CHAPTER XVII

THE NEW ORDER

Just a year before the events of that 18th of April, described at the

close of the last chapter, the Reverend Increase Mather had sailed for

England as representative of “many congregations” in the colony, in an

effort to secure from King James the restoration of an assembly,

confirmation of land-titles, and as many of the old charter privileges

as possible. Although he was more than once received in audience by the

King, before the Revolution brought the negotiations to an abrupt end,

it had been evident for some time that the churches' agent was likely to

gain little more than fair words and memories of royal interviews.[1088]

He had, however, succeeded in making useful friends, one among whom, Sir

Henry Ashurst, became associated with him as agent, and another, Lord

Wharton, introduced him to the Prince of Orange a month before the

coronation, enabling him thus early to present a petition for the

restoration of the charter.[1089]

Footnote 1088:

Mather sailed April 7, 1688. _Andros Tracts_, vols. III, pp. 130

_ff._, and II, pp. 274 _ff._ As the addresses which he carried with

him were unsigned, and as they were merely issued “in the name of many

Congregations,” it is impossible to say whom he really represented

when he sailed.

Footnote 1089:

_Andros Tracts_, vol. III, pp. 146 _f._

Three days after that interview, a circular letter was prepared, to be

sent to all the English colonies, ordering officials then in office to

continue to administer affairs temporarily until the new government

could send different instructions.[1090] Word of this was given to

Mather by Jephson, a cousin of Wharton and an under-secretary to the

King. Mather's alarm, when he heard of it, would seem to indicate that

he either had definite information of the uprising planned in Boston, or

very strong suspicions of what might occur. Prince William had already

been two months in England, and it is incredible that Mather should not

have sent home some word of an event of such overwhelming importance to

the colony as the overthrow of the Stuart monarchy. His later censure of

the colonists for not having promptly resumed the charter government,

instead of temporizing, and his laying the blame for his partial failure

in England upon their not having done so, may also suggest the nature of

the advice sent by him.[1091] He could hardly have expected the new King

to determine offhand the form of government for the Dominion of New

England, then constituting over one half of the empire in America. An

order for a few months' longer continuance of the Andros government,

under the circumstances, would not have been a serious matter, unless

that government had already been overthrown, or was about to be, by the

colonists' acts. However that may be, Mather and Sir William Phips, now

also temporarily in London, petitioned against the dispatch of the

letter to New England, and succeeded in having orders issued instead for

a new governor in place of Andros, and a temporary form of government,

to include a popular assembly.[1092]

Footnote 1090:

_Cal. State Pap., Col., 1689-92_, pp. 4, 7.

Footnote 1091:

_Andros Tracts_, vol. II, p. 291. _Cf._, however, Cotton Mather,

_Diary_, vol. I, p. 138 _n._

Footnote 1092:

_Andros Tracts_, vols. II, p. 274, and III, p. 148; Palfrey,

_History_, vol. III, p. 591 _n._; _Cal. State Pap., Col., 1689-92_,

pp. 6, 8, 11.

News of the revolution at Boston reached London the last week in June,

and soon letters from Randolph and others supplied the English

government with the details of what had occurred.[1093] Toward the end

of July, orders were issued to the provisional government in Boston to

send Andros and the other prisoners to England “forthwith,” on the first

ship bound thither, and that they be treated civilly.[1094] The order

was not received in Massachusetts until November 24, and then was not

complied with.[1095] Although two ships were ready to sail in December,

an embargo was laid upon the vessels, and it was not until the middle of

the next February that the prisoners, after treatment which they

considered unnecessarily harsh, were allowed to start.[1096] It had

probably been felt that their presence in London might interfere with

the success of the colony's agents.

Footnote 1093:

Sewall, _Diary_, vol. I, pp. 261 _f._

Footnote 1094:

_Randolph Papers_, vol. IV, pp. 290 _f._; _Andros Tracts_, vol. III,

p. 111. The list of prisoners is in _Cal. State Pap., Col., 1689-92_,

p. 109.

Footnote 1095:

_Randolph Papers_, vol. V, p. 23.

The leaders who had planned the Boston revolution had undoubtedly

desired the eventual restoration of the old charter, and the return of

the Church and themselves into control of the government. It is probable

also that the majority of the inhabitants wished for the reëstablishment

of charter government, which they looked upon as ensuring themselves

against arbitrary acts by England or English officials. The desires of

the people as a whole, however, were by no means identical with those of

the leaders who formed the temporary government in Boston, or were

acting as agents in England, virtually all of whom were of the narrowest

clerical party. When the fall of the Andros government necessitated the

formation of another, those who had taken the lead on the day of its

overthrow associated twenty-two others with themselves, and formed a

“Council for the safety of the people and conservation of the peace,”

with Bradstreet and Wait Winthrop in the chief offices.[1097] The

decision of a convention, held May 8, as to a new government was not

considered sufficiently decisive, and another was convened, which

included representatives from fifty-four towns. Hutchinson says that

“two days were spent in disputes,” and that “the people without doors

were also much divided in sentiments.” Apparently the representatives of

forty towns voted in favor of resuming the charter, and those of

fourteen against it.[1098] A compromise, not only between those for and

against the charter, but also between those for and against the

expediency of immediate resumption, resulted in the formation of a

government composed of those officials who had been chosen in the last

election under the old charter. Within a few weeks, Plymouth, which had

never had a charter, and Connecticut and Rhode Island, the legal

proceedings against which had never been consummated, also quietly

resumed their former governments.[1099]

Footnote 1096:

_Randolph Papers_, vols. II, pp. 110, 116, 118, 121, V, pp. 20, 26

_ff._, and VI, pp. 325, 331, 334; _Andros Tracts_, vol. I, p. 174;

_Cal. State Pap., Col., 1689-92_, p. 263.

Footnote 1097:

Hutchinson, _History_, vol. I, p. 340.

Footnote 1098:

_Ibid._, p. 344; _Mather Papers_, pp. 708 _f._

Footnote 1099:

_Plymouth Colonial Records_, vol. VI, pp. 206 _ff._; _R. I. Records_,

vol. III, p. 266; _Cal. State Pap., Col., 1689-92_, pp. 34, 62; _Conn.

Col. Records_, vol. III, pp. 250 _ff._, 463 _ff._

Of the points to be considered in granting a new charter for

Massachusetts, or the resumption of the old one, those most likely to be

discussed by the people—outside of the question of land-titles, as to

which the colonists were naturally unanimous—would be the assembly, the

governorship, and the franchise. As to the justice and necessity of a

representative body for legislation and taxation, there was probably no

difference of opinion in the colony. For that matter, as we saw in the

last chapter, there was virtually none in the English government at

home, or among its officials in Massachusetts, with the all-important

exception of the late, but unlamented, monarch. As to the governor, it

was natural that the majority of the people should prefer a chief

magistrate elected by themselves rather than one appointed by England,

though it is not at all certain that they were right. The old

oligarchical government had grossly misused its power, and those who had

a keen recollection of what toleration had meant in the days before

Andros, and who realized the military danger in the old system of small,

disunited, and contentious colonies, can certainly be accused of no lack

of “patriotism” in their preference for a royal governor, to serve as a

check upon the intolerance and military incapacity of the old régime.

Probably the most disputed point, and the one on which the leaders in

control were opposed to the best opinion among the people at large, was

that of the franchise. The question was, whether Massachusetts was to

remain the private preserve of a persecuting religious sect, or was to

be the home of a free people. For half a century, the leaders and the

old church party had resisted, by every means in their power,—by fraud,

trickery, and bloodshed, as well as by legitimate influence,—the

granting of a voice in the government to any individual who could not be

counted upon to uphold the power and authority of the priesthood and the

Church. Little by little, that power and authority had been declining

as, on the one hand, the people had grown in intellectual independence,

and, on the other, the leaders had shown themselves less and less worthy

of their exalted position. But, in England, Mather was exerting every

means to fasten the shackles permanently on the colony by insisting upon

the old Congregational test for the suffrage. In acting thus, he claimed

to be the representative, not of one element, but of the whole people, a

majority of whom would have been disfranchised by his success. What the

people themselves were thinking was shown by the vote at the

town-meeting of Watertown on May 20, 1689, to choose representatives for

the convention. After it had been agreed that they should be instructed

to vote for the resumption of the charter, until further orders were

received from England, it was added, as the only but significant

restriction, that the number of freemen “be inlarged further then have

been the Custom of this Colony formerly.”[1100] In this crisis,

therefore, as has been the case all through our narrative, it is

necessary to distinguish clearly the two separate struggles for

freedom—that between the colony as a whole and England, and that between

the liberal element among the people and the narrow oligarchical

leaders, lay and clerical, of the theocratical party in control.

Footnote 1100:

_Watertown Records_, vol. II, p. 37.

The weakness of the provisional government, due both to the character of

the men composing it, and to the lack of a clear mandate from the

people, was evident from the start. When, for example, Dudley was

released from prison on account of illness, on a bond for £1000, and

confined to his own house, a mob broke into it and carried him back to

jail. The keeper refused to retain him without a warrant, and he was

again confined, in another house. The mob having discovered this, the

excitement became so great, and the control of the government was so

slight, that Bradstreet, the Governor, had to write to Dudley, and

abjectly beg him to reincarcerate himself voluntarily, as otherwise the

authorities could not protect his family.[1101] A fortnight later, a

writer from Boston stated that there was much division among the people,

and that “every man is a Governor.” Another wrote, July 31, 1689, that

“all is confusion”; and, in October, Elizabeth Usher sent word to her

husband that “there is little trade and the ferment is as great as

ever.” A few days later, Governor Bradstreet himself was complaining to

the Lords of Trade of the people who “are busy to weaken the hands of

the Government,” and lamenting the Indian depredations and the empty

treasury.[1102]

Footnote 1101:

_Cal. State Pap., Col., 1689-92_, pp. 111, 120. Bradstreet's letter is

cited from Board of Trade Mss., by Kimball, _Joseph Dudley_, pp. 52

_f._ The _Cal. State Pap._ reference gives the bail as £10,000. I have

followed Kimball in stating it at £1000.

Footnote 1102:

_Cal. State Pap., Col., 1689-92_, pp. 82, 111, 120, 158, 167.

Almost the first act of the provisional government had been to draw off

and disperse many of the troops left by Andros to guard the eastern

province, while the discipline of all was ruined by the dismissing of a

number of officers on religious and political grounds.[1103] The Indians

realized the situation, and, with the arms and ammunition previously

supplied to them by the Boston merchants, descended upon the unhappy

settlers. The fort at Pemaquid, the great importance of which had always

been denied by the colonists because it was urged by Andros, was

captured, owing to the carelessness of the small garrison left there,

and about twenty houses were destroyed by the savages. At Saco, Oyster

River, and other places, houses were burned, and the inhabitants

murdered, and all the horrors of Indian warfare once more came thick

upon the border. The sudden disintegration of the Dominion, the

inability of the separate colonies to act together quickly and

harmoniously, and the lack of authority and military ability, left the

frontier defenseless. In April, 1689, war had been declared between

France and England, and the colonies seemed helpless before the menace

of the French and Indians from the north.

Footnote 1103:

_Andros Tracts_, vol. III, pp. 24 _ff._ The colony's defense against

Andros's charges in this connection is weak and far from truthful.

_Ibid._, pp. 34 _ff._

A few weeks after Massachusetts had disbanded the forces that Andros had

collected, the government attempted to raise more by a draft. The people

questioned both its authority to press men, and its ability to pay them,

and, for the most part, flatly refused either to volunteer or to be

drafted.[1104] A large part of Maine and the country eastward was

overrun, and in October the inhabitants were reported to be flocking

into Boston.[1105] In that month, Bradstreet wrote to the Lords of Trade

that there had been great depredations in Maine, New Hampshire, and even

in Massachusetts, and that the government's efforts to check them had

been of no avail, although a joint force had finally been raised by

Plymouth, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.[1106] Part of this force,

wretchedly clothed and poorly supplied, had been sent eastward under

Colonel Church, the veteran of Philip's War, but had accomplished

little. Indeed, so carelessly was it outfitted and officered, that it

was only when unexpectedly forced into action that the unhappy soldiers

discovered that the ammunition did not fit their guns.

Footnote 1104:

_Cal. State Pap., Col., 1689-92_, pp. 111, 120.

Footnote 1105:

_Ibid._, p. 158.

Footnote 1106:

_Ibid._, p. 167.

In January, 1690, the people of Maine sent a petition to England,

complaining of lack of protection by Massachusetts, begging for help,

and placing their losses at three hundred lives and £40,000 in

goods.[1107] The people of Great Island, New Hampshire, likewise wrote

to the mother-country, complaining of Massachusetts and of the danger

from the French and Indians.[1108] In midwinter, came the frightful

massacres at Schenectady and Salmon Falls; and even Bradstreet and the

Council, on behalf of Massachusetts herself, wrote to the Lords of

Trade, begging for arms and ammunition. The request was granted, and

stores, including two hundred barrels of powder, were ordered shipped to

Boston by the English government, although too late for the purpose that

the colonists had had in mind but had not stated.[1109] In addition, the

English navy was active in providing convoys for all the colonial

shipping, including that of New England.[1110] Such items in the English

records as “the convoys for Virginia, Maryland, Newfoundland and New

England will sail on the 31st. October, and that for Africa on the

20th.,” or a list of ninety merchant ships, forming only one of the

convoyed fleets from America, or the request by Massachusetts for a

royal ship-of-war to guard her coastwise commerce, were the best answers

to such premature “patriots” as the Reverend Joshua Moody, who was

telling the men of Boston that they had no dependence on the Crown, and

that the power of England was of no authority over them.[1111]

Footnote 1107:

_Ibid._, p. 212.

Footnote 1108:

_Ibid._, pp. 262 _f._

Footnote 1109:

_Ibid._, pp. 240, 273, 282 _f._

Footnote 1110:

_Ibid._, pp. 322, 575, 577 _f._, 675.

Footnote 1111:

_Randolph Papers_, vol. VI, p. 295.

The plan which had been conceived, and for which additional resources

were needed, was that of attacking the French, who were the driving

force behind the Indian raids, at their headquarters in Canada, instead

of carrying on an almost impossible system of defensive tactics along a

frontier several hundred miles long. The theory was good; but to put it

in practice would require leaders with military ability, and a

whole-hearted willingness on the part of the separate colonies to sink

their petty jealousies and act together. Unfortunately, both the ability

and the spirit of coöperation were lacking.

Massachusetts, indeed, carried out an easy and successful raid upon

Acadia, whither Sir William Phips sailed from Nantasket, on April 28,

1690, with five ships and several hundred soldiers.[1112] Phips, who is

said to have been one of twenty-six children of a Maine backwoodsman,

and who in his youth was unable to read or write, had acquired wealth

and social position, first, by the not very original method of marrying

a rich widow, and, secondly, by the more unusual one of locating a

sunken treasure-ship with £300,000 sterling, of which his share was a

considerable one. He had already married the widow. When he arrived at

Port Royal, in command of the Massachusetts fleet, he had no difficulty

in securing the surrender of the fort, as his force outnumbered the

garrison ten to one. A succinct diary tells, in admirable style, the

important events of his short sojourn, it being pertinent to note that

the Reverend Joshua Moody was his chaplain. “May, 11. The fort

surrendered. May, 12. Went ashore to search for hidden goods. We cut

down the cross, rifled the church, pulled down the high altar, and broke

their images. May, 13. Kept gathering plunder all day. May, 14. The

inhabitants swore allegiance to King William and Queen Mary.”[1113] All

very satisfying, doubtless, to the Reverend Mr. Moody. But,

unfortunately, the plunder, about the distribution of which some

unpleasant things were later said in Boston, was found to amount to

£3000 less than the cost of the expedition.[1114]

Footnote 1112:

The number of men and vessels varies in different accounts. _Cf._

_Cal. State Pap., Col., 1689-92_, pp. 275 _f._, 376; Parkman,

_Frontenac_, p. 247.

Footnote 1113:

_Cal. State Pap., Col., 1689-92_, pp. 275 _f._

Footnote 1114:

_Ibid._, p. 376.

The easy conquest, however, inspired larger hopes, while the common

danger to all the colonies might have been counted upon to induce them

to lay aside their particularism, and join in a common effort, if

anything could. A meeting of commissioners from Massachusetts, Plymouth,

Connecticut, and New York was held at the latter city, and a combined

attack on Canada was planned.[1115] A land force, made up of troops from

Maryland and the four colonies just mentioned, was to march from Albany

to capture Montreal, while, simultaneously, a fleet from Boston was to

attack Quebec. There seems to have been no realization of the

difficulties of carrying out such a complex joint operation, although,

to the very letter notifying the English government of the grandiose

scheme, had to be added a postscript, to the effect that there were

already “great distractions amongst the Forces.” Everything went wrong.

New York provided only one hundred and fifty of the four hundred men

promised. The hundred and sixty sent from Massachusetts were recalled on

news of the sacking of Casco. Plymouth sent none, and Connecticut less

than her quota; the Indian allies, always uncertain, declined to move,

and there were desertions among the whites. The colonies fell out over

the appointment of a commander, agreement, but not harmony, finally

being attained with the selection of Winthrop.[1116] Although the

unfortunate force, ill-equipped and badly organized, reached Wood Creek,

near the southern end of Lake Champlain, they were unable to advance

farther, and, save for a little skirmishing, the whole expedition was a

costly failure, demonstrating conclusively that, even in the face of

overwhelming danger, the colonies, if left to themselves, were as yet

unable to unite in effective action.

Footnote 1115:

_N. Y. Col. Docts._, vol. III, p. 732.

Footnote 1116:

_Ibid._, vols. IV, p. 194, and III, pp. 727, 752; _Documentary History

of New York_, vol. II, p. 266.

Although the naval expedition against Quebec reached its objective, it

also was unsuccessful, and was a mixture of farce and tragedy. Phips,

who was quite incompetent as the leader of such an undertaking, was put

in chief command, and on August 9 sailed from Boston with a force of

about twenty-two hundred men, in thirty-two vessels of all sorts, mostly

small. For some reason, which does not appear, nine weeks were consumed

in reaching Quebec, of which the last three were spent within a few days

of the city, owing to the lack of a pilot.[1117] The failure of the land

expedition against Montreal, and Phips's delay in ascending the river,

had allowed Frontenac to reach Quebec with reinforcements before the

hostile fleet dropped anchor a little below the town. The conqueror of

Port Royal first tried the effect of a demand for surrender, and sent a

summons “as severe as our four clergymen (who were joined to the Council

of War) could make it.”[1118] Frontenac treated it with contempt, and

refused to send more than a verbal reply, except by his cannon.

Footnote 1117:

Walley's Journal, in Hutchinson, _History_, vol. I, p. 477; _Cal.

State Pap., Col., 1689-92_, p. 384. Most of the contemporary accounts,

French and English, are conveniently brought together by E. Myrand, in

_Sir Wm. Phips devant Québec_; Quebec, 1893.

Footnote 1118:

_Cal. State Pap., Col., 1689-92_, p. 384. The summons is in Mather,

_Magnalia_, vol. I, p. 186. _Cf._ Parkman, _Frontenac_, p. 279 _n._

Phips then called another council of war, and delayed action while seven

hundred more reinforcements arrived at the city. The plan finally

decided upon was a simultaneous attack by land and water. About twelve

hundred men were to be landed, and after crossing a small river, were to

ascend to the rear of the city, which they were to attempt to carry by

assault, while the fleet bombarded it from the front. The land forces,

under Major Walley, were set on shore, where they remained for some

days, unable to advance, and suffering greatly from disease, hunger, and

exposure. The necessary and expected support which the fleet was to

provide them was almost wholly lacking, and neither boats, ammunition,

nor food was supplied in proper quantities. On the other hand, Phips,

with a total disregard of the land expedition with which he was supposed

to be coöperating, fired away all the fleet's scanty store of powder and

shot, expending a considerable portion of it in an unsuccessful effort

to hit a picture of the Holy Family, which had been hung on the

cathedral spire. Nothing having been accomplished by the futile

cannonading, except to provide the Quebec gunners with shot for their

guns, and the English ammunition being exhausted, the incompetent

commander had nothing to do but to order a retreat and return to Boston.

The land forces under Walley had behaved well, but in reëmbarking lost

all semblance of discipline, took to the boats much like a base-ball

crowd to the street cars, and abandoned their cannon.[1119] The

self-flattering belief of democracy that training of any sort is a waste

of time, and that, in military affairs, competent commanders and

disciplined troops can be found at any moment in a crisis, had again

proved a costly fallacy.

Footnote 1119:

Parkman, _Frontenac_, p. 287; Walley's Journal, pp. 470 _ff._; Phips's

own account is in _Cal. State Pap., Col., 1689-92_, p. 45.

In November, Phips reached Boston with the first of his armada; and

other vessels continued to straggle in at intervals until February. Some

of them were never heard of at all. As the colony gradually came to a

realization of the magnitude of the disaster, it was in despair, as it

well might be. Few men had fallen in fighting, but, owing to the

incompetence and thoughtlessness of the leaders, both civil and

military, the mortality had been great. The lack of clothes and food,

the cold, smallpox, fever, and exposure had killed men by scores. The

loss was estimated as high as a thousand, and certainly ran into many

hundreds.[1120] Moreover, the government, with an empty treasury, had

recklessly financed the expedition by promises to pay, expecting to be

reimbursed from the anticipated plunder. There was no plunder, and the

colossal failure had cost £50,000.[1121] A Boston merchant wrote to a

correspondent in London that, since assuming office, the new government

had involved the colony to the extent of, possibly, £200,000, and that

it was almost “run aground.”[1122]

Footnote 1120:

_Ibid._, pp. 376 _f._, 385, 369, 387.

Footnote 1121:

_Cal. State Pap., Col., 1689-92_, pp. 377, 369; Parkman, _Frontenac_,

p. 297; _Andros Tracts_, vol. II, p. 238.

Footnote 1122:

_Cal. State Pap., Col., 1689-92_, p. 377.

Virtually bankrupt, and with the discharged soldiers and other creditors

clamoring for their pay, the government took the first step on the road

to paper money, which was later to cost it dear. The debts were ordered

paid with certificates receivable for taxes, ranging in denomination

from two shillings to ten pounds.[1123] An original issue of £7000 was

increased in a few months to £40,000; and owing to the government's lack

of credit and stability, the notes fell quickly in value, and were soon

at a discount of thirty to fifty per cent.[1124] Taxes rose to formerly

unheard-of amounts, and the depression both of business and of sentiment

became extreme.[1125] Cotton Mather was said to be satisfied to

attribute all the colony's troubles to the presence of the Episcopalian

congregation worshiping in the King's Chapel; and the Governor and

Council wrote to England, pointing out that the whole disaster must have

been due to God, who had “spit in our faces”—a phrase for a state paper

which darts a vivid light, in several directions, among the colony's

elect.[1126] There were many, however, who were inclined to lay the

blame for the growing ruin of all their affairs in less exalted

quarters. The government did its best to suppress or refute all

criticism, and the press, whose lack of freedom had been so bitterly

complained of only a few months before under Andros, was quickly taken

in hand again, and a stricter censorship than ever established.[1127]

Although nothing could be printed except propaganda in favor of the

provisional government, the increasing discontent of many in all classes

made itself heard, both in the colony and in England.

Footnote 1123:

A. McF. Davis, _Currency and Banking in the Province of Massachusetts

Bay_ (New York, 1900), vol. I, pp. 10 _ff._

Footnote 1124:

Davis, _Currency_, vol. I, pp. 16 _f._; _Cal. State Pap., Col.,

1689-92_, p. 377.

Footnote 1125:

_Ibid._, pp. 385, 387, 399.

Footnote 1126:

_Ibid._, p. 369; _Andros Tracts_, vol. III, p. 53.

Footnote 1127:

Duniway, _Freedom of the Press_, pp. 67 _ff._

[Illustration:

Original Draft of Indented Notes of 1690

Massachusetts Archives, State House, Boston

]

Despite all that has been written of the town-meeting, and the general

impression that the average New Englander was almost solely a political

and religious animal, there is little evidence to prove that the

ordinary man in that section cared any more about government than the

ordinary man in Virginia or Maryland. In fact, at a little later period,

the more accurate election returns would seem to indicate that he then

cared even less.[1128] The small minority that ran the government and

the churches was naturally active and vocal. But the fact that four

fifths of the people were reasonably content to join no church, and to

have no voice in the government, certainly does not argue, in that time

and place, any very high degree of political, religious, or intellectual

interest as compared with the rest of America. In the blue haze of that

incense in honor of the colonial New Englanders, lighted by themselves

and tended by their descendants, we are apt, a little absurdly

sometimes, to lose sight of coarse fundamentals. The average man or boy

in the New England of this period probably looked upon the theory that

the main end of the colony's existence was to make the world safe for

the Congregational church, in very much the same way in which those of

us who happened to be in France lately found that the average “doughboy”

regarded his main end there to be making the world safe for democracy.

Footnote 1128:

McKinley, _Suffrage Franchise_, pp. 47, 357. _Cf._, also, L. G. Tyler,

in _William and Mary Quarterly_, vol. XXVI, p. 278.

Such very truthful remarks as that already quoted, made by the residents

of Cape Ann, when they replied to an early whiff of the incense by

saying that their main end had been fish, cannot be too much emphasized.

They are as precious as they are rare. Impersonal love of liberty is

about as common as uncombined oxygen; and so long as the average man

could catch cod, sell whiskey to the Indians, raise crops on land he

felt was his own, or stand at his little shop-counter, he did not much

care—much as, by way of conversation, he might talk—about the governor

in Boston or the king in England. But let him believe that either was

threatening his God-given right to accumulate pine-tree shillings, and

there would be trouble.

This, the Governor and Council, by their evident inability to handle the

situation, were rapidly bringing about. There is nothing unexpected in

the cry now beginning to ascend to England, that “we mightily want a

government,”[1129] or unpatriotic in the attitude of those who did not

desire the complete restoration of the former conditions. In England,

however, that was exactly what the agents, with Mather at their head,

were striving for. Their charges against Andros had entirely broken

down, as had their hopes of a restoration of the old charter.[1130]

Attempts to have it restored by Parliamentary action or by a Writ of

Error had both failed, and the agents' efforts were thereafter directed

to obtaining from the King a new charter, with as favorable terms as

possible.[1131] It may be pointed out that the agents were not

representatives of the colony as a whole, but only of the old church

party, and that the terms which would be considered favorable by them

would be such as would ensure continued control by the theocratic

element.

Footnote 1129:

_Cal. State Pap., Col., 1689-92_, p. 300.

Footnote 1130:

No one would sign even the brief charges submitted, and they were

dismissed. _Andros Tracts_, vols. II, pp. 173 _ff._, I, pp. 150 _ff._,

and III, pp. 19 _ff._

Footnote 1131:

_Andros Tracts_, vols. II, pp. 15 _ff._, 75 _ff._, and III, pp. 149

_ff._

The echoes of the events in the colony that we have been describing had

been sounding in England with increasing loudness and frequency, in the

shape of private letters and formal addresses.[1132] Mather, indeed,

attempted to minimize all complaints from the colony, from whatever

source, and was somewhat reckless in his imputations and disregard of

facts. Thirty-four petitioners of Charlestown, including many

substantial men, he characterized as “a few bankrupt Publicans and

Vagabonds,” “persons brought up and educated in all manner of Debauchery

and Depravation,” “greedy as Hell.”[1133] In his effort to prove the

great prosperity and importance of New England under the old theocratic

government, he grotesquely claimed that, whereas New England had turned

a wilderness into a fruitful field, most of the other colonies had

“turned a fruitful field into a barren wilderness.” The facts were

probably far better known to the Lords of Trade than they were to

Mather, and these showed that the population of the other colonies

outnumbered that of New England more than two to one, while of England's

colonial trade seven eighths was with the “barren wildernesses” of the

sugar and tobacco colonies, and only one ninth with New England's

“fruitful field.”[1134] In that very year, of the two hundred and

twenty-six ships sailing from England to colonial ports, but seven were

bound for New England.[1135]

Footnote 1132:

_Cf._, besides the authorities already cited, _Cal. State Pap., Col.,

1689-92_, pp. 212, 213 (2), 343, 366, 368, 409.

Footnote 1133:

_Andros Tracts_, vol. II, pp. 230, 240 _ff._ A report to the Board of

Trade, in regard to these “vagabond” signers, probably exaggerated on

the other side, puts down two as worth £12,000 each, two at £10,000,

three at £6000, two at £5000, two at £4000, five at £3000, etc. _Cal.

State Pap., Col., 1689-92_, p. 422.

Footnote 1134:

_Andros Tracts_, vol. II, pp. 254 _f._; _A Century of Population_, p.

9, gives 82,000 in New England and 124,000 in the south, in 1690. To

the latter figure must be added those for the island colonies; Beer,

_Old Colonial System_, vol. I, pp. 41 _ff._ The trade figures are for

1697.

Footnote 1135:

Beer, _Old Colonial System_. Of the remainder, 103 went to Virginia

and Maryland, 71 to Barbadoes, 23 to the Leeward Islands, 20 to

Jamaica, one to Bermuda, and one to Pennsylvania.

Mather's anonymous but scarcely veiled threats that the colony would

revolt, if the old theocracy and its charter privileges were not

restored,[1136] failed to impress the government, which, however, had

been seriously endeavoring to meet all the legitimate aspirations of the

colonists. Mather, who had had several interviews with King William, and

had enlisted the sympathy of the Queen,[1137] had little difficulty in

getting a number of proposals altered, when the reasons were pointed

out; but the King and government were both firm in favor of a governor

appointed by England, and a property, not a religious, qualification for

the franchise. Mather bitterly opposed both these suggestions,

particularly that relating to the suffrage, saying he would sooner part

with his life than consent. The ministers of state, however, were

growing somewhat tired of the clergyman's representations and

misrepresentations, and curtly told him that his consent was neither

“expected nor desired”; that he was not a plenipotentiary from a

sovereign state; and that, if it was true, as he claimed, that

Massachusetts would not accept the new charter, then she could “take

what would follow,” for “his Majesty was resolved to settle the

Countrey.”[1138]

Footnote 1136:

_Andros Tracts_, vol. II, pp. 245, 248, 269.

Footnote 1137:

_Ibid._, vols. II, pp. 277 _ff._, and III, pp. 156 _ff._

Footnote 1138:

_Andros Tracts_, vols. II, p. 281, and III, p. 165.

The obvious fact that the colonists were not by any means unanimous in

their desire for the old charter, the genuine wish of the English

government to provide toleration, the long record of delays and

bickerings in the colony's relations with England, and the necessity for

a different organization if the Navigation Acts were to be enforced,

probably all had their influence in shaping the government's policy. Of

still greater immediate import, perhaps, was the military situation.

With the prospect of a life-and-death struggle with France, the

Franco-British frontier in America became a sphere of the highest

military interest and importance; and, aside from previous records or

any preconceived ideas on the part of English statesmen, the colonists

had, within the past year, shown that, if left to themselves, they were

unable properly to safeguard either their own homes or the interests of

the Empire.

As a matter of fact, the new charter, as finally granted, was a far

better document than the one desired by Mather. What he had tried to get

was a constitution for a virtually independent theocratic state, the

fundamental law of which should provide for the perpetual retention of

political power in the hands of a religious sect. What the English

government granted was a charter by which the colony took her natural

place, indeed, in an empire without whose protection she was

defenseless, but which, at the same time, gave to her citizens a degree

of self-government and political freedom which the theocratic group

would never have been willing to concede. The substitution of a moderate

property qualification for the franchise, in place of any other

whatsoever, at once placed the colony abreast of the most liberal

political thought of the day; while local self-government was restored

in the form of a popular assembly. Regardless of the whims or religious

prejudices of any clique in power, and irrespective of his class or

creed, any resident of the colony who had been sufficiently industrious

or fortunate to acquire a freehold estate worth forty shillings per

annum, or real or personal property to the value of forty pounds, could

now claim, as a right, a voice in the government of his

commonwealth.[1139] Thanks to England, the final deathblow had legally

been dealt to the theocracy, and the foundation laid for genuine

self-government and religious toleration in the colony. Those elements

in its future development which we are apt to consider as typically

American had, in fact, in the case of Massachusetts, been forced upon

her leaders, fighting against them to the last ditch, by an English King

who could hardly speak the language of his subjects.

Footnote 1139:

The charter is printed in _Colonial Society Massachusetts

Publications_, vol. II, pp. 7 _ff._

One important aspect of this change in the franchise must not be

overlooked. Under the old religious test, there had been, within the

body of enfranchised voters, no social question. All had possessed the

vote, without distinction between rich and poor. The struggle for the

franchise, therefore, would always have remained a purely religious one

between those within and those without the pale of a particular church.

With the abandonment of the religious test, and the substitution of a

property qualification, the question became a social one, and the way

was opened for that struggle for the democratization of the state and

society which became the dominant motive in the Revolution of a century

later. The colonies could never have united on a question of religion,

or even of trade. The basis had to be so wide as to appeal to the most

numerous class in every colony; and that appeal could only be social,

and was found to lie in the demand for the abolition of privilege and

the extension of democracy.

The new charter of 1691 must be regarded as an honest effort to devise

such a governmental system as should allow to the colonists the greatest

degree of local liberty consistent with the welfare and administrative

necessities of the Empire as a whole, in the light of existing political

theory. It cannot too often be pointed out that the colonial period

_was_ a colonial period, and that the relations subsisting between

England and the colonies were necessarily those subsisting between a

sovereign state and its dependencies. There was no more reason for the

colonist of Massachusetts or Barbadoes to consider himself entirely

independent of English control, than there is for the settler in Alaska

to consider himself wholly independent of the United States to-day. It

is inconsistent to claim that the authority of Congress, in the

twentieth century, should reach to Guam or Nome, but that the authority

of Parliament, in the seventeenth, should have stopped at Land's End. To

find fault with administrative arrangements proper under the above

conditions, merely because they would have been unsuitable had the

subsequently revolting colonies then been the independent states they

later developed into, is to look through the wrong end of the

historian's telescope. If we are to judge the governments provided for

the colonies in comparison with models in later American history, they

should not be compared with the constitutions of our sovereign states,

but with those provided for our own dependent colonies and territories;

and in their broader features, the constitutions granted by Congress to

organized territories reproduce very closely the old royal governments

of the earlier period.

In the first place, we may note that the governor of a territory is not

elected by the people, but is appointed by the president, and is

removable by him, as the Massachusetts charter of 1691 provided that her

governor should be removable by the king. In territories, as in the

colonies, laws passed by the bicameral legislature are subject, not only

to veto by the governor, but also to disallowance by the higher

sovereign power. The review of colonial legislation, to which our

forefathers objected so strongly when colonists, we adopted ourselves

when we, in turn became a “mother-country”; and in some cases, at least,

the laws passed by territorial legislatures were specifically made

subject to review by Congress. It is needless to remind the reader that

the citizens of our territories are no more directly represented in that

body than the colonists were in Parliament, and that taxation without

direct representation is as much a factor in our present state as it was

in the British Empire. In one respect, the Massachusetts charter of

1691, indeed, was more liberal than our territorial governments; for in

Massachusetts the judges were appointed by the governor with the consent

of the council, or upper house of the legislature, while in American

territories they are appointed by the president without the consent of

the inhabitants.[1140]

Footnote 1140:

Willoughby, _Territories and Dependencies_, pp. 54 _ff._; Bryce,

_American Commonwealth_, vol. I, pp. 553 _ff._ The constitutions of

the territories may be found in _Organic Acts_, Senate Document No.

148, 56th Congress, 1st Session. As an example of legislative review,

_cf._ p. 96 (New Mexico): “All the laws passed by the legislative

assembly and governor shall be submitted to the Congress of the United

States, and, if disapproved, shall be null and of no effect.” Under

the act organizing a government in Alaska, in 1884, it was

specifically provided that there should be no legislative assembly.

_Ibid._, p. 206.

To many in the colony, however, the change from the old charter form to

the new seemed a loss of independence. The former governing element felt

that their control had been vastly weakened. The church party

anticipated that the end of all things might be due when the

Congregational church no longer legally controlled the elections. The

presence of a governor and other officials appointed by the Crown, the

review of legislation, the right of appeal, and other evidences of the

colony having become part of a great organization instead of a

practically independent, even if insignificant, little collection of

towns, was unwelcome to those who had had a false idea of the rôle

which, in that time and place, it was possible for them and the colony

to play in the world.

On the other hand, there were very substantial advantages under the new

régime. Although, owing to an obscure and probably not very reputable

intrigue, New Hampshire was given a separate government, the bounds of

the new Massachusetts were extended to include Plymouth, Maine, and the

eastern country as far as Nova Scotia.[1141] Moreover, the colonists had

never really possessed anything like the rights which they had claimed

and exercised under the old charter. The whole system of town

government, for example, had been extra-legal. The infliction of the

death-penalty was illegal, and there was no question that the colonists

had exceeded their rights in taxing the non-freemen. Now all the false

reasoning and sophistries that the settlers had indulged in, in their

efforts to prove the old charter adequate as the basis of a government,

were no longer necessary. Massachusetts at last had, what she had never

possessed before, a written constitution, which clearly set forth her

form of government, and validated, to a very great extent, those

institutions which she had cherished.[1142] The royal officials,

disliked as their presence might be by the irreconcilables, actually and

symbolically brought the colony into relations with the larger life of

the empire. In her thought, her commerce, and her political relations,

New England's largest colony was at last forced out of that position of

defiant isolation which her former leaders had chosen for her, and made

to participate, so far as her provincial position allowed, in the main

currents of the world's activities. The new charter definitely marked

the end of one era and the beginning of another.

Footnote 1141:

For the form of government established in New Hampshire, which became

a royal province, _vide_ Fry, _New Hampshire_, pp. 71 _ff._

Footnote 1142:

_Cf._ Greene, _The Provincial Governor_, pp. 92, 179. For a discussion

of the charter, _vide_ Osgood, _American Colonies_, vol. III, pp. 439

_ff._

This change was more than political and economic. It has been evident

from the foregoing narrative that the power of the clergy had been felt

in every sphere of the colony's life. In the pulpits, in the schools, in

the colleges, in the censorship of the press, in the legislature, even

in the councils of war and the courts of justice, their influence had

been incalculable. The story of the struggle against it, and of its

gradual yielding to defeat, as the people more and more made good their

right to believe as they would and live their lives as they chose, has

occupied many of our pages. The course of development, however, which

was to make Massachusetts the leader of liberal thought among the

states, was a long one, and, in part, it was but a reaction and a

protest against the theological repression of this earlier period.

Although the charter of 1691 had definitely ended the legalized control

of the Congregational church, which was still to maintain a privileged

position until 1812, the organization desperately struggled to retain

its power. The members of the new government, thanks to the efforts of

Mather in England, were nearly all of the clerical party. He had,

indeed, succeeded in having the more important offices filled with the

most fanatical, or the most subservient, of the men in the colony's

public life. His son, the Reverend Cotton Mather, when he heard of the

list of officials, wrote ecstatically in his diary: “The time for Favour

was now come; the sett Time was come! ... all the Councellors of the

Province are of my own Father's Nomination; and my Father-in-law, with

several related unto me, and several Brethren of my own church, are

among them. The Governour of the Province is not my Enemy but one whom I

baptized, namely Sir William Phips, and one of my own Flock, and one of

my dearest Friends.”[1143] He might have added that the savagely bigoted

Stoughton was made Deputy Governor.

Footnote 1143:

Cotton Mather, _Diary_, in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, Series VII, vol.

VII, p. 148.

At the very time when this effort was being made still to control the

government, in spite of its altered form, events occurred that gave a

staggering blow to that unofficial power which the clergy had been

accustomed to exert as the acknowledged intellectual leaders of the

community. For, in the generation of 1690, the witchcraft frenzy, in

which the clergy took a leading part, brought about the same sort of

anti-clerical reaction that had been a result of the Quaker persecutions

by them in the generation of 1660.

We shall not concern ourselves with the details of the horrible

delusion, which, for the last time in New England, caused the blood of

innocent victims to be shed as a result of theological beliefs. They may

be found amply set forth elsewhere, and concern rather the antiquarian

and the psychologist than the historian.[1144] For us, the interest lies

in their influence upon the intellectual development of the colony, and

the growth of its people.

Footnote 1144:

_Cf._ C. W. Upham, _History of Witchcraft and Salem Village_, Boston,

1867, 2 vols.; Palfrey, _History_, vol. IV, pp. 96 _ff._; the works of

Cotton Mather and Robert Calef, edited by S. G. Drake and published as

_The Witchcraft Delusion in New England_, 3 vols., Roxbury, 1866; I.

Mather, _Remarkable Providences_, London, 1890.

It is quite true that communities in all ages and places have been

occasionally subject to being thrown off their mental balance, and

during the period of frenzy or panic have committed acts of folly or

crime, for which they have subsequently been heartily repentant. But to

state a fact is not to explain it; and to find the underlying cause of

the psychologic disturbance in northeastern Massachusetts in 1692—during

which two hundred persons were accused of being in league with the

devil, one hundred and fifty were imprisoned, and twenty-nine put to

death,—in such influences as the loss of the charter, or the “harsh

aspects of the scenery,” seems to me wholly inadequate, to say the

least.[1145] The scenery of the native American wild “invited to stern

and melancholy musing,” as New England's best-known historian phrases

it, for about a thousand miles north and south of Mr. Mather's study in

Boston, or the Reverend Mr. Parris's cottage in Salem Village, and would

seem to be rather dispersed as the cause of a very localized phenomenon.

Footnote 1145:

Palfrey, _History_, vol. IV, pp. 128 _f._

It is needless to point out that the belief in witchcraft had been

widespread throughout the world; but since the days of King James I,

there had been, among English people, only isolated cases, save during

the years of the Puritan political supremacy in England and the closing

days of that same supremacy in Massachusetts.[1146] Of the more than

seventy cases in England since the Restoration, the great majority had

resulted in acquittals, and in two cases only had the unfortunate

victims been executed.

Footnote 1146:

W. Notestein, _History of Witchcraft in England_ (American Historical

Association, 1911), pp. 400 _ff._

We have seen, in an earlier chapter, the extraordinarily large sphere

accorded to the devil in Puritan theology, and that theology's virtual

repudiation of science by its considering every event in the universe,

from the sun's course in heaven to a spider's falling into the porridge,

as a direct interposition of the divine will. While Boyle, Newton, and

other founders of the new scientific age in England, were tracing the

reign of law, the intellectual leaders of New England were engaged in

gathering together collections of “remarkable providences,” ranging in

interest from the sudden death of a Sabbath-breaker to the evident

marking for destruction, out of a whole library, of a copy of the book

of Common Prayer, by a mouse evidently brought up in the “New England

way.” Of the moral earnestness of such men there is no question, nor of

the abiding stamp which they have left upon the New England

consciousness. Happily, much of the good they did has survived, while

much of the political and intellectual damage they likewise did, and

would have continued to do, had they had their way, has passed.

In 1681, a group of the most eminent of the clergy around Boston

determined upon a large coöperative work, to involve the research of

many authors, and the labor of some years. It was to be a collection of

remarkable providences, of divine judgments, of “thunders as are

unusual, strange apparitions, or whatever else shall happen that is

prodigious, witchcrafts, diabolical possessions, judgments upon noted

sinners,” and the like.[1147] Each clergyman was to make diligent search

among his congregation, and it is obvious what a stimulant such a

wholesale inquiry among the people, by the intellectual leaders of the

community, would be toward arousing interest, and intensifying the

belief, in such matters. A few years later, Increase Mather published

his book on the subject, in which he gave numerous cases of witchcraft

and possession, and recited the signs by which it might be known. It

became the study of the young Cotton Mather, whom in 1686, at the age of

twenty-three, we find wrestling in prayer to cast the devils out of New

England, and undertaking to track down those leagued with them.[1148]

Footnote 1147:

I. Mather, _Remarkable Providences_, Preface.

Footnote 1148:

C. Mather, _Diary_, vol. I, p. 114.

Interest in the subject continued to be stirred up, and in 1688, the

criminal nonsense of some children of Boston, and their accusations

against a washerwoman, resulted in her being denounced as a witch.

Cotton Mather, who had now found the case for which he had been longing,

and in which he might do ghostly battle, took the eldest girl home with

him. She played upon the clergyman's colossal vanity, and, on evidence

which ought not to have shut up a dog, the unfortunate washerwoman was

hanged. Mather now proceeded, by another book and by frenzied sermons,

to arouse the fears and superstitions of the crowd. With one of the most

noted clergymen in Boston doing all he could to foster it, the belief

deepened and spread, and the minds of many, who would not otherwise have

given thought to it, were prepared to believe in that “plot of the Devil

against New England” which Mather preached.

Early in 1692, some children of Salem feigned the symptoms of which they

had heard their elders speak. Two of them belonged to the family of the

local clergyman, Mr. Parris, who now entered on the devil-hunt, with a

fanaticism which knew no bounds, and an honesty which seems to have been

questionable.[1149] To his efforts were added those of the Reverend Mr.

Noyes. Charge after charge was launched against innocent people, and by

the time Phips arrived in the colony as governor, in May, over a hundred

persons were already in prison awaiting trial. Vain of his undeserved

authority, the appointee and pliant tool of Mather, he immediately

appointed an illegal court to try the witchcraft cases, with Stoughton

as presiding judge. In the frenzy of superstitious fanaticism which

followed, justice, legal evidence, even a verdict of the jury, were set

aside, and victim after victim hurried to the gallows, while one, with

horrible tortures lasting several days, was pressed to death under heavy

weights.[1150] The clergy, formally referred to by the Governor and

court for advice, while carefully hedging as to certain particulars,

urged the court on to “speedy and vigorous prosecution”; and Mather

wrote to one of them, extolling “the noble service” of “Encountering the

Wicked Spiritts in the high places of our Air, & of detecting & of

confounding of their confederates.”[1151] The Reverend Mr. Burroughs, of

Wells, who avowed that “there neither are, nor ever were witches,” was

condemned; and although the spectators at his hanging were so moved as

almost to prevent the sentence from being carried out, Mather, who was

witnessing the spectacle from horseback, told the people that the victim

was not an ordained clergyman, and that, in any case, the devil often

appeared as an Angel of Light.[1152]

Footnote 1149:

_Vide_ the remonstrance against him, in Upham, _Witchcraft_, vol. II,

pp. 497 _f._, and Drake, _Witchcraft Delusion_, vol. II, p. 142.

Footnote 1150:

Sewall, _Diary_, vol. I, p. 364.

Footnote 1151:

Hutchinson, _History_, vol. II, pp. 52 _f._; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._,

Series IV, vol. VIII, p. 391.

Footnote 1152:

Sewall, _Diary_, vol. I, p. 363; Drake, _Witchcraft Delusion_, vol.

III, pp. 38 _f._

[Illustration:

Testimonial to the Good Character of Rebecca Nourse, executed as a

Witch

Original in Massachusetts Historical Society

]

Finally, the reaction set in, and the sober sense of the community set

itself against the ravings and goadings of the more fanatical clergy and

church members. The commission of the special court expired with the

assembling of the General Court, and was not renewed. Phips, evidently

fearing criticism from England, wrote to the Earl of Nottingham,

disingenuously laying all the blame for the judicial proceedings on

Stoughton, and quoted Increase Mather and the other divines.[1153]

Courageous laymen, like Thomas Brattle and Robert Calef, both merchants,

exerted their influence against the delusion; and when Mather tried to

start another alarm in Boston, less than a year after the last execution

at Salem, public opinion was arrayed solidly against him. In 1700,

Calef's book in answer to Mather's “Wonders of the Invisible World” was

printed in London and quickly imported into the colony. Though the rage

of the Mathers, father and son, was unbounded, their cause had been

thoroughly discredited, and their day was past. They belonged, in

reality, to the sixteenth century, while Calef, the merchant, defending

the cause of intellectual freedom with no weapon but that of common

sense, belonged to the eighteenth, the dawn of which was now at hand.

Footnote 1153:

_Cal. State Pap., Col., 1693-96_, p. 30.

It was the voice of that century to which the people were now to

hearken. Thenceforth, happily for itself as well as for America, the

church was to be unable to rely either upon political power or upon

blind fanaticism to uphold its leadership—a leadership which now,

perforce, took on a nobler form. The work of the founders was over. In

the extension of their influence throughout the country, wherever we

find groups of settlers from the New England states, we find, indeed the

church, the common-school, and the town-meeting; but it is a liberalized

church, a non-sectarian school, and a town-meeting in which the

citizen's vote is not dependent upon the possession of any peculiar

theological belief.

It was usual, in an earlier and less critical day, to trace all of New

England's greatness, and of her noble contributions to our common

American life, to the same little group of leaders, who were supposed to

have done all because they did much. Life is not so simple as that, and

in the founding of New England, and the development of her liberties, we

must find place for English kings and statesmen, for colonial liberals

and martyrs, as well as for Pilgrim Father and Puritan Priest.

THE END

------------------------------------------------------------------------

INDEX

------------------------------------------------------------------------

INDEX

The abbreviated form “Mass.,” refers to the Governor and Company of

Massachusetts Bay—the “Bay Colony.”

Acadia, restored to France by treaty of St. Germain, 180;

Massachusetts and the contest between Frenchmen for control of, 232,

233;

raid on, by Mass., 438.

And _see_ Port Royal.

Acton, Lord, quoted, 66.

Adventurers, motive of, in Plymouth venture, 93, 94;

losses of, 114, 115;

sell out to Pilgrims, 116.

“Adventurers for New England in America, Company of,” 126 _n._

African Company, 45, 46.

African slave-trade, 280.

Agents, colonial, 297, 298.

Agriculture, in England, 123.

Alden, John, 179.

Alexander, son of Massasoit, 346.

Alexander, Sir W., 180.

Algonquin Indian stock, 24.

Allerton, Isaac, 115, 116, 180.

Allyn, John, 416.

Alva, Duke of, 122.

American strain, first appears in second generation of settlers, 316,

317.

Ames, Azel, 97 _n._

Amsterdam, Scrooby fugitives at, 88, 89;

381.

Andrews, C. M., quoted, 297.

Andros, Sir Edmund, appointed governor of New England, 411, 412;

his original jurisdiction, 412,

and its extension, 412, 413;

difficulties of his administration, insuperable, 413, 414, 426;

broad powers of, 414, 415, 416;

relations with Puritan clergy, 421, 422;

Puritan complaints against, 422, 423;

and the question of taxation, 424, 425 and _n._;

his powers further extended, 426;

his dealings with the Indians, 426, 427;

rumors impugning his loyalty, 427, 429;

his position when William of Orange landed in England, 428;

rising against in Boston, 428, 429;

takes refuge in fort, 429;

made prisoner, 430;

sent to England, 432, 433;

407, 409, 418, 420, 421, 433, 434, 435, 444.

Anne, the (vessel), 106.

Antigua, 120, 367.

Antinomian controversy, 166 and _n._, 167-171;

report of synod on, 170;

206.

Antinomians, Boston, 168, 169.

Appalachian barrier, the, 2, 3, 4, 10, 175.

Appeals, to England denied, 151, 152, 170, 214, 305, 322;

heard by Royal Commissioner, 334;

struggle over question of, 334;

in Dudley administration, 409;

under Andros, 414, 423.

Appleton, Samuel, 356.

Aquidneck, 227, 228.

Argall, Samuel, breaks up French settlements at St. Sauveur, etc., 55,

56;

53.

Armada, the, 30, 32.

Arnold, Richard, 416.

Articles of Confederation. _See_ United Colonies.

Artillery Company of Middlesex, 322.

Arundell, Thomas, 37.

Ashley, Edward, 180.

Ashurst, Sir Henry, 321, 432.

Assembly, 409, 411, 414, 424, 432, 447.

Assistants (Mass.), functions of, 141, 142;

charter violated in regard to, 142;

a majority of voting population, 142;

and Deputies 154, 155;

attempt to usurp power, 160;

negative vote, 212;

189, 211, 373, 393.

Atherton Company, secures mortgage title to Narragansett country, 249,

250;

reasserts claim thereto, 386, 387;

325, 333, 336.

Augusta, Maine, 178, 179.

Aulnay, Charles de Menou, Sieur d', 181, 232, 233, 234.

Austen, Ann, Quaker, 264.

Avenant, C. d', etc., quoted, 287.

Awashunks, squaw-sachem, 342, 343, 358.

Bacon, Lord, 59.

Bacon's rebellion, 390.

Balfour, A. J., quoted, 374.

Ballot, secret, first use of in Mass., 161.

Bancroft, Richard, Archbishop of Canterbury, deprivations of Puritan

clergy under, 71;

and the Puritans, 74.

Baptists, punishment of, 259, 260, 261, 262.

Barbadoes, 8, 119, 120 and _n._, 121, 134, 175, 223 _n._, 302, 303,

307, 362 _n._, 367, 388 and _n._

Barbuda, 119, 120.

Barrington, Sir Thomas, 196.

Barrington, Lady Joan, 125.

Bay Colony. _See_ Massachusetts Bay, Governor and Company of.

Bay Path, 20 and _n._

Beers, Richard, 354.

Bell, Philip, 133, 134.

Bellingham, Richard, Governor of Mass., and Quaker women, 264;

333.

Beothuks (Indians), 24.

Berkshire Hills, 4.

Bermuda, laws against Sabbath-breaking in, 112;

59, 119, 120, 194 _n._, 280, 285, 307, 367, 368, 404.

Bermuda Assembly, 154.

Bermuda Company, 46, 133.

Berwick, England, 300, 301.

Best, Thomas, 56.

Biard, Father, 55 _n._, 56.

Bible, the, God's will revealed to Puritans by, 79;

Puritans alone hold key to, 80;

laws based on interpretation of texts from, 209, 211.

Bible-Commonwealth, Puritans plan to found, in Mass., 142, 143.

Biencourt, Sieur de, 54.

Biggar, H. P., quoted, 29 _n._

Bishop George, 264, 269, 373.

Blackstone, William, 144, 151, 184.

Blathwayt, William and Cranfield, 402, 403, 417.

Block Island, 199, 200.

Bloody Brook, massacre at, 356.

Body of Liberties, 211.

Bombay, 280.

Boston, meeting at, to divide town land, 161;

Antinomian attitude of church at, 168, 169;

elections removed from, 169;

reëlects Vane and others after invalidation of first election, 169;

confederation of colonies discussed at, 224;

merchants of, and the Acadian Expedition, 232, 233;

import duties on goods entering port of, 243;

church at, refuses to join Synod, 255;

Royal Commission at, 331, 333, 334;

dispute over Church of England services at, 420, 421;

observance of Christmas and Sunday in, 422;

merchants of, said to have supplied Indians with ammunition, 427;

revolt against Andros government in, 428-430, 431, 433;

140, 159, 352, 353, 373, 396 _n._, 423, 437.

Boston Bay, 5.

Boswell, Sir W., quoted, 234.

“Bound House,” 182, 324 _n._

Boundaries, natural, influence of, 3;

disputes concerning, 183, 216, 217, 218, 228, 243, 244, 245, 247,

249, 250, 251, 318, 320, 321, 325, 331, 332, 380, 382, 385, 386.

Bourne, Richard, 345.

Boyle, Robert, 297 _n._, 332, 371, 453.

Bradford, William, at Scrooby, 86;

his early history, 86, 87;

chosen Governor of Plymouth, 100;

his _History of Plymouth Plantation_, quoted or referred to, 61 _n._,

89, 90, 92 _n._, 99, 101 _n._, 102, 103, 106, 110, 111, 114, 115,

131, 150, 180, 181, 190, 191, 225;

116, 164, 179, 198, 276, 370, 371, 416.

Bradstreet, Simon, Governor of Mass., replies to King's letter, 389,

390;

significance of his reëlection, 393, 394;

245, 323, 369, 373, 409, 429, 433, 435, 436 and _n._, 437, 442, 444.

Braintree, 247.

Brattle, Thomas, 455.

Breedon, Thomas, 314.

Brend, William, Quaker, cruel punishment of, 269.

Brereton, Sir W., 127 _n._

Brewster, William, his early history and character, 86;

cited before Commissioners of York and Privy Council, 87, 88;

elder of church at Leyden, 89;

91, 92, 99, 116.

Bristol, England, 27, 28.

British Empire, not in existence at accession James I, 279;

extent of, at Restoration, 279, 280;

character of, 280, 281 and #_n._:, 282;

most complete embodiment of Mercantile Theory ideal, 285, 286;

why English colonies should remain within, 289;

Sir E. Morris on, 291;

source of its success, 301;

views of England, and of the colonies, with regard to, 308, 309.

Brockholls, Anthony, 428.

Brooke, Lord, 125, 167, 179, 181, 191, 195, 196, 197.

Brookfield, destroyed by Indians, 354.

Brown, John, settles at New Harbor (Pemaquid), 109.

Browne, John, 128, 132, 133.

Browne, Samuel, 132, 133.

Browne, Sir Thomas, 371.

Brownists, 68.

Brunhes, Jean, quoted, 11.

Brunswick, Maine, Gardiner at, 150, 151.

Bryce, James, Viscount, quoted, 14.

Buckle, Henry T., quoted, 96 _n._

Buet, Hugh, 171.

Bulkley, Peter and Stoughton, agents of Mass. in England, 380 _ff._;

results of their mission, 383, 384;

389, 409.

Bunyan, John, 371.

Burrage, C., 131 _n._

Burrough, Edward, 273.

Burroughs, Rev. George, 455.

Butler, Samuel, 371.

Buzzard's Bay, 5, 6.

Cabot, John, voyages of, 27, 28, 42;

his charter, 34, 299.

Cabot, Sebastian, 27, 32.

Calais, lost to England, 44;

represented in Parliament, 388.

Calef, Robert, 455, 456.

Calvin, John, quoted, 77;

84.

Calvinism, and the Puritans, 77.

Cambridge Platform, adopted by synod (1648), 256;

opposed in General Court, but finally passed (1651), 257.

Campbell, Douglass, 89 _n._

Canada, abortive expedition against, 439-441;

291.

Canonchet, Narragansett sachem, forced to sign humiliating treaty, 358;

capture and death of, 360.

Canonicus, Narragansett sachem, 199, 353.

Cape Ann, fishing settlement on, 108, 109, 125;

5.

Cape Cod, 5, 37, 97, 339.

Cape of Good Hope, 280.

Cape Porpus, 245.

Carlisle, Earl of, 134.

Carolinas, settlement of, 312.

Carr, Sir Robert, member of Royal Commission, 330, 331, 334, 335.

Carrying trade, restrictions on, by England and France, 288;

Holland, England's most serious rival in, 312.

Cartwright, George, member of Royal Commission, 330, 331, 334, 335.

Carver, John, first Governor of Plymouth, death of, 100;

91.

Casco, 439.

Casco Bay, 178, 245.

Castle Island, fortifications on, 159, 322, 331;

429, 430.

Catholics, in England, under Elizabeth, 69 and _n._;

and the English Church, 70, 71;

laws against, suspended in England, 118.

And _see_ Rome.

Cecil, Sir R., 51.

Challons, Henry, sails for New England, 49;

disobeys instructions, 49;

50.

Chamberlain, Richard, Secretary of New Hampshire, 400, 401.

Champlain, Samuel de, settles on St. Croix Island, 38, 39;

explores and maps New England coast, 39, 40;

53 _n._

Champlain, Lake, 4, 312, 440.

Charity, the (vessel), 104, 105.

Charles I, results of his incompetent government, 118;

dissolves Parliament, 134;

139, 157, 159, 162, 215.

Charles II, orders suspension of proceedings against Quakers, 273, 274

and _n._;

his letter confirming Charter of Mass., etc., how complied with, 323,

324;

on claim of Mass. to independence, 336;

orders agents sent to England, 336;

his letter, sent by Randolph, 377, 378,

acted on by General Court, 380, 381;

other letters of, and their effect, 389, 390, 391;

his death, 407;

279, 298, 299, 314, 315, 317, 318, 321, 322, 331, 332, 366, 399, 400.

Charlestown, proposed settlement at, 127;

church at, 143;

140.

Chartered companies, 45 _ff._

Charters, early commercial, 34, 35.

Charters of American colonies. _See_ Colonial charters.

Chatham, Mass., 39.

Chauncey, Rev. Charles, and Quakers, 270.

Chelmsford, Mass., 345.

Chief, Indian, office of, 17.

Child, Robert, case of, 213, 214 and _n._, 253, 298, 305, 315, 425.

Chillingworth, William, 146.

Christ, in Puritan theology, 80, 82.

Christianity, unity of, broken up by development of state churches,

282.

Christison, Wenlock, Quaker, 272, 273.

Church, Benjamin, 348, 361.

Church, the, and the average man, 66, 67;

compulsory attendance at, 172;

penalty of excommunication from, 172;

in New England, process of joining, how made difficult, 253, 254.

And _see_ Clergy.

Church of England, relation of Puritans to, 64 _ff._;

struggle for control of, 71, 76, 77;

abuses in, 74, 75;

low pay of clergy, 74, 75;

Calvinism and, 77;

services of, tabooed in New England, 130;

services of, where held in Boston, 420, 421.

Church-covenant idea, 143.

Church members, number of, in New England, 132;

154, 172, 197, 331, 383, 384, 394, 395.

Church-membership test for franchise in Mass., dissatisfaction with,

253, 254;

growth of more liberal attitude respecting, 262, 263.

And _see_ Franchise.

Churches, new, organization of, restricted, 162.

Clan, the, the Indian's little world, 18.

Clarendon, Earl of, his colonial policy, 311, 312, 313;

Maverick's reports to, 315;

332, 371.

Clark, Mary, Quaker, 268.

Clarke, John, Baptist, his _Ill Newes from New England_, 259, 260;

249, 320.

Cleeve, George, 244.

Clergy, number of, deprived under canons of 1604 and under Puritan

domination, 71;

starvation pay of, 75;

reactionary views of, 194;

in Rhode Island and Connecticut, 195;

attitude of, in Mass., 211;

and the Gorton case, 219, 220;

and Miantanomo, 240, 241;

seek compromise in matter of church-membership, 262, 263,

but strive to enforce conformity in matters of doctrine, 263 _ff._;

failure of, as leaders, explained, 395, 396;

important legal questions referred to, 417;

relations with Andros, 421, 422;

decrease in power of, in Mass., 450, 451;

and the witchcraft delusion, 451, 455.

Climate, of New England, 10 and _n._

Clive, Lord, 54.

Cloth industry, in England, decline in, 123.

Coast-line, value of, 6.

Cobham, Lord, 36.

Coddington, William, commission of, as Governor of Rhode Island,

withdrawn, 249, 250;

161, 169, 185.

Colbert, Jean-Baptiste, and the Mercantile Theory, 285, 288, 289;

his policy abandoned by France, 291;

298.

Colleton, John, 297 _n._

Colonial charters, terms of, 34, 294;

defects of, 366, 367;

compared with Constitutions of U. S. colonies and territories of

to-day, 448, 449 and _n._

Colonial trade, English laws regarding, 287.

Colonies, American, successive grouping of, 2;

beginnings of, their real characters, 33;

terms of charters of, 34;

questions as to status of settlers in, 35, 36;

importance of distance of, from mother-country, 36;

by-products of English commercial activity, 35;

value of, 47;

relation of area to barrier in, 175;

in 1660, 280;

Dutch shut out from carrying trade of, 291;

interests of, neglected or misunderstood in England, 295;

and the administrative confusion in England (1643-1660), 295, 296;

scheme for organization of, following the Restoration, 296, 297;

and the acts for control of trade and shipping, 298;

restriction on shipment of European goods to, 300, 301;

offer no assistance in solution of problem of their relation to

England, 307, 308;

modified view of contest between England and, 364;

problem of, calls for new treatment, 366;

demand of, for assemblies and self-taxation, 367, 368;

why post of royal governor in, was not attractive, 405, 406;

convoys for shipping of, furnished by England, 437, 438.

Colonists, early influence of geographic environment on, 13;

misconceive political system of Indians, 17;

dealings of, with Indians, 14, 24, 25, 34, _ff._;

status of, with respect to England, 292;

failure of imperial theory to take account of human nature in, 301,

302;

non-representation in Parliament not the essential grievance of, 302;

their spirit of resistance to interference considered, 302, 303;

numbers of, in New England, in 1675, 338 and _n._;

missionary efforts of, among Indians, 345, 346;

their land-hunger, 340, 341;

why unprepared for hostilities in 1675, 348, 349;

ignorant of Indian warfare, 350;

and the new form of government (1685), 408, 409;

legal position of, 410.

Colonization, first English attempts at, 33;

mainsprings of, 90;

effect of Mercantile Theory on, 283, 284.

Columbus, Christopher, 26, 44, 398.

Comantine, Fort, 280.

Commerce, supersedes religion as prime influence in politics, etc.,

366.

And _see_ Trade.

Common lands, 153, 418.

Common-school education, in New England and Virginia, 369, 370.

Common schools, 396, 397, 456.

Common-stock theory, in founding of Plymouth, 93 _f._;

in operation of colonies, 113, 114;

failure of, in Plymouth, 113.

Commons. _See_ Common lands.

Conant, Roger, settles at Salem, 125;

127.

Confederation. _See_ United Colonies.

Congregational Church, under new charter of Mass., 451.

Congregationalism in New England, 130, 131, 411.

Connecticut, geographical advantage of, 6;

early settlers in, 120, 189, 190, 191;

franchise in, 172;

opposed to policies of Mass., 183, 184, 186;

Mass. sends expedition to, 187;

constitution of, 192;

“Fundamental Orders” of, 192, 193;

influence of, and of Mass., on development of American thought,

contrasted, 193, 194;

character of emigrants to, 195, 207;

settlements in, after destruction of Pequots, 206 _ff._;

absorbs New Haven, 208, 318-320;

growth of population of, 224;

objects to proposed terms of confederation, 225;

and the Dutch, 236, 237;

controversy over taxation, 242, 243;

disputed boundary line between Mass. and, 243;

treatment of Quakers in, 268, 275;

relation of, to England, 306;

flouts Navigation Acts, 313;

Winthrop obtains liberal charter for, 318;

boundary between Rhode Island and, 320, 321;

population (1675), 338;

and the Pequots, 343;

raising troops in, 351, 355 _n._;

and friendly Indians, 356;

war expenses of, 363;

schools in, 369;

treatment of Indians by, 387 and _n._;

steps to cancel charter of, 412, 413;

added to jurisdiction of Andros, 413;

validates land-titles, 418, 420;

Indian attacks in, 427;

resumes former government (1689), 433, 434;

209, 215, 226, 227, 317, 325, 332, 336, 339, 341, 353, 386, 439.

Connecticut River, 6, 186, 187, 190, 339, 340, 345, 360, 361.

Conservative and liberal groupings in New England, 373, 374.

Cooper, Sir Anthony A., 297 _n._

Cooper, J. Fenimore, 14.

Corbitant (Indian), 101.

Cotton, Rev. John, a follower of Ann Hutchinson, 167;

abjures Antinomianism, 170;

at Boston, 189;

his death, 259;

defends punishment of Baptists, 261;

quoted, 129, 130, 131, 132, 143, 161;

125, 147, 162, 165, 166, 173.

Cotton, John, and Philip's son, 362.

Council Established at Plymouth, etc., granted a charter, 62, 63.

Council for New England, 106, 126, 157.

Council for Plantations, 296, 297, 329.

Council for the Safety of the People, etc., 433.

Country, and town, conflict of economic interests, etc., between, 373,

374.

Covenants of Grace and of Works, 166.

Cradock, Matthew, 128, 138, 151, 157.

Crandall, John, Baptist, 259, 260.

Cranfield, Edward, appointed royal governor of New England, 402;

his character, 402;

dealings with Blathwayt, 402 and _n._, 403 and _n._,

and with Mason, 403;

his course considered, 404 _f._;

removed, 404;

quoted, 420;

406, 407, 411.

Cromwell, Oliver, forces war on Holland, 236, 237 and _n._;

quoted, on liberty of opinion, 275;

125, 137, 209, 287, 296, 298, 369.

Crown, the, and the colonies, 293 _ff._

Cushman, Robert, 91, 94, 95, 97, 102.

Cutt, John, first President of New Hampshire under royal control, 400.

Cuttyhunk, 37.

Damaris Cove, 104, 115.

Dand, John, 214.

Danforth, Thomas, 389, 394, 429.

Daniel, Thomas, 400.

Darley, Henry, 197.

Davenport, Rev. John, founder of New Haven, 206, 207.

Davison, William, 86.

Dawson, S. E., quoted, 27 and _n._

Deer Island, 357.

Deerfield, attacked by Indians, 354, 355, 356.

Delaware River, settlements on, 234, 235, 236.

Democracy, not aimed at in Mayflower Compact, 98;

opposition of Mass. leaders to, 143;

genesis of, in America, 144, 419;

only partial in early town meetings, 154;

in Rhode Island, 186, 195, 248;

in Connecticut, 192, 193, 195;

and Calvinism, 194;

still on trial, 365.

Deputies in General Court, 154.

And _see_ Assistants.

Dermer, Thomas, 60, 61 and _n._

Devil, the, the saving grace of Puritan doctrine, 82.

Dexter, Henry M., 96 _n._, 165 _n._

Dexter, Thomas, 151.

Digges, Edward, 297 _n._

Discovery, right of, basis of title to new lands, 41 and _n._, 42;

questions connected with, 42.

Dissent, growth of, 364, 372.

Distance, from England, influence of, 292, 294, 295, 301, 302.

Divine right of kings, theory of, a protest against divine right of

popes, 365.

Dongan, Thomas, Governor of New York, 412, 413.

Dorchester, church at, 143;

140, 190.

Dorchester (England) fishing company in Mass., 108, 125.

Dorrell, John, 127 _n._

Dover, N. H., founded, 108;

acquired by Puritans, 181;

dispute between church factions at, 217, 218;

treacherous seizure of Indians at, 361;

178.

Dowdney, Richard, Quaker, 268.

Downing, Emanuel, 138, 141, 217 _n._

Downing, Sir George, quoted, 173.

Doyle, J. A., quoted, 187 _n._

Drake, Sir Francis, 30, 32, 95 _n._

Draxe, Sir James, 297 _n._

Dryden, John, 371.

Dudley, Joseph, appointed agent of Mass., 392;

of moderate views, 392 n.;

Governor of Mass., New Hampshire and the King's Province, 408 and

_n._, 409;

legality of his commission protested by General Court, 410;

dissatisfaction with his moderation, 411;

superseded by Andros, 411;

416, 425, 429, 430, 435.

Dudley, Joseph, and John Richards, agents of Mass. in England (1682),

392, 393.

Dudley, Thomas, Deputy Governor of Mass., 169;

125, 126, 138, 140 _n._, 147, 161, 162, 167, 179, 213, 227, 258.

Dunster, Henry, 206.

Dupleix, Marquis, 54.

Dutch, helpfulness of, in trade with Indians, 115;

and the Pilgrims, 187;

at Hartford, 188 and _n._;

territorial claims of, 234;

outnumbered and crowded out by English, 234, 235, 236;

treaty with, not ratified by England, 236;

shut out from carrying trade of English colonies, 291;

instructions of Royal Commission concerning, 330, 331;

reduction of, 336.

Dutch West India Co., 313 _n._

Dyer, Mary, Quaker, fiendish treatment of, 271;

268.

East, the, search for new routes to, 27, 29;

European trade with, in hands of Spain and Portugal, 29.

East India Company, 45, 46, 59.

Eastland Company, 45, 46.

Eaton, Samuel, 263 _n._

Eaton, Theophilus, founds New Haven, 206, 207, 208;

128, 213.

Education, in New England, original object of, religious, 370;

influence of, 370, 371.

And _see_ Common schools.

Edward IV, his charter of 1462, 34, 35.

Edward VI, 69.

Edwards, Jonathan, character of his writings, 82.

Election to General Court, right of, under Mass. charter, 141, 142.

And _see_ Franchise.

Eliot, Rev. John, pleads against sale of Indians into slavery, 362;

345, 357, 380.

Eliot, Sir John, 134, 136, 137.

Elizabeth, Queen, relations of England and Spain under, 30, 31, 32;

her methods of government, 31;

her patent to Sir H. Gilbert, 32, 33, 35;

state of England at her accession, 69, 70;

her opportunism, 70;

vague standard of religious conformity under, 70;

41, 44, 83, 146.

Ellis, George E., quoted, 267.

Emigration, causes of, 1620-1640, 119 _ff._;

influence of form of, 153;

Mass. places restrictions on, 190;

from England, cessation of, 222, 223;

complaints regarding, 422.

Endicott, John, governor of colony at Salem, 125, 126, 127;

hews down Maypole of Merry Mount, 127;

confirmed as governor of Mass., under new charter, 128;

his views of church government, 131;

censured for sending the Brownes to England, 133;

his character, 147;

at Block Island, 200;

as Puritan leader, 258, 259;

and the Quaker persecution, 265, 272, 273;

his violent language, 270 _n._;

his death, 275, 333;

124, 134, 135, 140, 143, 156 _n._, 162, 163, 260, 264, 315, 430.

England, chief imports of, 12;

basis of her claims to part of New World, 27, 28, 42;

and Spain, under Elizabeth, 30, 31;

preys upon Spanish commerce, 36;

claims all North America, 41 and _n._, 42;

treaty of 1604 with Spain, 42, 43;

economic conditions in, 43, 44;

abandons continental conquest after loss of Calais, 44;

trading companies formed in, 45, 46, 47;

value of colonies to, differing views, 45, 46, 47;

state of, at accession of Elizabeth, 69, 70;

problem of church settlement, 70;

low state of morality in, 73, 74;

balance-sheet of American exploration, 91;

conditions in, about 1630, 118, 123, 124;

laws against Catholics suspended, 118;

emigration from, largely due to other than religious causes, 121,

122;

Puritan leaders in New England propose to govern independently of,

155, 156;

effect of domestic political events in, to postpone Colonial affairs,

159, 160, 208, 209, 214, 215, 216, 295, 296;

and France, scene of first step in struggle between, 180, 181;

breach between Puritan leaders in, and in Mass., 195 _ff._;

attitude of New Haven toward, 208;

why emigration ceased, 222, 223;

and Holland, conflicting territorial claims of, 234, 235,

adjusted by treaty, 236;

relations of colonies with, 278, 279, 292, 293, 294, 295;

and colonial shipping, 286;

laws of, relating to colonial trade, 288;

application of Mercantile Theory by, and the Dutch, 291;

value of Navigation Acts to, 291, 292;

scheme for organization of colonies after Restoration, 296, 207, 298;

acts for control of trade and shipping, 298 _ff._;

interference of, with colonial rights, 302, 303;

relation of Mass. to, defined by General Court, 305, 306;

relation of other colonies to, 306;

and the defiant attitude of New England, 313;

complaints against Mass. to government of Charles II, 313 _ff._;

change in relation of colonies to, 317, 366;

rights and interests of citizens of, 327, 328;

question of location of sovereignty in, 364 _ff._;

her wars from 1672 to 1815, wars of trade, 366;

intellectual revival in, 371;

Stoughton and Bulkley agents of Mass. in, 380 _ff._;

her patience exhausted, and why, 390, 391;

her offer of compromise, not accepted, 393;

Mass. charter annulled by _scire facias_, 394;

and the new government in New Hampshire, 399 _ff._;

and the question of land-titles in New England, 418 _ff._;

effect of her method of dealing with the question, 420;

Revolution in (1688), 428;

circular letter of new government to colonies, 432;

war between France and, 436;

furnishes convoys for colonial shipping, 437, 438;

echoes of discontent in Mass. in, 444, 445 and _n._;

Mather's labors in, 445, 446.

And _see_ British Empire, Charles I, Charles II, Clarendon,

Elizabeth, James I, James II, Lords of Trade and Plantations.

“England and Ireland, Realmes of,” 35 _n._

English, the, none of great river highways originally held by, 3;

locus of earliest effort at colonization by, 12;

treatment of Indians by, 39, 40;

break up French settlements in Maine and Nova Scotia, 54-56;

numbers of, in different colonies, in 1630, 120, 121;

emigrants to Ireland, 120.

English and French possessions in North America during settlement

period contrasted, 3.

English nation, involved in founding of settlements by Englishmen, 281.

English seamen, under Drake and his fellows, 30, 31.

Esquimaux, 24.

Essex County, Mass., resistance to tax-levy in, 425, 426.

Established Church, a necessity in England, 70, 146;

where real struggle for control of, lay, 71.

And _see_ Church of England.

European civilization, effect on, of expansion due to opening of new

lands, 30, 31, 398, 399.

European commerce with the East, etc., 26;

seeks new route to East, 26, 27;

passes into hands of Spain and Portugal, 29.

European goods, restrictions on shipment of, to colonies, 300, 301.

Evelyn, John, 372.

Exeter, N. H., founded, 182;

and the settlement at Hampton, 182, 183.