CHAPTER VI.

THE TYRANNY OF ANDROS.

The beginnings of New England were made in the full daylight of modern

history. It was an age of town records, of registered deeds, of

contemporary memoirs, of diplomatic correspondence, of controversial

pamphlets, funeral sermons, political diatribes, specific instructions,

official reports, and private letters. It was not a time in which

mythical personages or incredible legends could flourish, and such

things we do find in the history of New England. There was nevertheless

a romantic side to this history, enough to envelop some of its

characters and incidents in a glamour that may mislead the modern

reader. This wholesale migration from the smiling fields of merry

England to an unexplored wilderness beyond a thousand leagues of sea was

of itself a most romantic and thrilling event, and when viewed in the

light of its historic results it becomes clothed with sublimity. The men

who undertook this work were not at all free from self-consciousness.

They believed that they were doing a wonderful thing. They felt

themselves to be instruments in accomplishing a kind of "manifest

destiny." Their exodus was that of a chosen people who were at length

to lay the everlasting foundations of God's kingdom upon earth. Such

opinions, which took a strong colour from their assiduous study of the

Old Testament, reacted and disposed them all the more to search its

pages for illustrations and precedents, and to regard it as an oracle,

almost as a talisman. In every propitious event they saw a special

providence, an act of divine intervention to deliver them from the

snares of an ever watchful Satan. This steadfast faith in an unseen

ruler and guide was to them a pillar of cloud by day and of fire by

night. It was of great moral value. It gave them clearness of purpose

and concentration of strength, and contributed toward making them,

like the children of Israel, a people of indestructible vitality and

aggressive energy. At the same time, in the hands of the Puritan

writers, this feeling was apt to warp their estimates of events and

throw such a romantic haze about things as seriously to interfere with a

true historical perspective. [Sidenote: Romantic features in the early

history of New England]

Among such writings that which perhaps best epitomizes the Puritan

philosophy is "The Wonder-working Providence of Zion's Saviour in New

England," by Captain Edward Johnson, one of the principal founders of

Woburn. It is an extremely valuable history of New England from 1628 to

1651, and every page is alive with the virile energy of that stirring

time. With narrative, argument, and apologue, abounding in honesty

of purpose, sublimity of trust, and grotesqueness of fancy, wherein

touching tenderness is often alternated with sternness most grim and

merciless, yet now and then relieved by a sudden gleam of humour,--and

all in a style that is usually uncouth and harsh, but sometimes bursts

forth in eloquence worthy of Bunyan,--we are told how the founders of

New England are soldiers of Christ enlisted in a holy war, and how they

must "march manfully on till all opposers of Christ's kingly power be

abolished." "And as for you who are called to sound forth his silver

trumpets, blow loud and shrill to this chiefest treble tune--for the

armies of the great Jehovah are at hand." "He standeth not as an idle

spectator beholding his people's ruth and their enemies' rage, but as an

actor in all actions, to bring to naught the desires of the wicked, ...

having also the ordering of every weapon in its first produce, guiding

every shaft that flies, leading each bullet to his place of settling,

and weapon to the wound it makes." To men engaged in such a crusade

against the powers of evil, nothing could seem insignificant or trivial;

for, as Johnson continues, in truly prophetic phrase, "the Lord Christ

intends to achieve greater matters by this little handful than the world

is aware of." [Sidenote: Edward Johnson]

The general sentiment of the early New England writers was like that

of the "Wonder-working Providence," though it did not always find such

rhapsodic expression. It has left its impress upon the minds of their

children's children down to our own time, and has affected the opinions

held about them by other people. It has had something to do with a

certain tacit assumption of superiority on the part of New Englanders,

upon which the men and women of other communities have been heard

to comment in resentful and carping tones. There has probably never

existed, in any age or at any spot on the earth's surface, a group of

people that did not take for granted its own preeminent excellence. Upon

some such assumption, as upon an incontrovertible axiom, all historical

narratives, from the chronicles of a parish to the annals of an empire,

alike proceed. But in New England it assumed a form especially apt to

provoke challenge. One of its unintentional effects was the setting up

of an unreal and impossible standard by which to judge the acts and

motives of the Puritans of the seventeenth century. We come upon

instances of harshness and cruelty, of narrow-minded bigotry, and

superstitious frenzy; and feel, perhaps, a little surprised that

these men had so much in common with their contemporaries. Hence the

interminable discussion which has been called forth by the history of

the Puritans, in which the conclusions of the writer have generally been

determined by circumstances of birth or creed, or perhaps of reaction

against creed. One critic points to the Boston of 1659 or the Salem of

1692 with such gleeful satisfaction as used to stir the heart of Thomas

Paine when he alighted upon an inconsistency in some text of the Bible;

while another, in the firm conviction that Puritans could do no wrong,

plays fast and loose with arguments that might be made to justify the

deeds of a Torquemada. [Sidenote: Acts of the Puritans often judged by a

wrong standard]

From such methods of criticism it is the duty of historians as far as

possible to free themselves. If we consider the Puritans in the light

of their surroundings as Englishmen of the seventeenth century and

inaugurators of a political movement that was gradually to change for

the better the aspect of things all over the earth, we cannot fail to

discern the value of that sacred enthusiasm which led them to regard

themselves as chosen soldiers of Christ. It was the spirit of the

"Wonder-working Providence" that hurled the tyrant from his throne at

Whitehall and prepared the way for the emancipation of modern Europe. No

spirit less intense, no spirit nurtured in the contemplation of things

terrestrial, could ever have done it. The political philosophy of a Vane

or a Sidney could never have done it. The passion for liberty as felt

by a Jefferson or an Adams, abstracted and generalized from the love

of particular liberties, was something scarcely intelligible to the

seventeenth century. The ideas of absolute freedom of thought and

speech, which we breathe in from childhood, were to the men of that age

strange and questionable. They groped and floundered among them, very

much as modern wool growers in Ohio or iron-smelters in Pennsylvania

flounder and grope among the elementary truths of political economy. But

the spirit in which the Hebrew prophet rebuked and humbled an idolatrous

king was a spirit they could comprehend. Such a spirit was sure to

manifest itself in narrow cramping measures and in ugly acts of

persecution; but it is none the less to the fortunate alliance of

that fervid religious enthusiasm with the Englishman's love of

self-government that our modern freedom owes its existence. [Sidenote:

Spirit of the Wonder-working Providence]

The history of New England under Charles II. yields abundant proof that

political liberty is no less indebted in the New World than in the Old

to the spirit of the "Wonder-working Providence." The theocratic ideal

which the Puritan sought to put into practice in Massachusetts and

Connecticut was a sacred institution in faults of the defence of

which all his faculties were kept perpetually alert. Much as he loved

self-government he would never have been so swift to detect and so

stubborn to resist every slightest encroachment on the part of the crown

had not the loss of self-government involved the imminent danger that

the ark of the Lord might be abandoned to the worshippers of Dagon.

It was in Massachusetts, where the theocracy was strongest, that the

resistance to Charles II. was most dogged and did most to prepare the

way for the work of achieving political independence a century later.

Naturally it was in Massachusetts at the same time that the faults

of the theocracy were most conspicuous. It was there that priestly

authority most clearly asserted itself in such oppressive acts as are

always witnessed when too much power is left in the hands of men whose

primary allegiance is to a kingdom not of this world. Much as we owe to

the theocracy for warding off the encroachments of the crown, we cannot

be sorry that it was itself crushed in the process. It was well that

it did not survive its day of usefulness, and that the outcome of

the struggle was what has been aptly termed "the emancipation of

Massachusetts." [Sidenote: Merits and faults of the theocracy]

The basis of the theocratic constitution of this commonwealth was the

provision by which the exercise of the franchise was made an incident of

church-membership. Unless a man could take part in the Lord's Supper, as

administered in the churches of the colony, he could not vote or

hold office. Church and state, parish and town, were thus virtually

identified. Here, as in some other aspects of early New England, one is

reminded of the ancient Greek cities, where the freeman who could

vote in the market-place or serve his turn as magistrate was the man

qualified to perform sacrifices to the tutelar deities of the tribe;

other men might dwell in the city but had no share in making or

executing its laws. The limitation of civil rights by religious tests is

indeed one of those common inheritances from the old Aryan world that

we find again and again cropping out, even down to the exclusion of

Catholics from the House of Commons from 1562 to 1829. The obvious

purpose of this policy in England was self-protection; and in like

manner the restriction of the suffrage in Massachusetts was designed

to protect the colony against aggressive episcopacy and to maintain

unimpaired the uniformity of purpose which had brought the settlers

across the ocean. Under the circumstances there was something to be

said in behalf of such a measure of self-protection, and the principle

required but slight extension to cover such cases as the banishment of

Roger Williams and the Antinomians. There was another side to the case,

however. From the very outset this exclusive policy was in some ways

a source of weakness to Massachusetts, though we have seen that the

indirect effect was to diversify and enrich the political life of New

England as a whole. [Sidenote: Restriction of the suffrage to church

members]

At first it led to the departure of the men who founded Connecticut,

and thereafter the way was certainly open for those who preferred the

Connecticut policy to go where it prevailed. Some such segregation was

no doubt effected, but it could not be complete and thorough. Men who

preferred Boston without the franchise to Hartford with it would remain

in Massachusetts; and thus the elder colony soon came to possess a

discontented class of people, always ready to join hand in glove with

dissenters or mischief-makers, or even with emissaries of the crown. It

afforded a suggestive commentary upon all attempts to suppress human

nature by depriving it of a share in political life; instead of keeping

it inside where you can try conclusions with it fairly, you thrust it

out to plot mischief in the dark. Within twenty years from the founding

of Boston the disfranchisement of such citizens as could not participate

in church-communion had begun to be regarded as a serious political

grievance. These men were obliged to pay taxes and were liable to be

called upon for military service against the Indians; and they naturally

felt that they ought to have a voice in the management of public

affairs. [Sidenote: It was a source of political discontent]

Besides this fundamental ground of complaint, there were derivative

grievances. Under the influence of the clergy justice was administered

in somewhat inquisitorial fashion, there was an uncertainty as to just

what the law was, a strong disposition to confuse questions of law with

questions of ethics, and great laxity in the admission and estimation of

evidence. As early as 1639 people had begun to complain that too much

power was rested in the discretion of the magistrate, and they clamoured

for a code of laws; but as Winthrop says, the magistrates and ministers

were "not very forward in this matter," for they preferred to supplement

the common law of England by decisions based on the Old Testament rather

than by a body of statutes. It was not until 1649, after a persistent

struggle, that the deputies won a decisive victory over the assistants

and secured for Massachusetts a definite code of laws. In the New Haven

colony similar theocratic notions led the settlers to dispense with

trial by jury because they could find no precedent for it in the laws of

Moses. Here, as in Massachusetts, the inquisitorial administration of

justice combined with partial disfranchisement to awaken discontent, and

it was partly for this reason that New Haven fell so easily under the

sway of Connecticut. [Sidenote: Inquisitorial administration of justice]

In Massachusetts after 1650 the opinion rapidly gained ground that all

baptized persons of upright and decorous lives ought to be considered,

for practical purposes, as members of the church, and therefore entitled

to the exercise of political rights, even though unqualified for

participation in the Lord's Supper. This theory of church-membership,

based on what was at that time stigmatized as the "Halfway Covenant,"

aroused intense opposition. It was the great question of the day. In

1657 a council was held in Boston, which approved the principle of the

Halfway Covenant; and as this decision was far from satisfying the

churches, a synod of all the clergymen in Massachusetts was held five

years later, to reconsider the great question. The decision of the synod

substantially confirmed the decision of the council, but there were some

dissenting voices. Foremost among the dissenters, who wished to retain

the old theocratic regime in all its strictness, was Charles Chauncey,

the president of Harvard College, and Increase Mather agreed with him

at the time, though he afterward saw reason to change his opinion, and

published two tracts in favour of the Halfway Covenant. Most bitter of

all toward the new theory of church-membership was, naturally enough,

Mr. Davenport of New Haven. [Sidenote: The "Halfway Covenant"]

This burning question was the source of angry contentions in the First

Church of Boston. Its teacher, the learned and melancholy Norton, died

in 1663, and four years later the aged pastor, John Wilson, followed

him. In choosing a successor to Wilson the church decided to declare

itself in opposition to the liberal decision of the synod, and in token

thereof invited Davenport to come from New Haven to take charge of it.

Davenport, who was then seventy years old, was disgusted at the recent

annexation of his colony to Connecticut. He accepted the invitation

and came to Boston, against the wishes of nearly half of the Boston

congregation who did not like the illiberal principle which he

represented. In little more than a year his ministry at Boston was ended

by death; but the opposition to his call had already proceeded so far

that a secession from the old church had become inevitable. In 1669

the advocates of the Halfway Covenant organized themselves into a new

society under the title of the "Third Church in Boston." A wooden

meeting-house was built on a lot which had once belonged to the late

governor Winthrop, in what was then the south part of the town, so that

the society and its meeting-house became known as the South Church; and

after a new church founded in Summer Street in 1717 took the name of the

New South, the church of 1669 came to be further distinguished as the

Old South. As this church represented a liberal idea which was growing

in favour with the people, it soon became the most flourishing church

in America. After sixty years its numbers had increased so that the old

meeting-house could not contain them; and in 1729 the famous building

which still stands was erected on the same spot,--a building with a

grander history than any other on the American continent, unless it be

that other plain brick building in Philadelphia where the Declaration of

Independence was adopted and the Federal Constitution framed. [Sidenote:

Founding of the Old South Church, 1669]

The wrath of the First Church at this secession from its ranks was

deep and bitter, and for thirteen years it refused to entertain

ecclesiastical intercourse with the South Church. But by 1682 it had

become apparent that the king and his friends were meditating an attack

upon the Puritan theocracy in New England. It had even been suggested,

in the council for the colonies, that the Church of England should be

established in Massachusetts, and that none but duly ordained Episcopal

clergymen should be allowed to solemnize marriages. Such alarming

suggestions began to impress the various Puritan churches with the

importance of uniting their forces against the common enemy; and

accordingly in 1682 the quarrel between the two Boston societies came to

an end. There was urgent need of all the sympathy and good feeling that

the community could muster, whereby to cheer itself in the crisis that

was coming. The four years from 1684 to 1688 were the darkest years in

the history of New England. Massachusetts, though not lacking in the

spirit, had not the power to beard the tyrant as she did eighty years

later. Her attitude toward the Stuarts--as we have seen--had been

sometimes openly haughty and defiant, sometimes silent and sullen, but

always independent. At the accession of Charles II. the colonists had

thought it worth while to send commissioners to England to confer with

the king and avoid a quarrel. Charles promised to respect their charter,

but insisted that in return they must take an oath of allegiance to the

crown, must administer justice in the king's name, and must repeal their

laws restricting the right of suffrage to church members and prohibiting

the Episcopal form of worship. [Sidenote: Founding of the Old South

Church, 1669] [Sidenote: Demands of Charles II.]

When the people of Massachusetts received this message they consented to

administer justice in the king's name, but all the other matters were

referred for consideration to a committee, and so they dropped out of

sight. When the royal commissioners came to Boston in 1664, they were

especially instructed to ascertain whether Massachusetts had complied

with the king's demands; but upon this point the legislature stubbornly

withheld any definite answer, while it frittered away the time in

trivial altercations with the royal commissioners. The war with Holland

and the turbulent state of English politics operated for several years

in favour of this independent attitude of the colonists, though during

all this time their enemies at court were busy with intrigues and

accusations. Apart from mere slanders the real grounds of complaint

were the restriction of the suffrage, whereby members of the Church of

England were shut out; the claims of the eastern proprietors, heirs

of Mason and Gorges, whose territory Massachusetts had absorbed;

the infraction of the navigation laws; and the coinage of pine-tree

shillings. The last named measure had been forced upon the colonists by

the scarcity of a circulating medium. Until 1661 Indian wampum had been

a legal tender, and far into the eighteenth century it remained current

in small transactions. "In 1693 the ferriage from New York to Brooklyn

was eight stivers in wampum or a silver twopence." [35] As early as

1652 Massachusetts had sought to supply the deficiency by the issue of

shillings and sixpences. It was an affair of convenience and probably

had no political purpose. The infraction of the navigation laws was a

more serious matter. "Ships from France, Spain, and the Canaries traded

directly with Boston, and brought in goods which had never paid duty in

any English port." [36] The effect of this was to excite the jealousy

of the merchants in London and other English cities and to deprive

Massachusetts of the sympathy of that already numerous and powerful

class of people. [Sidenote: Complaints against Massachusetts]

In 1675, the first year of King Philip's War, the British government

made up its mind to attend more closely to the affairs of its American

colonies. It had got the Dutch war off its hands, and could give heed to

other things. The general supervision of the colonies was assigned to

a standing committee of the privy council, styled the "Lords of the

Committee of Trade and Plantations," and henceforth familiarly known

as the "Lords of Trade." Next year the Lords of Trade sent an agent to

Boston, with a letter to Governor Leverett about the Mason and Gorges

claims. Under cover of this errand the messenger was to go about and

ascertain the sentiments which people in the Kennebec and Piscataqua

towns, as well as in Boston, entertained for the government of

Massachusetts. The person to whom this work was entrusted was Edward

Randolph, a cousin of Robert Mason who inherited the property claim to

the Piscataqua county. To these men had old John Mason bequeathed his

deadly feud with Massachusetts, and the fourteen years which Randolph

now spent in New England were busily devoted to sowing the seeds of

strife. In 1678 the king appointed him collector and surveyor of customs

at the port of Boston, with instructions to enforce the navigation laws.

Randolph was not the man to do unpopular things in such a way as to dull

the edge of the infliction; he took delight in adding insult to injury.

He was at once harsh and treacherous. His one virtue was pecuniary

integrity; he was inaccessible to bribes and did not pick and steal from

the receipts at the custom-house. In the other relations of life he

was disencumbered of scruples. His abilities were not great, but his

industry was untiring, and he pursued his enemies with the tenacity of a

sleuth-hound. As an excellent British historian observes, "he was one of

those men who, once enlisted as partisans, lose every other feeling in

the passion which is engendered of strife." [37] [Sidenote: The Lords of

Trade] [Sidenote: Edward Randolph]

The arrival of such a man boded no good to Massachusetts. His reception

at the town-house was a cold one. Leverett liked neither his looks nor

his message, and kept his peaked hat on while he read the letter; when

he came to the signature of the king's chief secretary of state, he

asked, with careless contempt, "Who is this Henry Coventry?" Randolph's

choking rage found vent in a letter to the king, taking pains to remind

him that the governor of Massachusetts had once been an officer in

Cromwell's army. As we read this and think with what ghoulish glee the

writer would have betrayed Colonel Goffe into the hands of the headsman,

had any clue been given him, we can quite understand why Hubbard and

Mather had nothing to say about the mysterious stranger at Hadley.

Everything that Randolph could think of that would goad and irritate the

king, he reported in full to London; his letters were specimens of that

worst sort of lie that is based upon distorted half-truths; and his

malicious pen but seldom lay idle.

While waiting for the effects of these reports to ripen, Randolph was

busily intriguing with some of the leading men in Boston who were

dissatisfied with the policy of the dominant party, and under his

careful handling a party was soon brought into existence which was ready

to counsel submission to the royal will. Such was the birth of Toryism

in New England. The leader of this party was Joseph Dudley, son of

the grim verse-maker who had come over as lieutenant to Winthrop. The

younger Dudley was graduated at Harvard in 1665, and proceeded to study

theology, but soon turned his attention entirely to politics. In 1673 he

was a deputy from Roxbury in the General Court; in 1675 he took part in

the storming of the Narragansett fort; in 1677 and the three following

years he was one of the Federal Commissioners. In character and temper

he differed greatly from his father. Like the proverbial minister's son

whose feet are swift toward folly, Joseph Dudley seems to have learned

in stern bleak years of childhood to rebel against the Puritan theory of

life. Much of the abuse that has been heaped upon him, as a renegade and

traitor, is probably undeserved. It does not appear that he ever made

any pretence of love for the Puritan commonwealth, and there were many

like him who had as lief be ruled by king as by clergy. But it cannot be

denied that his suppleness and sagacity went along with a moral nature

that was weak and vulgar. Joseph Dudley was essentially a self-seeking

politician and courtier, like his famous kinsman of the previous

century, Robert, Earl of Leicester. His party in Massachusetts was

largely made up of men who had come to the colony for commercial

reasons, and had little or no sympathy with the objects for which it was

founded. Among them were Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Baptists, who

were allowed no chance for public worship, as well as many others who,

like Gallio, cared for none of these things. Their numbers, moreover,

must have been large, for Boston had grown to be a town of 5000

inhabitants, the population of Massachusetts was approaching 30,000,

and, according to Hutchinson, scarcely one grown man in five was a

church-member qualified to vote or hold office. Such a fact speaks

volumes as to the change which was coming over the Puritan world. No

wonder that the clergy had begun to preach about the weeds and tares

that were overrunning Christ's pleasant garden. No wonder that the

spirit of revolt against the disfranchising policy of the theocracy was

ripe. [Sidenote: Joseph Dudley]

It was in 1679, when this weakness of the body politic had been duly

studied and reported by Randolph, and when all New England was groaning

under the bereavements and burdens entailed by Philip's war, that the

Stuart government began its final series of assaults upon Massachusetts.

The claims of the eastern proprietors, the heirs of Mason and Gorges,

furnished the occasion. Since 1643 the four Piscataqua towns--Hampton,

Exeter, Dover, and Portsmouth--had remained under the jurisdiction of

Massachusetts. After the Restoration the Mason claim had been revived,

and in 1677 was referred to the chief-justices North and Rainsford.

Their decision was that Mason's claim had always been worthless as based

on a grant in which the old Plymouth Company had exceeded its powers.

They also decided that Massachusetts had no valid claim since the

charter assigned her a boundary just north of the Merrimack. This

decision left the four towns subject to none but the king, who forthwith

in 1679 proceeded to erect them into the royal province of New

Hampshire, with president and council appointed by the crown, and an

assembly chosen by the people, but endowed with little authority,--a

tricksome counterfeit of popular government. Within three years an

arrogant and thieving ruler, Edward Cranfield, had goaded New Hampshire

to acts of insurrection. [Sidenote: Royal province of New Hampshire]

To the decisions of the chief-justices Massachusetts must needs submit.

The Gorges claim led to more serious results. Under Cromwell's rule in

1652--the same year in which she began coining money--Massachusetts

had extended her sway over Maine. In 1665 Colonel Nichols and his

commissioners, acting upon the express instructions of Charles II.,

took it away from her. In 1668, after the commissioners had gone home,

Massachusetts coolly took possession again. In 1677 the chief-justices

decided that the claim of the Gorges family, being based on a grant from

James I., was valid. Then the young Ferdinando Gorges, grandson of the

first proprietor, offered to sell the province to the king, who had now

taken it into his head that he would like to bestow it upon the Duke

of Monmouth, his favourite son by Lucy Walters. Before Charles had

responded, Governor Leverett had struck a bargain with Gorges, who ceded

to Massachusetts all his rights over Maine for L1250 in hard cash. When

the king heard of this transaction he was furious. He sent a letter to

Boston, commanding the General Court to surrender the province again on

repayment of this sum of L1250, and expressing his indignation that

the people should thus dare to dispose of an important claim off-hand

without consulting his wishes. In the same letter the colony was

enjoined to put in force the royal orders of seventeen years before,

concerning the oath of allegiance, the restriction of the suffrage, and

the prohibition of the Episcopal form of worship. [Sidenote: The Gorges

claim]

This peremptory message reached Boston about Christmas, 1679. Leverett,

the sturdy Ironsides, had died six months before, and his place

was filled by Simon Bradstreet, a man of moderate powers but great

integrity, and held in peculiar reverence as the last survivor of those

that had been chosen to office before leaving England by the leaders of

the great Puritan exodus. Born in a Lincolnshire village in 1603, he was

now seventy-six years old. He had taken his degree at Emmanuel College,

Cambridge, had served as secretary to the Earl of Warwick, and in 1629

had been appointed member of the board of assistants for the colony

about to be established on Massachusetts bay. In this position he had

remained with honour for half a century, while he had also served as

Federal Commissioner and as agent for the colony in London. His wife,

who died in 1672, was a woman of quaint learning and quainter verses,

which her contemporaries admired beyond measure. One of her books was

republished in London, with the title: "The Tenth Muse, lately sprung up

in America." John Norton once said that if Virgil could only have heard

the seraphic poems of Anne Bradstreet, he would have thrown his heathen

doggerel into the fire. She was sister of Joseph Dudley, and evidently

inherited this rhyming talent, such as it was, from her father. Governor

Bradstreet belonged to the moderate party who would have been glad to

extend the franchise, but he did not go with his brother-in-law in

subservience to the king. [Sidenote: Simon Bradstreet and his wife]

When the General Court assembled, in May, 1680, the full number of

eighteen assistants appeared, for the first time in the history of the

colony, and in accordance with an expressed wish of the king. They

were ready to yield in trifles, but not in essentials. After wearisome

discussion, the answer to the royal letter was decided on. It stated in

vague and unsatisfactory terms that the royal orders of 1662 either had

been carried out already or would be in good time, while to the demand

for the surrender of Maine no reply whatever was made, save that "they

were heartily sorry that any actings of theirs should be displeasing

to his Majesty." After this, when Randolph wrote home that the king's

letters were of no more account in Massachusetts than an old London

Gazette, he can hardly be accused of stretching the truth. Randolph kept

busily at work, and seems to have persuaded the Bishop of London that

if the charter could be annulled, episcopacy might be established in

Massachusetts as in England. In February, 1682, a letter came from the

king demanding submission and threatening legal proceedings against the

charter. Dudley was then sent as agent to London, and with him was sent

a Mr. Richards, of the extreme clerical party, to watch him. [Sidenote:

Massachusetts answers the king]

Meanwhile the king's position at home had been changing. He had made

up his mind to follow his father's example and try the experiment of

setting his people at defiance and governing without a parliament. This

could not be done without a great supply of money. Louis XIV. had

plenty of money, for there was no constitution in France to prevent his

squeezing what he wanted out of the pockets of an oppressed people.

France was thriving greatly now, for Colbert had introduced a

comparatively free system of trade between the provinces and inaugurated

an era of prosperity soon to be cut short by the expulsion of the

Huguenots. Louis could get money enough for the asking, and would be

delighted to foment civil disturbances in England, so as to tie the

hands of the only power which at that moment could interfere with his

seizing Alsace and Lorraine and invading Flanders. The pretty Louise de

Keroualle Duchess of Portsmouth, with her innocent baby face and heart

as cold as any reptile's, was the French Delilah chosen to shear the

locks of the British Samson. By such means and from such motives a

secret treaty was made in February, 1681, by which Louis agreed to pay

Charles 2,000,000 livres down, and 500,000 more in each of the next two

years, on condition that he should summon no more parliaments within

that time. This bargain for securing the means of overthrowing the laws

and liberties of England was, on the part of Charles II., an act no less

reprehensible than some of those for which his father had gone to the

block. But Charles could now afford for a while to wreak his evil will.

He had already summoned a parliament for the 21st of March, to meet at

Oxford within the precincts of the subservient university, and out of

reach of the high-spirited freemen of London. He now forced a quarrel

with the new parliament and dissolved it within a week. A joiner named

Stephen College, who had spoken his mind too freely in the taverns at

Oxford with regard to these proceedings, was drawn and quartered. The

Whig leader Lord Shaftesbury was obliged to flee to Holland. In the

absence of a parliament the only power of organized resistance to the

king's tyranny resided in the corporate governments of the chartered

towns. The charter of London was accordingly attacked by a writ of

_quo warranto_, and in June, 1683, the time-serving judges declared it

confiscated. George Jeffreys, a low drunken fellow whom Charles had made

Lord Chief Justice, went on a circuit through the country; and, as Roger

North says, "made all the charters, like the walls of Jericho, fall down

before him, and returned laden with surrenders, the spoils of towns."

At the same time a terrible blow was dealt at two of the greatest Whig

families in England. Lord William Russell, son of the Earl of Bedford,

and Algernon Sidney, younger son of the Earl of Leicester, two of the

purest patriots and ablest liberal leaders of the day, were tried on a

false charge of treason and beheaded. [Sidenote: Secret treaty between

Charles II. and Louis XIV] [Sidenote: Shameful proceedings in England]

By this quick succession of high-handed measures, the friends of law and

liberty were for a moment disconcerted and paralyzed. In the frightful

abasement of the courts of justice which these events so clearly showed,

the freedom of Englishmen seemed threatened in its last stronghold. The

doctrine of passive obedience to monarchs was preached in the pulpits

and inculcated by the university of Oxford, which ordered the works of

John Milton to be publicly burned. Sir Robert Filmer wrote that "not

only in human laws, but even in divine, a thing may by the king be

commanded contrary to law, and yet obedience to such a command is

necessary." Charles felt so strong that in 1684 he flatly refused to

summon a parliament.

It was not long before the effects of all this were felt in New England.

The mission of Dudley and his colleague was fruitless. They returned to

Boston, and Randolph, who had followed them to London, now followed them

back, armed with a writ of _quo warranto_ which he was instructed not to

serve until he should have given Massachusetts one more chance to humble

herself in the dust. Should she modify her constitution to please a

tyrant or see it trampled under foot? Recent events in England served

for a solemn warning; for the moment the Tories were silenced; perhaps

after all, the absolute rule of a king was hardly to be preferred to the

sway of the Puritan clergy; the day when the House of Commons sat still

and wept seemed to have returned. A great town-meeting was held in the

Old South Meeting-House, and the moderator requested all who were for

surrendering the charter to hold up their hands. Not a hand was lifted,

and out from the throng a solitary voice exclaimed, with deep-drawn

breath, "The Lord be praised!" Then arose Increase Mather, president

of Harvard College, and reminded them how their fathers did win this

charter, and should they deliver it up unto the spoiler who demanded it

"even as Ahab required Naboth's vineyard, Oh! their children would be

bound to curse them." Such was the attitude of Massachusetts, and when

it was known in London, the blow was struck. For technical reasons

Randolph's writ was not served; but on the 21st of June a decree in

chancery annulled the charter of Massachusetts. [Sidenote: Massachusetts

refuses to surrender her charter] [Sidenote: It is annulled by degree of

chancery, June 21, 1684]

To appreciate the force of this blow we must pause for a moment and

consider what it involved. The right to the soil of North America had

been hitherto regarded in England, on the strength of the discoveries of

the Cabots, as an appurtenance to the crown of Henry VII.,--as something

which descended from father to son like the palace at Hampton Court or

the castle at Windsor, but which the sovereign might alienate by his

voluntary act just as he might sell or give away a piece of his royal

domain in England. Over this vast territory it was doubtful how far

Parliament was entitled to exercise authority, and the rights of

Englishmen settled there had theoretically no security save in the

provisions of the various charters by which the crown had delegated its

authority to individual proprietors or to private companies. It was thus

on the charter granted by Charles I. to the Company of Massachusetts Bay

that not only the cherished political and ecclesiastical institutions

of the colony, but even the titles of individuals to their lands and

houses, were supposed to be founded. By the abrogation of the charter,

all rights and immunities that had been based upon it were at once swept

away, and every rood of the soil of Massachusetts became the personal

property of the Stuart king, who might, if he should possess the will

and the power, turn out all the present occupants or otherwise deal with

them as trespassers. Such at least was the theory of Charles II., and

to show that he meant to wreak his vengeance with no gentle hand, he

appointed as his viceroy the brutal Percy Kirke,--a man who would have

no scruples about hanging a few citizens without trial, should occasion

require it. [Sidenote: Effect of annulling the charter]

But in February, 1685, just as Charles seemed to be getting everything

arranged to his mind, a stroke of apoplexy carried him off the scene,

and his brother ascended the throne. Monmouth's rebellion, and the

horrible cruelties that followed, kept Colonel Kirke busy in England

through the summer, and left the new king scant leisure to think about

America. Late in the autumn, having made up his mind that he could not

spare such an exemplary knave as Kirke, James II. sent over Sir Edmund

Andros. In the mean time the government of Massachusetts had been

administered by Dudley, who showed himself willing to profit by the

misfortunes of his country. Andros had long been one of James's

favourites. He was the dull and dogged English officer such as one often

meets, honest enough and faithful to his master, neither cruel nor

rapacious, but coarse in fibre and wanting in tact. Some years

before, when governor of New York, he had a territorial dispute with

Connecticut, and now cherished a grudge against the people of New

England, so that, from James's point of view, he was well fitted to be

their governor. James wished to abolish all the local governments

in America, and unite them, as far as possible, under a single

administration. With Plymouth there could be no trouble; she had never

had a charter, but had existed on sufferance from the outset. In 1687

the charters of Rhode Island and Connecticut were rescinded, but the

decrees were not executed in due form. In October of that year Andros

went to Hartford, to seize the Connecticut charter but it was not

surrendered. While Sir Edmund was bandying threats with stout Robert

Treat, the queller of Indians and now governor of Connecticut, in the

course of their evening conference the candles were suddenly blown out,

and when after some scraping of tinder they were lighted again the

document was nowhere to be found, for Captain Wadsworth had carried

it away and hidden it in the hollow trunk of a mighty oak tree.

Nevertheless for the moment the colony was obliged to submit to the

tyrant. Next day the secretary John Allyn wrote "Finis" on the colonial

records and shut up the book. Within another twelvemonth New York and

New Jersey were added to the viceroyalty of Andros; so that all the

northern colonies from the forests of Maine to the Delaware river were

thus brought under the arbitrary rule of one man, who was responsible to

no one but the king for whatever he might take it into his head to do.

[Sidenote: Sir Edmund Andros] [Sidenote: The Charter Oak]

The vexatious character of the new government was most strongly felt at

Boston where Andros had his headquarters. Measures were at once taken

for the erection of an Episcopal church, and meantime the royal order

was that one of the principal meeting-houses should be seized for the

use of the Church of England. This was an ominous beginning. In the

eyes of the people it was much more than a mere question of disturbing

Puritan prejudices. They had before them the experience of Scotland

during the past ten years, the savage times of "Old Mortality," the

times which had seen the tyrannical prelate, on the lonely moor, begging

in vain for his life, the times of Drumclog and Bothwell Brigg, of

Claverhouse and his flinty-hearted troopers, of helpless women tied to

stakes on the Solway shore and drowned by inches in the rising tide.

What had happened in one part of the world might happen in another, for

the Stuart policy was the same. It aimed not at securing toleration but

at asserting unchecked supremacy. Its demand for an inch was the prelude

to its seizing an ell, and so our forefathers understood it. Sir

Edmund's formal demand for the Old South Meeting-House was flatly

refused, but on Good Friday, 1687, the sexton was frightened into

opening it, and thenceforward Episcopal services were held there

alternately with the regular services until the overthrow of Andros. The

pastor, Samuel Willard, was son of the gallant veteran who had rescued

the beleaguered people of Brookfield in King Philip's war. Amusing

passages occurred between him and Sir Edmund, who relished the

pleasantry of keeping minister and congregation waiting an hour or

two in the street on Sundays before yielding to them the use of their

meeting-house. More kindly memories of the unpopular governor are

associated with the building of the first King's Chapel on the spot

where its venerable successor now stands. The church was not finished

until after Sir Edmund had taken his departure, but Lady Andros, who

died in February, 1688, lies in the burying-ground hard by. Her gentle

manners had won all hearts. For the moment, we are told, one touch of

nature made enemies kin, and as Sir Edmund walked to the townhouse

"many a head was bared to the bereaved husband that before had remained

stubbornly covered to the exalted governor." [38] [Sidenote: Episcopal

services in Boston] [Sidenote: Founding of the King's Chapel, 1689]

The despotic rule of Andros was felt in more serious ways than in the

seizing upon a meetinghouse. Arbitrary taxes were imposed, encroachments

were made upon common lands as in older manorial times, and the writ of

_habeas corpus_ was suspended. Dudley was appointed censor of the press,

and nothing was allowed to be printed without his permission. All the

public records of the late New England governments were ordered to be

brought to Boston, whither it thus became necessary to make a tedious

journey in order to consult them. All deeds and wills were required

to be registered in Boston, and excessive fees were charged for the

registry. It was proclaimed that all private titles to land were to be

ransacked, and that whoever wished to have his title confirmed must pay

a heavy quit-rent, which under the circumstances amounted to blackmail.

The General Court was abolished. The power of taxation was taken from

the town-meetings and lodged with the governor. Against this crowning

iniquity the town of Ipswich, led by its sturdy pastor, John Wise, made

protest. In response Mr. Wise was thrown into prison, fined £50, and

suspended from the ministry. A notable and powerful character was this

John Wise. One of the broadest thinkers and most lucid writers of his

time, he seems like a forerunner of the liberal Unitarian divines of

the nineteenth century. His "Vindication of the Government of the New

England Churches," published in 1717, was a masterly exposition of the

principles of civil government, and became "a text book of liberty for

our Revolutionary fathers, containing some of the notable expressions

that are used in the Declaration of Independence." [Sidenote: Tyranny]

[Sidenote: John Wise of Ipswich]

It was on the trial of Mr. Wise in October, 1687, that Dudley openly

declared that the people of New England had now no further privileges

left them than not to be sold for slaves. Such a state of things in the

valley of the Euphrates would not have attracted comment; the peasantry

of central Europe would have endured it until better instructed; but in

an English community it could not last long. If James II. had remained

upon the throne, New England would surely have soon risen in rebellion

against Andros. But the mother country had by this time come to repent

the fresh lease of life which she had granted to the Stuart dynasty

after Cromwell's death. Tired of the disgraceful subservience of her

Court to the schemes of Louis XIV., tired of fictitious plots and

judicial murders, tired of bloody assizes and declarations of indulgence

and all the strange devices of Stuart tyranny, England endured the

arrogance of James but three years, and then drove him across the

Channel, to get such consolation as he might from his French paymaster

and patron. On the 4th of April, 1689, the youthful John Winslow brought

to Boston the news of the landing of the Prince of Orange in England.

For the space of two weeks there was quiet and earnest deliberation

among the citizens, as the success of the Prince's enterprise was not

yet regarded as assured. But all at once, on the morning of the 18th,

the drums beat to arms, the signal-fire was lighted on Beacon Hill, a

meeting was held at the Town-House, militia began to pour in from the

country, and Andros, summoned to surrender, was fain to beseech Mr.

Willard and the other ministers to intercede for him. But the ministers

refused. Next day the Castle was surrendered, the Rose frigate riding in

the harbour was seized and dismantled, and Andros was arrested as he was

trying to effect his escape disguised in woman's clothes. Dudley and the

other agents of tyranny were also imprisoned, and thus the revolution

was accomplished. It marks the importance which the New England colonies

were beginning to attain, that, before the Prince of Orange had fully

secured the throne, he issued a letter instructing the people of Boston

to preserve decorum and acquiesce yet a little longer in the government

of Andros, until more satisfactory arrangements could be made. But

Increase Mather, who was then in London on a mission in behalf of New

England, judiciously prevented this letter of instructions from being

sent. The zeal of the people outstripped the cautious policy of the

new sovereign, and provisional governments, in accordance with the old

charters, were at once set up in the colonies lately ruled by Andros.

Bradstreet now in his eighty-seventh year was reinstated as governor of

Massachusetts. Five weeks after this revolution in Boston the order to

proclaim King William and Queen Mary was received, amid such rejoicings

as had never before been seen in that quiet town, for it was believed

that self-government would now be guaranteed to New England. [Sidenote:

Fall of James II.] [Sidenote: Insurrection in Boston, and overthrow of

Andros, April 18, 1689]

This hope was at least so far realized that from the most formidable

dangers which had threatened it, New England was henceforth secured.

The struggle with the Stuarts was ended, and by this second revolution

within half a century the crown had received a check from which it never

recovered. There were troubles yet in store for England, but no more

such outrages as the judicial murders of Russell and Sidney. New England

had still a stern ordeal to go through, but never again was she to be

so trodden down and insulted as in the days of Andros. The efforts of

George III. to rule Englishmen despotically were weak as compared with

those of the Stuarts. In his time England had waxed strong enough to

curb the tyrant, America had waxed strong enough to defy and disown him.

After 1689 the Puritan no longer felt that his religion was in danger,

and there was a reasonable prospect that charters solemnly granted him

would be held sacred. William III. was a sovereign of modern type, from

whom freedom of thought and worship had nothing to fear. In his theology

he agreed, as a Dutch Calvinist, more nearly with the Puritans than with

the Church of England. At the same time he had no great liking for so

much independence of thought and action as New England had exhibited. In

the negotiations which now definitely settled the affairs of this part

of the world, the intractable behaviour of Massachusetts was borne in

mind and contrasted with the somewhat less irritating attitude of

the smaller colonies. It happened that the decree which annulled the

charters of Rhode Island and Connecticut had not yet been formally

enrolled. It was accordingly treated as void, and the old charters were

allowed to remain in force. They were so liberal that no change in

them was needed at the time of the Revolution, so that Connecticut was

governed under its old charter until 1818, and Rhode Island until 1842.

[Sidenote: Effects of the Revolution of 1689]

There was at this time a disposition on the part of the British

government to unite all the northern colonies under a single

administration. The French in Canada were fast becoming rivals to be

feared; and the wonderful explorations of La Salle, bringing the St.

Lawrence into political connection with the Mississippi, had at length

foreshadowed a New France in the rear of all the English colonies,

aiming at the control of the centre of the continent and eager to

confine the English to the sea-board. Already the relations of position

which led to the great Seven Years' War were beginning to shape

themselves; and the conflict between France and England actually broke

out in 1689, as soon as Louis XIV.'s hired servant, James II., was

superseded by William III. as king of England and head of a Protestant

league. [Sidenote: Need for union among all the northern colonies]

In view of this new state of affairs, it was thought desirable to unite

the northern English colonies under one head, so far as possible, in

order to secure unity of military action. But natural prejudices had to

be considered. The policy of James II. had aroused such bitter feeling

in America that William must needs move with caution. Accordingly he did

not seek to unite New York with New England, and he did not think it

worth while to carry out the attack which James had only begun upon

Connecticut and Rhode Island. As for New Hampshire, he seems to have

been restrained by what in the language of modern politics would be

called "pressure," brought to bear by certain local interests. [39]

But in the case of the little colony founded by the Pilgrims of the

Mayflower there was no obstacle. She was now annexed to Massachusetts,

which also received not only Maine but even Acadia, just won from the

French; so that, save for the short break at Portsmouth, the coast of

Massachusetts now reached all the way from Martha's Vineyard to the Gulf

of St. Lawrence. [Sidenote: Plymouth, Maine, and Acadia, annexed to

Massachusetts]

But along with this great territorial extension there went some

curtailment of the political privileges of the colony. By the new

charter of 1692 the right of the people to be governed by a legislature

of their own choosing was expressly confirmed. The exclusive right of

this legislature to impose taxes was also confirmed. But henceforth no

qualification of church-membership, but only a property qualification,

was to be required of voters; the governor was to be appointed by the

crown instead of being elected by the people; and all laws passed by

the legislature were to be sent to England for royal approval. These

features of the new charter,--the extension, or if I may so call it, the

_secularization_ of the franchise, the appointment of the governor

by the crown, and the power of veto which the crown expressly

reserved,--were grave restrictions upon the independence which

Massachusetts had hitherto enjoyed. Henceforth her position was to be

like that of the other colonies with royal governors. But her history

did not thereby lose its interest or significance, though it became,

like the history of most of the colonies, a dismal record of

irrepressible bickerings between the governor appointed by the crown and

the legislature elected by the people. In the period that began in 1692

and ended in 1776, the movements of Massachusetts, while restricted

and hampered, were at the same time forced into a wider orbit. She was

brought into political sympathy with Virginia. While two generations

of men were passing across the scene, the political problems of

Massachusetts were assimilated to those of Virginia. In spite of all

the other differences, great as they were, there was a likeness in the

struggles between the popular legislature and the royal governor which

subordinated them all. It was this similarity of experience, during

the eighteenth century, that brought these two foremost colonies into

cordial alliance during the struggle against George III., and thus made

it possible to cement all the colonies together in the mighty nation

whose very name is fraught with so high and earnest a lesson to

mankind,--the UNITED STATES! [Sidenote: Massachusetts becomes a royal

province]

For such a far-reaching result, the temporary humiliation of

Massachusetts was a small price to pay. But it was not until long after

the accession of William III. that things could be seen in these grand

outlines. With his coronation began the struggle of seventy years

between France and England, far grander than the struggle between Rome

and Carthage, two thousand years earlier, for primacy in the world,

for the prerogative of determining the future career of mankind. That

warfare, so fraught with meaning, was waged as much upon American as

upon European ground; and while it continued, it was plainly for the

interest of the British government to pursue a conciliatory policy

toward its American colonies, for without their wholehearted assistance

it could have no hope of success. As soon as the struggle was ended, and

the French power in the colonial world finally overthrown, the perpetual

quarrels between the popular legislatures and the royal governors led

immediately to the Stamp Act and the other measures of the British

government that brought about the American revolution. People sometimes

argue about that revolution as if it had no past behind it and was

simply the result of a discussion over abstract principles. [Sidenote:

Seeds of the American Revolution already sown]

We can now see that while the dispute involved an abstract principle of

fundamental importance to mankind, it was at the same time for Americans

illustrated by memories sufficiently concrete and real. James Otis

in his prime was no further distant from the tyranny of Andros than

middle-aged men of to-day are distant from the Missouri Compromise. The

sons of men cast into jail along with John Wise may have stood silent in

the moonlight on Griffin's Wharf and looked on while the contents of the

tea-chests were hurled into Boston harbour. In the events we have here

passed in review, it may be seen, so plainly that he who runs may read,

how the spirit of 1776 was foreshadowed in 1689.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.

An interesting account of the Barons' War and the meeting of the first

House of Commons is given in Prothero's _Simon de Montfort_, London,

1877. For Wyclif and the Lollards, see Milman's _Latin Christianity_,

vol. vii.

The ecclesiastical history of the Tudor period may best be studied in

the works of John Strype, to wit, _Historical Memorials_, 6 vols.;

_Annals of the Reformation_, 7 vols.; _Lives of Cranmer, Parker,

Whitgift, etc._, Oxford, 1812-28. See also _Burnet's History of the

Reformation of the Church of England_, 3 vols., London, 1679-1715;

Neal's _History of the Puritans_, London, 1793; Tulloch, _Leaders of the

Reformation_, Boston, 1859. A vast mass of interesting information is

to be found in _The Zurich Letters, comprising the Correspondence

of Several English Bishops, and Others, with some of the Helvetian

Reformers_, published by the Parker Society, 4 vols., Cambridge, Eng.,

1845-46. Hooker's _Ecclesiastical Polity_ was published in London, 1594;

a new edition, containing two additional books, the first complete

edition, was published in 1622.

For the general history of England in the seventeenth century, there are

two modern works which stand far above all others,--Gardiner's _History

of England_, 10 vols., London, 1883-84; and Masson's _Life of Milton,

narrated in connection with the Political, Ecclesiastical, and Literary

History of his Time_, 6 vols., Cambridge, Eng., 1859-80. These are

books of truly colossal erudition, and written in a spirit of judicial

fairness. Mr. Gardiner's ten volumes cover the forty years from the

accession of James I. to the beginning of the Civil War, 1603-1643. Mr.

Gardiner has lately published the first two volumes of his history of

the Civil War, and it is to be hoped that he will not stop until he

reaches the accession of William and Mary. Indeed, such books as his

ought never to stop. My friend and colleague, Prof. Hosmer, tells me

that Mr. Gardiner is a lineal descendant of Cromwell and Ireton. His

little book, _The Puritan Revolution_, in the "Epochs of History"

series, is extremely useful, and along with it one should read Airy's

_The English Restoration and Louis XIV_., in the same series, New York,

1889. The best biography of Cromwell is by Mr. Allanson Picton, London,

1882; see also Frederic Harrison's _Cromwell_, London, 1888, an

excellent little book. Hosmer's _Young Sir Henry Vane_, Boston, 1888,

should be read in the same connection; and one should not forget

Carlyle's _Cromwell_. See also Tulloch, _English Puritanism and its

Leaders_, 1861, and _Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy in

England in the Seventeenth Century_, 1872; Skeats, _History of the

Free Churches of England_, London, 1868; Mountfield, _The Church and

Puritans_, London, 1881. Dexter's _Congregationalism of the Last Three

Hundred Years_, New York, 1880, is a work of monumental importance.

On the history of New England the best general works are Palfrey,

_History of New England_, 4 vols., Boston, 1858-75; and Doyle, _The

English in America--The Puritan Colonies_, 2 vols., London, 1887. In

point of scholarship Dr. Palfrey's work is of the highest order, and

it is written in an interesting style. Its only shortcoming is that it

deals somewhat too leniently with the faults of the Puritan theocracy,

and looks at things too exclusively from a Massachusetts point of view.

It is one of the best histories yet written in America. Mr. Doyle's work

is admirably fair and impartial, and is based throughout upon a careful

study of original documents. The author is a Fellow of All Souls

College, Oxford, and has apparently made American history his specialty.

His work on the Puritan colonies is one of a series which when completed

will cover the whole story of English colonization in America. I have

looked in vain in his pages for any remark or allusion indicating that

he has ever visited America, and am therefore inclined to think that he

has not done so. He now and then makes a slight error such as would

not be likely to be made by a native of New England, but this is very

seldom. The accuracy and thoroughness of its research, its judicial

temper, and its philosophical spirit make Mr. Doyle's book in some

respects the best that has been written about New England.

Among original authorities we may begin by citing John Smith's

_Description of New England_, 1616, and _New England's Trial_, 1622,

contained in Arber's new edition of Smith's works, London, 1884.

Bradford's narrative of the founding of Plymouth was for a long time

supposed to be lost. Nathaniel Morton's _New England's Memorial_,

published in 1669, was little more than an abridgment of it. After two

centuries Bradford's manuscript was discovered, and an excellent edition

by Mr. Charles Deane was published in the _Massachusetts Historical

Collections_, 4th series, vol. iii., 1856. Edward Winslow's _Journal of

the Proceedings of the English Plantation settled at Plymouth_, 1622,

and _Good News from New England_, 1624, are contained, with other

valuable materials, in Young's _Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers_,

Boston, 1844. See also Shurtleff and Pulsifer, _Records of Plymouth_,

12 vols., ending with the annexation of the colony to Massachusetts in

1692; Prince's _Chronological History of New England_, ed. Drake, 1852;

and in this connection Hunter's _Founders of New Plymouth_, London,

1854; Steele's _Life of Brewster_, Philadelphia, 1857; Goodwin's

_Pilgrim Republic_, Boston, 1887; Bacon's _Genesis of the New England

Churches_, New York, 1874; Baylies's _Historical Memoir_, 1830;

Thacher's _History of the Town of Plymouth_, 1832.

Sir Ferdinando Gorges wrote a _Briefe Narration of the Originall

Undertakings of the advancement of plantations into the parts of

America, especially showing the beginning, progress, and continuance

of that of New England_, London, 1658, contained in his grandson's

collection entitled _America Painted to the Life_. Thomas Morton, of

Merrymount, gave his own view of the situation in his _New English

Canaan_, which has been edited for the Prince Society, with great

learning, by C.F. Adams. Samuel Maverick also had his say in a valuable

pamphlet entitled _A Description of New England_, which has only come

to light since 1875 and has been edited by Mr. Deane. Maverick is, of

course, hostile to the Puritans. See also Lechford's _Plain Dealing in

New England_, ed. J.H. Trumbull, 1867.

The earliest history of Massachusetts is by Winthrop himself, a work of

priceless value. In 1790, nearly a century and a half after the author's

death, it was published at Hartford. The best edition is that of 1853.

In 1869 a valuable life of Winthrop was published by his descendant

Robert Winthrop. Hubbard's _History of New England_ (_Mass. Hist.

Coll._, 2d series, vols. v., vi.) is drawn largely from Winthrop and

from Nathaniel Morton. There is much that is suggestive in William

Wood's _New England's Prospect_, 1634, and Edward Johnson's

_Wonder-working Providence of Zion's Saviour in New England_, 1654; the

latter has been ably edited by W.F. Poole, Andover, 1867. The records

of the Massachusetts government, from its founding in 1629 down to the

overthrow of the charter in 1684, were edited by Dr. Shurtleff in 6

vols. quarto, 1853-54; and among the documents in the British Record

Office, published since 1855, three volumes--_Calendar of State Papers_,

_Colonial America_, vol. i., 1574-1660; vol. v., 1661-1668; vol. vii.,

1669--are especially useful. Of the later authorities the best is

Hutchinson's _History of Massachusetts Bay_, the first volume of which,

coming down to 1689, was published in Boston in 1764. The second volume,

continuing the narrative to 1749, was published in 1767. The third

volume, coming down to 1774, was found among the illustrious author's

MSS. after his death, and was published in London in 1828. Hutchinson

had access to many valuable documents since lost, and his sound judgment

and critical acumen deserve the highest praise. In 1769 he published

a volume of _Original Papers_, illustrating the period covered by the

first volume of his history. Many priceless documents perished in the

shameful sacking of his house by the Boston rioters, Aug. 26, 1765. The

second volume of Hutchinson's _History_ was continued to 1764 by G.R.

Minot, 2 vols., 1798, and to 1820 by Alden Bradford, 3 vols., 1822-29.

Of recent works, the best is Barry's _History of Massachusetts_, 3

vols., 1855-57. Many original authorities are collected in Young's

_Chronicles of Massachusetts_, Boston, 1846. Cotton Mather's _Magnolia

Christi Americana_, London, 1702 (reprinted in 1820 and 1853), though

crude and uncritical, is full of interest.

Many of the early Massachusetts documents relate to Maine. Of later

books, especial mention should be made of Folsom's _History of Saco and

Biddeford_, Saco, 1830; Willis's _History of Portland_, 2 vols., 1831-33

(2d ed. 1865); _Memorial Volume of the Popham Celebration_, Portland,

1862; Chamberlain's _Maine, Her Place in History_, Augusta, 1877. On New

Hampshire the best general work is Belknap's _History of New Hampshire_,

3 vols., Phila., 1784-92; the appendix contains many original

documents, and others are to be found in the _New Hampshire Historical

Collections_, 8 vols., 1824-66.

The _Connecticut Colonial Records_ are edited by Dr. J.H. Trumbull,

12 vols., 1850-82. The _Connecticut Historical Society's Collections_,

1860-70, are of much value. The best general work is Trumbull's _History

of Connecticut_, 2 vols., Hartford, 1797. See also Stiles's _Ancient

Windsor_, 2 vols., 1859-63; Cothren's _Ancient Woodbury_, 3 vols.,

1854-79. Of the Pequot War we have accounts by three of the principal

actors. Mason's _History of the Pequod War_ is in the _Mass. Hist.

Coll._, 2d series, vol. viii.; Underhill's _News from America_ is in the

3d series, vol. vi.; and Lyon Gardiner's narrative is in the 3d series,

vol. iii. In the same volume with Underhill is contained _A True

Relation of the late Battle fought in New England between the English

and the Pequod Savages_, by Philip Vincent, London, 1638. The _New Haven

Colony Records_ are edited by C.J. Hoadly, 2 vols., Hartford, 1857-58.

See also the _New Haven Historical Society's Papers_, 3 vols., 1865-80;

Lambert's _History of New Haven_, 1838; Atwater's _History of New

Haven_, 1881; Levermore's _Republic of New Haven_, Baltimore, 1886;

Johnston's _Connecticut_, Boston, 1887. The best account of the Blue

Laws is by J.H. Trumbull, _The True Blue Laws of Connecticut and New

Haven, and the False Blue Laws invented by the Rev. Samuel Peters_,

etc., Hartford, 1876. See also Hinman's _Blue Laws of New Haven Colony_,

Hartford, 1838; Barber's _History and Antiquities of New Haven_, 1831;

Peters's _History of Connecticut_, London, 1781. The story of the

regicides is set forth in Stiles's _History of the Three Judges_ [the

third being Colonel Dixwell], Hartford, 1794; see also the _Mather

Papers_ in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, 4th series, vol. viii.

_The Rhode Island Colonial Records_ are edited by J.R. Bartlett, 7

vols., 1856-62. One of the best state histories ever written is that

of S.G. Arnold, _History of the State of Rhode Island and Providence

Plantations_, 2 vols., New York, 1859-60. Many valuable documents are

reprinted in the _Rhode Island Historical Society's Collections_. The

_History of New England, with particular reference to the denomination

called Baptists_, by Rev. Isaac Backus, 3 vols., 1777-96, has much

that is valuable relating to Rhode Island. The series of _Rhode Island

Historical Tracts_, issued since 1878 by Mr. S.S. Rider, is of great

merit. Biographies of Roger Williams have been written by J.D. Knowles,

1834; by William Gammell, 1845; and by Romeo Elton, 1852. Williams's

works have been republished by the Narragansett Club in 6 vols., 1866.

The first volume contains the valuable _Key to the Indian Languages of

America_, edited by Dr. Trumbull. Williams's views of religious liberty

are set forth in his _Bloudy Tenent of Persecution_, London, 1644; to

which John Cotton replied in _The Bloudy Tenent washed and made White in

the Blood of the Lamb_, London, 1647; Williams's rejoinder was entitled

_The Bloudy Tenent made yet more Bloudy through Mr. Cotton's attempt

to Wash it White_, London, 1652. The controversy was conducted on both

sides with a candour and courtesy rare in that age. The titles of

Williams's other principal works, _George Fox digged out of his

Burrowes_, Boston, 1676; _Hireling Ministry none of Christ's_, London,

1652; and _Christenings make not Christians_, 1643; sufficiently

indicate their character. The last-named tract was discovered in the

British Museum by Dr. Dexter and edited by him in Rider's _Tracts_,

No. xiv., 1881. The treatment of Roger Williams by the government

of Massachusetts is thoroughly discussed in Dexter's _As to Roger

Williams_, Boston, 1876. See also G.E. Ellis on "The Treatment of

Intruders and Dissentients by the Founders of Massachusetts," in _Lowell

Lectures_, Boston, 1869.

The case of Mrs. Hutchinson is treated, from a hostile and somewhat

truculent point of view, in Thomas Welde's pamphlet entitled _A Short

Story of the Rise, Reign, and Ruin of Antinomians, Familists, and

Libertines that infected the Churches of New England_, London, 1644. It

was answered in an anonymous pamphlet entitled _Mercurius Americanus_,

republished for the Prince Society, Boston, 1876, with prefatory notice

by C.H. Bell. Cotton's view of the theocracy may be seen in his _Milk

for Babes, drawn out of the Breasts of both Testaments_, London, 1646;

_Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven_; and _Way of the Congregational

Churches Cleared_, London, 1648. See also Thomas Hooker's _Survey of the

Summe of Church Discipline_, London, 1648. The intolerant spirit of the

time finds quaint and forcible expression in Nathaniel Ward's satirical

book, _The Simple Cobbler of Aggawam_, 1647.

For the Gorton controversy the best original authorities are his own

book entitled _Simplicitie's Defence against Sevenheaded Polity_,

London, 1646; and Winslow's answer entitled _Hypocracie Unmasked_,

London, 1646. See also Mackie's _Life of Samuel Gorton_, Boston, 1845,

and Brayton's _Defence of Samuel Gorton_, in Rider's _Tracts_, No. xvii.

For the early history of the Quakers, see Robert Barclay's _Inner Life

of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth_, London, 1876,--an

admirable book. See also _New England a Degenerate Plant_, 1659;

Bishop's _New England judged by the Spirit of the Lord_, 1661; Sewel's

_History of the Quakers_, 1722; Besse's _Sufferings of the Quakers_,

1753; _The Popish Inquisition newly erected in New England_, London,

1659; _The Secret Works of a Cruel People made Manifest_, 1659; and the

pamphlet of the martyrs Stevenson and Robinson, entitled _A Call from

Death to Life_, 1660. John Norton's view of the case was presented in

his book, _The Heart of New England Rent at the Blasphemies of the

Present Generation_, London, 1660. See also J.S. Pike's _New Puritan_,

New York, 1879; Hallowell's _Pioneer Quakers_, Boston, 1887; and his

_Quaker Invasion of Massachusetts_, Boston, 1883; Brooks Adams, _The

Emancipation of Massachusetts_, Boston, 1887; Ellis, _The Puritan Age

and Rule_, Boston, 1888.

Some additional light upon the theocratic idea may be found in a

treatise by the apostle Eliot, _The Christian Commonwealth; or, the

Civil Polity of the Rising Kingdom of Jesus Christ_, London, 1659. An

account of Eliot's missionary work is given in _The Day breaking, if not

the Sun rising, of the Gospel with the Indians in New England_, London,

1647; and _The Glorious Progress of the Gospel amongst the Indians in

New England_, 1649. See also Shepard's _Clear Sunshine of the Gospel

breaking forth upon the Indians_, 1648; and Whitfield's _Light appearing

more and more towards the Perfect Day_, 1651.

The principal authority for Philip's war is Hubbard's _Present State of

New England, being a Narrative of the Troubles with the Indians_, 1677.

Church's _Entertaining Passages relating to Philip's War_, published in

1716, and republished in 1865, with notes by Mr. Dexter, is a charming

book. See also Mrs. Rowlandson's _True History_, Cambridge, Mass.,

1682; Mather's _Brief History of the War_, 1676; Drake's _Old Indian

Chronicle_, Boston, 1836; Gookin's _Historical Collections of the

Indians in New England_, 1674; and _Account of the Doings and Sufferings

of the Christian Indians_, in _Archchaeologia Americana_, vol. ii.

Batten's _Journal_ is the diary of a citizen of Boston, sent to England,

and it now in MS. among the _Colonial Papers_. Mrs. Mary Pray's letter

(Oct. 20, 1675) is in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, 5th series, vol. i. p. 105.

The great storehouse of information for the Andros period is the _Andros

Tracts_, 3 vols., edited for the Prince Society by W.H. Whitmore. See

also Sewall's _Diary, Mass. Hist. Coll._, 5th series, vols. v.--viii.

Sewall has been appropriately called the Puritan Pepys. His book is a

mirror of the state of society in Massachusetts at the time when it was

beginning to be felt that the old theocratic idea had been tried in the

balance and found wanting. There is a wonderful charm in such a book. It

makes one feel as if one had really "been there" and taken part in the

homely scenes, full of human interest, which it so naively portrays.

Anne Bradstreet's works have been edited by J.H. Ellis, Charlestown,

1867.

For further references and elaborate bibliographical discussions, see

Winsor's _Narrative and Critical History of America_, vol. iii.; and his

_Memorial History of Boston_, 4 vols., Boston, 1880. There is a good

account of the principal New England writers of the seventeenth century,

with illustrative extracts, in Tyler's _History of American Literature_,

2 vols., New York, 1878. For extracts see also the first two volumes of

Stedman and Hutchinson's _Library of American Literature_, New York,

1888.

In conclusion I would observe that town histories, though seldom written

in a philosophical spirit and apt to be quite amorphous in structure,

are a mine of wealth for the philosophic student of history.

NOTES:

[1] Milman, _Lat. Christ._ vii. 395.

[2] Gardiner, _The Puritan Revolution_, p. 12.

[3] Green, _History of the English People_, iii. 47.

[4] Steele's _Life of Brewster,_ p. 161.

[5] Gardiner, _Puritan Revolution_, p. 50.

[6] It is now 204 years since a battle has been fought in England. The

last was Sedgmoor in 1685. For four centuries, since Bosworth, in 1485,

the English people have lived in peace in their own homes, except for

the brief episode of the Great Rebellion, and Monmouth's slight affair.

This long peace, unparalleled in history, has powerfully influenced the

English and American character for good. Since the Middle Ages most

English warfare has been warfare at a distance, and that does not

nourish the brutal passions in the way that warfare at home does.

An instructive result is to be seen in the mildness of temper which

characterized the conduct of our stupendous Civil War. Nothing like it

was ever seen before.

[7] Picton's _Cromwell_, pp. 61, 67; Gardiner, _Puritan Revolution_, p.

72.

[8] Quincy, History of Harvard University, ii. 654.

[9] C.F. Adams, _Sir Christopher Gardiner, Knight_, p. 31.

[10] The compact drawn up in the Mayflower's cabin was not, in the

strict sense a constitution, which is a document defining and limiting

the functions of government. Magna Charta partook of the nature of

a written constitution, as far as it went, but it did not create a

government.

[11] See Johnston's Connecticut, p. 321, a very brilliant book.

[12] See the passionate exclamation of Endicott, below, p. 190.

[13] Excursions of an Evolutionist: pp. 250, 255.

[14] A glimmer of light upon Gorton may be got from reading the

title-page of one of his books: "AN INCORRUPTIBLE KEY, composed of the

CX PSALME, wherewith you may open the Rest of the Holy Scriptures;

Turning itself only according to the Composure and Art of that Lock, of

the Closure and Secresie of that great Mystery of God manifest in the

Flesh, but justified only by the Spirit, which it evidently openeth

and revealeth, out of Fall and Resurrection, Sin and Righteousness,

Ascension and Descension, Height and Depth, First and Last, Beginning

and Ending, Flesh and Spirit, Wisdome and Foolishnesse, Strength

and Weakness, Mortality and Immortality, Jew and Gentile, Light and

Darknesse, Unity and Multiplication, Fruitfulness and Barrenness, Curse

and Blessing, Man and Woman, Kingdom and Priesthood, Heaven and Earth,

Allsufficiency and Deficiency, God and Man. And out of every Unity made

up of twaine, it openeth that great two-leafed Gate, which is the sole

Entrie into the City of God, of New Jerusalem, _into which none but the

King of glory can enter_; and as that Porter openeth the Doore of the

Sheepfold, _by which whosoever entreth is the Shepheard of the Sheep_;

See Isa. 45. 1. Psal. 24. 7, 8, 9, 10. John 10. 1, 2, 3; Or, (according

to the Signification of the Word translated _Psalme_,) it is a

Pruning-Knife, to lop off from the Church of Christ all superfluous

Twigs _of earthly and carnal Commandments_, Leviticall Services or

Ministery, and fading and vanishing Priests, or Ministers, who are taken

away and cease, and are not established and confirmed by Death, as

holding no Correspondency with the princely Dignity, Office, and

Ministry of our _Melchisedek_, who is the only Minister and Ministry of

the Sanctuary, and of that true Tabernacle which the Lord pitcht, and

not Man. For it supplants the Old Man, and implants the New; abrogates

the Old Testament or Covenant, and confirms the New, unto a thousand

Generations, or in Generations forever. By Samuel Gorton, _Gent._,

and at the time of penning hereof, in the Place of Judicature (upon

Aquethneck, alias Road Island) of Providence Plantations in the

Nanhyganset Bay, New England. Printed in the Yeere 1647."

[15] Father of Benedict Arnold, afterward governor of Rhode Island, and

owner of the stone windmill (apparently copied from one in Chesterton,

Warwickshire) which was formerly supposed by some antiquarians to be a

vestige of the Northmen. Governor Benedict Arnold was great-grandfather

of the traitor.

[16] _Gorton, Simplicitie's Defence against Seven-headed Policy_, p. 88.

[17] De Forest, _History of the Indians of Connecticut_, Hartford, 1850,

p. 198.

[18] Doyle, _Puritan Colonies_, i. 324.

[19] See below, p. 222, note.

[20] See my _Excursions of an Evolutionist,_ pp. 239-242, 250-255,

286-289.

[21] Gorton's life at Warwick, after all these troubles, seems to have

been quiet and happy. He died in 1677 at a great age. In 1771 Dr. Ezra

Stiles visited, in Providence, his last surviving disciple, born in

1691. This old man said that Gorton wrote in heaven, and none can

understand his books except those who live in heaven while on earth.

[22] Doyle, _Puritan Colonies_,: i. 369.

[23] Doyle, i.: 372.

[24] Milman, _Latin Christianity_, vii. 390.

[25] Doyle, ii. 133, 134; Rhode Island Records, i. 377, 378.

[26] Colonial Laws of Massachusetts, pp. 14-16; Levermore's Republic of

New Haven, p. 153.

[27] See my remarks above, p. 145.

[28] The daring passage in the sermon is thus given in Bacon's

_Historical Discourses_, New Haven, 1838: "Withhold not countenance,

entertainment, and protection from the people of God--whom men may call

fools and fanatics--if any such come to you from other countries,

as from France or England, or any other place. Be not forgetful to

entertain strangers. Remember those that are in bonds, as bound with

them. The Lord required this of Moab, saying, 'Make thy shadow as the

night in the midst of the noonday; hide the outcasts; bewray not him

that wandereth. Let mine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab; be thou a

covert to them from the face of the spoiler.' Is it objected--'But so I

may expose myself to be spoiled or troubled'? He, therefore, to remove

this objection, addeth, 'For the extortioner is at an end, the spoiler

ceaseth, the oppressors are consumed out of the land.' While we are

attending to our duty in owning and harbouring Christ's witnesses, God

will be providing for their and our safety, by destroying those that

would destroy his people."

[29] Palfrey, _History of New England,_ in. 138-140.

[30] See Parkman, _Conspiracy of Pontiac_, i. 80-85.

[31] De Forest, _History of the Indians of Connecticut,_ pp. 252, 257.

[32] The story rests chiefly upon the statements of Hutchinson, an

extremely careful and judicious writer, and not in the least what

the French call a _gobemouche_. Goffe kept a diary which came into

Hutchinson's possession, and was one of the priceless manuscripts that

perished in the infamous sacking of his house by the Boston mob of

August 26, 1765. What light that diary might have thrown upon the matter

can never be known. Hutchinson was born in 1711, only thirty-six years

after the event, so that his testimony is not so very far removed from

that of a contemporary. Whalley seems to have died in Hadley shortly

before 1675, and Goffe deemed it prudent to leave that neighbourhood in

1676. His letters to Increase Mather are dated from "Ebenezer," i. e.,

wherever in his roamings he set up his Ebenezer. One of these letters,

dated September 8, 1676, shows that his Ebenezer was then set up in

Hartford, where probably he died about 1679 In 1676 the arrival of

Edward Randolph (see below, p. 256) renewed the peril of the regicide

judge, and his sudden removal from his skilfully contrived hiding-place

at Hadley might possibly have been due to his having exposed himself

to recognition in the Indian fight. Possibly even the supernatural

explanation might have been started, with a touch of Yankee humour, as

a blind. The silence of Mather and Hubbard was no more remarkable than

some of the other ingenious incidents which had so long served to

conceal the existence of this sturdy and crafty man. The reasons for

doubting the story are best stated by Mr. George Sheldon of Deerfield,

in _Hist.-Genealogical Register_, October, 1874.

[33] If Philip was half the diplomatist that he is represented in

tradition, he never would have gone into such a war without assurance of

Narragansett help. Canonchet was a far more powerful sachem than Philip,

and played a more conspicuous part in the war. May we not suppose that

Canonchet's desire to avenge his father's death was one of the principal

incentives to the war; that Philip's attack upon Swanzey was a premature

explosion; and that Canonchet then watched the course of events for a

while before making up his mind whether to abandon Philip or support

him?

[34] A wretched little werewolf who some few years ago, being then a lad

of fourteen or fifteen years, most cruelly murdered two or three

young children, just to amuse himself with their dying agonies. The

misdirected "humanitarianism," which in our country makes every murderer

an object of popular sympathy, prevailed to save this creature from

the gallows. Massachusetts has lately witnessed a similar instance of

misplaced clemency in the case of a vile woman who had poisoned eight or

ten persons, including some of her own children, in order to profit

by their life insurance. Such instances help to explain the prolonged

vitality of "Judge Lynch," and sometimes almost make one regret the days

in old England when William Probert, after escaping in 1824 as "king's

evidence," from the Thurtell affair, got caught and hanged within a

twelvemonth for horse-stealing. Any one who wishes to study the results

of allowing criminality to survive and propagate itself should read

Dugdale's The Jukes; Hereditary Crime, New York, 1877.

[35] Weeden, _Indian Money as a Factor in New England Civilization_,

Johns Hopkins University Studies, II. viii., ix. p. 30.

[36] Doyle, ii. 253.

[37] Doyle, _Puritan Colonies_, ii. 254.

[38] The quotation is from an unpublished letter of Rev. Robert

Ratcliffe to the Bishop of London, cited in an able article in the

_Boston Herald_, January 4, 1888. I have not seen the letter.

[39] Doyle, _Puritan Colonies_, ii. 379, 380.

End of Project Gutenberg's The Beginnings of New England, by John Fiske