Note 173 — Chapter XI

Backus, vol. i. p. 95. None might have a voice in government in this new plantation, who would not allow this liberty. Hence, about this time, I found the following town act, viz. “It was agreed, that Joshua Verin, upon breach of covenant, for restraining liberty of conscience, shall be withheld from liberty of voting, till he shall declare the contrary.” Verin left the town, and his absence seems to have been considered as a forfeiture of his land, for in 1650, he wrote the following letter to the town, claiming his property. The town replied, that if he would come and prove his title, he should receive the land.

“Gentlemen and countrymen of the town of Providence:

“This is to certify you, that I look upon my purchase of the town of Providence to be my lawful right. In my travel, I have inquired, and do find it is recoverable according to law; for my coming away could not disinherit me. Some of you cannot but recollect, that we six which came first should have the first convenience, as it was put in practice by our house lots, and 2d by the meadow in Wanasquatucket river, and then those that were admitted by us unto the purchase to have the next which were about; but it is contrary to law, reason and equity, for to dispose of my part without my consent. Therefore deal not worse with me than we dealt with the Indians, for we made conscience of purchasing of it of them, and hazarded our lives. Therefore we need not, nor any one of us ought to be denied of our purchase. So hoping you will take it into serious consideration, and to give me reasonable satisfaction, I rest,

“Yours in the way of right and equity,

“JOSHUA VERIN.

“From Salem, the 21st Nov. 1650.

“This be delivered to the deputies of the town of Providence, to be presented to the whole town.”

Winthrop’s account of this affair (vol. i. p. 282) under the date of December 13, 1638, is a good specimen of the manner in which that great and good man was biased by his feelings, when he spoke of Rhode-Island. The account must have been founded on reports, perhaps on mere gossip:

“At Providence, also, the devil was not idle. For whereas, at their first coming thither, Mr. Williams and the rest did make an order, that no man should be molested for his conscience, now men’s wives, and children, and servants, claimed liberty hereby to go to all religious meetings, though never so often, or though private, upon the week days; and because one Verin refused to let his wife go to Mr. Williams so oft as she was called for, they required to have him censured. But there stood up one Arnold, a witty man of their own company, and withstood it, telling them, that when he consented to that order, he never intended it should extend to the breach of any ordinance of God, such as the subjection of wives to their husbands, &c. and gave divers solid reasons against it. Then one Greene, (who hath married the wife of one Beggerly, whose husband is living, and no divorce, &c. but only, it was said, that he had lived in adultery and had confessed it,) he replied, that if they should restrain their wives, &c. all the women in the country would cry out of them, &c. Arnold answered him thus: Did you pretend to leave Massachusetts because you would not offend God to please men, and would you now break an ordinance and commandment of God, to please women? Some were of opinion, that if Verin would not suffer his wife to have her liberty, the church should dispose her to some other man who would use her better. Arnold told them, it was not the woman’s desire, to go so oft from home, but only Mr. Williams’ and others. In conclusion, when they would have censured Verin, Arnold told them, that it was against their own order, for Verin did that he did out of conscience; and their order was, that no man should be censured for his conscience.”