government of massachusetts bay and other colonies, during twenty years, under charles the second.

the restoration of charles the second to the throne of his ancestors was received in the several american colonies with very different feelings; the loyal colonies, from the bermudas to plymouth, hailed and proclaimed the restored king without hesitation; virginia proclaimed him before he was proclaimed in england;[114] the rulers of the massachusetts bay colony alone stood in suspense; hesitated, refused to proclaim him for a year,[pg 131] until ordered to do so. when it was ascertained that the restoration of the king, lords, and commons had been enthusiastically ratified by the people of england, and was firmly established, the general court of massachusetts bay adopted a most loyal address to the king, and another to the two houses of parliament, notwithstanding the same court had shortly before lauded the power which had abolished king, lords, and commons. the court also thought it needful to give practical proof of the sincerity of their new-born loyalty to the monarchical government by condemning a book published ten years before, and which had been until now in high repute among them, written by the rev. john eliot, the famous apostle to the indians. this book was entitled "the christian commonwealth," and argued that a purely republican government was the only christian government, and that all the monarchical governments of europe, especially that of england, was anti-christian. it appears that this book had been adduced by the complainants in england against the massachusetts bay government as a proof of their hostility to the system of government now restored in england. to purge themselves from this charge, the governor and council of massachusetts bay, march 18, 1661, took this book into consideration, and declared "they find it, on perusal, full of seditious principles and notions relative to all established governments in the christian world, especially against the government established in their native country." upon consultation with the elders, their censure was deferred until the general court met, "that mr. eliot might have the opportunity in the meantime of public recantation." at the next sessions, in may, mr. eliot gave into the court the following acknowledgment under his hand:

"understanding by an act of the honoured council, that there is offence taken at a book published in england by others, the copy whereof was sent over by myself about nine or ten years since, and that the further consideration thereof is commended to this honoured court now sitting in boston: upon perusal thereof, i do judge myself to have offended, and in way of satisfaction not only to the authority of this jurisdiction, but also to any others that shall take notice thereof, i do hereby acknowledge to this general court, that such expressions as do too manifestly scandalize the government of england, by king,[pg 132] lords and commons, as anti-christian, and justify the late innovators, i do sincerely bear testimony against, and acknowledge it to be not only a lawful but eminent form of government.

"2nd. all forms of civil government, deduced from scripture, i acknowledge to be of god, and to be subscribed to for conscience sake; and whatsoever is in the whole epistle or book inconsistent herewith, i do at once and most cordially disown.

"john eliot."[115]

it must have been painful and humiliating to john eliot to be brought to account for and compelled to recant the sentiments of a book which had been in circulation eight or nine years, and much applauded by those who now arraigned and made a scapegoat of him, to avert from themselves the consequence and suspicion of sentiments which they had held and avowed as strongly as eliot himself.

it has been said that the government of massachusetts bay had desisted from acknowledging and addressing charles the second as king, until they found that their silence endangered their interests. mr. holmes, in his annals, speaking under the date of may, 1661 (a year after charles had entered london as king), says: "charles ii., had not yet been proclaimed by the colony. the governor (endicot), on receiving intelligence of the transactions that were taking place in england to the prejudice of the colony, judged it inexpedient longer to delay that solemnity. calling the court together, a form of proclamation was agreed to, and charles was acknowledged to be their sovereign lord, and proclaimed to be the lawful king of great britain, france and ireland, and all other territories thereto belonging." an address to the king was agreed to, and ordered to be sent to england.[116]

[pg 133]

in this remarkable address (given in a note) the reader will be struck with several things which appear hardly reconcilable with words of sincerity and truth.

first, the reason professed for delaying nearly a year to recognise and address the king after his restoration. nearly thirty years before, they had threatened the king's royal father with resistance, since which time they had greatly increased in wealth and population; but now they represent themselves as "poor exiles," and excuse themselves for not acknowledging the king because of their mephiboseth lameness of distance—as if they were more distant from england than the other american colonies. their "lameness" and "ineptness" and "impotence" plainly arose from disinclination alone. it is amusing to hear[pg 134] them speak of themselves as "exanimated outcasts," hoping to be animated by the breath of royal favour. their "script" was no doubt "the transcript of their loyal hearts" when they supplicated the continuance of the royal charter, the first intentions and essential provisions of which they had violated so many years.

secondly. but what is most suspicious in this address is their denial of having taken any part in the civil war in england—professing that their lot had been the good old nonconformists',[117] "only to act a passive part throughout these late vicissitudes," and ascribed to the favour of god their "exemption from the temptations of either party." now, just ten years before, in their address to the long parliament and to cromwell, they said:

"and for our carriage and demeanour to the honourable parliament for these ten years, since the first beginning of your differences with the late king, and the war that after ensued, we have constantly adhered to you, notwithstanding ourselves in your weakest condition and doubtfullest times, but by our fasting and prayers for your good success, and our thanksgiving after the same was attained, in days of solemnity set apart for that purpose, as also by our sending over useful men (others also going voluntarily from us to help you) who have been of good use and have done good acceptable service to the army, declaring to the world hereby that such was the duty and love we bear unto the parliament that we were ready to rise and fall with them: for which we suffered the hatred and threats of other english colonies now in rebellion against you," etc.[118]

whether this address to parliament (a copy of it being enclosed with an address to cromwell) had ever at that time been made public, or whether king charles the second had then seen it, does not appear; but it is not easy to conceive statements and words more opposite than those addressed by the general court of massachusetts bay to the parliament in 1651, and to the king, charles the second, in 1661.

[pg 135]

on the contrasts of acts themselves, the reader will make his own remarks and inferences. the king received and answered their address very graciously.[119] they professed to receive it gratefully; but their consciousness of past unfaithfulness and transgressions, and their jealous suspicions, apprehended evil from the general terms of the king's reply, his reference to his royal predecessors and religious liberty, which above all things they most dreaded, desiring religious liberty for themselves alone, but not for any episcopalian, presbyterian, baptist, or quaker. they seem, however, to have been surprised at the kindness of the king's answer, considering their former conduct towards him and his royal father, and towards the colonies that loyally adhered to their king; and professed to have been excited to an ecstasy of inexpressible delight and gratitude at the gracious words of the best of kings.[120] their[pg 136] address presented a curious mixture of professed self-abasement, weakness, isolation, and affliction, with fulsome adulation not surpassed by anything that could have been indited by the most devout loyalist. but this honeymoon of adulation to the [pg 137]restored king was not of long duration; the order of the king, september 8, 1661, to cease persecuting the quakers, was received and submitted to with remonstrance; and obedience to it was refused as far as sending the accused quakers to england for trial, as that would bring the government of massachusetts bay before the english tribunals.[121]

but petitions and representations poured in upon the king and council from episcopalians, presbyterians, baptists, etc., from massachusetts bay, and their friends in england, complaining that they were denied liberty of worship, the ordinance of baptism and the lord's supper to their families and themselves, that they were deprived of even the elective franchise because of their not being members of the congregational church, and praying for the redress of their grievances.[122]

[pg 138]

the leaders of the colony had, however, warm and influential advocates in the council of the king: the earl of manchester, formerly commander of the parliamentary army against charles the first, until supplanted by cromwell; lord say, a chief founder of connecticut; and mr. morrice, secretary—all puritans.[123] under these influences the king sent a letter to the colony,[pg 139] which had been avowedly at war in connection with cromwell, against his royal father and himself (and by which they had justly forfeited the charter, apart from other violations of it), pardoning the past and assuring them he would not cancel but restore and establish their charter, provided they would fulfil certain conditions which were specified. they joyously accepted the pardon of the past, and the promised continuance of the charter as if unconditional, without fulfilling the conditions of it, or even mentioning them; just as their fathers had claimed the power given them in the royal charter by charles the first in 1628, to make laws and regulations for order and good government of the massachusetts bay plantation, concealing the charter, claiming absolute power under it, and wholly ignoring the restrictive condition that such laws and regulations were not to be "contrary to the laws of england"—not only concealing the charter, but not allowing their laws and regulations to be printed until after the fall of charles the first, and resisting all orders for the production of their proceedings, and all commissions of inquiry to ascertain whether they had not made laws or regulations and performed acts "contrary to the laws of england." so now, a generation afterwards, they claimed and contended that charles the second had restored their charter, as if done absolutely and unconditionally without their recognising one of the five conditions included in the proviso of the king's letter. nothing could have been more kindly and generously conceived than the terms of the king's letter, and nothing could be more reasonable than the conditions contained in its proviso—conditions with which all the other british colonies of america readily complied, and which every province of the dominion of canada has assumed and acted upon as a duty and pleasure from the first establishment of their respective governments. of all the colonies of the british empire for the last three centuries, that of massachusetts bay is the only one that ever refused to acknowledge this allegiance to the government from which it derived its existence and territory. the conditions[pg 140] which charles the second announced as the proviso of his consenting to renew and continue the charter granted by his royal father to the company of massachusetts bay, were the following:

"1. that upon a review, all such laws and ordinances that are now, or have been during these late troubles, in practice there, and which are contrary or derogatory to the king's authority and government, shall be repealed.

"2. that the rules and prescriptions of the said royal charter for administering and taking the oath of allegiance, be henceforth duly observed.

"3. that the administration of justice be in the king's name.

"4. that since the principle and formation of that charter was and is the freedom of liberty of conscience, we do hereby charge and require you that freedom of liberty be duly admitted and allowed, so that they that desire to use the book of common prayer and perform their devotion in the manner that is established here, be not denied the exercise thereof, or undergo any prejudice or disadvantage thereby, they using the liberty peaceably, without any disturbance to others.

"5. that all persons of good and honest lives and conversations be admitted to the sacrament of the lord's supper, according to the said book of common prayer, and their children to baptism."[124]

[pg 141]

nothing could be more kind and assuring than the terms of the king's letter, notwithstanding the former hostility of the massachusetts bay rulers to him and his royal father,[125] and[pg 142] nothing could be more reasonable than the five conditions on which he assured them of the oblivion of the past and the continuance of the royal charter; but with not one of these conditions did they take a step to comply for several months, under the pretext of affording time, after publishing it, that "all persons might have opportunity to consider what was necessary to be done," though the "all persons" referred to included only one-sixth of the population: for the term "freeman of massachusetts" was at that time, and for thirty years before and afterwards, synonymous with member of one of the congregational churches. and it was against their disloyalty and intolerance that the five conditions of the king's pardon were chiefly directed. with some of these conditions they never complied; with others only as they were compelled, and even complained of them afterwards as an invasion of their chartered privileges,[126] though, in their first order for public thanksgiving[pg 143] for the king's letter, they spoke of it as assuring "the continuance of peace, liberties and the gospel." though the agent of rhode island met the agents of massachusetts bay colony before the king, and challenged them to cite, in behalf of massachusetts, one act of duty or loyalty to the kings of england, in support of their present professions as loyal subjects; yet the king was not disposed to punish them for the past, but continue to them their privileges, as they desired and promised they would act with loyalty and tolerance in the future.[127]

[pg 144]

the king's promised oblivion of the past and recognition of the charter was hailed and assumed as unconditional, while the king's conditions were ignored and remained a dead letter. the elective franchise and eligibility for office were still, as heretofore, the exclusive prerogative of congregational church members; the government of the colony was still in the hands alone of congregational ministers and magistrates, and which they cleaved to as for life; their persecutions of those who did not worship as they did, continued without abatement; they persisted in their theocratic independence, and pretended to do all this under a royal charter which forbade their making laws or regulations contrary to the laws of england, acting also in the face of the king's conditions of pardoning their past offences, and perpetuating their charter privileges.

the king's letter was dated the 28th of june, 1662, and was presented by mr. bradstreet and mr. norton to the governor and general court at boston, 8th of october, 1662;[128] but it was not until a general court called in august, 1664, that "the said letter was communicated to the whole assembly, according[pg 145] to his majesty's command, and copies thereof spread abroad."[129] in the meantime they boasted of their charter being recognised by the king, according, of course, to their own interpretation of it, while for twenty-two months they withheld the king's letter, against his orders, from being published; concealing from the victims of their proscription and persecution the toleration which the king had announced as the conditions of his perpetuating the charter.

it is not surprising that those proscribed and persecuted parties in massachusetts bay colony should complain to the king's government that the local government had denied them every privilege which his majesty had assured to them through their friends in england, and by alleged orders to the government of massachusetts bay, and therefore that the king's government should determine to appoint commissioners to proceed to the new england colonies to investigate the complaints made, and to regulate the affairs of the colonies after the disorders of the then recent civil war, during which the massachusetts bay government had wholly identified itself with cromwell, and acted in hostility to those other american colonies which would not renounce their allegiance to the throne, and avow allegiance to the usurper.

it was not till the government of massachusetts bay saw that their silence could no longer be persisted in with safety, and that a royal commission was inevitable,[130] that they even published the king's letter, and then, as a means of further procrastination and delay, they appended their order that the conditions prescribed in the royal letter, which "had influence upon the churches as well as the civil state, should be suspended until the court should take action thereon"—thus [pg 146]subordinating the orders of the king to the action of the massachusetts bay court.

from the restoration, reports were most industriously circulated in the bay colony, designed to excite popular suspicion and hostility against the royal government, such as that their constitution and church privileges were to be suppressed, and superseded by a royal governor and the episcopal hierarchy, etc.; and before the arrival of the royal commissioners the object of their appointment was misrepresented and their character assailed; it was pretended their commission was a bogus one, prepared "under an old hedge,"[131] and all this preparatory to the intended resistance of the commissioners by the governor and council of massachusetts bay.

the five conditions of continuing the charter, specified in the king's letter of the 28th of june, 1662, the publication of which[pg 147] was suppressed by the massachusetts bay court for nearly two years, and the intolerance and proscription which it was intended to redress being still practised, were doubtless among the causes which led to the appointment of the royal commissioners; but that commission had reference to other colonies as well as massachusetts bay, and to other subjects than the intolerant proscriptions of that colony.[132]

[pg 148]

all the new england colonies except that of massachusetts bay respectfully and cordially received the royal commissioners, and gave entire satisfaction in the matters which the commissioners were intended to investigate.[133] the congregational rulers of[pg 149] massachusetts bay alone rejected the royal commissioners, denied their authority, and assailed their character. in the early history of upper canada, when one church claimed to[pg 150] be established above every other, and the local government sustained its pretensions as if authorized by law, it is known with what tenacity and denunciation the canadian ecclesiastic-[pg 151]civil government resisted all appeals, both to the local legislature and to england, for a liberal government of equal laws and equal rights for all classes of the king's subjects in canada. but the excluded majority of the canadians had little to complain of in comparison of the excluded majority of his majesty's subjects of the massachusetts bay colony, where the only avenue to office, or even the elective franchise, was membership in the congregational church, and where no dissenter from that church could have his children baptized, or worship god according to his conscience, except under pain of imprisonment, fine, banishment, or death itself.

the "pilgrim fathers" crossed the atlantic to plymouth in 1620, and the "puritan fathers" to massachusetts bay in 1628, professedly for the same purpose, namely, liberty to worship god without the imposition of ceremonies of which they disapproved. the "pilgrim fathers," as true and consistent friends of liberty, exercised full liberty of worship for themselves, and left others to enjoy the same liberty of worship which they enjoyed; but the "puritan fathers" exercised their liberty not only by abandoning the church and worship which they professed when they left england, and setting up a congregational worship, but by prohibiting every other form of worship, and its adherents with imprisonment, fine, exile, and death. and under this pretext of liberty of worship for themselves, they proscribed and persecuted all who differed from them in religious worship for fifty years, until their power to do so was taken from them by the cancelling of the charter whose provisions they had so persistently and so cruelly abused, in contradistinction to the tolerant and liberal conduct of their brethren and neighbours of the plymouth, rhode island, and connecticut colonies. in note on page 148, i have given extracts of the report of the royal commissioners relative to these colonies and their conduct and[pg 152] treatment of the commissioners; and in the lengthened extract of the report relative to massachusetts bay colony, it is seen how different was the spirit and government of the rulers of that colony, both in respect to their fellow-colonists and their sovereign, from that of the rulers of the other new england colonies, which had, indeed, to seek royal protection against the oppressions and aggressions of the more powerful domineering government of massachusetts bay. the rulers of this colony alone rejected the royal commissioners. for nearly two years the king's letter of the 28th of june, 1662 (given in note on page 140), pardoning their acts of disloyalty and assuring them of the continuance of their charter on certain conditions, remained unpublished and unnoticed; but on the appointment of the royal commissioners, in 1664, they proceeded to acknowledge the kindness of the king's letter of 1662, and other royal letters; then changing their tone, they protest against the royal commission. they sent a copy of their address to the king, to lord chancellor clarendon, who, in connection with the earl of manchester and lord say, had befriended them. they also wrote to others of their friends, and among others to the hon. and celebrated robert boyle, than whom no man had shown himself a warmer or more generous friend to their colony. i will give, not in successive notes, but in the text, their address to the king, the king's reply, lord clarendon's and the hon. robert boyle's letters to them on the subject of their address to the king, and their rejection and treatment of the royal commission. i will then give the sentiments of what is called the "petition of the minority" of their own community on the subject, and their own answers to the chief propositions of the royal commissioners. from all this it will appear that the united empire loyalists were the true liberals, the advocates of universal toleration and of truly liberal government; while the rulers of massachusetts bay were the advocates of religious intolerance and persecution of a government by a single religious denomination, and hostile to the supreme authority of england, as well as to their more tolerant and loyal fellow-colonists.

i will first give their characteristic address, called "petition" or "supplication," to the king. i do so without abridgment, long as it is, that i may not be chargeable with unfairness. it is as follows:—

[pg 153]

copy of the address of the massachusetts colony to king charles the second, in 1664:

"to the king's most excellent majestie.—the humble supplication of the general court of the massachusetts colony, in new england.

"dread sovereign,

"iff your poor subjects, who have removed themselves into a remote corner of the earth to enjoy peace with god and man, doe, in this day of their trouble, prostrate themselves at your royal feet, and beg your favour, we hope it will be graciously accepted by your majestie, and that as the high place you sustain on earth doth number you here among the gods, for you well imitate the god of heaven, in being ready to maintain the cause of the afflicted, and the right of the poor,[135] and to receive their cries and addresses to that end. and we humbly beseech your majestie with patience and clemency to heare and accept our plain discourse, tho' of somewhat greater length than would be comely in other or lesser cases. we are remote,[136] and can speake but seldom, and therefore crave leave to speake the more at once. wee shall not largely repeat how that the first undertakers for this plantation, having by considerable summs purchased the right thereof granted to the council established at plimouth by king james, your royal grandfather, did after obtain a patent given and confirmed to themselves by your royal father, king charles the first, wherein it is granted to them, and their heirs, assigns and associates for ever, not only the absolute use and propriety of the tract of land therein mentioned, but also full and absolute power of governing[137] all the people of this place, by men chosen from among themselves, and according to such lawes as they shall from time to time see meet to make and establish, being not[pg 154] repugnant to the laws of england (they paying only the fifth part of the ore of gold and silver that shall here be found, for and in respect of all duties, demands, exactions, and service whatsoever), as in the said patent is more at large declared. under the encouragement and security of which royal charter this people did, at their own charges,[138] transport themselves, their wives and families, over the ocean, purchase the lands of the natives, and plant this colony, with great labour, hazards, cost and difficulties, for a long time wrestling with the wants of a wilderness and the burdens of a new plantation; having, also, now above 30 years enjoyed the aforesaid power and priviledge of government within themselves, as their undoubted right in the sight of god and man,[139] and having had, moreover, this further favour from god and from your majestie, that wee have received several gracious letters from your royal selfe, full of expressions tending to confirme us in our enjoyments, viz., in your majestie's letter bearing date the 15th day of february, 1660, you are pleased to consider new england as one of the chiefest of your colonies and plantations abroad, having enjoyed and grown up in a long and orderly establishment, adding this royal promise: 'wee shall not come behind any of our royal predecessors in a just encouragement and protection of all our loving subjects there.' in your majestie's letter of the 28th of june, 1662, sent us by our messengers, besides many other gracious expressions, there is this: 'wee will preserve and do hereby confirme the patent and charter heretofore granted unto them by our royal father of blessed memory, and they shall freely enjoy all the privileges and liberties granted unto them in and by the same.'[140] as for[pg 155] such particulars, of a civil and religious nature, as are subjoined in the said letter, we have applyed ourselves to the utmost to satisfy your majesty, so far as doth consist with conscience, of our duty toward god and the just liberties and privileges of our patent.[141] wee are further bound, with humble thankfulness, to acknowledge your majestie's gracious expressions in your last letter we have received, dated april 23, 1664, as (besides other instances thereof) that your majestie hath not the least intention or thought of violating, or in the least degree infringing, the charter heretofore granted by your royal father with great wisdom, and upon full deliberation, etc.

"but what affliction of heart must it needs be unto us, that our sins have provoked god to permit our adversaries to set themselves against us by their misinformations, complaints and solicitations (as some of them have made it their worke for many years), and thereby to procure a commission under the great seal, wherein four persons (one of them our knowne and professed enemy) are impowered to hear, receive, examine and determine all complaints and appeals, in all causes and matters as well military as criminal and civil, and to proceed in all things, for settling this country according to their good and sound discretion, etc., whereby, instead of being governed by rulers of our owne choosing (which is the fundamental privilege of our patent), and by lawes of our owne, wee are like to be subjected to the arbitary power of strangers, proceeding not by any established law, but by their own discretion. and whereas our patent gives a sufficient royal warrant and discharge to all officers and persons for executing the lawes here made and published, as is therein directed, we shall now not be discharged, and at rest from further molestation, when wee have so[pg 156] executed and observed our lawes, but be liable to complaints and appeales, and to the determinations of new judges, whereby our government and administrations will be made void and of none effect. and though we have yet had but a little taste of the words or actings of these gentlemen that are come over hither in this capacity of commissioners, yet we have had enough to confirm us in our feares that their improvement of this power, in pursuance of their commission (should the same proceed), will end in the subversion of our all. we should be glad to hope that your majesty's instructions (which they have not been pleased to impart to us) may put such limitations to their business here as will take off our fear; but according to the present appearance of things, we thus speak.

"in this case (dread sovereign), our refuge under god is your royal selfe, whom we humbly address ourselves unto, and are the rather emboldened therein because your majesty's last gracious letter doth encourage us to suggest what, upon the experience we have had, and observations we have made, we judge necessary or convenient for the good and benefit of this plantation, and because we are well persuaded that had your majestie a full and right information of the state of things here,[142] you would find apparent reason to put a stop to these proceedings, which are certainly discervient to your majesty's interest and to the prosperity and welfare of this place.

"if these things go on (according to the present appearance), your subjects here will either be forced to seek new dwellings, or sink and faint under burdens that will to them be intolerable. the rigour of all new endeavours in the several callings and occupations (either for merchandise abroad or for subduing this wilderness at home) will be enfeebled, as we perceive it already begins to be, the good of converting the natives obstructed, the inhabitants driven to we know not what extremities, and this hopeful plantation in the issue ruined. but whatever becomes of us, we are sure the adversary cannot countervail the king's damages.

"it is indeed a grief to our hearts to see your majesty put[pg 157] upon this extraordinary charge and cost about a business the product whereof can never reimburse the one half of what will be expended upon it. imposed rulers and officers will have occasion to expend more than can be raised here, so as nothing will return to your majesty's exchequer; but instead thereof, the wonted benefit of customs, exported and imported into england from hence, will be diminished by discouragement and diminution of men's endeavours in their several occupations; or if the aim should be to gratify some particular by livings and revenues here that will also fail, where nothing is to be had, the king himself will be loser, and so will the case be formed here; for such is the poverty and meanness of the people (by reason of the length and coldness of the winters, the difficulty of subduing a wilderness, defect of staple commodity, the want of money, etc.), that if with hard labour men get a subsistence for their families, 'tis as much as the generality are able to do, paying but very small rates towards the public charges; and yet if all the country hath ordinarily raised by the year for all the charges of the whole government were put together and then doubled or trebled, it would not be counted, for one of these gentlemen, a considerable accommodation.[143]

"it is true, that the estates men have in conjunction with hard labour and vigorous endeavours in their several places do bring in a comfortable subsistence for such a mean people (we do not diminish our thankfulness to god, that he provides for us in a wilderness as he doth), yet neither will the former stand or the latter be discouraged, nor will both ever answer the ends of those that seek great things.

"we perceive there have been great expectations of what is to be had here raised by some men's informations. but those informations will prove fallacious, disappointing them that have[pg 158] relied upon them; and if the taking of this course should drive the people out of the country (for to a coalition therein they will never come), it will be hard to find another people that will stay long or stand under any considerable burden in it, seeing it is not a country where men can subsist without hard labour and great frugality.

"there have also been high representations of great divisions and discontents among us, and of a necessity of sending commissioners to relieve the aggrieved, etc.; whereas it plainly appears that the body of this colony are unanimously satisfied in the present government, and abhorrent from change, and that what is now offered will, instead of relieving, raise up such grievances as are intolerable. we suppose there is no government under heaven wherein some discontented persons may not be found; and if it be a sufficient accusation against a government that there are some such, who will be innocent? yet, through the favour of god, there are but few amongst us that are malcontent, and fewer that have cause to be so.

"sir, the all-knowing god knows our greatest ambition is to live a poor and quiet life, in a corner of the world, without offence to god or man. we came not in this wilderness to seek great things for ourselves; and if any come after us to seek them here, they will be disappointed. we keep ourselves within our line, and meddle not with matters abroad; a just dependence upon and subjection to your majesty, according to our charter, it is far from our hearts to disacknowledge. we so highly prize your favourable aspect (though at so great a distance), as we would gladly do anything that is within our power to purchase the continuance of it. we are willing to testify our affection to your majesty's service, by answering the proposal of your honourable commissioners, of which we doubt not but that they have already given your majesty an account. we are carefully studious of all due subjection to your majesty, and that not only for wrath, but for conscience sake; and should divine providence ever offer an opportunity wherein we might, in any righteous way, according to our poor and mean capacity, testify our dutiful affection to your majesty, we hope we should most gladly embrace it. but it is a great unhappiness to be reduced to so hard a case, as to have no other testimony of our subjection and loyalty offered us but this, viz., to destroy our own[pg 159] being, which nature teacheth us to preserve; or to yield up our liberties, which are far dearer to us than our lives, and which, had we had any fears of being deprived of, we had never wandered from our fathers' houses into these ends of the earth, nor laid our labours or estates therein; besides engaging in a most hazardous and difficult war, with the most warlike of the natives, to our great charge and the loss of some of the lives of our dear friends. neither can the deepest invention of man find out a more certain way of consistence than to obtain a royal donation from so great a prince under his great seal, which is the greatest security that may be had in human affairs.

"royal sir, it is in your power to say of your poor people in new england, they shall not die. if we have found favour in the sight of our king, let our life be given us at our petition (or rather that which is dearer than life, that we have ventured our lives, and willingly passed through many deaths to obtain), and our all at our request. let our government live, our patent live, our magistrates live, our laws and liberties live, our religious enjoyments live; so shall we all yet have further cause to say from our hearts, let the king live for ever. and the blessing of them that were ready to perish shall come upon your majesty; having delivered the poor that cried, and such as had none to help them. it was an honour to one of your royal ancestors that he was called the poor man's king. it was job's excellency that he sat as king among his people—that he was a father to the poor. they are a poor people (destitute of outward favour, wealth and power) who now cry to their lord the king. may your majesty please to regard their cause and maintain their right. it will stand among the marks of lasting honour to after generations. and we and ours shall have lasting cause to rejoice, that we have been numbered among your majesty's most humble servants and suppliants.

"25th october, 1664."

as the massachusetts governor and council had endorsed a copy of the foregoing petition to the earl of clarendon, then lord chancellor (who had dictated, with the puritan ministers of the king, his generous letter of the 28th of june, 1662), i will here insert lord clarendon's reply to them, in which he vindicates the appointment of the commissioners, and exposes[pg 160] the unreasonableness of the statements and conduct of the massachusetts court. the letter is as follows:

copy of a letter from the earl of clarendon to the massachusetts colony in 1664:—

"mr. governor and gentlemen,

"i have received yours of the 7th of november, by the hands of mr. ashurst, a very sober and discreet person, and did (by his communicating it to me) peruse the petition you had directed to his majesty; and i do confess to you, i am so much a friend to your colony that if the same had been communicated to nobody but myself, i should have dissuaded the presenting the same to his majesty, who i doubt will not think himself well treated by it, or the singular care he hath expressed of his subjects in those parts sufficiently acknowledged; but since i found by your letter to my lord chamberlaine and mr. boyle, that you expect some effect from your petition, upon conference with them wee all agreed not to hinder the delivery of it, though i have read to them and mr. ashurst every word of the instructions the commissioners have; and they all confessed that his majesty could not expresse more grace and goodness for that his plantation, nor put it more out of their power in any degree to invade the liberties and privileges granted to you by your charter; and therefore wee were all equally amazed to find that you demand a revokation of the commission and commissioners, without laying the least matter to their charge of crymes or exorbitances. what sense the king hath of your addresse to him, you will, i presume, heare from himself, or by his direction. i shall only tell you that as you had long cause to expect that the king would send commissioners thither, so that it was absolutely necessary he should do so, to compose the differences amongst yourselves of which he received complaint, and to do justice to your neighbours, which they demand from his royall hands. i know not what you mean by saying, the commissioners have power to exercise government there altogether inconsistent with your charter and privileges, since i am sure their commission is to see and provide for the due and full observation of the charter, and that all the privileges granted by that charter may be equally enjoyed by all his majesty's subjects there. i know they are expressly inhibited from intermeddling with or obstructing the [pg 161]administration of justice, according to the formes observed there; but if in truth, in any extraordinary case, the proceedings there have been irregular, and against the rules of justice, as some particular cases particularily recommended to them by his majesty, seeme to be, it cannot be presumed that his majesty hath or will leave his subjects of new england without hope of redresse by any appeale to him, which his subjects of all his other kingdoms have free liberty to make. i can say no more to you but that it is in your owne power to be very happy, and to enjoy all that hath been granted to you; but it will be absolutely necessary that you perform and pay all that reverence and obedience which is due from subjects to their king, and which his majesty will exact from you, and doubts not but to find from the best of that colony both in quality and in number. i have no more to add but that i am,

"gentlemen,

"your affectionate servant,

"clarendon, c.

"worcester house, 15 march, 1665."

to lord clarendon's letter i will add the letter of the honourable robert boyle to governor endicot. the hon. robert boyle was not only distinguished as the first philosopher of his age, but as the founder of the royal society and the president of the society for the propagation of the gospel in new england—the society which supported john eliot, the apostle to the indians of new england—for the massachusetts bay government neither established nor supported his mission to the indians. new england never had a warmer and more benevolent friend than the celebrated robert boyle, who, in a letter dated march 17th, 1665, and addressed to the governor endicot and the massachusetts court, after acknowledging their resolution of thanks, through mr. winthrop, to him for his exertions on their behalf, proceeds as follows:

"i dealt very sincerely with mr. winthrop in what i informed him concerning the favourable inclinations i had found both in his majesty and in my lord chancellor toward the united colonies of new england; and though his lordship again repeats and confirms the assurances he had authorized me to give to your friends in the city, yet i cannot but acquaint you with this, observing that in your last addresses to his majesty, and[pg 162] letters to his lordship, there are some passages that were much more unexpected than welcome; insomuch that not only those who are unconcerned in your affairs, but the most considerable persons that favour you in england, have expressed to me their being unsatisfied in some of the particulars i am speaking of. and it seems generally unreasonable that when the king had so graciously remitted all that was past, and upon just and important inducements, sent commissioners to promote the welfare of your colony, you should (in expressions not over manly or respectfully worded) be importunate with him to do an action likely to blemish his wisdom or justice, or both, as immediately to recall public ministers from so remote a part of the world before they or any of them be so much as accused of any one crime or miscarriage.

"and since you are pleased i should concern myself in this business, i must deal so ingenuously with you as to inform you, that hearing about your affairs, i waited upon my lord chancellor (and finding him, though not satisfied with your late proceedings, yet neither your enemy, nor indisposed to be your favourer as before). his lordship was pleased, with a condescending and unexpected freedom, to read himself, not only to me, but to another good friend of yours that i brought along with me, the whole instructions and all the other papers that were delivered to the commissioners, and by the particulars of those it appeared to us both that they had been so solicitous, viz., in the things that related to your charter, and especially to the liberty of your consciences, that i could not but wonder at it, and add to the number of those that cannot think it becomes his majesty to recall commissioners sent so far with no other instructions than those, before they have time to do any part of the good intended you by themselves, and before they are accused of having done any one harmful thing, even in your private letters either to me or (as far as i know) to any of your friends here, who will be much discouraged from appearing on your behalf; and much disabled to do it successfully so long as such proceedings as these that relate to the commissioners supply others with objections which those that wish you well are unable to answer.

"i should not have taken this liberty, which the honour of your letter ought to have filled with little less than [pg 163]acknowledgment, if the favourable construction you have made of my former endeavours to do you good offices did not engage me to continue them, though in a way which (in my poor apprehension) tends very directly to serve you, whether i do or no to please you; and as i presume you will receive, both from his majesty and my lord chancellor, express assurances that there is nothing intended in violation to your charter, so if the commissioners should break their instructions and endeavour to frustrate his majesty's just and favourable intentions towards you, you may find that some of your friends here were not backward to accuse the commissioners upon general surmises that may injure you, than they will be ready to represent your grievances, in case they shall actually oppress you; which, that they may never do, is not more the expectation of them that recommended them to you than it is the hearty wish of a person who, upon the account of your faithfulness and care of so good a work as the conversion of the natives among you, is in a peculiar manner concerned to shew himself, honoured sir, your most affectionate and most humble servant,[144]

"ro. boyle."

but in addition to the benevolent and learned robert boyle and their other friends in england, besides lord clarendon and the king, who disapproved of their pretentious spirit and proceedings, there were numbers of their own fellow-colonists who equally condemned the assumptions and conduct of governor endicot and his council. it has been shown in a previous chapter that in connection with the complete suppression of the freedom of the press, petitioners to the governor and court were punished for any expressions in their petitions which complained of the acts or proceedings of the court. it therefore required no small degree of independence and courage for any among them to avow their dissent from the acts of rulers so despotic and intolerant. yet, at this juncture of the rejection of the royal commission, and the denial of the king's authority, there were found united empire loyalists and liberals, even among the congregational "freemen" of massachusetts bay, who raised the voice of remonstrance against this incipient separation movement. a petition was prepared and signed by[pg 164] nearly two hundred of the inhabitants of boston, salem, newbury, and ipswich, and presented to the court. the compiler of the "danforth papers," in the massachusetts historical collection, says: "next follows the petition in which the minority of our forefathers have exhibited so much good sense and sound policy." the following is an extract of the boston petition, addressed "to the honourable general court now assembled in boston:"

"may it please the hon. court:

"your humble petitioners, being informed that letters are lately sent from his majesty to the governor and council, expressive of resentment of the proceedings of this colony with his commissioners lately sent hither, and requiring also some principal persons therein, with command upon their allegiance to attend his majesty's pleasure in order to a final determination of such differences and debates as have happened between his majesty's commissioners and the governor here, and which declaration of his majesty, your petitioners, looking at as a matter of the greatest importance, justly calling for the most serious consideration, that they might not be wanting, either to yourselves in withholding any encouragement that their concurrence might afford in so arduous a matter, nor to themselves and the country in being involved by their silence in the dangerous mistakes of (otherwise well united) persons inclining to disloyal principles, they desire they may have liberty without offence to propose some of their thoughts and fears about the matter of your more serious deliberation.

"your petitioners humbly conceive that those who live in this age are no less than others concerned in that advice of the wise man, to keep the king's commandment, because of the oath of god, and not to be tardy to go out of his sight that doth whatever pleaseth him; wherefore they desire that seeing his majesty hath already taken no little displeasure against us, as if we disowned his majesty's jurisdiction over us, effectual care be taken, lest by refusing to attend his majesty's order for clearing our pretences unto right and favour in that particular, we should plunge ourselves into great disfavour and danger.

"the receiving of a charter from his majesty's royal predecessor for the planting of this colony, with a confirmation of the same from his royal person, by our late address, sufficiently[pg 165] declares this place to be part of his dominions and ourselves his subjects. in testimony of which, also, the first governor, mr. matthew cradock (as we are informed), stands recorded juratus de fide et obedientia, before one of the masters in chancery; whence it is evident that if any proceedings of this colony have given occasion to his majesty to say that we believe he hath no jurisdiction over us, what effectual course had need be taken to free ourselves from the incurring his majesty's future displeasure by continuance in so dangerous an offence? and to give his majesty all due satisfaction in that point, such an assertion would be no less destructive to our welfare than derogatory to his majesty's honour. the doubtful interpretations of the words of a patent which there can be no reason to hope should ever be construed to the divesting of the sovereign prince of his royal power over his natural subjects and liege people, is too frail a foundation to build such transcendent immunity and privilege upon.

"your petitioners earnestly desire that no part will so irresistibly carry on any design of so dangerous a consequence as to necessitate their brethren equally engaged with them in the same undertaking to make their particular address to his majesty, and declaring to the world, to clear themselves from the least imputation of so scandalous an evil as the appearance of disaffection or disloyalty to the person and government of their lawful prince and sovereign would be.

"wherefore your petitioners do here humbly entreat that if any occasion hath been given to his majesty so to resent any former actings as in his last letter is held forth, that nothing of that nature be further proceeded in, but contrariwise that application be made to his majesty, immediately to be sent for the end to clear the transactions of them that govern this colony from any such construction, lest otherwise that which, if duly improved, might have been a cloud of the latter rain, be turned into that which, in the conclusion, may be found more terrible than the roaring of a lion.

"thus craving a favourable interpretation of what is here humbly presented, your petitioners shall ever be obliged to, etc."[145]

[pg 166]

the following is the king's letter, referred to by lord clarendon, evidently written on the advice of the puritan councillors, whom the king retained in his government, and to whom the management of new england affairs seems to have been chiefly committed, with the oversight of the lord chancellor clarendon. this letter, in addition to a previous letter from the king of the same kind, together with the letters of lord clarendon and the hon. robert boyle, left them not a shadow of pretext for the inflammatory statements they were putting forth, and the complaints they were making, that their charter privileges and rights of conscience were invaded, and was a reply to the petition of the massachusetts bay governor and council (inserted above at length, pages 153-159), and shows the utter groundlessness of their statements; that what they contended for under the pretext of conscience was the right of persecuting and proscribing all who did not conform to the congregational worship; and that what they claimed under the pretence of charter rights was absolute independence, refusing to submit even to inquiry as to whether they had not encroached upon the rights and territories of their white and indian neighbours, or made laws and regulations and performed acts contrary to the laws of england and to the rights of other of the king's subjects. this letter breathes the spirit of kindness and forbearance, and contends for toleration, as did all the loyal colonists of the time, appealing to the king for protection against the intolerance, persecution and proscription of the massachusetts bay congregational government. the letter is as follows:

copy of a letter from secretary morrice to the massachusetts colony:

"sirs,

"his majesty hath heard this petition[146] read to him, and hath well weighed all the expressions therein, and the temper and spirit of those who framed it, and doth not impute the same to his colony of massachusetts, amongst whom he knows the major part consists of men well affected to his service and[pg 167] obedient to his government, but he hath commanded me to let you know that he is not pleased with this petition, and looks upon it as the contrivance of a few persons who have had too long authority there, and who use all the artifices they can to infuse jealousies into his good subjects there, and apprehensions as if their charter were in danger, when it is not possible for his majesty to do more for the securing it, or to give his subjects there more assurance that it shall not in any degree be infringed, than he hath already done, even by his late commission and commissioners sent thither, who are so far from having the least authority to infringe any clause in the said charter, that it is the principal end of their journey, so chargeable to his majesty, to see that the charter be fully and punctually observed. his majesty did expect thanks and acknowledgments from that his colony, of his fatherly care in sending his commissioners thither, and which he doubts not he shall receive from the rest of the colonies in those parts, and not such unreasonable and groundless complaint as is contained in your petition, as if he had thereby intended to take away your privileges and to drive you from your habitations, without the least mention of any misdemeanour or miscarriage in any one of the said commissioners or in any one particular. nor can his majesty comprehend (except you believe that by granting your charter he hath parted with his sovereign power over his subjects there) how he could proceed more graciously, or indeed any other way, upon so many complaints presented to him by particular persons of injustice done contrary to the constitution of that government: from the other colonies, for the oppression they pretend to undergo by the conduct of massachusetts, by extending their bounds and their jurisdiction further than they ought to do, as they pretend; from the natives, for the breach of faith and intolerable pressures laid upon them, as they allege, contrary to all kind of justice, and even to the dishonour of the english nation and christian faith, if all they allege be true. i say, his majesty cannot comprehend how he could apply proper remedies to these evils, if they are real, or how he could satisfy himself whether they are real or no by any other way or means than by sending commissioners thither to examine the truth and grounds of all the allegations, and for the present to compose the differences the best they can, until, upon a full and clear [pg 168]representation thereof to his majesty, who cannot but expect the same from them, his majesty's own final judgement and determination may be had. and it hath pleased god so far already to bless that service that it's no small benefit his majesty and his english colonies in those parts have already received by the said commissioners in the removal of so inconvenient neighbours as the dutch have been for these late years, and which would have been a more spreading and growing mischief in a short time if it had not been removed. to conclude, i am commanded by his majesty to assure you again of your full and peaceable enjoyment of all the privileges and liberties granted to you by his charter, which he hath heretofore and doth now again offer to renew to you, if you shall desire it; and that you may further promise yourselves all the protection, countenance, and encouragement that the best subjects ever received from the most gracious prince; in return whereof he doth only expect that duty and cheerful obedience that is due to him, and that it may not be in the power of any malicious person to make you miserable by entertaining any unnecessary and unreasonable jealousies that there is a purpose to make you so. and since his majesty hath too much reason to suspect that mr. endicot,[147] who hath during all the late revolutions continued the [pg 169]government there, is not a person well affected to his majesty's person or his government, his majesty will take it very well if at the next election any other person of good reputation be chosen in the place, and that he may no longer exercise that charge. this is all i have to signify unto you from his majesty, and remain,

"your very humble servant,

will. morrice.

"whitehall, february 25th, 1665."

but this courteous and explicit letter had no effect upon the governor and council of massachusetts bay in allaying opposition to the royal commissioners, whose authority they refused to acknowledge, nor did it prevent their persecution of their brethren whom they termed "sectaries"—the "dissenting party." the commissioners having executed the part of their commission relative to the dutch and indians, and finding their authority resisted by the governor and council of massachusetts bay, reported the result to the king's government, which determined to order the attendance of representatives of the massachusetts bay government, to answer in england the complaints prepared against them, and for their conduct to the commissioners. the letter which the king was advised to address to that pretentious and persecuting government speaks in a more decisive but kindly tone, and is as follows:

copy of a letter from king charles ii. to the massachusetts colony, april, 1666:

"charles r.

"his majesty having received a full information from his commissioners who were sent by him into new england, of their reception and treatment in the several colonies and provinces of that plantation, in all which they have received great satisfaction but only that of massachusetts; and he having likewise been fully informed of the account sent hither by the counsell of the massachusetts, under the hand of the present governor, of all the passages and proceedings which have been there between the said commissioners and them from the time of their first coming over; upon all which it is very evident to his majesty, notwithstanding many expressions of great affection and duty, that those who govern the colony of massachusetts do believe that the commission given by his majesty[pg 170] to those commissioners, upon so many and weighty reasons, and after so long deliberation, is an apparent violation of their charter, and tending to the dissolution of it, and that in truth they do, upon the matter, believe that his majesty hath no jurisdiction over them, but that all persons must acquiesce in their judgments and determinations, how unjust soever, and cannot appeal to his majesty, which would be a matter of such a high consequence as every man discernes where it must end. his majesty, therefore, upon due consideration of the whole matter, thinks fit to recall his said commissioners which he hath at this present done, to the end he may receive from them a more particular account of the state and condition of those his plantations, and of the particular differences and debates they have had with those of the massachusetts, that so his majesty may pass his final judgment and determination thereupon. his majesty's express command and charge is, that the governor and counsell of the massachusetts do forthwith make choice of five or four persons to attend upon his majesty, whereof mr. richard bellingham and major hathorn are to be two, both which his majesty commands upon their allegiance to attend, the other three or two to be such as the counsell shall make choice of; and if the said mr. bellingham be the present governor, another fit person is to be deputed to that office till his return, and his majesty will then, in person, hear all the allegations, suggestions, or pretences to right or favour that can be made on the behalf of the said colony, and will then make it appear how far he is from the least thought of invading or infringing, in the least degree, the royal charter granted to the said colony. and his majesty expects the appearance of the said persons as soon as they can possibly repair hither after they have notice of this his majesty's pleasure. and his further command is, that there be no alterations with reference to the government of the province of maine till his majesty hath heard what is alledged on all sides, but that the same continue as his majesty's commissioners have left the same, until his majesty shall further determine. and his majesty further expressly charges and commands the governor and counsell there, that they immediately set all such persons at liberty who have been or are imprisoned only for petitioning or applying themselves to his majesty's [pg 171]commissioners. and for the better prevention of all differences and disputes upon the bounds and limits of the several colonies, his majesty's pleasure is, that all determinations made by his majesty's said commissioners with reference to the said bounds and limits may still continue to be observed, till, upon a full representation of all pretences, his majesty shall make his own final determination; and particularly the present temporary bounds set by the commissioners between the colonies of new plymouth and rhode island, until his majesty shall find cause to alter the same. and his majesty expects that full obedience be given to this signification of his pleasure in all particulars.

"given at the court at whitehall, the 10th day of april, 1666, in the eighteenth year of his majesty's reign.

"will. morrice."

before noticing the proceedings of the massachusetts bay court in reference to this letter of the king, it may be proper to pause a little and retrospect past transactions between the two charleses and the congregational rulers of massachusetts bay, and the correspondence of the latter with the royal commissioners, so prominently referred to in the above letter.

the foregoing documents which i have so largely quoted evince the royal indulgence and kindness shown to the massachusetts bay colony after the conduct of its rulers to the king and his father during the twenty years of the civil war and commonwealth; the utter absence of all intention on the part of charles the second, any more than on the part of charles the first, to limit or interfere with the exercise of their own conscience or taste in their form or manner of worship, only insisting upon the enjoyment of the same liberty by those who preferred another form and manner of worship. however intolerant and persecuting the governments of both charles the first and second were to all who did not conform to the established worship and its ceremonies in england, they both disclaimed enforcing them upon the new england colonies; and i repeat, that it may be kept in mind, that when the first complaints were preferred to charles the first and the privy council, in 1632, against endicot and his council, for not only not conforming to, but abolishing, the worship of the church of england, the accused and their friends successfully, though falsely, denied having abolished the episcopal worship; and the [pg 172]king alleged to his council, when laud was present, that he had never intended to enforce the church ceremonies objected to upon the new england colonists. the declarations of charles the second, in his letters to them, confirmed as they were by the letters of the earl of clarendon and the honourable robert boyle, show the fullest recognition on the part of the government of the restoration to maintain their perfect liberty of worship. their own address to the king in 1664 bears testimony that for upwards of thirty years liberty of worship had been maintained inviolate, and that king charles the second had himself invariably shown them the utmost forbearance, kindness, and indulgence.[148]

[pg 173]

yet they no sooner felt their charter secure, and that the king had exhausted the treasury of his favours to them, than they deny his right to see to their fulfilment of the conditions on which he had promised to continue the charter. the charter itself, be it remembered, provided that they should not make[pg 174] any laws or regulations contrary to the laws of england, and that all the settlers under the charter should enjoy all the rights and privileges of british subjects. the king could not know whether the provisions of the royal charter were observed or violated, or whether his own prescribed conditions of continuing the charter were ignored or fulfilled, without examination; and how could such an examination be made except by a committee of the privy council or special commissioners? this was what the king did, and what the governor and court of massachusetts bay resisted. they accepted with a profusion of thanks and of professed loyalty the king's pardon and favours, but denied his rights and authority. they denied any other allegiance or responsibility to the king's government than the payment of five per cent. of the proceeds of the gold and silver mines. the absurdity of their pretensions and of their resistance to the royal commission, and the injustice and unreasonableness of their attacks and pretended suspicions, are well exposed in the documents above quoted, and especially in the petition of the "minority" of their own fellow-colonists. but all in vain; where they could not openly deny, they evaded so as to render nugatory the requirements of the king as the conditions of continuing the charter, as will appear from their correspondence with the royal commissioners. i will give two or three examples.

they refused to take the oath of allegiance according to the form transmitted to them by the king's order, or except with limitations that neutralized it. the first governor of their[pg 175] corporation, matthew cradock, took the oath of allegiance as other officers of the crown and british subjects, and as provided in the royal charter; but after the secret conveyance of the charter to massachusetts bay and the establishment of a government there, they, in secret deliberation, decided that they were not british subjects in the ordinary sense; that the only allegiance they owed to the king was such as the homage the hanse towns paid to austria, or burgundy to the kings of france; that the only allegiance or obligation they owed to england was the payment of one-fifth per cent. of the produce of their gold and silver mines; that there were no appeals from their acts or decisions to the king or courts of england; and that the king had no right to see whether their laws or acts were according to the provisions of the charter. when the king, after his restoration, required them to take the oath of allegiance as the first condition of continuing the charter, they evaded it by attaching to the oath the charter according to their interpretation of it. any american citizen could at this day take the oath of allegiance to the sovereign of england if it were limited to the constitution of the united states. first of all, they required of every freeman the oath of fidelity to the local government; and then, after three years' delay and debating about the oath of allegiance to the king, the massachusetts bay court adopted the following order:

"may 16th, 1665.

"it is ordered by this court and by the authority thereof, that the following oath be annexed unto the oaths of every freeman, and oath of fidelity, and to the governor, deputy governor and assistants, and to all other public officers as followeth. the oaths of freemen and of fidelity to run thus: 'whereas, i, a.b., an inhabitant within this jurisdiction, considering how i stand to the king's majesty, his heirs and successors, by our charter, and the government established thereby, do swear accordingly, by the great and dreadful name of the ever living god, that i will bear faithful and true allegiance to our sovereign lord the king, his heirs and successors; and so proceed as in the printed oaths of freemen and fidelity.'"[149]

[pg 176]

on this, col. nichols, chairman of the royal commission, addressing the court, remarks as follows:

"you profess you highly prize the king's favour, and that offending him shall never be imputed to you; and yet you, in the same paper, refuse to do what the king requires should be done—that all that come into this colony to dwell should take the oath of allegiance here. your charter commands it; yet you make promises not therein expressed, and, in short, would curtail the oath, as you do allegiance, refusing to obey the king. it is your duty to administer justice in the king's name; and the king acknowledgeth in his letter, april 23, that it is his duty to see that justice be administered by you to all his subjects here, and yet you will not give him leave to examine by his commissioners."

referring to this subject again, col. nichols remarks:

"touching the oath of allegiance, which is exactly prescribed in your charter, and no faithful subject will make it less than according to the law of england. the oath mentioned by you was taken by mr. matthew cradock, as governor, which hath a part of the oath of allegiance put into it, and ought to be taken in that name by all in public office; also in another part of the charter it is expressly spoken of as the oath of allegiance; and how any man can make that in fewer words than the law of england enjoins, i know not how it can be acceptable to his majesty."[150]

as a sect in the jewish nation made void the law by their traditions, so the sect of congregational rulers in massachusetts bay thus made void the national oath of allegiance by their additions. on the subject of liberty of worship according to the church of england, these sectarian rulers express themselves thus:

"concerning the use of the common prayer book and ecclesiastical privileges, our humble addresses to his majesty have fully declared our ends, in our being voluntary exiles from our dear native country, which we had not chosen at so dear a rate, could we have seen the word of god warranting us to perform our devotions in that way; and to have the same set[pg 177] up here, we conceive it is apparent, that it will disturb our peace in our present enjoyments; and we have commended to the ministry and people here the word of the lord for their rule therein, as you may find by your perusal of our law book, title 'ecclesiastical,' p. 25."

to this the king's commissioners reply as follows:

"the end of the first planters coming hither was (as expressed in your address, 1660), the enjoyment of the liberty of your own consciences, which the king is so far from taking away from you, that by every occasion he hath promised and assured the full enjoyment of it to you. we therefore advise that you should not deny the liberty of conscience to any, especially where the king requires it; and that upon a vain conceit of your own that it will disturb your enjoyments, which the king often hath said it shall not.

"though you commend to the ministers and people the word of the lord for their rule, yet you did it with a proviso that they have the approbation of the court, as appears in the same page; and we have great reason both to think and say that the king and his council and the church of england understand and follow the rules in god's word as much as this corporation.

"for the use of the common prayer book: his majesty doth not impose the use of the common prayer book on any, but he understands that liberty of conscience comprehends every man's conscience as well as any particular, and thinks that all his subjects should have equal rights; and in his letter of june 28, 1662, he requires and charges that all his subjects should have equally an allowance thereof; but why you should put that restraint on his majesty's subjects that live under his obedience, his majesty doth not understand that you have any such privileges.

"concerning ecclesiastical privileges, we suppose you mean sacraments, baptisms, etc. you say we have commended the word of the lord for our rule therein, referring us to the perusal of the printed law, page 25. we have perused that law, and find that that law doth cut off those privileges which his majesty will have, and see that the rest of his subjects have."[151]

[pg 178]

i now resume the narrative of questions as affecting the authority of the crown and the subjection of the massachusetts bay colony. that colony was the most populous and wealthy of all the new england colonies. its principal founders were men of wealth and education; the twelve years' tyranny of charles the first and laud, during the suspension of parliament, caused a flow of more than twenty thousand emigrants to massachusetts bay, with a wealth exceeding half a million sterling, and among them not less than seventy silenced clergymen. during the subsequent twenty years of the civil war and commonwealth in england, the rulers of that colony actively sided with the latter, and by the favour and connivance of cromwell evaded the navigation law passed by the parliament, and enriched themselves greatly at the expense of the other british colonies in america, and in violation of the law of parliament. in the meantime, being the stronger party, and knowing that they were the favourites of cromwell, they assumed, on diverse grounds, possession of lands, south, east, north, and west, within the limits of the neighbouring colonies, and made their might right, by force of arms, when resisted; and denied the citizenship of freemen to all except actual members of the congregational churches, and punished dissenters with fine, imprisonment, banishment, and death itself in many instances.

on the restoration of charles the second to the throne of his ancestors, it was natural that the various oppressed and injured parties, whether of colonies or individuals, should lay their grievances before their sovereign and appeal to his protection; and it was not less the duty of the sovereign to listen to their complaints, to inquire into them, and to redress them if well founded. this the king, under the guidance of his puritan councillors, proceeded to do in the most conciliatory and least offensive way. though the rulers of massachusetts bay did not, as did the other new england as well as southern colonies, recognize and proclaim the king on the announcement of his restoration, but observed a sullen silence until they saw that the monarchy was firmly established; yet the king took no offence at this, but addressed them in terms the most conciliatory, assuring them that he would overlook the past and secure to them the privileges of their charter, and the continued freedom[pg 179] of their worship, upon the conditions of their taking the oath of allegiance, administer their laws as british subjects, and grant to all their fellow-colonists equal freedom of worship and of conscience with themselves. they professed, as well they might, to receive the king's declaration of oblivion for past offences and irregularities, and promise of perpetuating their original charter, with feelings of inexpressible gratitude and delight; but they did not publish the king's letter for nearly two years, notwithstanding his command to do so; and when they did publish it, they appended an order that the conditions were not to be acted upon until their further order.

the king's proclamation of pardon of the past, and promise of the future, produced no other effect than a profusion of wordy compliments and a vague intimation of doing as the king required, as far as their charter and conscience would permit. their policy of proscription and ignoring the royal authority in their laws and government remaining unchanged, and the complaints of oppressed colonies and individuals multiplying, the adoption of further measures became necessary on the part of the crown; and it was decided to appoint a royal commission, which should be at once a court of inquiry and a court of appeal, at least in the first instance, reporting the results of their inquiries and their decisions in cases of appeal for the information and final decision of the highest authority in england, to which any dissatisfied party could appeal against the report or decision of the commissioners. the address or "petition" to the king, dated 1664, and given above, pp. 153-9, in all its tedious length and verbiage, shows how grossly they misrepresented the character and objects of the commission, preparatory to resisting and rejecting it, while the king's letter in reply, also given above at length, p. 166, completely refutes their misstatements, and duly rebukes their unjust and offensive insinuations.

on receiving the report of the commissioners, together with the statements and pretensions of the massachusetts bay court, the king might have employed ships and soldiers to enforce his just and reasonable commands, or have cancelled the charter, as the conditions of its continuance had not been fulfilled, and have established massachusetts bay plantation as a royal colony; but he was advised to adopt the milder and more for[pg 180]bearing course of giving them opportunity of answering directly the complaints made against them, and of justifying their acts and laws. he therefore, in the royal letter given above, dated april 6, 1666, required them within six months to send five of their number to england to answer and to disprove if they could complaints made against them, and to furnish proof of the professions and statements they had made in their address and petition. they could no longer evade or delay; they were brought face to face with the authority of king and parliament; they could adduce nothing but their own assertions in their justification; facts were against their words; they adopted their usual resource to evade all inquiry into their laws and acts by pleading the immunity of their charter, and refused to send representatives to england. they wished the king to take their own words alone as proofs of their loyalty to the crown and equity to their fellow-colonists. in place of sending representatives to england to meet their accusers face to face and vindicate their acts, they sent two large masts, thirty-four yards long, which they said they desired to accompany with a thousand pounds sterling as a present to his majesty, but could get no one to lend them that sum, for the purpose of thus expressing their good-will to the king, and of propitiating his favour. their language of adulation and profession was most abject, while they implored the royal clemency for refusing to obey the royal commands. their records state that "11, 7mo., 1666, the general court assembled on account of a signification from his majesty requiring the council of this colony to send five able and meet persons to make answer for refusing jurisdiction to his commissioners last year; whereof mr. richard bellingham and mr. hawthorne to be two of them, whom he requires, on their allegiance, to come by first opportunity. the court met and agreed to spend the forenoon of the next day in prayer.

"12, 7mo., 1666. the court met and sundry elders, and spent the forenoon in prayer.

"13, 7mo., 1666. the court met and the elders were present after lecture and some debate had in court concerning the duty we owe to his majesty in reference to his signification."

on the 14th sundry petitions were presented from the "minority" in boston, salem, ipswich, and newbury, in favour of compliance with the king's requirement; and the subject[pg 181] was debated in council some days, when, on the 17th, the court adopted an answer to the "king's signification," containing the following words addressed to the king's secretary of state, mr. morrice:

"we have, in all humility, given our reasons why we could not submit to the commissioners and their mandates the last year, which we understand lie before his majesty. to the substance thereof we have nothing to add; and therefore can't expect that the ablest persons among us could be in a capacity to declare our case more fully.

"we must therefore commit this our great concernment unto almighty god, praying and hoping that his majesty (a prince of so great clemency) will consider the estate and condition of his poor and afflicted subjects at such a time, being in imminent danger, by the public enemies of our nation, by sea and land, and that in a wilderness far remote from relief; wherefore we do in this wise prostrate ourselves before his majesty, and beseech him to be graciously pleased to rest assured of our loyalty and allegiance according to our former professions. thus with our humble service to your honour, and earnest prayers to god for his majesty's temporal and eternal happiness, we remain your honour's humble servants.

"17, 7mo., 1666."[152]

[pg 182]

but even in their council, where the "elders" or ministers and their nominees were supreme, both to rule and to persecute, and to maintain which they were plotting and struggling with the intensity of the papacy of late years against the government of italy, there were yet among their number men of distinction, who contended for the rights of the crown, to decide questions of appeal from the colony, and to appoint a special commission for that purpose, such as mr. simon bradstreet, who had been governor, and as their commissioner to england, with mr. norton, had obtained the famous letter of charles the second, dated 10th of june, 1662, which filled the court of massachusetts bay with inexpressible joy; and mr. dudley, son of a former governor, and himself first governor appointed by the crown after the cancelling of the charter; and major dennison, a man of mark, also in their council.

in mr. danforth's notes of the debate on the answer to the king's signification, mr. bradstreet is reported to have said: "i grant legal process in a course of law reaches us not in an ordinary course; yet i think the king's prerogative gives him power to command our appearance, which, before god and men,[pg 183] we are to obey." mr. dudley: "the king's commands pass anywhere—ireland, calais, etc.—although ordinary process from judges and officers pass not. no doubt you may have a trial at law when you come to england, if you desire it, and you may insist upon and claim it. prerogative is as necessary as law, and it is for the good of the whole that there be always power in being able to act; and where there is a right of power, it will be abused so long as it is in the hands of weak men, and the less pious the more apt to miscarry; but right may not be denied because it may be abused."

after the court had adopted its answer of refusal to the king's signification, mr. bradstreet said: "i fear we take not a right course for our safety. it is clear that this signification is from his majesty. i do desire to have it remembered that i do dissent, and desire to have it recorded that i dissent, from that part of it as is an answer to the king's signification." major dennison declared his dissent from the letter to mr. morrice, as not being proportionate to the end desired, and he hoped, intended, and desired it might be entered—namely, due satisfaction to his majesty, and the preservation of the peace and liberty of the colony.[153]

it is clear from the foregoing facts that the alleged invasion of chartered rights and privileges put forth by the ruling party of massachusetts bay was a mere pretext to cover the long-cherished pretensions (called by them "dear-bought rights") to absolute independence; that is, the domination of the congregationalist government, to the exclusion of the crown, to proscribe from the elective franchise and eligibility to office all but congregationalists, and to persecute all who differed from them in either religious or political opinion, including their control and suppression of the freedom of the press.[154][pg 184] they persisted in the cruel persecution of their baptist brethren as well as of the quakers, notwithstanding the king had established the fullest religious liberty by royal charter, granted in 1663 to the colonies of connecticut and rhode island, and had by his letters in 1662 and 1664, and subsequently, forbidden religious persecution and prescribed religious toleration as a condition of the continuance of the charter in massachusetts bay colony.[155]

i will give in a note, from the records of their own court, their persecuting proceedings against certain baptists in april, 1666, six years after the restoration.[156]

[pg 185]

the puritan historian, neal, writing under date three years later, 1669, says: "the displeasure of the government ran very high against the anabaptists and quakers at this time. the anabaptists had gathered one church at swanzey, and another at boston, but the general court was very severe in putting the laws in execution against them, whereby many honest people were ruined by fines, imprisonment, and banishment, which was the more extraordinary because their brethren in england were groaning under persecution from the church of england at the same time. sad complaints were sent over to england every summer of the severity of the government[pg 186] against the anabaptists, which obliged the dissenting ministers in london to appear at length in their favour. a letter was accordingly sent over to the governor of massachusetts, signed by dr. goodwin, dr. owen, mr. nie, mr. caryl, and nine other ministers, beseeching him to make use of his authority and interest for restoring such to their liberty as were in prison on account of religion, and that their sanguinary laws might not be put in execution in future." [mr. neal gives the letter, and then proceeds.] "but the excellent letter made no impression upon them; the prisoners were not released, nor the execution of the laws suspended; nay, so far from this, that ten years after, in the year 1679, a general synod being called to inquire into the evils that provoked the lord to bring his judgments on new england, they mention these among the rest, 'men have set up their thresholds by god's threshold, and their posts by god's post; quakers are false worshippers, and such anabaptists as have risen up among us, in opposition to the churches of the lord jesus,' etc., etc."

"wherefore it must needs be provoking to god if these things be not duly and fully testified against by every one in their several capacities respectively."[158]

the present of two large masts and a ship-load of timber; successive obsequious and evasive addresses; explanations of agents; compliance in some particulars with the royal requirements in regard to the oath of allegiance, and administering the law, so far appeased the king's government that further action was suspended for a time in regard to enforcing the granting of the elective franchise, eligibility to office, and liberty of worship to other than congregationalists,[159] especially as the attention of[pg 187] charles was absorbed by exciting questions at home, by his war with holland, which he bitterly hated, and his intrigues with france, on which he became a paid dependant. but the complaints and appeals to the king from neighbouring colonies of the invasion of individual and territorial rights by the court of massachusetts bay, and from the persecuted and proscribed inhabitants of their own colony, awakened at last the renewed attention of the king's government to the proceedings of the massachusetts bay rulers. the letter which the king was advised to address to them is kind and conciliatory in its tone; but it shows that while the king, as he had declared in his first letter, addressed to them seventeen years before, recognized the "congregational way of worship," he insisted on toleration of the worship of episcopalians, baptists, etc., and the civil rights and privileges of their members,[161] denied by these "fathers of[pg 188] american liberty" to the very last; until then, power of proscription and persecution was wrested from them by the cancelling of their charter.

the chief requirements of this letter were, as stated by mr. hutchinson:

"1. that agents be sent over in six months, fully instructed to answer and transact what was undetermined at that time.

"2. that freedom and liberty of conscience be given to such persons as desire to serve god in the way of the church of [pg 189]england, so as not to be thereby made obnoxious, or discountenanced from their sharing in the government, much less that they, or any other of his majesty's subjects (not being papists) who do not agree in the congregational way, be by law subject to fines or forfeitures or other incapacities.

"3. that no other distinction be observed in making freemen than that they be men of competent estates, rateable at ten shillings, according to the rules of the place, and that such in their turns be capable of the magistracy, and all laws made void that obstruct the same.

"4. that the ancient number of eighteen assistants be observed, as by charter. (they had been limited to eight or ten.)

"5. that all persons coming to any privilege, trust or office, take the oath of allegiance.

"6. that all military commissions as well as proceedings of justice run in his majesty's name.

"7. that all laws repugnant to, and inconsistent with, the laws of england for trade, be abolished."[164]

there were certain injunctions in regard to complaints from neighbouring colonies; but the necessity for such injunctions as those above enumerated, and stated more at large in the king's letter, as stated in note on p. 187, given for the third or fourth time the nineteenth year after the restoration, shows the disloyal proscriptions and persecuting character of the government of massachusetts bay, and the great forbearance of the king's government in continuing the charter while the conditions of its proposed continuance were constantly violated.

dr. palfrey speaks of these requirements, and the whole policy[pg 190] of the king's government, as "usurpations" on the chartered rights of the massachusetts bay colony. but let any reader say in which of the above seven requirements there is the slightest "usurpation" on any right of a british subject; whether there is anything that any loyal british subject would not freely acknowledge and respond to; requirements unhesitatingly obeyed by all the colonies except that of massachusetts bay alone, and which have been observed by every british province of america for the last hundred years, and are observed by the dominion of canada at this day.

dr. palfrey, referring to this period (1676-82), says: "lord clarendon's scheme of colonial policy was now ripe," but he does not adduce a word from lord clarendon to show what that policy was only by insinuations and assertions, and assumes it to have been the subversion of the rights and liberties of the massachusetts bay colony. lord clarendon, in his letter to the governor endicot, given above, pp. 160,161, explains his colonial policy, which was not only to maintain the charter in its integrity, but to see that its provisions and objects were not violated but fulfilled, and that while the congregational worship should not be interfered with, the congregational government should not proscribe from the elective franchise and liberty of worship the members of other protestant denominations. the hon. robert boyle, the philosopher and benefactor of new england, and president of the new england society for propagation of the gospel among the indians, expressed the same views with lord clarendon, and there is not a shadow of proof that lord clarendon ever entertained any other policy in regard to new england than that which he expressed in his letter to governor endicot in 1664.

dr. palfrey and other new england historians occupy four-fifths of their pages with accounts of the continental proceedings of the governments of the stuarts, and their oppressions and persecutions of nonconformists in england, and then assume that their policy was the same in regard to the new england colonies, and that the massachusetts bay colony was therefore the champion defender of colonial liberties, in denying responsibility to the imperial government for its acts, and refusing the usual oaths, and acts of allegiance to the throne; whereas their assumptions (for they are nothing else) are [pg 191]unsupported by a single fact, and are contradicted, without exception, by the declarations and acts of the government of charles the second, as well as by those of his royal father. language can hardly exaggerate or reprobate in too strong terms the cruel persecutions of dissenters from the established episcopal church in england, by both charles the first and charles the second; but the congregational government of massachusetts bay exceeded that of the charleses in proscribing and persecuting dissenters from their established congregational churches in that colony; and as well might messrs. palfrey, bancroft, and other new england historians maintain that, because congregationalists contended for liberty of worship for themselves in england, they practised it in regard to those who did not agree with them in worship in massachusetts bay. the proscription and persecution of congregationalists and baptists by episcopalian rulers in england were outrivalled by the congregational rulers in their proscriptions and persecutions of episcopalians and baptists in massachusetts.

it is also assumed by the new england historians referred to that the king's advisers had intimated the intention of appointing a governor-general over the colonies of new england to see to the observance of their charters and of the navigation laws; but wherein did this infringe the rights or privileges of any colonial charter? wherein did it involve any more than rightful attention to imperial authority and interests? wherein has the appointment or office of a governor-general of british north america, in addition to the lieutenant-governor of each province, ever been regarded to this day as an infringement of the rights and privileges of any legislature or british subject in the colonies? wherein has the right of appeal by any colony or party to the supreme courts or authorities of england, against the decisions of local courts or local executive acts, been regarded as an infringement of colonial rights, or other than a protection to colonial subjects? when has the right of appeal by parties in any of the neighbouring states, to the supreme court at washington, been held to be an invasion of the rights of such states?

the rulers of massachusetts bay colony concealed and secreted their charter; they then represented it as containing[pg 192] provisions which no royal charter in the world ever contained; they represented the king as having abdicated, and excluded himself from all authority over them as a colony or as individuals; they denied that parliament itself had any authority to legislate for any country on the western side of the atlantic; they virtually claimed absolute independence, erasing the oath of allegiance from their records, proscribing and persecuting all nonconformists to the congregational worship, invading the territories of other colonies and then maintaining their invasions by military force, denying the authority of great britain or of any power on earth to restrict or interfere with their acts. the new england historians referred to are compelled to confess that the royal charter contained no such provisions or powers as the rulers of massachusetts bay pretended; yet their narratives and argumentations and imputations upon the british government assume the truth of the fabulous representations of the charter, and treat not only every act of the king as royal tyranny, but every suspicion of what the king might do as a reality, and the hostility of the massachusetts bay government as a defence of constitutional rights and resistance of royal despotism. but in these laboured and eloquent philippics against the government of the restoration, they seem to forget that the parliament and government of the commonwealth and cromwell asserted far larger powers over the colonies than did the government and parliament of charles the second (as is seen by their act and appointments in their enactments quoted above, pp. 88-90).

the commonwealth appointed a governor-general (the earl of warwick), commissioners with powers to remove and appoint colonial governors and other local officers; whereas the commissioners appointed by charles the second had no authority to remove or appoint a single local governor or other officer, to annul or enact a single law, but to inquire and report; and even as a court of appeal their proceedings and decisions were to be reported for final action in england.

the famous act of navigation itself, which ultimately became the chief ground of the american revolutionary war, was passed by the commonwealth, though, by a collusion between cromwell and the rulers of massachusetts bay, its provisions were[pg 193] evaded in that colony, while rigorously enforced in the other colonies.[165]

in the first year of charles the second this act was renewed, with some additional provisions.[166]

but to return to the correspondence between the king's government and the rulers of massachusetts bay. it may be supposed that after the king had promised, in 1662, to forget past offences and continue the justly forfeited royal charter upon certain conditions, and that those conditions were evaded by various devices during nearly twenty years, the royal patience would become exhausted, and that, instead of the gentle instructions and remonstrances which had characterized his former letters, the king would adopt more severe and imperative language. hence in his next letter, september 30, 1680, to the governor and council of the massachusetts, he commences in the following words:

"charles r.

"trusty and well beloved, we greet you well. when by our royal letter, bearing date the 24th day of july, in the one and thirtieth year of our reign, we signified unto you our gracious[pg 194] inclination to have all past deeds forgotten, setting before you the means whereby you might deserve our pardon, and commanding your ready obedience to several particulars therein contained, requiring withall a speedy compliance with the intimations of your duty given to your late agents during their attendance here, all which we esteem essential to your quiet settlement and natural obedience due unto us. we then little thought that those marks of our grace and favour should have found no better acceptance among you, but that, before all things, you should have given preference to the execution of our commands, when after so many months we come to understand by a letter from you to one of our principal secretaries of state, dated the 21st of may last, that very few of our directions have been pursued by your general court, the further consideration of the remaining particulars having been put off upon insufficient pretences, and even wholly neglecting your appointment of other agents which were required to be sent over unto us within six months after the receipt of our said letters, with full instructions to attend our royal pleasure herein in relation to that our government."

among other matters, the king "strictly commanded and required" them, "as they tendered their allegiance," to despatch such agents within three months after their reception of the order, and with full powers to satisfy his majesty on the subjects of complaint; and "he ended the letter," says mr. palfrey, "with a very definite injunction:"

"that the due observance of all our commands above mentioned may not be any longer protracted, we require you, upon receipt thereof, forthwith to call a general court, and therein to read these our letters and provide for our speedy satisfaction, and in default thereof we shall take the most effectual means to procure the same. and so we bid you farewell."[167]

this letter led to the calling of a "special general court," january, 1681, in which very protracted debates ensued on the revision of the laws, so long delayed, and the election of agents to england according to the king's command. samuel nowell and john richards were elected agents to england, but were restricted by instructions which forbade conceding anything[pg 195] from their original charter pretensions, and therefore rendered their agency an insult to the government and the king, and hastened the catastrophe which they so much dreaded, the cancelling of their charter.

in the meantime, to appease the displeasure of the crown, they passed several acts which had the appearance of obedience to the royal commands, but which they were careful not to carry into effect.[168] i will give two or three examples.

they enacted "that the acts of trade and navigation should be forthwith proclaimed in the market-place of boston by beat of drum, and that all clauses in said acts relating to this plantation should be strictly taken notice of and observed." this appears very plausible, and is so quoted by dr. palfrey; but he does not add that care was taken that it should not be carried into effect. and to accomplish their purposes, and to assert the subordination of the royal authority to their own local authority, "they constituted naval officers, one for boston, the other for 'salem and adjacent parts,' to be commissioned by the governor, and to exercise powers of a nature to control the collector appointed in england."[169]

after nearly twenty years' delay and evasions, they enacted, in 1679, "that the governor, deputy governor, and magistrates should take the oath of allegiance 'without any reservation,' in[pg 196] the words sent them by his majesty's orders; but instead of the 'reservation' in their form of oath in former acts, they virtually neutralized the oath by an act requiring a prior preliminary oath of fidelity to the local government,[170] an act which the board of colonial plantations viewed as 'derogatory to his majesty's honour, as well as defective in point of their own duty.'"

they instructed their agents in england to represent that there was no colonial law "prohibiting any such as were of the persuasion of the church of england." the design of this statement plainly was to impress upon the mind of the king's government that there was no obstruction to the worship and ordinances of the church of england, and that the elective franchise and privilege of worship were as open to episcopalians as to congregationalists—the reverse of fact. after repeated letters from the king in favour of toleration as one of the conditions of continuing their charter, notwithstanding their past violation of it, they professed to comply with the royal injunctions, but their professed compliance amounted practically to nothing, as they had evidently intended. the king's commissioners had said to the massachusetts bay court on this subject: "for the use of the common prayer book: his majesty doth not impose the use of the common prayer book on any; but he understands that liberty of conscience comprehends every man's conscience, as well as any particular, and thinks that all his subjects should have equal right." to this the massachusetts court replied: "concerning the use of the common prayer[pg 197] book and ecclesiastical privileges, our humble addresses to his majesty have fully declared our main ends, in our being voluntary exiles from our dear native country, which we had not chosen at so dear a rate, could we have seen the word of god warranting us to perform our devotions in that way; and to have the same set up here, we conceive it is apparent that it will disturb our peace in our present enjoyment."[171]

but afterwards they found it dangerous longer to resist the king's commands, and professed to obey them by providing that those who were not congregationalists might exercise the elective franchise, provided that, in addition to taking the oath of fidelity to the local government, and paying a rate which was not paid by one in a hundred, and obtaining a certificate from the congregational minister as to their being blameless in words and orthodox in religion, they were then approved by the court. the right of franchise was possessed by every member of any congregational church, whether he had property or not, or paid rate or not;[172] not so with any other inhabitant, unless he adduced proof that he had paid rate, produced a certificate of character and of orthodoxy in religion, signed by a congregational minister, and was approved by the court. no instance is recorded of any episcopalian ever having obtained the [pg 198]freedom of the colony under such conditions; "nor," as mr. hutchinson says, "was there any episcopal church in any part of the colony until the charter was vacated."[174]

the court of massachusetts bay also instructed their agents in england, in 1682, to represent that "as for anabaptists, they were now subject to no other penal statutes than those of the congregational way." but as late as the spring of 1680 the general court forbade the baptists to assemble for their worship in a meeting-house which they had built in boston.[175] the statement which they instructed their agents to make in england was clearly intended to convey the impression that the baptist worship was equally allowed with the congregational worship; but though penalties against individual baptists may have been relaxed, their worship was no more tolerated than that of the episcopalian until the cancelling of the charter.

the same kind of misleading evasion was practised upon the government in england in regard to the quakers, as in respect to the baptists, the episcopalians, and the elective franchise. the agents of the colony in england were instructed to state that the "severe laws to prevent the violent and impetuous[pg 199] intrusions of the quakers had been suspended;" but they did not say that laws less severe had been substituted, and that fines and imprisonments were imposed upon any party who should be present at a quakers' meeting. yet, as late as 1677, the court of massachusetts bay made a law "that every person found at a quakers' meeting shall be apprehended, ex officio, by the constable, and by warrant from a magistrate or commissioner shall be committed to the house of correction, and there have the discipline of the house applied to him, and be kept to work, with bread and water, for three days, and then released, or else shall pay five pounds in money as a fine to the country for such offence; and all constables neglecting their duty in not faithfully executing this order, shall incur the penalty of five pounds upon conviction, one-third thereof to the informer."[176]

they likewise instructed their agents in england to give assurance "that the acts of trade, so far as they concerned the colony, should be strictly observed, and that all due encouragement[pg 200] and assistance should be given to his majesty's officers and informers that might prosecute the breaches of said acts of trade and navigation."[177] but while as a court they professed this in their records and through their agents in england, officers were elected in the colony who would not execute the law, and so not a farthing of duties was collected under it at massachusetts bay.

thus for twenty years the rulers of massachusetts bay resisted and evaded the six conditions on which king charles the[pg 201] second, after his restoration, proposed to overlook and pardon their past offences and perpetuate the charter given to them by his royal father; for twenty years the king, without committing a single unconstitutional or oppressive act against them, or without demanding anything which queen victoria does not receive, this day, from every colony of the british empire, endured their evasions and denials of his authority and insults of his commissioners and officers. in all the despatches of the king's government to the rulers of massachusetts bay, during these twenty years, as the reader of the preceding pages will have seen, the spirit of kindness, and a full recognition of their rights in connection with those of the crown, were predominant.

this they repeatedly acknowledged in their addresses to the king. they pretended the royal charter gave them absolute independence; and on that absurd interpretation and lawless assumption they maintained a continuous contest with the mother country for more than fifty years. every party in england, and the commonwealth as well as royalty, maintained the right of king and parliament to be the supreme tribunal of appeal and control in america as well as in england; while the rulers of massachusetts bay colony alone, in contradistinction to all the other british colonies in america, denied in short the authority of both king and parliament, though often amidst wordy professions of personal loyalty to the throne. mr. bancroft well sums up the history of massachusetts pretensions and intolerance in the sentences: "massachusetts owned no king but the king of heaven." "massachusetts gave franchises to the members of the visible church," but "inexorably disfranchised churchmen, royalists, and all the world's people." "in massachusetts, the songs of deborah and david were sung without change; hostile algonquins like the canaanites were exterminated or enslaved; and a peevish woman was hanged, because it was written, 'the witch shall die.'"[178]

no hostile pen ever presented in so few and expressive words the character and policy of the government of massachusetts bay during the whole existence of the first charter, as is presented in these words of their eulogist bancroft; and these words express the causes of their contests with the crown[pg 202] and parliament, of their proscription and persecution of the majority of their fellow-colonists not of their politics or form of worship, and of their dealing at pleasure with the territories of their neighbours,[179] and the lands and lives of the indian tribes.

footnotes:

[114] the captain of a ship brought the news from england in july, that the king had been proclaimed, but a false rumour was circulated that the government in england was in a very unsettled state, the body of the people dissatisfied; that the scotch had demanded work; that lord fairfax was at the head of a great army, etc. such a rumour was so congenial to the feelings of the men who had been lauding cromwell, that when it was proposed in the general court of massachusetts bay, in the october following, to address the king, the majority refused to do so. they awaited to see which party would prevail in england, so as to pay court to it. on the 30th of november a ship arrived from bristol, bringing news of the utter falsity of the rumours about the unsettled state of things and popular dissatisfaction in england, and of the proceedings of parliament; and letters were received from their agent, mr. leverett, that petitions and complaints were preferred against the colony to the king in council. then the governor and assistants called a meeting of the general court, december 9th, when a very loyal address to the king was presently agreed upon, and another to the two houses of parliament. letters were sent to sir thomas temple, to lord manchester, lord say and seal, and to other persons of note, praying them to intercede in behalf of the colony. a most gracious answer was given to the address by the king's letter, dated february 15, 1660 (1661, new style), which was the first public act or order concerning them after the restoration. (hutchinson's history of massachusetts bay, vol. i., pp. 210, 211.)

[115] hutchinson's history of massachusetts bay, vol. i., pp. 211, 212.

[116] holmes' annals of america, vol. i., p. 318. hutchinson, vol. i., p. 216. hazard, vol. ii., pp. 593-595. the address is a curiosity in its way, and a strange medley which i must leave the reader to characterize in view of the facts involved. the following are the principal passages of it:

extracts from the massachusetts general court—address to the king, dated 19th december, 1660:

"to the high and mighty prince, charles the second, by the grace of god,

king of great britain, france and ireland, defender of the faith.

"most gracious and dread sovereign:

"may it please your majesty—in the day wherein you happily say you know you are king over your british israel, to cast a favourable eye upon your poore mephiboseth now, and by reason of lameness in respect of distance, not until now appearing in your presence, we mean upon new england, kneeling with the rest of your subjects before your majesty as her restored king. we forget not our ineptness as to those approaches; we at present owne such impotence as renders us unable to excuse our impotency of speaking unto our lord the king; yet contemplating such a king, who hath also seen adversity, that he knoweth the hearts of exiles, who himself hath been an exile, the aspect of majesty extraordinarily influenced animateth exanimated outcasts, yet outcasts as we hope for the truth, to make this address unto our prince, hoping to find grace in your sight. we present this script, the transcript of our loyall hearts, wherein we crave leave to supplicate your majesty for your gracious protection of us in the continuance both of our civill and religious liberties (according to the grantees known, and of suing for the patent) conferred on this plantation by your royal father. this, viz., our libertie to walk in the faith of the gospell, was the cause of our transporting ourselves, with our wives, little ones, and our substances, from that over the atlantick ocean, into the vast wilderness, choosing rather the pure scripture worship with a good conscience in this remote wilderness among the heathen, than the pleasures of england with submission to the impositions of the then so disposed and so far prevailing hierarchy, which we could not do without an evil conscience." "our witness is in heaven that we left not our native country upon any dissatisfaction as to the constitution of the civil state. our lot after the good old nonconformists hath been only to act a passive part throughout these late vicissitudes and successive turnings of states. our separation from our brethren in this desert hath been and is a sufficient bringing to mind the afflictions of joseph. but providentiall exemption of us hereby from the late warres and temptations of either party we account as a favour from god; the former cloathes us with sackcloth, the latter with innocency.

(signed) "john endicot, governor.

"in the name and by order of the general court of massachusetts."

[117] it is known that the "old nonconformists" did not fight against the king, denounced his execution, suffered for their "nonconformity" to cromwell's despotism, and were among the most active restorers of charles the second.

[118] see above, in a previous page.

[119] letter from charles ii. to governor endicot:

"charles r.

"trusty and well beloved—wee greet you well. it having pleased almighty god, after long trialls both of us and our people, to touch their hearts at last with a just sense of our right, and by their assistance to restore us, peaceably and without blood, to the exercise of our legall authority for the good and welfare of the nations committed to our charge, we have made it our care to settle our lately distracted kingdom at home, and to extend our thoughts to increase the trade and advantages of our colonies and plantations abroad, amongst which as wee consider new england to be one of the chiefest, having enjoyed and grown up in a long and orderly establishment, so wee shall not be behind any of our royal predecessors in a just encouragement and protection of all our loving subjects there, whose application unto us, since our late happy restoration, hath been very acceptable, and shall not want its due remembrance upon all seasonable occasions; neither shall wee forget to make you and all our good people in those parts equal partakers of those promises of liberty and moderation to tender consciences expressed in our gracious declarations; which, though some persons in this kingdom, of desperate, disloyal, and unchristian principles, have lately abused to the public disturbance and their own destruction, yet wee are confident our good subjects in new england will make a right use of it, to the glory of god, their own spiritual comfort and edification. and so wee bid you farewell. given at our court of whitehall, the 15th day of february, 1660 (1661, new style), in the thirteenth year of our reigne.

(signed) "will. morrice."

[120] the following are extracts from the reply of the general court of massachusetts bay to the foregoing letter of charles the second:

"illustrious sir,—

"that majestie and benignitie both sate upon the throne whereunto your outcasts made their former addresse; witness this second eucharistical approach unto the best of kings, who to other titles of royaltie common to him with other gods amongst men, delighteth herein more particularily to conforme himselfe to the god of gods, in that he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, neither hath he hid his face from him, but when he heard he cried.

"our petition was the representation of exiles' necessities; this script, congratulatory and lowly, is the reflection of the gracious rayes of christian majestie. there we besought your favour by presenting to a compassionate eye that bottle full of tears shed by us in this teshimon: here we acknowledge the efficacie of regal influence to qualify these salt waters. the mission of ours was accompanied with these churches sitting in sackcloth; the reception of yours was as the holding forth the scepter of life. the truth is, such were the impressions upon our spirits when we received an answer of peace from our gracious sovereigne as transcends the facultie of an eremitical scribe. such, as though our expressions of them neede pardon, yet the suppression of them seemeth unpardonable."

the conclusion of their address was as follows:

"royal sir,—

"your just title to the crown enthronizeth you in our consciences, your graciousness in our affections: that inspireth us unto duty, this naturalizeth unto loyalty: thence we call you lord; hence a savior. mephibosheth, how prejudicially soever misrepresented, yet rejoiceth that the king is come in peace to his own house. now the lord hath dealt well with our lord the king. may new england, under your royal protection, be permitted still to sing the lord's song in this strange land. it shall be no grief of heart for the blessing of a people ready to perish, daily to come upon your majesty, the blessings of your poor people, who (not here to alledge the innocency of our cause, touching which let us live no longer than we subject ourselves to an orderly trial thereof), though in the particulars of subscriptions and conformity, supposed to be under the hallucinations of weak brethren, yet crave leave with all humility to say whether the voluntary quitting of our native and dear country be not sufficient to expiate so innocent a mistake (if a mistake) let god almightie, your majesty, and all good men judge.

"now, he in whose hands the times and trials of the children of men are, who hath made your majesty remarkably parallel to the most eminent of kings, both for space and kind of your troubles, so that vere day cannot be excepted, wherein they drove him from abiding in the inheritance of the lord, saying, 'go, serve other gods; make you also (which is the crown of all), more and more like unto him, in being a man after god's own heart, to do whatsoever he will.' yea, as the lord was with david, so let him be with your most excellent majesty, and make the throne of king charles the second both greater and better than the throne of king david, or than the throne of any of your royal progenitors. so shall always pray,

"great sir,

"your majesty's most humble and loyal subjects.

"john endicot, governor."

(hutchinson's collection of original papers, etc., pp. 341, 342. massachusetts records, august 7, 1661.)

[121] the government of new england received a letter from the king, signifying his pleasure that there should be no further prosecution of the quakers who were condemned to suffer death or other corporal punishment, or who were imprisoned or obnoxious to such condemnation; but that they be forthwith sent over to england for trial. the massachusetts general court, after due consideration of the king's letter, proceeded to declare that the necessity of preserving religion, order, and peace had induced the enactment of laws against the quakers, etc., and concluded by saying, "all this, notwithstanding their restless spirits, have moved some of them to return, and others to fill the royal ear of our sovereign lord the king with complaints against us, and have, by their unwearied solicitations, in our absence, so far prevailed as to obtain a letter from his majesty to forbear their corporal punishment or death; although we hope and doubt not but that if his majesty were rightly informed, he would be far from giving them such favour, or weakening his authority here, so long and orderly settled: yet that we may not in the least offend his majesty, this court doth hereby order and declare that the execution of the laws in force against quakers as such, so far as they respect corporal punishment or death, be suspended until this court take further order." upon this order of the court twenty-eight quakers were released from prison and conducted out of the jurisdiction of massachusetts. (holmes' annals, vol. i., pp. 318, 319.)

[122] "upon the restoration, not only episcopalians, but baptists, quakers, etc., preferred complaints against the colony; and although, by the interest of the earl of manchester and lord say, their old friends, and secretary morrice, all puritans, king charles continued their charter, yet he required a toleration in religion, and an alteration in some civil matters, neither of which were fully complied with." (hutchinson's history of massachusetts bay, vol. ii., p. 3.)

[123] "in the earl of manchester and lord say; in annesley, created earl of anglesea; in denzil hollis, now lord hollis; and in ashley cooper, now lord ashley, the expectant cavaliers saw their old enemies raised to the place of honour. manchester had not taken any part in public affairs since the passing of the self-denying ordinances. he was still a presbyterian, but had favoured the return of the king. lord say, also, had long since withdrawn from public life, and though of a less pliant temper than manchester, his new friends had no reason to doubt his steady adherence to the new order of things. annesley was an expert lawyer. hollis had been the leader of the presbyterians in the long parliament, until the crisis which turned the scale in favour of the independents.

"lord ashley, better known as the earl of shaftesbury, had been devoted successively to the king, the parliament, and the protector. nichols and morrice were the two secretaries of state."—dr. r. vaughan's revolutions in english history, vol. iii., b. 14, chap. i., pp. 430, 431.

"totally devoid of resentment, as well from natural lenity as carelessness of his temper, charles the second ensured pardon to the most guilty of his enemies, and left hopes of favour to his most violent opponents. from the whole tenor of his actions and discourse, he seemed desirous of losing the memory of past animosities, and of making every party in affection to their prince and their native country.

"into his council he admitted the most eminent men of the nation, without regard to former distinctions; the presbyterians equally with the royalists shared this honour. annesley was created earl of anglesea; ashley cooper, lord ashley; denzil hollis, lord hollis; the earl of manchester was appointed lord chamberlain; and lord say, privy seal. calamy and baxter, presbyterian clergymen, were even made chaplains to the king; admiral montague, created earl of sandwich, was entitled from his recent services to great favour, and he obtained it. monk, created duke of albemarle, had performed such signal services that according to a vulgar and inelegant observation, he ought rather to have expected hatred and ingratitude, yet was he ever treated by the king with great marks of distinction. charles' disposition was free from jealousy; and the prudent conduct of the general, who never overrated his merits, prevented all state disgusts which naturally arise in so delicate a situation. morrice, his friend, was created secretary of state, and was supported more by his patron's credit than by his own abilities and experience."—hume's history of england, vol. vii., chap, xliii., pp. 338, 339.

[124] letter of king charles the second to the general court at massachusetts (june 28, 1662):

"charles rex.

"trusty and well beloved, we greete you well:

"whereas we have have lately received an humble address and petition from the general court of our colony of massachusetts, in new england, presented to us by simon bradstreet and john norton: we have thought it agreeable to our princely grace and justice to let you know that the same have been very acceptable unto us, and that we are satisfied with your expressions of loyalty, duty and good affection made to us in the said address, which we doubt not proceeds from the hearts of good and honest subjects, and we are therefore willing that all our good subjects of that plantation do know that we do receive them into our gracious protection, and will cherish them with our best encouragement, and that we will preserve and do hereby continue the patent and charter heretofore granted to them by our royall father of blessed memory, and that they shall freely enjoy all the priviledges and libertys granted to them in and by the same, and that we will be ready to renew the same charter to them under our great seale of england, whenever they shall desire it. and because the licence of these late ill times has likewise had an influence upon our colony, in which they have swerved from the rules prescribed, and even from the government instituted by the charter, which we do graciously impute rather to the iniquity of the time than to the evil intents of the hearts of those who exercised the government there. and we do therefore publish and declare our free and gracious pardon to all our subjects of that our plantation, for all crimes and offences committed against us during the late troubles, except any persons who stand attainted by our parliament here of high treason, if any such persons have transported themselves into these parts; the apprehending of whom and delivering them into the hands of justice, we expect from the dutiful and affectionate obedience of those of our good subjects in that colony, if they be found within the jurisdiction thereof. provided always, and be it our declared expectation, that upon a review of all such laws and ordinances that are now or have been during these late troubles in practice there, and which are contrary or derogatory to our authority and government, the same may be annulled and repealed, and the rules and prescriptions of the said charter for administering and taking the oath of allegiance be henceforth duly observed, and that the administrations of justice be in our name. and since the principle and foundation of that charter was and is the freedom of liberty of conscience, we do hereby charge and require you that freedom and liberty be duly admitted and allowed, so that they that desire to use the book of common prayer and performe their devotion in that manner that is established here be not denied the exercise thereof, or undergoe any prejudice or disadvantage thereby, they using their liberty peaceably without any disturbances to others; and that all persons of good and honest lives and conversations be admitted to the sacrament of the lord's supper, according to the said book of common prayer, and their children to baptism."

[125] indeed, so conscious were they that they had justly forfeited all consideration from the king, that the first address extracted from them when they found the monarchy firmly established, expressed deep humiliation and confession, and implored the forgiveness and favour of their sovereign; and being sensible of the many and well-founded complaints made against them by the victims of their persecuting intolerance, they appointed two of their ablest and most trusted members—simon bradstreet, an old magistrate, and john norton, a minister of boston—to proceed to england to present their address, to intercede for them, and secure the interest of those of their old friends who might have influence with the king and his councillors. but as bradstreet and norton had both been persecutors of their episcopalian, presbyterian, and baptist brethren, and were conspicuous in promoting the bloody persecutions of the quakers (now getting a favourable hearing for their sufferings at the english court), they were unwilling to undertake so difficult and hazardous a mission without formal provision being made by the massachusetts court for indemnity for all the damage they might incur.

"at length," says their historian, "the committee appointed to do everything for their dispatch in the recess of the court, 'engaged to make good all damages they might sustain by the detention of their persons in england, or otherwise.' they departed the 10th of february (1662.)

"their reception in england was much more favourable than was expected; their stay short, returning the next autumn with the king's most gracious letter, some parts of which cheered the hearts of the country; and they then looked upon and afterwards recurred to them as a confirmation of their charter privileges, and an amnesty of all past errors. the letter was ordered to be published (as the king had directed), and in an order for public thanksgiving, particular notice is taken of 'the return of the messengers, and the continuance of the mercies of peace, liberties, and the gospel.'"

the early new england historian, hubbard, says: "they returned like noah's dove, with an olive branch of peace in their mouths."

"there were some things, however, in the king's letter hard to comply with; and though it was ordered to be published, yet it was with this caution, that 'inasmuch as the letter hath influence upon the churches as well as the civil state, all manner of acting in relation thereto shall be suspended until the next general court, that all persons may have opportunity to consider what was necessary to be done, in order to know his majesty's pleasure therein.'" (hutchinson's history of massachusetts bay, vol. i., pp. 221, 222.)

[126] so dissatisfied were these congregational "freemen" with the conditions which were intended to put an end to their persecutions of their brethren and their disloyal practices, that they denounced their old friends and representatives to england, messrs. bradstreet and norton, for those conditions which they could not prevent, and upon which they might well be thankful to preserve the charter and obtain pardon for their past offences. their historian says: "the agents met with the fate of most agents ever since. the favours they obtained were supposed to be no more than might well have been expected, and their merits were soon forgot; the evils which they had it not in their power to prevent, were attributed to their neglect or unnecessary concessions. mr. bradstreet was a man of more phlegm and not so sensibly touched, but mr. norton was so affected that he grew melancholy; and died suddenly soon after his return (april 5, 1633)." (hutchinson's history of massachusetts bay, vol. i., p. 223.)

in a note the historian quotes the remark of mr. norton to the massachusetts court, that "if they complied not with the king's letter, the blood that should be spilt would lie at their door."

"dr. mather says upon this occasion: 'such has been the jealous disposition of our new englanders about their dearly bought privileges, and such also has been the various interpretations of the people about the extent of their privileges, that of all the agents sent over to the court of england for now forty years together, i know of not one who did not, at his return, meet with some forward entertainment among his countrymen.'" (ib., p. 222.)

[127] mr. hildreth gives the following account of this mission and its results upon the state of society in massachusetts bay colony and its agents to england:

"the massachusetts' agents presently returned, bearers of a royal letter, in which the king recognized the charter and promised oblivion of past offences. but he demanded the repeal of all laws inconsistent with his due authority; an oath of allegiance to the royal person, as formerly in use, but dropped since the commencement of the late civil war; the administration of justice in his name; complete toleration for the church of england; the repeal of the law which restricted the privilege of voting, and tenure of office to church members, and the substitution of property qualification instead; finally, the admission of all persons of honest lives to the sacraments of baptism and the lord's supper.

"the claimants for toleration, formerly suppressed with such prompt severity, were now encouraged, by the king's demands in their favour, again to raise their heads. for the next thirty years the people of massachusetts (bay) were divided into three parties, a very decided, though gradually diminishing majority (of the congregationalists, the only "freemen") sustaining with ardour the theocratic system, and, as essential to it, entire independence of external control. at the opposite extreme, a party, small in numbers and feeble in influence (among the "freemen"), advocated religious toleration—at least to a limited extent—and equal civil rights for all inhabitants. they advocated, also, the supremacy of the crown, sole means in that day of curbing the theocracy, and compelling it to yield its monopoly of power. to this party belonged the episcopalians, or those inclined to become so; the baptists, presbyterians, the quakers, and other sectaries who feared less the authority of a distant monarch than the present rule of their watchful and bitter spiritual rivals. in the intermediate was a third party, weak at first but daily growing stronger, and drawing to its ranks, one after another, some former zealous advocates of the exclusive system, convinced that a theocracy, in its stricter form, was no longer tenable, and some of them, perhaps, beginning to be satisfied that it was not desirable. among the earliest of these were norton and bradstreet, the agents who came back from england impressed with the necessity of yielding. but the avowal of such sentiments was fatal to their popularity (among the congregational "freemen"), and norton, accustomed to nothing but reverence and applause, finding himself now looked at with distrust, soon died of melancholy and mortification." (hildreth's history of the united states, vol. i., chap. xiv., pp. 455, 456.)

[128] collection of massachusetts, etc., civil society, vol. viii., second series, p. 53.

[129] collections of massachusetts, etc., civil society, vol. viii., second series, pp. 59, 60.

[130] from the representations made respecting the state of affairs in the new england colonies, the appointment of this commission was decided upon after the restoration of the king, and the agents of those colonies were informed of it. col. nichols, the head of the commission, stated in his introductory address to the massachusetts bay court, may 2, 1665, that "the king himself and the lord chancellor (clarendon) told mr. norton and mr. bradstreet of this colony, and mr. winthrop of connecticut, mr. clarke of rhode island, and several others now in these countries, that he intended shortly to send over commissioners." (ib., p. 56.)

[131] it was in refutation of such reports that col. nichols made the statements quoted on a previous page; in the course of which, referring to the slanders circulated by persons high in office under the court, he said: "some of them are these: that the king hath sent us over here to raise ￡5,000 a year out of the colony for his majesty's use, and 12d. for every acre of improved land besides, and to take from this colony many of their civil liberties and ecclesiastical privileges, of which particulars we have been asked the truth in several places, all of which reports we did, and here do, disclaim as false; and protest that they are diametrically contrary to the truth, as ere long we shall make it appear more plainly."

"these personal slanders with which we are calumniated, as private men we slight; as christians we forgive and will not mention; but as persons employed by his sacred majesty, we cannot suffer his honour to be eclipsed by a cloud of black reproaches, and some seditious speeches, without demanding justice from you against those who have raised, reported, or made them." (ib., p. 56.)

these reports were spread by some of the chief officers of the council, and the most seditious of the speeches complained of was by the commander of their forces; but they were too agreeable to the court for them even to contradict, much less investigate, although col. nichols offered to give their names.

hubbard, the earliest and most learned of the new england historians, says:

"the commissioners were but four in number, the two principal of whom were colonel nichols and colonel cartwright, who were both of them eminently qualified, with abilities fit to manage such a concern, nor yet wanting in resolution to carry on any honourable design for the promotion of his majesty's interest in any of those plantations whither they were sent." (massachusetts history collection, vol. v., second series, p. 577.)

[132] the following is a copy of the royal commission, in which the reasons and objects of it are explicitly stated:

"copy of a commission from king charles the second to col. nichols and others, in 1664.

"charles the 2nd, by the grace of god, king of england, scotland, france, and ireland, defender of the faith, etc.

"to all to whom these presents shall come, greeting: whereas we have received several addresses from our subjects of several colonies in new england, all full of duty and affection, and expressions of loyalty and allegiance to us, with their humble desires that we would renew their several charters, and receive them into our favourable opinion and protection; and several of our colonies there, and other our loving subjects, have likewise complained of differences and disputes arisen upon the limits and bounds of their several charters and jurisdictions, whereby unneighbourly and unbrotherly contentions have and may arise, to the damage and discredit of the english interest; and that all our good subjects residing there, and being planters within the several colonies, do not enjoy the liberties and privileges granted to them by our several charters, upon confidence and assurance of which they transported themselves and their estates into those parts; and we having received some addresses from the great men and natives of those countries in which they complain of breach of faith, and acts of violence, and injustice which they have been forced to undergoe from our subjects, whereby not only our government is traduced, but the reputation and credit of the christian religion brought into prejudice and reproach with the gentiles and inhabitants of those countries who know not god, the reduction of whom to the true knowledge and feare of god is the most worthy and glorious end of all those plantations: upon all which motives, and as an evidence and manifestation of our fatherly affection towards all our subjects in those several colonies of new england (that is to say, of the massachusetts, connecticut, new plimouth, rhode island, and providence plantations, and all other plantations within that tract of land known under the appelation of new england), and to the end we may be truly informed of the state and condition of our good subjects there, that so we may the better know how to contribute to the further improvement of their happiness and prosperity: know ye therefore, that we, reposing special trust and confidence in the fidelity, wisdome and circumspection of our trusty and well-beloved colonel richard nichols, sir robert carre, knt., george cartwright, esq., and samuel maverick, esq., of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, have made, ordained, constituted and appointed, and by these presents do make, ordain, constitute and appoint the said colonel richard nichols, sir robert carre, george cartwright, and samuel maverick, our commissioners, and do hereby give and grant unto them, or any three or two of them, or of the survivors of them, of whom we will the said colonel richard nichols, during his life, shall be alwaies one, and upon equal divisions of opinions, to have the casting and decisive voice, in our name to visit all and every the several colonies aforesaid, and also full power and authority to heare and receive and to examine and determine all complaints and appeals in all causes and matters, as well military as criminal and civil, and proceed in all things for the providing for and settling the peace and security of the said country, according to their good and sound discretion, and to such instructions as they or the survivors of them have, or shall from time to time receive from us in that behalfe, and from time to time, as they shall find expedient, to certify us or our privy council of their actings or proceedings touching the premises; and for the doing thereof, or any other matter or thing relating thereunto, these presents, or the enrolment thereof, shall be unto them a sufficient warrant and discharge in that behalf. in witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent. witness ourselfe at westminster, the 25th day of april, in the sixteenth yeare of our reigne." (hutchinson's history of massachusetts bay, vol. i., appendix xv., pp. 535, 536.)

[133] the following are extracts from the report of the commissioners who were appointed to visit the several colonies of new england in 1666:

"the colony of connecticut returned their thanks to his majesty for his gracious letters, and for sending commissioners to them, with promises of their loyalty and obedience; and they did submit to have appeals made to his majesty's commissioners, who did hear and determine some differences among them. all forms of justice pass only in his majesty's name; they admit all that desire to be of their corporation; they will not hinder any from enjoying the sacraments and using the common prayer book, provided that they hinder not the maintenance of the public minister. they will amend anything that hath been done derogatory to his majesty's honour, if there be any such thing, so soon as they shall come to the knowledge of it."

"the colony of rhode island and providence plantations returned their humble thanks to his majesty for sending commissioners, and made great demonstration of their loyalty and obedience. they approved as most reasonable, that appeals should be made to his majesty's commissioners, who, having heard and determined some cases among them, referred other some in civility to their general court, and some to the governor and others; some of which cases they again remitted to the commissioners to determine. all proceedings are in his majesty's name; they admit all to be freemen who desire it; they allow liberty of conscience and worship to all who live civilly; and if any can inform of anything in their laws or practices derogatory to his majesty's honour, they will amend it."

"the colony of new plymouth did submit to have appeals made to the commissioners, who have heard but one plaint made to them, which was that the governor would not let a man enjoy a farm four miles square, which he had bought of an indian. the complainant soon submitted to the governor when he understood the unreasonableness of it."

"the colony of massachusetts bay was the hardest to be persuaded to use his majesty's name in the forms of justice. in this colony, at the first coming of the commissioners, were many untruths raised and sent into the colonies, as that the king had to raise ￡15,000 yearly for his majesty's use, whereupon major hawthorne made a seditious speech at the head of his company, and the late governor (bellingham) another at their meeting-house at boston, but neither of them were so much as questioned for it by any of the magistrates." ... "but neither examples nor reasons could prevail with them to let the commissioners hear and determine so much as those particular cases (mr. deane's and the indian sachems), which the king had commanded them to take care of and do justice in; and though the commissioners, who never desired that they should appear as delinquents, but as defendants, either by themselves or by their attorneys, assured them that if they had been unjustly complained of to his majesty, their false accusers should be severely punished, and their just dealing made known to his majesty and all the world; yet they proclaimed by sound of trumpet that the general court was the supremest judiciary in all the province; that the commissioners pretending to hear appeals was a breach of the privileges granted by the king's royal father, and confirmed to them by his majesty's own letter, and that they would not permit it; by which they have for the present silenced above thirty petitioners which desired justice from them and were lost at sea.

"to elude his majesty's desire for admitting men of civil and competent estates to be freemen, they have an act whereby he that is 24 years old, a housekeeper, and brings a certificate of his civil life, another of his being orthodox in matters of faith, and a third of his paying ten shillings besides head-money, at a single rate, may then have the liberty to make his desires known to the court, and then it shall be put to vote. the commissioners examined many townships, and found that scarce three in a hundred pay ten shillings at a single rate; yet if this rate were general it would be just; but he that is a church member, though he be a servant, and pay not twopence, may be a freeman. they do not admit any who is not a church member to communion, nor their children to baptism, yet they will marry their children to those whom they will not admit to baptism, if they be rich. they did imprison and barbarously use mr. jourdan for baptising children, as himself complained in his petition to the commissioners. those whom they will not admit to the communion, they compel to come to their sermons by forcing from them five shillings for every neglect; yet these men thought their paying one shilling for not coming to prayers in england was an unsupportable tyranny." ... "they have made many things in their laws derogatory to his majesty's honour, of which the commissioners have made and desired that they might be altered, but they have done nothing of it[134]. among others, whoever keeps christmas day is to pay a fine of five pounds."

"they caused at length a map of the territories to be made; but it was made in a chamber by direction and guess; in it they claim fort albany, and beyond it all the land to the south sea. by their south sea line they entrench upon the colonies of new plymouth, rhode island and connecticut; and on the east they usurped capt. mason's and sir ferdinardo gorges' patents, and said that the commissioners had nothing to do betwixt them and mr. gorges, because his majesty neither commanded them to deliver possession to mr. gorges or to give his majesty reason why they did not." ...

"they of this colony say that king charles the first granted to them a charter as a warrant against himself and his successors, and that so long as they pay the fifth part of the gold and silver ore which they get, they shall be free to use the privileges granted them, and that they are not obliged to the king except by civility; they hope by writing to tire the king, lord chancellor, and secretaries too; seven years they can easily spin out by writing, and before that time a change may come; nay, some have dared to say, who knows what the event of this dutch war will be?"

"this colony furnished cromwell with many instruments out of their corporation and college; and those that have retreated thither since his majesty's happy return, are much respected, and many advanced to be magistrates. they did solicit cromwell by one mr. winslow to be declared a free state, and many times in their laws declaring themselves to be so."

(hutchinson's collection of original papers relative to the history of massachusetts bay, pp. 412-420.)

[134] the commissioners specify upwards of twenty anomalies in the book entitled the "book of the general laws and liberties concerning the inhabitants of massachusetts," which should be altered to correspond with the charter, and the relations of the colony to england. a few specimens may be given: that the writs and forms of justice be issued and performed in his majesty's name; that his majesty's arms be set up in the courts of justice within the colony, and that the masters of vessels and captains of foot companies do carry the colours of england, by which they may be known to be british subjects; that in the 12th capital law, if any conspire against our commonwealth, commonwealth may be expunged, and "against the peace of his majesty's colony" be inserted instead of the other; that at p. 33, "none be admitted freemen but members of some of the churches within the limits of their jurisdiction," be made to comprehend "other than members of the congregational churches;" that on the same page, the penalty for keeping christmas so directly against the law of england, be repealed; that page 40, the law for settling the indians' title to land, be explained, for it seems as if they were dispossessed of their land by scripture, which is both against the honour of god and the justice of the king. in 115th psalm, 16, "children of men" comprehend indians as well as english; and no doubt the country is theirs till they give it up or sell it, though it be not improved.

[135] they were not so poor as when, just 30 years before, they, by the advice of their ministers, prepared to make armed resistance against the rumoured appointment over them of a governor general of new england.

[136] they were not more "remote" than when they wrote to their friends in england as often as they pleased, or than when they addressed the long parliament four years before, and twice addressed cromwell, stating their services to him in men and prayers against charles the first, and asking his favours.

[137] the words "full and absolute power of governing" are not contained in the royal charter.

[138] emigrants generally transport themselves from one country to another, whether across the ocean or not, at their own charges.

[139] it is shown in this volume that they never had the "undoubted right" by the charter, or the "undoubted right in the sight of god and man," to abolish one form of worship and set up another; to imprison, fine, banish, or put to death all who did not adopt their newly set up form of worship; to deny the rights of citizenship to four-fifths of their citizens on religious grounds, and tax them without representation. how far they invaded the "undoubted right" of others, "in the sight of god and man," and exceeded their own lawful powers, is shown on the highest legal authority in the 6th and 7th chapters of this volume.

[140] these references are acknowledgments on the part of the massachusetts bay court, that they had been kindly and liberally treated by both charles the first and charles the second.

[141] they here limit their compliance with the six conditions on which the king proposed to continue the charter which they had violated, to their "conscience" and "the just liberties and privileges of their patent." but according to their interpretation of these, they could not in "conscience" grant the "toleration" required by the king, or give up the sectarian basis of franchise and eligibility to office, or admit of appeals from their tribunals to the higher courts or the king himself in england. they seize upon and claim the promise of the king to continue the charter, but evade and deny the fulfilment of the conditions on which he made that promise.

[142] but they rejected the king's commission of inquiry, refused the information required; and they modestly pray the king to accept as proof of their innocence and right doings their own professions and statements against the complaints made of their proscriptions and oppressions.

[143] the threat at the beginning of this, and also in the following paragraph, is characteristic; it was tried, but without effect, on other occasions. the insinuations and special pleading throughout these paragraphs are amply answered in the letters of lord clarendon and the hon. r. boyle, which follow this extraordinary address, which abounds alternately and successively in affected helplessness and lofty assumptions, in calumnious statements and professed charity, in abject flattery and offensive insinuations and threats, in pretended poverty amidst known growing wealth, in appeals to heaven and professed humility and loyalty, to avoid the scrutiny of their acts and to reclaim the usurpation of absolute power.

[144] collections of the massachusetts historical society, vol. viii., second series, pp. 49-51.

[145] collections of massachusetts historical society, vol. viii., second series, pp. 103-105.

[146] the petition entire is inserted above, pp. 153-159. mr. hutchinson gives this petition in the appendix to the first volume of his history of massachusetts bay, no. 16, pp. 537-539; but he does not give the king's reply.

[147] mr. endicot died before the next election. he was the primary cause of the disputes between the massachusetts bay colony and the parent government, and the unrelenting persecutor of all who differed from him in religious worship. he was hostile to monarchy and all english authority from the beginning; he got and kept the elective franchise, and eligibility to office, in the hands of the congregationalists alone, and became of course their idol.

the king's suggesting the election of a governor other than endicot was a refutation of their statements that he intended to deprive them of their local self-government. the following is neal's notice of the death of mr. endicot: "on the 23rd of march, 1665, died mr. john endicot, governor of the jurisdiction of massachusetts. he arrived at salem in the year 1628, and had the chief command of those that first settled there, and shared with them in all their hardships. he continued at salem till the magistrates desired him to remove to boston for the more convenient administration of justice, as governor of the jurisdiction, to which he was frequently elected for many years together. he was a great enemy of the sectaries, and was too severe in executing the penal laws against the quakers and anabaptists during the time of his administration. he lived to a good old age, and was interred at boston with great honour and solemnity."—neal's history of new england vol. ii., p. 346.

[148] the same year, 1662, in which charles the second sent so gracious a letter to the governor and council of massachusetts bay, he granted charters to the colonies of connecticut and rhode island, in both of which perfect liberty of conscience and religious liberty was encouraged and provided for, evincing the settled policy of the government of the restoration in regard to the new england colonies. the annalist holmes says:

"1662.—the charter of connecticut was granted by charles ii. with most ample privileges, under the great seal of england. it was ordained by the charter that all the king's subjects in the colony should enjoy all the privileges of free and natural born subjects within the realm of england." (holmes' annals, etc., vol. i., pp. 320, 321.)

so liberal were the provisions of this charter, that as judge story says: "it continued to be the fundamental law of the state of connecticut until the year 1818, when a new constitution of government was framed and adopted by the people." (commentaries on the constitution of the united states, vol. i., sec. 88.)

rhode island.—rhode island had two english charters, the circumstances connected with both of which were very peculiar. its founder, roger williams, had been banished from the jurisdiction of massachusetts bay.

"rhode island," says judge story, "was originally settled by emigrants from massachusetts, fleeing hither to escape from religious persecution, and it still boasts of roger williams as its founder and as the early defender of religious freedom and the rights of conscience. one body of them purchased the island which gave name to the state, and another the territory of the providence plantations from the indians, and began their settlements at the same period, in 1636 and 1638. they entered into separate associations of government. but finding their associations not sufficient to protect them against the encroachments of massachusetts, and having no title under any royal patents, they sent roger williams to england in 1643 to procure a surer foundation both of title and government. he succeeded in obtaining from the earl of warwick (in 1643) a charter of incorporation of providence plantations; and also in 1644 a charter from the two houses of parliament (charles the first being driven from his capital) for the incorporation of the towns of providence, newport, and portsmouth, for the absolute government of themselves, but according to the laws of england."

but such was the hostility of the rulers of massachusetts bay that they refused to admit rhode island into the confederacy of the new england colonies formed in 1643 to defend themselves against the indians, the spanish, the dutch, and the french; yet they had influence enough with cromwell to get the charter of rhode island suspended in 1652. "but," says dr. holmes, "that colony, taking advantage of the distractions which soon after ensued in england, resumed its government and enjoyed it without further interruption until the restoration." (holmes' annals, etc., vol. i., p. 297.)

"the restoration of charles the second," says judge story, "seems to have given great satisfaction to these plantations. they immediately proclaimed the king and sent an agent to england; and in july, 1663, after some opposition, they succeeded in obtaining a charter from the crown."

"the most remarkable circumstance in the charter, and that which exhibits the strong feeling and spirit of the colony, is the provision for religious freedom. the charter, after reciting the petition of the inhabitants, 'that it is much in their hearts (if they may be permitted) to hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand, and be best maintained, and that among english subjects with full liberty in religious concernments, and that true piety, rightly grounded upon gospel principles, will give the least and greatest security to sovereignty,' proceeds to declare:

"'we being willing to encourage the hopeful undertaking of our said loyal and loving subjects, and to secure them in the free exercise of all their civil and religious rights appertaining to them as our loving subjects, and to preserve to them that liberty in the true christian faith and worship of god which they have sought with so much travail and with peaceful minds and loyal subjection to our progenitors and ourselves to enjoy; and because some of the people and inhabitants of the same colony cannot, in their private opinion, conform to the public exercise of religion according to the liturgy, form, and ceremonies of the church of england, or take or subscribe to the oaths and articles made and established in that behalf; and for that the same, by reason of the remote distances of these places, will, as we hope, be no breach of the unity and uniformity established in this nation, have therefore thought fit, and do hereby publicly grant and ordain and declare, that our royal will and pleasure is, that no person within the said colony, at any time hereafter, shall be any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question for any differences in opinion on matters of religion, but that all and every person and persons may, from time to time, and at all times hereafter, freely and fully have and enjoy his and their own judgment and conveniences in matters of religious concernment throughout the tract of land hereafter mentioned, they behaving themselves peaceably and quietly, and not using this liberty to licentiousness and profaneness, nor to the civil injury or outward disturbance of others.'" (hazard's collection, p. 613.)

judge story, after quoting this declaration of the royal charter, justly remarks, "this is a noble declaration, worthy of any prince who rules over a free people. it is lamentable to reflect how little it comports with the domestic persecutions authorized by the same monarch during his profligate reign. it is still more lamentable to reflect how little a similar spirit of toleration was encouraged, either by precept or example, in other of the new england colonies." (commentaries, etc., vol. i., chap, viii., section 97.)

[149] collections of the massachusetts historical society, vol. viii., second series, p. 74.

[150] collections of the massachusetts historical society, vol. viii., second series, pp. 76-78.

[151] collections of the massachusetts historical society, vol. viii., second series, pp. 76, 78, 79.

[152] danforth papers, collections of massachusetts historical society, vol. viii., pp. 98, 108, 109, second series.

the following particulars are given of the proceedings of the court at a subsequent meeting on the same subject:

"october 10th, 1666. the general court met again, according to adjournment in may last. at this court many express themselves very sensible of our condition. several earnest for sending, and some against sending. those for sending none spake out fully that they would have the governor (mr. bellingham) and major hawthorne go; but some will have men go to plead our cause with his majesty; to answer what may be alleged against us, alleging reason, religion and our own necessity as forcing us thereto. others are against it, as being the loss of all, by endangering a quo warranto to be brought against our patent, and so to be condemned; a middle sort would have some go to present the court's present to his majesty, of two large masts and a ship's load of masts: and in case any demand were made why the governor, major hawthorne, and others did not appear, to crave his majesty's favour therein, and to plead with his majesty, showing how inconsistent it is with our being, for any to be forced to appear to answer in a judicial way in england—to answer either appeals or complaints against the country.

"the last proposal is obstructed by sundry, as being ruinous to the whole; and so nothing can be done, the governor and some others chiefly opposing it, so as that no orderly debate can be had to know the mind of the court.

"the court agreed to send two large masts aboard capt. pierce, 34 yards long, and the one 36 and the other 37 inches in diameter, and agreed to levy ￡1,000 for the payment of what is needful at present; but is obstructed—none will lend money unless men be sent, others because anything is to be sent; a return whereof made to the court, they say they know not what to do more—in case they that have money will not part with it, they are at a stand. some speak of raising by rate immediately. others think there is so much dissatisfaction that men are not sent, that it will provoke and raise a tumult; and in case that it be raised by loan, it will be hardly paid—if consent be not given in their sending men with it, and there be no good effect, which is contingent, and thus we are every way at a stand; some fearing these things will precipitate our ruin, and others apprehending that to act further will necessitate our ruin."—ib., pp. 110, 111.

from these notes, which mr. danforth made at the time when the proceedings referred to took place, it is plain there were a large number of loyalists even among the congregationalists, as they alone were eligible to be members of, or to elect to the court, and that the asserters of independence were greatly perplexed and agitated.

[153] danforth papers, collections of massachusetts historical society, vol. viii., pp. 99, 100, 108, 109.

[154] "there had been a press for printing at cambridge for near twenty years. the court appointed two persons (captain daniel guekins and mr. jonathan mitchell, the minister of cambridge), in october, 1662, licensers of the press, and prohibited the publishing of any books or papers which should not be supervised by them;" and in 1668, the supervisors having allowed the printing "thomas à kempis, de imitatione christi," the court interposed (it being wrote by a popish minister, and containing some things less safe to be infused among the people), and therefore they commended to the licensers a more full revisal, and ordered the press to stop in the meantime. (hutchinson's history of massachusetts bay, vol. i., pp. 257, 258.)

[155] even during the commonwealth in england, the congregational government of massachusetts bay was one of unmitigated persecution. mr. hutchinson, under date of 1655, remarks:

"the persecution of episcopalians by the prevailing powers in england was evidently from revenge for the persecution they had suffered themselves, and from political considerations and the prevalence of party, seeing all other opinions and professions, however absurd, were tolerated; but in new england it must be confessed that bigotry and cruel zeal prevailed, and to that degree that no opinion but their own could be tolerated. they were sincere but mistaken in their principles; and absurd as it is, it is too evident, they believed it to be to the glory of god to take away the lives of his creatures for maintaining tenets contrary to what they professed themselves. this occasioned complaints against the colony to the parliament and cromwell, but without success." (history of massachusetts bay, vol. i., p. 189.)

[156] "proceedings and sentence of the county court held at cambridge, on adjournment, april 17, 1666, against thomas goold, thomas osburne, and john george [157] (being baptists):

"thomas goold, thomas osburne, and john george, being presented by the grand jury of this county (cambridge), for absenting themselves from the public worship of god on the lord's dayes for one whole year now past, alleged respectively as followeth, viz.:

"thomas osburne answered that the reason of his non-attendance was that the lord hath discovered unto him from his word and spirit of truth, that the society where he is now in communion is more agreeable to the will of god; asserted that they were a church, and attended the worship of god together, and do judge themselves bound to do so, the ground whereof he said he gave in the general court.

"thomas goold answered that as for coming to public worship, they did meet in public worship according to the rule of christ; the grounds thereof they had given to the general court of assistants; asserted that they were a public meeting, according to the order of christ jesus, gathered together.

"john george answered that he did attend the public meetings on the lord's dayes where he was a member; asserted that they were a church according to the order of christ in the gospell, and with them he walked and held communion in the public worship of god on the lord's dayes."

sentence of the court.

"whereas at the general court in october last, and at the court of assistants in september last, endeavours were used for their conviction. the order of the general court declaring the said goold and company to be no orderly church assembly, and that they stand convicted of high presumption against the lord and his holy appoyntments was openly read to them, and is on file with the records of this court.

"the court sentenced the same thomas goold, thomas osburne, and john george, for their absenting themselves from the public worship of god on the lord's dayes, to pay four pounds fine, each of them, to the county order. and whereas, by their own confessions, they stand convicted of persisting in their schismatical assembling themselves together, to the great dishonour of god and our profession of his holy name, contrary to the act of the general order of the court of october last, prohibiting them therein on the penalty of imprisonment, this court doth order their giving bond respectively in ￡20, each of them, for their appearance to answer their contempt at the next court of assistants.

"the above named thomas goold, john george, and thomas osburne made their appeal to the next court of assistants, and refusing to put in security according to law, were committed to prison.

"vera copia."

"tho. danforth, recorder."

(hutchinson's history of massachusetts bay, vol. i., pp. 397-401.)

[157] note by mr. hutchinson.—"these three persons scrupled at infant baptism, separated from the churches of the country, and with others of the same persuasion with themselves, set up a church in boston. whilst congregationalists in england were complaining of the intolerant spirit of episcopalians, these antip?do baptists in new england had equal reason to complain of the same spirit in the congregationalists there."

[158] neal's history of new england, vol. ii., chap. viii., pp. 353, 354, 356.

[159] "they endeavoured not only by humble addresses and professions of loyalty to appease his majesty, but they purchased a ship-load of masts (the freight whereof cost them sixteen hundred pounds sterling), and presented them to the king, which he graciously accepted; and the fleet in the west indies being in want of provisions, a subscription and contribution was recommended through the colony for bringing in provisions to be sent to the fleet for his majesty's service,[160] but i find no word of the whole amount. upon the news of the great fire in london, a collection was made through the colony for the relief of the sufferers. the amount cannot be ascertained." (hutchinson's history of massachusetts bay, vol. i., pp. 256, 257.)

[160] note by mr. hutchinson.—"this was so well received that a letter was sent to the general court, under the king's sign warrant, dated 21st april, 1669, signifying how well it was taken by his majesty. so the letter expresses it."

[161] the following is a copy of the king's very courteous and reasonable letter:

"copy of a letter from king charles ii. to the governor, etc., of the massachusetts, dated july 24th, 1679.

"charles r.

"trusty and well beloved—we greet you well. these our letters are to accompany our trusty and well beloved william stoughton and peter bulkly, esqres., your agents, who having manifested to us great necessity in their domestic concerns to return back into new england, we have graciously consented thereunto, and the rather because for many months past our council hath been taken up in the discovery and prosecution of a popish plot, and yet there appears little prospect of any speedy leisure for entering upon such regulation in your affairs as is certainly necessary, not only in respect of our dignity, but of your own perfect settlement. in the meantime, we doubt not but the bearers thereof, who have demeaned themselves, during their attendance, with good care and discretion, will, from their own observations, acquaint you with many important things which may be of such use and advertisement to you, that we might well hope to be prevented, by your applications, in what is expected or desired by us. so much it is your interest to propose and intercede for the same; for we are graciously inclined to have all past errors and mistakes forgotten, and that your condition might be so amended as that neither your settlement, or the minds of our good subjects there, should be liable to be shaken and disquieted upon every complaint. we have heard with satisfaction of the great readiness wherewith our good subjects there have lately offered themselves to the taking of the oath of allegiance, which is a clear manifestation to us that the unanswerable defect in that particular was but the fault of a very few in power, who for so long a time obstructed what the charter and our express commands obliged them unto, as will appear in our gracious letter of the 28th of june (1662), in the fourteenth year of our reign; and we shall henceforth expect that there will be a suitable obedience in other particulars of the said letter, as, namely, in respect of freedom and liberty of conscience, so as those that desire to serve god in the way of the church of england be not thereby made obnoxious or discountenanced from their sharing in the government, much less that they or any other of our good subjects (not being papists) who do not agree in the congregational way, be by law subjected to fines or forfeitures, or other incapacities for the same, which is a severity to be the more wondered at, whereas liberty of conscience was made one principal motive for your first transportation into those parts; nor do we think it fit that any other distinction be observed in the making of freemen than that they be men of competent estates, rateable at ten shillings,[162] according to the rules of the place, and that such in their turns be also capable of the magistracy, and all laws made void that obstruct the same. and because we have not observed any fruits or advantage by the dispensation granted by us in our said letter of june, in the fourteenth year of our reign, whereby the number of assistants, settled by our charter to be eighteen, might be reduced unto the number of ten, our will and pleasure is that the ancient number of eighteen be henceforth observed, according to the letter of the charter. and our further will and pleasure is, that all persons coming to any privilege, trust, or office in that colony be first enjoined to take the oath of allegiance, and that all the military commissions as well as the proceedings of justice may run in our royal name. we are informed that you have lately made some good provision for observing the acts of trade and navigation, which is well pleasing unto us[163]; and as we doubt not and do expect that you will abolish all laws that are repugnant to and inconsistent with the laws of trade with us, we have appointed our trusty and well beloved subject, edward randolph, esq., to be our collector, surveyor and searcher not only for the colony, but for all our other colonies in new england, constituting him, by the broad seal of this our kingdom, to the said employments, and therefore recommending him to your help and assistance in all things that may be requisite in the discharge of his trust. given at our palace of hampton court, the 24th day of july, 1679, and in the one and thirtieth year of our reign.

"by his majesty's command,

"a. coventry."

[162] note by the historian, mr. hutchinson.—they seem to have held out till the last in refusing to admit any to be freemen who were not either church members, or who did not at least obtain a certificate from the minister of the town that they were orthodox.

[163] note by the historian, mr. hutchinson.—this is very extraordinary, for this provision was an act of the colony, declaring that the acts of trade should be in force there. (massachusetts history, vol. i., p. 322.)

[164] history of massachusetts bay, vol. i., pp. 325, 326.

[165] "the people of massachusetts had always the good-will of cromwell. in relation to them he allowed the navigation law, which pressed hard on the southern colonies, to become a dead letter, and they received the commodities of all nations free of duty, and sent their ships at will to the ports of continental europe." (palfrey's history of new england, vol. ii., book ii., chap. x., p. 393.)

[166] "1660.—the parliament passed an act for the general encouragement and increase of shipping and navigation, by which the provisions made in the celebrated navigation act of 1651 were continued, with additional improvements. it enacted that no sugar, tobacco, ginger, indigo, cotton, fustin, dyeing woods of the growth of english territories in america, asia, or africa, shall be transported to any other country than those belonging to the crown of england, under the penalty of forfeiture; and all vessels sailing to the plantations were to give bonds to bring said commodities to england." (holmes' american annals, vol. i., pp. 314, 315.)

"the oppressive system," says palfrey, "was further extended by an act which confined the import trade of the colonists to a direct commerce with england, forbidding them to bring from any other or in any other than english ships, the products not only of england but of any european state." (history of new england, vol. ii., b. ii., chap. xi., p. 445.)

palfrey adds in a note: "salt for new england fishermen, wines from madeira and the azores, and provisions from scotland and ireland, were, however, exempted."—ib.

[167] hutchinson's collection, etc., pp. 522-525. palfrey's history of new england, vol. iii., b. iii., chap. viii., p. 341.

[168] to this there were two or three exceptions. they repealed the penal laws "against keeping christmas;" also for punishing with death quakers returned from banishment; and to amend the laws relating to heresy and to rebellion against the country.

[169] palfrey's history of new england, vol. iii., b. iii., chap. viii., p. 352.

they usurped authority over new hampshire and maine, at the same time that they prevented the execution of the acts of trade and navigation (the 12th and 15th of charles the second). mr. hutchinson says: "the massachusetts government (1670) governed without opposition the province of new hampshire and the province of maine, and were beginning settlements even further eastward. the french were removed from their neighbourhood on the one side, and the dutch and swedes on the other. their trade was as extensive as they could wish. no custom-house was established. the acts of parliament of the 12th-15th of king charles the second, for regulating the plantation trade, were in force; but the governor, whose business it was to carry them into execution, was annually to be elected by the people, whose interest was that they should not be observed! some of the magistrates and principal merchants grew very rich." (history of massachusetts bay, vol i., p. 269.)

[170] on the very day, october, 1677, that they proposed, in obedience to his majesty's command, to pass an order that "the governor and all inferior magistrates should see to the strict observation of the acts of navigation and trade," they made an order "that the law requiring all persons, as well inhabitants as strangers, that have not taken it, to take the oath of fidelity to the country, be revived and put in practice throughout the jurisdiction" (palfrey, vol. iii., pp. 311-315)—an order intended to counteract the execution of the acts of navigation and trade by the king's collector, and of which he complained to england.

"the agents of the colony endeavoured to explain this law to the board (of colonial plantations in england), and to soften their indignation against it, but without effect." (ib., p. 315.) "all persons who refused to take the oath of fidelity to the country were not to have the privilege of recovering their debts in courts of law, nor to have the protection of the government." (truth and innocency defended, etc.)

[171] (collections of the massachusetts historical society, second series, vol. viii., pp. 73-78.) the liberty of worship, which they declared had been the object of their emigration to massachusetts, had never been denied them; had been assured to them by both charles the first and charles the second. the king did not propose to impose the use of the prayer book upon any inhabitant of the colony, but insisted upon freedom of worship for each inhabitant; whereas the massachusetts bay court, under the pretext of liberty of worship for congregationalists, denied freedom of worship to all others not congregationalists.

[172] "this extraordinary law continued in force until the dissolution of the government; it being repealed in appearance only,[173] after the restoration of king charles the second. had they been deprived of their civil privileges in england by act of parliament, unless they would join in communion with the churches there, it might very well have been the first on the roll of grievances. but such were the requisites for church membership here, that the grievance is abundantly greater." (hutchinson's history of massachusetts bay, vol. i., pp. 25, 26.)

[173] note by the historian.—"the minister was to certify that the candidates for freedom were of orthodox principles and of good lives and conversation."

[174] hutchinson's history of massachusetts bay, vol. i., p. 431. "the test (that 'no man could have a share in the administration of civil government, or give his voice in any election, unless he was a member of one of the churches') went a great way towards producing general uniformity. he that did not conform was deprived of more civil privileges than a nonconformist is deprived of by the test act in england. both the one and the other must have occasioned much formality and hypocrisy. the mysteries of our holy religion have been prostituted to mere secular views and advantages."—ib., p. 432.

[175] (palfrey, vol. iii., p. 353, in a note.) mr. hildreth states the case as follows: "encouraged by the king's demand for toleration, construed as superseding the 'by-laws' of the colony, the baptists ventured to hold a service in their new meeting-house. for this they were summoned before the magistrates, and when they refused to desist the doors were nailed up and the following order posted upon them: 'all persons are to take notice that, by order of the court, the doors of this house are shut up, and that they are inhibited to hold any meeting therein, or to open the doors thereof without licence from authority, till the general court take further order, as they will answer the contrary at their peril.' when the general court met the baptists pleaded that their house was built before any law was made to prevent it. this plea was so far allowed that their past offences were forgiven; but they were not allowed to open the house." (history of the united states, vol. i., chap, xiv., p. 501.)

[176] (hutchinson's history of massachusetts bay, vol. i., p. 320.) after quoting this law, the historian remarks: "i know of nothing which can be urged in anywise tending to increase the severity of this law, unless it be human infirmity, and the many instances in history of persons of every religion being fully persuaded that the indulgence of any other was a toleration of impiety and brought down the judgments of heaven, and therefore justified persecution. this law lost the colony many friends."—ib.

the law punishing attendance at quaker meetings was accompanied by another containing the following clauses:

"pride, in men wearing long hair like women's hair; others wearing borders of hair, and cutting, curling, and immodest laying out their hair, principally in the younger sort. grand jurors to present and the court to punish all offenders by admonition, fine, or correction, at discretion."

"excess in apparel, strange new fashions, naked breasts and arms, and pinioned superfluous ribbands on hair and apparel. the court to fine offenders at discretion."

"a loose and sinful custom of riding from town to town, men and women together, under pretence of going to lectures, but really to drink and revel in taverns, tending to debauchery and unchastity. all single persons, being offenders, to be bound in their good behaviour, with sureties in twenty pounds fine, or suffer fine and imprisonment."—ib., pp. 320, 321, in a note.

the foregoing pages show the notions and appreciation of the religious rights and liberties by the massachusetts bay rulers and legislators in regard to episcopalians, baptists, and quakers. the above quoted clauses of their law passed in 1667, nearly fifty years after the establishment of their government, illustrate their ideas of individual liberty.

[177] palfrey, vol. iii., p. 353. much has been written about these acts of trade and navigation, as if they were acts of royal despotism and designed to oppress the colonies for the benefit of england; whereas they originated with the commonwealth, and were designed to benefit the colonies as well as the mother country. "after the decapitation of charles i.," says minot, "the confused situation of england prevented any particular attention to the colony until cromwell's government. the very qualities which existed in the character of the inhabitants to render them displeasing to the late king, operated as much with the protector in their favour; and he diverted all complaints of their enemies against them. yet he procured the navigation act to be passed by the parliament, which was a source of future difficulty to the colony, though it was evaded in new england at first (by cromwell's connivance with the rulers of massachusetts colony), as they still traded in all parts and enjoyed a privilege, peculiar to themselves, of importing their goods into england free of all customs." (minot's continuation of the history of massachusetts bay, published according to act of congress, vol. i., p. 40.)

mr. hildreth, referring to the early part of charles the second's restoration, says: "as yet the acts of trade were hardly a subject of controversy. the parliament, which had welcomed back the king, had indeed re-enacted with additional clauses the ordinance of 1651—an act which, by restricting exportations from america to english, irish, and colonial vessels, substantially excluded foreign ships from all anglo-american harbours. to this, which might be regarded as a benefit to new england ship-owners, a provision was added still further to isolate the colonies (from foreign countries), the more valuable colonial staples, mentioned by the name, and hence known as 'enumerated articles,' being required to be shipped exclusively to england or some english colony. the exportation to the colonies was also prohibited of any product of europe, unless in english vessels and from england, except horses, servants and provisions from ireland and scotland. but of the 'enumerated articles' none were produced in new england; while salt for fisheries, and wine from madeira and the azores, branches of foreign trade in which new england was deeply interested, were specially exempted from the operation of an act which had chiefly in view the more southern colonies." (hildreth's history of the united states, vol i., chap xiv.' p. 473.)

[178] history of the united states, vol. ii., chap. xviii., pp. 461, 462.

[179] the following is a specimen of the manner in which they interpreted their charter to extend their territory. having interpreted their charter to exempt themselves from all responsibility to the crown for their legislation or acts, they devised a new interpretation of their charter in order to extend their territory to the north and north-east. the charter limited their territories to three miles of the north bank of the merrimac. at the end of twenty years they decided that the charter meant three miles north of the most northern land or elbow of the merrimac, and then not follow within three miles of the north bank of the river to its mouth, but a straight line east and west, which would give to their plantation, maine and a large part of new hampshire, to the exclusion of the original patentees. when the royal commissioners, as directed by the king, came to investigate the complaints on this disputed boundary of territory, they decided against the pretensions of the massachusetts bay rulers, and appointed magistrates, etc., to give effect to their decision; but the authorities of massachusetts bay, acknowledging no superior under heaven, resumed control of the territory in dispute as soon as the commissioners had left the country. mr. hildreth says:

"shortly after the departure of the royal commissioners, leverett, now major-general of the colony, was sent to maine, with three other magistrates and a body of horse, to re-establish the authority of massachusetts. in spite of the remonstrances of col. nichols at new york (the head of the royal commission), the new government lately set up was obliged to yield. several persons were punished for speaking irreverently of the re-established authority of massachusetts." (hildreth's history of the united states, vol. i., chap. xiv., pp. 473, 474.) for eleven years the massachusetts bay government maintained this ascendency against all complaints and appeals to england, when in 1677, as mr. hildreth says, "after hearing the parties, the privy council decided, in accordance with the opinion of the two chief justices, that the massachusetts patent did not give any territory more than three miles distant from the left or north bank of the merrimac. this construction, which set aside the pretensions of massachusetts to the province of maine, as well as to that part of new hampshire east of the merrimac, appeared so plain to english lawyers that the agents (of massachusetts) hardly attempted a word in defence." (history of the united states, vol. ii., chap. xviii., pp. 496, 497.)

it has been shown that as early as the second year of the civil war in england, the massachusetts bay court passed an act, in 1643, declaring it a capital crime for any one in their jurisdiction to advocate or support the cause of the king; some years afterwards they passed an act forbidding all trade with the other american colonies who would not renounce their allegiance to the king; in their addresses to the parliament and cromwell, in 1651 and 1654, as shown above, they claimed, as a ground of merit for peculiar favour, that they had done their utmost, by devotional and material aid of men and means, in support of the parliamentary, and afterwards regicide party, from the beginning to the end of the war—so that loyalists as well as churchmen were treated by them as outcasts and aliens—and now, after having begged, in language of sycophantic subserviency, the royal pardon for the past, and obtained it on certain conditions, they claim the boon but refuse to fulfil the conditions, making all sorts of excuses, promises, and evasions for twenty years—professing and promising one thing in london, doing the opposite in massachusetts, protracting where they dare not resist, but practically doing to the vacating of the charter what mr. bancroft states in the pregnant sentences above quoted in the text.