To your properly understanding the nature and origin of the uneasiness
that has so strongly agitated the colonies of late years, and still
exists, though now somewhat abated; and which has been occasioned by
parliamentary taxation and the modern measures of government; you must
be acquainted with the sentiments and history of the first settlers, no
less than of their descendants and successors.
Several of the most zealous and eminent protestants, in the reign of
_Edward_ the VIth, opposed the popish ceremonies and habits, though
otherwise united to their brethren in religious tenets. The opposition
became more general and determined, after hundreds of them fled to, and
resided in foreign parts, in order to escape the _Marian_ persecutions.
There the sentiments of numbers, through their intercourse with
protestants of other nations, were much changed and improved; and they
were more than ever desirous of proceeding further in the reformation,
than was directed by the service-book of king _Edward_.
Upon the accession of _Elizabeth_, the refugees returned to _England_,
[1558.] loaded with experience and learning, but in the utmost distress
and poverty. Those of the clergy, who could comply with the queen’s
establishment, were quickly preferred. The rest, after being admitted to
preach a while, were suspended, and reduced to former indigence. Several
were offered bishopricks, but declined the tender, on account of the
garments, ceremonies, &c. while the necessity of the times and the
flattering hope of obtaining hereafter an amendment in the constitution
of the church, induced others to accept preferments, though with
trembling.
The queen affected much pomp in religion; was fond of the old popish
ceremonies, in which she had been educated; and thought her brother,
king _Edward_, had gone too far in demolishing ornaments.
The clergy and laity, who sought after greater ecclesiastic purity, in
vain struggled hard for the abolishment of popish ceremonies and habits;
or, at least, leaving the use of them, in divine service, indifferent.
They obtained nothing but the honorable nick-name of PURITANS. The queen
proved an inflexible bigot, and would be obeyed, or punish. The
parliament, in their first session, had very injudiciously passed the
two acts of supremacy and uniformity, without guarding them properly;
and by a clause in the latter, delivered up to the crown, all
ecclesiastic jurisdiction. Men of solid learning and piety, of sober
lives, popular preachers, professed enemies to popery and superstition,
and of the same faith in point of doctrine, with the conformists, were
suspended, deprived, imprisoned and ruined, for not complying with the
use of those garments and ceremonies, which their opponents acknowledged
to be indifferent in themselves; while the sufferers adjudged such
compliance sinful, from their having been abused to idolatry, and
serving as marks and badges of that religion they had renounced.
All the puritans of these times were desirous of remaining in the
church, might they be indulged as to the habits and a few ceremonies,
though they were far from being satisfied with the hierarchy, and had
other objections beside those for which they had been deprived. Instead
of indulgence, their grievances were multiplied, and the penal laws were
rigorously executed. However, the body of the conforming clergy being
extremely illiterate and ignorant, the deprived ministers were employed
as curates or lecturers; and received for their services, a small
consideration from the incumbent, together with the voluntary
contribution of the parish. By their warm and affectionate preaching,
and eminent faithfulness, they gained the hearts of the common people,
who were the more attached to them, the more cruelty was exercised upon
them; and who had the utmost aversion to the popish garments, as their
hatred to popery increased. The preachers appealed to the scriptures.
Their hearers searched them carefully; obtained more and clearer
discoveries of the popish superstitions; grew in their abhorrence of
them; venerated the divine institutions; and longed to have the worship
of the church rendered more pure and primitive. The popularity of the
deprived ministers drew numbers from neighboring parishes. _Puritanism_
spread and gained ground by being persecuted. Its growth was the
greatest grief to the queen and archbishop Whitgift. But neither the
supreme head of the church, nor the primate of all _England_, had policy
or christianity enough to apply the proper remedy, in granting _liberty
of conscience_. Instead of that, new acts were passed, and greater
severities practised. Such inhuman proceedings against protestants of
good moral characters, did not pass unnoticed. They were the subjects of
conversation. The right of acting thus toward fellow creatures, and its
non-agreement with the mild and benevolent principles of christianity,
were freely canvassed. The supreme head and chief dignitaries of the
_English_ church being such intolerable persecutors, it became a
question, “Is she any longer a _true church_ of Christ, and are her
ministers _true_ ministers.”
At length one _Robert Brown_, descended from an ancient and honorable
family, and nearly related to lord treasurer _Cecil_, a fiery zealot,
travelled through the country [1586] a second time, holding forth,
wherever he went, against _bishops_, _ecclesiastic courts_, _ordaining
of ministers_, &c. and gathered a _separate_ congregation. The parties
held, that the _church of_ ENGLAND was not a _true_ church; that her
ministers were not _rightly_ ordained; that her discipline was _popish_
and _anti-christian_; and that all her ordinances and sacraments were
_invalid_. Therefore they would not join with her members in _any part_
of public worship. They not only renounced communion with the _church
of_ ENGLAND, but with _all_ other reformed churches, except they were of
their own model.
These _separatists_ were called _Brownists_, which was long afterward
the common name for all that separated _totally_ from the church of
_England_, even when they disowned the rigid principles of _Brown_ and
his congregation. We must carefully distinguish the _Brownists_ from the
_Puritans_. Most of the latter were for keeping within the pale of the
church, apprehending it to be a _true_ church in its _doctrines_ and
_sacraments_, though defective in _discipline_ and corrupt in
_ceremonies_. They thought it _unlawful_ to separate; submitted to
suspensions and deprivations; when driven out of one diocese, took
sanctuary in another, being afraid of incurring the guilt of _schism_;
and were the chief writers against the _Brownists_.
[1593] A fresh effort was made to crush the _non-conformists_. A most
obnoxious act was passed, for punishing all who refused to come to
church, and every one who persuaded others to oppose the queen’s
authority in ecclesiastic causes, or was present at any conventicle or
meeting. The punishment was imprisonment without bail, till the
convicted agreed to conform, and make a declaration of his conformity.
In case the offender did not sign the declaration within three months,
he was _to abjure the realm, and go into perpetual banishment_. If he
departed not within the time limited, or returned afterward without the
queen’s licence, he was _to suffer death without benefit of clergy_. By
this act, the case of non-conformists was worse than that of felons at
common law. The statute was levelled against the laity, no less than the
clergy. The moderate Puritans evaded it, by going to church when prayers
were nearly ended, and by receiving the sacrament when administered with
some latitude. The weight of it fell upon the _Brownists_, whose
sentiments had gained ground, so that they were increased to near twenty
thousand, besides wives and children, according to the opinion of _Sir
Walter Raleigh_, given in the house of commons, when the bill was read
the second time and debated.[1]
Several were _put to death_ about this period; which excited an odium
against the bishops and high commissioners, who were universally known
to have been at the bottom of the proceedings against them. It was
resolved therefore to send the remainder of the imprisoned into
banishment, instead of continuing to execute them. Others preferred a
voluntary exile, rather than be exposed to the merciless persecutions
that awaited them in their native country. Is it strange that these
persons, thus forced or frightened out of it, for claiming and
exercising the common right of human nature, that of judging for
themselves in matters of religion, should at length think that their
allegiance terminated with their departure; or that those who
commiserated them, inclined to the same sentiment?
The parliament, especially the lower house, perceiving how the queen,
and many of the bishops and ecclesiastics abused their spiritual power;
what mischiefs they brought upon the church; and the miseries to which
honest men were reduced for mere difference in religious sentiments,
attempted repeatedly to regulate matters, and to redress the hardships
of the non-conformists, but was stopped by her majesty, in the most
dictatorial manner. Some of the members, roused by such unwarrantable
acts of sovereignty, spake boldly and freely upon the occasion, and
censured the arbitrary proceedings of the bishops. The queen added to
her other faults, that of sending them to the Tower. But though she
could awe the parliament, imprison its members, and protect her favorite
bishops, she could not overpower the consciences of the non-conformists.
A number of religious people upon the borders of _Nottinghamshire_,
_Lincolnshire_, and _Yorkshire_, having suffered persecution patiently
for years, and searched the scriptures diligently, were at length fully
of opinion, that the _ceremonies_ of the _English_ church were
_unlawful_; that the lordly power of her prelates was contrary to the
_freedom_ of the gospel; and that her offices, courts and canons, had no
warrant in the word of God; but were _popish_. They determined therefore
to shake off that yoke of bondage, viz. human impositions, brought into
the church by popish policy and power, against the superior law of
Christ, the genius of his plain religion and christian liberty. They
resolved [1602] as the Lord’s free people, “_to join themselves by
covenant into a church state; and, agreeable to present or future
knowledge, to walk in all the ways of God, according to their best
abilities, whatever it costs them_.”[2]
The assembly [1606] owing to the distance of habitations, was obliged to
form itself into two distinct religious societies; the one, with which
is our concern, soon had for its pastor the famous Mr. _John Robinson_.
The church kept together about a year; but being extremely harrassed by
persecutors, concluded upon removing to _Holland_. The pious refugees
repaired to and settled at Amsterdam; but after a while removed to
_Leyden_; where they were highly respected, and would have been allowed
some public favor, had it not been for fear of offending England. By
hard and continued labor they obtained a living. The _Dutch_ employed
them before others, for their honest and exemplary behaviour; and
readily trusted them when in want of money. Matters, however, were not
altogether to their mind [1617] and some of the most sensible began to
think of another removal. It was imagined, that if a better and easier
place of living could be had, numbers would join them. The morals of the
Dutch were too dissolute; and they were afraid that their offspring
would become irreligious. Beside, they had an ardent, noble, and godly
desire, of laying a foundation for spreading the religion of _Jesus_
over the remote regions of the earth; and of handing down to future ages
what they thought to be, the pure and unadulterated worship of the great
JEHOVAH. They therefore directed their views to _America_. To those who
objected—the length and danger of the voyage, the difficulties and
calamities to which they should be exposed, the barbarities and
treacheries of the _Indians_, and their inability to support the
expence—it was answered “The difficulties are not invincible, and may be
overcome by fortitude and patience; the ends proposed are good and
honorable; the calling lawful and urgent; the blessing of God may
therefore be expected. We live but as exiles now, and are in a poor
condition. The truce with the _Spaniards_ is hastening to a close.
Nothing but preparations for war are going forward. The _Spaniards_ may
be as cruel as the _Savages_; and famine and pestilence may be as sore
in _Holland_ as in _America_.”
After serious and solemn application to God for direction, they
concluded on carrying the proposal of crossing the _Atlantic_ into
execution; endeavoring to live in a distinct body by themselves, under
the general government of the _Virginia_ company; and suing to his
majesty, king _James_, for _full liberty and freedom of conscience_.
The Virginia company were ready to give them a patent, with as ample
privileges as they could grant; but, notwithstanding the great interest
made by gentlemen of the first character, and by the chief secretary of
state, the king and bishops refused to allow the refugees (though at the
distance of 3000 miles) liberty of conscience under the royal seal. All
they could obtain from his majesty, was a promise that he would connive
at, and not molest them, provided they carried themselves peaceably; but
he would not tolerate them by his public authority. Upon this occasion,
it was wisely observed, “If his majesty’s promise is no security, a
further confirmation will be of little value, though it has a seal as
broad as the house floor, it will not serve the turn, for there will be
means enough found, when wanted, to recall or reverse it; and we must
rest herein on God’s providence.” This reasoning and the hope of being
placed beyond the reach of ecclesiastic courts, prevailed. They resolved
to venture; and after long attendance, much cost and labor, obtained a
patent.
They agreed that the minor part of younger and stronger men, with Mr.
_Brewster_, an elder of the church, should go first, and that the
pastor, Mr. _Robinson_, should remain behind with the majority, for a
future favorable opportunity. Their enemies whispered, that the stats of
_Holland_ were weary of their company; but the reverse was evident from
the following occurrence, viz. the magistrates of the city, when
reproving the _Walloons_ in open court, said, “_These_ English _have
lived now ten years among us, and yet we never had any accusation
against any of them, whereas your quarrels are continual_.”
The colony destined for America, sailed from _Delft-Haven_ for
_Southampton_, July 22, 1620; and there met a ship having some English
friends on board, who proposed removing with them. Both vessels
proceeded to sea; but returned twice into port, on account of defects in
the one from Delft, which was dismissed. Part of the company returned to
_London_, the remainder betook themselves to the ship, and sailed from
_Plymouth_ the 6th of September. After many delays, difficulties and
dangers, they made _Cape Cod_ at break of day on the 9th of November,
and entered the harbor on the 10th. They offered up their devout and
ardent acknowledgments to God for his protection, and had thoughts of
landing; but remarking that they were out of the limits of their patent,
and in a sort reduced to a state of nature; and hearing some, who came
from London, hint, _there is now no authority over us_; they, while on
board, formed themselves into a civil body politic, under the crown of
_England_, for the purpose of framing “just and equal laws, ordinances,
acts, constitutions and offices,” to which they promised “all due
submission and obedience.” This _contract_ was subscribed by forty-one
persons, on Saturday the 11th of November. The whole company of
settlers, men, women, children, and servants, amounted to no more than
one hundred and one, the exact number that left England—for one had
died, but another was born upon the passage.
Enfeebled and sickly, we now behold them at the distance of 3000 miles,
not only from their native country, but the hospitable land where they
lately resided for years, when unfeeling persecution drove them into a
voluntary banishment. They have a long and dreary winter before them,
and are upon the strange coast of an uncultivated wilderness, without a
relation or friend to welcome their arrival, or an house to shelter
them; without even a kind inhabitant to comfort them by tender acts of
humanity, much less a civilized town or city, from which succour may be
obtained on an emergency. Thus circumstanced, they are employed in
making discoveries till the 20th of December, when they concluded upon a
place for immediate settlement, which they afterward name
_New-Plymouth_, in grateful remembrance of the last town they left in
their native country.
The winter proved remarkably mild[3] for the American climate, though
excessively severe to an English constitution; and what with disorders
brought upon them through uncommon labors and fatigues, and their being
exposed to the rigors of the season; and what with the scurvy and other
diseases occasioned by a tedious voyage, and the want of proper
accommodations while making it, they buried by the end of March, 1621,
forty-four of their little society, of whom one-and-twenty were
subscribers to the _contract_. The number of their dead increased to
fifty by the beginning of November, when, to their great joy a vessel
arrived with thirty-five settlers from London. It was years before their
plantation amounted to three hundred people; when nearly so, the council
established at _Plymouth_, in the county of _Devon_, for the planting,
ruling, ordering, and governing of _New-England_, in _America_, granted
them a _patent_, [Jan. 13, 1630] by which their lands were secured
against all English claims.—Be it noted, that they early agreed with,
and satisfied the _Indian_ proprietors.
It would have been astonishing, had not these planters brought with them
opinions favorable to liberty. The arbitrary proceedings of _Elizabeth_
and _James_, produced a spirit of enquiry; and induced the sufferers and
others to canvass the equity of those powers which were so improperly
exercised. When the film of prejudice was removed, it was easy to
discern that tyranny, whether in church or state, could not be
vindicated by reason or revelation; and that Heaven’s permitting it, was
no more a countenance to that, than any other wickedness. Beside, the
_Plymouthians_ had lived for many years among a people who had been
engaged in a bloody war with a cruel unrelenting tyrant, whose
sovereignty they had renounced. The frequent conversation that must have
passed between the Dutch and English refugees, must have improved the
attachment of the last to the cause of freedom. It might also have been
hinted to them, that it began to be the sentiment of some English nobles
and principal commoners, that in case of a removal to America, persons,
without any charter from the crown, were at liberty to establish what
form of government they pleased; and to set up a new state, as fully to
all intents and purposes, as though they were making their first
entrance into civil society.
No wonder then, especially considering the general equality prevailing
among them, that the _Plymouthians_, by their contract before landing,
formed themselves into a _proper democracy_, and that it was entered in
the _Plymouth_ records of [Nov. 15, 1636] “_Finding, that as free born
subjects of the state of_ ENGLAND, _we hither came with all and singular
the privileges belonging to such; in the first place we think good, that
it be established for an act, that, according to the_ [_rights_ supposed
to be wanting] _and due privileges of the subjects aforesaid, no
imposition, law or ordinance, be made or imposed upon them at present or
to come, but such as shall be made and imposed by consent, acccording to
the free liberties of free born subjects of the state and kingdom of_
ENGLAND, _and no otherwise_.” They meant to continue their allegiance to
the crown; to retain their connection with the mother country; to adopt
the general laws of England for the rule of government, wherein they
suited; and to be governed by their own particular acts in other
instances.
Persons devoted to church authority and particular national
establishments, may exclaim against the _Plymouthians_ for their
religious sentiments; but a fair and brief statement of them, it is
apprehended, will be thought the best defence that can be offered by
those who candidly examine the _New-Testament_, and are properly
impressed with the words of our Saviour—_My kingdom is not of this
world_.
When Mr. _Robinson_ and his associates separated from the church of
England, they were rigid _Brownists_. After his removal to Holland, and
there conversing with learned divines, he being a gentleman of a liberal
mind and good disposition, became moderate, as did his people; so that
they who continued rigid _Brownists_ would hardly hold communion with
them. Mr. _Robinson_ and his society did not require of those who joined
them, a renunciation of the church of England. They also acknowledged
the other reformed churches for true and genuine; allowed their own
members occasional communion with them in the word preached and in the
prayers conceived by the preacher before and after sermon, but not in
the sacraments and discipline; and admitted their members, known to them
to be pious, to occasional communion with themselves in the sacraments.
Still it is to be remarked, that they were not admitted because of their
being members of such churches, but on account of their known piety;
their belonging to and continuing in such churches, was not an argument
for rejecting them; nor was it the argument for their reception. Mr.
_Robinson_, however, by his conversation and writings, proved a
principal in ruining _Brownism_; and, in the opinion of some was the
father, of others the restorer, of the _independent_ or _congregational_
churches. Congregational is the term used in _New-England_, the other is
discarded, as seeming to imply too great a separation from sister
churches.
The _Plymouthians_ held, that the Bible was the sole religious code of
protestants; and that every man had a right to judge for himself, and to
try all doctrines by it, and to worship according to what he apprehended
that directed. In doctrinal tenets they agreed with the articles of the
church of England. The main difference between them and other reformed
churches was about hierarchy. They maintained, that no particular church
ought to consist of more persons than could worship in one congregation;
that every man ought, in appearance, to be a true believer in Christ,
and subject to his authority; that when there was a suitable number of
such believers, who thought themselves bound in conscience to do it,
they had a right to embody into a church, by some certain contract or
covenant, expressed or implied; and that, being embodied, they were to
choose all their officers, who were pastors or teaching elders, mere
ruling elders, meant to assist the former, and qualified to teach
occasionally, and deacons who were to manage the temporalities of the
church, to take care of the poor, and to officiate at the Lord’s table,
by providing the bread and wine, laying the cloth, carrying the
elements, &c. [The custom of having ruling elders has now ceased.] The
elders of both kinds were to form the presbytery of overseers and
rulers. They also held, that no churches or church officers, had any
power over other churches or officers, to control or impose upon them,
all having equal rights and privileges. Their own officers were
removable by them upon justifiable reasons; in case of capital errors,
gross misconduct, and the like. When they baptised, they rejected the
sign of the cross, and other ceremonies not enjoined by scripture. They
received the elements of the Lord’s supper, in the table-posture of the
day and place in which they lived. Excommunication they deemed to be
wholly spiritual; and denied that the church or its officers had any
authority to inflict temporal pains and penalties. They considered no
days as holy, but the Lord’s day, which they observed with great
strictness. Solemn fastings and thanksgivings, as the aspects of
providence required, they had a pious regard to, as agreeable to both
natural and revealed religion.
A better sort of emigrants never crossed the _Atlantic_. “They were a
plain, frugal, industrious, conscientious, and loving people; and, for
the day in which they lived, and considering their education, possessed
a good share of politeness. The important light in which they viewed
morality, led them, in many instances to such critical exactness as
would be deemed by the moderns ridiculous; from thence, however, the
community derived substantial benefits. They have been stigmatized as
enthusiasts; but nothing like enthusiasm is to be met with in the
records of any of their transactions, either civil or ecclesiastic.
Their piety indeed was eminent and fervent, but it was also rational;
and their religion was that of the Bible, and had a proper influence
upon their conduct.”
The _Plymouthians_ having cleared the way for other sufferers to settle
in _America_, with less difficulty and danger than what they had
experienced; the fame of their plantation spreading through the western
parts of _England_; and the government in church and state growing more
and more oppressive; the territory of the _Massachusetts-Bay_ was
purchased of the _Plymouth Council_ [1628] and a company soon formed,
who consulted on settling a plantation, to which non-conforming
_puritans_ might emigrate in order to enjoy their own principles in full
security. Their sufferings had been moderated for a few years before
_Elizabeth_’s death. The queen was far advanced in life; the next heir
to the crown was a _presbyterian_, who had subscribed to the _Scotch_
national covenant, and, with hands uplifted to Heaven, had pronounced,
“The _Scotch_ kirk is the purest in the world, and the service of the
kirk of _England_ an evil said mass in _English_, that wants nothing of
the mass but the liftings;” he had interceded for some of the persecuted
ministers; and the bishops were cautious of acting against a party for
whom king _James_ had declared; but upon his ascending the throne, the
fears of the high-churchmen and the hopes of the non-conformists were
soon ended. It was not long before the king became in the church a
furious persecutor of the non-conformists, and in the state as errant a
despot as his cowardice would allow. In stigmatizing for _puritans_, all
who stood by the laws of the land, and opposed his arbitrary government,
though strenuous churchmen, he strengthened the cause of the _church
puritans_; the former, called by way of distinction _state-puritans_,
joining the latter, both together became at length the majority of the
nation.
Still the times were not mended; and the death of _James_ made way for
their becoming much worse. King _Charles_ unfortunately took for his
bosom-counsellor in religious affairs, bishop _Laud_, the most
unqualified person for the purpose, of any to be found in his three
kingdoms; he also resigned himself up to arbitrary councils.
The lowering prospect thickened apace; the _Massachusetts_ company
therefore provided a safe retreat in season. They applied immediately to
the improvement of their purchased territory; and sent out capt. _John
Endicott_ and others, with servants, to begin a plantation; who arrived
at (what is now named) _Salem_. They soon after petitioned for a _royal
charter_, hoping that their existence and powers would be thereby
secured and promoted. They succceeded, and a charter of incorporation
was granted, [March 4, 1629] making them a body politic, by the name of
“The Governor and Company of the _Massachusetts-Bay_ in _New-England_,”
with as full powers as any other corporation in the realm of _England_.
The grant and sale of the _Plymouth Council_ was confirmed. Till the
annual election by the company could commence, the governor,
deputy-governor, and eighteen assistants were specified. The mode of
governing, and of admitting freemen, was prescribed. They were empowered
to elect and constitute such other officers as might be thought
requisite for the managing of their affairs, and to make laws and
ordinances, not contrary to the laws and statutes of the realm, for the
good of the said company and the government of their lands and
plantations, and the inhabitants thereof. They were allowed to transport
persons, whether subjects or strangers, weapons, merchandize, &c. _any
law to the contrary notwithstanding_—such was the dispensing power the
king assumed. He also exempted them from paying custom or subsidy for
seven years; the governor and company, their factors and assigns, were
to pay neither that nor any taxes IN _New-England_ for the _same space_.
All were freed from duties upon goods imported or exported for 21 years,
except the old 5 per cent. custom upon imports after the expiration of
the seven years. All his majesty’s subjects going to and inhabiting the
company’s lands, together with their children, were to enjoy all the
liberties of free and natural subjects within any of his dominions, the
same as though born in England. The king could mean only, that, by
removing to and residing in the Massachusetts, they should not forfeit
for themselves or children the privileges of _Englishmen_, and be
treated as foreigners; and not, that they should be governed by laws and
officers of their own making or choosing, personally or by
representation; for they were evidently distinguished from the governor
and company (of whom it appears to be supposed, that they were to remain
in England) as these were authorized to administer the oaths of
supremacy and allegiance to all and every person or persons, who should
hereafter go to inhabit the lands and premises of the company. Beside,
the governor and company were entrusted with the power of making laws,
ordinances, &c. not contrary to the laws of England; of settling the
government and magistracy of the plantation; and its inhabitants; of
naming all the officers; and of setting forth their several duties,
powers and limits; and the king commanded that all such laws,
ordinances, &c. should be published, in writing, under the common seal
of the company, and thereupon be carefully observed and put into
execution, according to their true meaning. The charter[4] does not once
mention _liberty of conscience_ or _toleration_; tho’ one[5] historian
has inadvertently advanced, that “free liberty of conscience was
likewise granted to all who should settle in the _Massachusetts-Bay_, to
worship God in their own way;” and another[6], “the charter granted
toleration to all christians, except papists.” The assertions apply only
to the charter granted by king _William_ and queen _Mary_.
[April 30, 1629.] The company, in the exercise of their chartered
powers, determined that a governor and council of twelve, residing on
the plantations, should have the sole ordering of its affairs and
government. They appointed Captain _Endicott_ governor, and seven
gentlemen going from England to be counsellors, and directed how the
other five should be elected, together with a deputy-governor and
secratary.
Messrs. _Higginson_, _Skelton_, _Bright_, _John_ and _Samuel Browne_
were of the seven counsellors nominated by the company. The three first,
being ministers, had declared themselves to be of one judgment, and to
be fully agreed on the manner how to exercise their ministry. The
company’s committee in the letter to governor _Endicott_, expressed good
hopes on account of it; and at the same time recommended Messrs. _John_
and _Samuel Browne_ as men who they much respected, being fully
persuaded of their sincere affections to the good of the plantation.[7]
The ministers and passengers coming to settle in it were episcopally
inclined when they left England, though they could not conform to many
ceremonies and customs, nor submit to what they judged different
corruptions, imposed upon their consciences by the king and prelates.
They were also strongly prejudiced against the _separatists_ in which
class the _Plymouthians_ were numbered. But long before they arrived, or
even sailed, a Dr. _Fuller_, a deacon of the church at Plymouth, and
well versed in its discipline, having been sent for, on account of a
fatal sickness which broke out among the emigrants after their arrival
at _Salem_, had, by his conversation with Captain _Endicott_, taken off
the ill effect of common report, and brought him to think favorably of
the outward form of worship espoused by the _Plymouthians_. The
influence of the doctor’s intercourse with the _Salem_ settlers cannot
be thought to have been confined to the Captain. When the business of
organizing a church was brought forward after the arrival of the
consellors, the matter was frequently canvassed, and at length it was
determined to form it, nearly upon the plan of the one at Plymouth; and
to invite the latter to be present by their messengers, at the solemn
ordination of the ministers Messrs. _Skelton_ and _Higginson_, [August
6.] Notwithstanding cross winds the Plymouth messengers were time enough
to give the right hand of fellowship, by which ceremony the two churches
professed mutual affection and communion.
Probably none of the newly arrived settlers had the least idea of such
ecclesiastic proceedings, when they left England; but thought very
differently. Some continued to do so; for Mr. _Bright_, disagreeing in
judgment from the other ministers, removed to a distance before their
ordination; and Messrs. _John_ and _Samuel Browne_, dissatisfied with
the proceedings of the society, separated with several who were like
minded, and set up another. Governor _Endicott_, being of a hot temper,
and not possessed of the greatest prudence, summoned the brothers before
him as ringleaders of a faction; and apprehending that their
conversation and conduct would occasion divisions, sent them back to
_England_, against their own inclination notwithstanding their being
counsellors, thinking himself justified by his public orders.
Let us return to the company in _England_.
[July 28.] Mr. _Matthew Craddock_, the governor, proposed at the general
court, that, for the advancement of the plantation, the encouragement of
persons of worth and quality to transplant themselves and families, and
other weighty reasons, the government of the plantation should be
transferred to its inhabitants, and not be continued in subordination to
the company at _London_. The matter was debated; and it was agreed, that
the persons present should seriously consider the business against the
next general court; it was also requested, that they would in the mean
while, conduct with that privacy, that the affair might not be divulged.
At a month’s end they met, and consented that the government and patent
should be settled in _New-England_, if it could be done legally. They
soon after received letters respecting the difference between governor
_Endicott_ and Messrs. _John_ and _Samuel Browne_; and fearing that
these two had in their private letters defamed the plantation, they
opened and read a number of them, and ordered that none from Mr. _Samuel
Browne_ should be delivered; however, upon application from the
brothers, they directed that they should have a copy of the accusation
sent against them from _New-England_. The company’s letter upon this
business one to Messrs. _Skelton_ and _Higginson_, and another to
governor _Endicott_, intimated, that there had been in the parties
addressed a degree of intemperance; that direct or oblique espersions
had been thrown out against the state; and that undigested counsels had
been too suddenly put into execution. They besides expressed an
apprehension, lest, through an ill construction, the same might make the
company obnoxious to any adversary.[8]
The difference that happened in the plantation, the treatment of the
_Brownes_, and the reports circulated by them, undoubtedly occasioned
much talk. Many would think it strange, that, while the charter was
totally silent upon the head of religion, and several of the grantees
and company though strongly opposed to the tyrannies of the
high-churchmen, were real episcopalians; persons of this profession
should be debarred the right of worshiping according to their own
judgment and consience, and be even expelled the plantation. These
occurrences most probably forwarded the plan of Mr. _Craddock_. The
advice of learned council was ordered to be taken, and it was considered
how to execute the projected removal without offending government.
Among the other weighty reasons which induced them to remove, we must
include the hope of getting beyond the reach of _Laud_ and the high
commissoned court: for the Massachusetts general court declared in 1651,
“That seeing just cause to fear the persecution of the then Bishop and
high commission, for not conforming to the ceremonies, they thought it
their safest course to get to this outside of the world (America) out of
their view, and _beyond their reach_.
[October 20.] The company, at a general court, proceeded to a new
election of officers, who were to repair to and settle in _New-England_.
They chose for governor _John Winthrop_, esq. of _Groton_, in _Suffolk_,
a gentleman well known for his piety, liberality, wisdom and gravity.
The business of transferring the patent and corporation, and of taking
over new settlers, was prosecuted with vigor. The enterprise produced a
general rumour, as its extent and magnitude, the number and principles
of the person engaging in it, opened upon the public. The intentions of
the parties being suspected, and jealousies arising concerning them,
governor _Winthrop_ and other gentlemen, to remove prejudices,
conciliate the minds of the disaffected, and recommend themselves and
their expedition to the favourable regards of all serious christians of
the episcopal persuasion, addressed their brethren in and of the church
of _England_, [April 7, 1630.] and afterwards sailed from _Yarmouth_ in
the isle of _Wight_, for _America_. The signers of the address, pray in
the most solemn manner to be considered as their brethren, and desire it
to be noted, that the principals and body of their company esteem it
their honour to call the _church_ of ENGLAND their dear mother. They
acknowledge, that such hope and part as they have obtained in the common
salvation, they have received in her bosom, and sucked from her breasts.
They declare themselves members of her body, and that, while they have
breath, they shall sincerely endeavour her welfare. They pronounce
themselves a church springing out of her own bowels. Their professions
are made in the strongest language.[9]
[June 12.] The company arrived at _Salem_; and soon were in number more
than fifteen hundred persons from different counties in England. Thy
applyed themselves early to the forming of churches; but, the Rev. Mr.
_Cotton_ (who come from _Boston_ in _Lincolnshire_ to take leave of his
departing friends at _Southampton_) having told them to advise with the
_Plymouthians_ and to do nothing to offend them, and a precedent
existing in the church at _Salem_, they dismissed all the peculiarities
of episcopacy, and preferred the congregational mode in general.
However, they had no settled plan of church-discipline till after the
arrival of Mr. _Cotton_, [1633.] who was considerd as a kind of oracle
in both civil and sacred matters, and gradually moulded all their church
administrations, and thus determined the ecclesiastic constitution of
the colony; therein verifying what Mr. _Robinson_ had judiciously
predicted, when he said “Many of those who have both wrote and preached
against me and my people, were they in a place where they could have
liberty and live comfortably, should do as we do.”[10]
Governor _Winthrop_ inserted in his manuscript history, a couple of
anecdotes, of an earlier date than Mr. Cotton’s arrival, which may
amuse you. “July 30, 1631, Mr. _Ludlow_, in digging the foundation of
his house at _Dorchester_, found two pieces of _French_ money, one was
coined 1596. They were in several places, above a foot within the firm
ground.” “June 13, 1632, At _Watertown_ there was in the view of
divers witnesses, a great combat between a mouse and snake; and after
a long fight, the mouse prevailed and killed the snake.” The minister
of Boston, Mr Wilson a very sincere holy man, gives this
interpretation—“The snake is the devil, the mouse is a poor
contemptable people whom God has brought hither, and who shall
overcome Satan here, and dispossess him of his kingdom.” “At the same
time he told the governor, that before he resolved to come into the
country, he dreamed that he was here, and saw a church arise out of
the earth, which grew up and became a marvellous goodly church.” He
might think his dream divine; but it is easily accounted for as a
common event, arising with the church-building out of a lively
imagination, warmed and directed by a preponderating inclination. If,
instead of interpreting the combat, he had only mentioned, that the
event suggested to him such thoughts, and such an improvement, he
would have evidenced more judgment and an equal degree of wisdom in
seizing the happy circumstance.
The colony increased apace, by frequent and numerous accessions. But “it
appears by private letters, that the departure of so many of the best,
both ministers and private christians, did breed sad thoughts in those
behind of the Lord’s intention in the work, and an apprehension of some
evil days to come upon England; yea, it began to be viewed by the
council as a matter of state, so that warrants were sent to stay the
ships, and to call in the patent; but, upon the petition of the
ship-masters, alledging how beneficial the plantation was, they were
released: Mr. Craddock, however, had strict charge to deliver in the
pattent, and wrote to the company to send it home upon receipt of his
letter. [July, 1634.] The governor and assistants consulted about it,
and resolved to answer Mr. Craddock, but not to return any answer or
excuse to the council for the present[11].”
On the death of the duke of _Buckingham_, _Laud_ became the king’s prime
minister in all affairs of both church and state; and on the death of
Archbishop _Abbot_, he was exalted to the see of _Canterbury_. Possessed
of such powers, he by his pliant tools _made havock of the church,
hauling and committing to prison_ conscientious ministers and laymen who
would not bend to his antiscriptural impositions so that the people were
scattered abroad and passed over the _Atlantic_ into _America_. The
daily inroads of the court on the civil rights of the subject, helped
forward the emigration.
From the beginning of the colony, until the emigration ceased through a
change of affairs in England, [1640.] there arrived in 298 vessels about
21200 settlers (men, women and children) or 4000 families, but they did
not all confine themselves to the _Massachusetts_. Notwithstanding the
numbers that repaired thither when Josselyn visited Boston, in 1638, “he
found it rather a village than a town, there being not above 20 or 30
houses.” These settlers were no less strenuous for their own particular
rights and previleges than the Plymouthians. When the governor and
company removed from _London_ to the _Massachusetts_ they renounced the
appearance of a corporation, and assumed the form of a commonwealth,
varying, as it suited them, from the directions of the charter. The
change of place and circumstances prevented their keeping to it in
certain instances, tho’ not in others; but they could easily satisfy
themselves as to any violations; for “they apprehended themselves
subject to no other laws or rules of government, than what arose from
natural reason and the principles of equity, except any positive rules
from the word of God[12].” Persons of influence among them held, that
birth was no necessary cause of subjection; for that the subject of any
prince or state, had a natural right to remove to any other state or
quarter of the world, when deprived of liberty of conscience; and that
upon such removal his subjection ceased. They called their own a
voluntary civil subjection, arising merely from a mutual compact between
them and the king, founded upon the charter. By this compact they
acknowledged themselves bound; so that they could not be subject to or
seek protection from any other prince, neither could make laws repugnant
to those of _England_, &c. but, on the other hand, they maintained, that
they were to be governed by laws made by themselves, and by officers of
their own electing[13]. They meant to be independent of English
parliaments; and therefore when their intimate friends were become
leading members in the house of commons, and they were advised, on
account of the great liberty to which king Charles left the parliament,
to send over some to solicit for them, and had hopes given that they
might obtain much, the governor and assistants, after meeting in council
upon the occasion, “declined the motion, for this consideration, that,
if they should put themselves under the protection of the parliament,
they must then be subject to all such laws as they should make, or at
least such as they might impose upon them, in which course, (though they
should intend their good, yet) it might prove very prejudicial to
them[14].”
Whatever approbation such sentiments may meet with from the friends of
liberty, these must regret the inconsistencies to which human nature is
subject, in those very persons whose experience should have taught them,
to do unto others, as they would that others should have done unto them,
when they themselves were suffering under the relentless hand of
arbitrary government. But, what is man! [May 18, 1631.] So early as the
second general court after the arrival of the governor and company,
instead of resolving to admit all the suitable and deserving, to a
generous participation of their freedon, they passed the pernicious and
disingenuous order, “For time to come no man shall be admitted to the
freedom of this body politic, but such as are members of some of the
churches, within the limits of the same[15].” They soon after concluded,
that none but such should share in the administration of civil
government, or have a voice in any election. Thus a powerful and
mischievous alliance was formed between the churches and the state. The
ascendency of the clergy was secured and much increased; for no one
could be proposed to the church for a member, unless the minister
allowed it. The ministers were consulted by the general court, in all
matter of great moment; and nothing was determined in such cases,
without a formal reference to them; who, of course, used their influence
with the people to procure an approbation of the measures which they
themselves had advised[16];
[May, 1634.] Instead of the freemen’s appearing personally in the
general court, they for the first time sent deputies, to the number of
twenty-four. This was a variation from the charter which gave no power
to admit representatives. These with the governor, deputy-governor, and
assistants, formed the legislature of the colony, met and voted together
in one apartment till March 1644, when it was ordained, that the
governor and assistants, should sit apart: and thus commenced the house
of representatives, as a distinct body.
The general court assumed spiritual jurisdiction. Being church members,
they might suppose they represented the churches no less than the
colony. [March 8, 1636.] They would approve of no churches, after a
certain period, unless they had the approbation of the magistrates and
elders of most of the churches within the colony; nor would admit to
freedom any of their members. They pressed colonial uniformity in
religion, till they became persecutors[17]. Whatever apology may be made
for the treatment given to episcopalians, baptists and quakers, the
colony cannot be cleared from the charge of persecuting: that however
will not justify those who persecute with reproaches and ill-will the
present generation, now reprobating the intolerance of their
forefathers, which at that period was, more or less, the stain of most
religious parties. “It was not peculiar to the Massachusetts people to
think themselves bound in conscience to use the sword of the civil
magistrate to convince, or cut off heretics, so that they might not
infect the church, or injure the public peace[18].” The true grounds of
liberty of conscience, were not then known or embraced by many sects of
christians. But remember, that the _Massachusetts-Bay_ now surpasses the
mother country, in its regard for the sacred and civil rights of
mankind. It not only exempts those of other denominations from paying to
the support of its own colonial establishments, the congregational
churches; and has been a great number of years in this laudable
practice; but it protects all protestants without requiring any
qualifying subscriptions or tests, and excludes none by partial laws
from the exercise of civil power.
The government was in divers respects absolute. Both magistrates and
general court often judged and punished, in a summary way, without a
jury, according to discretion, as occasions occurred. It was four years
before it was enacted or ordered, that no trial should pass upon any for
life or banishment, but by a jury of freemen: and within three years
after, [1637.] that law was violated even by the general court. They
exercised, while sitting, legislative, judicial and executive powers—a
practice which must ever be dangerous to the rights of a people, even
when allowed to their own annual representatives.
The country at length grew uneasy at these proceedings; were suspicious
that the general court had effected arbitrary government; and earnestly
expected a body of laws to aid and protect them in all their just rights
and previleges[19]. It was the more necessary to comply with the
prevailing expectation, for the business had been long in agitation: not
only so, but a great majority of the inhabitants were not freemen not
being members of the congregational churches, or declining to take up
their freedom, in order to secure an exemption from serving in civil
offices. It was not till 1648 that the body of laws was digested and
printed.
The conduct of the colony on the one hand, and the inveteracy of the
English administration on the other, would certainly have produced a
revocation of the charter, and probably the ruin of the plantation, had
not the disturbances in England prevented. It became a favorite upon the
change that followed them; and while _Oliver Cromwell_ ruled, met with
the utmost indulgence. From 1640 to 1660 it approached very near to an
independent commonwealth[20]. The house of commons in a memorable
resolve of the 10th of March 1642, passed in favour of it, gives
_New-England_ the title of _kingdom_[21]. The commissioners for
_New-England_, sent over by king _Charles_ II. assert in their
narrative[22], that the colony solicited _Cromwell_ to be declared a
free state, which is not unlikely.
It has been already mentioned, that all the persons passing over to the
_Massachusetts_ did not confine themselves to that colony.
[1635.] Several families removed to _Connecticut_ river, by mutual
agreement with their fellow emigrants that remained behind. Plantations
were formed at _Hartford_, _Windsor_ and _Weathersfield_. The
inhabitants being soon after fully satisfied, that they were out of the
Massachusetts limits, and of course jurisdiction, entered into a
combination among themselves, [1639.] became a body politic, without
restraining the freedom of their civil government to the membership of
their churches; and proceeded to the choice of magistrates and
representatives. By the articles of government, it was determined that
there should be annually two general courts; and that no person should
be chosen governor more than once in two years. But it must be observed,
that the same year, in which the families removed from the
Massachusetts, Lords _Say_ and _Brooke_, with other gentlemen, having
obtained a grant, John Winthrop, esq. was appointed governor, took
possission of Connecticut river, and began to erect a fort (which he
called Say-Brooke) to secure the mouth of it. He was supplied with men,
provisions, and all things necessary by a vessel from England, sent by
the grantees, which arrived the latter end of November. Some of the
grantees had in contemplation to transport themselves, families and
effects, to the territory they had obtained; but the design of
emigrating was laid aside, when matters began to take a new turn in
their native country; and at length the agent Mr. _Fenwick_, was
authorized to dispose of their lands, which were purchased, in 1644, by
the people who had removed from the Massachusetts.
[1637.] Two large ships arrived at the _Massachusetts-Bay_ with
passengers from _London_. Great pains were taken to prevail upon them to
remain in the colony; but they hoped by removing to a considerable
distance, to be out of the reach of a general governor, with whom the
country was then threatened. They sent to their friends in _Connecticut_
to purchase of the natives the lands laying between them and _Hudson’s_
river. They laid the foundation of a flourishing colony, of which
_New-Haven_ was the capital. They, as Connecticut, formed a government,
much like the Massachusetts, by a voluntary agreement, without any
charter, or commission, or authority whatsoever, from the crown or other
powers in England. They admitted no one to any office civil or military,
or to have a voice in any election, except he was a member of one of the
churches in New-England. They had no jury either in civil or criminal
cases.
_Connecticut_ and _New-Haven_ continued two distinct colonies for many
years. At length the general court of Connecticut determined to prefer
an address and petition to Charles II. professing their subjection and
loyalty to his majesty, and soliciting a royal charter; and John
Winthrop, esq. who had been chosen governor, was appointed to negociate
the affair with the king. He succeeded, and a royal charter was
obtained, April 23, 1662, constituting the two colonies forever one body
corporate and politic. New-Haven took the affair ill; and for some time
declined the union. But difficulties were amicably settled at last, and
the colonies united by agreement. [1665.]
The royal charter established a pure democracy. Every power, as well
deliberative as active, was invested in the freemen of the corporation
or their delegates, and the colony was under no obligation to
communicate the acts of their local legislature to the king. It was the
same as to the _royal_ charter, granted the next year to _Rhode-Island
and Providence Plantations_.[23]
[1685.] In July various articles of high misdemeanor were exhibited
against the governor and company of Connecticut, and orders were given
to issue a writ of _quo warranto_ forthwith against the colony. The next
year two writs were served by Mr. _Randolph_; and after them a third in
December. This is taken notice of by the governor and company in their
letter of Jan. 26, 1686–7, wherein they mention their readiness to
submit to his majesty’s royal commands; and that, “if it be to conjoin
them with the other colonies and provinces under Sir _Edmund Andros_, it
would be more pleasing than to be joined with any other province.” Such
professed submission probably prevented the _quo warranto’s_ being
prosecuted with effect; and produced an order to Andros to accept the
surrender of the charter and the submission of the colony. Sir Edmond
went to _Hartford_ in October; but when at night he expected the charter
would have been surrendered into his hands, the candle was blown out,
and the charter withdrawn from the table, carried off and secreted by
one of the company: whose extraordinary service was afterwards rewarded
by the general assembly with five shillings, agreeable to the plain
simple manners of the people. He however published in the general court
his orders and commission which every one tacitly obeyed. He dissolved
the former government, and assumed the administration, receiving into
his legislative council the late governor and secretary, for the better
carrying on the business of the colony. The subsequent revolution in
England brought matters back, after a while to the former course; as the
legal validity of the charter was admitted.
The peopling of these three last colonies was owing chiefly to the
_Puritan Ministers_, who, being silenced at home, repaired to
_New-England_, that they might enjoy liberty of conscience; and drew
after them vast numbers of their friends and favorers. They amounted to
seventy-seven before 1641; and though all were not person of the
greatets learning and abilities, they had a better share of each than
most of sheir neighbouring clergy at that period; and were men of
eminent soberiety and virtue, plain, serious, affectionate preachers,
exactly conformable to the doctrines of the church of _England_, and
laboured much to promate a reformation of manners in their several
parishes.—Many planters who accompained or followed them, were gentlemen
of considerable fortunes and of no mean education, who spent their
estates in New-England, and were at the charge of bringing over many
poor families, that were not able of themselves to bear the expence.[24]
The body of laity and clergy, collectively considered, furnishes such a
glorious constellation of characters, as would employ the pen of a
first-rate writer to do them justice; notwithstanding what has been
above remarked of their governmental mistake.
The dangers to which the _New-England_ colonies were early exposed,
induced them to think of confederating for their mutual safety. Articles
were drawn up in 1638; but they were not finished and ratified till the
seventh of September 1643; from which time we are to look upon
_Plymouth_, _Massachusetts_, _Connecticut_ and _New-Haven_ as one body,
in regard to all public transactions with their neighbours, though the
private affairs of each colony were still managed by their own courts
and magistrates.
Pass we on to the settlement of the other _New-England_ colonies.
Mr. _Roger Williams_, who succeeded Mr. _Skelton_, upon his decease, as
pastor of the church at Salem, being banished from the Massachusetts,
repaired with twelve companions to the _Narraganset_ country, [1635] and
had land given him by the _Indian Sachem Canonicus_; of whom he
afterwards purchased the large tract, lying between _Pawtucket_ and
_Pawtuxet_ rivers (the great falls and the little falls, as the Indian
names signify,) and stiled it _Providence_ “from a sense of God’s
merciful providence to him in his distress.” The authority and power of
_Miantonomy_, another Sachem, and his uncle _Canonicus_, awed all the
Indians round to assist him and his few associates. When the
determinations of the Massachusetts general court (occasioned, by what
they called antinomian disputes) banished many, and induced others to
leave the colony, the heads of the party were entertained in a friendly
manner by Mr. _Williams_; [1638.] who advised them to seek a settlement
on _Rhode-Island_, and was very instrumental in procuring it of the
Indian Sachems.
They, to the number of eighteen, incorporated themselves, and began
settling the island. The plantations there and at Providence increased
apace, owing to the liberel sentiments of the first settlers; and in
1643 Mr. _Williams_ went to England as agent, and obtained [March 16,
1644.] “a free and absolute charter of incorporation of _Providence_ and
_Rhode-Island_ Plantations, empowering them to rule themselves, by that
form they might voluntarily agree upon.” They agreed upon a democratic.
Mr. _Williams_ justly claims the honor of having been the first
legislator in the world, in its latter ages, who effectually provided
for, and established a free, full, and absolute liberty of conscience.
This was the chief cause that united the inhabitants of _Rhode-Island_
and those of _Providence_, and made them one people, and one colony. The
foundation principle on which this colony was first settled, was, that
“_every man who submits peaceably to the civil authority, may peaceably
worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience without
molestation_.” When the colony was applied to in 1656 by the four
_United Colonies_ “to join them in taking effectual methods to suppress
the quakers, and prevent their pernicious doctrines being propagated in
the country; the assembly returned for answer “We shall strictly adhere
to the foundation principle on which this colony was first settled.”
[July 8, 1663.] King _Charles_ II. granted an ample charter, whereby the
colony was made a body corporate and politic, by the name of the
_Governor and Company of the English colony of Rhode-Island and
Providence Plantations, in New-England, in America_. The charter
reserved only allegiance to the king without the smallest share of the
legislative or executive powers.
[1685.] A writ of _quo warranto_ was issued out against the colony,
which was brought June 26, 1686. The assembly determined not to stand
suit. After the revolution, they were allowed by government to resume
their charter, no judgment having been given against it.
_New-Hampshire_ and the _Main_ were settled about the same time with the
_Massachusetts_, by different proprietors who had obtained patents, and
whose views were to enrich themselves, by the fishing trade at sea, and
the beaver trade ashore. Religion had little concern in the settlements;
but it had some in the plantation of _Exeter_, on the river
_Pascataqua_; which was began by Mr. _Wheelwright_ (a minister banished
from the Massachusetts, on account of the antinomian dissensions with
which the colony was convulsed) and by a number of his adherents. They
formed themselves into a body politic. Three other distinct governments
were also established on the branches of the said river. These
governments, being altogether voluntary, had no security as to their
continuance; and the several settlers were too divided in opinion to
form any good general plan of permanent administration. Therefore the
more considerate among them treated with the Massachusetts, about taking
them under its protection; which fully suited the wishes of that colony,
as it afforded the heads of it the opportunity of realizing the
construction they had put upon a clause of this charter, by which they
extended their line, so as to comprehend both _New-Hampshire_ and the
_Main_. The business terminated in the incorporation of the two
colonies, on condition that the inhabitants of each should enjoy equal
privileges. They continued long united, and were of one heart and mind
in civil and religious affairs.[25] When separated by the king’s
commission for the government of _New-Hampshire_, the new assembly at
their first meeting, in a letter of March 25, 1680, to the governor of
the Massachusetts, to be communicated to the general court, expressed
their full satisfaction in the past connection; grateful sense of the
care that had been exercised over them; and of their having been well
governed; and an unfeigned desire, that a mutual correspondence between
them might be settled.[26]
The towns in the province of _Main_, after a time, fell into a state of
confusion. The Massachusetts took that opportunity, for encouraging the
disposition which prevailed in many of the inhabitants to submit to
their jurisdiction; and, to forward their compliance, granted the people
larger privileges than were enjoyed by their own; for they were all
freemen upon taking the oath, whereas every where else no one could be
made free, unless he was a church member. The province was made a
county, by the name of _Yorkshire_; and the towns sent representatives
to the general court at _Boston_. Though the major part of the
inhabitants were brought to consent to this regulation, great opposition
was made by some principal persons, who severely reproached the
Massachusetts, for using force in order to reduce the province: but the
people experienced the benefit of it, and were contented. They continued
in union with the Massachusetts until 1665, when a short separation
commenced.
You have now a sketch of the settlement of all _New-England_. It would
have been far more concise, had it not been necessary, to correct the
mistakes frequently committed, by those who publish on the subject; and
to remove the reproaches cast upon the bulk of the inhabitants, on
account of their religious profession. Whether there was any material
difference between them and the other colonies, in regard to the opinion
they entertained of their civil rights, you will be able to observe in
the course of your reading. Their judgment in respect to the exercise of
parliamentary powers over them, may be further known by what _Randolph_
wrote concerning the Massachusetts, in his narrative and letters, after
the restoration; from whence “_it seems to have been a general opinion
that acts of parliament had no other force than what they derived from
acts passed by the general court to establish or confirm them_.”
[1676.] _Randolph_ declared, “No law is in force or esteem there, but
such as are made by the general court; and therefore it is accounted a
breach of their privileges, and a betraying the liberties of the
commonwealth to urge the observation of the laws of _England_.”—“No oath
shall be urged, or required to be taken by any person, but such oath as
the general court hath considered, allowed and required.”—“there is no
notice taken of the act of navigation, plantation, or any other laws
made in _England_ for the regulation of trade.”—“All nations have free
liberty to come into their ports, and vend their commodities without any
restraint; in this as well as in other things, that government would
make the world believe they are a free state, and do act in all matters
accordingly.”—“The magistrates have continually disobeyed his majesty’s
command in his royal letters, of 1662, 64, 65, and those of March last;
ever reserving to themselves a power to alter, evade and disannul any
law or command not agreeing with their humour, or the absolute authority
of their government, acknowledging no superior.”—” He (the governor)
freely declared to me, that the laws made by your majesty and your
parliament obligeth them in nothing, but what consists with the interest
of the colony; that the legislative power is and abides in them
_solely_.[27]
The _Massachusetts_ general court, in a letter to their agents,
mentioned, that not being represented in parliament, they looked not
upon themselves to be impeded in their trade by the acts of trade and
navigation, and that these could not be observed by his majesty’s
subjects in Massachusetts without invading their liberties and
properties, until the general court made provision therein by a law,
which they did in October. Notwithstanding such law, and a subsequent
order, Feb. 15, 1681, “that the act of navigation and the act for the
encouragement of trade, be published in Boston by beat of drum, and all
clauses in said acts relating to the plantation be strictly observed.”
_Randolph_ complained to the commissioners of the customs in England,
because of their not being duly observed. When the people found
themselves in danger of a _quo warranto_, they agreed upon such
emendations of their acts of trade, as to make them accord in all things
with the laws of England. But it was too late. A _quo warranto_ was sent
them, and brought by _Randolph_, Nov. 3, 1683; and the next year a writ
of _scire ficias_ was prosecuted in the court of chancery against the
governor and company, and judgment given, that the charter should be
annihilated. Considering the temper of _Charles_ II. it is rather matter
of astonishment, that the sentiments and conduct of the Massachusetts
government did not provoke him to vacate the charter much sooner.
However mortifying, yet it would have been more prudent, to have
declined contending with the king, when they knew that they must be
vanquished, than virtually to bid him defiance. Such submission might
not have saved them from the arbitrary government that followed, but
could have been of no disservice, had there not been a subsequent
revolution: that event taking place, it would have been extremely
beneficial. They might have been allowed to resume their charter,
nearly, if not wholly.
Before we proceed to the southward, let it be noted, that in 1672, the
English parliament enacted by law, “That if any vessel, which by law may
trade in the plantations, shall take on board any enumerated
commodities, and a bond shall not have been given with sufficient
security to unlade them in England, there shall be rendered to his
majesty, for sugars, tobacco, ginger, cocoa nut, indigo, logwood,
fustic, cotton wool, the several duties mentioned in the law, to be paid
in such places in the plantations, and to such officers as shall be
appointed to collect the same: and for their better collection, it is
enactad, that the whole business shall be managed, and the imposts be
levied by officers appointed by the commissioners of the customs in
England.” This is the first act that imposed customs on the colonies
alone, to be regularly collected by colonial revenue officers. But the
best affected colonies, Barbadoes, Virginia and Maryland, considering
the laws of trade either as inconsistent with their privileges, or
destructive to their infant commerce, hesitated to obey, or elude the
provisions of the laws; and trafficked without restraint, wherever hope
of gain directed their navigators. Charles II. reprimanded them, and his
successors gave standing instructions upon the head, but without
effect.[28]
Governor _Nicholson_ of Maryland wrote to the board of trade, August 16,
1698, “I have observed that a great many people in all these provinces
and colonies, especially in those under proprietaries, and the two
others under Connecticut and Rhode-Island, think that no law of England
ought to be in force and binding to them without their own consent; for
they foolishly say, they have no representatives sent from themselves to
the parliament of England; and they look upon all laws made in England,
that put any restraint upon them, to be great hardships.” These were the
colonial sentiments two years after passing the famous declaratory act
of Willian and Mary, which you will find mentioned below. Molyneux’s
Case of Ireland, asserting openly the same doctrines, was first
published in February, 1697–8.
The colony of _New-York_ demands our next attention. The Dutch had
settled, and named it the _New-Netherlands_. Charles II. resolved upon
its conquest in 1664, and in March granted to his brother the Duke of
York, the region extending from the western banks of Connecticut to the
eastern shore of the _Delaware_, together with _Long-Island_, conferring
on him the civil and military powers of government. Colonel _Nichols_
was sent with four frigates and three hundred soldiers to effect the
business. The Dutch governor being unable to make resistance, the
New-Netherlands submitted to the English crown, in September, without
any other change than of rulers. Few of the Dutch removed; and Nichols
instantly entered upon the exercise of his power, as deputy governor of
the duke of York, the proprietary.
In July, 1673, the Dutch repossessed themselves of the province, by
attacking it suddenly when in a defenceless state. By the peace in
February following it was restored. The validity of the grant, while the
Dutch were in quiet possession having been questioned, the duke of York
thought it prudent to obtain a new one the following June, and _Edmund
Andros_ having been appointed governor, the Dutch resigned their
authority to him in October. Thus was New-York regained; but the
inhabitants were again enslaved to the will of the conqueror; for, being
admitted to no share in the legislature, they were subject to laws to
which they had never assented.
[1681.] To be relieved from a servitude that had degraded the colony,
and now gave dissatisfaction to every one, the council, the court of
assizes, and the corporation of New-York, concurred in soliciting the
duke, “to permit the people to participate in the legislative power.”
The duke, though strongly prejudiced against democratic assemblies, yet
in expectation that the inhabitants would agree to raise money to
discharge the public debts, and to settle such a fund for the future as
might be sufficient for the maintenance of the government and garrison,
informed the lieutenant-governor, in 1682, that “he intended to
establish the same frame of government as the other plantations enjoyed,
particularly in the choosing of an assembly.”
Mr. Dongan was appointed governor in September, and instructed to call
an assembly, to consist of a council of ten, and of a house of
representatives, chosen by the freeholders, of the number of eighteen
members. The assembly was empowered to make laws for the people,
agreeable to the general jurisprudence of the state of England, which
should be of no force, however, without the ratification of the
proprietary. “Thus the inhabitants of New-York, after being ruled almost
twenty years at the will of the duke’s deputies, were first admitted to
participate in the legislative power.”
[1683.] An assembly was called on governor Dongan’s arrival, which
passed an act of general naturalization, in order to give equal
privileges to the various kinds of people then inhabiting the province;
together with an act “declaring the liberties of the people;” as also
one “for defraying the requisite charges of government for a limitted
time.” The legislature was convened once more in August 1684, when it
explained the last act. These seem to have been the only assemblies
called prior to the revolution.
When the duke became king of England, he refused to confirm that grant
of privileges to which, as duke, he had agreed. He established a real
tyranny, and reduced New-York once more to the deplorable condition of a
conquered province.
_New-Jersey_, which was also taken from the _Dutch_ (who were considered
as having no right to any of their settlements in these parts of
America) was included in the grant to the duke of York. The duke
disposed of it to lord _Berkely_ Sir _George Carteret_ who, being sole
proprietors, for the better settlement of it, agreed [1664.] upon
certain constitutions of government, so well relished, that the eastern
parts were soon considerably peopled. One of the stipulations was, “no
qualified person, at any time, shall be any ways molested, punished,
disquieted, or called into question, for any difference in opinion or
practice in matters of religious concernments, who does not acturally
disturb the civil peace of the province; but all and every such person
and persons, may, from time to time, and at all times, freely and fully
have and enjoy his and their judgments and consciences in matters of
religion, they behaving themselves peaceably and quietly, and not using
this liberty to licentiousness, nor to the civil injury or outward
disturbance of others; _any law, statute, or clause contained or to be
contained, usage or custom of the realm of England, to the contrary
thereof in any wise notwithstanding_.”[29] The lords proprietors further
agreed, “for the better security of all the inhabitants in the
province—That _they are not to impose_, NOR SUFFER TO BE IMPOSED, _any
tax, custom, subsidy, tallage, assessment, or any other duty whatsoever,
upon any colour or pretence, upon the said province and inhabitants
thereof, other than what shall be imposed by the authority and consent
of the general assembly_.”[30] What can more strongly express the then
opinion of Lord _Berkely_ and Sir _George Carteret_, as to the
parliaments having no right to tax the inhabitants of the province,
possessed by them as lords proprietors!
[1674.] Lord _Berkely_ sold his moiety of the province to _John
Fenwick_, in trust for _Edward Byllinge_ and his assigns.—After which
the proprietors, _E. Byllinge, William Penn, Gawen Lawrie, Nicholas
Lucas, and Edmund Warner_, of the quaker persuasion, agreed with Sir
_George Carteret_ [1676.] upon a division; and that his moiety should be
called _New East-Jersey_; and theirs _New West-Jersey_. The agreement
respecting the _not imposing or suffering to be imposed any tax, &c._
was adopted: the other stipulation is worded somewhat differently—“No
man, nor number of men upon earth, hath power or authority to rule over
men’s conscience in religious matters; therefore it is consented, agreed
and ordained, that no person or persons whatsoever, within the province,
at any time or times hereafter, shall be any ways, upon any pretence
whatsoever, called in question, or in the least punished or hurt, either
in person, estate or privilege, for the sake of his opinion, judgment,
faith or worship towards God in matters of religion; but that all and
every such person and persons, may from time to time, and at all times,
freely and fully have and enjoy his and their judgments, and the
exercise of their consciences, in matters of religious worship,
throughout all the province.”[31] It was also agreed, “that all
elections be not determined by the common and confused way of cries and
voices; but by putting balls into balloting boxes, to be provided for
that purpose, for the prevention of all partiality, and whereby every
man may freely choose according to his own judgment and honest
intention.”[32]