Produced by Andrew Wainwright, Jonathan Ingram and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
(This file was produced from images generously made
available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
Transcriber's note:
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).
Small capital text has been replaced with all capitals.
[Illustration: THOMAS HUTCHINSON.
Born in Boston, Sept. 9, 1711. Governor of Massachusetts 1771-4. Died in
London June 3, 1780.]
THE
LOYALISTS OF MASSACHUSETTS
AND
THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
BY
JAMES H. STARK
"_History makes men wise._"--BACON.
W. B. CLARKE CO.
26 TREMONT STREET
BOSTON
COPYRIGHTED 1907
BY
JAMES H. STARK
To
The Memory of the Loyalists
of
The Massachusetts Bay
WHOSE FAITHFUL SERVICES AND MEMORIES ARE NOW FORGOTTEN
BY THE NATION THEY SO WELL SERVED, THIS
WORK IS DEDICATED BY THE
AUTHOR
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION 5
CHAPTER I
THE FIRST CHARTER 7
CHAPTER II
THE SECOND CHARTER 16
CHAPTER III
CAUSES THAT LED TO THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 27
CHAPTER IV
BOSTON MOBS AND THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE REVOLUTION 40
CHAPTER V
THE LOYALISTS OF MASSACHUSETTS 54
CHAPTER VI
THE REVOLUTIONIST 68
CHAPTER VII
INDIANS IN THE REVOLUTION 88
CHAPTER VIII
THE EXPULSION OF THE LOYALISTS AND THE SETTLEMENT OF
CANADA 93
CHAPTER IX
THE WAR OF 1812 AND THE ATTEMPTED CONQUEST OF CANADA 98
CHAPTER X
THE CIVIL WAR AND THE PART TAKEN BY GREAT BRITAIN IN
SAME 107
CHAPTER XI
RECONCILIATION. THE DISMEMBERED EMPIRE REUNITED IN
BONDS OF FRIENDSHIP. "BLOOD IS THICKER THAN WATER." 113
PART II
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE LOYALISTS OF MASS. 122
THE ADDRESS OF THE MERCHANTS AND OTHERS OF BOSTON TO
GOVERNOR HUTCHINSON 123
ADDRESS OF THE BARRISTERS AND ATTORNEYS OF MASSACHUSETTS
TO GOVERNOR HUTCHINSON 125
ADDRESS OF THE INHABITANTS OF MARBLEHEAD TO GOVERNOR
HUTCHINSON 127
ADDRESS TO GOVERNOR HUTCHINSON FROM HIS FELLOW TOWNSMEN
IN THE TOWN OF MILTON 128
ADDRESS PRESENTED TO GOVERNOR GAGE ON HIS ARRIVAL AT
SALEM 131
ADDRESS TO GOVERNOR GAGE ON HIS DEPARTURE 132
LIST OF INHABITANTS OF BOSTON WHO REMOVED TO HALIFAX
WITH THE ARMY MARCH, 1776 133
MANDAMUS COUNSELLORS 136
THE BANISHMENT ACT OF MASSACHUSETTS 137
THE WORCESTER RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ABSENTEES
AND REFUGEES 141
THE CONFISCATION ACT 141
CONSPIRACY ACT 141
ABSENTEES ACT 143
BIOGRAPHIES
THOMAS HUTCHINSON 145
LIST OF GOV. HUTCHINSON'S CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY 174
THOMAS HUTCHINSON, SON OF THE GOVERNOR 175
ELISHA HUTCHINSON 177
FOSTER HUTCHINSON 177
ELIAKIM HUTCHINSON 178
LIST OF ELIAKIM HUTCHINSON'S CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY 180
ANDREW OLIVER--LIEUT. GOVERNOR 181
THOMAS OLIVER 183
PETER OLIVER--CHIEF JUSTICE 188
SIR FRANCIS BERNARD 191
SIR WILLIAM PEPPERRELL 205
JOHN SINGLETON COPLEY AND HIS SON LORD LYNDHURST 216
KING HOOPER OF MARBLEHEAD 221
WILLIAM BOWES 224
CONFISCATED ESTATES OF WILLIAM BOWES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY 225
GENERAL TIMOTHY RUGGLES 225
THE FANEUIL FAMILY OF BOSTON 229
THE COFFIN FAMILY OF BOSTON. ADMIRAL SIR ISAAC COFFIN
SIR THOMAS ASTON COFFIN ADMIRAL FROMAN H. COFFIN
GENERAL JOHN COFFIN 233
CONFISCATED ESTATES OF JOHN COFFIN IN SUFFOLK COUNTY 246
JUDGE SAMUEL CURWEN 246
JAMES MURRAY 254
SIR BENJAMIN THOMPSON--COUNT RUMFORD 261
COL. RICHARD SALTONSTALL 272
REV. MATHER BYLES 275
THE HALLOWELL FAMILY OF BOSTON 281
CONFISCATED ESTATES OF BENJAMIN HALLOWELL IN SUFFOLK
COUNTY 284
THE VASSALLS 285
CONFISCATED ESTATES OF JOHN VASSALL IN SUFFOLK COUNTY 290
GENERAL ISAAC ROYALL 290
GENERAL WILLIAM BRATTLE 294
CONFISCATED ESTATE OF WILLIAM BRATTLE IN BOSTON 297
JOSEPH THOMPSON 297
COLONEL JOHN ERVING 298
CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO COL. JOHN ERVING 299
MAJOR GENERAL SIR DAVID OCTHERLONY 299
JUDGE AUCHMUTY'S FAMILY 301
CONFISCATED ESTATES OF ROBERT AUCHMUTY 305
COLONEL ADINO PADDOCK 305
CONFISCATED ESTATES OF ADINO PADDOCK IN SUFFOLK COUNTY 308
THEOPHILUS LILLIE 308
CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO THEOPHILUS
LILLIE 313
DR. SYLVESTER GARDINER 313
CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO SYLVESTER
GARDINER 317
RICHARD KING 317
CHARLES PAXTON 318
JOSEPH HARRISON 319
CAPTAIN MARTIN GAY 321
CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
MARTIN GAY 325
DANIEL LEONARD 325
JUDGE GEORGE LEONARD 332
COLONEL GEORGE LEONARD 333
HARRISON GRAY--RECEIVER GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS 334
CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO HARRISON
GRAY 337
REV. WILLIAM WALTER, RECTOR OF TRINITY CHURCH 338
CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
REV. WILLIAM WALTER 342
THOMAS AMORY 343
REV. HENRY CANER 346
CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
REV. HENRY CANER 349
FREDERICK WILLIAM GEYER 350
CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
FREDERICK WILLIAM GEYER 351
THE APTHORP FAMILY OF BOSTON 351
CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
CHARLES WARD APTHORP 354
THE GOLDTHWAITE FAMILY OF BOSTON 355
CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
JOSEPH GOLDTHWAIT 361
JOHN HOWE 361
SAMUEL QUINCY, SOLICITOR GENERAL 364
COLONEL JOHN MURRAY 376
JUDGE JAMES PUTNAM, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS
BAY 378
JUDGE TIMOTHY PAINE 382
DR. WILLIAM PAINE 385
JOHN CHANDLER 388
JOHN GORE 392
JOHN JEFFRIES 394
THOMAS BRINLEY 395
CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
THOMAS BRINLEY 397
REV. JOHN WISWELL 398
HENRY BARNES 399
THOMAS FLUCKER, SECRETARY OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY 402
MARGARET DRAPER 404
CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
MARGARET DRAPER 405
RICHARD CLARKE 405
PETER JOHONNOT 409
CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
PETER JOHONNOT 411
JOHN JOY 411
RICHARD LECHMERE 413
CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
RICHARD LECHMERE 414
EZEKIEL LEWIS 414
BENJAMIN CLARK 415
LADY AGNES FRANKLAND 417
COLONEL DAVID PHIPS 418
THE DUNBAR FAMILY OF HINGHAM 421
EBENEZER RICHARDSON 422
COMMODORE JOSHUA LORING 423
CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
JOSHUA LORING 426
ROBERT WINTHROP 426
NATHANIEL HATCH 429
CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
NATHANIEL HATCH 430
CHRISTOPHER HATCH 430
WARD CHIPMAN 431
GOVERNOR EDWARD WINSLOW 433
CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
ISAAC WINSLOW 439
SIR ROGER HALE SHEAFFE, BARONET 439
JONATHAN SAYWARD 443
DEBLOIS FAMILY 445
CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
GILBERT DEBLOIS 446
LYDE FAMILY 447
CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
EDWARD LYDE 447
JAMES BOUTINEAU 448
CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
JAMES BOUTINEAU 449
COL. WILLIAM BROWNE 449
ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM 451
CAPTAIN JOHN MALCOMB 451
THE RUSSELL FAMILY OF CHARLESTOWN 452
EZEKIEL RUSSELL 453
JONATHAN SEWALL 454
CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO
SAMUEL SEWALL 457
THOMAS ROBIE 457
BENJAMIN MARSTON 459
HON. BENJAMIN LYNDE, CHIEF JUSTICE OF MASSACHUSETTS 462
PAGAN FAMILY 464
THE WYER FAMILY OF CHARLESTOWN 465
JEREMIAH POTE 467
EBENEZER CUTLER 468
APPENDIX
THE TRUE STORY CONCERNING THE KILLING OF THE TWO SOLDIERS
AT CONCORD BRIDGE, APRIL 19, 1775. THE FIRST BRITISH
SOLDIER KILLED IN THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR 471
THE ENGAGEMENT AT THE NORTH BRIDGE IN CONCORD WHERE
THE TWO SOLDIERS WERE KILLED 476
PAUL REVERE, THE SCOUT OF THE REVOLUTION 477
WILLIAM FRANKLIN, SON OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN 481
THE ROYAL COAT OF ARMS 482
JUDGE MELLEN CHAMBERLAIN'S OPINION OF COLONEL THOMAS
GOLDTHWAITE 483
NOTE ON PELHAM'S MAP OF BOSTON 483
NOTE ON GOV. JOHN WINTHROP 483
LIST OF LOYALISTS WHOSE NAMES OR BIOGRAPHIES ARE NOT
FOUND IN THIS WORK 484
PELHAM'S MAP OF BOSTON IN POCKET IN THE BACK COVER.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
The author wishes to acknowledge the great assistance he has received
from the New England Historic Genealogical Society, of which he has been
a member for twenty-eight years,--whose library consisting of
biographies and genealogies is the most complete in America. Other
authorities consulted, have been the "Royalist" records in the original
manuscript preserved in the archives of the State of Massachusetts, the
Record Commissioners' Reports of the City of Boston, the Proceedings of
the Massachusetts Historical Society, and the numerous town histories,
and ancient records published in recent years, to the most important of
which he has acknowledged his obligations in the reference given, and
also to the Boston Athenaeum for the use of their paintings and
engravings, in making copies of same.
He also wishes to acknowledge the assistance rendered him by his
daughter, Mildred Manton Stark, in preparing many of the biographies,
also the assistance rendered by Mr. Thomas F. O'Malley, who prepared the
very copious index to this work, which will, he thinks be appreciated by
all historical students who may have occasion to use same.
James H Stark
ILLUSTRATIONS.
Thomas Hutchinson's Portrait, Opposite the title page.
James H. Stark, Portrait, Opposite page 7.
Landing of the Commissioners at Boston, 1664, " " 13.
Randolph threatened, " " 15.
Proclaiming King William and Queen Mary, " " 17.
Killing and scalping Father Rasle at Norridgewock, " " 32.
Reading the Stamp Act in King street, opposite the
State House, " " 37.
Andrew Oliver, Stamp Collector attacked by the Mob, " " 41.
Bostonians paying the Exciseman or Tarring and Feathering," " 49.
Colonel Mifflin's Interview with the Caughnawaga Indians, " " 89.
Cartoon illustrating Franklin's diabolical Scalp story, " " 91.
Burning of Newark, Canada, by United States Troops, " " 103.
Burning of Jay in Effigy, " " 105.
Map, Boundary line between Maine and New Brunswick, " " 115.
Governor Hutchinson's House Destroyed by the Mob, Page 155.
Benjamin Franklin Before the Privy Council, Opposite Page 165.
Views from Governor Hutchinson's Field, Page 168.
Governor Hutchinson's House on Milton Hill, " 170.
Inland View from Governor Hutchinson's House, " 171.
Andrew Oliver, portrait, Opposite page 181.
Andrew Oliver Mansion, Washington street, Dorchester, " " 183.
Thomas Oliver and John Vassall Mansion, Dorchester, " " 185.
Revolutionists Marching to Cambridge, " " 187.
Sir Francis Bernard, Portrait, " " 191.
Province House, " " 195.
Pepperell House, " " 210.
Reception of the American Loyalists in England, Page 214.
Arrest of William Franklin by order of Congress, Opposite page 215.
John Singleton Copley, Portrait, " " 218.
Lord Lyndhurst, Lord High Chancellor of England,
Portrait, " " 221.
King Hooper Mansion, Danvers, " " 223.
Admiral Sir Isaac Coffin, Portrait, " " 239.
Curwin House, Salem, Page 247.
Samuel Curwin, Portrait, Opposite page 253.
Country Residence of James Smith, Brush Hill, Milton, Page 256.
Birthplace of Benjamin Thompson, North Woburn, " 261.
Sir Benjamin Thompson, Portrait, Opposite page 267.
Rev. Mather Byles, D. D., Portrait, " " 277.
The Old Vassall House, Cambridge, " " 285.
Colonel John Vassall's Mansion, Cambridge, " " 289.
General Isaac Royall's Mansion, Medford, " " 293.
Major General Sir David Ochterlony, Portrait, " " 299.
British Troops preventing the destruction of New York, " " 303.
Landing a Bishop, Cartoon, " " 341.
Rev. Henry Caner, Portrait, " " 349.
Leonard Vassall and Frederick W. Geyer Mansion, " " 351.
Bishop's Palace, Residence of Rev. East Apthorp, " " 353.
Samuel Quincy, Portrait, " " 369.
Dr. John Jeffries, Portrait, " " 395.
Clark-Frankland House, " " 417.
Sir Roger Hale Sheaffe, Baronet, Portrait, " " 439.
The Engagement at the North Bridge in Concord, " " 471.
Monument to Commemorate the Skirmish at Concord Bridge, " " 475.
Pursuit and Capture of Paul Revere, " " 479.
Pelham Map of Boston, In the envelop of the back cover.
INTRODUCTION.
At the dedication of the monument erected on Dorchester Heights to
commemorate the evacuation of Boston by the British, the oration was
delivered by that Nestor of the United States Senate, Senator Hoar.
In describing the government of the colonies at the outbreak of the
Revolution, he made the following statement: "The government of England
was, in the main, a gentle government, much as our fathers complained of
it. Her yoke was easy and her burden was light; our fathers were a
hundred times better off in 1775 than were the men of Kent, the vanguard
of liberty in England. There was more happiness in Middlesex on the
Concord, than there was in Middlesex on the Thames."[1] A few years
later Hon. Edward B. Callender, a Republican candidate for mayor of
Boston, in his campaign speech said: "I know something about how this
city started. It was not made by the rich men or the so-called
high-toned men of Boston--they were with the other party, with the king;
they were Loyalists. Boston was founded by the ordinary man--by Paul
Revere, the coppersmith; Sam Adams, the poor collector of the town of
Boston, who did not hand over to the town even the sums he collected as
taxes; by John Hancock, the smuggler of rum; by John Adams, the
attorney, who naively remarked in his book that after the battle of
Lexington they never heard anything about the suits against John
Hancock. Those were settled."[2]
[1] Speech of Senator Hoar at South Boston, March 18, 1901.
[2] Speech of Hon. Edward B. Callender, at Dorchester, Nov. 10, 1905.
These words of our venerable and learned senator and our State Senator
Edward B. Callender, seemed strangely unfamiliar to us who had derived
our history of the Revolution from the school text-books. These had
taught us that the Revolution was due solely to the oppression and
tyranny of the British, and that Washington, Franklin, Adams, Hancock,
Otis, and the host of other Revolutionary patriots, had in a supreme
degree all the virtues ever exhibited by men in their respective
spheres, and that the Tories or Loyalists, such as Hutchinson, the
Olivers, Saltonstalls, Winslows, Quincys and others, were to be detested
and their memory execrated for their abominable and unpatriotic actions.
This led me to inquire and to examine whether there might not be two
sides to the controversy which led to the Revolutionary War. I soon
found that for more than a century our most gifted writers had almost
uniformly suppressed or misrepresented all matter bearing upon one side
of the question, and that it would seem to be settled by precedent that
this nation could not be trusted with all portions of its own history.
But it seemed to me that history should know no concealment. The people
have a right to the whole truth, and to the full benefit of unbiased
historical teachings, and if, in an honest attempt to discharge a duty
to my fellow citizens, I relate on unquestionable authority facts that
politic men have intentionally concealed, let no man say that I wantonly
expose the errors of the fathers.
In these days we are recognizing more fully than ever the dignity of
history, we are realizing that patriotism is not the sole and ultimate
object of its study, but the search for truth, and abiding by the truth
when found, for "the truth shall make you free" is an axiom that applies
here as always.
Much of the ill will towards England which until recently existed in
great sections of the American people, and which the mischief-making
politician could confidently appeal to, sprung from a false view of what
the American Revolution was, and the history of England was, in
connection with it. The feeling of jealousy and anger, which was born in
the throes of the struggle for independence, we indiscriminately
perpetuated by false and superficial school text-books. The influence of
false history and of crude one-sided history is enormous. It is a
natural and logical step that when our children pass from our schoolroom
into active life, feelings so born should die hard and at times become a
dangerous factor in the national life, and it is not too much to say
that the persistent ill will towards England as compared with the
universal kindliness of English feeling towards us, is to be explained
by the very different spirit in which the history of the American
Revolution is taught in the schools of one country and in those of the
other.
[Illustration: James H Stark with signature]
THE LOYALISTS OF MASSACHUSETTS
AND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
CHAPTER I.
_THE FIRST CHARTER._
A nation's own experience should be its best political guide, but it is
not certain that as a people we have improved by all the teachings of
our own history, for the reason that our "patriot" writers and orators
mostly bound their vision in retrospect by the revolutionary era. And
yet, all beyond that is not dark, barren, and profitless to explore. It
should be known that the most important truths on which our free forms
of government now rest are not primarily the discoveries of the
revolutionary sages.
Writing of the Revolution, Mr. John Adams, the successor of Washington,
declared that it was his opinion that the Revolution "began as early as
the first plantation of the country," and that "independence of church
and state was the fundamental principle of the first colonization, has
been its principle for two hundred years, and now I hope is past
dispute. Who was the author, inventor, discoverer of independence? The
only true answer must be, the first emigrants." Before this time he had
declared that "The claim of the men of 1776 to the honor of first
conceiving the idea of American independence or of first inventing the
project of it, is ridiculous. I hereby disclaim all pretension to it,
because it was much more ancient than my nativity."
It was the inestimable fortune of our ancestors to have been taught the
difficulties of government in two distinct schools, under the Colonial
and Provincial charters, known as the first and second charters. The
Charter government as moulded and modelled by our ancestors, was as
perfect as is our own constitution of today. It was as tender of common
right, as antagonistic to special privilege to classes or interests, and
as sensitive, too, to popular impulses, good or evil. And it is thus in
all self-governing communities, that their weal or woe, being supposedly
in their own keeping, the freest forms of delegated government written
on parchment are in themselves no protection, but will be such
instruments of blessing or of destruction as may best gratify the
controlling influences or interests for the time being.
In tracing the origin and development of the sentiment and the desires,
the fears and the prejudices which culminated in the American
Revolution, in the separation of thirteen colonies from Great Britain,
it is necessary to notice the early settlement and progress of those New
England colonies in which the seeds of that Revolution were first sown
and nurtured to maturity. The Colonies of New England were the result of
two distinct emigrations of English Puritans, two classes of Puritans,
two distinct governments for more than sixty years--one class of these
emigrants, now known as the "Pilgrim Fathers," having first fled from
England to Holland, thence emigrated to New England in 1620 in "the
Mayflower," and named their place of settlement "New Plymouth." Here
they elected seven governors in succession, and existed under a
self-constituted government for seventy years. The second class was
called "Puritan Fathers." The first installment of their immigrants
arrived in 1629, under Endicott, the ancestor of Mr. Joseph
Chamberlain's wife. They were known as the "Massachusetts Bay Company,"
and their final capital was Boston, which afterwards became the capital
of the Province and of the State.
The characteristics of the separate and independent governments of these
two classes of Puritans were widely different. The one was tolerant,
non-persecuting, and loyal to the King, during the whole period of its
seventy years' existence; the other was an intolerant persecutor of all
religionists who did not adopt its worship, and disloyal, from the
beginning, to the government from which it held its Charter, and
sedulously sowed and cultivated the seeds of disaffection and hostility
to the Royal government until they grew and ripened into the harvest of
the American Revolution.
English Puritanism, transferred from England to the head of
Massachusetts Bay in 1629, presents the same characteristics which it
developed in England. In Massachusetts it had no competitor, it
developed its principles and spirit without restraint; it was absolute
in power from 1629 to 1689. During these sixty years it assumed
independence of the government to which it owed its corporate existence;
it made it a penal crime for any immigrant to appeal to England against
a local decision of courts or of government; it permitted no oath of
allegiance to the King, nor the administration of the laws in his name;
it allowed no elective franchise to any Episcopalian, Presbyterian,
Baptist, Quaker or Papist. Every non-member of the Congregational church
was compelled to pay taxes and bear all other Puritan burdens, but was
allowed no representation by franchise, nor had he eligibility for any
public office.
When the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Company emigrated from
England, they professed to be members of the Church of England, but
Endicott, who had imbibed views of church government and of forms of
worship, determined not to perpetuate here the worship of the
Established Church, to which he had professed to belong when he left
England, but to establish a new church with a new form of worship. He
seemed to have brought over some thirty of the immigrants to his new
scheme, but a majority either stood aloof from, or were opposed to his
extraordinary proceeding. Among the most noted adherents of the old
Church of the Reformation were two brothers, John and Samuel Brown, who
refused to be parties to this new and locally devised church revolution,
and resolved for themselves, their families, and such as thought with
them, to continue to worship God according to the custom of their
fathers.
It is the fashion of many American historians, as well as their echoes
in England, to apply epithets of contumely or scorn to these men. Both
the Browns were men of wealth, one a lawyer, the other a private
gentleman, and both of them were of a social position in England much
superior to that of Endicott. They were among the original patentees and
first founders of the colony; they were church reformers, but neither of
them a church revolutionist. The brothers were brought before the
Governor, who informed them that New England was no place for such as
they, and therefore he sent them both back to England, on the return of
the ships the same year.
Endicott resolved to admit of no opposition. They who could not be
terrified into silence were not commanded to withdraw, but were seized
and banished as criminals.[3]
[3] Mass. His. Soc. Vol. ix-3-5.
A year later John Winthrop was appointed to supersede Endicott as
Governor. On his departure with a fleet of eleven ships from England an
address to their "Fathers and Brethren of the Church of England" was
published by Winthrop from his ship, the Arbella, disclaiming the acts
of some among them hostile to the Church of England, declaring their
obligations and attachment to it. He said: "We desire you would be
pleased to take notice of the principles and body of our Company as
those who esteem it an honor to call the Church of England, from whence
we rise, our dear Mother, and cannot part from our native countrie,
where she especially resideth, without much sadness of heart and many
tears in our eyes." It might be confidently expected that Mr. Winthrop,
after this address of loyalty and affection to his Father and Brethren
of the Church of England, would, on his arrival at Massachusetts Bay,
and assuming its government, have rectified the wrongs of Endicott and
his party, and have secured at least freedom of worship to the children
of his "dear Mother." But he did nothing of the kind; he seems to have
fallen in with the very proceedings of Endicott which had been
disclaimed by him in his address.
Thus was the first seed sown, which germinated for one hundred and
thirty years, and then ripened in the American Revolution. It was the
opening wedge which shivered the transatlantic branches from the parent
stock. It was the consciousness of having abused the Royal confidence,
and broken faith with their Sovereign, of having acted contrary to the
laws and statutes of England, that led the Government of Massachusetts
Bay to resist and evade all inquiries into their proceedings; to prevent
all evidence from being transmitted to England, and to punish as
criminals all who should appeal to England against any of their
proceedings; to claim, in short, independence and immunity from all
responsibility to the Crown for anything they did or might do. This
spirit of tyranny and intolerance, of proscription and persecution,
caused all the disputes with the parent Government, and all the
bloodshed on account of religion in Massachusetts, which its Government
inflicted in subsequent years, in contradistinction to the Governments
of Plymouth, Rhode Island, Connecticut and even Maryland.
The church government established by the Puritans at Boston was not a
government of free citizens elected by a free citizen suffrage, or even
of property qualification, but was the "reign of the church, the members
of which constituted but about one-sixth of the population, five-sixths
being mere helots bound to do the work and pay the taxes imposed upon
them by the reigning church but denied all eligibility to any office in
the Commonwealth." It was indeed such a "connection between church and
state" as had never existed in any Protestant country; it continued for
sixty years, until suppressed by a second Royal Charter, as will appear
in the next chapter.
The Puritans were far from being the fathers of American Liberty. They
neither understood nor practiced the first principles of civil and
religious liberty nor the rights of British subjects as then understood
and practiced in the land they had left "for conscience sake."
The first Charter obtained of Charles I. is still in existence, and can
be seen in the Secretary's Office at the State House, Boston. A
duplicate copy of this Charter was sent over in 1629 to Governor
Endicott, at Salem, and is now in the Salem Athenaeum.
If the conditions of the Charter had been observed the colonists would
have been independent indeed, and would have enjoyed extraordinary
privileges for those times. They would have had the freest government in
the world. They were allowed to elect their own governor and members of
the General Court, and the government of the Colony was but little
different from that of the State today, so far as the rights conferred
by the charter were concerned. The people were subjects of the Crown in
name, but in reality were masters of their own public affairs. The
number of the early emigrants to New England who renounced allegiance to
the mother church was exceedingly small, for the obvious reason that it
was at the same time a renunciation of their allegiance to the Crown. A
company of restless spirits had been got rid of, and whether they
conformed to all the laws of church and state or not, they were three
thousand miles away and could not be easily brought to punishment even
if they deserved it, or be made to mend the laws if they broke them. The
restriction of subjecting those who wished to emigrate to the oaths of
allegiance and supremacy did not last long. Those who chose "disorderly
to leave the Kingdom" did so, and thus what they gained in that kind of
liberty is a loss to their descendants who happen to be antiquaries and
genealogists.
Under the charter they were allowed to make laws or ordinances for the
government of the plantation, which should not be repugnant to the laws
of England; all subjects of King Charles were to be allowed to come
here; and these emigrants and their posterity were declared "to be
natural-born subjects, and entitled to the immunities of Englishmen."
The time of the principal emigration was auspicious. The rise of the
civil war in England gave its rulers all the work they could do at home.
The accession of Oliver Cromwell to the Protectorate was regarded very
favorably by the colonists, who belonged to the same political party,
and they took advantage of this state of affairs to oppress all others
who had opinions different from their own. The Quakers, both men and
women, were persecuted, and treated with great severity; many were hung,
a number of them were whipped at the cart's tail through the town, and
then driven out into the wilderness; others had their ears cut off, and
other cruelties were perpetrated of a character too horrible to be here
related. It was in vain that these poor Quakers demanded wherein they
had broken any laws of England. They were answered with additional
stripes for their presumption, and not without good reason did they
exclaim against "such monstrous illegality," and that such "great
injustice was never heard of before." Magna Charta, they said, was
trodden down and the guaranties of the Colonial Charter were utterly
disregarded.
The following is a striking example of the very many atrocities
committed by the authorities at that time: "Nicholas Upshall, an old
man, full of years, seeing their cruelty to the harmless Quakers and
that they had condemned some of them to die, bothe he and Elder Wiswell,
or otherwise Deacon Wiswell, members of the church in Boston, bore their
testimony in publick against their brethren's horrid cruelty to said
Quakers. And Upshall declared, '_That he did look at it as a sad
forerunner of some heavy judgment to follow upon the country_.'... Which
they took so ill at his hands that they fined him twenty pounds and
three pound more at their courts, for not coming to this meeting and
would not abate him one grote, but imprisoned him and then banished him
on pain of death, which was done in a time of such extreme bitter
weather for frost, and snow, and cold, that had not the _Heathen
Indians_ in the wilderness woods taken compassion on his misery, for the
winter season, he in all likelihood had perished, though he had then in
Boston a good estate, in houses and land, goods and money, as also wife
and children, but not suffered to come unto him, nor he to them."[4]
[4] "Persecutors Maul'd With Their Own Weapons," p. 41. See also Court
Records, 1662.
After the death of Oliver Cromwell, Charles II. was proclaimed in London
the lawful King of England, and the news of it in due time reached
Boston. It was a sad day to many, and they received the intelligence
with sorrow and concern, for they saw that a day of retribution would
come. But there was no alternative, and the people of Boston made up
their minds to submit to a power they could not control. They, however,
kept a sort of sullen silence for a time, but fearing this might be
construed into contempt, or of opposition to the King, they formally
proclaimed him, in August, 1661, more than a year after news of the
Restoration had come. Meanwhile the Quakers in England had obtained the
King's ear, and their representations against the government at Boston
caused the King to issue a letter to the governor, requiring him to
desist from any further proceedings against them, and calling upon the
government here to answer the complaints made by the Quakers. A ship was
chartered, and Samuel Shattock, who had been banished, was appointed to
carry the letter, and had the satisfaction of delivering it to the
governor with his own hand. After perusing it, Mr. Endicott replied, "We
shall obey his Majesty's command," and then issued orders for the
discharge of all Quakers then in prison. The requisition of the king for
some one to appear to answer the complaints against the government of
Boston, caused much agitation in the General Court; and when it was
decided to send over agents, it was not an easy matter to procure
suitable persons, so sensible was everybody that the complaints to be
answered had too much foundation to be easily excused, or by any
subterfuge explained away. It is worthy of note that the two persons
finally decided upon (Mr. Bradstreet and Mr. Norton) were men who had
been the most forward in the persecutions of the Quakers. And had it not
been for the influence which Lord Saye and Seale of the king's Council,
and Col. Wm. Crowne, had with Charles II., the colony would have felt
his early and heavy displeasure. Col. Crowne was in Boston when Whalley
and Goffe, the regicides, arrived here, and he could have made
statements regarding their reception, and the persecution of the
Quakers, which might have caused the king to take an entirely different
course from the mild and conciliatory one which, fortunately for Boston,
was taken. Having "graciously" received the letter from the hands of the
agents, and, although he confirmed the Patent and Charter, objects of
great and earnest solicitude in their letter to him, yet "he required
that all their laws should be reviewed, and that such as were contrary
or derogatory to the king's authority should be annulled; that the oath
of allegiance should be administered; that administration of justice
should be in the king's name; that liberty should be given to all who
desired it, to use the Book of Common Prayer; in short, establishing
religious freedom in Boston." This was not all--the elective franchise
was extended "to all freeholders of competent estates," if they
sustained good moral characters.
[Illustration: LANDING OF THE COMMISSIONERS AT BOSTON, 1664.
The Royal Commissioners were appointed to hold Court and correct
whatever errors and abuses they might discover.]
The return of the agents to New England, bearing such mandates from the
king, was the cause of confusion and dismay to the whole country.
Instead of being thankful for such lenity, many were full of
resentment and indignation, and most unjustly assailed the agents for
failing to accomplish an impossibility.
Meanwhile four ships had sailed from Portsmouth, with about four hundred
and fifty soldiers, with orders to proceed against the Dutch in the New
Netherlands (New York), and then to land the commissioners at Boston and
enforce the king's authority. The Dutch capitulated, and the expedition
thus far was completely successful. The commissioners landed in Boston
on Feb. 15th, 1664, and held a Court to correct whatever errors and
abuses they might discover. The commission was composed of the following
gentlemen: Col. Richard Nichols, who commanded the expedition; Sir
Robert Carr, Col. Geo. Cartwright and Mr. Samuel Maverick. Maverick had
for several years made his home on Noddle Island (now known as East
Boston), but, like his friends, Blackstone of Beacon Hill and other of
the earliest settlers, had been so harshly and ungenerously treated by
the Puritan colonists of Boston that he was compelled to remove from his
island domain. An early adventurous visitor to these shores mentions him
in his diary as "the only hospitable man in all the country." These
gentlemen held a commission from the king constituting them
commissioners for visiting the colonies of New England, to hear and
determine all matters of complaint, and to settle the peace and security
of the country, any three or two of them being a quorum.
The magistrates of Boston having assembled, the commissioners made known
their mission, and added that so far was the king from wishing to
abridge their liberties, he was ready to enlarge them, but wished them
to show, by proper representation of their loyalty, reasons to remove
all causes of jealousy from their royal master. But it was of no avail;
the word loyalty had been too long expunged from their vocabulary to
find a place in it again. At every footstep the commissioners must have
seen that whatever they effected, and whatever impressions they made,
would prove but little better than footprints in the sand. The
government thought best to comply with their requirements, so far, at
least, as appearances were concerned. They therefore agreed that their
allegiance to the king should be published "by sound of trumpet;" that
Mr. Oliver Purchis should proclaim the same on horseback, and that Mr.
Thomas Bligh, Treasurer, and Mr. Richard Wait, should accompany him;
that the reading in every place should end with the words, "God save the
King!" Another requirement of the commissioners was that the government
should stop coining money; that Episcopalians should not be fined for
non-attendance at the religious meetings of the community, as they had
hitherto been; that they should let the Quakers alone, and permit them
to go about their own affairs. These were only a part of the
requirements, but they were the principal ones. Notwithstanding a
pretended acquiescence on the part of the government to the requests of
the commissioners, it was evident from the first that little could be
effected by them from the evasive manner in which all their orders and
recommendations were accepted. At length the commissioners found it
necessary to put the question to the Governor and Council direct,
"Whether they acknowledged his Majesty's Commission?" The Court sent
them a message, desiring to be excused from giving a direct answer,
inasmuch as their charter was their plea. Being still pressed for a
direct answer, they declared that "it was enough for them to give their
sense of the powers granted them by charter, and that it was beyond
their line to determine the power, intent, or purpose of his Majesty's
commission." The authorities then issued a proclamation calling upon the
people, in his Majesty's name (!), not to consent unto, or give
approbation to the proceedings of the King's Commission, nor to aid or
to abet them. This proclamation was published through the town by sound
of trumpet, and, oddly enough, added thereto "_God save the King_." The
commissioners then sent a threatening protest, saying they thought the
king and his council knew what was granted to them in their charter; but
that since they would misconstrue everything, they would lose no more of
their labor upon them; at the same time assuring them that their denial
of the king's authority, as vested in his commission, would be
represented to his Majesty only in their own words. The conduct of Col.
Nichols, at Boston, is spoken of in terms of high commendation; but
Maverick, Carr and Cartwright are represented as totally unfitted for
their business. It is, however, difficult to see how any commissioners,
upon such an errand, could have given greater satisfaction; for a
moment's consideration is sufficient to convince any one that the
difficulty was not so much in the commissioners, as in their
undertaking.
After the return of the commissioners to England the government
continued their persecutions of the Quakers, Baptists, Episcopalians,
and all others who held opinions differing from their own. The laws of
England regulating trade were entirely disregarded; the reason alleged
therefor being, "that the acts of navigation were an invasion of the
rights and privileges of the subjects of his Majesty's colony, they not
being represented in Parliament."
Again the king wrote to the authorities of Boston, requiring them not to
molest the people, in their worship, who were of the Protestant faith,
and directing that liberty of conscience should be extended to all. This
letter was dated July 24th, 1679. It had some effect on the rulers; but
they had become so accustomed to what they called interference from
England, and at the same time so successful in evading it, that to stop
now seemed, to the majority of the people, as well as the rulers, not
only cowardly, but an unworthy relinquishment of privileges which they
had always enjoyed, and which they were at all times ready to assert, as
guaranteed to them in their charter. However, there was a point beyond
which even Bostonians could not go, and which after-experience proved.
[Illustration: RANDOLPH THREATENED.
This Royal Commissioner reported that he was in danger of his life, and
that the authorities resolved to prosecute him as a subverter of their
government.]
Edward Randolph brought the king's letter to Boston, and was required to
make a report concerning the state of affairs in the colony, and to see
that the laws of England were properly executed; but he did not fare
well in his mission. He wrote home that every one was saying they were
not subject to the laws of England, and that those laws were of no force
in Massachusetts until confirmed by the Legislature of the colony.
Every day aggravated his disposition more strongly against the people,
who used their utmost endeavors to irritate his temper and frustrate his
designs. Any one supporting him was accounted an enemy of the country.
His servants were beaten while watching for the landing of contraband
goods. Going on board a vessel to seize it, he was threatened to be
knocked on the head, and the offending ship was towed away by Boston
boats. Randolph returned to England, reporting that he was in danger of
his life, and that the authorities were resolved to prosecute him as a
subserver of their government. If they could, they would execute him;
imprisonment was the least he expected. Well might the historian
exclaim, as one actually did, "To what a state of degradation was a king
of England reduced!" his commissioners, one after another, being
thwarted, insulted and obliged to return home in disgrace, and his
authority openly defied. What was the country to expect when this state
of affairs should be laid before the king? A fleet of men-of-war to
bring it to its duty? Perhaps some expected this; but there came again,
instead, the evil genius of the colony, Edward Randolph, bringing from
the king the dreaded _quo warranto_. This was Randolph's hour of
triumph; he said "he would now make the whole faction tremble," and he
gloried in their confusion and the success which had attended his
efforts to humble the people of Boston. To give him consequence a
frigate brought him, and as she lay before the town the object of her
employment could not be mistaken. An attempt was made, however, to
prevent judgment being rendered on the return of the writ of _quo
warranto_. An attorney was sent to England, with a very humble address,
to appease the king, and to answer for the country, but all to no
purpose. Judgment was rendered, and thus ended the first charter of
Massachusetts, Oct. 23rd, 1684.