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 [pg 12]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:—

[pg 13]

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."

[pg 14]

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 [pg 15]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[pg 16] 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[pg 17] 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[pg 18] 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,[pg 19] 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."

[pg 20]

"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)[pg 21] 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 [pg 22]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[pg 23] 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:

[10] "the term pilgrims belongs exclusively to the plymouth colonists." (young's chronicles of the pilgrims, p. 88, note.)

[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.

[12] massachusetts historical collections, 3rd series, vol. ii., p. 226.

[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.)

[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.)

[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.)

[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.)

[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.

[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.)

[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.)

[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.)

[21] moore's lives of the governors of new plymouth, pp. 228-230.