all times hereafter, freely and fully have and enjoy his
and their own judgment and conveniences in matters of religious
concernment throughout the tract of land hereafter mentioned, they
behaving themselves peaceably and quietly, and not using this liberty to
licentiousness and profaneness, nor to the civil injury or outward
disturbance of others.'" (Hazard's Collection, p. 613.)
Judge Story, after quoting this declaration of the Royal Charter, justly
remarks, "This is a noble declaration, worthy of any Prince who rules
over a free people. It is lamentable to reflect how little it comports
with the domestic persecutions authorized by the same monarch during his
profligate reign. It is still more lamentable to reflect how little a
similar spirit of toleration was encouraged, either by precept or
example, in other of the New England Colonies." (Commentaries, etc.,
Vol. I., Chap, viii., Section 97.)]
[Footnote 149: Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol.
VIII., Second Series, p. 74.]
[Footnote 150: Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol.
VIII., Second Series, pp. 76-78.]
[Footnote 151: Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol.
VIII., Second Series, pp. 76, 78, 79.]
[Footnote 152: Danforth Papers, Collections of Massachusetts Historical
Society, Vol. VIII., pp. 98, 108, 109, Second Series.
The following particulars are given of the proceedings of the Court at a
subsequent meeting on the same subject:
"October 10th, 1666. The General Court met again, according to
adjournment in May last. At this Court many express themselves very
sensible of our condition. Several earnest for sending, and some against
sending. Those for sending none spake out fully that they would have the
Governor (Mr. Bellingham) and Major Hawthorne go; but some will have men
go to plead our cause with his Majesty; to answer what may be alleged
against us, alleging reason, religion and our own necessity as forcing
us thereto. Others are against it, as being the loss of all, by
endangering a _quo warranto_ to be brought against our patent, and so to
be condemned; a middle sort would have some go to present the Court's
present to his Majesty, of two large masts and a ship's load of masts:
and in case any demand were made why the Governor, Major Hawthorne, and
others did not appear, to crave his Majesty's favour therein, and to
plead with his Majesty, showing how inconsistent it is with our being,
for any to be forced to appear to answer in a judicial way in
England--to answer either appeals or complaints against the country.
"The last proposal is obstructed by sundry, as being ruinous to the
whole; and so nothing can be done, the Governor and some others chiefly
opposing it, so as that no orderly debate can be had to know the mind of
the Court.
"The Court agreed to send two large masts aboard Capt. Pierce, 34 yards
long, and the one 36 and the other 37 inches in diameter, and agreed to
levy £1,000 for the payment of what is needful at present; but is
obstructed--none will lend money unless men be sent, others because
anything is to be sent; a return whereof made to the Court, they say
they know not what to do more--in case they that have money will not
part with it, they are at a stand. Some speak of raising by rate
immediately. Others think there is so much dissatisfaction that men are
not sent, that it will provoke and raise a tumult; and in case that it
be raised by loan, it will be hardly paid--if consent be not given in
their sending men with it, and there be no good effect, which is
contingent, and thus we are every way at a stand; some fearing these
things will precipitate our ruin, and others apprehending that to act
further will necessitate our ruin."--_Ib._, pp. 110, 111.
From these notes, which Mr. Danforth made at the time when the
proceedings referred to took place, it is plain there were a large
number of loyalists even among the Congregationalists, as they alone
were eligible to be members of, or to elect to the Court, and that the
asserters of independence were greatly perplexed and agitated.]
[Footnote 153: Danforth Papers, Collections of Massachusetts Historical
Society, Vol. VIII., pp. 99, 100, 108, 109.]
[Footnote 154: "There had been a press for printing at Cambridge for
near twenty years. The Court appointed two persons (Captain Daniel
Guekins and Mr. Jonathan Mitchell, the minister of Cambridge), in
October, 1662, licensers of the press, and prohibited the publishing of
any books or papers which should not be supervised by them;" and in
1668, the supervisors having allowed the printing "Thomas à Kempis, de
Imitatione Christi," the Court interposed (it being wrote by a popish
minister, and containing some things less safe to be infused among the
people), and therefore they commended to the licensers a more full
revisal, and ordered the press to stop in the meantime. (Hutchinson's
History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 257, 258.)]
[Footnote 155: Even during the Commonwealth in England, the
Congregational Government of Massachusetts Bay was one of unmitigated
persecution. Mr. Hutchinson, under date of 1655, remarks:
"The persecution of Episcopalians by the prevailing powers in England
was evidently from revenge for the persecution they had suffered
themselves, and from political considerations and the prevalence of
party, seeing all other opinions and professions, however absurd, were
tolerated; but in New England it must be confessed that bigotry and
cruel zeal prevailed, and to that degree that no opinion but their own
could be tolerated. They were sincere but mistaken in their principles;
and absurd as it is, it is too evident, they believed it to be to the
glory of God to take away the lives of his creatures for maintaining
tenets contrary to what they professed themselves. This occasioned
complaints against the colony to the Parliament and Cromwell, but
without success." (History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 189.)]
[Footnote 156: "Proceedings and sentence of the County Court held at
Cambridge, on adjournment, April 17, 1666, against Thomas Goold, Thomas
Osburne, and John George [157] (being Baptists):
"Thomas Goold, Thomas Osburne, and John George, being presented by the
Grand Jury of this county (Cambridge), for absenting themselves from the
public worship of God on the Lord's dayes for one whole year now past,
alleged respectively as followeth, viz.:
"Thomas Osburne answered that the reason of his non-attendance was that
the Lord hath discovered unto him from His Word and Spirit of Truth,
that the society where he is now in communion is more agreeable to the
will of God; asserted that they were a Church, and attended the worship
of God together, and do judge themselves bound to do so, the ground
whereof he said he gave in the General Court.
"Thomas Goold answered that as for coming to public worship, they did
meet in public worship according to the rule of Christ; the grounds
thereof they had given to the General Court of Assistants; asserted that
they were a public meeting, according to the order of Christ Jesus,
gathered together.
"John George answered that he did attend the public meetings on the
Lord's dayes where he was a member; asserted that they were a Church
according to the order of Christ in the Gospell, and with them he walked
and held communion in the public worship of God on the Lord's dayes."
SENTENCE OF THE COURT.
"Whereas at the General Court in October last, and at the Court of
Assistants in September last, endeavours were used for their conviction.
The order of the General Court declaring the said Goold and Company to
be no orderly Church assembly, and that they stand convicted of high
presumption against the Lord and his holy appoyntments was openly read
to them, and is on file with the records of this Court.
"The Court sentenced the same Thomas Goold, Thomas Osburne, and John
George, for their absenting themselves from the public worship of God on
the Lord's dayes, to pay four pounds fine, each of them, to the County
order. And whereas, by their own confessions, they stand convicted of
persisting in their schismatical assembling themselves together, to the
great dishonour of God _and our_ profession of his holy name, contrary
to the _Act_ of the General Order of the Court of October last,
prohibiting them therein on the penalty of imprisonment, this Court doth
order their giving bond respectively in £20, each of them, for their
appearance to answer their contempt at the next Court of Assistants.
"The above named Thomas Goold, John George, and Thomas Osburne made
their appeal to the next Court of Assistants, and refusing to put in
security according to law, were committed to prison.
"_Vera Copia._"
"THO. DANFORTH, _Recorder_."
(Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 397-401.)]
[Footnote 157: _Note_ by Mr. Hutchinson.--"These three persons scrupled
at Infant Baptism, separated from the Churches of the country, and with
others of the same persuasion with themselves, set up a church in
Boston. Whilst Congregationalists in England were complaining of the
intolerant spirit of Episcopalians, these Antipædo Baptists in New
England had equal reason to complain of the same spirit in the
Congregationalists there."]
[Footnote 158: Neal's History of New England, Vol. II., Chap. viii., pp.
353, 354, 356.]
[Footnote 159: "They endeavoured not only by humble addresses and
professions of loyalty to appease his Majesty, but they purchased a
ship-load of masts (the freight whereof cost them sixteen hundred pounds
sterling), and presented them to the King, which he graciously accepted;
and the fleet in the West Indies being in want of provisions, a
subscription and contribution was recommended through the colony for
bringing in provisions to be sent to the fleet for his Majesty's
service,[160] but I find no word of the whole amount. Upon the news of
the great fire in London, a collection was made through the colony for
the relief of the sufferers. The amount cannot be ascertained."
(Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 256, 257.)]
[Footnote 160: _Note_ by Mr. Hutchinson.--"This was so well received
that a letter was sent to the General Court, under the King's sign
warrant, dated 21st April, 1669, signifying how well it was taken by his
Majesty. So the letter expresses it."]
[Footnote 161: The following is a copy of the King's very courteous and
reasonable letter:
"Copy of a letter from King Charles II. to the Governor, etc., of the
Massachusetts, dated July 24th, 1679.
"CHARLES R.
"Trusty and well beloved--We greet you well. These our letters are to
accompany our trusty and well beloved William Stoughton and Peter
Bulkly, Esqres., your agents, who having manifested to us great
necessity in their domestic concerns to return back into New England, we
have graciously consented thereunto, and the rather because for many
months past our Council hath been taken up in the discovery and
prosecution of a popish plot, and yet there appears little prospect of
any speedy leisure for entering upon such regulation in your affairs as
is certainly necessary, not only in respect of our dignity, but of your
own perfect settlement. In the meantime, we doubt not but the bearers
thereof, who have demeaned themselves, during their attendance, with
good care and discretion, will, from their _own observations_, acquaint
you with many important things which may be of such use and
advertisement to you, that we might well hope to be prevented, by your
applications, in what is expected or desired by us. So much it is your
interest to propose and intercede for the same; for we are graciously
inclined to have all past errors and mistakes forgotten, and that your
condition might be so amended as that neither your settlement, or the
minds of our good subjects there, should be liable to be shaken and
disquieted upon every complaint. We have heard with satisfaction of the
great readiness wherewith our good subjects there have lately offered
themselves to the taking of the oath of allegiance, which is a clear
manifestation to us that the unanswerable defect in that particular was
but the fault of a very few in power, who for so long a time obstructed
what the Charter and our express commands obliged them unto, as will
appear in our gracious letter of the 28th of June (1662), in the
fourteenth year of our reign; and we shall henceforth expect that there
will be a suitable obedience in other particulars of the said letter,
as, namely, in respect of freedom and liberty of conscience, so as those
that desire to serve God in the way of the Church of England be not
thereby made obnoxious or discountenanced from their sharing in the
government, much less that they or any other of our good subjects (not
being Papists) who do not agree in the Congregational way, be by law
subjected to fines or forfeitures, or other incapacities for the same,
which is a severity to be the more wondered at, whereas liberty of
conscience was made one principal motive for your first transportation
into those parts; nor do we think it fit that any other distinction be
observed in the making of freemen than that they be men of competent
estates, rateable at ten shillings,[162] according to the rules of the
place, and that such in their turns be also capable of the magistracy,
and all laws made void that obstruct the same. And because we have not
observed any fruits or advantage by the dispensation granted by us in
our said letter of June, in the fourteenth year of our reign, whereby
the number of assistants, settled by our Charter to be eighteen, might
be reduced unto the number of ten, our will and pleasure is that the
ancient number of eighteen be henceforth observed, according to the
letter of the Charter. And our further will and pleasure is, that all
persons coming to any privilege, trust, or office in that colony be
first enjoined to take the oath of allegiance, and that all the military
commissions as well as the proceedings of justice may run in our royal
name. We are informed that you have lately made some good provision for
observing the acts of trade and navigation, which is well pleasing unto
us[163]; and as we doubt not and do expect that you will abolish all
laws that are repugnant to and inconsistent with the laws of trade with
us, we have appointed our trusty and well beloved subject, Edward
Randolph, Esq., to be our collector, surveyor and searcher not only for
the colony, but for all our other colonies in New England, constituting
him, by the broad seal of this our kingdom, to the said employments, and
therefore recommending him to your help and assistance in all things
that may be requisite in the discharge of his trust. Given at our palace
of Hampton Court, the 24th day of July, 1679, and in the one and
thirtieth year of our reign.
"By his Majesty's Command,
"A. COVENTRY."]
[Footnote 162: _Note_ by the historian, Mr. Hutchinson.--They seem to
have held out till the last in refusing to admit any to be freemen who
were not either Church members, or who did not at least obtain a
certificate from the minister of the town that they were orthodox.]
[Footnote 163: _Note_ by the historian, Mr. Hutchinson.--This is very
extraordinary, for this provision was an act of the colony, declaring
that the acts of trade should be in force there. (Massachusetts History,
Vol. I., p. 322.)]
[Footnote 164: History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 325, 326.]
[Footnote 165: "The people of Massachusetts had always the good-will of
Cromwell. In relation to them he allowed the Navigation Law, which
pressed hard on the Southern colonies, to become a dead letter, and they
received the commodities of all nations free of duty, and sent their
ships at will to the ports of continental Europe." (Palfrey's History of
New England, Vol. II., Book ii., Chap. x., p. 393.)]
[Footnote 166: "1660.--The Parliament passed an Act for the general
encouragement and increase of shipping and navigation, by which the
provisions made in the celebrated Navigation Act of 1651 were continued,
with additional improvements. It enacted that no sugar, tobacco, ginger,
indigo, cotton, fustin, dyeing woods of the growth of English
territories in America, Asia, or Africa, shall be transported to any
other country than those belonging to the Crown of England, under the
penalty of forfeiture; and all vessels sailing to the Plantations were
to give bonds to bring said commodities to England." (Holmes' American
Annals, Vol. I., pp. 314, 315.)
"The oppressive system," says Palfrey, "was further extended by an Act
which confined the import trade of the colonists to a direct commerce
with England, forbidding them to bring _from_ any other or _in_ any
other than English ships, the products not only of England but of any
European state." (History of New England, Vol. II., B. ii., Chap. xi.,
p. 445.)
Palfrey adds in a note: "Salt for New England fishermen, wines from
Madeira and the Azores, and provisions from Scotland and Ireland, were,
however, exempted."--_Ib._]
[Footnote 167: Hutchinson's Collection, etc., pp. 522-525. Palfrey's
History of New England, Vol. III., B. iii., Chap. viii., p. 341.]
[Footnote 168: To this there were two or three exceptions. They repealed
the penal laws "against keeping Christmas;" also for punishing with
death Quakers returned from banishment; and to amend the laws relating
to heresy and to rebellion against the country.]
[Footnote 169: Palfrey's History of New England, Vol. III., B. iii.,
Chap. viii., p. 352.
They usurped authority over New Hampshire and Maine, at the same time
that they prevented the execution of the Acts of Trade and Navigation
(the 12th and 15th of Charles the Second). Mr. Hutchinson says: "The
Massachusetts Government (1670) governed without opposition the Province
of New Hampshire and the Province of Maine, and were beginning
settlements even further eastward. The French were removed from their
neighbourhood on the one side, and the Dutch and Swedes on the other.
Their trade was as extensive as they could wish. _No custom-house was
established._ The Acts of Parliament of the 12th-15th of King Charles
the Second, for regulating the Plantation trade, _were in force_; but
the _Governor, whose business it was to carry them into execution, was
annually to be elected by the people, whose interest was that they
should not be observed_! Some of the magistrates and principal merchants
grew very rich." (History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol I., p. 269.)]
[Footnote 170: On the very day, October, 1677, that they proposed, in
obedience to his Majesty's command, to pass an order that "the Governor
and all inferior magistrates should see to the strict observation of the
Acts of Navigation and Trade," they made an order "that the law
requiring all persons, as well inhabitants as strangers, that have not
taken it, to take the oath of fidelity to the country, be revived and
put in practice throughout the jurisdiction" (Palfrey, Vol. III., pp.
311-315)--an order intended to counteract the execution of the Acts of
Navigation and Trade by the King's Collector, and of which he complained
to England.
"The agents of the colony endeavoured to explain this law to the Board
(of Colonial Plantations in England), and to soften their indignation
against it, but without effect." (_Ib._, p. 315.) "All persons who
refused to take the oath of fidelity to the country were not to have the
privilege of recovering their debts in Courts of law, nor to have the
protection of the Government." (Truth and Innocency Defended, etc.)]
[Footnote 171: (Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society,
Second Series, Vol. VIII., pp. 73-78.) The liberty of worship, which
they declared had been the object of their emigration to Massachusetts,
had never been denied them; had been assured to them by both Charles the
First and Charles the Second. The King did not propose to impose the use
of the prayer book upon any inhabitant of the colony, but insisted upon
freedom of worship for each inhabitant; whereas the Massachusetts Bay
Court, under the pretext of liberty of worship for Congregationalists,
denied freedom of worship to all others not Congregationalists.]
[Footnote 172: "This extraordinary law continued in force until the
dissolution of the Government; it being repealed in appearance
only,[173] after the restoration of King Charles the Second. Had they
been deprived of their civil privileges in England by Act of Parliament,
unless they would join in communion with the Churches there, it might
very well have been the first on the roll of grievances. But such were
the requisites for Church membership here, that the grievance is
abundantly greater." (Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol.
I., pp. 25, 26.)]
[Footnote 173: _Note_ by the historian.--"The minister was to certify
that the candidates for freedom were of orthodox principles and of good
lives and conversation."]
[Footnote 174: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p.
431. "The test (that 'no man could have a share in the administration of
civil government, or give his voice in any election, unless he was a
member of one of the Churches') went a great way towards producing
general uniformity. He that did not conform was deprived of more civil
privileges than a nonconformist is deprived of by the Test Act in
England. Both the one and the other must have occasioned much formality
and hypocrisy. The mysteries of our holy religion have been prostituted
to mere secular views and advantages."--_Ib._, p. 432.]
[Footnote 175: (Palfrey, Vol. III., p. 353, in a note.) Mr. Hildreth
states the case as follows: "Encouraged by the King's demand for
toleration, construed as superseding the 'by-laws' of the colony, the
Baptists ventured to hold a service in their new meeting-house. For this
they were summoned before the magistrates, and when they refused to
desist the doors were nailed up and the following order posted upon
them: 'All persons are to take notice that, by order of the Court, the
doors of this house are shut up, and that they are inhibited to hold any
meeting therein, or to open the doors thereof without licence from
authority, till the General Court take further order, as they will
answer the contrary at their peril.' When the General Court met the
Baptists pleaded that their house was built before any law was made to
prevent it. This plea was so far allowed that their past offences were
forgiven; but they were not allowed to open the house." (History of the
United States, Vol. I., Chap, xiv., p. 501.)]
[Footnote 176: (Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p.
320.) After quoting this law, the historian remarks: "I know of nothing
which can be urged in anywise tending to increase the severity of this
law, unless it be human infirmity, and the many instances in history of
persons of every religion being fully persuaded that the indulgence of
any other was a toleration of impiety and brought down the judgments of
Heaven, and therefore justified persecution. This law lost the colony
many friends."--_Ib._
The law punishing attendance at Quaker meetings was accompanied by
another containing the following clauses:
"Pride, in men wearing long hair like women's hair; others wearing
borders of hair, and cutting, curling, and immodest laying out their
hair, principally in the younger sort. Grand Jurors to present and the
Court to punish all offenders by admonition, fine, or correction, at
discretion."
"Excess in apparel, strange new fashions, naked breasts and arms, and
pinioned superfluous ribbands on hair and apparel. The Court to fine
offenders at discretion."
"A loose and sinful custom of riding from town to town, men and women
together, under pretence of going to lectures, but really to drink and
revel in taverns, tending to debauchery and unchastity. All single
persons, being offenders, to be bound in their good behaviour, with
sureties in twenty pounds fine, or suffer fine and imprisonment."--_Ib._,
pp. 320, 321, in a note.
The foregoing pages show the notions and appreciation of the religious
rights and liberties by the Massachusetts Bay rulers and legislators in
regard to Episcopalians, Baptists, and Quakers. The above quoted clauses
of their law passed in 1667, nearly fifty years after the establishment
of their government, illustrate their ideas of individual liberty.]
[Footnote 177: Palfrey, Vol. III., p. 353. Much has been written about
these Acts of Trade and Navigation, as if they were acts of royal
despotism and designed to oppress the colonies for the benefit of
England; whereas they originated with the Commonwealth, and were
designed to benefit the colonies as well as the mother country. "After
the decapitation of Charles I.," says Minot, "the confused situation of
England prevented any particular attention to the colony until
Cromwell's Government. The very qualities which existed in the character
of the inhabitants to render them displeasing to the late King, operated
as much with the Protector in their favour; and he diverted all
complaints of their enemies against them. Yet he procured the Navigation
Act to be passed by the Parliament, which was a source of future
difficulty to the colony, though it was evaded in New England at first
(by Cromwell's connivance with the rulers of Massachusetts Colony), as
they still traded in all parts and enjoyed a privilege, peculiar to
themselves, of importing their goods into England free of all customs."
(Minot's Continuation of the History of Massachusetts Bay, published
according to Act of Congress, Vol. I., p. 40.)
Mr. Hildreth, referring to the early part of Charles the Second's
restoration, says: "As yet the Acts of Trade were hardly a subject of
controversy. The Parliament, which had welcomed back the King, had
indeed re-enacted with additional clauses the ordinance of 1651--an Act
which, by restricting exportations from America to English, Irish, and
Colonial vessels, substantially excluded foreign ships from all
Anglo-American harbours. To this, which might be regarded as a benefit
to New England ship-owners, a provision was added still further to
isolate the colonies (from foreign countries), the more valuable
colonial staples, mentioned by the name, and hence known as 'enumerated
articles,' being required to be shipped exclusively to England or some
English colony. The exportation to the colonies was also prohibited of
any product of Europe, unless in English vessels and from England,
except horses, servants and provisions from Ireland and Scotland. But of
the 'enumerated articles' none were produced in New England; while salt
for fisheries, and wine from Madeira and the Azores, branches of foreign
trade in which New England was deeply interested, were specially
exempted from the operation of an Act which had chiefly in view the more
southern colonies." (Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol I.,
Chap xiv.' p. 473.)]
[Footnote 178: History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xviii., pp.
461, 462.]
[Footnote 179: The following is a specimen of the manner in which they
interpreted their Charter to extend their territory. Having interpreted
their Charter to exempt themselves from all responsibility to the Crown
for their legislation or acts, they devised a new interpretation of
their Charter in order to extend their territory to the north and
north-east. The Charter limited their territories to three miles of the
north bank of the Merrimac. At the end of twenty years they decided that
the Charter meant three miles north of the most northern land or elbow
of the Merrimac, and then not follow within three miles of the north
bank of the river to its mouth, but a straight line east and west, which
would give to their Plantation, Maine and a large part of New Hampshire,
to the exclusion of the original patentees. When the Royal
Commissioners, as directed by the King, came to investigate the
complaints on this disputed boundary of territory, they decided against
the pretensions of the Massachusetts Bay rulers, and appointed
magistrates, etc., to give effect to their decision; but the authorities
of Massachusetts Bay, acknowledging no superior under heaven, resumed
control of the territory in dispute as soon as the Commissioners had
left the country. Mr. Hildreth says:
"Shortly after the departure of the Royal Commissioners, Leverett, now
Major-General of the Colony, was sent to Maine, with three other
magistrates and a body of horse, to re-establish the authority of
Massachusetts. In spite of the remonstrances of Col. Nichols at New York
(the head of the Royal Commission), the new Government lately set up was
obliged to yield. Several persons were punished for speaking
irreverently of the re-established authority of Massachusetts."
(Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap. xiv., pp. 473,
474.) For eleven years the Massachusetts Bay Government maintained this
ascendency against all complaints and appeals to England, when in 1677,
as Mr. Hildreth says, "After hearing the parties, the Privy Council
decided, in accordance with the opinion of the two Chief Justices, that
the Massachusetts patent did not give any territory more than three
miles distant from the left or north bank of the Merrimac. This
construction, which set aside the pretensions of Massachusetts to the
province of Maine, as well as to that part of New Hampshire east of the
Merrimac, appeared so plain to English lawyers that the agents (of
Massachusetts) hardly attempted a word in defence." (History of the
United States, Vol. II., Chap. xviii., pp. 496, 497.)
It has been shown that as early as the second year of the civil war in
England, the Massachusetts Bay Court passed an Act, in 1643, declaring
it a capital crime for any one in their jurisdiction to advocate or
support the cause of the King; some years afterwards they passed an Act
forbidding all trade with the other American colonies who would not
renounce their allegiance to the King; in their addresses to the
Parliament and Cromwell, in 1651 and 1654, as shown above, they claimed,
as a ground of merit for peculiar favour, that they had done their
utmost, by devotional and material aid of men and means, in support of
the Parliamentary, and afterwards regicide party, from the beginning to
the end of the war--so that loyalists as well as churchmen were treated
by them as outcasts and aliens--and now, after having begged, in
language of sycophantic subserviency, the Royal pardon for the past, and
obtained it on certain conditions, they claim the boon but refuse to
fulfil the conditions, making all sorts of excuses, promises, and
evasions for twenty years--professing and promising one thing in London,
doing the opposite in Massachusetts, protracting where they dare not
resist, but practically doing to the vacating of the Charter what Mr.
Bancroft states in the pregnant sentences above quoted in the text.]
CHAPTER VI.
MASSACHUSETTS DURING THE LAST FOUR YEARS OF CHARLES THE SECOND AND JAMES
THE SECOND, FROM 1680 TO 1688--THE IMMEDIATE CAUSES AND MANNER OF
CANCELLING THE FIRST CHARTER.
A crisis was now approaching. The state of things shown in the latter
part of the preceding chapter could not be suffered always to continue.
Means must be devised to bring it to an end.
The Massachusetts Court had sent successive agents to England to explain
and to make promises concerning many things complained of, to crave
indulgence and delay in other things which they could not explain or
justify; but they prohibited their agents, by private instructions, from
conceding anything which the Charter, as they interpreted it, had given
them--namely, absolute independence. But this double game was nearly
played out. Party struggles in England had absorbed the attention of the
King and Cabinet, and caused a public and vacillating policy to be
pursued in regard to Massachusetts; but the King's Government were at
length roused to decisive action, and threatened the colony with a writ
of _quo warranto_ in respect to matters so often demanded and as often
evaded.
The Massachusetts Court met forthwith, passed an Act to control the
commission of the King's Collector, Edward Randolph, and another Act
charging their own newly-appointed Collector to look strictly after the
enforcement of the Acts of Trade (but in reality to counteract them);
repealed another Act which imposed a penalty for plotting the overthrow
of the Colonial Constitution--an Act levelled against Randolph; passed
another Act substituting the word "Jurisdiction" for the word
"Commonwealth" in their laws. They authorized their agents merely to
lay these concessions before the King, and humbly hoped they would
satisfy his Majesty. They also bribed clerks of the Privy Council to
keep them informed of its proceedings on Massachusetts affairs, and
offered a bribe of £2,000 to King Charles himself. Mr. Hildreth says
(1683): "On the appearance of these agents at Court, with powers so
restricted, a _quo warranto_ was threatened forthwith unless they were
furnished with ampler authority. Informed of this threat, the General
Court (of Massachusetts), after great debates, authorized their agents
to consent to the regulation of anything wherein the Government might
_ignorantly_, or _through mistake_, have deviated from the Charter; to
accept, indeed, any demands consistent with the Charter (as they
interpreted it), the existing Government established under it, and the
'main ends of our predecessors in coming hither,' which main ends were
defined by them to be 'our liberties and privileges in matters of
religion and worship of God, which you are, therefore, in no wise to
consent to any infringement of.' They were authorized to give up Maine
to the King, and even to tender him a private gratuity of two thousand
guineas. Bribes were quite fashionable at Charles's Court; the King and
his servants were accustomed to take them. The Massachusetts agents[180]
had expended considerable sums to purchase a favour, or to obtain
information, and by having clerks of the Privy Council in their pay they
were kept well informed of the secret deliberations of that body. But
this offer (of a bribe of two thousand guineas to the King), unskilfully
managed, and betrayed by Cranfield, the lately appointed Royal Governor
of New Hampshire, who had advised the magistrates to make it, exposed
the Colony to blame and ridicule."[181]
"If a liberty of appeal to England were insisted on, the agents were
'not to include the colony in any act or consent of theirs, but to crave
leave to transmit the same to the General Court for their further
consideration.' They were 'not to make any alteration of the
qualifications that were required by law, as at present established,
respecting the _admission of freemen_.'"[182]
It having appeared, on the perusal of the commission of the
Massachusetts agents by Sir Lionel Jenkins, Secretary of State, that
they did not possess the powers required to enable them to act, they
were informed by Lord Radnor that "the Council had unanimously agreed to
report to his Majesty, that unless the agents speedily obtained such
powers as might render them capable to satisfy in all points, a _quo
warranto_ should proceed."
"Upon receipt of these advices," says Mr. Hutchinson, "it was made a
question, not in the General Court only, but amongst all the
inhabitants, whether to surrender or not. The opinions of many of the
ministers, and their arguments in support of them, were given in
writing, and in general it was thought better to die by the hands of
others than by their own.[183] The address was agreed upon by the
General Court; another was prepared and sent through the colony, to be
signed by the several inhabitants, which the agents were to present or
not, as they thought proper; and they were (privately) to deliver up the
deeds of the Province of Maine, if required, and it would tend to
preserve their Charter, otherwise not; and they were to make no
concessions of any privileges conferred on the colony by the
Charter."[184] (That is, according to their interpretation and
pretensions.)
"Governor Bradstreet and the moderate party were inclined to authorise
the agents to receive the King's commands. The magistrates passed a vote
to that effect. But all the zeal and obstinacy of the theocratic party
had been roused by the present crisis--a zeal resulting, as hot zeal
often does, in the ultimate loss of what it was so anxious to
save."[185]
The agents of the colony were not willing to undertake the defence and
management of the question upon the Charter in Westminster Hall. The
writ of _quo warranto_, which summoned the Corporation of Massachusetts
Bay to defend their acts against the complaints and charges made against
them, was issued the 27th of June, 1683, and on the 20th of July "It was
ordered by the Privy Council, 'that Mr. Edward Randolph be sent to New
England with the notification of the said _quo warranto_, which he was
to deliver to the said Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay,
and thereupon to return to give his Majesty an account of his
proceedings therein.'"[186] This writ was accompanied by a declaration
from the King "that the private interests and properties of all persons
within the colony should be continued and preserved to them, so that no
man should receive any prejudice in his freehold or estate;" also, "that
in case the said Corporation of the Massachusetts Bay should, before the
prosecution had upon the said _quo warranto_, make a full submission and
entire resignation to his pleasure, he would then regulate their Charter
(as stated in another place, by adding supplementary clauses) in such a
manner as should be for his service and the good of the colony, without
any other alterations than such as he should find necessary for the
better support of his Government."[187]
On the issue of the writ of _quo warranto_, the business of the colony's
agents in London was at an end. They returned home, and arrived in
Boston the 23rd of October, 1683; and the same week Randolph arrived
with the _quo warranto_ and the King's accompanying declaration. The
announcement of this decisive act on the part of the King produced a
profound sensation throughout the colony, and gave rise to the question,
"What shall Massachusetts do?" One part of the colony advocated
_submission_; another party advocated _resistance_. The former were
called the "Moderate party," the latter the "Patriot party"--the
commencement of the two parties which were afterwards known as United
Empire Loyalists and Revolutionists.[188] The Moderate party was led by
the memorable Governor Bradstreet, Stoughton, and Dudley, and included a
majority of the assistants or magistrates, called the "Upper branch of
the Government." The Independence party was headed by the Deputy
Governor Danforth, Gookin, and Nowell, and included a majority of the
House of Deputies, over whose elections and proceedings the elders or
ministers exerted a potent influence.[189]
Governor Bradstreet and a majority of the assistants, or magistrates,
adopted the following resolution:
"The magistrates have voted that an humble address be sent to his
Majesty by this ship, declaring that, upon a serious consideration of
his Majesty's gracious intimations in his former letters, and more
particularly in his late declaration, that his pleasure and purpose is
only to regulate our Charter in such a manner as shall be for his
service and the good of this his colony, and without any other
alteration than what is necessary for the support of his Government
here, we will not presume to contend with his Majesty in a Court of law,
but humbly lay ourselves at his Majesty's feet, in submission to his
pleasure so declared, and that we have resolved by the next opportunity
to send our agents empowered to receive his Majesty's commands
accordingly. And, for saving a default for non-appearance upon the
return of the writ of _quo warranto_, that some person or persons be
appointed and empowered, by letter of attorney, to appear and make
defence until our agents may make their appearance and submission as
above.
"The magistrates have passed this without reference to the consent of
their brethren the deputies hereto.
(Signed) "EDMUND RAWSON, _Secretary_.
"15th November, 1683."
This resolution was laid before the House of Deputies and debated by
them a fortnight, when the majority of them adopted the following
resolution:
"November 30, 1683.--The deputies consent not, but adhere to their
former bills.
"WILLIAM TERRY, _Clerk_."[190]
"They voted instead," says Mr. Hildreth, "an Address to the King,
praying forbearance; but they authorized Robert Humphreys, a London
barrister and the legal adviser of the agents, to enter an appearance
and to retain counsel, requesting him 'to leave no stone unturned that
may be of service either to the case itself, or the spinning out of the
time as much as possibly may be.' No less than three letters were
written to Humphreys; money was remitted; but all hopes of defence were
futile. Before the letters arrived in London, a default had already been
recorded. That default could not be got off, and judgment was entered
the next year pronouncing the Charter void."[191]
The manner in which the questions at issue were put to a popular vote
in Massachusetts was unfair and misleading; the epithets applied to the
"Moderate" or loyal party were offensive and unjust; and the statements
of Palfrey, respecting the acts of the King immediately following the
vacation of the Charter, are very disingenuous, not to say untrue.
The King had expressly and repeatedly declared that he would not proceed
to vacate the Charter if they would submit to his decision on the six
grounds mentioned in his first letter to them, June 28, 1662, twenty
years before, as the conditions of continuing the Charter, and which
they had persistently evaded and resisted; that his decision should be
in the form of certain "Regulations" for the future administration of
the Charter, and not the vacation of it. Every reader knows the
difference between a Royal Charter of incorporation and the Royal
instructions issued twenty years afterwards to remedy irregularities and
abuses which had been shown to have crept in, and practised in the local
administration of the Charter. Yet the ruling party in Massachusetts Bay
did not put the question as accepting the King's offers, but as of
vacating the Charter. This was raising a false issue, and an avowed
imputation and contempt of the King. It is true that Dr. Palfrey and
other modern New England historians have said that Charles the Second
had from the beginning intended to abolish the Charter; that the
"vacation of the Charter was a foregone conclusion." In reply to which
it may be said that this is mere assumption, unsupported by facts; that
if Charles the Second had wished or intended to vacate the Charter, he
had the amplest opportunity and reasons to do so, in the zenith of his
popularity and power, when they refused to comply with the conditions on
which he proposed to pardon and obliterate the past and continue the
Charter, and when they resisted his Commissioners, and employed military
force to oppose the exercise of their powers, and set aside their
decisions; instead of which he remonstrated with them for more than
twenty years, and then gave them long notice and choice to retain the
Charter with his "Regulations" on the disputed points, or contest the
Charter, as to their observance of it, in a Court of law. Under the
impulse and guidance of violent counsels they chose the latter, and lost
their Charter. In their very last address to the King, they gratefully
acknowledged his kindness in all his despatches and treatment of them,
contrary to the statements and imputations of modern New England
historians; yet they denied him the authority universally acknowledged
and exercised by Queen Victoria and English Courts of law over the
legislative, judicial, and even administrative acts of every province of
the British Empire. Dr. Palfrey says: "In the Upper branch of the
Government there was found at length a _servile_ majority;" but "the
deputies were prepared for no such _suicide_, though there were not
wanting faint hearts and grovelling aims among them."[192] At the head
of what Dr. Palfrey terms the "servile majority" was the venerable
Governor Bradstreet, now more than ninety years of age, the only
survivor of the original founders of the colony, who had been a
magistrate more than fifty years, more than once Governor, always a
faithful and safe counsellor, the agent of the colony in England, and
obtaining in June, 1662, the King's letter of pardon--oblivion of the
past and promised continuance of the Charter on certain conditions--a
letter which the Colonial Court said filled them with inexpressible joy
and gratitude (see above, page 141), who then advised them to comply
with the King's requirements, and who, after twenty years' further
experience and knowledge of public affairs and parties, advises them to
pursue the same course for which he is now termed "servile," and ranked
with cowards and men of "grovelling aims," advising the colony to commit
political "suicide." The result showed who were the real authors of the
"suicide," and Dr. Palfrey forcibly states the result of their doings in
the following words:
"Massachusetts, as a body politic, was now no more. The elaborate
fabric, that had been fifty-four years in building, was levelled to the
dust. The hopes of the fathers were found to be mere dreams. It seemed
that their brave struggles had brought no result. The honoured ally
(Massachusetts) of the Protector (Cromwell) of England lay under the
feet of Charles the Second. It was on the Charter granted to Roswell and
his associates, Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay, that the
structure of the cherished institutions of Massachusetts, religious and
civil, had been reared. The abrogation of that Charter swept the whole
away. Massachusetts, in English law, was again what it had been before
James the First made a grant of it to the Council of New England. It
belonged to the King of England, by virtue of the discovery of the
Cabots. No less than this was the import of the decree in Westminster
Hall. Having secured its great triumph, the Court had no thought of
losing anything by the weakness of compassion. The person selected by
the King to govern the people of his newly-acquired province was Colonel
Piercy Kirk. That campaign in the West of England had not yet taken
place which has made the name of Kirk immortal; but fame enough had gone
abroad of his brutal character, to make his advent an anticipation of
horror to those whom he was appointed to govern. It was settled that he
was to be called 'His Majesty's Lieutenant and Governor-General,' and
that his authority should be unrestricted."[193]
This quotation from Dr. Palfrey suggests one or two remarks, and
requires correction, as it is as disingenuous in statement as it is
eloquent in diction. He admits and assumes the validity of the judicial
act by which the Charter was declared forfeited; though the loyalty of
this decision was denied by the opposing party in Massachusetts, who
denied that any English Court, or that even the King himself, had any
authority in Massachusetts to disallow any of its acts or decisions,
much less to vacate its Charter, and professed to continue its elections
of deputies, etc., and to pass and administer laws as aforetime. Dr.
Palfrey's language presents all such pretensions and proceedings as
baseless and puerile.
Dr. Palfrey states what is true, that the Massachusetts Government had
been the "ally" of Cromwell; but this they had denied in their addresses
to Charles the Second. (See above, pp. 153-9.)
It is hardly ingenuous or correct in Dr. Palfrey speaking of Col. Kirk's
appointment of the "newly-acquired Province." The office extended over
New Hampshire, Maine, and Plymouth as well as Massachusetts; but Kirk
never was Governor of Massachusetts, for before his commission and
instructions were completed, all was annulled by the demise of King
Charles, which took place the 6th of February, 1685. Mr. Hutchinson
says: "Before any new Government was settled, King Charles died. Mr.
Blaithwait wrote to the Governor and recommended the proclaiming of King
James without delay. This was done with great ceremony in the high
street of Boston (April 20th)."[194]
Mr. Joseph Dudley, a native of the colony, and one of the two last
agents sent to England, was appointed the first Governor after the
annulling of the Charter. Mr. Hutchinson says: "The 15th of May (1686),
the _Rose_ frigate arrived from England, with a commission to Mr. Dudley
as President, and divers others, gentlemen of the Council, to take upon
them the administration of government." Mr. Dudley's short
administration was not very grievous. The House of Deputies, indeed, was
laid aside; but the people, the time being short, felt little or no
effect from the change. Mr. Stoughton was Mr. Dudley's chief confidant.
Mr. Dudley professed as great an attachment to the interest of the
colony as Mr. Stoughton, and was very desirous of retaining their
favour. A letter from Mr. Mather, then the minister of the greatest
influence, is a proof of it.[195] There was no molestation to the
Churches of the colony, but they continued both worship and discipline
as before. The affairs of the towns were likewise managed in the same
manner as formerly. Their Courts of justice were continued upon the
former plan, Mr. Stoughton being at the head of them. Trials were by
juries, as usual. Dudley considered himself as appointed to preserve the
affairs of the colony from confusion until a Governor arrived and a
rule of administration should be more fully settled.[196]
The administration of Dudley was only of seven months' duration. Dudley
was superseded by Sir Edmund Andros, who arrived at Boston on the 20th
of December (1686), with a commission from King James for the government
of New England.[197] He was instructed to appoint no one of the Council
to any offices but those of the least estates and characters, and to
displace none without sufficient cause; to continue the former laws of
the country, as far as they were not inconsistent with his commission or
instructions, until other regulations were established by the Governor
and Council; to allow no printing press; to give universal toleration in
religion, but encouragement to the Church of England; to execute the
laws of trade, and prevent frauds in Customs.[198] But Andros had other
instructions of a more despotic and stringent character; and being, like
King James himself, of an arbitrary disposition, he fulfilled his
instructions to the letter. And when his Royal master was dethroned for
his unconstitutional and tyrannical conduct, Andros was seized at Boston
and sent prisoner to England, to answer for his conduct; but he was
acquitted by the new Government, not for his policy in New England, but
because he had acted according to his instructions, which he pleaded as
his justification.[199]
It is singular that _toleration_ in Massachusetts should have been
proclaimed by the arbitrary James, in a declaration above and contrary
to the law for which he received the thanks of the ministers in that
colony, but which resulted in his loss of his Crown in England.
"James's Declaration of Indulgence was proclaimed (1687), and now, for
the first time, Quakers, Baptists, and Episcopalians enjoyed toleration
in Massachusetts. That system of religious tyranny, coeval with the
settlement of New England, thus unexpectedly received its death-blow
from a Catholic bigot, who professed a willingness to allow religious
freedom to others as a means of securing it for himself." ... "Mather,
who carried with him (1689) an address from the ministers, thanking
James, in behalf of themselves and their brethren, for his Declaration
of Indulgence arriving in England while King James was yet in power, had
been graciously received by that monarch. But, though repeatedly
admitted to an audience, his complaints against the Royal Governor
(Andros) had produced no effect. The Revolution intervening, he
hastened, with greater hopes of success, to address himself to the new
King, and his remonstrances prevented, as far as Massachusetts was
concerned, the despatch of a circular letter confirming the authority of
all Colonial officers holding commissions from James II. The letters
actually received at Boston authorized those in authority to retain
provisionally the administration, and directed that Andros and the other
prisoners should be sent to England."[200]
I have now traced the proceedings of the founders and rulers of the
Massachusetts Bay Colony during the fifty-four years of their first
Charter, with short notices of some occurrences during the three years'
reign of James the Second, their revenge not only in his own
dethronement, but also on his Governor Andros, for the tyranny which he
practised upon them by imprisoning him and his helpers, and by Royal
command sending them as prisoners to England, together with the removal
of the local officers appointed by Andros and the restoration of their
own elected authorities until further instruction from the new King.
There can be no question that the founders of that colony were not only
men of wealth, but men of education, of piety, of the highest
respectability, of great energy, enterprize, and industry, contributing
to the rapid progress of their settlements and increase of their wealth,
and stamping the character of their history; but after their emigration
to Massachusetts Bay, and during the progress of their settlements and
the organization and development of their undertakings, their views
became narrowed to the dimensions of their own Plantation in government
and trade, irrespective of the interests of England, or of the other
neighbour colonies, and their theology and religious spirit was of the
narrowest and most intolerant character. They assumed to be the chosen
Israel of God, subject to no King but Jehovah, above the rulers of the
land, planted there to cast out the heathen, to smite down every dagon
of false worship, whether Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist, or
Quaker, and responsible to no other power on earth for either their
legislative or administrative acts. I will not here recapitulate those
acts, so fully stated in preceding pages, and established by evidence of
documents and testimony which cannot be successfully denied. But there
are two features of their pretensions and government which demand
further remark.
I. The first is the character and narrowness of the foundation on which
rested their legislation and government. None but members of the
Congregational Churches were eligible to legislate or fill any office in
the colony, or even to be an elector. A more narrow-minded and
corrupting test of qualification for civil or political office, or for
the elective franchise, can hardly be conceived.[201] However rich a man
might be, and whatever might be his education or social position, if he
were not a member of the Congregational Church he was an "alien in the
Commonwealth" of the Massachusetts Israel, was ineligible for office, or
to be an elector; while his own servant, if a member of the Church,
though not worth a shilling, or paying a penny to the public revenue,
was an elector, or eligible to be elected to any public office. The
non-members of the Congregational Church were subject to all military
and civil burdens and taxes of the State, without any voice in its
legislation or administration. Such was the free (?) Government of
Massachusetts Bay, eulogized by New England historians during half a
century, until abolished by judicial and royal authority. What would be
thought at this day of a Government, the eligibility to public office
and the elective franchise under which should be based on membership in
a particular Church?
II. But, secondly, this Government must be regarded as equally unjust
and odious when we consider not merely the sectarian basis of its
assumptions and acts against the Sovereign on the one hand, and the
rights of citizens of Massachusetts and of neighbouring colonies on the
other, but the small proportion of the population enfranchised in
comparison with the population which was disfranchised. Even at the
beginning it was not professed that the proportion of Congregational
Church members to the whole population was more than one to three; in
after years it was alleged, at most, not to have been more than one to
six.
This, however, is of little importance in comparison with the question,
what was the proportion of electors to non-electors in the colony? On
this point I take as my authority the latest and most able apologist
and defender of the Massachusetts Government, Dr. Palfrey. He says:
"Counting the lists of persons admitted to the franchise in
Massachusetts, and making what I judge to be reasonable allowance for
persons deceased, I come to the conclusion that the number of freemen in
Massachusetts in 1670 may have been between 1,000 and 1,200, or one
freeman to every four or five adult males."[202]
The whole population of the colony at this time is not definitely
stated, but there was one elector to every "four or five" of the adult
"_males_." This eleven hundred men, because they were Congregationalists,
influenced and controlled by their ministers, elected from themselves all
the legislators and rulers of Massachusetts Bay Colony in civil, judicial,
and military matters, who bearded the King and Parliament, persecuted all
who dissented from them in religious worship, encroached upon the property
and rights of neighbouring colonies, levied and imposed all the burdens
of the State upon four-fifths of their fellow (male) colonists who had
no voice in the legislation or administration of the Government. Yet
this sectarian Government is called by New England historians a free
Government; and these eleven hundred electors--electors not because
they have property, but because they are Congregationalists--are called
"the people of Massachusetts," while four-fifths of the male population
and more than four-fifths of the property are utterly ignored, except
to pay the taxes or bear the other burdens of the State, but without
a single elective voice, or a single free press to state their grievances
or express their wishes, much less to advocate their rights and those of
the King and Parliament.
III. Thirdly, from the facts and authorities given in the foregoing
pages, there cannot be a reasonable pretext for the statement that the
rulers of Massachusetts Bay had not violated both the objects and
provisions of the Royal Charter, variously and persistently, during the
fifty-four years of its existence; while there is not an instance of
either Charles the First or Second claiming a single prerogative
inconsistent with the provisions of the Charter, and which is not freely
recognized at this day in the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain, by
the free inhabitants of every Province of the British Empire. The fact
that neither of the Charleses asked for anything more than the
toleration of Episcopal worship, never objected to the perfect freedom
of worship claimed by the Congregationalists of Massachusetts; and the
fact that Charles the Second corresponded and remonstrated for twenty
years and more to induce the rulers of Massachusetts Bay to acknowledge
those rights of King and Parliament, and their duties as British
subjects, shows that there could have been no desire to interfere with
their freedom of worship or to abolish the Charter, except as a last
resort, after the failure of all other means to restrain the disloyal
and oppressive acts of the rulers of that one colony. In
contradistinction to the practice of other colonies of New England, and
of every British colony at this day, Charles the First and Second were
bad kings to England and Scotland, but were otherwise to New England;
and when New England historians narrate at great length, and paint in
the darkest colours, the persecutions and despotic acts of the Stuart
kings over England and Scotland, and then infer that they did or sought
to do the same in New England, they make groundless assumptions,
contrary to the express declarations and policy of the two Charleses and
the whole character and tenor of New England history. The demands of
Charles the Second, and the conditions on which he proposed to continue
the first Charter in 1662, were every one sanctioned and provided for in
the second Royal Charter issued by William and Mary in 1690, and under
which, for seventy years, the Government was milder and more liberal,
the legislation broader, the social state more happy, and the colony
more loyal and prosperous than it had ever been during the fifty-four
years of the first Charter. All this will be proved and illustrated in
the following chapter.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 180: The Massachusetts Court had applied to Cromwell for
permission to use the word "Commonwealth" instead of the word
"Plantation," as expressed in their Charter, but were refused. They
afterwards adopted it of their own accord.]
[Footnote 181: Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap.
xiv., pp. 500, 506.
Their attempt to bribe the King was not the less bribery, whether
Cranfield, for his own amusement, or otherwise to test their virtue,
suggested it to them or not. But without any suggestion from Cranfield
they bribed the King's clerks from their fidelity in the Privy Council,
and bribed others "to obtain favour." The whole tenor of Scripture
injunction and morality is against offering as well as taking bribes.
After authorizing the employment of _bribery_ in England to promote
their objects, the Court closed their sittings by appointing "a day for
solemn humiliation throughout the colony, to implore the mercy and
favour of God in respect to their sacred, civil, and temporal concerns,
and more especially those in the hands of their agents abroad."
(Palfrey, Vol. III., B. iii, Chap. ix., pp. 374, 375.)]
[Footnote 182: Palfrey's History of New England, Vol. III., B. iii.,
Chap. ix., pp. 372, 373.
"The agents of the colony, Messrs. Dudley and Richards, upon their
arrival in England, found his Majesty greatly provoked at the neglect of
the colonists not sending before; and in their first letters home they
acquainted the Court with the feelings of the King, and desired to know
whether it was best to hazard all by refusing to comply with his
demands, intimating that they 'seriously intended to submit to the
substance.' At that time they had not been heard before the Council; but
soon after, on presenting the address which had been forwarded by their
hands, they were commanded to show their powers and instructions to Sir
Lionel Jenkins, Secretary of State; and on their perusal, finding these
powers wholly inadequate, they were informed by Lord Radnor that the
Council had agreed _nem. con._ to report to his Majesty, that unless
further powers were speedily obtained, a _quo warranto_ should proceed
in Hilary Term." (Barry's History of Massachusetts, First Period, Chap.
xvii, p. 471. Hutchinson, Vol. I., p. 335.)]
[Footnote 183: _Note_ by the historian Hutchinson.--"The clergy turned
the scale for the last time. The balance which they had held from the
beginning, they were allowed to retain no longer."]
[Footnote 184: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp.
336, 337.]
[Footnote 185: _Ibid._]
[Footnote 186: Palfrey's History of New England, Vol. III., B. iii.,
Chap. ix., p. 374. Mr. Palfrey, pp. 375, 376, in a note, gives the
following abstract of Randolph's charges presented to the Court: "1.
They assume powers that are not warranted by the Charter, which is
executed in another place than was intended. 2. They make laws repugnant
to those of England. 3. They levy money on subjects not inhabiting the
colony (and consequently not represented in the General Court). 4. They
impose an oath of fidelity to themselves, without regarding the oath of
allegiance to the King. 5. They refuse justice by withholding appeals to
the King. 6. They oppose the Acts of Navigation, and imprison the King's
officers for doing their duty. 7. They have established a Naval Office,
with a view to defraud the customs. 8. No verdicts are ever found for
the King in relation to customs, and the Courts impose costs on the
prosecutors, in order to discourage trials. 9. They levy customs on the
importation of goods from England. 10. They do not administer the oath
of supremacy, as required by the Charter. 11. They erected a Court of
Admiralty, though not empowered by Charter. 12. They discountenance the
Church of England. 13. They persist in coining money, though they had
asked forgiveness for that offence." (Chalmers' Annals, p. 462.)]
[Footnote 187: _Ib._, p. 377.]
[Footnote 188: "From this period (1683) one may date the origin of two
parties--the Patriots and Prerogative men--between whom controversy
scarcely intermitted, and was never ended until the separation of the
two countries." (Minot's History of Massachusetts, etc., Vol. I., p.
51.)]
[Footnote 189: In a Boston town meeting, held January 21, 1684, to
consider the King's declaration, the Rev. Increase Mather, who was then
President of Harvard College, and had for twenty years exerted more
influence upon the public affairs of Massachusetts than any other man
for the same length of time, delivered a speech against submission to
the King, which he miscalled "the surrender of the Charter." He said,
among other things: "I verily believe we shall sin against the God of
heaven if we vote in the affirmative to it. The Scripture teacheth us
otherwise. That which the Lord our God hath given us, shall we not
possess it? God forbid that we should give away the inheritance of our
fathers. Nor would it be wisdom for us to comply. If we make a full and
entire resignation to the King's pleasure, we fall into the hands of men
immediately; but if we do not, we still keep ourselves in the hands of
God; and who knows what God may do for us?" The historian says that "the
effect of such an appeal was wholly irresistible; that many of the
people fell into tears, and there was a general acclamation." (Barry's
Colonial History of Massachusetts, Vol. I., pp. 476, 477.)
It is not easy to squeeze as much extravagance and nonsense in the same
space as in the above quoted words of Increase Mather. Where was the
Scripture which taught them not to submit complaints of their
fellow-colonists to their King and his Council, the highest authority in
the empire? Both Scripture and profane history furnish us with examples
almost without number of usurpers professing that the usurpation and
conquest they had achieved was "that which the Lord our God had given"
them, and which they should "possess" at all hazards as if it were an
"inheritance of their fathers." The "inheritance" spoken of by Mr.
Mather was what had been usurped by the rulers of the colony over and
above the provisions of their Charter against the rights of the Crown,
the religious and political liberties of their fellow-colonists, and
encroaching upon the lands of their white and Indian neighbours. Then to
submit to the King and Council was to "fall into the hands of men
immediately," but to contest with the King in the Courts of Chancery or
King's Bench was to "keep themselves in the hands of God," who, it
seems, according to Increase Mather's own interpretation, judged him and
his adherents unworthy of retaining the "inheritance" of the Charter,
the powers and objects of which they had so greatly perverted and
abused. The King had expressly declared that the prosecution against the
Charter would be abandoned if they would submit to his decision in
regard to what had been matters of complaint and dispute between them
and their fellow-colonists and Sovereign for more than fifty years, and
which decision should be added to the Charter as explanatory
regulations, and should embrace nothing affecting their religious
liberties or local elective self-government. They refused, and lost
their Charter; Rhode Island and Connecticut submitted, and even resigned
their Charters, and were afterwards authorized to resume them, with the
privileges and powers conferred by them unimpaired, including the
election of their Governors as well as legislators, etc.]
[Footnote 190: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp.
338, 339.]
[Footnote 191: Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. I., Chap.
xiv., p. 507. The notice to the Corporation and Company of Massachusetts
to answer to the writ of _quo warranto_ was received October, 1683; the
final judgment of the Court vacating the Charter was given July, 1685,
nearly two years afterwards. (Hutchinson, Vol. I., pp. 337-340.)]
[Footnote 192: History of New England, Vol. III., B. iii., Chap. ix.,
pp. 380, 381.]
[Footnote 193: Palfrey's History of New England, Vol. III., B. iii.,
Chap. ix., pp. 394, 395.]
[Footnote 194: History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 340.
"The Charter fell. This was the last effective act of Charles the Second
relative to Massachusetts; for before a new Government could be settled,
the monarch was dead. His death and that of the Charter were nearly
contemporary." (Barry's History of Massachusetts, First Period, Chap.
xvii., p. 478).]
[Footnote 195: The conclusion of this letter is as follows: "Sir, for
the things of my soul, I have these many years hung upon your lips, and
ever shall; and in civil things am desirous you may know with all
plainness my reasons of procedure, and that they may be satisfactory to
you. I am, sir, your servant,
"J. DUDLEY.
From your own house,
May 17th, '86."]
[Footnote 196: History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 350, 351, 352.
"Though eighteen months had elapsed since the Charter was vacated, the
Government was still going on as before. The General Court, though
attended thinly, was in session when the new commission arrived. Dudley
sent a copy of it to the Court, not as recognizing their authority, but
as an assembly of principal and influential inhabitants. They complained
of the commission as arbitrary, 'there not being the least mention of an
Assembly' in it, expressed doubts whether it were safe for him or them,
and thus gloomily dissolved, leaving the government in Dudley's hands."
(Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xviii., p.
80.)]
[Footnote 197: Andros was appointed Captain-General and Vice-Admiral of
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Plymouth, Pemaquid, and
Narragansett during pleasure.]
[Footnote 198: (Holmes' Annals, etc., Vol. I., p. 419). Holmes adds: "To
support a Government that could not be submitted to from choice, a small
military establishment, consisting of two companies of soldiers, was
formed, and military stores were transported. The tyrannical conduct of
James towards the colonies did not escape the notice and censure of
English historians." "At the same time that the Commons of England were
deprived of their privileges, a like attempt was made on the colonies.
King James recalled their Charters, by which their liberties were
secured; and he sent over Governors with absolute power. The arbitrary
principles of that monarch appear in every part of his administration."
(Hume's History of England, _Act_ James II.)--_Ib._, pp. 419, 490.
Hutchinson says: "The beginning of Andros' administration gave great
satisfaction. He made high professions as to the public good and the
welfare of the people, both of merchants and planters; directed the
judges to administer justice according to the custom of the place;
ordered the former established rules to be observed as to rates and
taxes, and that all the colony laws not inconsistent with his commission
should be in force." (History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 353).]
[Footnote 199: "The complaints against Andros, coolly received by the
Privy Council, were dismissed by order of the new King, on the ground
that nothing was charged against the late Governor which his
instructions would not fully justify." (Hildreth's History of the United
States, Vol. II., Chap. xviii., p. 94.)]
[Footnote 200: Hildreth's History, etc., Vol. II., Chap. xviii., pp. 83,
93, 94.]
[Footnote 201: "As a matter of course, this Church test of citizenship
did not work well. The more unscrupulous the conscience, the easier it
was to join the Church; and abandoned men who wanted public preferment
could join the Church with loud professions and gain their ends, and
make Church membership a byeword. Under the Charter by William and Mary,
in 1691, the qualification of electors was then fixed at a 'freehold of
forty shillings per annum, or other property of the value of £40
sterling.'" (Elliott's New England History, Vol. I., p. 113.)]
[Footnote 202: Palfrey's History of New England, Vol. III., B. iii.,
Chap. ii., p. 41, in a note.]
CHAPTER VII.
THE SECOND ROYAL CHARTER; HOW OBTAINED--MASSACHUSETTS NEARLY SIXTY YEARS
UNDER THE SECOND CHARTER, FROM 1691 TO 1748; TO THE CLOSE OF THE FIRST
WAR BETWEEN ENGLAND AND FRANCE, AND THE PEACE OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE.
I have traced the characteristics of the Government of the Massachusetts
Bay Colony during fifty-four years under its first Charter, in its
relations to the Crown, to the citizens of its own jurisdiction, to the
inhabitants of the neighbouring colonies, and to the Indians; its denial
of Royal authority; its renunciation of one form of worship and Church
polity, and adoption of another; its denial of toleration to any but
Congregationalists, and of the elective franchise, to four-fifths of the
male population; its taxing without representation; its denial of the
right of appeal to the King, or any right on the part of the King or
Parliament to receive appeals, or to the exercise of any supervision or
means of seeing that "the laws of England were not contravened" by their
acts of legislation or government, while they were sheltered by the
British navy from the actual and threatened invasion of the Dutch,
Spaniards, and French, not to say the Indians, always prompted and
backed by the French, thus claiming all the attributes of an independent
Government, but resting under the ægis of an Imperial protection to
maintain an independence which they asserted, but could not themselves
maintain against foreign enemies.
I will now proceed to note the subsequent corresponding facts of their
history during seventy years under the second Royal Charter.
They averred, and no doubt brought themselves to believe, that with
their first Charter, as interpreted by themselves, was bound up their
_political life_, or what they alleged to be dearer to them than life,
and that in its loss was involved their _political death_; but they made
no martial effort to prolong that life, or to save themselves from that
premature death.
Mr. Palfrey assigns various reasons for this non-resistance to the
cancelling of their Charter; but he omits or obscurely alludes to the
real ones.
Dr. Palfrey says: "The reader asks how it could be that the decree by
which Massachusetts fell should fail to provoke resistance. He inquires
whether nothing was left of the spirit which, when the colony was much
poorer, had often defied and baffled the designs of the father of the
reigning King. He must remember how times were changed. There was no
longer a great patriot party in England, to which the colonists might
look for sympathy and help, and which it had even hoped might reinforce
them by a new emigration. There was no longer even a Presbyterian party
which, little as it had loved them, a sense of common insecurity and
common interest might enlist in their behalf.... Relatively to her
population and wealth, Massachusetts had large capacities for becoming a
naval power--capacities which might have been vigorously developed if an
alliance with the great naval powers of Continental Europe had been
possible. But Holland was now at peace with England; not to say that
such an arrangement was out of the question for Massachusetts, while
_the rest of New England was more or less inclined to the adverse
interest_. Unembarrassed by any foreign war, England was armed with that
efficient navy which the Duke of York had organized, and which had
lately distressed the rich and energetic Netherlanders; and the
dwellings of two-thirds of the inhabitants of Massachusetts stood where
they could be battered from the water. They had a commerce which might
be molested in every sea by English cruisers. Neither befriended nor
interfered with, they might have been able to defend themselves against
the corsairs of Barbary in the resorts of their most gainful trade; but
England had given them notice, that if they were stubborn that commerce
would be dismissed from her protection, and in the circumstances such a
notice threatened more than a mere abstinence from aid. The Indian war
had emptied the colonial exchequer. On the other hand, a generation
earlier the colonists might have retreated to the woods, but now they
had valuable stationary property to be kept or sacrificed. To say no
more, the ancient unanimity was broken in upon. Jealousy had risen and
grown.... Nor was even public morality altogether of its pristine tone.
The prospect of material prosperity had introduced a degree of luxury;
and luxury had brought ambition and mean longings. Venality had become
possible; and clever and venal men had a motive for enlisting the
selfish and the stupid, and decrying the generous and wise."[203]
These eloquent words of Dr. Palfrey are very suggestive, and deserve to
be carefully pondered by the reader.
I. In the concluding sentences he tacitly admits that the Government of
Massachusetts Bay had become, at the end of fifty-four years, partially
at least, a failure in "public morality" and patriotism; yet during that
period the Government had been exclusively, in both its legislation and
administration, in the hands of one religious denomination, under the
influence of its ministers, who were supported by taxation on the whole
population, controlled the elections, and whose counsels ruled in all
conflicts with the King and Parliament of England. None but a
Congregationalist could be a governor, or assistant, or deputy, or
judge, or magistrate, or juror, or officer of the army, or constable, or
elector, or have liberty of worship. The union of Church and State in
Massachusetts was more intimate and intolerant than it had or ever has
been in England; and their contests with England in claiming absolute
and irresponsible powers under the Charter were at bottom, and in
substance, contests for Congregational supremacy and exclusive and
proscriptive rule in Church and State--facts so overlooked and
misrepresented by New England historians. Yet under this denominational
and virtually hierarchical government, while wealth was largely
accumulated, the "pristine tone of public morality" declined, and
patriotism degenerated into "ambition and venality."
II. It is also worthy of remark, that, according to Dr. Palfrey, had not
the spirit of the first generation of the rulers of Massachusetts Bay
departed, the war of the American Revolution would have been anticipated
by a century, and the sword would have been unsheathed, not to maintain
the right of representation co-extensive with subjection to taxation,
but to maintain a Government which for half a century had taxed
four-fifths of its citizens without allowing them any representation,
supported the ministers of one Church by taxes on the whole population,
and denied liberty of worship to any but the members of that one
denomination.
III. I remark further, that Mr. Palfrey hints at the two real causes why
the disloyal party (calling itself the "patriotic party") did not take
up arms of rebellion against the mother country. The one was _disunion_
in the colony--"the ancient unanimity was broken in upon." It has been
seen that a majority of the "Upper branch" of even this denominational
Government, and a large minority of the assembly of deputies, were in
favour of submitting to the conditions which the King had twenty years
before prescribed as the terms of continuing the Charter. If the
defection from disloyalty was so great within the limits of the
denomination, it is natural to infer that it must have been universal
among the four-fifths of the male population who were denied the rights
and privileges of "freemen," yet subject to all the burdens of the
State. Deprived also of all freedom of the press, and punished by fine
and imprisonment if, even in petitions to the local Legislature for
redress of grievances, they complained of the acts of local legislation
or government, they could only look to the mother country for
deliverance from local oppression, for liberty of worship and freedom of
citizens. The "ministers" had lost their ascendency even within the
enfranchised circle of their own established churches, while the great
body of the disfranchised Nonconformists could only regard them as had
the Nonconformists in England regarded Bancroft and Laud. They could
assume high prerogatives, arrogate to themselves divine favour and
protection, threaten divine judgments on their adversaries, boast of
courage and power; but they knew that in a trial of strength on the
battlefield their strength would prove weakness, and that they would be
swept from power, and perhaps proscribed and oppressed by the very
victims of their intolerance. The "breaking in upon ancient unanimity"
was but the declining power of a disloyal Church and State Government
of one denomination. A second cause hinted at by Dr. Palfrey why the
rulers of Massachusetts Bay did not resort to arms at this time was,
that "_the rest of New England was more or less inclined to the adverse
interest_." They could command no rallying watchword to combine the
other New England colonies against the King, such as they were enabled
to employ the following century to combine all the American colonies.
"The rest of New England" had found that in the King and Council was
their only effectual protection against the aggressions and domination
of the rulers of Massachusetts Bay, who denied all right of appeal to
the Crown, and denied the right of the Crown to receive and decide upon
such appeals. These rulers not only encroached upon the lands of
neighbouring colonies, but interfered with their exercise of religious
toleration.[204] The extinction of the pretensions to supremacy and
monopoly of power and trade by the rulers of Massachusetts Bay, was the
enfranchisement of the other New England Colonies to protection against
aggression, and of four-fifths of the male inhabitants of Massachusetts
itself to the enjoyment of equal civil and religious liberty.
I think therefore that "ambitions and mean longings," and even
"venality," had quite as much to do on the part of those who wished to
perpetuate the government of disloyalty, proscription, and persecution
as on the part of those who desired to "render unto Cæsar the things
that are Cæsar's," and to place the Government of Massachusetts, like
that of the other New England Colonies, upon the broad foundation of
equal and general franchise and religious liberty.
But to return from this digression. After "the fall of the Charter,"
November, 1684, the Congregationalists of Massachusetts Bay continued
their government for two years, as if nothing had happened to their
Charter; they promptly proclaimed and took the oath of allegiance to
James the Second; and two years afterwards sent the celebrated Increase
Mather as agent to England, to thank the King for the Proclamation of
Indulgence, which trampled on English laws, and cost the King his
throne, to pray for the restoration of the Charter, and to accuse and
pray for the removal of the King's obnoxious Governor-General of New
England, Sir Edmund Andros. The King received him very courteously, and
granted him several audiences. It would have been amusing to witness the
exchange of compliments between the potent minister of Massachusetts
Congregationalism and the bigoted Roman Catholic King of England; but
though James used flattering words, he bestowed no favours, did not
relax the rigour of his policy, and retained his Governor of New
England. On the dethronement of James, Dr. Mather paid his homage to the
rising sun of the new Sovereign--professed overflowing loyalty to
William and Mary,[205] and confirmed his professions by showing that his
constituents, on learning of the revolution in England, seized and sent
prisoner to England, Andros, the hated representative of the dethroned
King. But King William did not seem to estimate very highly that sort
of loyalty, much less to recognize the Massachusetts assumptions under
the old Charter, though he was ready to redress every just complaint and
secure to them all the privileges of British subjects.[207] Mr.
Hutchinson says: "Soon after the withdrawal of King James, Dr. Mather
was introduced to the Prince of Orange by Lord Wharton, and presented
the circular before mentioned, for confirming Governors being sent to
New England. The 14th of March, Lord Wharton introduced him again to the
King, when, after humbly congratulating his Majesty on his accession,
Dr. Mather implored his Majesty's favour to New England. The King
promised all the favour in his power, but hinted at what had been
irregular in their former government; whereupon Dr. Mather undertook
that upon the first word they would reform any irregularities they
should be advised of, and Lord Wharton offered to be their guarantee.
The King then said that he would give orders that Sir Edmund Andros
should be removed and called to an account for his maladministration,
and that the King and Queen should be proclaimed (in Massachusetts) by
the former magistrates. Dr. Mather was a faithful agent, and was
unwearied in securing friends for his country. Besides several of the
nobility and principal commoners, he had engaged the dissenting
ministers, whose weight at that time was far from inconsiderable."[208]