Part 2 — Chapter III. (These four articles abrogated by the four articles following them, 118-122.) Article 118. The Federal Constitution may at any time be amended. (continued 106)

Goldwin Smith, On the Foundation of the American Colonies (Lectures on the Study of History).

ALSO IN: W. Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection, 4th series, volume 3), book 1.

Mourt's Relation, or Journal of the Plantation at Plymouth; edited by H. M. Dexter.

J. S. Barry, History of Massachusetts, volume 1, chapter 3.

{2099}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1621. The first year of the Plymouth Colony and its sufferings. The Pierce patent. The naming of Plymouth.

"The labor of providing habitations had scarcely begun, when sickness set in, the consequence of exposure and bad food. Within four months it carried off nearly half their number. Six died in December, eight in January, seventeen in February, and thirteen in March. At one time during the winter, only six or seven had strength enough left to nurse the dying and bury the dead. Destitute of every provision, which the weakness and the daintiness of the invalid require, the sick lay crowded in the unwholesome vessel, or in half-built cabins heaped around with snow-drifts. The rude sailors refused them even a share of those coarse sea-stores which would have given a little variety to their diet, till disease spread among the crew, and the kind ministrations of those whom they had neglected and affronted brought them to a better temper. The dead were interred in a bluff by the water-side, the marks of burial being carefully effaced, lest the natives should discover how the colony had been weakened. … Meantime, courage and fidelity never gave out. The well carried out the dead through the cold and snow, and then hastened back from the burial to wait on the sick; and as the sick began to recover, they took the places of those whose strength had been exhausted." In March, the first intercourse of the colonists with the few natives of the region was opened, through Samoset, a friendly Indian, who had learned from fishermen on the more eastern coast to speak a little English. Soon afterwards, they made a treaty of friendship and alliance with Massasoit, the chief of the nearest tribe, which treaty remained in force for 54 years. On the 5th of April the Mayflower set sail on her homeward voyage, "with scarcely more than half the crew which had navigated her to America, the rest having fallen victims to the epidemic of the winter. … She carried back not one of the emigrants, dispiriting as were the hardships which they had endured, and those they had still in prospect." Soon after the departure of the Mayflower, Carver, the Governor, died. "Bradford was chosen to the vacant office, with Isaac Allerton, at his request, for his Assistant. Forty-six of the colonists of the Mayflower were now dead,—28 out of the 48 adult men. Before the arrival of the second party of emigrants in the autumn, the dead reached the number of 51, and only an equal number survived the first miseries of the enterprise. … Before the winter set in, tidings from England had come, to relieve the long year's lonesomeness; and a welcome addition was made to the sadly diminished number. The Fortune, a vessel of 55 tons' burden, reached Plymouth after a passage of four months, with Cushman and some 30 other emigrants. The men who now arrived outnumbered those of their predecessors who were still living. … Some were old friends of the colonists, at Leyden. Others were persons who added to the moral as well as to the numerical strength of the settlement. But there were not wanting such as became subjects for anxiety and coercion." The Fortune also brought to the colonists a patent from the Council for New England, as it was commonly known—the corporation into which the old Plymouth Company, or North Virginia branch of the Virginia Company, had been transformed (see NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623). "Upon lands of this corporation Bradford and his companions had sat down without leave, and were of course liable to be summarily expelled. Informed of their position by the return of the Mayflower to England in the spring, their friends obtained from the Council a patent which was brought by the Fortune. It was taken out in the name of 'John Pierce, citizen and cloth-worker of London, and his associates,' with the understanding that it should be held in trust for the Adventurers, of whom Pierce was one. It allowed 100 acres of land to every colonist gone and to go to New England, at a yearly rent of two shillings an acre after seven years. It granted 1,500 acres for public uses, and liberty to 'hawk, fish, and fowl'; to 'truck, trade, and traffic with the savages'; to 'establish such laws and ordinances as are for their better government, and the same, by such officer or officers as they shall by most voices elect and choose, to put in execution'; and 'to encounter, expulse, repel, and resist by force of arms' all intruders. … The instrument was signed for the Council by the Duke of Hamilton, the Duke of Lenox, the Earl of Warwick, Lord Sheffield, and Sir Ferdinando Gorges. … The precise time of the adoption of the name which the settlement has borne since its first year is not known. Plymouth is the name recorded on Smith's map as having been given to the spot by Prince Charles. It seems very likely that the emigrants had with them this map, which had been much circulated. … Morton (Memorial, 56) assigns as a reason for adopting it that 'Plymouth in Old England was the last town they left in their native country, and they received many kindnesses from some Christians there.' In Mourt, 'Plymouth' and 'the now well-defended town of New Plymouth' are used as equivalent. Later, the name Plymouth came to be appropriated to the town, and New Plymouth to the Colony."

J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, volume 1, chapter 5, and foot-note.

ALSO IN: J. A. Goodwin, The Pilgrim Republic, chapters 9-16.

F. Baylies, Historical Memoir of the Colony of New Plymouth, volume 1, chapters 5-6.

A. Young, Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628. Weston at Wessagusset, Morton at Merrymount, and other settlements.

"During the years immediately following the voyage of the Mayflower, several attempts at settlement were made about the shores of Massachusetts bay. One of the merchant adventurers, Thomas Weston, took it into his head in 1622 to separate from his partners and send out a colony of seventy men on his own account. These men made a settlement at Wessagusset, some twenty-five miles north of Plymouth. They were a disorderly, thriftless rabble, picked up from the London streets, and soon got into trouble with the Indians; after a year they were glad to get back to England as best they could, and in this the Plymouth settlers willingly aided them. In June of that same year 1622 there arrived on the scene a picturesque but ill understood personage, Thomas Morton, 'of Clifford's Inn, Gent.,' as he tells on the title-page of his quaint and delightful book, the 'New English Canaan.' Bradford disparagingly says that he 'had been a kind of petiefogger of Furnifell's Inn'; but the churchman Samuel Maverick declares that he was a 'gentleman of good qualitie.' {2100} He was an agent of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, and came with some thirty followers, to make the beginnings of a royalist and Episcopal settlement in the Massachusetts bay, He was naturally regarded with ill favour by the Pilgrims as well as by the later Puritan settlers, and their accounts of him will probably bear taking with a grain or two of salt. In 1625 there came one Captain Wollaston, with a gang of indented white servants, and established himself on the site of the present town of Quincy. Finding this system of industry ill suited to northern agriculture, he carried most of his men off to Virginia, where he sold them. Morton took possession of the site of the settlement, which he called Merrymount. There, according to Bradford, he set up a 'schoole of athisme,' and his men did quaff strong waters and comport themselves 'as if they had anew revived and celebrated the feasts of ye Roman Goddes Flora, or the beastly practices of ye madd Bachanalians.' Charges of atheism have been freely hurled about in all ages. In Morton's case the accusation seems to have been based upon the fact that he used the Book of Common Prayer. His men so far maintained the ancient customs of merry England as to plant a Maypole eighty feet high, about which they frolicked with the redskins, while furthermore they taught them the use of firearms and sold them muskets and rum. This was positively dangerous, and in the summer of 1628 the settlers at Merrymount were dispersed by Miles Standish. Morton was sent to England, but returned the next year, and presently again repaired to Merrymount. By this time other settlements were dotted about the coast. There were a few scattered cottages or cabins at Nantasket and at the mouth of the Piscataqua, while Samuel Maverick had fortified himself on Noddle's Island, and William Blackstone already lived upon the Shawmut peninsula, since called Boston. These two gentlemen were no friends to the Puritans; they were churchmen and representatives of Sir Ferdinando Gorges."

J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: C. F. Adams, Jr., Old Planters about Boston Harbor (Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, June, 1878).

C. F. Adams, Jr., Introduction to Morton's New English Canaan (Prince Society, 1883).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623. Grant to Robert Gorges on the Bay.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629. Plymouth Colony. Land allotments. Buying freedom from the adventurers at London. The new patent.

"In 1623 the Ann and Little James, the former of 140 tons, and the latter of 44 tons, arrived with 60 persons to be added to the colony, and a number of others who had come at their own charge and on their own account. … The passengers in the Ann and Little James completed the list of those who are usually called the first-comers. The Ann returned to England in September, carrying Mr. Winslow to negotiate with the merchants, for needful supplies, and the Little James remained at Plymouth in the service of the company. … Up to that time the company had worked together on the company lands, and, each sharing in the fruits of another's labors, felt little of that personal responsibility which was necessary to secure the largest returns. … 'At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advise of the cheefest amongest them) gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to goe on in the generall way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcell of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end. … This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious.' … Such is the language of Bradford concerning a measure which was adopted from motives of necessity, but which was, to a certain extent, an infringement of the provisions of the contract with the adventurers. Before the planting season of the next year a more emphatic violation of the contract was committed. 'They (the colony) begane now highly to prise corne as more pretious then silver, and those that had some to spare begane to trade one with another for smale things, by the quarte, potle, & peck &C.: for money they had none, and if any had, corne was prefered before it. That they might therfore encrease their tillage to better advantage, they made suite to the Governor to have some portion of land given them for continuance, and not by yearly lotte. … Which being well considered, their request was granted. And to every person was given only one acre of land, to them and theirs, as nere the towne as might be, and they had no more till the 7 years were expired.' This experience gradually led the colony in the right track, and the growing necessity for some other circulating medium than silver secured abundant harvests." Winslow returned from England in 1624, "bringing, besides a good supply, '3 heifers & a bull the first begining of any catle of that kind in the land.' At that time there were 180 persons in the colony, 'some cattle and goats, but many swine and poultry and thirty-two dwelling houses.' In the latter part of the year Winslow sailed again for England in the Little James and returned in 1625. The news he brought was discouraging to the colonists. The debt due to the adventurers was £1,400, and the creditors had lost confidence in their enterprise." On this intelligence, Capt. Standish was sent to England, followed next year by Mr. Allerton, "to make a composition with the adventurers," and obtain, if possible, a release from the seven years contract under which the colonists were bound. Allerton returned in 1627, having concluded an agreement with the adventurers at London for the purchase of all their rights and interests in the plantation, for the sum of £1,800. The agreement was approved by the colony, and Bradford, Standish, Allerton, Winslow, Brewster, Howland, Alden, and others, assumed the debt of £1,800, the trading privileges of the colony being assigned to them for their security. "In accordance with this agreement these gentlemen at once entered vigorously into the enterprise, and by the use of wampum, as a circulating medium, carried on so extensive a trade with the natives, in the purchase of furs and other articles for export to England as within the prescribed period [six years] to pay off the entire debt and leave the colony in the undisputed possession of their lands. No legal-tender scheme, in these later days, has been bolder in its conception, or more successful in its career, than that of the Pilgrim Fathers, which, with the shells of the shore, relieved their community from debt, and established on a permanent basis the wealth and prosperity of New England. … {2101} After the negotiations with the adventurers had been completed, the colonists were anxious to obtain another patent from the New England Company conferring larger powers and defining their territorial limits. After three visits to England, Allerton was sent a fourth time, in 1629, and secured a patent dated January 13, 1629 (old style), and signed by the Earl of Warwick on behalf of the Council of New England, enlarging the original grant, and establishing the boundaries of what has been since known as the Old Colony. It granted to William Bradford and his associates 'all that part of New England in America, the tract and tracts of land that lie within or between a certain rivolet or rundlett, then commonly caned Coahasset alias Conahasset, towards the north, and the river commonly called Naraganset river towards the south, and the great Western ocean towards the east," and between two lines described as extending, severally, from the mouth of the Naraganset and the mouth of the Coahasset, "up into the mainland westward," "to the utmost limits and bounds of a country or place in New England called Pokernacutt, alias Puckenakick, alias Sawaamset."

W. T. Davis, Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth, chapter 2.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629. The Dorchester Company and the royal Charter to the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

"While the people of Plymouth were struggling to establish their colony, some of the English Puritans, restless under the growing despotism of Charles, began to turn their eyes to New England. Under the lead of the Rev. John White, the Dorchester Company was formed for trading and fishing, and a station was established at Cape Ann [A. D. 1623]; but the enterprise did not prosper, the colonists were disorderly, and the Company made an arrangement for Roger Conant and others, driven from Plymouth by the rigid principles of the Separatists, to come to Cape Ann. Still matters did not improve and the Company was dissolved; but White held to his purpose, and Conant and a few others moved to Naumkeag, and determined to settle there. Conant induced his companions to persevere, and matters in England led to a fresh attempt; for discontent grew rapidly as Charles proceeded in his policy. A second Dorchester Company, not this time a small affair for fishing and trading, but one backed by men of wealth and influence, was formed, and a large grant of lands [from three miles north of the Merrimac to three miles south of the Charles, and to extend from the Atlantic to the Western Ocean] was made by the Council for New England to Sir Henry Roswell and five others [March, 1628]. One of the six patentees, John Endicott, went out during the following summer with a small company, assumed the government at Naumkeag, which was now called Salem, and sent out exploring parties. The company thus formed in England was merely a voluntary partnership, but it paved the way for another and much larger scheme. Disaffection had become wide-spread. The Puritans began to fear that religious and political liberty alike were not only in danger but were doomed to destruction, and a large portion of the party resolved to combine for the preservation of all that was dearest to them by removal to the New World. The Dorchester Company was enlarged, and a royal charter was obtained incorporating the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay," March 4, 1629.

H. C. Lodge, Short History of the English Colonies in America, chapter 18.

"This [the royal charter named above] is the instrument under which the Colony of Massachusetts continued to conduct its affairs for 55 years. The patentees named in it were Roswell and his five associates, with 20 other persons, of whom White was not one. It gave power forever to the freemen of the Company to elect annually, from their own number, a Governor, Deputy-Governor, and 18 Assistants, on the last Wednesday of Easter term, and to make laws and ordinances not repugnant to the laws of England, for their own benefit and the government of persons inhabiting their territory. Four meetings of the Company were to be held in a year, and others might be convened in a manner prescribed. Meetings of the Governor, Deputy-Governor, and Assistants, were to be held once a month or oftener. The Governor, Deputy-Governor, and any two Assistants, were authorized, but not required, to administer to freemen the oaths of supremacy and allegiance. The Company might transport settlers not 'restrained by special name.' They had authority to admit new associates, and establish the terms of their admission, and elect and constitute such officers as they should see fit for the ordering and managing of their affairs. They were empowered to 'encounter, repulse, repel, and resist by force of arms … all such person and persons as should at any time thereafter attempt or enterprise the destruction, invasion, detriment, or annoyance to the said plantation or inhabitants.' Nothing was said of religious liberty. The government may have relied upon its power to restrain it, and the emigrants on their distance and obscurity to protect it."

J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, volume 1, chapter 8.

"In anticipation of a future want the grantees resisted the insertion of any condition which should fix the government of the Company in England. Winthrop explicitly states that the advisers of the Crown had originally imposed such a condition, but that the patentees succeeded, not without difficulty, in freeing themselves from it. That fact is a full answer to those who held that in transferring the government to America the patentees broke faith with the Crown."

J. A. Doyle, The English in America: The Puritan Colonies, volume 1, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: Records of the Government and Company of Massachusetts Bay; edited by N. B. Shurtleff, volume 1 (containing the Charter).

S. F. Haven, Origin of the Company (Archœologia Americana, volume 3).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630. The immigration of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay, with their Royal Charter.

"Several persons, of considerable importance in the English nation, were now enlisted among the adventurers, who, for the unmolested enjoyment of their religion, were resolved to remove into Massachusetts. Foreseeing, however, and dreading the inconvenience of being governed by laws made for them without their own consent, they judged it more reasonable that the colony should be ruled by men residing in the plantation, than by those dwelling at a distance of three thousand miles, and over whom they should have no control. At a meeting of the company on the 28th of July [1629], Matthew Cradock, the governor, proposed that the charter should be transferred to those of the freemen who should become inhabitants of the colony, and the powers conferred by it be executed for the future in New England. {2102} An agreement was accordingly made at Cambridge, in England, on the 26th of August, between Sir Richard Saltonstall, Thomas Dudley, Isaac Johnson, John Winthrop, and a few others, that, on those conditions, they would be ready the ensuing March, with their persons and families, to embark for New England, for the purpose of settling in the country. The governor and company, entirely disposed to promote the measure, called a general court [at which, after a serious debate, adjourned from one day to the next,] … it was decreed that the government and the patent of the plantation should be transferred from London to Massachusetts Bay. An order was drawn up for that purpose, in pursuance of which a court was holden on the 20th of October for a new election of officers, who would be willing to remove with their families; and 'the court having received extraordinary great commendation of Mr. John Winthrop, both for his integrity and sufficiency, as being one very well fitted for the place, with a full consent chose him governor for the year ensuing.' … Preparations were now made for the removal of a large number of colonists, and in the spring of 1630 a fleet of 14 sail was got ready. Mr. Winthrop having by the consent of all been chosen for their leader, immediately set about making preparations for his departure. He converted a fine estate of £600 or £700 per annum into money and in March embarked on board the Arbella, one of the principal ships. Before leaving Yarmouth, an address to their fathers and brethren remaining in England was drawn up, and subscribed on the 7th of April by Governor Winthrop and others, breathing an affectionate farewell to the Church of England and their native land. … In the same ship with Governor Winthrop came Thomas Dudley, who had been chosen deputy governor after the embarkation, and several other gentlemen of wealth and quality; the fleet containing about 840 passengers, of various occupations, some of whom were from the west of England, but most from the neighborhood of London. The fleet sailed early in April; and the Arbella arrived off Cape Ann on Friday, the 11th of June, and on the following day entered the harbor of Salem. A few days after their arrival, the governor, and several of the principal persons of the colony, made an excursion some 20 miles along the bay, for the purpose of selecting a convenient site for a town. They finally pitched down on the north side of Charles river (Charlestown), and took lodgings in the great house built there the preceding year; the rest of the company erected cottages, booths, and tents, for present accommodation, about the town hill. Their place of assembling for divine service was under a spreading tree. On the 8th of July, a day of thanksgiving was kept for the safe arrival of the fleet. On the 30th of the same month, after a day of solemn prayer and fasting, the foundation of a church was laid at Charlestown, afterwards the first church of Boston, and Governor Winthrop, Deputy Governor Dudley, and the Rev. Mr. Wilson, entered into church covenant. The first court of assistants was held at Charlestown, on the 23d of August, and the first question proposed was a suitable provision for the support of the gospel. Towards the close of autumn, Governor Winthrop and most of the assistants removed to the peninsula of Shawmut (Boston), and lived there the first winter, intending in the spring to build a fortified town, but undetermined as to its situation. On the 6th of December they resolved to fortify the isthmus of that peninsula; but, changing their minds before the month expired, they agreed upon a place about three miles above Charlestown, which they called first Newtown, and afterwards Cambridge, where they engaged to build houses the ensuing spring. The rest of the winter they suffered much by the severity of the season, and were obliged to live upon acorns, groundnuts, and shell-fish. … They had appointed the 6th of February for a fast, in consequence of their alarm for the safety of a ship which had been sent to Ireland for provisions; but fortunately the vessel arrived on the 5th, and they ordered a public thanksgiving instead thereof."

J. B. Moore, Lives of the Governors of New Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay; part 2: Winthrop.

ALSO IN: R. C. Winthrop, Life and Letters of John Winthrop, volume 1, chapters 15-19, and volume 2, chapters 1-4.

A. Young, Chronicles of the first Planters of Massachusetts Bay, chapters 14-19.

J. S. Barry, History of Massachusetts, volume 1, chapter 7.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1630. The founding of Boston.

"The English people who came with Governor Winthrop first located upon the peninsula of Mishawum, which they called Charlestown. … They found here a single white man named Thomas Walford, living very peaceably and contentedly among the Indians. They also discovered that the peninsula of Shawmut had one solitary white inhabitant whose name was William Blackstone. They could see every day the smoke curling above this man's lonely cabin. He, too, was a Puritan clergyman, like many of those who had now come to make a home in the New World, free from the tyranny of the English bishops. Still another Englishman, Samuel Maverick by name, had built a house, and with the help of David Thompson, a fort which mounted four small cannon, truly called 'murtherers,' and was living very comfortably on the island that is now East Boston. And again, by looking across the bay, to the south, the smoke of an English cottage, on Thompson's Island, was probably seen stealing upward to the sky. So that we certainly know these people were the first settlers of Boston. But scarcity of water, and sickness, which soon broke out among them, made the settlers at Charlestown very discontented. They began to scatter. Indeed this peninsula was too small properly to accommodate all of them with their cattle. Therefore good William Blackstone, with true hospitality, came in their distress to tell them there was a fine spring of pure water at Shawmut, and to invite them there. Probably his account induced quite a number to remove at once; while others, wishing to make farms, looked out homes along the shores of the mainland, at Medford, Newtown (Cambridge), Watertown and Roxbury. A separate company of colonists also settled at Mattapan, or Dorchester. The dissatisfaction with Charlestown was so general that at last only a few of the original settlers remained there. … While those in chief authority were still undecided, Isaac Johnson, one of the most influential and honored men among the colonists, began, with others, in earnest, the settlement of Boston. He chose for himself the square of land now enclosed by Tremont, Court, Washington and School Streets. {2103} Unfortunately this gentleman, who was much beloved, died before the removal to Boston became general. … Although the chief men of the colony continued for some time yet to favor the plan of a fortified town farther inland, Boston had now become too firmly rooted, and the people too unwilling, to make a second change of location practicable, or even desirable. So this project was abandoned, though not before high words passed between Winthrop and Dudley about it. The governor then removed the frame of his new house from Cambridge, or Newtown, to Boston, setting it up on the land between Milk Street, Spring Lane, and Washington Street. One of the finest springs being upon his lot, the name Spring Lane is easily traced. The people first located themselves within the space now comprised between Milk, Bromfield, Tremont, and Hanover Streets, and the water, or, in general terms, upon the southeasterly slope of Beacon Hill. Pemberton Hill soon became a favorite locality. The North End, including that portion of the town north of Union Street, was soon built up by the new emigrants coming in, or by removals from the South End, as all the town south of this district was called. In time a third district on the north side of Beacon Hill grew up, and was called the West End. And in the old city these general divisions continue to-day. Shawmut, we remember, was the first name Boston had. Now the settlers at Charlestown, seeing always before them a high hill topped with three little peaks, had already, and very aptly too, we think, named Shawmut Trimountain [the origin of the name Tremont in Boston]. But when they began to remove there they called it Boston, after a place of that name in England, and because they had determined beforehand to give to their chief town this name. So says the second highest person among them, Deputy Governor Thomas Dudley. The settlers built their first church on the ground now covered by Brazer's Building, in State Street. … Directly in front of the meeting-house was the town market-place. Where Quincy Market is was the principal landing-place. The Common was set apart as a pasture-ground and training-field. … A beacon was set up on the summit of Trimountain and a fort upon the southernmost hill of the town. From this time these hills took the names of Windmill, Beacon, and Fort Hills."

S. A. Drake, Around the Hub, chapter 2.

"The order of the Court of Assistants,—Governor Winthrop presiding,—'That Trimontaine shall be called Boston,' was passed on the 7th of September, old style, or, as we now count it, the 17th of September, 1630. The name of Boston was specially dear to the Massachusetts colonists, from its association with the old St. Botolphs' town, or Boston, of Lincolnshire, England, from which the Lady Arbella Johnson and her husband had come, and where John Cotton was still preaching in its noble parish church. But the precise date of the removal of the Governor and Company to the peninsula is nowhere given."

R. C. Winthrop, Boston Founded (Memorial History of Boston; edited by J. Winsor, volume 1), pages 116-117.

ALSO IN: C. F. Adams, Jr., Earliest Exploration and Settlement of Boston Harbor (Mem. History, pages 63-86).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636. The Puritan Theocracy and its intolerance.

"The charter of the Massachusetts Company had prescribed no condition of investment with its franchise,—or with what under the circumstances which had arisen was the same thing, the prerogatives of citizenship in the plantation,—except the will and vote of those who were already freemen. At the first Cisatlantic General Court for election, 'to the end the body of the commons may be preserved of honest and good men,' it was 'ordered and agreed, that, for the time to come, no man shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic, but such as are members of some of the churches within the limits of the same." The men who laid this singular foundation for the commonwealth which they were instituting, had been accustomed to feel responsibility, and to act upon well-considered reasons. By charter from the English crown, the land was theirs as against all other civilized people, and they had a right to choose according to their own rules the associates who should help them to occupy and govern it. Exercising this right, they determined that magistracy and citizenship should belong only to Christian men, ascertained to be such by the best test which they knew how to apply. They established a kind of aristocracy hitherto unknown."

J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, volume 1, chapter 9.

"The aim of Winthrop and his friends in coming to Massachusetts was the construction of a theocratic state which should be to Christians, under the New Testament dispensation, all that the theocracy of Moses and Joshua and Samuel had been to the Jews in Old Testament days. They should be to all intents and purposes freed from the jurisdiction of the Stuart king, and so far as possible the text of the Holy Scriptures should be their guide both in weighty matters of general legislation and in the shaping of the smallest details of daily life. In such a scheme there was no room for religious liberty as we understand it."

J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England, chapter 4.

"The projected religious commonwealth was to be founded and administered by the Bible, the whole Bible, not by the New Testament alone. … They revered and used and treated the Holy Book as one whole. A single sentence from any part of it was an oracle to them: it was as a slice or crumb from any part of a loaf of bread, all of the same consistency. God, as King, had been the Lawgiver of Israel: he should be their Lawgiver too. … The Church should fashion the State and be identical with it. Only experienced and covenanted Christian believers, pledged by their profession to accordance of opinion and purpose with the original proprietors and exiles, should be admitted as freemen, or full citizens of the commonwealth. They would restrain and limit their own liberty of conscience, as well as their own freedom of action, within Bible rules. In fact,—in spirit even more than in the letter,—they did adopt all of the Jewish code which was in any way practicable for them. The leading minister of the colony was formally appointed by the General Court to adapt the Jewish law to their case [1636]; and it was enacted that, till that work was really done, 'Moses, his Judicials,' should be in full force. Mr. Cotton in due time presented the results of his labor in a code of laws illustrated by Scripture texts. This code was not formally adopted by the Court; but the spirit of it, soon rewrought into another body, had full sway. … {2104} That frankly avowed and practically applied purpose of the Fathers, of establishing here a Bible Commonwealth, 'under a due form of government, both civil and ecclesiastical,' furnishes the key to, the explanation of, all dark things and all the bright things in their early history. The young people educated among us ought to read our history by that simple, plain interpretation. The consciences of our Fathers were not free in our sense of that word. They were held under rigid subjection to what they regarded as God's Holy Word, through and through in every sentence of it, just as the consciences of their Fathers were held, under the sway of the Pope and the Roman Church. The Bible was to them supreme. Their church was based on it, modelled by it, governed by it; and they intended their State should be also."

G. E. Ellis, Lowell Institute Lectures on the Early History of Massachusetts, pages 50-55.

"Though communicants were not necessarily voters, no one could be a voter who was not a communicant; therefore the town-meeting was nothing but the church meeting, possibly somewhat attenuated, and called by a different name. By this insidious statute the clergy seized the temporal power, which they held till the charter fell. The minister stood at the head of the congregation and moulded it to suit his purposes and to do his will. … Common men could not have kept this hold upon the inhabitants of New England, but the clergy were learned, resolute, and able, and their strong but narrow minds burned with fanaticism and love of power; with their beliefs and under their temptations persecution seemed to them not only their most potent weapon, but a duty they owed to Christ—and that duty they unflinchingly performed."

B. Adams, The Emancipation of Massachusetts, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: J. S. Barry, History of Massachusetts, volume 1, chapter 10.

P. Oliver, The Puritan Commonwealth, chapter 2, part 1.

D. Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England, and America, chapter 22 (volume 2).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1633-1635. Hostilities between the Plymouth Colony and the French on the Maine coast.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637. Threatening movements in England. The Charter demanded.

"That the government of Charles I. should view with a hostile eye the growth of a Puritan state in New England is not at all surprising. The only fit ground for wonder would seem to be that Charles should have been willing at the outset to grant a charter to the able and influential Puritans who organized the Company of Massachusetts Bay. Probably, however, the king thought at first it would relieve him at home if a few dozen of the Puritan leaders could be allowed to concentrate their minds upon a project of colonization in America. It might divert attention for a moment from his own despotic schemes. Very likely the scheme would prove a failure and the Massachusetts colony incur a fate like that of Roanoke Island; and at all events the wealth of the Puritans might better be sunk in a remote and perilous enterprise than employed at home in organizing resistance to the crown. Such, very likely, may have been the king's motive in granting the Massachusetts charter two days after turning his Parliament out of doors. But the events of the last half-dozen years had come to present the case in a new light. The young colony was not languishing. It was full of sturdy life; it had wrought mischief to the schemes of Gorges; and what was more, it had begun to take unheard-of liberties with things ecclesiastical and political. Its example was getting to be a dangerous one. It was evidently worth while to put a strong curb upon Massachusetts. Any promise made to his subjects Charles regarded as a promise made under duress which he was quite justified in breaking whenever it suited his purpose to do so. Enemies of Massachusetts were busy in England. Schismatics from Salem and revellers from Merrymount were ready with their tales of woe, and now Gorges and Mason were vigorously pressing their territorial claims."

J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England, chapter 3.

In April, 1634, "the superintendence of the colonies was … removed from the privy council to an arbitrary special commission, of which William Laud, archbishop of Canterbury, and the archbishop of York, were the chief. These, with ten of the highest officers of State, were invested with full power to make laws and orders, … to appoint judges and magistrates and establish courts for civil and ecclesiastical affairs, … to revoke all charters and patents which had been surreptitiously obtained, or which conceded liberties prejudicial to the royal prerogative. Cradock, who had been governor of the corporation in England before the transfer of the charter of Massachusetts, was strictly charged to deliver it up; and he wrote to the governor and council to send it home. Upon receipt of his letter, they resolved 'not to return any answer or excuse at that time.' In September, a copy of the commission to Archbishop Laud and his associates was brought to Boston; and it was at the same time rumored that the colonists were to be compelled by force to accept a new governor, the discipline of the church of England, and the laws of the commissioners. The intelligence awakened 'the magistrates and deputies to discover their minds each to other, and to hasten their fortifications,' towards which, poor as was the colony, £600 were raised. In January, 1635, all the ministers assembled at Boston; and they unanimously declared against the reception of a general governor, saying: 'We ought to defend our lawful possessions, if we are able; if not, to avoid and protract.' In the month before this declaration, it is not strange that Laud and his associates should have esteemed the inhabitants of Massachusetts to be men of refractory humors. … Restraints were placed upon emigration; no one above the rank of a serving man might remove to the colony without the special leave of Laud and his associates. … Willingly as these acts were enforced by religious bigotry, they were promoted by another cause. A change had come over the character of the great Plymouth council for the colonization of New England," which now schemed and bargained with the English court to surrender its general charter, on the condition that the vast territory which it had already ceded to the Massachusetts Company and others should be reclaimed by the king and granted anew, in severalty, to its members (see NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635). "At the Trinity term of the court of king's bench, a quo warranto was brought against the Company of the Massachusetts bay. At the ensuing Michaelmas, several of its members who resided in England made their appearance, and judgment was pronounced against them individually; the rest of the patentees stood outlawed, but no judgment was entered against them. {2105} The unexpected death of Mason, the proprietary of New Hampshire, in December, 1635, removed the chief instigator of these aggressions. In July, 1637, the king, professing 'to redress the mischiefs that had arisen out of the many different humours,' took the government of New England into his own hands, and appointed over it Sir Ferdinando Gorges as governor-general. … But the measure was feeble and ineffectual." Gorges "never left England, and was hardly heard of except by petitions to its government." Troubles had thickened about king Charles and his creature Laud until they no longer had time or disposition to bestow more of their thoughts on Massachusetts. A long-suffering nation was making ready to put an end to their malignant activities, and the Puritans of New England and Old England were alike delivered.

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), part 1, chapter 17 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: T. Hutchinson, History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, volume 1, pages 51 and 86-89.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1635-1636. The founding of Boston Latin School and Harvard College.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1635; and 1636.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1635-1637. The migration to Connecticut.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636. The banishment of Roger Williams.

"The intolerance of England had established the New England colonies. The time was at hand when those colonies should in their turn alienate from them their own children, and be the unwilling parents of a fresh state. In 1631, there arrived at Boston a young minister, Roger Williams, 'godly and zealous, having precious gifts.' … His theological doctrines seem to have been those generally received among the Puritans, but in questions of church discipline he went far beyond most of his sect. He was a rigid separatist, and carried the doctrine of toleration, or, as perhaps it might be more properly called, state indifference, to its fullest length. Accordingly it was impossible to employ him as a minister at Boston. He went to Salem, which was then without a preacher, and was appointed to the vacant office. But a message from Winthrop and the assistants compelled the church of Salem to retract its choice, and the young enthusiast withdrew to Plymouth," where he remained two years, until August, 1633, when he returned to Salem. "In 1634, he incurred the displeasure of some of his congregation by putting forward the doctrine that no tenure of land could be valid which had not the sanction of the natives. His doctrine was censured by the court at Boston, but on his satisfying the court of his 'loyalty,' the matter passed over. But before long he put forward doctrines, in the opinion of the government, yet more dangerous. He advocated complete separation from the Church of England, and denounced compulsory worship and a compulsory church establishment. Carrying the doctrine of individual liberty to its fullest extent, he asserted that the magistrate was only the agent of the people, and had no right to protect the people against itself; that his power extends only as far as such cases as disturb the public peace. … On the 8th of August, 1635, Williams was summoned before the general court; his opinions were denounced as 'erroneous and very dangerous,' and notice was given to the church at Salem that, unless it could explain the matter to the satisfaction of the court, Williams must be dismissed. In October, Williams was again brought before the court, and after a 'disputation' with Mr. Hooker, which failed to reduce him from any of his errors, he was sentenced to depart out of the jurisdiction of Massachusetts in six weeks. The church of Salem acquiesced in the condemnation of their pastor. Their own experience might have taught the fathers of New England that the best way to strengthen heresy is to oppose it. The natural result followed; the people were 'much taken with the apprehension of Williams 'godliness,' and a large congregation, including 'many devout women,' gathered round him. Since they had failed to check the evil, the Massachusetts government resolved to exterminate it and to ship Williams for England. The crew of a pinnace was sent to arrest him, but, fortunately for the future of New England, he had escaped. … He had set out [January, 1636] for the territory of Narragansett, and there founded the village of Providence."

A. Doyle, The American Colonies, chapter 2.

"His [Roger Williams'] own statement is, it was 'only for the holy truth of Christ Jesus that he was denied the common air to breathe in, and a civil cohabitation upon the same common earth.' But the facts of the case seem to show that it was because his opinions differed from the opinions of those among whom he lived, and were considered by them as dangerous and seditious, tending to the utter destruction of their community, that he was a sacrifice to honest convictions of truth and duty. … The sentence of banishment, however, was not passed without reluctance. Governor Winthrop remained his friend to the day of his death, and even proposed, in view of his services in the Pequot war, that his sentence should be revoked. Governor Haynes, of Connecticut, who pronounced his sentence, afterwards regretted it. Governor Winslow, of Plymouth, who had no hand in his expulsion, 'put a piece of gold in the hands of his wife,' to relieve his necessities, and though Mr. Cotton hardly clears himself from the charge of having procured his sentence, there was no private feud between them. Cotton Mather concedes that 'many judicious persons judged him to have had the root of the matter in him.' Later writers declare him, 'from the whole course and tenor of his life and conduct, to have been one of the most disinterested men that ever lived, a most pious and heavenly-minded soul.' And the magnanimous exile himself says, 'I did ever from my soul honor and love them, even when their judgment led them to afflict me.'"

J. S. Barry, History of Massachusetts, volume 1, chapter 9.

ALSO IN: J. D. Knowles, Memoir of Roger Williams, chapters 3-5.

E. B. Underhill, introduction to Williams' 'Bloudy Tenent of Persecution' (Hansard Knollys Society).

G. E. Ellis, The Puritan Age and Rule, chapter 8.

See, also, RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.

{2106}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638. Mrs. Anne Hutchinson and the Antinomian troubles.

"The agitation and strife connected with the Antinomian controversy, opened by Mrs. Ann Hutchinson, came dangerously near to bringing the fortunes of the young Massachusetts colony to a most disastrous ruin. … The peril overhung at a time when the proprietary colonists had the most reasonable and fearful forebodings of the loss of their charter by the interference of a Privy Council Commission. … Ominously enough, too, Mrs. Hutchinson arrived here, September 18, 1634, in the vessel which brought the copy of that commission. Winthrop describes her as a woman of a 'ready wit and bold spirit.' Strongly gifted herself, she had a gentle and weak husband, who was guided by her. She had at home enjoyed no ministrations so much as those of Cotton, and her brother-in-law, Mr. Wheelwright. She came here to put herself again under the preaching of the former. … She had been here for two years, known as a ready, kindly, and most serviceable woman, especially to her own sex in their straits and sicknesses. But she anticipated the introduction of 'the woman question' among the colonists in a more troublesome form than it has yet assumed for us. Joined by her brother-in-law, who was also admitted to the church, after those two quiet years she soon made her influence felt for trouble, as he did likewise. … The male members of the Boston Church had a weekly meeting, in which they discussed the ministrations of Cotton and Wilson. Mrs. Hutchinson organized and presided over one, held soon twice in a week, for her own sex, attended by nearly a hundred of the principal women on the peninsula and in the neighborhood. It was easy to foresee what would come of it, through one so able and earnest as herself, even if she had no novel or disjointed or disproportioned doctrine to inculcate; which, however, it proved that she had. Antinomian means a denying, or, at least, a weakening, of the obligation to observe the moral law, and to comply with the external duties; to do the works associated with the idea of internal, spiritual righteousness. It was a false or disproportioned construction of St. Paul's great doctrine of justification by faith, without the works of the law. … Mrs. Hutchinson, was understood to teach, that one who was graciously justified by a spiritual assurance, need not be greatly concerned for outward sanctification by works. She judged and approved, or censured and discredited, the preachers whom she heard, according as they favored or repudiated that view. Her admirers accepted her opinions. … Word soon went forth that Mrs. Hutchinson had pronounced in her meetings, that Mr. Cotton and her brother-in-law Wheelwright, alone of all the ministers in the colony, were under 'a covenant of grace,' the rest being 'legalists,' or under 'a covenant of works.' These reports, which soon became more than opinions, were blazing brands that it would be impossible to keep from reaching inflammable material. … As the contention extended it involved all the principal persons of the colony. Cotton and all but five members of the Boston Church—though one of these five was Winthrop, and another was Wilson—proved to be sympathizers with Mrs. Hutchinson; while the ministers and leading people outside in the other hamlets were strongly opposed to her. She had a partisan, moreover, of transcending influence in the young Governor, Sir Henry Vane," who had come over from England the year before, and who had been chosen at the next election for Governor, with Winthrop as deputy. "Though pure and devout, and ardent in zeal, he had not then the practical wisdom for which Milton afterwards praised him in his noble sonnet:—'Vane, young in years, but in sage counsels old.' … With his strong support, and that of two other prominent magistrates, and of so overwhelming a majority of the Boston Church, Mrs. Hutchinson naturally felt emboldened." But in the end her Church and party were overcome by the ministers and their supporters in the other parts of the colony; she was excommunicated and banished (November, 1637, and March, 1638), going forth to perish six years later at the hands of the Indians, while living on the shore of Long Island Sound, at a place now known as Pelham Neck, near New Rochelle. "As the summing up of the strife, 76 persons were disarmed; two were disfranchised and fined; 2 more were fined; 8 more were disfranchised; 3 were banished; and 11 who had asked permission to remove had leave, in the form of a limitation of time within which they must do it. The more estimable and considerable of them apologized and were received back."

G. E. Ellis, Lowell Institute Lectures on the Early History of Massachusetts, pages 95-100.

ALSO IN: B. Adams, The Emancipation of Massachusetts, chapter 2.

Ecclesiastical History of New England (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection, series 1, volume 9).

G. E. Ellis, Life of Anne Hutchinson (Library of American Biographies, new series, volume 6).

J. Anderson, Memorable Women of Puritan Times, volume 1, pages 185-220.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1637. The Pequot War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1637. The first Synod of the Churches and its dealings with Heresy.

The election of Sir Harry Vane to be Governor of the colony, in place of John Winthrop, "took place in the open air upon what is now Cambridge Common on the 27th day of May [1637]. Four months later it was followed by the gathering of the first Synod of Massachusetts churches; which again, meeting here in Cambridge, doubtless held its sessions in the original meeting-house standing on what is now called Mount Auburn Street. The Synod sat through twenty-four days, during which it busied itself unearthing heterodox opinions and making the situation uncomfortable for those suspected of heresy, until it had spread upon its record no less than eighty-two such 'opinions, some blasphemous, others erroneous, and all unsafe,' besides 'nine unwholesome expressions,' all alleged to be rife in the infant community. Having performed this feat, it broke up amid general congratulations 'that matters had been carried on so peaceably, and concluded so comfortably in all love.' … As the twig is bent, the tree inclines. The Massachusetts twig was here and then bent; and, as it was bent, it during hard upon two centuries inclined. The question of Religious Toleration was, so far as Massachusetts could decide it, decided in 1637 in the negative. … The turning point in the history of early Massachusetts was the Cambridge Synod of September, 1637, … which succeeded in spreading on its record, as then prevailing in the infant settlement, eighty-two 'opinions, some blasphemous, others erroneous and all unsafe,' besides 'nine unwholesome expressions,' the whole mighty mass of which was then incontinently dismissed, in the language of one of the leading divines who figured in that Assembly, 'to the devil of hell, from whence they came.' {2107} The mere enumeration of this long list of heresies as then somewhere prevailing is strong evidence of intellectual activity in early Massachusetts,—an activity which found ready expression through such men as Roger Williams, John Cotton, John Wheelwright and Sir Henry Vane, to say nothing of Mrs. Hutchinson, while the receptive condition of the mental soil is likewise seen in the hold the new opinions took. It was plainly a period of intellectual quickening,—a dawn of promise. Of this there can no doubt exist. It was freely acknowledged at the time; it has been stated as one of the conditions of that period by all writers on it since. The body of those who listened to him stood by Roger Williams; and the magistrates drove him away for that reason. Anne Hutchinson so held the ear of the whole Boston community that she had 'some of all sorts and quality, in all places to defend and patronize' her opinions; 'some of the magistrates, some gentlemen, some scholars and men of learning, some Burgesses of our General Court, some of our captains and soldiers, some chief men in towns, and some men eminent for religion, parts and wit.' These words of a leader of the clerical faction,—one of those most active in the work of repression,—describe to the life an active-minded, intelligent community quick to receive and ready to assimilate that which is new. Then came the Synod. It was a premonition. It was as if the fresh new sap,—the young budding leaves,— the possible, incipient flowers, had felt the chill of an approaching glacier. And that was exactly what it was;—a theological glacier then slowly settled down upon Massachusetts,—a glacier lasting through a period of nearly one hundred and fifty years."

C. F. Adams, Massachusetts: Its Historians and its History, pages 10-59.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1638-1641. Introduction of Slavery.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1638-1781.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1639. The first printing press set up.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1535-1709.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1640-1644. The end of the Puritan exodus. Numerical growth and political development.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1641. Jurisdiction extended over New Hampshire.

See NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1642. The first Public School law.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1642-1732.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1643. The Confederation of the Colonies. The growth of Plymouth.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1643-1654. Interest in Acadia and temporary conquest of the Province.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1646-1651. The Presbyterian Cabal and the Cambridge Platform.

"There had now come to be many persons in Massachusetts who disapproved of the provision which restricted the suffrage to members of the Independent or Congregational churches of New England, and in 1646 the views of these people were presented in a petition to the General Court. … The leading signers of this menacing petition were William Vassall, Samuel Maverick, and Dr. Robert Child. … Their request would seem at first sight reasonable enough. At a superficial glance it seems conceived in a modern spirit of liberalism. In reality it was nothing of the sort. In England it was just the critical moment of the struggle between Presbyterians and Independents which had come in to complicate the issues of the great civil war. Vassall, Child, and Maverick seem to have been the leading spirits in a cabal for the establishment of Presbyterianism in New England, and in their petition they simply took advantage of the discontent of the disfranchised citizens in Massachusetts in order to put in an entering wedge. This was thoroughly understood by the legislature of Massachusetts, and accordingly the petition was dismissed and the petitioners were roundly fined. Just as Child was about to start for England with his grievances, the magistrates overhauled his papers and discovered a petition to the parliamentary Board of Commissioners, suggesting that Presbyterianism should be established in New England, and that a viceroy or governor-general should be appointed to rule there. To the men of Massachusetts this last suggestion was a crowning horror. It seemed scarcely less than treason. The signers of this petition were the same who had signed the petition to the General Court. They were now fined still more heavily and imprisoned for six months. By and by they found their way, one after another, to London, while the colonists sent Edward Winslow, of Plymouth, as an advocate to thwart their schemes. … The cabal accomplished nothing because of the decisive defeat of Presbyterianism in England. 'Pride's Purge' settled all that. The petition of Vassall and his friends was the occasion for the meeting of a synod of churches at Cambridge, in order to complete the organization of Congregationalism. In 1648 the work of the synod was embodied in the famous Cambridge Platform, which adopted the Westminster Confession as its creed, carefully defined the powers of the clergy, and declared it to be the duty of magistrates to suppress heresy. In 1649 the General Court laid this platform before the congregations; in 1651 it was adopted; and this event may be regarded as completing the theocratic organization of the Puritan commonwealth in Massachusetts. It was immediately preceded and followed by the deaths of the two foremost men in that commonwealth. John Winthrop died in 1649 and John Cotton in 1652."

J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: C. Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana, book 5, part 2.

B. Adams, The Emancipation of Massachusetts, chapter 3.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1649-1651. Under Cromwell and the Commonwealth of England.

"Massachusetts had, from the outset, sympathized with Parliament in its contest with the king, and had blended her fortunes with the fortunes of the reformers. She had expressed her willingness to 'rise and fall with them,' and' sent over useful men, others going voluntarily, to their aid, who were of good use, and did acceptable service to the army.' Her loyalty, therefore, procured for her the protection of Parliament. Yet the execution of Charles, which royalists have ever regarded with the utmost abhorrence, was not openly approved here. 'I find,' says Hutchinson, 'scarce any marks of approbation of the tragical scene of which this year they received intelligence.' The few allusions we have discovered are none of them couched in terms of exultation. Virginia pursued a different course, and openly resisted Parliament, refused to submit to its decrees, and adhered to the cause of royalty. … Yet the legislation of the commonwealth was not wholly favorable even to Massachusetts. {2108} The proclamation relative to Virginia asserted, in general terms, the power of appointing governors and commissioners to be placed in all the English colonies, without exception; and by Mr. Winslow, their agent in England, they were informed that it was the pleasure of Parliament the patent of Massachusetts should be returned, and a new one taken out, under which courts were to be held and warrants issued. With this request the people were indisposed to comply; and, too wary to hazard the liberties so dearly purchased, a petition was drawn up, pleading the cause of the colony with great force, setting forth its allegiance, and expressing the hope that, under the new government, things might not go worse with them than under that of the king, and that their charter might not be recalled, as they desired no better. This remonstrance was successful; the measure was dropped, and the charter of Charles continued in force. Parliament was not 'foiled' by the colony. Its request was deemed reasonable; and there was no disposition to invade forcibly its liberties. We have evidence of this in the course of Cromwell. After his success in the 'Emerald Isle,' conceiving the project of introducing Puritanism into Ireland, an invitation was extended to the people of Massachusetts to remove thither and settle. But they were too strongly attached to the land of their adoption, and to its government, 'the happiest and wisest this day in the world,' readily to desert it. Hence the politic proposal of the lord protector was respectfully declined."

J. S. Barry, History of Massachusetts, volume 1, chapter 12.

ALSO IN: J. A. Doyle, The English in America: Puritan Colonies, volume 1, chapter 9.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1651-1660. The absorption of Maine.

See MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661. The persecution of the Quakers.

"In July, 1656, Mary Fisher and Ann Austin came to Boston from Barbadoes; and shortly after, nine others, men and women, arrived in the ship Speedwell from London. It was at once known, for they did not wish to conceal it, that they were 'Friends,' vulgarly called 'Quakers'; and the Magistrates at once took them in hand, determined that no people holding (as they considered them) such damnable opinions, should come into the Colony. A great crowd collected to hear them questioned, and Boston was stirred up by a few illiterate enthusiasts. They stood up before the Court with their hats on, apparently without fear, and had no hesitation in calling governor Endicott plain 'John.' … The replies which these men and women made were direct and bold, and were considered rude and contemptuous. … They … were committed to prison for their 'Rudeness and Insolence'; there being no law then under which they could be punished for being Quakers." Before the year closed, this defect of law was remedied by severe enactments, "laying a penalty of £100 for bringing any Quaker into the Colony: forty shillings for entertaining them for an hour; Quaker men who came against these prohibitions were, upon first conviction, to lose one ear, upon the second, the other ear; and women were to be whipped. Upon the third conviction, their tongues were to be bored with a hot iron. But these things seemed useless, for the Quakers, knowing their fate, swarmed into Massachusetts; and the Magistrates were fast getting more business than they could attend to. It was then determined to try greater severity, and in October, 1658, a law was passed in Massachusetts (resisted by the Deputies, urged by the Magistrates), punishing Quakers, who had been banished, with death." The first to challenge the dread penalty were a woman, Mary Dyer, and two men, William Robinson and Marmaduke Stevenson, who, after being banished (September, 1659), came defiantly back the next month. "Governor Endicott pronounced sentence of death against them. … On the 27th of October, in the afternoon, a guard of 200 men, attended with a drummer, conducted them to the gallows." Stevenson and Robinson were hanged; but Mary Dyer was reprieved. "Her mind was made up for death, and her reprieve brought her no joy. She was taken away by her son. … Mary Dyer was a 'comely and valiant woman,' and in the next Spring she returned. What now was to be done? The law said she must be hung, and Endicott again pronounced sentence, and she was led out to die a felon's death. Some scoffed and jeered her, but the most pitied; she died bravely, fearing nothing. … There seemed no end; for Quaker after Quaker came; they were tried, they were whipped, and the prison was full. … William Ledra [banished in 1657] came back (September, 1660), and was subject to death. They offered him his life, if he would go away and promise not to return; he said: 'I came here to bear my testimony, and to tell the truth of the Lord, in the ears of this people. I refuse to go.' So he was hanged in the succeeding March (14th). Wenlock Christopherson, or Christison, came, and was tried and condemned to die. … The death of Ledra, and the return of Wenlock Christison, brought confusion among the Magistrates, and some said 'Where will this end?' and declared it was time to stop. Governor Endicott found it difficult to get a Court to agree to sentence Christison to death; but he halted not, and pronounced the sentence. … But a few days afterward the jailor opened the prison doors, and Wenlock (with 27 others) was set at liberty, much to his and their surprise." The friends of the Quakers in England had prevailed upon King Charles II., then lately restored, "to order the persecutions to cease in New England (September 1661). Samuel Shattock, a banished Quaker, was sent from England by Charles, with a letter to Governor Endicott [the subject of Whittier's poem, 'The King's Missive'], commanding that no more Quakers should be hanged or imprisoned in New England, but should be sent to England for trial. This ended the persecutions; for, on the 9th of December, 1661, the Court ordered all Quakers to be set at liberty."

C. W. Elliott, The New England History, volume 1, chapter 36.

"Some of our writers, alike in prose and in poetry, have assumed, and have written on the assumption, that the deliverance of the Quakers was effected by the interposition in their behalf of King Charles II. … The royal letter … had … been substantially anticipated as to its principal demand by the action of the Court [in Massachusetts]. The general jail delivery of 31 Quakers, including the three under the death sentence who had voluntarily agreed to go off, was ordered by the Court in October, 1660. The King's letter was dated at Whitehall a year afterward. Let us claim whatever of relief we can find in reminding ourselves that it was the stern opposition and protest of the majority of the people of the Puritan Colony, and not the King's command, that had opened the gates of mercy."

G. E. Ellis, The Puritan Age and Rule, pp. 477-479.

{2109}

While the Quakers first arrested at Boston were lying in jail, "the Federal Commissioners, then in session at Plymouth, recommended that laws be forthwith enacted to keep these dreaded heretics out of the land. Next year they stooped so far as to seek the aid of Rhode Island, the colony which they had refused to admit into their confederacy. … Roger Williams was then president of Rhode Island, and in full accord with his noble spirit was the reply of the assembly. 'We have no law amongst us whereby to punish any for only declaring by words their minds and understandings concerning the things and ways of God as to salvation and our eternal condition.' As for these Quakers, we find that where they are 'most of all suffered to declare themselves freely and only opposed by arguments in discourse, there they least of all desire to come.' Any breach of the civil law shall be punished, but the 'freedom of different consciences shall be respected.' This reply enraged the confederated colonies, and Massachusetts, as the strongest and most overbearing, threatened to cut off the trade of Rhode Island, which forthwith appealed to Cromwell for protection. … In thus protecting the Quakers, Williams never for a moment concealed his antipathy to their doctrines. … The four confederated colonies all proceeded to pass laws banishing Quakers. … Those of Connecticut … were the mildest."

J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: B. Adams, The Emancipation of Massachusetts, chapter 5.

R. P. Hallowell, The Quaker Invasion of Massachusetts.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1657-1662. The Halfway Covenant.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665. Under the Restored Monarchy. The first collision with the crown.

"In May, 1660, Charles II. mounted the throne of his ancestors. … In December of this year, intelligence of the accession of a new king had reached Massachusetts; the General Court convened and prepared addresses to his majesty. … In the following May a reply, signed by Mr. Secretary Morrice, together with a mandate for the arrest of Goffe and Whalley, the regicides who had escaped to Massachusetts, was received in Boston. The king's response contained a general expression of good will, which, however, did not quiet the apprehensions of the colonists. The air was filled with rumors, and something seemed to forebode an early collision with the crown. At a special session of the court, held in June, 'a declaration of natural and chartered rights' was approved and published. In this document the people affirmed their right 'to choose their own governor, deputy governor, and representatives; to admit freemen on terms to be prescribed at their own pleasure; to set up all sorts of officers, superior and inferior, and point out their power and places; to exercise, by their annually elected magistrates and deputies, all power and authority, legislative, executive, and judicial; to defend themselves by force of arms against every aggression; and to reject, as an infringement of their rights, any parliamentary or royal imposition, prejudicial to the country, and contrary to any just act of colonial legislation.' More than a year elapsed from the restoration of Charles II. to his public recognition at Boston. … Even the drinking of his health was forbidden, and the event was celebrated only amid the coldest formalities. Meanwhile the colonists not only declared, but openly assumed, their rights; and in consequence complaints were almost daily instituted by those who were hostile to the government. Political opinion was diversified; and while 'a majority were for sustaining, with the charter, an independent government in undiminished force, a minority were willing to make some concessions.' In the midst of the discussions, John Norton, 'a friend to moderate counsels,' and Simon Bradstreet were induced to go to England as agents of the colony. Having been instructed to convince the king of the loyalty of the people of Massachusetts, and to 'engage to nothing prejudicial to their present standing according to their patent, and to endeavor the establishment of the rights and privileges then enjoyed,' the commissioners sailed from Boston on the 10th of February, 1662. In England they were courteously received by king Charles, and from him obtained, in a letter dated June 28, a confirmation of their charter, and an amnesty for all past offences. At the same time the king rebuked them for the irregularities which had been complained of in the government; directed 'a repeal of all laws derogatory to his authority; the taking of the oath of allegiance; the administration of justice in his name; a concession of the elective franchise to all freeholders of competent estate; and as 'the principle of the charter was the freedom of the liberty of conscience,' the allowance of that freedom to those who desired to use 'the booke of common prayer, and perform their devotion in the manner established in England.' These requisitions of the king proved anything but acceptable to the people of Massachusetts. With them the question of obedience became a question of freedom, and gave rise to the parties which continued to divide the colony until the establishment of actual independence. It was not thought best to comply immediately with his majesty's demands; on the other hand, no refusal to do so was promulgated." Presently a rumor reached America "that royal commissioners were to be appointed to regulate the affairs of New England. Precautionary measures were now taken. The patent and a duplicate of the same were delivered to a committee of four, with instructions to hold them in safe keeping. Captain Davenport, at Castle Fort, was ordered to give early announcement of the arrival of his Majesty's ships. Officers and soldiers were forbidden to land from ships, except in small parties. … On the 23d of July, 1664, 'about five or six of the clock at night,' the 'Guinea,' followed by three other ships of the line, arrived in Boston harbor. They were well manned and equipped for the reduction of the Dutch settlements on the Hudson, and brought commissioners hostile to colonial freedom, and who were charged by the king to determine 'all complaints and appeals in all causes and matters, as well military as criminal and civil,' and to 'proceed in all things for the providing for and settling the peace and security of the country, according to their good and sound discretions.' Colonel Richard Nichols and Colonel George Cartwright were the chief members of the commission. {2110} At the earliest possible moment they produced their legal warrant, the king's letter of April 23, and requested the assistance of the colonies in the reduction of the Dutch. Shortly afterwards the fleet set out for New Netherlands. On the 3d of August the General Court convened, and the state of affairs was discussed." As the result of the discussion it was agreed that a force of 200 men should be raised to serve against the Dutch, and that the old law of citizenship should be so far modified as to provide "'that all English subjects, being freeholders, and of a competent estate, and certified by the ministers of the place to be orthodox in faith, and not vicious in their lives, should be made freemen, although not members of the church.' Before the session closed, Massachusetts published an order forbidding the making of complaints to the commissioners," and adopted a spirited address to the king. When, in February, 1665, three of the commissioners returned to Boston, they soon found that they were not to be permitted to take any proceedings which could call in question "the privilege of government within themselves" which the colony claimed. Attempting in May to hold a court for the hearing of charges against a Boston merchant, they were interrupted by a herald from the governor who sounded his trumpet and forbade, in the name of the king, any abetting of their proceedings. On this they wrathfully departed for the north, after sending reports of the contumacy of Massachusetts to the king. The latter now summoned governor Bellingham to England, but the summons was not obeyed. "'We have already furnished our views in writing [said the General Court], so that the ablest persons among us could not declare our case more fully.' … The defiance of Massachusetts was followed by no immediate danger. For a season the contest with the crown ceased. The king himself was too much engaged with his women to bestow his attention upon matters of state; and thus, while England was lamenting the want of a good government, the colonies, true to themselves, their country, and their God, flourished in purity and peace."

G. L. Austin, History of Massachusetts, chapter 4.

Records of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay, volume 4, part 2.

See, also, NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686. The struggle for the charter and its overthrow.

"Although the colonists were alarmed at their own success, there was nothing to fear. At no time before or since could England have been so safely defied. … The discord between the crown and Parliament paralyzed the nation, and the wastefulness of Charles kept him always poor. By the treaty of Dover in 1670 he became a pensioner of Louis XIV. The Cabal followed, probably the worst ministry England ever saw; and in 1672, at Clifford's suggestion, the exchequer was closed and the debt repudiated to provide funds for the second Dutch war. In March fighting began, and the tremendous battles with De Ruyter kept the navy in the Channel. At length, in 1673, the Cabal fell, and Danby became prime minister. Although during these years of disaster and disgrace Massachusetts was not molested by Great Britain, they were not all years during which the theocracy could tranquilly enjoy its victory. … With the rise of Danby a more regular administration opened, and, as usual, the attention of the government was fixed upon Massachusetts by the clamors of those who demanded redress for injuries alleged to have been received at her hands. In 1674 the heirs of Mason and Gorges, in despair at the reoccupation of Maine, proposed to surrender their claim to the king, reserving one third of the product of the customs for themselves. The London merchants also had become restive under the systematic violation of the Navigation Acts. The breach in the revenue laws had, indeed, been long a subject of complaint, and the commissioners had received instructions relating thereto; but it was not till this year that these questions became serious. … New England was fast getting its share of the carrying trade. London merchants already began to feel the competition of its cheap and untaxed ships, and manufacturers to complain that they were undersold in the American market, by goods brought direct from the Continental ports. A petition, therefore, was presented to the king, to carry the law into effect. … The famous Edward Randolph now appears. The government was still too deeply embarrassed to act with energy. A temporizing policy was therefore adopted; and as the experiment of a commission had failed, Randolph was chosen as a messenger to carry the petitions and opinions to Massachusetts; together with a letter from the king, directing that agents should be sent in answer thereto. After delivering them, he was ordered to devote himself to preparing a report upon the country. He reached Boston June 10, 1676. Although it was a time of terrible suffering from the ravages of the Indian war, the temper of the magistrates was harsher than ever. The repulse of the commissioners had convinced them that Charles was not only lazy and ignorant, but too poor to use force; and they also believed him to be so embroiled with Parliament as to make his overthrow probable. Filled with such feelings, their reception of Randolph was almost brutal. John Leverett was governor, who seems to have taken pains to mark his contempt in every way in his power. Randolph was an able, but an unscrupulous man, and probably it would not have been difficult to have secured his good-will. Far however from bribing, or even flattering him, they so treated him as to make him the bitterest enemy the Puritan Commonwealth ever knew. … The legislature met in August, 1676, and a decision had to be made concerning agents. On the whole, the clergy concluded it would be wiser to obey the crown, 'provided they be, with utmost care & caution, qualified as to their instructions.' Accordingly, after a short adjournment, the General Court chose William Stoughton and Peter Bulkely; and having strictly limited their power to a settlement of the territorial controversy, they sent them on their mission. … The controversy concerning the boundary was referred to the two chief justices, who promptly decided against the Company; and the easy acquiescence of the General Court must raise a doubt as to their faith in the soundness of their claims. And now again the fatality which seemed to pursue the theocracy in all its dealings with England led it to give fresh provocation to the king by secretly buying the title of Gorges for 1,250 pounds. Charles had intended to settle Maine on the Duke of Monmouth. It was a worthless possession, whose revenue never paid for its defence; yet so stubborn was the colony that it made haste to anticipate the crown and thus became 'Lord Proprietary' of a burdensome province at the cost of a slight which was never forgiven. {2111} Almost immediately the Privy Council had begun to open other matters, such as coining and illicit trade; and the attorney-general drew up a list of statutes which, in his opinion, were contrary to the laws of England. … In the spring the law officers gave an opinion that the misdemeanors alleged against Massachusetts were sufficient to avoid her patent; and the Privy Council, in view of the encroachments and injuries which she had continually practised on her neighbors, and her contempt of his majesty's commands, advised that a 'quo warranto' should be brought against the charter. Randolph was appointed collector at Boston. Even Leverett now saw that some concessions must be made, and the General Court ordered the oath of allegiance to be taken; nothing but perversity seems to have caused the long delay. The royal arms were also carved in the courthouse; and this was all, for the clergy were determined upon those matters touching their authority. … Nearly half a century had elapsed since the emigration, and with the growth of wealth and population changes had come. In March, John Leverett, who had long been the head of the high-church party, died, and the election of Simon Bradstreet as his successor was a triumph for the opposition. Great as the clerical influence still was, it had lost much of its old despotic power, and the congregations were no longer united in support of the policy of their pastors. … Boston and the larger towns favored concession, while the country was the ministers' stronghold. The result of this divergence of opinion was that the moderate party, to which Bradstreet and Dudley belonged, predominated in the Board of Assistants, while the deputies remained immovable. The branches of the legislature thus became opposed; no course of action could be agreed on, and the theocracy drifted to its destruction. … Meanwhile Randolph had renewed his attack. He declared that in spite of promises and excuses the revenue laws were not enforced; that his men were beaten, and that he hourly expected to be thrown into prison; whereas in other colonies, he asserted, he was treated with great respect. There can be no doubt ingenuity was used to devise means of annoyance; and certainly the life he was made to lead was hard. In March he sailed for home, and while in London he made a series of reports to the government which seem to have produced the conviction that the moment for action had come. In December he returned, commissioned as deputy-surveyor and auditor-general for all New England, except New Hampshire. … Hitherto the clerical party had procrastinated, buoyed up by the hope that in the fierce struggle with the commons Charles might be overthrown; but this dream ended with the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament, and further inaction became impossible. Joseph Dudley and John Richards were chosen agents, and provided with instructions bearing the peculiar tinge of ecclesiastical statesmanship. … The agents were urged to do what was possible to avert, or at least delay, the stroke; but they were forbidden to consent to appeals, or to alterations in the qualifications required for the admission of freemen. They had previously been directed to pacify the king by a present of 2,000 pounds; and this ill-judged attempt at bribery had covered them with ridicule. Further negotiation would have been futile. Proceedings were begun at once, and Randolph was sent to Boston to serve the writ of 'quo warranto'; he was also charged with a royal declaration promising that, even then, were submission made, the charter should be restored with only such changes as the public welfare demanded. Dudley, who was a man of much political sagacity, had returned and strongly urged moderation. The magistrates were not without the instincts of statesmanship: they saw that a breach with England must destroy all safeguards of the common freedom, and they voted an address to the crown accepting the proffered terms. But the clergy strove against them: the privileges of their order were at stake; they felt that the loss of their importance would be 'destructive to the interest of religion and of Christ's kingdom in the colony,' and they roused their congregations to resist. The deputies did not represent the people, but the church. … The influence which had moulded their minds and guided their actions controlled them still, and they rejected the address. … All that could be resolved on was to retain Robert Humphrys of the Middle Temple to interpose such delays as the law permitted; but no attempt was made at defence upon the merits of their cause, probably because all knew well that no such defence was possible. Meanwhile, for technical reasons, the 'quo warranto' had been abandoned, and a writ of 'scire facias' had been issued out of chancery. On June 18, 1684, the lord keeper ordered the defendant to appear and plead on the first day of the next Michaelmas Term. The time allowed was too short for an answer from America, and judgment was entered by default. … So perished the Puritan Commonwealth. The child of the Reformation, its life sprang from the assertion of the freedom of the mind; but this great and noble principle is fatal to the temporal power of a priesthood, and during the supremacy of the clergy the government was doomed to be both persecuting and repressive. Under no circumstance could the theocracy have endured: it must have fallen by revolt from within if not by attack from without."

Brooks Adams, The Emancipation of Massachusetts, chapter 6.

"December 19, 1686, Sir Edmund Andros arrived at Nantasket, in the Kingfisher, a 50 gun ship, with commissions from King James for the government of New England."

T. Hutchinson, History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, volume 1, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: G. E. Ellis, Puritan Age and Rule in Massachusetts, chapter 13.

C. Deane, The Struggle to Maintain the Charter of Charles I. (Memorial History of Boston, volume 1, pages 329-382).

Records of the Governor and Company Massachusetts Bay, volume 5.

See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1674-1678. King Philip's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1679. The severance of New Hampshire.

See NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.

{2112}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689. The tyranny of Andros and its downfall.

"With the charter were swept away representative government, and every right and every political institution reared during half a century of conflict. The rule of Andros was on the model dear to the heart of his royal master—a harsh despotism, but neither strong nor wise; it was wretched misgovernment, and stupid, blundering oppression. And this arbitrary and miserable system Andros undertook to force upon a people of English race, who had been independent and self-governing for fifty years. He laid taxes at his own pleasure, and not even according to previous rates, as he had promised; he denied the Habeas Corpus to John Wise, the intrepid minister of Ipswich, arrested for preaching against taxation without representation, and he awakened a like resistance in all directions. He instituted fees, was believed to pack juries, and made Randolph licenser of the press. Worst of all, he struck at property, demanded the examination of the old titles, declared them worthless, extorted quit-rents for renewal, and issued writs of intrusion against those who resisted; while, not content with attacking political liberty and the rights of property, he excited religious animosity by forbidding civil marriages, seizing the old South church for the Episcopal service, and introducing swearing by the Book in courts of justice. He left nothing undone to enrage the people and prepare for revolution; and when he returned from unsuccessful Indian warfare in the east, the storm was ready to burst. News came of the landing of the Prince of Orange. Andros arrested the bearer of the tidings, and issued a proclamation against the Prince; but the act was vain. Without apparent concert or preparation Boston rose in arms, the signal-fire blazed on Beacon Hill, and the country people poured in, hot for revenge. Some of the old magistrates met at the town-house, and read a 'declaration of the gentlemen, merchants, and inhabitants,' setting forth the misdeeds of Andros, the illegality of the Dudley government by commission, and the wrongful suppression of the charter. Andros and Dudley were arrested and thrown into prison, together with the captain of the Rose frigate, which lay helpless beneath the guns of the fort, and a provisional government was established, with Bradstreet at its head. William and Mary were proclaimed, the revolution was complete, and Andros soon went back a prisoner to England."

H. C. Lodge, Short History of the English Colonies, chapter 18.

ALSO IN: J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, book 3, chapters 13-14 (volume 3).

The Andros Tracts; edited by w. H. Whitmore (Prince Society, 1868).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692. The procuring of the new Charter. The Colonial Republic transformed into a Royal Province. The absorption of Plymouth.

A little more than a month from the overthrow of Andros a ship from England arrived at Boston, with news of the proclamation of William and Mary. This was joyful intelligence to the body of the people. The magistrates were at once relieved from their fears, for the revolution in the old world justified that in the new. Three days later the proclamation was published with unusual ceremony. … A week later the representatives of the several towns, upon a new choice, met at Boston, and proposals were made that charges should be forthwith drawn up against Andros, or that all the prisoners but Andros should be liberated on bail; but both propositions were rejected. The representatives likewise urged the unconditional resumption of the charter, declaring that they could not act in any thing until this was conceded. Many opposed the motion; but it was finally adopted; and it was resolved that all the laws in force May 12, 1686, should be continued until further orders. Yet the magistrates, conscious of the insecurity of the position they occupied, used prudently the powers intrusted to them." Meantime, Increase Mather, who had gone to England before the Revolution took place as agent for the colony, had procured an audience with the new king, William III., and received from him an assurance that he would remove Andros from the government of New England and call him to an account for his administration. "Anxious for the restoration of the old charter and its privileges, under which the colony had prospered so well, the agent applied himself diligently to that object, advising with the wisest statesmen for its accomplishment. It was the concurrent judgment of all that the best course would be to obtain first a reversion of the judgment against the charter by an act of Parliament, and then apply to the king for such additional privileges as were necessary. Accordingly, in the House of Commons, where the whole subject of seizing charters in the reign of Charles II. was up for discussion, the charters of New England were inserted with the rest; and, though enemies opposed the measure, it was voted that their abrogation was a grievance, and that they should be forthwith restored." But before the bill having this most satisfactory effect had been acted on in the House of Lords, the Convention Parliament was prorogued, then dissolved, and the next parliament proved to be less friendly. An order was obtained, however, from the king, continuing the government of the colony under the old charter until a new one was settled, and requiring Andros and his fellow prisoners to be sent to England for trial. On the trial, much court influence seemed to go in favor of Sir Edmund; the proceedings against him were summarily quashed, and he was discharged. Soon afterwards he was made governor of Virginia, while Dudley received appointment to the office of chief justice at New York. Contending against the intrigues of the Andros party, and many other adverse influences, the agents of Massachusetts were reluctantly forced at last to relinquish all hopes of the restoration of the old charter, and "application was made for a new grant, which should confirm the privileges of the old instrument, and such in addition as the experience of the people had taught them would be of benefit. … The king was prevailed upon to refer the affairs of New England to the two lords chief justices and the attorney and solicitor-general, all of whom were supposed to be friendly to the applicants. Mr. Mather was permitted to attend their meetings." Difficulties arose in connection with Plymouth Colony. It was the determination in England that Plymouth should no longer be separately chartered, but should be joined to Massachusetts or New York. In opposing the former more natural union, the Plymouth people very nearly brought about their annexation to New York; but Mather's influence averted that result. "The first draught of a charter was objected to by the agents, because of its limitation of the powers of the governor, who was to be appointed by the king. The second draught was also objected to; whereupon the agents were informed that they 'must not consider themselves as plenipotentiaries from a foreign state, and that if they were unwilling to submit to the pleasure of the king, his majesty would settle the country without them, and they might take what would follow.' {2113} Nothing remained, therefore, but to decide whether they would submit, or continue without a charter, and at the mercy of the king." The two colleagues who had been associated with Mather opposed submission, but the latter yielded, and the charter was signed. "By the terms of this new charter the territories of Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Maine, with a tract farther east, were united into one jurisdiction, whose officers were to consist of a governor, a deputy governor, and a secretary, appointed by the king, and 28 councillors, chosen by the people. A General Court was to be holden annually, on the last Wednesday in May, and at such other times as the governor saw fit; and each town was authorized to choose two deputies to represent them in this court. The choice of these deputies was conceded to all freeholders having an estate of the value of forty pounds sterling, or land yielding an income of at least forty shillings per annum; and every deputy was to take the oath of allegiance prescribed by the crown. All residents of the province and their children were entitled to the liberties of natural born subjects; and liberty of conscience was secured to all but Papists. … To the governor was given a negative upon all laws enacted by the General Court; without his consent in writing none were valid; and all receiving his sanction were to be transmitted to the king for approval, and if rejected at any time within three years were to be of no effect. The governor was empowered to establish courts, levy taxes, convene the militia, carry on war, exercise martial law, with the consent of the council, and erect and furnish an requisite forts. … Such was the province charter of 1692—a far different instrument from the colonial charter of 1629. It effected a thorough revolution in the country. The form of government, the powers of the people, and the entire foundation and objects of the body politic, were placed upon a new basis; and the dependence of the colonies upon the crown was secured. … It was on Saturday, the 14th of May, 1692, that Sir William Phips arrived at Boston as the first governor of the new province."