Opening
THE
LOYALISTS OF AMERICA
AND
THEIR TIMES:
FROM 1620 TO 1816.
BY EGERTON RYERSON, D.D., LL.D.,
Chief Superintendent of Education for Upper Canada from 1844 to 1876.
IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. I.
TORONTO: WILLIAM BRIGGS, 80 KING STREET EAST; JAMES CAMPBELL & SON, AND WILLING & WILLIAMSON. MONTREAL: DAWSON BROTHERS. 1880.
ENTERED, according to the Act of the Parliament of Canada, in the year One thousand eight hundred and eighty, by the REV. EGERTON RYERSON, D.D., LL.D., in the Office of the Minister of Agriculture.
Preface
As no Indian pen has ever traced the history of the aborigines of America, or recorded the deeds of their chieftains, their "prowess and their wrongs"--their enemies and spoilers being their historians; so the history of the Loyalists of America has never been written except by their enemies and spoilers, and those English historians who have not troubled themselves with examining original authorities, but have adopted the authorities, and in some instances imbibed the spirit, of American historians, who have never tired in eulogizing Americans and everything American, and deprecating everything English, and all who have loyally adhered to the unity of the British Empire.
I have thought that the other side of the story should be written; or, in other words, the true history of the relations, disputes, and contests between Great Britain and her American colonies and the United States of America.
The United Empire Loyalists were the losing party; their history has been written by their adversaries, and strangely misrepresented. In the vindication of their character, I have not opposed assertion against assertion; but, in correction of unjust and untrue assertions, I have offered the records and documents of the actors themselves, and in their own words. To do this has rendered my history, to a large extent, documentary, instead of being a mere popular narrative. The many fictions of American writers will be found corrected and exposed in the following volumes, by authorities and facts which cannot be successfully denied. In thus availing myself so largely of the proclamations, messages, addresses, letters, and records of the times when they occurred, I have only followed the example of some of the best historians and biographers.
No one can be more sensible than myself of the imperfect manner in which I have performed my task, which I commenced more than a quarter of a century since, but I have been prevented from completing it sooner by public duties--pursuing, as I have done from the beginning, an untrodden path of historical investigations. From the long delay, many supposed I would never complete the work, or that I had abandoned it. On its completion, therefore, I issued a circular, an extract from which I hereto subjoin, explaining the origin, design, and scope of the work:--
"I have pleasure in stating that I have at length completed the task which the newspaper press and public men of different parties urged upon me from 1855 to 1860. In submission to what seemed to be public opinion, I issued, in 1861, a circular addressed to the United Empire Loyalists and their descendants, of the British Provinces of America, stating the design and scope of my proposed work, and requesting them to transmit to me, at my expense, any letters or papers in their possession which would throw light upon the early history and settlement in these Provinces by our U.E. Loyalist forefathers. From all the British Provinces I received answers to my circular; and I have given, with little abridgment, in one chapter of my history, these intensely interesting letters and papers--to which I have been enabled to add considerably from two large quarto manuscript volumes of papers relating to the U.E. Loyalists in the Dominion Parliamentary Library at Ottawa, with the use of which I have been favoured by the learned and obliging librarian, Mr. Todd.
"In addition to all the works relating to the subject which I could collect in Europe and America, I spent, two years since, several months in the Library of the British Museum, employing the assistance of an amanuensis, in verifying quotations and making extracts from works not to be found elsewhere, in relation especially to unsettled questions involved in the earlier part of my history.
"I have entirely sympathized with the Colonists in their remonstrances, and even use of arms, in defence of British constitutional rights, from 1763 to 1776; but I have been compelled to view the proceedings of the Revolutionists and their treatment of the Loyalists in a very different light.
"After having compared the conduct of the two parties during the Revolution, the exile of the Loyalists from their homes after the close of the War, and their settlement in the British Provinces, I have given a brief account of the government of each Province, and then traced the alleged and real causes of the War of 1812-1815, together with the courage, sacrifice, and patriotism of Canadians, both English and French, in defending our country against eleven successive American invasions, when the population of the two Canadas was to that of the United States as one to twenty-seven, and the population of Upper Canada (the chief scene of the War) was as one to one hundred and six. Our defenders, aided by a few English regiments, were as handfuls, little Spartan bands, in comparison of the hosts of the invading armies; and yet at the end of two years, as well as at the end of the third and last year of the War, not an invader's foot found a place on the soil of Canada.
"I undertook this work not self-moved and with no view to profit; and if I receive no pecuniary return from this work, on which I have expended no small labour and means, I shall have the satisfaction of having done all in my power to erect an historical monument to the character and merits of the fathers and founders of my native country."
E. RYERSON.
"TORONTO, Sept. 24th, 1879."
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION.--TWO CLASSES OF EMIGRANTS--TWO GOVERNMENTS FOR SEVENTY YEARS--THE PILGRIM FATHERS, THEIR PILGRIMAGES AND SETTLEMENT.
PAGE
The writer a native Colonist 1
Massachusetts the seed-plot of the American Revolution 1
Two distinct emigrations to New England--the "Pilgrim Fathers" in 1620, the "Puritan Fathers" in 1629; two separate governments for seventy years; characteristics of each 1
Objects and documentary character of the history, which is not a popular narrative, but a historical discussion (in a note) 2
The "Pilgrim Fathers;" their pilgrimages and settlement in New England 2
Origin of Independents 2
Flight to Holland, and twelve years' pilgrimage; trades and wearisome life there 3
Long to be under English rule and protection 3
Determine and arrange to emigrate to America 3
Voyage, and intended place of settlement 4
Landing at Cape Cod; constitution of government; Messrs. Bancroft and Young's remarks upon it 5
Settlement of "New Plymouth" 6
What known of the harbour and coast before the landing of the Pilgrims 7
Inflated and extravagant accounts of the character and voyage of the Pilgrims (in a note) 7
Results of the first year's experience and labours; a week's celebration of the first "harvest home"--such a first harvest home as no United Empire Loyalists were ever able to celebrate in Canada 9
Chapter II
GOVERNMENT OF THE "PILGRIM FATHERS" AT NEW PLYMOUTH DURING SEVENTY YEARS, FROM 1620 TO 1690, AS DISTINCT FROM THAT OF THE "PURITAN FATHERS" OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY. 11-23
Two governments--difference between the government of the Pilgrims and that of the Puritans 11
Compact, and seven successive governors of the Pilgrims 12
Simple, just, popular and loyal government of the Pilgrims and their descendants 13
Illustrations of their loyalty to successive sovereigns, and the equity and kindness with which Charles the First and Charles the Second treated them 14
Complaints against the unjust and persecuting conduct of the government of Massachusetts Bay, the cause of Parliamentary and Royal Commissions in 1646, 1664, and 1678 17
Four questions of inquiry by the Commissioners of Charles the Second, in 1665, and satisfactory answers by the Plymouth Government 18
Opposition of the Puritan Government of Massachusetts Bay to the Pilgrim Government in seeking a Royal Charter in 1630 and 1678 21
Absorption of the Plymouth Colony into that of Massachusetts Bay by the second Royal Charter; the exclusion of its chief men from public offices 21
Reflections on the melancholy termination of the Plymouth Government; the noble and loyal character of the Pilgrim Fathers and their descendants 22
Chapter III
THE PURITANS OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY COMPANY AND THEIR GOVERNMENT, COMMENCING IN 1629. 24-84
PART FIRST.
First settlement--Royal Charter granted 24
Causes, characteristics, and objects of early emigration to New England 25
The Puritan emigrants to Massachusetts Bay professed members of the Established Church when they left England 26
Professed objects of the emigration two-fold--religious and commercial; chiefly religious, for "converting and civilizing the idolatrous and savage Indian tribes" 26
Endicot; Royal Charter 27
Second emigration; Endicot becomes a Congregationalist, and establishes Congregationalism as the only worship of the Company at Massachusetts Bay, and banishes John and Samuel Brown for adhering (with others) to the old worship 28
PART SECOND.
The question involving the primary cause of the American Revolution; the setting up of a new form of worship, and abolishing and proscribing that of the Church of England, and banishing Episcopalians who adhered to the old form of worship; the facts analysed and discussed; instructions of the Company in England, and oaths of allegiance and of office prescribed by it 30
PART THIRD.
Complaints of the banished Episcopalians in England; proceedings by the Company, denials, proofs, conduct and correspondence of the parties concerned 46
Address of Governor Winthrop, &c., on leaving England, in 1630, to their "Fathers and Brethren of the Church of England," affirming their filial and undying love to the Church of England, as their "dear mother," from whose breasts they had derived their spiritual nourishment, &c., &c. 55
Remarks on this address, and absurd interpretations of it 57
Puritan authorities alone adduced as evidence on the subjects of discussion; Puritan letters suppressed; first seeds of the American Revolution 59
PART FOURTH.
Contest between King Charles the First and the Massachusetts Bay Puritans during ten years, from 1630 to 1640 61
Professions of the Puritans on leaving England, and their conduct on arriving at Massachusetts Bay 62
In the Church revolution at Massachusetts Bay, none but Congregationalists could be citizen electors, or eligible for office of any kind; five-sixths of the male population disfranchised 63
This first violation of the Royal Charter and laws of England 65
Complaints to the King in Council in 1632 65
Imputations upon the complainants, and upon the King and Council for listening to their complaints 66
Proceedings of the King and Council in 1632; the accused deny the charges, and convince the King of their innocence and good faith; further inquiry to be made; in the meantime the King dismisses the complaints, assures the accused that he never intended to impose at Massachusetts Bay the religious ceremonies to which they had objected in England, and assures them of his desire to promote the interests of their plantation 66
The King's kind and indulgent conduct, and how the advocates of the Company deceived him 67
Continued oppressions and proscriptions at Massachusetts Bay, and fresh complaints to the King in Council in 1634 69
Transfer of the Charter; kept secret during four years; remarks upon it; effect of the disclosure, and renewed complaints 69
Issue of a Royal Commission; proposed armed resistance at Massachusetts Bay advised by the Congregational ministers; remarks on Mr. Bancroft's attacks and statements; official representations, and conduct of parties concerned 72
Massachusetts Bay rulers the aggressors throughout; review of the controversy 75
More despotism practised in Massachusetts Bay than was ever practised in Upper Canada 82
Chapter IV
THE GOVERNMENT OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY UNDER THE LONG PARLIAMENT, THE COMMONWEALTH, AND CROMWELL. 85-129
Commissioners from the Massachusetts Bay rulers to the Long Parliament 85
Change of Government in England stops emigration to Massachusetts 85
First Address of the Massachusetts Commissioners to the Long Parliament 86
Ordinance of the Long Parliament in regard to Massachusetts trade, &c., in 1642, and remarks upon it 87
The Massachusetts Bay Court pass an Act in 1644, of persecution of the Baptists; another Act authorising discussion, &c., in favour of the Parliament, but pronouncing as a "high offence," to be proceeded against "capitally," anything done or said in behalf of the King 87
In 1646, the Long Parliament pass an ordinance appointing a Commission and Governor-General over Massachusetts and other Colonies, with powers more extensive than the Commission which had been appointed by Charles the First in 1634 88
The parliamentary authority declared in this ordinance, and acknowledged by the Puritans in 1646, the same as that maintained by the United Empire Loyalists of America one hundred and thirty years afterwards, in the American Revolution of 1776 (in a note) 88-92
The Presbyterians in 1646 seek liberty of worship at Massachusetts Bay, but are punished for their petition to the Massachusetts Bay Government, and are fined and their papers seized to prevent their appeal to the Puritan Parliament 93
How their appeal to England was defeated 98
Further illustrations of the proceedings of the rulers of Massachusetts Bay as more intolerant and persecuting than anything ever attempted by the High Church party in Upper Canada 98
Colonial government according to Massachusetts Bay pretensions impossible 99
The order of the Long Parliament to the Massachusetts Bay Government to surrender the Charter and receive another; consternation 99
Means employed to evade the order of Parliament 100
Mr. Bancroft's statements, and remarks upon them (in a note) 100
Mr. Palfrey's statements in regard to what he calls the "Presbyterian Cabal," and remarks upon them 103
Petition of the Massachusetts Bay Court to the Long Parliament in 1651; two addresses to Cromwell--the one in 1651, the other in 1654 108
Remarks on these addresses 110
The famous Navigation Act, passed by the Long Parliament in 1651, oppressive to the Southern Colonies, but regularly evaded in Massachusetts Bay by collusion with Cromwell 111
Intolerance and persecutions of Presbyterians, Baptists, &c., by the Massachusetts Bay rulers, from 1643 to 1651 112
Letters of remonstrance against these persecutions by the distinguished Puritans, Sir Henry Vane and Sir Richard Saltonstall 116
Mr. Neal on the same subject (in a note) 120
The Rev. Messrs. Wilson and Norton instigate, and the Rev. Mr. Cotton justifies, these persecutions of the Baptists 120
Summary of the first thirty years of the Massachusetts Bay Government, and character of its persecuting laws and spirit, by the celebrated Edmund Burke 122
The death of Cromwell; conduct and professions of the rulers of Massachusetts Bay in regard to Cromwell and Charles the Second at his restoration; Scotchmen, fighting on their own soil for their king, taken prisoners at Dunbar, transported and received as slaves at Massachusetts Bay 124
Chapter V
GOVERNMENT OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY AND OTHER COLONIES DURING TWENTY YEARS, UNDER CHARLES THE SECOND, FROM 1660 TO 1680. 130-203
Restoration; the news of it was received with joy in the Colonies, except in Massachusetts Bay, where false rumours were circulated alone 130
Change of tone and professions at Massachusetts Bay on the confirmation of the news of the King's restoration and firm establishment on the throne; John Eliot, Indian apostle, censured for what he had been praised 131
When and under what circumstances the Massachusetts Bay Government proclaimed the King, and addressed him; the address (in a note) 132
Remarks on this address, and its contrariety to the address to Cromwell ten years before 133
The King's kind letter addressed to Governor Endicot (in a note) 135
The Massachusetts Court's "ecstasy of joy" at the King's letter, and reply to it 135
The King enjoins ceasing to persecute the Quakers: how answered (in a note) 137
Petitions and representations to the King from Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, &c., in Massachusetts Bay, on their persecutions and disfranchisement by the local Government 137
The King's Puritan Councillors, and kindly feelings for the Colony of Massachusetts Bay 138
The King's letter of pardon and oblivion, June 28, 1662 (in a note), of the past misdeeds of the Massachusetts Bay Government, and the six conditions on which he promised to continue the Charter 139
The King's oblivion of the past and promised continuance of the Charter for the future joyfully proclaimed; but the publication of the letter withheld, and when the publication of it could be withheld no longer, all action on the royal conditions of toleration, &c., prescribed, was ordered by the local Government to be suspended until the order of the Court 141
Messrs. Bradstreet and Norton, sent as agents to England to answer complaints, are favourably received; are first thanked and then censured at Boston; Norton dies of grief 142
On account of the complaints and representations made to England, the King in Council determines upon the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the matters complained of in the New England Colonies, and to remedy what was wrong 145
Slanderous rumours circulated in Massachusetts against the Commission and Commissioners 146
Copy of the Royal Commission (in a note), explaining the reasons and objects of it 147
All the New England Colonies, except Massachusetts Bay, duly receive the Royal Commissioners; their report on Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Plymouth (in a note) 148
Report of the Royal Commissioners on the Colony of Massachusetts Bay (in a note); difference from the other Colonies; twenty anomalies in its laws inconsistent with its Charter; evades the conditions of the promised continuance of the Charter; denies the King's jurisdiction 149
They address the King, and enclose copies of their address, with letters, to Lord Chancellor Clarendon, the Earl of Manchester, Lord Say, and the Honourable Robert Boyle 152
The United Empire Loyalists the true Liberals of that day 152
Copy of the long and characteristic address of the Massachusetts Bay Court to the King, October 25, 1664 (with notes) 153
Letters of Lord Clarendon and the Honourable Robert Boyle to the Massachusetts Bay Court, in reply to their letters, and on their address to the King; pretensions and conduct 160
Conduct and pretensions of the Massachusetts Bay Court condemned and exposed by loyalist inhabitants of Boston, Salem, Newbury, and Ipswich, in a petition 163
The King's reply to the long address or petition of the Massachusetts Bay Court, dated February 25, 1665, correcting their misstatements, and showing the groundlessness of their pretended fears and actual pretensions 166
The King's kind and courteous letter without effect upon the Massachusetts Bay Court, who refuse to acknowledge the Royal Commissioners; second and more decisive letter from the King, April, 1666 169
Retrospect of the transactions between the two Charleses and the Massachusetts Bay Court from 1630 to 1666, with extracts of correspondence 171
Royal Charters to Connecticut and Rhode Island, in 1663, with remarks upon them by Judge Story (in a note) 172
The narrative of the discussion of questions between Charles the Second and the Massachusetts Bay Court resumed; summary of facts; questions at issue 178
On receiving the report of his Commissioners, who had been rejected by the Massachusetts Bay Court, the King orders agents to be sent to England to answer before the King in Council to the complaints made against the Government of the Colony 179
Meetings and proceedings of the Massachusetts Bay Court on the Royal Message; their address of vindication and entreaty to the King; and instead of sending agents, send two large masts, and resolve to send £1,000 to propitiate the King 180
Loyalists in the Court and among the people, who maintain the Royal authority 182
Complaints a pretext to perpetuate sectarian rule and persecutions 183
Baptists persecuted by fine, imprisonment, &c., as late as 1666 and 1669 (extract of Court proceedings in a note), several years after the King had forbidden such intolerance in Massachusetts 184
Statements of Hutchinson and Neal in regard to such persecutions, and remonstrances by the Rev. Drs. Owen and T. Goodwin, and other Nonconformist ministers in England 185
Efforts by addresses, gifts, and compliance in some matters, to propitiate the King's favour 186
Why the King desists for some years from further action 187
Complaints from neighbouring Colonists and individual citizens, of invasion of rights, and persecutions and proscriptions by the Massachusetts Bay Government, awaken at last the renewed attention of the King's Government to their proceedings; and the King addresses another letter, July, 1679 (copy of the letter in a note) 187
Seven requirements of this letter just and reasonable, and observed by all British Colonies at this day 188
Remarks on the unfair statements and unjust imputations against the British Government of that day, by Mr. Palfrey and other New England historians 190
Nineteen years' evasions and disregard of the conditions on which the King promised to perpetuate the Charter; strong and decisive letter from the King, September, 1680, to the Massachusetts Bay Court, which caused a special meeting of the Court, the sending of agents to England, and the passing of some remedial Acts 193
Examples and proofs of the deceptive character of these Acts, with measures to neutralize or prevent them from being carried intoeffect--such as the Navigation Act, Oath of Allegiance, the Franchise, Liberty of Worship, and Persecution of Baptists and Quakers 195
Recapitulation; manner of extending the territory and jurisdiction, so as to include Maine, part of New Hampshire, &c. (in a note); Mr. Bancroft's statement, confirming the positions of this and preceding chapters as to the pretensions and conduct of the Massachusetts Bay Government 200
Chapter VI
MASSACHUSETTS DURING THE LAST FOUR YEARS OF CHARLES THE SECOND AND THE THREE YEARS' REIGN OF JAMES THE SECOND, FROM 1680 TO 1689; THE IMMEDIATE CAUSES AND MANNER OF CANCELLING THE FIRST CHARTER. 204-220
Crisis approaching; the double game of Massachusetts Bay Court played out; threat of a writ of quo warranto 204
Proceedings of Massachusetts Bay Court; offer a bribe to the King; bribe clerks of the Privy Council 205
The Massachusetts Bay Court refuse the proposed conditions of perpetuating the Charter; refuse submission to the King on any conditions; determine to contest in a Court of Law; agents restricted; the King provoked 206
The Governor and a majority of the assistants or magistrates vote in favour of submitting to the King's decision; the Ministers advise, and a majority of the deputies vote against it 208
A writ of quo warranto issued and sent, June and July, 1683, summoning the Corporation of Massachusetts Bay to defend their acts against the complaints and charges (thirteen in number) made against them, but assuring the inviolableness of private property, and offering to stay legal proceedings against the Corporation in case of their submitting to the decision of the King, on the points heretofore required by his Majesty as conditions of perpetuating the Charter 208
The Colony of Massachusetts Bay divided; origin of parties; the Governor and a majority of the "Upper Branch of the Government" were the moderate or loyalist party; the majority of the "House of Deputies," whose "elections were controlled by the ministers," were the independence party; violent language by Dr. Increase Mather, whose appeal from man to God was decided against him (in a note) 209
Resolutions of the two Houses of the Court on the subject 210
Notice to the Massachusetts Bay Court of the issue of the writ of quo warranto, to answer to the complaints against them, received October, 1683; judgment given July 1685, nearly two years afterwards 211
The questions at issue unfairly put to popular vote in Massachusetts; remarks on Mr. Palfrey's account of the transactions 211
Results of the fall of the Charter; death of Charles the Second; proclamation of the accession of James the Second; appointment of Joseph Dudley as Governor; character of his seven months' government 212
Appointment of Andros as local Governor and Governor-General; popular beginning of his government; his tyranny; seized at Boston and sent prisoner to England; acquitted on account of having obeyed his instructions 215
Toleration first proclaimed in Massachusetts by James the Second; thanked by the Massachusetts Bay Court, and its agent in England, the Rev. Increase Mather, for the proclamation which lost the King the Crown of England 216
Concluding review of the characteristics of the fifty-four years' government of Massachusetts Bay Government under the first Charter 217
Chapter VII
SECOND ROYAL CHARTER, AND THE GOVERNMENT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNDER IT FROM 1691 TO 1748; THE CLOSE OF THE FIRST WAR BETWEEN ENGLAND AND FRANCE, AND THE PEACE OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE. 221-241
Retrospect; reasons assigned by Mr. Palfrey why the Massachusetts Bay Government did not make armed resistance against "the fall of the first Charter," and remarks upon them 221
The Government of Massachusetts Bay continued two years after "the fall of the Charter," as if nothing had happened 226
They promptly proclaim King James the Second; take the oath of allegiance to him; send the Rev. Increase Mather as agent to thank his Majesty for his proclamation of indulgence, to pray for the restoration of the first Charter, and for the removal of Sir Edmund Andros; King James grants several friendly audiences, but does nothing 226
On the dethronement of James the Second, Dr. Increase Mather pays his homage to the new King, with professions (no doubt sincere) of overflowing loyalty to him (in a note) 226
Unsuccessful efforts of Dr. Increase Mather to obtain the restoration of the first Charter, though aided by the Queen, Archbishop Tillotson, Bishop Burnet, the Presbyterian clergy, and others 228
How the second Charter was prepared and granted; Dr. Increase Mather first protests against, and then gratefully accepts the Charter; nominates the first Governor, Sir William Phips 229
Nine principal provisions of the new Charter 233
Puritan legal opinions on the defects of the first Charter, the constant violation of it by the Massachusetts Bay Government, and the unwisdom of its restoration (in a note) 233
A small party in Boston opposed to accepting the new Charter; Judge Story on the salutary influence of the new Charter on the legislation and progress of the Colony 235
Happy influence of the new Charter upon toleration, loyalty, peace and unity of society in Massachusetts--proofs 237
The spirit of the old leaven of bigotry still surviving; and stung with the facts of Neal's History of New England on "the persecuting principles and practices of the first planters," a remarkable letter from the Rev. Dr. Isaac Watts, dated February 19, 1720, addressed to the Rev. Dr. Cotton Mather, explanatory of Neal's History, and urging the formal repeal of the "cruel and sanguinary statutes" which had been passed by the Massachusetts Bay Court under the first Charter (in a note) 239
Happiness and progress of Massachusetts during seventy years under the second Charter 240
Debts incurred by the New England Colonies in the Indian Wars; issue of paper money; how Massachusetts was relieved by England, and made prosperous 240
Chapter VIII
MASSACHUSETTS AND OTHER COLONIES DURING THE SECOND WAR BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE, FROM THE PEACE OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, 1748, TO THE PEACE OF PARIS, 1763. 242-279
Places taken during the war between France and England mutually restored at the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle; Louisburg and Cape Breton restored to France, in return for Madras restored to England 242
Boundaries in America between France and England to be defined by a joint Commission, which could not agree 242
Encroachments of the French on the British Colonies from 1748 to 1756; complaints of the Colonial Governors to England; orders to them to defend their territories; conflicts between the Colonies, French and Indians 243
England's best if not only means of protecting the Colonies, to prevent the French from transporting soldiers and war material to Canada; naval preparations 244
Evasive answers and disclaimers of the French Government, with naval and military preparations 245
Braddock's unfortunate expedition; capture of French vessels, soldiers, &c., (in a note) 247
The King's speech to Parliament on French encroachments; convention of Colonies at Albany, and its representatives, a year before war was declared 247
Mr. Bancroft's imputation against the British Government, and reply to it (in a note) 247
Mr. Bancroft represents this war as merely European; refuted by himself; his noble representations of the Protestant character of the war on the part of Great Britain and other Powers 248
Contests chiefly between the Colonists, the French, and the Indians, from 1648 to 1654; English soldiers under General Braddock sent to America in 1655; campaigns actual and devised that year; Massachusetts active; Sir William Johnson's victory over the French General, Dieskau 250
War formally declared by England and France in 1756; French successes in 1755, 1756, and 1757 252
Parliament votes £115,000 sterling to compensate the Colonies for expenses incurred by them 252
Arrival of the Earl of Loudon from England with troops, as Commander-in-Chief 252
Capture of Forts Oswego and William Henry by the French General, Montcalm 253
Dispute between the Earl of Loudon and the Massachusetts Court, in regard to the Mutiny Act, and quartering the troops upon the citizens 255
Alarming situation of affairs at the close of the year 1757 255
Divided counsels and isolated resources and action of the Colonies 257
General Abercrombie arrives with more troops, and forty German officers to drill and command regiments to be raised in America (which gave offence to the Colonists) 257
The Governor of Virginia recommends Washington, but his services are not recognized 257
Generals Abercrombie and Loudon at Albany hesitate and delay, while the French generals are active and successful 258
The Earl of Loudon's arbitrary conduct in quartering his officers and troops in Albany and New York (in a note) 258
Loudon never fought a battle in America; and in the only battle fought by Abercrombie, he was disgracefully defeated by Montcalm, though commanding the largest army which had ever been assembled in America. Among the slain in this battle was the brave General, Lord Howe, the favourite of the army and citizens 259
The Massachusetts Court appropriate £250 sterling to erect a monument in Westminster Abbey in honour of Lord Howe 260
Abercrombie--the last of the incompetent English Generals--recalled, and succeeded by Lord Amherst as Commander-in-Chief, assisted by General Wolfe, when, under the Premiership of the elder Pitt, the whole policy and fortunes of the war undergo a complete change 260
Colonel Bradstreet's brilliant achievement in taking and destroying Fort Frontenac 261
Lord Amherst plans three expeditions, all of which were successful 261
Louisburg besieged and taken; heroism of General Wolfe; great rejoicings 262
Admiral Boscawen returns to England; Lord Amherst's energetic movements 262
Niagara taken; Fort du Quesne taken, and called Pittsburg; Ticonderoga and Crown Point taken; Quebec taken 263
Attempt of the French to recover Quebec 266
Parliamentary compensation to Massachusetts (in a note) 267
Montreal besieged and taken, and all Canada surrendered to the King of Great Britain, through Lord Amherst 267
General Amherst's address to the army (in a note) 268
The war not closed; conquests in the West Indies; troubles with the Indians; reduction of the Cherokees 269
Treaty of Paris; general rejoicings 269
Massachusetts benefited by the war 270
Moneys provided by England for the war abstracted from England and expended in the Colonies 270
Grateful acknowledgments and avowed loyalty to England by Massachusetts; the language and feelings of the other Colonies the same 271
Chapter IX
RELATION OF ENGLAND AND THE COLONIES WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES. 273-279
I. The position of England in respect to the other European Powers after the Peace of Paris, 1763 273
II. The position of the American Colonies, in regard to England and other nations, after the Peace of Paris in 1763 274
III. Effects of the change of policy by the English Government in regard to the Colonies 277
IV. First acts of the British Government which caused dissatisfaction and alienation in the Colonies 279
Chapter X
THE STAMP ACT; ITS EFFECTS IN AMERICA; VIRGINIA LEADS THE OPPOSITION TO IT; RIOTS AND DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY IN BOSTON; PETITIONS AGAINST THE STAMP ACT IN ENGLAND; REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT; REJOICINGS AT ITS REPEAL IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA; THE DECLARATORY ACT. 283-293
APPENDIX "A" TO CHAPTER X.
Containing extracts of the celebrated speeches of Mr. Charles Townsend and Colonel Barré on passing the Stamp Act 294
Remarks on the speeches of the Right Honourable Mr. Townsend and Colonel Barré; Puritan treatment of the Indians 296
APPENDIX "B" TO CHAPTER X.
Containing the speeches of Lords Chatham and Camden on the Stamp Act and its repeal 302
Dr. Franklin's evidence at the Bar of the House of Commons 308
Chapter XII
SUMMARY OF EVENTS FROM THE REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT, MARCH, 1766, TO THE END OF THE YEAR. 323-328
Chapter XIII
1767.--A NEW PARLIAMENT; FIRST ACT AGAINST THE PROVINCE OF NEW YORK; BILLETING SOLDIERS ON THE COLONIES. 329-336
Raising a revenue by Act of Parliament in the Colonies 330
Three Bills brought in, and passed by Parliament, to raise a revenue in the Colonies 331
Vice-Admiralty Courts and the Navy employed as custom-house officers 334
The effect of these Acts and measures in the Colonies 335
Chapter XIV
EVENTS OF 1768.--PROTESTS AND LOYAL PETITIONS OF THE COLONISTS AGAINST THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENTARY ACTS FOR RAISING REVENUES IN THE COLONIES. 337-352
Petition to the King 337
Noble circular of the Massachusetts Legislative Assembly to the Assemblies of the other Colonies, on the unconstitutional and oppressive Acts of the British Parliament 338
This circular displeasing to the British Ministry, and strongly condemned by it in a circular from the Earl of Hillsborough 341
Admirable and patriotic reply of the Virginia House of Burgesses to the Massachusetts circular 342
Similar replies from the Legislative Assemblies of other Colonies 343
Excellent answer of the General Assembly of Maryland to a message of the Governor on the same subject 344
The effects of Lord Hillsborough's circular letter to the Colonial Governors 345
Experiment of the newly asserted power of Parliament to tax and rule the Colonies, commended at Boston and in Massachusetts 348
Three causes for popular irritation; seizures; riotous resistance; seven hundred soldiers landed, and required to be provided for, which was refused; the Provincial Assembly and its proceedings; ships of war in Boston Harbour 348
Chapter XV
EVENTS OF 1769.--UNJUST IMPUTATIONS OF PARLIAMENT ON THE LOYALTY OF THE COLONISTS, AND MISREPRESENTATIONS OF THEIR JUST AND LOYAL PETITIONS. 353-363
Manly response to these imputations on the part of the Colonists, and their assertion of British constitutional rights, led by the General Assembly of Virginia 355
Dissolution of Colonial Assemblies; agreements for the non-importation of British manufactured goods entered into by the Colonists 356
The General Assembly of Massachusetts refuse to legislate under the guns of a land and naval force; Governor Barnard's reply 357
Proceedings of the Governor and House of Assembly on quartering troops in Boston 358
Governor Barnard's recall and character (in a note) 359
Origin of the non-importation agreement in New York; sanctioned by persons in the highest stations; union of the Colonies planned 360
Sons of Governors Barnard and Hutchinson refuse to enter into the non-importation agreement 360
They were at length compelled to yield; humiliating position of the soldiers in Boston; successful resistance of the importation of British goods 360
Joy in the Colonies by a despatch from Lord Hillsborough promising to repeal the obnoxious Revenue Acts, and to impose no more taxes on the Colonies 361
The duty of threepence per pound on tea excepted 363
Chapter XVI
EVENTS OF 1770.--AN EVENTFUL EPOCH.--EXPECTATIONS OF RECONCILIATION AND UNION DISAPPOINTED. 364-373
Collisions between the soldiers and inhabitants in Boston 365
The soldiers insulted and abused 365
The Boston Massacre; the soldiers acquitted by a Boston jury 365
The payment of official salaries independent of the Colonies another cause of dissatisfaction 366
What had been claimed by the old American Colonies contended for in Canada, and granted, to the satisfaction and progress of the country 367
Lord North's Bill to repeal the Colonial Revenue Acts, except the duty on tea, which he refused to repeal until "America should be prostrate at his feet" 368
Governor Pownall's speech and amendment to repeal the duty on tea, rejected by a majority of 242 to 204 369
Associations in the Colonies against the use of tea imported from England 370
The tea duty Act of Parliament virtually defeated in America 370
The controversy revived and intensified by the agreement between Lord North and the East India Company, to remit the duty of a shilling in the pound on all teas exported by it to America, where the threepence duty on the pound was to be collected 371
Combined opposition of English and American merchants, and the Colonists from New Hampshire to Georgia, against this scheme 372
Chapter XVII
EVENTS OF 1771, 1772, 1773.--THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S TEA REJECTED IN EVERY PROVINCE OF AMERICA; NOT A CHEST OF ITS TEA SOLD; RESOLUTIONS OF A PUBLIC MEETING IN PHILADELPHIA ON THE SUBJECT, THE MODEL FOR THOSE OF OTHER COLONIES. 374-387
The Governor, Hutchinson, of Massachusetts, and his sons (the consignees), alone determined to land the tea at Boston 376
The causes and affair of throwing the East India Company's tea into the Boston Harbour, as stated on both sides 377
The causes and the disastrous effect of the arrangement between the British Ministry and the East India Company 381
The King the author of the scheme; His Majesty's condemnation of the petitions and remonstrances from the Colonies (in a note) 382
Governor Hutchinson's proceedings, and his account of the transactions at Boston 383
His vindication of himself, and description of his pitiable condition 383
Remarks on the difference between his conduct and that of the Governors of other provinces 387
Chapter XVIII
EVENTS OF 1774.--ALL CLASSES IN THE COLONIES DISCONTENTED; ALL CLASSES AND ALL THE PROVINCES REJECT THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S TEA. 388-402
Opposition to the tea duty represented in England as "rebellion," and the advocates of colonial rights designated "rebels" and "traitors" 388
Three Acts of Parliament against the inhabitants of Boston and of Massachusetts, all infringing and extinguishing the heretofore acknowledged constitutional rights and liberties of the people 389
Debates in Parliament, and misrepresentations of the English press on American affairs 390
Lord North explains the American policy; the Bill to punish the town of Boston; petitions against it from the agent of Massachusetts and the city of London; debates on it in the Commons and Lords 394
Distress of Boston; addresses of sympathy, and contributions of relief from other towns and provinces; generous conduct of the inhabitants of Massachusetts and Salem 395
The second penal Bill against Massachusetts, changing the constitution of the government of the province 396
Third penal Bill for the immunity of governors, magistrates, and other public officers in Massachusetts 396
The fourth Act of Parliament, legalizing the quartering of the troops in Boston 397
The effects of these measures in the Colonies the reverse of what their authors and advocates had anticipated; all the Colonies protest against them 397
General Gage's arrival in Boston, and courteous reception, as successor to Governor Hutchinson--his character (in a note) 398
Meeting of the Massachusetts Legislature; adjournment to Salem; their respectful, loyal, but firm reply to the Governor's speech; his bitter answer 399
Courteous, loyal, and patriotic answer of the Assembly to the Governor's speech 400
The House of Assembly proceed with closed doors, and adopt, by a majority of 92 to 12, resolutions declaring the necessity of a meeting of all the Colonies to consult together upon the present state of the Colonies 401
Curious dissolution of the last Legislature held in the Province of Massachusetts, according to the tenor of its Charter (in a note) 401
Chapter XIX
1774, CONTINUED UNTIL THE MEETING OF THE FIRST GENERAL CONGRESS IN SEPTEMBER. 403-408
Resolutions in all the Colonies in favour of a general Convention or Congress, and election of delegates to it 403
General sympathy and liberality on behalf of the town of Boston 404
How information on subjects of agitation was rapidly diffused throughout the Colonies 405
The Act of Parliament changing the Constitution of Massachusetts without its consent gave rise to the American Revolution; the authority of that Act never acknowledged in Massachusetts 407
Chapter XX
GENERAL CONGRESS OR CONVENTION AT PHILADELPHIA, SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, 1774. 409-421
The word Congress "defined" 409
Each day's proceedings commenced with prayer; each Province allowed but one vote 410
The members of the Congress and their constituents throughout the Colonies thoroughly loyal, while maintaining British constitutional rights 410
The declaration of rights and grievances by this Congress (in a note) 411
The explicit, loyal, and touching address and petition of this Congress to the King 414
Manly and affectionate appeal to the British nation 416
The address of the members of the Congress to their constituents--a temperate and lucid exposition of their grievances and sentiments 417
Reasons for giving a summary and extracts of these addresses of the first General Congress 418
General elections in England hastened; adverse to the Colonies 419
The King's speech at the opening of the new Parliament, the 30th of November, and answers of both Houses 419
Opposition in both Houses; protest in the Lords 420
The proceedings of the first American Congress reach England before the adjournment of Parliament for the Christmas holidays, and produce an impression favourable to the Colonies; hopes of a change of the Ministerial policy in regard to the Colonies 420
Chapter XXI
(1775.)
THE RE-ASSEMBLING OF PARLIAMENT THE 20TH OF JANUARY; LETTERS FROM COLONIAL GOVERNORS, REVENUE AND MILITARY OFFICERS, AGAINST THE COLONISTS OPPOSED TO THE MINISTERIAL POLICY AND THE PARLIAMENTARY ACTS; THE MINISTRY, SUPPORTED BY PARLIAMENT, DETERMINE UPON CONTINUING AND STRENGTHENING THE COERCIVE POLICY AGAINST THE COLONIES. 422-432
The Earl of Chatham's amendment and speech in the Lords, against the coercive policy of the Ministry and in behalf of Colonial rights, supported by other Lords and numerous politicians 423
Lord Suffolk in favour of coercion; Lord Camden against it, and in favour of the rights of the Colonies; Lord Chatham and others denounced by the King (in a note) 424
The amendment negatived by a majority of 68 to 18; but the King's own brother, the Duke of Cumberland, was one of the minority; yet the King boasted of the "handsome majority" in support of his coercive policy 425
The Earl of Chatham's bill "to settle the troubles in America," not allowed a first reading in the Lords 425
Petitions from various towns in England, Scotland, and Ireland against the American policy of the ministry 425
Petition to the Commons from Dr. Franklin, Mr. Bollan, and Mr. Lee, Colonial agents, praying to be heard at the bar of the House in support of the petition of the American Continental Congress, rejected by a majority of 218 to 68 426
Dr. Franklin's dismissal from office; his success in office; his sentiments on the rejection of the petitions of the Colonies and punishment of their agents (in a note) 426
Lord North's resolution for an address (given entire) to the King, endorsing the coercive policy, and denouncing complaints and opposition to it in America as "rebellion" 426
Remarks on the gross inaccuracies and injustice and empty promises of this address 428
Debates in the Commons on Lord North's address to the King 429
Mr. Fox's amendment to Lord North's address rejected by a majority of 304 to 105 430
Second great debate on Lord North's warlike resolution for an address to the King, and Lord John Cavendish's amendment to it; speakers on both sides 430
Lord North's address, made the joint address of both Houses of Parliament, presented to the King, with His Majesty's reply 431
Remarks on the King's reply, and the proceedings of Parliament in respect to the Colonies 431
The Ministry and Parliament virtually declare war against the Colonies 432
Chapter XXII
(1775, CONTINUED.)
PARLIAMENT PROCEEDS TO PASS AN ACT TO PUNISH THE NEW ENGLAND COLONIES FOR SYMPATHISING WITH MASSACHUSETTS, BY RESTRICTING THEIR TRADE TO ENGLAND AND DEPRIVING THEM OF THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES. 433-441
Parliament passes a second Act to punish in the same way all the Colonies, for the same reason as those of the New England Colonies, except New York, Delaware, North Carolina; these Provinces decline the exception 433
Much expected from the General Assembly of New York, which had not endorsed the first Continental Congress; the Assembly meets and adopts a petition and remonstrances on the grievances of all the Colonies, including Massachusetts; this address, adopted as late as May, 1775, a Loyal United Empire Document; extracts from this admirable and statesmanlike address 434
Mr. Burke, in a conciliatory speech, proposes to present this memorial to the House of Commons 437
Lord North opposes it 438
Mr. Fox defends it, and moves against its rejection 438
Governor Johnstone justifies the reception of it by example 439
Lord North's amendment to reject the petition adopted by a majority of 186 to 67 439
The memorial, after debate, rejected by the House of Lords 440
Reflections of the royal historian on the effect upon the public mind in England from the rejection of the New York Assembly's appeal by both Houses of Parliament (in a note) 440
The Colonists still persist in hopes of reconciliation and the maintenance of their constitutional rights, without entertaining a thought of independence 441
Chapter XXIII
(1775, CONTINUED.)
THE SECOND CONTINENTAL CONGRESS IN AMERICA. 442-458
The second Continental Congress meets at Philadelphia, in the month of September 442
Number and character of its members 442
Their credentials and instructions to seek remedies for grievances, but not separation from the Mother Country; mode of proceeding 443
Noble and affectionate petition to the King 443
This petition read in the House of Commons the 7th of December, 1775, but rejected 444
Penn, the agent of the Congress, not asked a question when he presented the petition, and was refused an interview by the King (in a note) 444
The King's answer a proclamation declaring the petition "rebellion" and the petitioners "rebels" 445
The effect of this proclamation upon the Continental Congress, and of the accompanying announcement, that the army and navy were to be greatly increased, and seventeen thousand mercenary soldiers from Hanover and Hesse were to be engaged to bring the Colonists to absolute submission 446
Refusal of English Generals and soldiers to fight against the Colonists (in a note) 446
Bombardment and burning of Falmouth (now Portland) by Captain Mowat, of the British navy (two accounts of it, in a note) 446
The large majority of the Congress yet opposed to independence, but were unanimously in favour of energetic measures for the defence of their constitutional rights 448
Tom Paine's appeal to the Colonists, called Common Sense, the first publication in America against monarchy 450
But the majority of the Congress opposed to republicanism 450
The exact time when the leading men of the Colonies conceived the measure of independence not certainly known 451
Prompted by the now-known King's own personal acts and hostility to the American Colonists 451
Deprecated by South Carolina in May, 1775, after the bloody affair of Concord and Lexington (in a note) 451
Disclaimed by Dr. Franklin in 1773 452
Disclaimed by Washington and Jefferson until after the middle of the year 1775 453
Though urged by President Dwight (of Yale), discountenanced by leading New Englanders in July, 1775 453
Retrospect of events and position of affairs between Great Britain and the Colonies at the close of the year 1775 454
Chapter XXIV
(THE YEAR 1775 AND BEGINNING OF 1776.)
AN EVENTFUL YEAR; PREPARATION IN ENGLAND TO REDUCE COLONISTS TO ABSOLUTE SUBMISSION; SELF-ASSERTED AUTHORITY OF PARLIAMENT. 459-478
Oppressive Acts of Parliament enumerated, with the measures of employing foreign soldiers, Indians, and slaves; and all with the express sanction of the King, and while Colonists professed loyalty, and asked for nothing but the redress of grievances and restoration of rights which they had heretofore enjoyed 459
The loyalty and effective services of the Colonists in the English and French war, and the experience and skill they thereby acquired in military affairs; their superiority as marksmen 460
They desire to provide for their own defence, and for the support of their own civil government, as aforetime, and as is done in the provinces of the Canadian Dominion, but this is opposed by the King and his ministers 460
General Gage (Governor of Massachusetts, and Commander-in-Chief of the British in America) commences the first attack upon the Colonists, by ordering soldiers at night to seize Colonial arms and ammunition; sends 800 soldiers to Concord for that purpose; driven back to Lexington with heavy loss; loss of the Colonists 460
The affair of Concord and Lexington followed by the Battle of Bunker's Hill; numbers engaged on both sides 460
In the Battle of Bunker's Hill, as well as the previous conflicts, the first shot was fired by the British soldiers upon the Colonists, who, by order and policy, acted strictly on the defensive 461
English account of the Battle of Bunker's Hill, by the royal historian, Dr. Andrews (in a note) 461
Lord Dunmore, Governor of Virginia, about the same time, committed outrages upon the inhabitants of Virginia similar to those which General Gage committed upon the people of Massachusetts 462
Traditional and deep loyalty of the Virginians, and their aversion to revolution, but resolved to defend their rights 464
Lord Dunmore (by order of the Secretary of State) assembles the Burgesses of Virginia, to deliberate and decide upon Lord North's so-called "conciliatory proposition" to the Colonies; the proposition rejected; Mr. Jefferson's report upon, quoted; an admirable document, eulogized in the strongest terms by the Earl of Shelburne; how viewed by the French Foreign Minister, Vergennes (in a note) 464
Lord Dunmore issues a proclamation to free the slaves; on the night of the 20th of April sends a body of marines to seize and carry off a quantity of gunpowder, belonging to the Colony, stored in a magazine at Williamsburg; excitement of the inhabitants, and their demand for the restoration of the powder; Lord Dunmore threatens, but is at length compelled to return the value of the powder 465
Lord Dunmore's threat to free the slaves, and letter to the Secretary of State, as to how, with aid "of a small body of troops and arms," he could raise an ample force "among the Indians and negroes and other persons" 466
Horror and alarm in the South at Lord Dunmore's threat to free the slaves, and preparation for resistance (in a note) 466
Lord Dunmore (moved by his fears) leaves the Government House, and goes on board of a ship of war at Norfolk, almost twelve miles from Williamsburg, the seat of government 466
The House of Burgesses remonstrate with Lord Dumnore for leaving the seat of government; entreat him to return, and assure him and his family of perfect safety; but he refuses, seizes a private printing establishment and two printers, and issues proclamations and attempts to govern from a ship of war 467
Lord Dunmore commands the water by a small flotilla of war vessels, and frequently landed forces to seize arms, &c.; attempt to destroy the town of Hampton; is repelled by the inhabitants, and volunteer rifle companies come to their aid; the first battle in Virginia; its success with the Virginians 467
Account of this affair, and of Lord Dunmore's policy, by the English Annual Register (in a note) 468
In consequence of Lord Dunmore's failure against the town of Hampton, he issues a proclamation from on board the war ship William, off Norfolk, declaring martial law throughout the Colony, "requiring all persons capable of bearing arms to repair to His Maiesty's standard, or be considered as traitors;" and declaring all indentured servants, negroes and others, appertaining to rebels, who were able and willing to bear arms, and who joined His Majesty's forces, to be free 468
Remarks of the English Annual Register on this abominable proclamation. 469
Lord Dunmore's conduct unlawful, as well as unjust and inhuman 470
The men on Lord Dunmore's fleet distressed for want of provisions, which the inhabitants on land refused to supply: in consequence of which the town of Norfolk (the first commercial town in Virginia) is reduced to ashes 471
Account of this barbarous transaction by the English Annual Register and Mr. Bancroft (in a note); remarks upon, by the English and American press; effect of its announcement upon the mind of Washington 472
The conduct and situation of the Governors of South and North Carolina similar to that of Lord Dunmore in Virginia (in a note) 472
The loyal Churchmen of Virginia, and the loyal Presbyterians of the two Carolinas, receive the same treatment from Dunmore, Campbell, and Martin, as the "republican" Congregationalists did from General Gage 473
Each of the three Southern Governors betook themselves to ships; all the Colonists treated with like severity 473
The King's speech at the meeting of Parliament, October 26th, 1775, and discussion upon it 474
Chapter XXV
CONGRESS OF 1776: PROCEEDINGS PRELIMINARY TO, AND ADOPTION OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; A COPY OF THE DECLARATION ITSELF. 479-491
Meeting of Congress at Philadelphia, the 12th of May, 1776; state of the Colonies 479
Formidable preparations in England; effect of them upon the Colonies different from that expected in England 479
The thirteen Colonies a unit for the defence of their constitutional rights and liberties 479
Separation from England not even yet contemplated; though resisting the King they were loyal to the constitution and liberties of the Kingdom, as were the Barons at Runnymede when they resisted King John to maintain constitutional rights; the words of Washington and the New York Provincial Congress (in a note) 480
The question of questions with the Congress; one Republican, but the others professedly Monarchists; Samuel Adams, his character and writings 481
Independence first moved in Congress, May, 1776; how manipulated and promoted; not the spontaneous uprising of the people 482
Agitation to prepare the minds of the people for independence 482
The writings of Tom Paine the chief instrument of creating hatred to monarchy and a desire for independence (in a note) 483
Congress itself divided on the question of independence; what Provinces opposed to or not prepared for independence 483
Resolution for independence; long debates; postponed for three weeks, by a vote of seven to five Colonies 484
Committee to prepare a Declaration appointed 485
Agitation to promote independence 485
Three days' debates on the question of independence 485
Decision to vote by Colonies, and that the decision on each question should be reported to the world as unanimous, whatever might be the votes in Congress 486
On the question of independence, six Colonies were in the affirmative and six in the negative; how Pennsylvania was brought over to vote for independence, by one of its members being induced to absent himself; and how the votes of other Colonies were obtained for the affirmative (in a note) 486
The Declaration of Independence reported, discussed, amended, and adopted, but not unanimously, though so reported (in a note) 487
Remarks on the voting of Congress on the Declaration of Independence 487
Copy of the Declaration of Independence 488
XXVI. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE DISCUSSED. 492-517
The Author's sympathy with the Colonists, and advocacy of their rights as British subjects, and their right to defend them by force of arms 492
Preliminary remarks on the impolicy and injustice to many thousands on both sides of the Atlantic of the Declaration of Independence 493
The pure and exalted character of the advocates of Colonial rights, and high eulogy upon them and their descendants, by the Earls of Chatham and Shelburne, both of whom were opposed to the separation of the Colonies from the mother country 494
Homage to the motives and patriotism of the fathers of American Independence; the provocation which they had received; the successes of the Colonists on the field of battle before the Declaration of Independence, and their disasters afterwards; but for having committed themselves to such Declaration, they would to all appearance have obtained within a twelvemonth all they had desired, without the shedding of blood, without the unnatural alliance with France, much less a war of seven years 495
I. The Declaration of Independence a renunciation of all the principles on which the General Congress, Provincial Legislatures and Convention professed to act from the beginning of the contest; proofs and illustrations 496
II. The Declaration of Independence was a violation of good faith to those statesmen and numerous other parties in England who had, in and out of Parliament, defended and supported the rights and character of the Colonies during the whole contest; proofs and illustrations 499
III. The Declaration of Independence was also a violation, not only of good faith, but of justice to the numerous Colonists who adhered to connexion with the mother country; proofs and illustrations 501
IV. The Declaration of the 4th of July, 1776, was the commencement of persecutions and proscriptions and confiscation of property against those who refused to renounce the oaths which they had taken, as well as the principles and traditions which had until then been professed by their persecutors and oppressors as well as by themselves; proofs and illustrations 504
The plea of tyranny (in a note) 504
Numbers, character, and position of Loyalists at the time, as stated by American writers; laws passed against them 504
The beneficial results of the Congress had it adhered to the former principles of its members, and acted justly to all parties 507
V. The Declaration of Independence was the commencement of weakness in the army of its authors, and of defeats in their field of battle; proofs and illustrations 508
VI. The Declaration of Independence was the avowed expedient and prelude for an alliance with France and Spain against the Mother Country; proofs and illustrations; the secret and double game played between the Congress and France, both before and after the Declaration of Independence 513
LOYALISTS OF AMERICA
AND
THEIR TIMES.
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION.--TWO CLASSES OF EMIGRANTS--TWO GOVERNMENTS FOR SEVENTY YEARS--THE "PILGRIM FATHERS"--THEIR PILGRIMAGES AND SETTLEMENT.
In proceeding to trace the development and characteristics of Puritanism in an English colony, I beg to remark that I write, not as an Englishman, but as a Canadian colonist by birth and life-long residence, and as an early and constant advocate of those equal rights, civil and religious, and that system of government in the enjoyment of which Canada is conspicuous.
In tracing the origin and development of those views and feelings which culminated in the American Revolution, in the separation of thirteen colonies from Great Britain, it is necessary to notice the early settlement and progress of those New England colonies in which the seeds of that revolution were first sown and grew to maturity.
The colonies of New England resulted from two distinct emigrations of English Puritans; two classes of Puritans; two distinct governments for more than sixty years. The one class of these emigrants were called "Pilgrim Fathers," having first fled from England to Holland, and thence emigrated to New England in 1620, in the Mayflower, and called their place of settlement "New Plymouth," where they elected seven Governors in succession, and existed under a self-constituted government for seventy years. The other class were called "Puritan Fathers;" the first instalment of their emigration took place in 1629, under Endicot; they were known as the Massachusetts Bay Company, and their final capital was Boston, which afterwards became the capital of the Province and of the State.
The characteristics of the separate and independent government of these two classes of Puritans were widely different. The one was tolerant and non-persecuting, and loyal to the King during the whole period of its seventy years' existence; the other was an intolerant persecutor of all religionists who did not adopt its worship, and disloyal from the beginning to the Government from which it held its Charter.
It is essential to my purpose to compare and contrast the proceedings of these two governments in relation to religious liberty and loyalty. I will first give a short account of the origin and government of the "Pilgrim Fathers" of New Plymouth, and then the government of the "Puritan Fathers" of Massachusetts Bay.[1]
In the later years of Queen Elizabeth, a "fiery young clergyman," named Robert Brown, declared against the lawfulness of both Episcopal and Presbyterian Church government, or of fellowship with either Episcopalians or Presbyterians, and in favour of the absolute independence of each congregation, and the ordination as well as selection of the minister by it. This was the origin of the Independents in England. The zeal of Brown, like that of most violent zealots, soon cooled, and he returned and obtained a living again in the Church of England, which he possessed until his death; but his principles of separation and independence survived. The first congregation was formed about the year 1602, near the confines of York, Nottingham, and Leicester, and chose for its pastor John Robinson. They gathered for worship secretly, and were compelled to change their places of meeting in order to elude the pursuit of spies and soldiers. After enduring many cruel sufferings, Robinson, with the greater part of his congregation, determined to escape persecution by becoming pilgrims in a foreign land. The doctrines of Arminius, and the advocacy and sufferings of his followers in the cause of religious liberty, together with the spirit of commerce, had rendered the Government of Holland the most tolerant in Europe; and thither Robinson and his friends fled from their persecuting pursuers in 1608, and finally settled at Leyden. Being Independents, they did not form a connection with any of the Protestant Churches of the country. Burke remarks that "In Holland, though a country of the greatest religious freedom in the world, they did not find themselves better satisfied than they had been in England. There they were tolerated, indeed, but watched; their zeal began to have dangerous languors for want of opposition; and being without power or consequence, they grew tired of the indolent security of their sanctuary; they chose to remove to a place where they should see no superior, and therefore they sent an agent to England, who agreed with the Council of Plymouth for a tract of land in America, within their jurisdiction, to settle in, and obtained from the King (James) permission to do so."[2]
During their twelve years' pilgrimage in Holland they were good citizens; not an accusation was brought against any one of them in the courts; they were honourable and industrious, and took to new trades for subsistence. Brewster, a man of property, and a gentleman in England, learned to be a printer at the age of forty-five. Bradford, who had been a farmer in England, became a silk-dyer. Robinson became noted as a preacher and controversialist against Arminianism.
Bradford, the historian of their colony and its Governor for eleven years, gives the chief reasons for their dispute in Holland and of their desire to remove to America.[3]
As to what particular place these Pilgrims should select for settlement in America, some were for Guiana, some for Virginia; but they at length obtained a patent from the second or Northern Virginia Company for a settlement on the northern part of their territory, which extended to the fortieth degree of North latitude--Hutchinson Bay. "The Dutch laboured to persuade them to go to the Hudson river, and settle under the West India Company; but they had not lost their affection for the English, and chose to be under their government and protection."[4] Bancroft, after quoting the statement that "upon their talking of removing, sundry of the Dutch would have them go under them, and made them large offers," remarks: "But the Pilgrims were attached to their nationality as Englishmen, and to the language of their times. A secret but deeply-seated love of their country led them to the generous purpose of recovering the protection of England by enlarging her dominions. They were restless with the desire to live once more under the government of their native land."[5] It appears from Bradford's History, as well as from his Letter Book, and other narratives, that there were serious disputes and recriminations among the Pilgrim exiles and their friends in England, before matters could be arranged for their departure. But only "the minor part [of Robinson's congregation], with Mr. Brewster, their elder, resolved to enter upon this great work." They embarked at Delft Haven, a seaport town on the River Maeser, eight miles from Delft, fourteen miles from Leyden, and thirty-six miles from Amsterdam. The last port from which they sailed in England was Southampton; and after a tempestuous passage of 65 days, in the Mayflower, of 181 tons, with 101 passengers, they spied land, which proved to be Cape Cod--about 150 miles north of their intended place of destination. The pilot of the vessel had been there before and recognised the land as Cape Cod; "the which," says Bradford, "being made and certainly known to be it, they were not a little joyful."[6] But though the Pilgrims were "not a little joyful" at safely reaching the American coast, and at a place so well known as Cape Cod; yet as that was not their intended place of settlement, they, without landing, put again to sea for Hudson river (New York), but were driven back by stress of weather, and, on account of the lateness of the season, determined not to venture out to sea again, but to seek a place of settlement within the harbour.
As the Pilgrims landed north of the limits of the Company from which they received their patent, and under which they expected to become a "body politic," it became to them "void and useless." This being known, some of the emigrants on board the Mayflower began to make "mutinous speeches," saying that "when they came ashore they would use their own liberty, for none had power to command them." Under these circumstances it was thought necessary to "begin with a combination, which might be as firm as any patent, and in some respects more so." Accordingly, an agreement was drawn up and signed in the cabin of the Mayflower by forty-one male passengers, who with their families constituted the whole colony of one hundred and one.[7] Having thus provided against disorder and faction, the Pilgrims proceeded to land, when, as Bradford says, they "fell upon their knees and blessed the God of heaven who had brought them over the vast and furious ocean, and delivered them from all the perils and miseries thereof, again to set their feet on the firm and stable earth, their proper element."[8] Of the manner of their settlement, their exposures, sufferings, labours, successes, I leave the many ordinary histories to narrate, though they nearly all revel in the marvellous.[9]
I will therefore proceed to give a brief account of the Plymouth government in relation to religious liberty within its limits and loyalty to the Mother Country.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: From the nature of the facts and questions discussed, the following history is largely documentary rather than popular; and the work being an historical argument rather than a popular narrative, will account for repetitions in some chapters, that the vital facts of the whole argument may be kept as constantly as possible before the mind of the reader.]
[Footnote 2: Burke's (the celebrated Edmund) Account of European Settlements in America. Second Edition, London, 1758, Vol. II., p. 143.]
[Footnote 3: Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation, pp. 22-24. Massachusetts Historical Collection, 4th Series, Vol. III.]
[Footnote 4: History of Massachusetts, Vol. I., pp. 11, 12.]
[Footnote 5: History of the United States, Vol. I., p. 304.]
[Footnote 6: Many American writers and orators represent the Pilgrims as first finding themselves on an unknown as well as inhospitable coast, amidst shoals and breakers, in danger of shipwreck and death. But this is all fancy; there is no foundation for it in the statement of Governor Bradford, who was one of the passengers, and who says that they were "not a little joyful" when they found certainly that the land was Cape Cod; and afterwards, speaking of their coasting in the neighbourhood, Bradford says, "They hasted to a place that their pilot (one Willm. Coppin, who had been there before) did assure them was a good harbour, which he had been in." (History of Plymouth Plantation, p. 86.) They did not even go ashore on their first entrance into Cape Cod harbour; but, as Bradford says, "after some deliberation among themselves and with the master of the ship, they tacked about and resolved to stand for the southward, to find some place about Hudson river for their habitation." (Ib., p. 117.) "After sailing southward half a day, they found themselves suddenly among shoals and breakers" (a ledge of rocks and shoals which are a terror to navigators to this day); and the wind shifting against them, they scud back to Cape Cod, and, as Bradford says, "thought themselves happy to get out of those dangers before night overtook them, and the next day they got into the Cape harbour, where they rode in safety. Being thus arrived in a good harbour, and brought safe to land, they fell upon their knees and blessed the God of heaven," &c.
The selection, before leaving England, of the neighbourhood of the Hudson river as their location, showed a worldly sagacity not to be exceeded by any emigrants even of the present century. Bancroft designates it "the best position on the whole coast." (History of the United States, Vol. I., p. 209.)]
[Footnote 7: The agreement was as follows:--"In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c., having undertaken, for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith, and honour of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of [then called] Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and of one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation, and furthermore of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most mete and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the 18th year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620." Mr. John Carver was chosen Governor for one year.
This simple and excellent instrument of union and government, suggested by apprehensions of disorder and anarchy, in the absence of a patent for common protection, has been magnified by some American writers into an almost supernatural display of wisdom and foresight, and even the resurrection of the rights of humanity. Bancroft says, "This was the birth of popular constitutional liberty. The middle ages had been familiar with charters and constitutions; but they had been merely compacts for immunities, partial enfranchisements, patents of nobility, concessions of municipal privileges, or the limitations of sovereign in favour of feudal institutions. In the cabin of the Mayflower humanity recorded its rights, and instituted a government on the basis of 'equal laws' for the 'general good.'" (History of the United States, Vol. I, p. 310.)
Now, any reader of the agreement will see that it says not a word about "popular constitutional liberty," much less of the "rights of humanity." It was no Declaration of Independence. Its signers call themselves "loyal subjects of the King of England," and state one object of their emigration to be the "honour of our King and country." The Pilgrim Fathers did, in the course of time, establish a simple system of popular government; but from the written compact signed in the cabin of the Mayflower any form of government might be developed. The good sense of the following remarks by Dr. Young, in his Chronicles of the Pilgrims of Plymouth, contrast favourably with the fanciful hyperboles of Bancroft: "It seems to me that a great deal more has been discovered in this document than the signers contemplated. It is evident that when they left Holland they expected to become a body politic, using among themselves civil government, and to choose their own rulers from among themselves. Their purpose in drawing up and signing this compact was simply, as they state, to restrain certain of their number who had manifested an unruly and factious disposition. This was the whole philosophy of the instrument, whatever may have since been discovered and deduced from it." (p. 120.)]
[Footnote 8: Bradford's History of the Plymouth Plantation, p. 78. "The 31st of December (1620) being Sabbath, they attended Divine service for the first time on shore, and named the place Plymouth, partly because this harbour was so called in Capt. John Smith's map, published three or four years before, and partly in remembrance of very kind treatment which they had received from the inhabitants of the last port of their native country from which they sailed." (Moore's Lives of the Governors of Plymouth, pp. 37, 38.)
The original Indian name of the place was Accomack; but at the time the Pilgrims settled there, an Indian informed them it was called Patuxet. Capt. John Smith's Description of New England was published in 1616. He says, "I took the description as well by map as writing, and called it New England." He dedicated his work to Prince Charles (afterwards King Charles II.), begging him to change the "barbarous names." In the list of names changed by Prince Charles, Accomack (or Patuxet) was altered to Plymouth. Mr. Dermer, employed by Sir F. Gorges and others for purposes of discovery and trade, visited this place about four months before the arrival of the Pilgrims, and significantly said, "I would that Plymouth [in England] had the like commodities. I would that the first plantation might here be seated if there come to the number of fifty persons or upward."]
[Footnote 9: See following Note:--
NOTE on the Inflated American Accounts of the Voyage and Settlement of the Pilgrim Fathers.--Everything relating to the character, voyage, and settlement of the Pilgrims in New England has been invested with the marvellous, if not supernatural, by most American writers. One of them says, "God not only sifted the three kingdoms to get the seed of this enterprise, but sifted that seed over again. Every person whom He would not have go at that time, to plant the first colony of New England, He sent back even from mid-ocean in the Speedwell." (Rev. Dr. Cheever's Journal of the Pilgrims.)
The simple fact was, that the Mayflower could not carry any more passengers than she brought, and therefore most of the passengers of the Speedwell, which was a vessel of 50 tons and proved to be unseaworthy, were compelled to remain until the following year, and came over in the Fortune; and among these Robert Cushman, with his family, one of the most distinguished and honoured of the Pilgrim Fathers. And there was doubtless as good "seed" in "the three kingdoms" after this "sifting" of them for the New England enterprise as there was before.
In one of his speeches, the late eloquent Governor Everett, of Massachusetts, describes their voyage as the "long, cold, dreary autumnal passage, in that one solitary, adventurous vessel, the Mayflower of forlorn hope, freighted with prospects of a future state, and bound across the unknown sea, pursuing, with a thousand misgivings, the uncertain, the tedious voyage, suns rise and set, and winter surprises them on the deep, but brings them not the sight of the wished-for shore. The awful voice of the storm howls through the rigging. The labouring masts seem straining from their base; the dismal sound of the pumps is heard; the ship leaps, as it were, madly from billow to billow; the ocean breaks, and settles with engulfing floods over the floating deck, and beats with deadening, shivering weight against the staggering vessel."
It is difficult to imagine how "winter" could surprise passengers crossing the ocean between the 6th of September and the 9th of November--a season of the year much chosen even nowadays for crossing the Atlantic. It is equally difficult to conceive how that could have been an "unknown sea" which had been crossed and the New England coasts explored by Gosnold, Smith, Dermer and others (all of whom had published accounts of their voyage), besides more than a dozen fishing vessels which had crossed this very year to obtain fish and furs in the neighbourhood and north of Cape Cod. Doubtless often the "suns rose and set" upon these vessels without their seeing the "wished-for shore;" and probably more than once, "the awful voice of the storm howled through their rigging," and "the dismal sound of their pumps was heard," and they "madly leaped from billow to billow," and "staggered under the deadening, shivering weight of the broken ocean," and with its "engulfing floods" over their "floating decks." The Mayflower was a vessel of 180 tons burden--more than twice as large as any of the vessels in which the early English, French, and Spanish discoverers of America made their voyages--much larger than most of the vessels employed in carrying emigrants to Virginia during the previous ten years--more than three times as large as the ship Fortune, of 53 tons, which crossed the ocean the following year, and arrived at Plymouth also the 9th of November, bringing Mr. Cushman and the rest of the passengers left by the Speedwell the year before. Gosnold had crossed the ocean and explored the eastern coasts of America in 1602 in a "small bark;" Martin Pring had done the same in 1603 in the bark Discovery, of 26 tons; Frobisher, in northern and dangerous coasts, in a vessel of 25 tons burden; and two of the vessels of Columbus were from 15 to 30 tons burden, and without decks on which to "float" the "engulfing floods" under which the Mayflower "staggered" so marvellously. All these vessels long preceded the Mayflower across the "unknown ocean;" but never inspired the lofty eloquence which Mr. Everett and a host of inferior rhapsodists have bestowed upon the Mayflower and her voyage. Bancroft fills several pages of his elaborate history to the same effect, and in similar style with the passages above quoted. I will give a single sentence, as follows:--"The Pilgrims having selected for their settlement the country near the Hudson, the best position on the whole coast, were conducted to the most barren and inhospitable part of Massachusetts." (History of the United States, Vol. 1., p. 309.)
There was certainly little self-abnegation, but much sound and worldly wisdom, in the Pilgrims selecting "the best position on the whole coast" of America for their settlement; and there is as little truth in the statement, though a good antithesis--the delight of Mr. Bancroft--that the Pilgrims were conducted to "the most barren and inhospitable part of Massachusetts" for "actual settlement," as appears from the descriptions given of it by Governors Winslow and Bradford and other Pilgrim Fathers, written after the first and during the subsequent years of their settlement. I will give but two illustrations. Mr. Winslow was one of the passengers in the Mayflower, and was, by annual election, several years Governor of the Plymouth colony. It has been stated above that the ship Fortune, of 53 tons burden, brought in the autumn of 1621 the Pilgrim passengers who had been left in England the year before by the sea-unworthiness of the Speedwell. The Fortune anchored in Plymouth Bay the 9th of November--just a year from the day on which the Mayflower spied the land of Cape Cod. Mr. Winslow prepared and sent back by the Fortune an elaborate "Relation" of the state and prospects of the colony, for the information of the merchant adventurers and others in England. He describes the climate, soil, and all the resources of the colony's means of support, together with the process and result of the first year's labour. I will simply give his account of the manner in which they celebrated what in England would be called a "Harvest Home." He says: "Our harvest being got in, our Governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might, after a more special manner, rejoice together after we had gathered the fruit of our labours. They four in a day killed as much fowl as, with little help besides, served the company almost a week; at which time, amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms. Many of the Indians came amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest king, Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted; and they went out and killed fine deer, which they brought to the Plantation, and bestowed them on our Governor, and upon the Captain and others; and although it be not always so plentiful with us, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty."
Governor Bradford, writing in 1646, twenty-five years after this feast, and referring to it, says: "Nor has there been any general want of food amongst us since to this day." (Morton's Memorials, p. 100.)
Such was the result of the first year's experience in this chosen place of settlement by the first New England colony, as stated by the most distinguished of its founders. During the winter of this year more than half the pioneer settlers had died of a prevalent sickness,--not owing to the climate, but their sea voyage, their want of experience, and to temporary circumstances, for not a death occurred amongst them during the three succeeding years. As great as was the mortality amongst the noble colonists of New England, it was far less, comparatively, than that which fell upon the first colonists of Virginia, who were, also, more than once almost annihilated by the murderous incursions of the Indians, but from whom the Pilgrim Fathers did not suffer the loss of a life.
In his "true and brief Relation," Mr. Winslow says: "For the temper of the air here, it agreeth well with that in England; and if there be any difference at all, this is somewhat hotter in summer. Some think it colder in winter, but I cannot out of experience say so. The air is very clear and foggy, not as hath been reported. I never in my life remember a more seasonable year than we have here enjoyed."
Mr. Winslow's doubt as to whether the cold of his first winter in New England exceeded that of the ordinary winters which he had passed in England, refutes the fictitious representations of many writers, who to magnify the virtues and merits of the Plymouth colonists, describe them as braving, with a martyr's courage, the appalling cold of an almost Arctic winter--a winter which enabled the new settlers to commence their gardens the 16th of March, and they add in their Journal: "Monday and Tuesday, March 19th and 20th, proved fair days. We digged our grounds and sowed our garden seeds."
Not one of the American United Empire Loyalists--the Pilgrim Fathers of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick--could tell of a winter in the countries of their refuge, so mild, and a spring so early and genial, as that which favoured the Pilgrim Fathers of New England during their first year of settlement; nor had any settlement of the Canadian Pilgrim Fathers been able to command the means of celebrating the first "Harvest Home" by a week's festivity and amusements, and entertaining, in addition, ninety Indians for three days.]
Chapter II
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PILGRIM[10] FATHERS DURING SEVENTY YEARS, FROM 1620 TO 1692, AS DISTINCT FROM THAT OF THE PURITAN FATHERS.
TWO GOVERNMENTS.--Difference between the Government of the Pilgrims and that of the Puritans.--Most historians, both English and American, have scarcely or not at all noticed the fact that within the present State of Massachusetts two separate governments of Puritan emigrants were established and existed for seventy years--two governments as distinct as those of Upper and Lower Canada from 1791 to 1840--as distinct as those of any two States of the American Republic. It is quite natural that American historians should say nothing of the Pilgrim government, beyond the voyage and landing of its founders, as it was a standing condemnation of the Puritan government, on which they bestow all their eulogies. The two governments were separated by the Bay of Massachusetts, about forty miles distant from each other by water, but still more widely different from each other in spirit and character. The government of the Pilgrims was marked from the beginning by a full and hearty recognition of franchise rights to all settlers of the Christian faith; the government of the Puritans denied those rights to all but Congregational Church members for sixty years, and until they were compelled to do otherwise by Royal Charter in 1692. The government of the Pilgrims was just and kind to the Indians, and early made a treaty with the neighbouring tribes, which remained inviolate on both sides during half a century, from 1621 to 1675; the government of the Puritans maddened the Indians by the invasion of their rights, and destroyed them by multitudes, almost to entire extermination. The government of the Pilgrims respected the principles of religious liberty (which they had learned and imbibed in Holland), did not persecute those who differed from it in religious opinions,[11] and gave protection to many who fled from the persecutions of neighbouring Puritans' government, which was more intolerant and persecuting to those who differed from it in religious opinions than that of James, and Charles, and Laud had ever been to them. The government of the Pilgrims was frank and loyal to the Sovereign and people of England; the government of the Puritans was deceptive and disloyal to the Throne and Mother Country from the first, and sedulously sowed and cultivated the seeds of disaffection and hostility to the Royal government, until they grew and ripened into the harvest of the American revolution.
These statements will be confirmed and illustrated by the facts of the present and following chapters.
The compact into which the Pilgrims entered before landing from the Mayflower, was the substitute for the body politic which would have been organized by charter had they settled, as first intended, within the limits of the Northern Virginia Company. The compact specified no constitution of government beyond that of authority on the one hand, and submission on the other; but under it the Governors were elected annually, and the local laws were enacted during eighteen years by the general meetings of the settlers, after which a body of elected representatives was constituted.
The first official record of the election of any Governor was in 1633, thirteen years after their settlement at Plymouth; but, according to the early history of the Pilgrims, the Governors were elected annually from 1620. The Governors of the colony were as follows:--
1. John Carver, in 1620, who died a few months afterwards;
2. William Bradford, 1621 to 1632, 1635, 1637, 1639 to 1643, 1645 to 1656;
3. Edward Winslow, 1633, 1636, 1644;
4. Thomas Prince, 1634, 1638, 1657 to 1672;
5. Josiah Winslow, 1673 to 1680;
6. Thomas Hinckley, 1681 to 1692;[12]
when the colony of Plymouth[13] (which had never increased in population beyond 13,000) was incorporated with that of Massachusetts Bay, under the name of the Province of Massachusetts, by Royal Charter under William and Mary, and by which religious liberty and the elective franchise were secured to all freeholders of forty shillings per annum, instead of being confined to members of the Congregational Churches, as had been the case down to that period under the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay--so that equal civil and religious liberty among all classes was established in Massachusetts, not by the Puritans, but by Royal Charter, against the practice of the Puritans from 1631 to 1692.
The government of the Pilgrims was of the most simple kind. At first the Governor, with one assistant, was elected annually by general suffrage; but in 1624, at the request of Governor Bradford, a Council of five assistants (increased to seven in 1633) was annually elected. In this Court, or Executive Council, the Governor had a double vote. In the third year, 1623, trial by jury was established. During eighteen years, from 1620 to 1638, the legislative body, called the General Court, or Court of Associates, was composed of the whole body of freemen. It was not until 1639 that they established a House of Representatives. The qualifications of a freeman were, that he "should be twenty-one years of age, of sober, peaceable conversation, orthodox in religion [which included belief in God and the Holy Scriptures, but did not include any form of Church government], and possess rateable estate to the value of twenty pounds."
In 1636--sixteen years after their landing at New Plymouth--the laws which they had enacted were first collected, prefaced by a declaration of their right to enact them, in the absence of a Royal Charter. Their laws were at various times revised and added to, and finally printed in 1671, under the title of "Their Great Fundamentals." They recognized the general laws of England, and adopted local statutes or regulations according to what they considered their needs.[14] Of their sense of duty as British subjects, and of the uniform mutual relations of friendship existing between them and their Sovereigns, their records and history furnish abundant proofs. The oath required of their Governors commenced in the following words: "You shall swear to be truly loyal to our Sovereign Lord King Charles, his successors and heirs." "At the Court held," (says the record,) "at Plymouth, the 11th of June, 1664, the following was added, and the Governor took the oath thereunto: 'You shall also attend to what is required by His Majesty's Privy Council of the Governors of the respective colonies in reference unto an Act of Parliament for the encouraging and increasing of shipping and navigation, bearing date from the 1st of December, 1660.'"
The oath of a freeman commenced with the same words, as did the oath of the "Assistants" or Executive Councillors, the oath of constables and other officers in the colony. It was likewise ordered, "That an oath of allegiance to the King and fidelity to the Government and to the several colonies [settlements] therein, be taken of every person that shall live within or under the same." This was as follows: "You shall be truly loyal to our Sovereign Lord the King and his heirs and successors: and whereas you make choice at present to reside within the government of New Plymouth, you shall not do or cause to be done any act or acts, directly or indirectly, by land or water, that shall or may tend to the destruction or overthrow of the whole or any of the several colonies [settlements] within the said government that are or shall be orderly erected or established; but shall, contrariwise, hinder, oppose and discover such intents and purposes as tend thereunto to the Governor for the time being, or some one of the assistants, with all convenient speed. You shall also submit unto and obey such good and wholesome laws, ordinances and officers as are or shall be established within the several limits thereof. So help you God, who is the God of truth and punisher of falsehood."
The Government of Plymouth prefaced the revised collection of their laws and ordinances as follows:
"A form to be placed before the records of the several inheritances granted to all and every of the King's subjects inhabiting with the Government of New Plymouth:
"Whereas John Carver, William Bradford, Edward Winslow, William Brewster, Isaack Alliston and divers others of the subjects of our late Sovereign Lord James, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c., did in the eighteenth year of his reigne of England, France and Ireland, and of Scotland the fifty-four, which was the year of our Lord God 1620, undertake a voyage into that part of America called Virginia or New England, thereunto adjoining, there to erect a plantation and colony of English, intending the glory of God and the enlargement of his Majesty's dominions, and the special good of the English nation."
Thus the laws and ordinances of the Plymouth Government, and the oaths of office from the Governor to the constable, freeman and transient resident, recognize their duty as British subjects, and breathe a spirit of pure loyalty to their Sovereign. The only reference I find in their records to the Commonwealth of England is the following declaration, made in 1658, the last year of Cromwell's government. It is the preface to the collection of the General Laws, revised and published Sept. 29, 1658, and is as follows:
"We, the associates of New Plymouth, coming hither as freeborn subjects of the State of England, endowed with all the privileges belonging to such, being assembled, do ordain, constitute and enact that no act, imposition, laws or ordinances be made or imposed on us at present or to come, but such as shall be made and imposed by consent of the body of the associates or their representatives legally assembled, which is according to the free libertie of the State of England."
At the first annual meeting of the Plymouth House of Representatives after the restoration of Charles the Second, the following declaration and order was made:
"Whereas we are certainly informed that it hath pleased God to establish our Sovereign Lord King Charles the Second in the enjoyment of his undoubted rights to the Crowns of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, and is so declared and owned by his good subjects of these kingdoms; We therefore, his Majesty's loyal subjects, the inhabitants of the jurisdiction of New Plymouth, do hereby declare our free and ready concurrence with such other of his Majesty's subjects, and to his said Majesty, his heirs and successors, we do most humbly and faithfully submit and oblige ourselves for ever. God save the King.
"June the fifth, Anno Dom. 1661.
"The fifth day of June, 1661, Charles the Second, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, &c., was solemnly proclaimed at Plymouth, in New England, in America." (This the Puritan Government of Massachusetts Bay refused to do.)
On the accession of James the Second we find the following entry in the Plymouth records: "The twenty fourth of April, 1685, James the Second, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, &c., was solemnly proclaimed at Plymouth according to the form required by his Majesty's most honourable Privy Council."
After the Revolution of 1688 in England, there is the following record of the proceedings of the Legislature of the Plymouth colony--proceedings in which testimony is borne by the colonists of the uniformly kind treatment they had received from the Government of England, except during a short interval under the three years' reign of James the Second:
"At their Majesties' General Court of Election, held at Plymouth on the first Tuesday in June, 1689.
"Whereas, through the great changes Divine Providence hath ordered out, both in England and in this country, we the loyal subjects of the Crown of England are left in an unsettled estate, destitute of government and exposed to the ill consequences thereof: and having heretofore enjoyed a quiet settlement of government in this their Majesties' colony of New Plymouth for more than threescore and six years, without any interruptions; having also been by the late kings of England from time to time, by their royal letters, graciously owned and acknowledged therein: whereby, notwithstanding our late unjust interruption and suspension therefrom by the illegal arbitrary power of Sir Edmond Andros, now ceased, the General Court held there in the name of their present Majesties William and Mary, King and Queen of England, &c., together with the encouragement given by their said Majesties' gracious declarations and in humble confidence of their said Majesties' good liking: do therefore hereby resume and declare their reassuming of their said former way of government, according to such wholesome constitutions, rules and orders as were here in force in June, 1686, our title thereto being warranted by prescription and otherwise as aforesaid; and expect a ready submission thereunto by all their Majesties' good subjects of this colony, until their Majesties or this Court shall otherwise order; and that all our Courts be hereafter held and all warrants directed and officers sworn in the name of their Majesties William and Mary, King and Queen of England, &c.
"The General Court request the Honourable Governor, Thomas Hinckley, Esq., in behalf of said Court and Colony of New Plymouth, to make their address to their Majesties the King and Queen of England, &c., for the re-establishment of their former enjoyed liberties and privileges, both sacred and civil."
We have thus the testimony of the Plymouth colony itself that there was no attempt on the part of either Charles the First or Second to interfere with the fullest exercise of their own chosen form of worship, or with anything which they themselves regarded as their civil rights. If another course of proceedings had to be adopted in regard to the Puritan Government of Massachusetts Bay, it was occasioned by their own conduct, as will appear hereafter. Complaints were made by colonists to England of the persecuting and unjust conduct of the Puritan Government, and inquiries were ordered in 1646, 1664, 1678, and afterwards. The nature and result of these inquiries will be noticed hereafter. At present I will notice the first Commission sent out by Charles the Second, in 1664, and which was made general to the several colonies, to avoid invidious distinction, though caused by complaints against the conduct of the Puritan Government of Massachusetts Bay. The Commissioners proposed four questions to the Governments of the several colonies of New England. I will give the questions, or rather propositions, and the answers to them on the part of the Pilgrim Government of Plymouth, as contained in its printed records:--
"_The Propositions made by His Majesty's Commissioners to the General Court of (New Plymouth), held at Plymouth, for the jurisdiction of New Plymouth, the 22nd of February, Anno Dom. 1665._
"1. That all householders inhabiting in the colony take the oath of allegiance, and the administration of justice be in his Majesty's name.
"2. That all men of competent estates and civil conversation, though of different judgments, may be admitted to be freemen, and have liberty to choose and to be chosen officers, both civil and military.
"3. That all men and women of orthodox opinions, competent knowledge and civil lives (not scandalous), may be admitted to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and their children to baptism if they desire it; either by admitting them into the congregation already gathered, or permitting them to gather themselves into such congregations, where they may have the benefit of the sacraments.
"4. That all laws and expressions in laws derogatory to his Majesty, if any such have been made in these late troublesome times, may be repealed, altered, and taken off from the file."
THE COURT'S ANSWER.
"1. To the first we consent, it having been the practice of this Court, in the first place, to insert in the oath of fidelity required of every householder, to be truly loyal to our Sovereign Lord the King, his heirs and successors. Also to administer all acts of justice in his Majesty's name.
"2. To the second we also consent, it having been our constant practice to admit men of competent estates and civil conversation, though of different judgments, yet being otherwise orthodox, to be freemen, and to have liberty to choose and be chosen officers, both civil and military.
"3. To the third, we cannot but acknowledge it to be a high favour from God and from our Sovereign, that we may enjoy our consciences in point of God's worship, the main end of transplanting ourselves into these remote corners of the earth, and should most heartily rejoice that all our neighbours so qualified as in that proposition would adjoin themselves to our societies, according to the order of the Gospel, for enjoyment of the sacraments to themselves and theirs; but if, through different persuasions respecting Church government, it cannot be obtained, we could not deny a liberty to any, according to the proposition, that are truly conscientious, although differing from us, especially where his Majesty commands it, they maintaining an able preaching ministry for the carrying on of public Sabbath worship, which we doubt not is his Majesty's intent, and withdrawing not from paying their due proportions of maintenance to such ministers as are orderly settled in the places where they live, until they have one of their own, and that in such places as are capable of maintaining the worship of God in two distinct congregations, we being greatly encouraged by his Majesty's gracious expressions in his letter to us, and your Honours' further assurance of his Royal purpose to continue our liberties, that where places, by reason of our paucity and poverty, are incapable of two, it is not intended, that such congregations as are already in being should be rooted out, but their liberties preserved, there being other places to accommodate men of different persuasions in societies by themselves, which, by our known experience, tends most to the preservation of peace and charity.
"4. To the fourth, we consent that all laws and expressions in laws derogatory to his Majesty, if any sect shall be formed amongst us, which at present we are not conscious of, shall be repealed, altered, and taken off from the file.
"By order of the General Court For the jurisdiction of New Plymouth, Per me, NATHANIEL MORTON, Secretary."
"The league between the four colonies was not with any intent, that ever we heard of, to cast off our dependence upon England, a thing which we utterly abhor, intreating your Honours to believe us, for we speak in the presence of God."
"NEW PLYMOUTH, May 4th, 1665.
"The Court doth order Mr. Constant Southworth, Treasurer, to present these to his Majesty's Commissioners, at Boston, with all convenient speed."
The above propositions and answers are inserted, with some variations, in Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts, Vol. I., p. 214. The remark respecting the union between the colonies is not on the colony records--it was inserted at the close of the copy delivered to the Commissioners, in conformity to a letter from the Commissioners, written to Governor Prince after they had left Plymouth. The conditions expressed in the answer to the third proposition appeared so reasonable to the Commissioners, that when they afterward met the General Assembly of Connecticut, in April, 1663, their third proposition is qualified, in substance, conformably to the Plymouth reply. (Morton's Memorial, Davis' Ed., p. 417.)
It is thus seen that there was not the least desire on the part of King Charles the Second, any more than there had been on the part of Charles the First, to impose the Episcopal worship upon the colonists, or to interfere in the least with their full liberty of worship, according to their own preferences. All that was desired at any time was toleration and acknowledgment of the authority of the Crown, such as the Plymouth colony and that of Connecticut had practised from the beginning, to the great annoyance of the Puritans of Massachusetts.
Several letters and addresses passed between Charles the Second and the Pilgrim Government of Plymouth, and all of the most cordial character on both sides; but what is given above supersedes the necessity of further quotations.[15]
It was an object of special ambition with the Government of Plymouth to have a Royal Charter like those of Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, instead of holding their land, acting under a Charter from the Plymouth Council (England) and Charles the Second. In his last address to Mr. Josiah Winslow, their Governor promised it to them in most explicit terms; but there was a case of quo warranto pending in the Court of King's Bench against the Puritan Government for the violation of their Charter, which delayed the issuing of a Royal Charter to Plymouth. Charles died soon after;[16] the Charter of the Massachusetts Corporation was forfeited by the decision of the Court, and James the Second appointed a Royal Governor and a Royal Commissioner, which changed for the time being the whole face of things in New England.
It, however, deserves notice, that the Massachusetts Puritans, true to their instinct of encroaching upon the rights of others, whether of the King or of their neighbours, white or tawny, did all in their power to prevent the Pilgrims of Plymouth--the pioneers of settlement and civilization in New England--from obtaining a Royal Charter. This they did first in 1630, again in the early part of Charles the Second's reign, and yet again towards its end. Finally, after the cancelling of the Massachusetts Charter, and the English Revolution of 1688, the agents of the more powerful and populous Massachusetts colony succeeded in getting the colony of Plymouth absorbed into that of Massachusetts Bay by the second Royal Charter granted by William and Mary in 1692. "The junction of Plymouth with Massachusetts," says Moore, "destroyed all the political consequence of the former. The people of Plymouth shared but few favours which the new Government had to bestow, and it was seldom indeed that any resident of what was termed the old colony obtained any office of distinction in the Provisional Government, or acquired any influence in its councils."[17]
This seems a melancholy termination of the Government of the Pilgrims--a princely race of men, who voluntarily braved the sufferings of a double exile for the sake of what they believed to be the truth and the glory of God; whose courage never failed, nor their loyalty wavered amidst all their privations and hardships; who came to America to enjoy religious liberty and promote the honour of England, not to establish political independence, and granted that liberty to others which they earned and had suffered so much to enjoy themselves; who were honourable and faithful to their treaty engagements with the aborigines as they were in their communications with the Throne; who never betrayed a friend or fled from an enemy; who left imperishable footprints of their piety and industry, as well as of their love of liberty and law, though their self-originated and self-sustained polity perished at length, by royal forgetfulness and credulity, to the plausible representations and ambitious avarice of their ever aggressive Massachusetts Puritan neighbours.
While the last act of the Pilgrims before leaving the Mayflower, in the harbour of Cape Cod, was to enter into a compact of local self-government for common protection and interests, and their first act on landing at New Plymouth was, on bended knees, to commend themselves and their settlement to the Divine protection and blessing, it is a touching fact that the last official act of the General Assembly of the colony was to appoint a day of solemn fasting and humiliation on the extinction of their separate government and their absorption into that of Massachusetts Bay.
It was among the sons and daughters of the Plymouth colony that almost the only loyalty in New England during the American Revolution of the following century was found. Most of the descendants of Edward Winslow, and of his more distinguished son, Josiah Winslow, were loyalists during that revolution.[18] In the councils of the mother country, the merits of the posterity of the Pilgrims have been acknowledged; as in her service some of them, by their talents and courage, have won their way to eminence. Among the proudest names in the British navy are the descendants of the original purchaser of Mattapoisett, in Swansey (William Brenton, afterwards Governor of Rhode Island);[19] to the distinguished title of one of the English peerage is attached the name of one of the early settlers of Scituate, in the Plymouth colony (William Vassall, who settled there in 1635.)[20]
"In one respect," says Moore, "the people of the Old Colony present a remarkable exception to the rest of America. They are the purest English race in the world; there is scarcely an intermixture even with the Scotch or Irish, and none with the aboriginals. Almost all the present population are descended from the original English settlers. Many of them still own the lands which their early ancestors rescued from the wilderness; and although they have spread themselves in every direction through this wide continent, from the peninsula of Nova Scotia to the Gulf of Mexico, some one of the family has generally remained to cultivate the soil which was owned by his ancestors. The fishermen and the navigators of Maine, the children of Plymouth, still continue the industrious and bold pursuits of their forefathers. In that fine country, beginning at Utica, in the State of New York, and stretching to Lake Erie, this race may be found on every hill and in every valley, on the rivers and on the lakes. The emigrant from the sandbanks of Cape Cod revels in the profusion of the opulence of Ohio. In all the Southern and South-Western States, the natives of the "Old Colony," like the Arminians of Asia, may be found in every place where commerce and traffic offer any lure to enterprise; and in the heart of the peninsula of Michigan, like their ancestors they have commenced the cultivation of the wilderness--like them originally, with savage hearts and savage men, and like them patient in suffering, despising danger, and animated with hope."[21]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 10: "The term PILGRIMS belongs exclusively to the Plymouth colonists." (Young's Chronicles of the Pilgrims, p. 88, note.)]
[Footnote 11: The only exception was by Prence, when elected Governor in 1657. He had imbibed the spirit of the Boston Puritans against the Quakers, and sought to infuse his spirit into the minds of his assistants (or executive councillors) and the deputies; but he was stoutly opposed by Josias Winslow and others. The persecution was short and never unto death, as among the Boston Puritans. It was the only stain of persecution upon the rule of the Pilgrims during the seventy years of their separate government, and was nobly atoned for and effaced by Josias Winslow, when elected Governor in the place of Prence.]
[Footnote 12: Massachusetts Historical Collections, 3rd Series, Vol. II., p. 226.]
[Footnote 13: "The colony of Plymouth included the present counties of Plymouth, Barnstaple, and Bristol, and a part of Rhode Island. All the Providence Plantations were at one time claimed by Plymouth. The boundaries between Plymouth and Massachusetts were settled in 1640 by commissioners of the united colonies." (Ib., p. 267.)]
[Footnote 14: The laws they intended to be governed by were the laws of England, the which they were willing to be subject unto, though in a foreign land, and have since that time continued of that mind for the general, adding only some particular municipal laws of their own, suitable to their constitution, in such cases where the common laws and statutes of England could not well reach, or afford them help in emergent difficulties of place. (Hubbard's "General History of New England, from the Discovery to 1680." Massachusetts Historical Collection, 2nd Series, Vol. I., p. 62.)
Palfrey says: "All that is extant of what can properly be called the legislation of the first twelve years of the colony of Plymouth, suffices to cover in print only two pages of an octavo volume." (History of New England, Vol. I., pp. 340, 341.)]
[Footnote 15: "Their residence in Holland had made them acquainted with the various forms of Christianity; a wide experience had emancipated them from bigotry; and they were never betrayed into the excesses of religious persecution, though they sometimes permitted a disproportion between punishment and crime." (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. I., p. 322.)
"The Plymouth Church is free from blood." (Elliott's History of New England, Vol. I., p. 133.)]
[Footnote 16: "Charles the Second, with a spirit that does honour to his reign, at that time meditated important plans for the reformation of New England." (Annals of the Colonies, pp. 88, 89.)]
[Footnote 17: Moore's Lives of the Governors of New Plymouth, p. 228.
The contest between the Pilgrims of Plymouth and the Puritans of Massachusetts, in regard to granting a separate charter to the former, was severe and bitter. The Plymouth Government, by its tolerance and loyalty, had been an "eyesore" to the other intolerant and disloyal Puritans of Massachusetts. Perhaps the Imperial Government of the day thought that the fusion of the two Governments and populations into one would render the new Government more liberal and loyal; but the result proved otherwise.]
[Footnote 18: "Most of his descendants were loyalists during the American Revolution. One of them was the wife of John S. Copley, the celebrated painter, and father of the late Lord Lyndhurst" (Moore.)]
[Footnote 19: Jahleel Brenton, grandson of Governor Wm. Brenton, had twenty-two children. His fourth son, born Oct. 22, 1729, entered the British navy when a youth, distinguished himself and rose to the rank of Admiral. He died in 1802. "His son Jahleel was bred to the sea, rose to be an Admiral, and was knighted in 1810." (Moore's Lives of the Governors of New Plymouth, p. 229.)]
[Footnote 20: In 1650 he removed to the West Indies, where he laid the foundation of several large estates, and where he died, in Barbadoes, in 1655. (Moore, p. 126.) "Thomas Richard, the third Lord Holland, married an heiress by the name of Vassall, and his son, Henry Richard Fox Vassall, is the present Lord Holland, Baron Holland in Lincolnshire, and Foxley in Wilts." (Playfair's British Family Antiquities, Vol. II., p. 182.)]
[Footnote 21: Moore's Lives of the Governors of New Plymouth, pp. 228-230.]
Chapter III
THE PURITANS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY COMPANY AND THEIR GOVERNMENT, COMMENCING IN 1629.
I. FIRST SETTLEMENT--ROYAL CHARTER GRANTED
English Puritanism, transferred from England to the head of Massachusetts Bay in 1629, presents the same characteristics which it developed in England. In Massachusetts it had no competitor; it developed its principles and spirit without restraint; it was absolute in power from 1629 to 1689, and during that sixty years it assumed independence of the Government to which it owed its corporate existence; it made it a penal crime for any emigrant to appeal to England against a local decision of Courts or of Government; it permitted no oath of allegiance to the King, nor the administration of the laws in his name; it allowed no elective franchise to any Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist, Quaker, or Papist. Every non-member of the Congregational Churches was compelled to pay taxes and bear all other Puritan burdens, but was allowed no representation by franchise, much less by eligibility for any office.
It has been seen that the "Pilgrim Fathers" commenced their settlement at New Plymouth in 1620--nine years before the "Puritan Fathers" commenced their settlement on the opposite side of Massachusetts Bay, making Boston their ultimate seat of government. The Pilgrim Fathers and their descendants were professedly congregational separatists from the Church of England; they had fled by stealth, under severe sufferings, from persecution in England to Holland, where they had resided eleven years and upwards, and where they had learned the principles of religious toleration and liberty--the fruit of Dutch Arminian advocacy and suffering. The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Company emigrated directly from England, on leaving which they professed to be members of the Church of England; their emigration commenced in 1628, the very year that Charles the First, having quarrelled with and dissolved the last of three Parliaments in less than four years, commenced his eleven years' rule without a Parliament. During that eleven years a constant current of emigration flowed from England to Massachusetts Bay, to the extent of 13,000, including no less than seventy clergymen of the Church of England, and many men of rank, and wealth to the amount of some £300,000. All these emigrants, or "adventurers," as they were called, left England with a stinging sense of royal and episcopal despotism, and with a corresponding hatred of royalty and episcopacy, but with no conception of the principles of religious toleration or liberty beyond themselves.
During the eight years' interval between the settlement of the Pilgrims at New Plymouth to that of the Puritans at Salem and Boston, trade had largely increased between England and Massachusetts Bay,[22] and the climate, fisheries, furs, timber, and other resources of northern New England became well known, and objects of much interest in England.
King James had divided all that part of North America, 34° and 45° of North latitude, into two grand divisions, bestowing the southern part upon a London Company, and the northern part upon a Company formed in Plymouth and Bristol. The Northern Company resolved to strengthen their interests by obtaining a fresh grant from the King. A new patent was issued reorganizing the Company as the Council for the Affairs of New England, the corporate power of which was to reside at Plymouth, west of England, under the title of the "Grand Council of Plymouth," with a grant of three hundred square miles in New England. The Company formed projects on too large a scale, and did not succeed; but sold that portion of its territory which constituted the first settlements of the Massachusetts Bay Company to some merchants in the west of England, who had successfully fished for cod and bartered for furs in the region of Massachusetts Bay, and who thought that a plantation might be formed there. Among the most active encouragers of this enterprise was the Rev. John White, a clergyman of Dorchester, a maritime town, which had been the source of much commercial adventure in America.[23] One special object of Mr. White was to provide an asylum for the ministers who had been deprived and silenced in England for nonconformity to the canons and ceremonies imposed by Laud and his associates. Through Mr. White the guarantees became acquainted with several persons of his religious sympathies in London, who first associated with them, and afterwards bought rights in their patent. Among these was Matthew Cradock, the largest stockholder in the Company, who was appointed its first president, with eighteen associates, including John Winthrop, Isaac Johnson, Sir Richard Saltonstall, and other persons of "like quality." The chief object of these gentlemen in promoting a settlement in New England was to provide a retreat where their co-religionists of the Church of England could enjoy liberty in matters of religious worship and discipline. But the proposed undertaking could not be prosecuted with success without large means; in order to secure subscriptions for which the commercial aspect of it had to be prominently presented.
The religious aspect of the enterprise was presented under the idea of connecting and civilizing the idolatrous and savage Indian tribes of New England. There was no hint, and I think no intention, of abolishing and proscribing the worship of the Church of England in New England; for Mr. White himself, the projector and animating spirit of the whole enterprise, was a conformist clergyman.[24] It was professedly a religio-commercial undertaking, and combined for its support and advancement the motives of religion and commerce, together with the enlargement of the Empire.
For greater security and more imposing dignity, the "adventurers" determined to apply for a Royal Charter of incorporation. Their application was seconded by Lord Dorchester and others near the Throne; and Charles the First, impressed with the novel idea of at once extending religion, commerce, and his Empire, granted a Royal Patent incorporating the Company under the name of "The Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay, in New England." But several months before the Royal Charter was obtained, or even application for it made, Endicot, one of the stockholders, was sent out with a ship of one hundred emigrants, and, in consequence of his favourable report, application was made for a Royal Charter.[25]
It was the conduct of Endicot, a few months after his arrival at Massachusetts Bay--first condemned and afterwards sustained and justified by the Directors of the Corporation in London--that laid the foundation of the future Church history of New England, and of its disputes with the mother country. Endicot and his one hundred emigrant adventurers arrived in the summer of 1628, and selected Naumkeag, which they called Salem, as their place of settlement, the 6th of September. Endicot was sent, with his company, by the Council for New England, "to supersede Roger Conant at Naumkeag as local manager."[26] "The colony, made up of two sources, consisted of not much above fifty or sixty persons, none of whom were of special importance except Endicot, who was destined to act for nearly forty years a conspicuous part in New England history."[27] The Royal Charter passed the seals the 4th of March, 1629, with Mr. Cradock as the first Governor of the Company. "The first step of the new Corporation was to organize a government for its colony. It determined to place the local administration in the hands of thirteen councillors, to retain their office for one year. Of these, seven, besides the Governor (in which office Endicot was continued), were to be appointed by the Company at home; these eight were to choose three others; and the whole number was to be made up by the addition of such as should be designated by the persons on the spot at the time of Endicot's arrival, described as "old planters."[28] A second embarkation of planters and servants was ordered by the Company at a meeting, April 30, 1629, shortly after its incorporation by Royal Charter. Five ships were provided for this embarkation; and four ministers were provided--Francis Higginson, Samuel Skelton, Francis Bright, and Ralph Smith.[29] Mr. Higginson says in his journal that he sailed from the Isle of Wight the 11th of May, and arrived at Cape Ann the 27th of June, and at Naumkeag (Salem) the 29th. They found at Naumkeag about one hundred planters and houses, besides a fair house built for Mr. Endicot. The old and new planters together were about three hundred, of whom one hundred removed to Charlestown, where there was a house built; the rest remained at Salem.
"Mr. Endicot had corresponded with the settlers at Plymouth, who satisfied him that they were right in their judgments of the outward form of worship, being much like that of the Reformed Churches of France, &c. On the 20th of July, Mr. Higginson and Mr. Skelton, after fasting and prayer, were first elected by the Company for their ministers--the first, teacher; the other, pastor. Each of them, together with three or four grave members, lay their hands on each and either, with solemn prayer. Nothing is said of any Church being formed; but on the 6th of August, the day appointed for the choice and ordination of elders and deacons, thirty persons entered into a covenant in writing, which is said to be the beginning of the Church, and that the ministers were ordained or instituted anew. The repetition of this form they probably thought necessary, because the people were not in a Church state before. It is difficult to assign any other reason. Messengers or delegates from the Church of Plymouth were expected to join with them, but contrary winds hindered them, so that they did not arrive until the afternoon, but time enough to give the right hand of fellowship.
"Two of the company, John and Samuel Brown, one a lawyer, the other a merchant, both men of good estates, and of the first patentees of the Council, were dissatisfied. They did not like that the Common Prayer and service of the Church of England should be wholly laid aside, and therefore drew off, with as many as were of their sentiments, from the rest, and set up a separate society. This offended the Governor, who caused the two members of his Council to be brought before him; and judging that this practice, together with some speeches they had uttered, tended to sedition, he sent them back to England. The heads of the party being removed, the opposition ceased."[30]
Part II
THE QUESTION INVOLVING THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, THE SETTING UP OF A NEW FORM OF WORSHIP, AND ABOLISHING AND PROSCRIBING THAT OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND; THE FACTS ANALYZED AND DISCUSSED; INSTRUCTIONS AND OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE ORDERED BY THE LONDON COMPANY AND DISREGARDED BY THE GOVERNOR AND COUNCIL AT MASSACHUSETTS BAY.
As the whole question of the future Church-state in Massachusetts, and the future relations of the colony to England, is involved in and resulted from this proceeding, it is necessary to examine it thoroughly in relation both to the state of things in the mother country and in the colony, as well as the provisions of the Royal Charter. To do this, several things are to be considered: 1. With what views was the Royal Charter granted, and with what professed views did the first Governor and his associates leave England under the provisions of the Charter, and carrying it with them to Massachusetts Bay? 2. What were the provisions of the Charter itself on the subject of religion? 3. What were the powers claimed and exercised under it by the Massachusetts Puritans? 4. How far the proceedings of the Massachusetts Puritans were consistent with their original professions, with good faith towards the Mother Country, and with the principles of civil and religious liberty in the colony?
A careful recollection of the collateral events in England and those of the colony, at the time and after granting the Royal Charter, is requisite to a correct understanding of the question, and for the refutation of those statements by which it was misrepresented and misunderstood.
1. The first question is, with what views was the Royal Charter granted, and with what professed views did the Governor and his associates leave England under the provisions of the Charter, and carrying it with them to Massachusetts Bay?
The theory of some New England historians is, that Puritanism in England was opposed to the Church of England, and especially to its Episcopal government--a theory true as respects the Puritanism of the Long Parliament after the second year of its existence, and of the Commonwealth and Cromwell, but which is entirely at variance with facts in respect to the Puritanism professed in England at the time of granting the Royal Charter to the Massachusetts Company in 1620, and for twelve years afterwards. In the Millenary Petition presented by the Puritan party in the Church to James the First, on his coming to the throne, presbytery was expressly disclaimed; and in the first three Parliaments of Charles the First, during which all the grievances complained of by the Puritans were stated and discussed in the Commons, not the slightest objection was made to Episcopacy, but, on the contrary, reverence and fidelity in regard to it was professed without exception; and when the Long Parliament first met, eleven years after the granting of the Royal Charter to the Massachusetts Bay Company, every member but one professed to be an Episcopalian, and the Holy Communion, according to the order of the Church, was, by an unanimous vote of the Commons, ordered to be partaken by each member. In all the Church, as well as judicial and political, reforms of this Parliament during its first session, Episcopacy was regarded and treated as inviolate; and it was not until the following year, under the promptings of the Scotch Commissioners, that the "root and branch" petition was presented to Parliament against Episcopacy and the Prayer Book, and the subject was discussed in the Commons. The theory, therefore, that Puritanism in England was hostile to the Church at the period in question is contradicted by all the "collateral" facts of English history, as it is at variance with the professions of the first Massachusetts Puritans themselves at the time of their leaving England.
This is true in respect to Endicot himself, who was appointed manager of the New England Company, to succeed Roger Conant, and in charge of one hundred "adventurers" who reached Naumkeag (which they called Salem) in September, 1628--seven months before the Royal Charter granted by Charles the First passed the seals. Within two months after the Royal Charter was granted, another more numerous party of "adventurers" embarked for New England, and among these two gentlemen, original patentees and members of the Council--John and Samuel Brown, and four ministers--Higginson, Skelton, Bright, and Smith. During the winter of 1628-9 much sickness prevailed among the emigrants who accompanied Endicot, who sent for a physician to the Plymouth settlement of the Pilgrim Fathers. A Doctor Fuller was sent, who, while he prescribed medicine for the sick of the newly-arrived emigrants, converted Endicot from Episcopalianism to Congregationalism--at least from being a professed Churchman to being an avowed Congregationalist. This is distinctly stated by all the historians of the times.[31]
It is therefore clear that Endicot had imbibed new views of Church government and form of worship, and that he determined not to perpetuate the worship of the Church of England, to which he had professed to belong when he left England, but to form a new Church and a new form of worship. He seems to have brought over some thirty of the new emigrants to his new scheme; and among these were the newly-arrived ministers, Higginson and Skelton. They were both clergymen of the Puritan school--professing loyalty to the Church, but refusing to conform to the novel ceremonies imposed by Laud and his party.[32] But within two months after their arrival, they entered into the new views of Endicot to found a new Church on the Congregational system. Their manner of proceeding to do so has been stated above (p. 29.) Mr. Hutchinson remarks--"The New England Puritans, when at full liberty, went the full length which the Separatists did in England. It does not follow that they would have done so if they had remained in England. In their form of worship they universally followed the New Plymouth Church."[33]
The question is naturally suggested, could King Charles the First, in granting the Charter, one declared object of which was converting the Indians, have intended or contemplated the superseding the Church for whose episcopacy he perished on the scaffold, by the establishment of Congregationalism in New England? The supposition is absurd, and it is equally unreasonable to suppose that those who applied for and obtained the Charter contemplated anything of the kind, as will appear presently.
It can hardly be conceived that even among the newly-arrived emigrants on the shores of Massachusetts, such a revolution as the adoption of a new form of worship could be accomplished without doing violence to the convictions and endeared associations of some parties. However they might have objected to the ceremonies and despotic acts of the Laudian school in England, they could not, without a pang and voice of remonstrance, renounce the worship which had given to England her Protestantism and her liberties, or repudiate the book which embodied that form of worship, and which was associated with all that had exalted England, from Cramner and Ridley to their own day. Congregationalism had done nothing for the Protestantism or liberties of England, and it would have been strange indeed had there not been some among the emigrants who would not consider their change of latitude and longitude as destroying their Church membership, and sundering the additional ties which connected them with their forefathers and the associations of all their past life. Endicot, therefore, with all his authority as local Governor, and all his energy and zeal, and canvassing among the two or three hundred new emigrants for a new Church, had not been able to get more than thirty of them, with the aid of the two newly-arrived ministers, to unite in the new Covenant Confession; but he had got the (if not coerced) majority of the local Councillors to join with him, and therefore exercised absolute power over the little community, and denounced and treated as mutinous and factious all who would not renounce the Church of their fathers and of their own profession down to that hour, and adopt the worship of his new community.
As only thirty joined with Endicot in the creation of his new Church organization and Covenant, it is obvious that a majority of the emigrants either stood aloof from or were opposed to this extraordinary proceeding. Among the most noted of these adherents to the old Church of the Reformation were two brothers, John and Samuel Brown, who refused to be parties to this new and locally-devised Church revolution, and resolved, for themselves, families, and such as thought with them, to continue to worship God according to the custom of their fathers and nation.
It is the fashion of several American historians, as well as their echoes in England, to employ epithets of contumely in regard to those men, the Browns--both of them men of wealth--the one a lawyer and the other a private gentleman--both of them much superior to Endicot himself in social position in England--both of them among the original patentees and first founders of the colony--both of them Church reformers, but neither of them a Church revolutionist. It is not worthy of Dr. Palfrey and Mr. Bancroft to employ the words "faction" and "factionists" to the protests of John and Samuel Brown.[34]
What is stated by Dr. Palfrey and Mr. Bancroft more than refutes and condemns the opprobrious epithets they apply to the Browns. On pages 29 and 30 I have given, in the words of Mr. Hutchinson, the account of the formation of the new Church, and the expulsion of the Browns for their refusal to conform to it. Dr. Palfrey states the transaction between Endicot and the Browns in the following words:
"The transaction which determined the religious constitution of New England gave offence to two of the Councillors, John and Samuel Brown. Considering the late proceedings, as well they might do, to amount to a secession from the national Establishment, they, with some others of the same mind, set up a separate worship, conducted according to the Book of Common Prayer. Endicot and his friends were in no mood to tolerate this schism. The brothers, brought before the Governor, said that the ministers 'were Separatists, and would be Anabaptists.' The ministers replied that 'they came away from the Common Prayer and ceremonies, and had suffered much for their nonconformity in their native land, and therefore, being placed where they might have their liberty, they neither could nor would use them, because they judged the imposition of these things to be sinful corruptions of God's worship.' There was no composing such strife, and 'therefore, finding these two brothers to be of high spirits, and their speeches and practice tending to mutiny and faction, the Governor told them that New England was no place for such as they, and therefore he sent them both back for England at the return of the ships the same year.'"[35]
Mr. Bancroft says: "The Church was self-constituted. It did not ask the assent of the King or recognize him as its head; its officers were set apart and ordained among themselves; it used no Liturgy, and it rejected unnecessary ceremonies; and reduced the simplicity of Calvin to a still plainer standard." "There existed even in this little company a few individuals to whom the new system was unexpected; and in John and Samuel Brown they found able leaders. Both were members of the Colonial Council, and they had been favourites of the Corporation in England; and one of them, an experienced and meritorious lawyer, had been a member of the Board of Assistants in London. They declared their dissent from the Church of Higginson; and at every risk of union and tranquillity, they insisted upon the use of the English Liturgy." "Finding it to be a vain attempt to persuade the Browns to relinquish their resolute opposition, and believing that their speeches tended to produce disorder and dangerous feuds, Endicot sent them back to England in the returning ships; and faction, deprived of its leaders, died away."[36]
It is clear from these statements--partial as they are in favour of Endicot and against the Browns--that Endicot himself was the innovator, the Church revolutionist and the would-be founder of a new Church, the real schismatic from the old Church, and therefore responsible for any discussions which might arise from his proceedings; while the Browns and their friends were for standing in the old ways and walking in the old paths, refusing to be of those who were given to change. Mr. Bancroft says that "the new system was unexpected" to them. Mr. Palfrey says that "John and Samuel Brown, considering the late proceedings, as well they might, to amount to a secession from the national Establishment, they, with some others of the same mind, set up a separate worship conducted according to the Book of Common Prayer." Or, more properly, they continued the worship according to the Book of Common Prayer, which they and their fathers had practised, as well as Endicot and Higginson themselves up to that day, refusing to leave the old Church of the Reformation, and come into a new Church founded by joining of hands of thirty persons, in a new covenant, walking around the place of the old town-pump of Salem. Mr. Endicot is sent from England as the manager of a trading Company, and invested with powers as their local temporary Governor, to manage their business and remove persons that might disturb or interfere with its operations; and he becomes acquainted with a Doctor Fuller, a deacon of a Congregational Church at New Plymouth, and imbibes his views; and forthwith sets himself to abolish the old Church, and found a new one, and proceeds at length to banish as seditious and mutinous those who would not forsake the old way of worship and follow him in his new way of worship.
Some of the above quoted language of Dr. Palfrey and Mr. Bancroft implies improper conduct on the part of the brothers Brown, for which they were banished. Even if that were so, their position of unchangeable loyalty to their post and of good faith to their Company might be pleaded in justification of the strongest language on their part. But such was not the fact; it was their position, and not their language or tempers. Mr. Bancroft himself says, in the American edition of his History, that "the Browns were banished because they were Churchmen. Thus was Episcopacy professed in Massachusetts, and thus was it exiled. The blessings of the promised land were to be kept for Puritan dissenters."[37] This statement of Mr. Bancroft is confirmed and the conduct of Endicot more specifically stated by earlier New England historians. In the "Ecclesiastical History of Massachusetts," reprinted by the Massachusetts Historical Society, the whole affair is minutely related. The following passages are sufficient for my purpose:
"An opposition of some consequence arose from several persons of influence, who had been active in promoting the settlement of the place. At the head of this were Mr. Samuel Brown and Mr. John Brown, the one a lawyer and the other a merchant, who were attached to the form and usage of the Church of England. The ministers [Higginson and Skelton], assisted by Mr. Endicot, endeavoured to bring them over to the practice of the Puritans, but without success." "These gentlemen, with others, were conscientious Churchmen, and desired to use the Liturgy, and for this purpose met in their own houses. The magistrates, or rather Mr. Endicot, sent to demand a reason for their separation. They answered, that as they were of the Church established by law in their native country, it was highly proper they should worship God as the Government required, from whom they had received their Charter. Surely they might be allowed that liberty of conscience which all conceived to be reasonable when they were on the other side of the water. But these arguments were called seditious and mutinous."
"Mr. Bentley imputes the errors of the ministers to the temper of Endicot, who was determined to execute his own plan of Church government. Inexperienced in the passions of men, and unaccustomed to consult even his friends, he was resolved to suffer no opposition; and as the Salem Church had disdained the authority of the Church of England, his feelings were hurt and his temper raised against those who preferred a Liturgy, and whose object might be, as he conceived, to cause a schism in the community."[38]
The Mr. Bentley referred to above was the historian of the town of Salem, in a book entitled "Description and History of Salem, by the Rev. William Bentley," and reprinted in the "Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society," Vol. VI., pp. 212-277. Referring to Endicot's conduct to the Browns, Mr. Bentley says:
"Endicot had been the cause of all the rash proceedings against the Browns. He was determined to execute his own plan of Church government. Inexperienced in the passions of men, and unaccustomed to consult even his friends, he was resolved to admit of no opposition. They who could not be terrified into silence were not commanded to withdraw, but they were seized and banished as criminals. The fear of injury to the colony induced its friends in England to give private satisfaction, and then to write a reproof to him who had been the cause of the outrages; and Endicot never recovered his reputation in England." (p. 245.)
It is thus clear beyond reasonable doubt that the sole offence of the Browns, and those who remained with them, was that they adhered to the worship which they had always practised, and which was professed by all parties when they left England, and because they refused to follow Mr. Endicot in the new Church polity and worship which he adopted from the Congregational Plymouth physician, after his arrival at Salem, and which he was determined to establish as the only worship in the new Plantation. It was Endicot, therefore, that commenced the change, the innovation, the schism, and the power given him as Manager of the trading business of the Company he exercised for the purpose of establishing a Church revolution, and banishing the men who adhered to the old ways of worship professed by the Company when applying for the Royal Charter, and still professed by them in England. It is not pretended by any party that the Browns were not interested in the success of the Company as originally established, and as professed when they left England; it is not insinuated that they opposed in any way or differed from Endicot in regard to his management of the general affairs of the Company; on the contrary, it is manifest by the statement of all parties that the sole ground and question of dispute between Endicot and the Browns was the refusal of the latter to abandon the Episcopal and adopt the Congregational form of worship set up by Endicot and thirty others, by joining of hands and subscribing to a covenant and confession of faith around the well-pump of Naumkeag, then christened Salem.
The whole dispute, then, narrowed to this one question, let us inquire in what manner the Browns and their friends declined acting with Endicot in establishing a new form of worship instead of that of the Church of England?
It does not appear that Endicot even consulted his local Council, much less the Directors of the Company in England, as to his setting up a new Church and new form of worship in the new Plantation at Salem. Having with the new accession of emigrants received the appointment of Governor, he appears to have regarded himself as an independent ruler. Suddenly raised from being a manager and captain to being a Governor, he assumed more despotic power than did King Charles in England, and among the new emigrants placed under his control, and whom he seems to have regarded as his subjects--himself their absolute sovereign, in both Church and State. In his conferences with Fuller, the Congregational doctor from New Plymouth, he found the Congregational worship to answer to his aspirations as in it he could on the one hand gratify his hatred of King and Church, and on the other hand become the founder of the new Church in a new Plantation. He paused not to consider whether the manager of a trading Company of adventurers had any authority to abolish the worship professed by the Company under whose authority he was acting; how far fidelity required him to give effect to the worship of his employers in carrying out their instructions in regard to the religious instruction of their servants and the natives; but he forthwith resolved to adopt a new confession of faith and to set up a new form of worship. On the arrival of the first three chaplains of the Company, in June of 1629, several months after his own arrival, Endicot seems to have imparted his views to them, and two of them, Higginson and Skelton, fell in with his scheme; but Mr. Bright adhered to his Church. It was not unnatural for Messrs. Higginson and Skelton to prefer becoming the fathers and founders of a new Church than to remain subordinate ministers of an old Church. The Company, in its written agreement with them, or rather in its instructions accompanying them to Endicot, allowed them discretion in their new mission field as to their mode of teaching and worship; but certainly no authority to ignore it, much less authority to adopt a new confession of faith and a new form of worship.
Within three months after the arrival of these chaplains of the Company at Salem, they and Endicot matured the plan of setting up a new Church, and seemed to have persuaded thirty-one of the two hundred emigrants to join with them--a minority of less than one-sixth of the little community; but in that minority was the absolute Governor, and against whose will a majority was nothing, even in religious matters, or in liberty of conscience. Government by majorities and liberty of conscience are attributes of freedom.
Let it be observed here, once for all, that Endicot and his friends are not, in my opinion, censurable for changing their professed religious opinions and worship and adopting others, if they thought it right to do so. If, on their arrival at Massachusetts Bay, they thought and felt themselves in duty bound to renounce their old and set up a new form of worship and Church discipline, it was doubtless their right to do so; but in doing so it was unquestionably their duty not to violate their previous engagements and the rights of others. They were not the original owners and occupants of the country, and were not absolutely free to choose their own form of government and worship; they were British subjects, and were commencing the settlement of a territory granted them by their Sovereign; they were sent there by a Company existing and acting under Royal Charter; Endicot was the chief agent of that Company, and acting under their instructions. As such, duty required him to consult his employers before taking the all-important step of setting aside the worship they professed and establishing a new one, much less to proscribe and banish those who had adventured as settlers upon the old professed worship, and declined adopting the new. And was it not a violation of good faith, as well as liberty of conscience, to deny to the Browns and their friends the very worship on the profession of which by all parties they had embarked as settlers in New England? To come to New England as Churchmen, and then abolish the worship of the Church and set up a new form of worship, without even consulting his employers, was what was done by Endicot; and to come as Churchmen to settle in New England, and then to be banished from it for being Churchmen, was what was done to the Browns by Endicot.
This act of despotism and persecution--apart from its relations to the King, and the Company chartered by him--is the more reprehensible from the manner of its execution and the circumstances connected with it.
It appears from the foregoing statements and authorities, that the Browns were not only gentlemen of the highest respectability, Puritan Churchmen, and friends of the colonial enterprise, but that when Endicot resolved upon founding a new Church and worship, they did not interfere with him; they did not interrupt, by objection or discussion, his proceedings around the well-pump of Salem in organizing a new Church and in heretofore professing clergymen of the Church of England, and with its vows upon them, and coming as chaplains of a Church of England Corporation, submitting to a new ordination in order to exercise ecclesiastical functions. The Browns and their friends seem to have been silent spectators of these proceedings--doubtless with feelings of astonishment if not of grief--but determined to worship in their families and on the Sabbath in their old way. But in this they were interrupted, and haled before the new Governor, Endicot, to answer for their not coming to his worship and abandoning that which they and their fathers, and Endicot himself, had practised; were called "Separatists," for not acting as such in regard to their old way of worship; and were treated as "seditious and mutinous," for justifying their fidelity to the old worship before the new "Star Chamber" tribunal of Endicot. The early New England ecclesiastical historian above quoted says: "The magistrates, or rather Endicot, sent to demand a reason[39] for their separation. They answered that as they were of the Church established by law in their native country, it was highly proper they should worship God as the Government required from whom they had received their Charter. Surely they might be allowed that liberty of conscience which all conceived to be reasonable when they were on the other side of the water." But their arguments were called "seditious and mutinous." The first Congregational historian of Salem, above quoted, says: "Endicot had been the cause of all the rash proceedings against the Browns. He was determined to execute his plan of Church government. Inexperienced in the passions of men, and unaccustomed to consult even his friends, he was resolved to admit of no opposition. They who could not be terrified into silence were not commanded to withdraw, but were seized and transported as criminals."[40]
Such are the facts of the case itself, as related by the New England Puritan writers themselves. I will now for a short time cross the Atlantic, and see what were the professions and proceedings of the Council or "Grand Court" of the Company in England in regard to the chief objects of establishing the Plantation, their provision for its religious wants, and their judgment afterwards of Endicot's proceedings. In the Company's first letter of instructions to Endicot and his Council, dated the 17th of April, 1629, they remind him that the propagation of the Gospel was the primary object contemplated by them; that they had appointed and contracted with three ministers to promote that work, and instructed him to provide accommodation and necessaries for them, according to agreement. They apprise him also of his confirmation as "Governor of our Plantation," and of the names of the Councillors joined with him.[41] In their letter to Endicot, they call the ministers sent by them "your ministers," and say: "For the manner of exercising their ministry, and teaching both our own people and the Indians, we leave that to themselves, hoping they will make God's Word the rule of their actions, and mutually agree in the discharge of their duties." Such instructions and directions have doubtless been given by the Managing Boards of many Missionary Societies to missionaries whom they sent abroad; but without the least suspicion that such missionaries could, in good faith, on arriving at their destination, ignore the Church and ordination in connection with which they had been employed, and set up a new Church, and even be parties to banishing from their new field of labour to which they had been sent, the members of the Church of which they themselves were professed ministers when they received their appointment and stipulated support.
Six weeks after transmitting to Endicot the letter above referred to, the Company addressed to him a second general letter of instructions. This letter is dated the 28th of May, 1629, and encloses the official proceedings of the Council or "General Court" appointing Endicot as Governor, with the names of the Councillors joined with him, together with the form of oaths he and the other local officers of the Company were to take.[42] The oath required to be taken by Endicot and each local Governor is very full and explicit.[43] It is also to be observed that these two letters of instructions, with forms of oaths and appointments of his Council, were sent out three months before Endicot, Higginson, and Skelton proceeded to ignore and abolish the Church professed by the Company and themselves, and set up a new Church.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 22: Two years after the Plymouth settlement, "Thirty-five ships sailed this year (1622) from the west of England, and two from London, to fish on the New England coasts, and made profitable voyages." (Holmes' Annals of America, Vol. I., p. 179.) In a note on the same page it is said: "Where in Newfoundland they shared six or seven pounds for a common man, in New England they shared fourteen pounds; besides, six Dutch and French ships made wonderful returns in furs."]
[Footnote 23: "The Council of New England, on the 19th of March (1627), sold to Sir Henry Rowsell, Sir John Young, and four other associates, [Thomas Southwood, John Humphrey, John Endicot, and Simeon Whitcombe,] in the vicinity of Dorchester, in England, a patent for all that part of New England lying between three miles to the northward of Merrimack River, and three miles to the southward of Charles River, and in length within the described breadth from the Atlantic Ocean to the South Sea." (Holmes' Annals, Vol. I., p. 193.)]
[Footnote 24: The zeal of White soon found other powerful associates in and out of London--kindred spirits, men of religious fervour, uniting emotions of enthusiasm with unbending perseverance in action--Winthrop, Dudley, Johnson, Pynchon, Eaton, Saltonstall, Bellingham, so famous in colonial annals, besides many others, men of fortune and friends to colonial enterprise. Three of the original purchasers parted with their rights; Humphrey and Endicot retained an equal interest with the original purchasers. (Bancroft's United States, Vol. I., pp. 368, 369.)]
[Footnote 25: Bancroft says: "Endicot, a man of dauntless courage, and that cheerfulness which accompanies courage, benevolent though austere, firm though choleric, of a rugged nature, which the sternest forms of Puritanism had not served to mellow, was selected as a fit instrument for this wilderness work.' (History of the United States, Vol. I., pp. 369, 370.)
"When the news reached London of the safe arrival of the emigrants (under Endicot), the number of the adventurers had already enlarged. The Puritans throughout England began to take an interest in the efforts which invited the imagination to indulge in delightful visions. Interest was also made to obtain a Royal Charter, with the aid of Bellingham and White, an eminent lawyer, who advocated the design. The Earl of Warwick had always been a friend to the Company; and Lord Dorchester, then one of the Secretaries of State, is said to have exerted a powerful influence in behalf of it. At last [March 4th, 1629], after much labour and large expenditures, the patent for the Company of Massachusetts Bay passed the seals." (Ib., p. 379.)]
[Footnote 26: The precursor of this Company was a Joint Stock Association, established at Dorchester under the auspices of the Rev. Mr. White, "patriarch of Dorchester," and called the "Dorchester Adventurers," with a view to fishing, farming, and hunting; but the undertaking was not successful, and an attempt was made to retrieve affairs by putting the colony under a different direction. The Dorchester partners heard of some religious and well-affected persons that were lately removed out of New Plymouth, out of dislike of their principles of rigid separation, of which Mr. Roger Conant was one--a religious, sober, and prudent gentleman. (Hubbard's History of New England, Chap. xviii.) The partners engaged Conant to be their Governor, with the charge of all their affairs, as well fishing as planting. The change did not produce success. The Association sold its land, shipping, &c.; and Mr. Endicot was appointed under the new regime. (Palfrey's Hist. of New England, Vol. I., pp. 285-8.)]
[Footnote 27: Palfrey, Vol. I., p. 289.]
[Footnote 28: Ib., p. 292.]
[Footnote 29: Mr. Bright, one of these ministers, is said by Hubbard to have been a Conformist. He went, soon after his arrival, to Charlestown, and tarried about a year in the country, when he returned to England. Ralph Smith was required to give a pledge, under his hand, that he would not exercise his ministry within the limits of the patent, without the express leave of the Governor on the spot. Mr. Smith seems to have been of the separation in England, which occasioned the caution to be used with him. He was a little while in Nantasket, and went from thence to Plymouth, where he was their minister for several years. (Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 10, 11.)]
[Footnote 30: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 11, 12.]
[Footnote 31: How much of the Church system thus introduced had already been resolved upon before the colonists of the Massachusetts Company left England, and how long a time, if any, previous to their emigration such an agreement was made, are questions which we have probably not sufficient means to determine. Thus much is certain--that when Skelton and Higginson reached Salem, they found Endicot, who was not only their Governor, but one of the six considerable men who had made the first movement for a patent, fully prepared for the ecclesiastical organization which was presently instituted. In the month before their arrival, Endicot, in a letter [May 11, 1629] to Bradford thanking him for the visit of Fuller, had said: 'I rejoice much that I am by him satisfied touching your judgments of the outward form of God's worship.'--Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, First Series, Vol. III., p. 65.]
[Footnote 32: Cotton Mather relates that, taking the last look at his native shore, Higginson said, 'We will not say, as the Separatists say, "Farewell, Babylon; farewell, Rome;" but we will say, "Farewell, dear England; farewell, Church of God in England, and all the Christian friends there. We do not go to New England as separatists from the Church of England, though we cannot but separate from the corruptions of it. But we go to practise the positive part of Church reformation, and propagate the gospel in America.'"--Magnalia, Book III., Part II., Chap. i., quoted by Palfrey, Vol. I., p. 297, in a note.
"They were careful to distinguish themselves from the Brownist and other Separatists. Had they remained in England, and the Church been governed with the wisdom and moderation of the present day, they would have remained, to use their own expression, 'in the bosom of the Church where they had received their hopes of salvation.'"--Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 417.
Note by Mr. Hutchinson: "The son of one of the first ministers, in a preface to a sermon preached soon after the Revolution, remarks that 'if the bishops in the reign of King Charles the First had been of the same spirit as those in the reign of King William, there would have been no New England.'"]
[Footnote 33: History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., Chap, iv., p. 418.]
[Footnote 34: "The Messrs. Brown went out with the second emigration, at the same time as Messrs. Higginson and Skelton, a few months after Endicot, and while he was the local Governor, several months before the arrival of the third emigration of eleven ships with Governor Winthrop. In the Company's first letter of instructions to Endicot, dated the 17th of April, 1629, they speak of and commend the Messrs. Brown in the following terms:
"'Through many businesses we had almost forgot to recommend to you two brethren of our Company, Mr. John and Mr. Samuel Brown, who though they be no adventurers in the general stock, yet are they men we do much respect, being fully persuaded of their sincere affections to the good of our Plantation. The one, Mr. John Brown, is sworn assistant here, and by us chosen one of the Council there; a man experienced in the laws of our kingdom, and such an one as we are persuaded will worthily deserve your favour and furthermore, which we desire he may have, and that in the first division of lands there may be allotted to either of them two hundred acres.'" (Young's Chronicles of the First Planters of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, from 1623 to 1636, p. 168.)]
[Footnote 35: History of New England, Vol. I., p. 298.]
[Footnote 36: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. I., p. 379.]
[Footnote 37: History of the United States, Am. Ed. 8vo, Vol. I., p. 350. These three sentences are not found in the British Museum (English) Edition of Mr. Bancroft's History, but are contained in Routledge's London reprint of the American Edition.]
[Footnote 38: "Ecclesiastical History of Massachusetts," in the Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol. IX., pp. 3-5.]
[Footnote 39: It is clear, from these and other corresponding statements, that the Messrs. Brown had had no controversy with Endicot; had not in the least interfered with his proceedings, but had quietly and inoffensively pursued their own course in adhering to the old worship; and only stated their objections to his proceedings by giving the reasons for their own, when arraigned before his tribunal to answer for their not coming to his worship, and continuing in that of their own Church. The reasonings and speeches thus drawn from them were deemed "seditious and mutinous," and for which they were adjudged "criminals'" and banished. Looking at all the facts of the case--including the want of good faith to the Browns and those who agreed with them--it exceeds in inquisitorial and despotic prescriptive persecution that which drove the Brownists from England to Holland in the first years of James the First.]
[Footnote 40: Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society.
Mr. F.M. Hubbard, in his new edition of Belknap's American Biography, iii. 166, referring to Endicot, says: "He was of a quick temper, which the habit of military command had not softened; of strong religious feelings, moulded on the sternest features of Calvinism; resolute to uphold with the sword what he had received as gospel truth, and fearing no enemy so much as a gainsaying spirit. Cordially disliking the English Church, he banished the Browns and the Prayer Book; and averse to all ceremonies and symbols, the cross on the King's colours was an abomination he could not away with. He cut down the Maypole on Merry Mount, published his detestation of long hair in a formal proclamation, and set in the pillory and on the gallows the returning Quakers."]
[Footnote 41: The words of the Company's letter are as follows:
"And for that the propagating of the Gospel is the thing we do profess above all to be our aim in settling this Plantation, we have been careful to make plentiful provision of godly ministers, by whose faithful preaching, godly conversation, and exemplary life, we trust not only those of our own nation will be built up in the knowledge of God, but also the Indians may, in God's appointed time, be reduced to the obedience of the Gospel of Christ. One of them, viz., Mr. Skelton, whom we have rather desired to bear a part in this work, for that we have been informed yourself formerly received much good by his ministry. Another is Mr. Higgeson (Higginson), a grave man, and of worthy commendations. The third is Mr. Bright, sometimes trained up under Mr. Davenport. We pray you, accommodate them all with necessaries as well as you may, and in convenient time let there be houses built for them, according to the agreement we have made with them, copies whereof, as of all others we have entertained, shall be sent you by the next ships, time not permitting now. We doubt not these gentlemen, your ministers, will agree lovingly together; and for cherishing of love betwixt them, we pray you carry yourself impartially to all. For the manner of exercising their ministry, and teaching both our own people and the Indians, we leave that to themselves, hoping they will make God's Word the rule of their actions, and mutually agree in the discharge of their duties.
"We have, in prosecution of that good opinion we have always had of you, confirmed you Governor of our Plantation, and joined in commission with you the three ministers--namely, Mr. Francis Higginson, Mr. Samuel Skelton, and Mr. Francis Bright; also Mr. John and Samuel Brown, Mr. Thomas Groves, and Mr. Samuel Sharpe."--The Company's First General Letter of Instructions to Endicot and his Council, the 17th of April, 1629. (Young's Chronicles of the First Planters of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, pp. 142-144.)
"A form of an oath for a Governor beyond the seas, and of an oath for the Council there, was drawn and delivered to Mr. Humphrey to show to the (Privy) Council." (Company's Records, Young, &c., p. 69.)]
[Footnote 42: The following is an extract of the Company's Second General Letter of Instructions to Endicot and his Council, dated London, 28th May, 1629:
"We have, and according as we then advised, at a full and ample Court assembled, elected and established you, Captain John Endicot, to the place of Governor in our Plantation there, as also some others to be of the Council with you, as more particularly you will perceive by an Act of Court herewith sent, confirmed by us at a General Court, and sealed with our common seal, to which Act we refer you, desiring you all punctually to observe the same, and that the oaths we herewith send you (which have been penned by learned counsel, to be administered to each of you in your several places) may be administered in such manner and form as in and by our said order is particularly expressed; and that yourselves do frame such other oaths as in your wisdom you shall think fit to be administered to your secretary or other officers, according to their several places respectively." (Young's Chronicles, &c., p. 173.)]
[Footnote 43: The form of oath, which had been prepared under legal advice, submitted to and approved of by the King's Privy Council, was as follows:
"Oaths of Office for the Governor, Deputy Governor, and Council in New England (ordered May 7th, 1629).
"The Oath of the Governor in New England." (The same to the Deputy Governor.)
"You shall be faithful and loyal unto our Sovereign Lord the King's Majesty, and to his heirs and successors. You shall support and maintain, to the best of your power, the Government and Company of Massachusetts Bay, in New England, in America, and the privileges of the same, having no singular regard to yourself in derogation or hindrance of the Commonwealth of this Company; and to every person under your authority you shall administer indifferent and equal justice. Statutes and Ordinances shall you none make without the advice and consent of the Council for Government of the Massachusetts Bay in New England. You shall admit none into the freedom of this Company but such as may claim the same by virtue of the privileges thereof. You shall not bind yourself to enter into any business or process for or in the name of this Company, without the consent and agreement of the Council aforesaid, but shall endeavour faithfully and carefully to carry yourself in this place and office of Governor, as long as you shall continue in it. And likewise you shall do your best endeavour to draw the natives of this country called New England to the knowledge of the true God, and to conserve the planters, and others coming hither, in the same knowledge and fear of God. And you shall endeavour, by all good unions, to advance the good of the Plantations of this Company, and you shall endeavour the raising of such commodities for the benefit and encouragement of the adventurers and planters as, through God's blessing on your endeavours, may be produced for the good and service of the kingdom of England, this Company, and the Plantations. All these premises you shall hold and keep to the uttermost of your power and skill, so long as you shall continue in the place of Governor of this fellowship; so help you God." (The same oath of allegiance was required of each member of the Council.) (Young's Chronicles of First Planters of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, from 1623 to 1636, pp. 201, 202.)]
Part III
EVASIONS AND DENIALS OF THE ABOLITION OF EPISCOPAL, AND ESTABLISHMENT OF CONGREGATIONAL WORSHIP AT MASSACHUSETTS BAY; PROOFS OF THE FACTS, THAT THE COMPANY AND FIRST SETTLERS OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY WERE PROFESSED EPISCOPALIANS WHEN THE LATTER LEFT ENGLAND; LETTERS OF THE LONDON COMPANY AGAINST THE INNOVATIONS WHICH ABOLISHED THE EPISCOPAL, AND ESTABLISHED CONGREGATIONAL WORSHIP BY THE "ADVENTURERS" AFTER CROSSING THE ATLANTIC; THIS THE FIRST SEED OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, AND OF CRUEL PERSECUTIONS.
When the Browns arrived in England as banished "criminals" from the Plantation to which they had gone four months before as members of the Council of Government, and with the highest commendation of the London General Court itself, they naturally made their complaints against the conduct of Endicot in superseding the Church of England by the establishment of a new confession of faith and a new form of worship. It is worthy of remark, that in the Records of the Company the specific subjects of complaint by the Browns are carefully kept out of sight--only that a "dispute" or "difference" had arisen between them and "Governor Endicot;" but what that difference was is nowhere mentioned in the Records of the Company. The letters of Endicot and the Browns were put into the hands of Goffe, the Deputy Governor of the Company; were never published; and they are said to have been "missing" unto this day. Had the real cause and subject of difference been known in England, and been duly represented to the Privy Council, the Royal Charter would undoubtedly have been forthwith forfeited and cancelled; but the Puritan-party feeling of the Browns seems to have been appealed to not to destroy the Company and their enterprise; that in case of not prosecuting their complaints before a legal tribunal, the matter would be referred to a jointly selected Committee of the Council to arbitrate on the affair; and that in the meantime the conduct of Endicot in making Church innovations (if he had made them) would be disclaimed by the Company. To render the Browns powerless to sustain their complaints, their letters were seized[44] and their statements were denied.
Nevertheless, the rumours and reports from the new Plantation of Massachusetts produced a strong impression in England, and excited great alarm among the members and friends of the Company, who adopted three methods of securing themselves and their Charter, and of saving the Plantation from the consequences of Endicot's alleged innovations and violent conduct. Firstly--The Governor of the Company, Mr. Cradock, wrote to Endicot, Higginson, and Skelton, professing doubts of the truth of the charges made against them--disclaiming and warning them against the reported innovations--thus protecting themselves in case of charge from all participation in or responsibility for such proceedings. Secondly--They positively denied the statements of the Browns as to Endicot's alleged "innovations," and used every means to depreciate the trustworthiness and character of the Browns, notwithstanding their former commendation of them and their acknowledged respectability. Thirdly--They prepared and published documents declaring their adherence to the Church of England, and the calumny of the charges and rumours put forth against them as being disaffected to it.
1. Their Governor, Mr. Cradock, wrote to Endicot in the name of the Company. This letter, dated October 16, 1629, is given at length in a note.[46] It will be seen by this letter how strongly the Company condemned the innovations charged against Endicot by the Browns, and how imperatively they direct him to correct them, while they profess to doubt whether he could have been a party to any such proceedings. In this letter is also the most explicit testimony by the Company of the King's kindness and generosity to them, as well as a statement of the clear understanding between the King and the Company as to the intentions and spirit of the Royal Charter, and which the Company in London expressed their determination to observe in good faith--a good faith which was invariably and even indulgently observed by both Charles the First and Second, but which was as constantly violated by the Government of Massachusetts Bay, as will appear hereafter from the transfer of the Charter there in 1630, to the cancelling of the Charter under James the Second, in 1687. Endicot, confident in his ability to prevent the transmission of any evidence to England that could sustain the statements of the Browns, paid no heed to the instructions of the Company, and persisted in his course of Church revolution and proscription.
The letter addressed to Higginson and Skelton was signed not only by the Governor, but by the chief members of the Company, and among others by John Winthrop, who took the Royal Charter to Massachusetts Bay, and there, as Governor, administered it by maintaining all that Endicot was alleged to have done, continued to proscribe the worship of the Church of England, allowed its members no elective franchise as well as no eligibility for office, and persecuted all who attempted to worship in any other form than that of the Church of Endicot, Higginson and Skelton--a course in which he persevered until his energies began to fail; for Mr. Bancroft says: "The elder Winthrop had, I believe, relented before his death, and, it is said, had become weary of banishing heretics; the soul of the younger Winthrop [who withdrew from the intolerance of the Massachusetts Puritans, and was elected Governor of Connecticut] was incapable of harbouring a thought of intolerant cruelty; but the rugged Dudley was not mellowed by old age."[49]
The letter addressed to Higginson and Skelton expressed a hope that the report made, in England as to their language and proceedings were "but shadows," but at the same time apprised them of their duty to vindicate their innocency or acknowledge and reform their misdeeds, declaring the favour of the Government to their Plantation, and their duty and determination not to abuse the confidence which the State had reposed in them. This letter is given entire in a note.[50]
Nothing can be more clear, from the letters addressed by the Company both to Endicot and the ministers Higginson and Skelton, that renunciation of the worship of the Church of England was at variance with the intentions and profession of all parties in granting and receiving the Royal Charter, and that the only defence set up in England of Endicot, Higginson, and Skelton was a positive denial that they had done so. Dudley himself, Deputy Governor, who went to Massachusetts Bay in the same fleet of eleven ships with Governor Winthrop, wrote to his patroness, the Countess of Lincoln, several months after his arrival, and in his letter, dated March 12, 1630, explicitly denies the existence of any such changes in their worship as had been alleged; that they had become "Brownists [that is, Congregationalists] in religion," etc., and declaring all such allegations to be "false and scandalous reports;" appealing to their friends in England to "not easily believe that we are so soon turned from the profession we so long have made at home in our native land;" declaring that he knew "no one person who came over with us last year to be altered in judgment or affection, either in ecclesiastical or civil respects, since our coming here;" acknowledging the obligations of himself and friends to the King for the royal kindness to them, and praying his friends in England to "give no credit to such malicious aspersions, but be more ready to answer for us than we hear they have been." Dudley's own words are given in note.[51] The only escape from the admission of Dudley's statements being utterly untrue is resort to a quibble which is inconsistent with candour and honesty--namely, that the Brownist or Congregational worship had been adopted by Endicot and his party before the arrival of Dudley; but the scope and evident design of his letter was to assure the Countess of Lincoln and his friends in England that no new Church worship had been established at Massachusetts Bay, when the reverse must have been known to Dudley, and when he, in support of the new Brownist or Congregational worship, became a fierce persecutor, even to old age, of all who would not conform to it; for, as Mr. Bancroft says, "the rugged soul of Dudley was not mellowed by old age."
But while Dudley, in Massachusetts, was denying to his English friends the existence of ecclesiastical changes there which all history now declares to have taken place, the "Patriarch of Dorchester," the father of the whole enterprise--the Rev. John White, a conformist clergyman of the Church of England, even under Archbishop Laud--wrote and published a pamphlet called "The Planters' Plea,"[52] in which he denied also that any ecclesiastical changes, as alleged, had taken place in the Massachusetts Plantation, and denounces the authors of such allegations in no measured terms. This pamphlet contains a "Brief Relation of the Occasion of the Planting of this Colony." After referring to the third, or "great emigration under Winthrop,"[53] the author proceeds:
"This is an impartial though brief relation of the occasion of planting the colony; the particulars whereof, if they could be entertained, were clear enough to any indifferent judgment, that the suspicious and scandalous reports raised upon these gentlemen and their friends (as if, under the colour of planting a colony, they intended to raise a seminary of faction and separation), are nothing than the fruits of jealousy of some distempered mind or, which is worse, perhaps savour of a desperate malicious plot of men ill affected to religion, endeavouring, by casting the undertakers into the jealousy of the State, to shut them out of those advantages which otherwise they might expect from the countenance of authority. Such men would be entreated to forbear that base and unchristian course of traducing persons under these odious names of Separatists, and enemies of Church and State, for fear lest their own tongues fall upon themselves by the justice of His hand who will not fail to clear the innocency of the just, and to cast back into the bosom of every slanderer the filth that he rakes up to throw into other men's faces. As for men of more indifferent and better minds, they would be seriously advised to beware of entertaining or admitting, much more countenancing and crediting, such uncharitable persons as discover themselves by their carriage, and that in this particular to be men ill affected towards the work itself, if not to religion, at which it aims, and consequently unlikely to report any truths of such as undertake it."[54]
This language is very severe, not to say scurrilous; but it is the style of all Puritan historians and writers in regard to those who complained of the Puritan Government of Massachusetts. Not even Messrs. Bancroft and Palfrey have thought it unworthy of their eloquent pages. But imputation of motives and character is not argument, is most resorted to for want of argument, much less is it a refutation of statements now universally known to be true. The venerable author of this "Planters' Plea" denied in indignant terms that Endicot and his friends had become "Separatists" or "enemies of the Church" (he had doubtless been so assured); the very thing in which Endicot gloried--setting up a "Separatist" worship, forbidding the worship of "the Church," and banishing its members who resolved to continue the use of its Prayer Book, in public or in private.
This, however, is not all. Not only did the Company, in their letters to Endicot, Higginson, and Skelton, disdain to forbid anything like abolishing the Church of England and setting up a new Church, and the use of language offensive to their Sovereign and the Established Church; not only were there the most positive denials on both sides of the Atlantic that anything of the kind had been done by Endicot; but on the appointment of Winthrop to supersede Endicot as Governor, and on his departure with a fleet of eleven ships and three hundred "Adventurers" and "Planters," as they were called, a formal and affectionate address to their "Fathers and Brethren of the Church of England" was published by Winthrop from his ship Arabella, disclaiming any acts of some among them (evidently alluding to what Endicot had been alleged to have done) hostile to the Church of England, declaring their obligation and attachment to it, their prayers for it, and entreating the prayers of its members for the success of their undertaking. This address is said to have been written by the Rev. John White, the "Patriarch of Dorchester," and prime mover of the whole Plantation enterprise. It is an imputation upon the integrity of the author, and upon all parties concerned in the address, and absurd in itself, to suppose that the prayers of the Church in England were solicited with a view to the abolition of its worship in Massachusetts, and the establishment there of a "Separatist" Church. This address--not to be found in any modern history of the Massachusetts Puritans--speaks for itself, and is given in a note as originally published.[55] It will be recollected that Winthrop and the other signers of this address had the Royal Charter with them, and now constituted the "principals" of the Company, whose authority in England now ceased, and was henceforth to be exercised at Massachusetts Bay. They beg that the "disaffection or indiscretion" of some of the Company--evidently alluding to what Endicot was reported to have done--might not be imputed to "the principals and body of the Company." Their words are, addressing their Fathers and Brethren of the Church of England: "And howsoever your charity may have met with some occasional discouragement through the misreport of our intentions, or through the disaffection or indiscretion of some of us, or rather amongst us (for we are not of those who dream of perfection in this world); yet we desire you would look at the principals and body of our Company, as those who esteem it an honour to call the Church of England, whence we rise, our dear Mother," &c.
It is passing strange that any man who respects himself could say, in the face of these words and of the whole address, that Mr. Winthrop and the "principals and body of the Company" did not profess to be members of the Church of England, and did not assure their "Fathers and Brethren in England" of their intention to remain so, and implore the prayers of their Fathers and Brethren for their success. No darker stigma could be inflicted upon the character of Winthrop and his Company, than the assertion that at the very moment of making and publishing these professions in England they intended to extinguish their "dear Mother" in Massachusetts, and banish every one from their Plantation who should use her Prayer Book, or worship as the "dear Mother" worshipped. Yet such is the theory, or fallacy, of some Puritan writers.
It has also been pretended that there was no Church of England in Massachusetts, and therefore the planters were free to set up what form of worship they pleased. It may be asked in reply, what makes a Church but the presence of members of it? An early Christian writer says that "wherever there are two or three believers there is a Church." But were not Endicot, and Higginson, and Skelton as much members of the Church of England on their arrival at Massachusetts Bay as when they left England? And were not the two latter as much clergymen of the Church of England when they met Endicot at Naumkeag, or Salem, as when they engaged with the Company in England to go out as ministers to the new Plantation? Does crossing the sea change or annihilate the churchmanship of the missionary, or the passenger, or the emigrant? There may not be a place of worship, or a minister, but there are the members of the Church. Is a missionary or agent of a Committee or Board of a particular Church in London, no longer a member of that Church when he reaches the foreign land to which he is sent because he finds no Church worship there, much less if he finds members of his own Church already there? Yet such are the pretences on which some Puritan writers, and even historians, attempt to justify the conduct of Endicot, Higginson, and Skelton! But, be it remembered, I make no objection to their renouncing their Church, and establishing for themselves and those who chose to follow them, a new Church confession and worship. The points of discussion are: 1. Was it honest for them to do so without consulting those who employed and settled them there, and provided for their religious instruction by clergymen of the Church of England? 2. Was it right or lawful, and was it not contrary to the laws of England, for them to abolish the worship of the Church of England and banish its members from the Plantation, as settlers, for continuing to worship according to the Church of England? 3. And can they be justified for denying to their friends in England, and their friends denying to the public and to the King, on their behalf and on their authority, what they had done, and what all the world now knows they had done, at Massachusetts Bay? 4. And finally, was it not a breach of faith to their Sovereign, from whom they had received their Charter, and, as they themselves acknowledged, most kind treatment, to commence their settlement by abolishing the established religion which both the King and they professed when the Charter was granted, and when they left England, and banish from the territory which the King had granted them all settlers who would not renounce the form of worship established in England from the Reformation, and adopt a new form of worship, which was not then lawful in England?
The foregoing pages bear witness that I have not taken a sentence from any writer adverse to the Puritans. I have adhered to their own statements in their own words, and as printed in their Records. Their eloquent apologist and defender, Mr. Bancroft, says: "The Charter confers on the colonists the rights of English subjects; it does not confer on them new and greater rights. On the contrary, they are strictly forbidden to make laws or ordinances repugnant to the laws or statutes of the realm of England. The express concession of power to administer the oath of supremacy demonstrates that universal toleration was not designed; and the freemen of the Corporation, it should be remembered, were not at that time Separatists. Even Higginson, and Hooker, and Cotton were still ministers of the Church of England."[56]
From this accumulation of evidence--which might be greatly increased--I think it is as clear as day that the abolition of the worship of the Church of England, and the establishment of a new form of worship, and a new confession of faith, and a new ordination to the ministry at Massachusetts Bay in 1629, was a violation of the Charter, an insult to the King, and a breach of faith with him, notwithstanding his acknowledged kindness to them, and a renunciation of all the professions which were made by the Company in England.
This was the first seed sown, which germinated for one hundred and thirty years, and then ripened in the American Revolution; it was the opening wedge which shivered the transatlantic branches from the parent stock. It was the consciousness of having abused the Royal confidence and broken faith with their Sovereign, of having acted contrary to the laws and statutes of England, that led the Government of Massachusetts Bay to resist and evade all inquiries into their proceedings--to prevent all evidence from being transmitted to England as to their proceedings, and to punish as criminals all who should appeal to England against any of their proceedings--to claim, in short, independence and immunity from all responsibility to the Crown for anything that they did or might do. Had Endicot and his party not done what they knew to be contrary to the loyal Charter and the laws of England, they would have courted inquiry, that the light of their fair and loyal acts might be manifest to all England, in refutation of all statements made against them. Had the Browns and their Church friends been permitted to worship after the manner of their fathers and of their childhood, while Endicot and his converts elected to worship in a new manner, there would have been no cause of collision, and no spirit of distrust and hostility between the Massachusetts settlement and the King, any more than there was between either Charles the First or Second, and the settlements and separate Governments of Plymouth, Rhode Island, or Connecticut. But Endicot, in the spirit of tyranny and intolerance, would allow no liberty of worship not of his own establishment; and to maintain which in the spirit of proscription and persecution, caused all the disputes with the parent Government and all the persecutions and bloodshed on account of religion in Massachusetts which its Government inflicted in subsequent years, in contradistinction to the Governments of Plymouth, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and even Maryland.[57]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 44: The Company's Records on the whole affair are as follows:--
"Sept. 19, 1629.
"At this Court letters[45] were read from Mr. Endicot and others of New England. And whereas a difference hath fallen out betwixt the Governor there and John and Samuel Brown; it was agreed by the Court that, for the determination of those differences, John and Samuel Brown might choose out any three of the Company on their behalf to hear the said differences, the Company choosing as many."
From the Records of the Company, September 29, 1629:
"The next thing taken into consideration was the letters from John and Samuel Brown to divers of their private friends here in England, whether the same should be delivered or detained, and whether they should be opened and read, or not. And for that it was to be doubted by probable circumstances that they had defamed the country of New England, and the Governor and Government there, it was thought fit that some of the said letters should be opened and publicly read, which was done accordingly; and the rest to remain in the Deputy's house (Goffe's), and the parties to whom they are directed to have notice; and Mr. Governor and Mr. Deputy, Mr. Treasurer, and Mr. Wright, or any two of them, are entreated to be at the opening and reading thereof, to the end that the Company may have notice if aught be inserted prejudicial to their Government or Plantation in New England. And it is also thought fit that none of the letters from Mr. Samuel Brown shall be delivered, but to be kept for use against him as occasion shall be offered." (Young's Chronicles, &c., pp. 91, 92.)
"Upon the desire of John and Samuel Brown it is thought fit that they should have a copy of the accusation against them, to the end they may be better prepared to make answer thereto."
The accusation against the Browns seems to have been simply for sedition and seditious speeches--a charge brought by persecutors for religion against the persecuted since the days of our Lord and his Apostles--a charge for being the victims of which the Puritans in England had loudly complained in the reigns of James and Charles.
There is but one other record of the Company on the affair of Endicot and the Browns, but the suppression of their letters shows clearly that the publication of them would have been damaging to the Company.
The intercepting and seizure of private letters, after the example of the Company in seizing private letters of the Browns and punishing their authors, was reduced to a system by the Government of Massachusetts Bay, whose officers were commanded to inspect all letters sent by each vessel leaving their port, and to seize all suspected letters, which were opened, and, if found to contain any complaint or statement against the local authorities, were retained and the authors arraigned and punished. Thus the Government and public in England were kept in perfect ignorance of what was transpiring at Massachusetts Bay, except what the local Government chose to communicate; and aggrieved persons in the Plantations were deprived of all means of appealing to the higher tribunals in England, and were condemned and punished for sedition in attempting to do so. This practice continued (as will be shown hereafter) until the death of King Charles and the usurpation of the regicides in England.
The following extract from the Company's Records seems to explain the manner in which the further proceedings of the Browns was stayed. In order to get some compensation for their losses, they seem to have agreed to the stipulations of the Company. But previous to this meeting of the Company, their Governor had written to Endicot, Higginson, and Skelton, in letters dated Oct. 18, 1629. These letters will be found in a note on a subsequent page. The extract from the Company's Records, dated February 10, 1630, is as follows:
"A writing of grievances of Samuel and John Brown was presented to the Court, wherein they desire recompense for loss and damage sustained by them in New England; and which this Assembly taking into consideration, do think fit upon their submitting to stand to the Company's final order for ending all differences between them (which they are to signify under their hands). Mr. Wright and Mr. Eaton are to hear their complaint, and to set down what they in their judgments shall think requisite to be allowed them for their pretended damage sustained, and so to make a final end with them accordingly." (Young's Chronicles, &c., p. 123.)]
[Footnote 45: Note by the compiler of the Records--"Those letters are unfortunately missing."]
[Footnote 46: The Company's letter to the Governor, dated October 16, 1629:--
"SIR,--We have written at this time to Mr. Skelton and Mr. Higginson touching the rumours of John and Samuel Brown, spread by them upon their arrival here, concerning some unadvised and scandalous speeches uttered by them in their public sermons or prayers, so have we thought meet to advertise you of what they have reported against you and them, concerning some rash innovations[47] begun and practised in the civil and ecclesiastical government. We do well to consider that the Browns are likely to make the worst of anything they have observed in New England, by reason of your sending them back, against their wills, for their offensive behaviour, expressed in a general letter from the Company there;[48] yet--for we likewise do consider that you are in a government newly formed, and want that assistance which the weight of such a business doth require--we may have leave to think it is possible some indigested counsels have too suddenly been put in execution, which may have ill construction with the State here, and make us obnoxious to any adversary. Let it therefore seem good unto you to be very sparing in introducing any laws or commands which may render yourself or us distasteful to the State here, to which we must and will have an obsequious eye. And as we make it our care to have the Plantation so ordered as may be most to the honour of God and of our gracious Sovereign, who hath bestowed many large privileges and royal favours upon this Company, so we desire that all such as shall by word or deed do anything to detract from God's glory or his Majesty's honour, may be duly corrected, for their amendment and the terror of others. And to that end, if you know anything which hath been spoken or done, either by the ministers (whom the Browns do seem tacitly to blame for some things uttered in their sermons or prayers) or any others, we require you, if any such there be, that you form due process against the offenders, and send it to us by the first, that we may, as our duty binds us, use means to have them duly punished.
"So not doubting but we have said enough, we shall repose ourselves upon your wisdom, and do rest
"Your loving friends. "To the Governor, Capt. Endicot."]
[Footnote 47: These innovations, I suppose, had reference principally to the formation of the Church at Salem, the adoption of a confession of faith and covenant by the people, and their election and ordination of the ministers. Endicot, we know, sympathized fully with the Separatists of New Plymouth.--Note by the Editor of the Records.]
[Footnote 48: This letter has always been missing.]
[Footnote 49: History of the United States, Vol. I., pp. 486, 487.]
[Footnote 50: The Company's letter to the Ministers:--
"REVEREND FRIENDS,--
There are lately arrived here, being sent from the Governor, Mr. John Endicot, as men of faction and evil-conditioned, John and Samuel Brown, being brethren who since their arrival have raised rumours (as we hear) of divers scandalous and intemperate speeches passed from one or both of you in your public sermons and prayers in New England, as also of some innovations attempted by you. We have reason to hope that their reports are but slanders; partly, for your godly and quiet conditions are well known to some of us; as also, for that these men, your accusers, seem to be embittered against Captain Endicot for injuries which they have received from some of you there. Yet, for that we all know that the best advised may overshoot themselves, we have thought good to inform you of what we hear, and if you be innocent you may clear yourselves; or, if otherwise, you may be intreated to look back upon your miscarriage with repentance; or at least to notice that we utterly disallow any such passages, and must and will take order for the redress thereof, as shall become us. But hoping, as we said, of your unblamableness herein, we desire only that this may testify to you and others that we are tender of the least aspersion which, either directly or obliquely, may be cast upon the State here; to whom we owe so much duty, and from whom we have received so much favour in this Plantation where you reside. So with our love and due respect to your callings, we rest,
Your loving friends,
R. SALTONSTALL, THO. ADAMS, ISA JOHNSON, SYM WHITCOMBE, MATT. CRADOCK, Governor, WM. VASSAL, THOS. GOFFE, Deputy, WM. PYNCHION, GEO. HARWOOD, Treasurer, JOHN REVELL, JOHN WINTHROP, FRANCIS WEBB.
London, 16th October, 1629."]
[Footnote 51: Extract from Deputy Governor Dudley's letter to the Countess of Lincoln, dated November 12th, 1631:
"To increase the heap of our sorrows, we received from our friends in England, and by the reports of those who came hither in this ship [the Charles] to abide with us (who were about twenty-six), that they who went discontentedly from us last year, out of their evil affections towards us, have raised many false and scandalous reports against us, affirming us to be Brownists in religion, and ill affected to our State at home, and that these vile reports have won credit with some who formerly wished us well. But we do desire and cannot but hope that wise and impartial men will at length consider that such malcontents have ever pursued this manner of casting dirt, to make others seem as foul as themselves, and that our godly friends, to whom we have been known, will not easily believe that we are so soon turned from the profession we so long have made in our native country. And for our further clearing, I truly affirm that I know no one person, who came over with us last year, to be altered in judgment and affection, either in ecclesiastical and civil respects, since our coming hither. But we do continue to pray daily for our Sovereign Lord the King, the Queen, the Prince, the Royal blood, the Council and whole State, as duty binds us to do, and reason persuades us to believe. For how ungodly and unthankful should we be if we should not do thus, who came hither by virtue of his Majesty's letters patent and under his gracious protection; under which shelter we hope to live safely, and from whose kingdom and subjects we now have received and hereafter expect relief. Let our friends therefore give no credit to such malicious aspersions, but be more ready to answer for us than we hear they have been." (Young's Chronicles, &c., pp. 331, 332.)]
[Footnote 52: "'The Planters' Plea' was printed in London in 1630, soon after the sailing of Winthrop's fleet [with Dudley]. It has generally been ascribed to the Rev. John White, of Dorchester, England. 'The Planters' Plea' appears to have been unknown to our historians. Neither Mather, Prince, Hutchinson, Bancroft, nor Graham make any allusion to it." (Young's Chronicles of the First Planters of the Colony of Massachusetts, from 1623 to 1630, pp. 15, 16, in a note.)]
[Footnote 53: The first emigration under the authority of the Massachusetts Company was that under "Master Endicot, who was sent over Governor, assisted with a few men, and arriving in safety there in September, 1628, and uniting his own men with those who were formerly planted there into one body, they made up in all not much above fifty or sixty persons."
The second emigration was under Higginson, who says: "We brought with us about two hundred passengers and planters more," arriving in June, 1629.
The third, or "great emigration," was under Winthrop, arriving in May, 1630.]
[Footnote 54: Young's Chronicles, &c., pp. 15, 16.]
[Footnote 55: This address is called "The humble Request of his Majesties loyall subjects, the Governor and the Company late gone for New England; to the rest of their Brethren in and of the Church of England," and is as follows;
"REVEREND FATHERS AND BRETHREN,--
"The generall rumor of this solemne enterprise, wherein ourselves, with others, through the providence of the Almightie, are engaged, as it may spare us the labour of imparting our occasion unto you, so it gives us the more incouragement to strengthen ourselves by the procurement of the prayers and blessings of the Lord's faithful servants: For which end wee are bold to have recourse unto you, as those whom God hath placed nearest his throne of mercy; which, as it affords you the more opportunitie, so it imposeth the greater bond upon you to intercede for his people in all their straights. We beseech you, therefore, by the mercies of the Lord Jesus, to consider us as your Brethren, standing in very great need of your helpe, and earnestly imploring it. And howsoever your charitie may have met with some occasion of discouragement through the misreport of our intentions, or through the disaffection or indiscretion of some of us, or rather amongst us, for wee are not of those that dreame of perfection in this world; yet we desire you would be pleased to take notice of the principals and body of our Company, as those who esteeme it an honour to call the Church of England, from whence we rise, our deare Mother, and cannot part from our native countrie, where she specially resideth, without much sadness of heart and many tears in our eyes, ever acknowledging that such hope and part as we have obtained in the common salvation, we have received it in her bosome, and suckt it from her breasts: Wee leave it not, therefore, as loathing the milk wherewith wee were nourished there; but blessing God for the parentage and education, as members of the same body shall always rejoice in her good, and unfeignedly grieve for any sorrow that shall ever betide her; and, while we have breath, sincerely desire and endeavour the continuance and abundance of her welfare, with the enlargement of her bounds in the kingdome of Christ Jesus.
"Be pleased, therefore, Reverend Fathers and Brethren, to helpe forward this worke now in hand; which, if it prosper, you shall be the more glorious; howsoever, your judgment is with the Lord, and your reward with your God. It is an usuall and laudable exercise of your charity to recommend to the prayers of your congregations the necessities and straights of your private neighbours. Doe the like for a Church springing out of your owne bowels. Wee conceive much hope that this remembrance of us, if it be frequent and fervent, will bee a most prosperous gale in our sailes, and provide such a passage and welcome for us from the God of the whole earth, as both we which shall finde it, and yourselves with the rest of our friends who shall heare of it, shall be much enlarged to bring in such daily returns of thanksgivings, as the specialties of his Providence and Goodnes may justly challenge at all our hands. You are not ignorant that the Spirit of God stirred up the Apostle Paul to make continuall mention of the Church of Philippi (which was a colonie of Rome); let the same Spirit, we beseech you, put you in mind, that are the Lord's Remembrancers, to pray for us without ceasing (who are a weake Colony from yourselves), making continuall request for us to God in all your prayers.
"What we entreat of you, that are the ministers of God, that we crave at the hands of all the rest of our Brethren, that they would at no time forget us in their private solicitations at the throne of grace.
"If any there be, who, through want of clear intelligence of our course, or tendernesses of affection towards us, cannot conceive so well of our way as we could desire, we would entreat such not to despise us, nor to desert us in their prayers and affections; but to consider rather that they are so much the more bound to expresse the bowels of their compassion towards us; remembering alwaies that both Nature and Grace doth binde us to relieve and rescue, with our utmost and speediest power, such as are deare unto us, when we conceive them to be running uncomfortable hazards.
"What goodness you shall extend to us, in this or any other Christian kindnesse, wee, your Brethren in Christ Jesus, shall labour to repay, in what dutie wee are or shall be able to performe; promising, so farre as God shall enable us, to give him no rest on your behalfes, wishing our heads and hearts may be as fountains of tears for your everlasting welfare, when wee shall be in our poore cottages in the wildernesse, overshadowed with the spirit of supplication, through the manifold necessities and tribulations which may, not altogether unexpectedly nor we hope unprofitably, befall us.
"And so commending you to the Grace of God in Christ, we shall ever rest
"Your assured Friends and Brethren." Signed by JOHN WINTHROP, Governor;
Charles Fines, George Philips, Richard Saltonstall, Isaac Johnson, Thomas Dudley, William Coddington, &c., and was dated "From Yarmouth, aboard the Arabella, April 7, 1630."]
[Footnote 56: History of the United States, Vol. I., p. 273.
In a note, Mr. Bancroft says:--"The Editor of Winthrop did me the kindness to read to me unpublished letters which are in his possession, and which prove that the Puritans in England were amazed as well as alarmed at the boldness of their brethren in Massachusetts." (Ib.)
Why have these letters remained unpublished, when every line from any opposed to Endicot and his party, however private and confidential, has been published to the world? The very fact that all the letters of Endicot and the Browns, and of the Puritans who wrote on the subject, according to Mr. Bancroft, have been suppressed, affords very strong ground to believe that the Massachusetts Puritans violated the acknowledged objects of the Charter and the terms of their settlement, and committed the first breach of faith to their Sovereign, and inculcated that spirit and commenced that series of acts which resulted in the dismemberment of the British Empire in America.]
[Footnote 57: The General Assembly of the Province of Maryland passed an Act in 1649 containing the following provision:
"No person whatsoever, in this province, professing to believe in Jesus Christ, shall from henceforth be anywise troubled or molested for his or her religion, or in the free exercise thereof, or any way compelled to the belief or exercise of any other religion against his or her consent."
Mr. Bancroft says: "Christianity was made the law of the land [in Maryland], and no preference was given to any sect, and equality in religious rights, no less than civil freedom, was assured."]