Volume 1 — LETTER I.

Roxbury, December 28, 1771.

My good Sir,

To your properly understanding the nature and origin of the uneasiness that has so strongly agitated the colonies of late years, and still exists, though now somewhat abated; and which has been occasioned by parliamentary taxation and the modern measures of government; you must be acquainted with the sentiments and history of the first settlers, no less than of their descendants and successors.

Several of the most zealous and eminent protestants, in the reign of Edward the VIth, opposed the popish ceremonies and habits, though otherwise united to their brethren in religious tenets. The opposition became more general and determined, after hundreds of them fled to, and resided in foreign parts, in order to escape the Marian persecutions. There the sentiments of numbers, through their intercourse with protestants of other nations, were much changed and improved; and they were more than ever desirous of proceeding further in the reformation, than was directed by the service-book of king Edward.

Upon the accession of Elizabeth, the refugees returned to England, [1558.] loaded with experience and learning, but in the utmost distress and poverty. Those of the clergy, who could comply with the queen’s establishment, were quickly preferred. The rest, after being admitted to preach a while, were suspended, and reduced to former indigence. Several XIwere offered bishopricks, but declined the tender, on account of the garments, ceremonies, &c. while the necessity of the times and the flattering hope of obtaining hereafter an amendment in the constitution of the church, induced others to accept preferments, though with trembling.

The queen affected much pomp in religion; was fond of the old popish ceremonies, in which she had been educated; and thought her brother, king Edward, had gone too far in demolishing ornaments.

The clergy and laity, who sought after greater ecclesiastic purity, in vain struggled hard for the abolishment of popish ceremonies and habits; or, at least, leaving the use of them, in divine service, indifferent. They obtained nothing but the honorable nick-name of PURITANS. The queen proved an inflexible bigot, and would be obeyed, or punish. The parliament, in their first session, had very injudiciously passed the two acts of supremacy and uniformity, without guarding them properly; and by a clause in the latter, delivered up to the crown, all ecclesiastic jurisdiction. Men of solid learning and piety, of sober lives, popular preachers, professed enemies to popery and superstition, and of the same faith in point of doctrine, with the conformists, were suspended, deprived, imprisoned and ruined, for not complying with the use of those garments and ceremonies, which their opponents acknowledged to be indifferent in themselves; while the sufferers adjudged such compliance sinful, from their having been abused to idolatry, and serving as marks and badges of that religion they had renounced.

All the puritans of these times were desirous of remaining in the church, might they be indulged as to the habits and a few ceremonies, though they were far from being satisfied with the hierarchy, and had other objections beside those for which they had been deprived. Instead of indulgence, their grievances were multiplied, and the penal laws were rigorously executed. However, the body of the conforming clergy being extremely illiterate and ignorant, the deprived ministers were employed as curates or lecturers; and received for their services, a small consideration from the incumbent, together with the voluntary contribution of the parish. By their warm and affectionate preaching, and eminent faithfulness, they gained the hearts of the common people, who were the more attached to them, the more cruelty was exercised upon them; and who had the utmost aversion to the popish garments, as their hatred to popery increased. The preachers appealed to the scriptures. Their hearers searched them carefully; obtained more and clearer XIIdiscoveries of the popish superstitions; grew in their abhorrence of them; venerated the divine institutions; and longed to have the worship of the church rendered more pure and primitive. The popularity of the deprived ministers drew numbers from neighboring parishes. Puritanism spread and gained ground by being persecuted. Its growth was the greatest grief to the queen and archbishop Whitgift. But neither the supreme head of the church, nor the primate of all England, had policy or christianity enough to apply the proper remedy, in granting liberty of conscience. Instead of that, new acts were passed, and greater severities practised. Such inhuman proceedings against protestants of good moral characters, did not pass unnoticed. They were the subjects of conversation. The right of acting thus toward fellow creatures, and its non-agreement with the mild and benevolent principles of christianity, were freely canvassed. The supreme head and chief dignitaries of the English church being such intolerable persecutors, it became a question, “Is she any longer a true church of Christ, and are her ministers true ministers.”

At length one Robert Brown, descended from an ancient and honorable family, and nearly related to lord treasurer Cecil, a fiery zealot, travelled through the country [1586] a second time, holding forth, wherever he went, against bishops, ecclesiastic courts, ordaining of ministers, &c. and gathered a separate congregation. The parties held, that the church of England was not a true church; that her ministers were not rightly ordained; that her discipline was popish and anti-christian; and that all her ordinances and sacraments were invalid. Therefore they would not join with her members in any part of public worship. They not only renounced communion with the church of England, but with all other reformed churches, except they were of their own model.

These separatists were called Brownists, which was long afterward the common name for all that separated totally from the church of England, even when they disowned the rigid principles of Brown and his congregation. We must carefully distinguish the Brownists from the Puritans. Most of the latter were for keeping within the pale of the church, apprehending it to be a true church in its doctrines and sacraments, though defective in discipline and corrupt in ceremonies. They thought it unlawful to separate; submitted to suspensions and deprivations; when driven out of one diocese, took sanctuary in another, being afraid of incurring the guilt of schism; and were the chief writers against the Brownists.

[1593] A fresh effort was made to crush the non-conformists. XIIIA most obnoxious act was passed, for punishing all who refused to come to church, and every one who persuaded others to oppose the queen’s authority in ecclesiastic causes, or was present at any conventicle or meeting. The punishment was imprisonment without bail, till the convicted agreed to conform, and make a declaration of his conformity. In case the offender did not sign the declaration within three months, he was to abjure the realm, and go into perpetual banishment. If he departed not within the time limited, or returned afterward without the queen’s licence, he was to suffer death without benefit of clergy. By this act, the case of non-conformists was worse than that of felons at common law. The statute was levelled against the laity, no less than the clergy. The moderate Puritans evaded it, by going to church when prayers were nearly ended, and by receiving the sacrament when administered with some latitude. The weight of it fell upon the Brownists, whose sentiments had gained ground, so that they were increased to near twenty thousand, besides wives and children, according to the opinion of Sir Walter Raleigh, given in the house of commons, when the bill was read the second time and debated.^[1]

Several were put to death about this period; which excited an odium against the bishops and high commissioners, who were universally known to have been at the bottom of the proceedings against them. It was resolved therefore to send the remainder of the imprisoned into banishment, instead of continuing to execute them. Others preferred a voluntary exile, rather than be exposed to the merciless persecutions that awaited them in their native country. Is it strange that these persons, thus forced or frightened out of it, for claiming and exercising the common right of human nature, that of judging for themselves in matters of religion, should at length think that their allegiance terminated with their departure; or that those who commiserated them, inclined to the same sentiment?

The parliament, especially the lower house, perceiving how the queen, and many of the bishops and ecclesiastics abused their spiritual power; what mischiefs they brought upon the church; and the miseries to which honest men were reduced for mere difference in religious sentiments, attempted repeatedly to regulate matters, and to redress the hardships of the non-conformists, but was stopped by her majesty, in the most dictatorial manner. Some of the members, roused by such unwarrantable acts of sovereignty, spake boldly and freely upon the occasion, and censured the arbitrary proceedings of the bishops. The queen added to her other faults, that of sending them to the XIVTower. But though she could awe the parliament, imprison its members, and protect her favorite bishops, she could not overpower the consciences of the non-conformists.

A number of religious people upon the borders of Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, and Yorkshire, having suffered persecution patiently for years, and searched the scriptures diligently, were at length fully of opinion, that the ceremonies of the English church were unlawful; that the lordly power of her prelates was contrary to the freedom of the gospel; and that her offices, courts and canons, had no warrant in the word of God; but were popish. They determined therefore to shake off that yoke of bondage, viz. human impositions, brought into the church by popish policy and power, against the superior law of Christ, the genius of his plain religion and christian liberty. They resolved [1602] as the Lord’s free people, “to join themselves by covenant into a church state; and, agreeable to present or future knowledge, to walk in all the ways of God, according to their best abilities, whatever it costs them.”^[2]

The assembly [1606] owing to the distance of habitations, was obliged to form itself into two distinct religious societies; the one, with which is our concern, soon had for its pastor the famous Mr. John Robinson. The church kept together about a year; but being extremely harrassed by persecutors, concluded upon removing to Holland. The pious refugees repaired to and settled at Amsterdam; but after a while removed to Leyden; where they were highly respected, and would have been allowed some public favor, had it not been for fear of offending England. By hard and continued labor they obtained a living. The Dutch employed them before others, for their honest and exemplary behaviour; and readily trusted them when in want of money. Matters, however, were not altogether to their mind [1617] and some of the most sensible began to think of another removal. It was imagined, that if a better and easier place of living could be had, numbers would join them. The morals of the Dutch were too dissolute; and they were afraid that their offspring would become irreligious. Beside, they had an ardent, noble, and godly desire, of laying a foundation for spreading the religion of Jesus over the remote regions of the earth; and of handing down to future ages what they thought to be, the pure and unadulterated worship of the great Jehovah. They therefore directed their views to America. To those who objected—the length and danger of the voyage, the difficulties and calamities to which they should be exposed, the barbarities and treacheries of the Indians, and their inability to support the XVexpence—it was answered “The difficulties are not invincible, and may be overcome by fortitude and patience; the ends proposed are good and honorable; the calling lawful and urgent; the blessing of God may therefore be expected. We live but as exiles now, and are in a poor condition. The truce with the Spaniards is hastening to a close. Nothing but preparations for war are going forward. The Spaniards may be as cruel as the Savages; and famine and pestilence may be as sore in Holland as in America.”

After serious and solemn application to God for direction, they concluded on carrying the proposal of crossing the Atlantic into execution; endeavoring to live in a distinct body by themselves, under the general government of the Virginia company; and suing to his majesty, king James, for full liberty and freedom of conscience.

The Virginia company were ready to give them a patent, with as ample privileges as they could grant; but, notwithstanding the great interest made by gentlemen of the first character, and by the chief secretary of state, the king and bishops refused to allow the refugees (though at the distance of 3000 miles) liberty of conscience under the royal seal. All they could obtain from his majesty, was a promise that he would connive at, and not molest them, provided they carried themselves peaceably; but he would not tolerate them by his public authority. Upon this occasion, it was wisely observed, “If his majesty’s promise is no security, a further confirmation will be of little value, though it has a seal as broad as the house floor, it will not serve the turn, for there will be means enough found, when wanted, to recall or reverse it; and we must rest herein on God’s providence.” This reasoning and the hope of being placed beyond the reach of ecclesiastic courts, prevailed. They resolved to venture; and after long attendance, much cost and labor, obtained a patent.

They agreed that the minor part of younger and stronger men, with Mr. Brewster, an elder of the church, should go first, and that the pastor, Mr. Robinson, should remain behind with the majority, for a future favorable opportunity. Their enemies whispered, that the stats of Holland were weary of their company; but the reverse was evident from the following occurrence, viz. the magistrates of the city, when reproving the Walloons in open court, said, “These English have lived now ten years among us, and yet we never had any accusation against any of them, whereas your quarrels are continual.”

The colony destined for America, sailed from Delft-Haven for Southampton, July 22, 1620; and there met a ship having some English friends on board, who proposed removing with them. XVIBoth vessels proceeded to sea; but returned twice into port, on account of defects in the one from Delft, which was dismissed. Part of the company returned to London, the remainder betook themselves to the ship, and sailed from Plymouth the 6th of September. After many delays, difficulties and dangers, they made Cape Cod at break of day on the 9th of November, and entered the harbor on the 10th. They offered up their devout and ardent acknowledgments to God for his protection, and had thoughts of landing; but remarking that they were out of the limits of their patent, and in a sort reduced to a state of nature; and hearing some, who came from London, hint, there is now no authority over us; they, while on board, formed themselves into a civil body politic, under the crown of England, for the purpose of framing “just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices,” to which they promised “all due submission and obedience.” This contract was subscribed by forty-one persons, on Saturday the 11th of November. The whole company of settlers, men, women, children, and servants, amounted to no more than one hundred and one, the exact number that left England—for one had died, but another was born upon the passage.

Enfeebled and sickly, we now behold them at the distance of 3000 miles, not only from their native country, but the hospitable land where they lately resided for years, when unfeeling persecution drove them into a voluntary banishment. They have a long and dreary winter before them, and are upon the strange coast of an uncultivated wilderness, without a relation or friend to welcome their arrival, or an house to shelter them; without even a kind inhabitant to comfort them by tender acts of humanity, much less a civilized town or city, from which succour may be obtained on an emergency. Thus circumstanced, they are employed in making discoveries till the 20th of December, when they concluded upon a place for immediate settlement, which they afterward name New-Plymouth, in grateful remembrance of the last town they left in their native country.

The winter proved remarkably mild^[3] for the American climate, though excessively severe to an English constitution; and what with disorders brought upon them through uncommon labors and fatigues, and their being exposed to the rigors of the season; and what with the scurvy and other diseases occasioned by a tedious voyage, and the want of proper accommodations while making it, they buried by the end of March, 1621, forty-four of their little society, of whom one-and-twenty were subscribers to the contract. The number of their dead increased to fifty by the beginning of November, when, to their great joy a XVIIvessel arrived with thirty-five settlers from London. It was years before their plantation amounted to three hundred people; when nearly so, the council established at Plymouth, in the county of Devon, for the planting, ruling, ordering, and governing of New-England, in America, granted them a patent, [Jan. 13, 1630] by which their lands were secured against all English claims.—Be it noted, that they early agreed with, and satisfied the Indian proprietors.

It would have been astonishing, had not these planters brought with them opinions favorable to liberty. The arbitrary proceedings of Elizabeth and James, produced a spirit of enquiry; and induced the sufferers and others to canvass the equity of those powers which were so improperly exercised. When the film of prejudice was removed, it was easy to discern that tyranny, whether in church or state, could not be vindicated by reason or revelation; and that Heaven’s permitting it, was no more a countenance to that, than any other wickedness. Beside, the Plymouthians had lived for many years among a people who had been engaged in a bloody war with a cruel unrelenting tyrant, whose sovereignty they had renounced. The frequent conversation that must have passed between the Dutch and English refugees, must have improved the attachment of the last to the cause of freedom. It might also have been hinted to them, that it began to be the sentiment of some English nobles and principal commoners, that in case of a removal to America, persons, without any charter from the crown, were at liberty to establish what form of government they pleased; and to set up a new state, as fully to all intents and purposes, as though they were making their first entrance into civil society.

No wonder then, especially considering the general equality prevailing among them, that the Plymouthians, by their contract before landing, formed themselves into a proper democracy, and that it was entered in the Plymouth records of [Nov. 15, 1636] “Finding, that as free born subjects of the state of England, we hither came with all and singular the privileges belonging to such; in the first place we think good, that it be established for an act, that, according to the [rights supposed to be wanting] and due privileges of the subjects aforesaid, no imposition, law or ordinance, be made or imposed upon them at present or to come, but such as shall be made and imposed by consent, acccording to the free liberties of free born subjects of the state and kingdom of England, and no otherwise.” They meant to continue their allegiance to the crown; to retain their connection with the mother country; to adopt the general laws of England for the XVIIIrule of government, wherein they suited; and to be governed by their own particular acts in other instances.

Persons devoted to church authority and particular national establishments, may exclaim against the Plymouthians for their religious sentiments; but a fair and brief statement of them, it is apprehended, will be thought the best defence that can be offered by those who candidly examine the New-Testament, and are properly impressed with the words of our Saviour—My kingdom is not of this world.

When Mr. Robinson and his associates separated from the church of England, they were rigid Brownists. After his removal to Holland, and there conversing with learned divines, he being a gentleman of a liberal mind and good disposition, became moderate, as did his people; so that they who continued rigid Brownists would hardly hold communion with them. Mr. Robinson and his society did not require of those who joined them, a renunciation of the church of England. They also acknowledged the other reformed churches for true and genuine; allowed their own members occasional communion with them in the word preached and in the prayers conceived by the preacher before and after sermon, but not in the sacraments and discipline; and admitted their members, known to them to be pious, to occasional communion with themselves in the sacraments. Still it is to be remarked, that they were not admitted because of their being members of such churches, but on account of their known piety; their belonging to and continuing in such churches, was not an argument for rejecting them; nor was it the argument for their reception. Mr. Robinson, however, by his conversation and writings, proved a principal in ruining Brownism; and, in the opinion of some was the father, of others the restorer, of the independent or congregational churches. Congregational is the term used in New-England, the other is discarded, as seeming to imply too great a separation from sister churches.

The Plymouthians held, that the Bible was the sole religious code of protestants; and that every man had a right to judge for himself, and to try all doctrines by it, and to worship according to what he apprehended that directed. In doctrinal tenets they agreed with the articles of the church of England. The main difference between them and other reformed churches was about hierarchy. They maintained, that no particular church ought to consist of more persons than could worship in one congregation; that every man ought, in appearance, to be a true believer in Christ, and subject to his authority; that when there was a suitable number of such believers, who thought themselves bound in conscience to do it, they had a right to embody into a XIXchurch, by some certain contract or covenant, expressed or implied; and that, being embodied, they were to choose all their officers, who were pastors or teaching elders, mere ruling elders, meant to assist the former, and qualified to teach occasionally, and deacons who were to manage the temporalities of the church, to take care of the poor, and to officiate at the Lord’s table, by providing the bread and wine, laying the cloth, carrying the elements, &c. [The custom of having ruling elders has now ceased.] The elders of both kinds were to form the presbytery of overseers and rulers. They also held, that no churches or church officers, had any power over other churches or officers, to control or impose upon them, all having equal rights and privileges. Their own officers were removable by them upon justifiable reasons; in case of capital errors, gross misconduct, and the like. When they baptised, they rejected the sign of the cross, and other ceremonies not enjoined by scripture. They received the elements of the Lord’s supper, in the table-posture of the day and place in which they lived. Excommunication they deemed to be wholly spiritual; and denied that the church or its officers had any authority to inflict temporal pains and penalties. They considered no days as holy, but the Lord’s day, which they observed with great strictness. Solemn fastings and thanksgivings, as the aspects of providence required, they had a pious regard to, as agreeable to both natural and revealed religion.

A better sort of emigrants never crossed the Atlantic. “They were a plain, frugal, industrious, conscientious, and loving people; and, for the day in which they lived, and considering their education, possessed a good share of politeness. The important light in which they viewed morality, led them, in many instances to such critical exactness as would be deemed by the moderns ridiculous; from thence, however, the community derived substantial benefits. They have been stigmatized as enthusiasts; but nothing like enthusiasm is to be met with in the records of any of their transactions, either civil or ecclesiastic. Their piety indeed was eminent and fervent, but it was also rational; and their religion was that of the Bible, and had a proper influence upon their conduct.”

The Plymouthians having cleared the way for other sufferers to settle in America, with less difficulty and danger than what they had experienced; the fame of their plantation spreading through the western parts of England; and the government in church and state growing more and more oppressive; the territory of the Massachusetts-Bay was purchased of the Plymouth Council [1628] and a company soon formed, who consulted XXon settling a plantation, to which non-conforming puritans might emigrate in order to enjoy their own principles in full security. Their sufferings had been moderated for a few years before Elizabeth’s death. The queen was far advanced in life; the next heir to the crown was a presbyterian, who had subscribed to the Scotch national covenant, and, with hands uplifted to Heaven, had pronounced, “The Scotch kirk is the purest in the world, and the service of the kirk of England an evil said mass in English, that wants nothing of the mass but the liftings;” he had interceded for some of the persecuted ministers; and the bishops were cautious of acting against a party for whom king James had declared; but upon his ascending the throne, the fears of the high-churchmen and the hopes of the non-conformists were soon ended. It was not long before the king became in the church a furious persecutor of the non-conformists, and in the state as errant a despot as his cowardice would allow. In stigmatizing for puritans, all who stood by the laws of the land, and opposed his arbitrary government, though strenuous churchmen, he strengthened the cause of the church puritans; the former, called by way of distinction state-puritans, joining the latter, both together became at length the majority of the nation.

Still the times were not mended; and the death of James made way for their becoming much worse. King Charles unfortunately took for his bosom-counsellor in religious affairs, bishop Laud, the most unqualified person for the purpose, of any to be found in his three kingdoms; he also resigned himself up to arbitrary councils.

The lowering prospect thickened apace; the Massachusetts company therefore provided a safe retreat in season. They applied immediately to the improvement of their purchased territory; and sent out capt. John Endicott and others, with servants, to begin a plantation; who arrived at (what is now named) Salem. They soon after petitioned for a royal charter, hoping that their existence and powers would be thereby secured and promoted. They succceeded, and a charter of incorporation was granted, [March 4, 1629] making them a body politic, by the name of “The Governor and Company of the Massachusetts-Bay in New-England,” with as full powers as any other corporation in the realm of England. The grant and sale of the Plymouth Council was confirmed. Till the annual election by the company could commence, the governor, deputy-governor, and eighteen assistants were specified. The mode of governing, and of admitting freemen, was prescribed. They were empowered to elect and constitute such other officers as might be thought XXIrequisite for the managing of their affairs, and to make laws and ordinances, not contrary to the laws and statutes of the realm, for the good of the said company and the government of their lands and plantations, and the inhabitants thereof. They were allowed to transport persons, whether subjects or strangers, weapons, merchandize, &c. any law to the contrary notwithstanding—such was the dispensing power the king assumed. He also exempted them from paying custom or subsidy for seven years; the governor and company, their factors and assigns, were to pay neither that nor any taxes IN New-England for the same space. All were freed from duties upon goods imported or exported for 21 years, except the old 5 per cent. custom upon imports after the expiration of the seven years. All his majesty’s subjects going to and inhabiting the company’s lands, together with their children, were to enjoy all the liberties of free and natural subjects within any of his dominions, the same as though born in England. The king could mean only, that, by removing to and residing in the Massachusetts, they should not forfeit for themselves or children the privileges of Englishmen, and be treated as foreigners; and not, that they should be governed by laws and officers of their own making or choosing, personally or by representation; for they were evidently distinguished from the governor and company (of whom it appears to be supposed, that they were to remain in England) as these were authorized to administer the oaths of supremacy and allegiance to all and every person or persons, who should hereafter go to inhabit the lands and premises of the company. Beside, the governor and company were entrusted with the power of making laws, ordinances, &c. not contrary to the laws of England; of settling the government and magistracy of the plantation; and its inhabitants; of naming all the officers; and of setting forth their several duties, powers and limits; and the king commanded that all such laws, ordinances, &c. should be published, in writing, under the common seal of the company, and thereupon be carefully observed and put into execution, according to their true meaning. The charter^[4] does not once mention liberty of conscience or toleration; tho’ one^[5] historian has inadvertently advanced, that “free liberty of conscience was likewise granted to all who should settle in the Massachusetts-Bay, to worship God in their own way;” and another^[6], “the charter granted toleration to all christians, except papists.” The assertions apply only to the charter granted by king William and queen Mary.

XXII[April 30, 1629.] The company, in the exercise of their chartered powers, determined that a governor and council of twelve, residing on the plantations, should have the sole ordering of its affairs and government. They appointed Captain Endicott governor, and seven gentlemen going from England to be counsellors, and directed how the other five should be elected, together with a deputy-governor and secratary.

Messrs. Higginson, Skelton, Bright, John and Samuel Browne were of the seven counsellors nominated by the company. The three first, being ministers, had declared themselves to be of one judgment, and to be fully agreed on the manner how to exercise their ministry. The company’s committee in the letter to governor Endicott, expressed good hopes on account of it; and at the same time recommended Messrs. John and Samuel Browne as men who they much respected, being fully persuaded of their sincere affections to the good of the plantation.^[7] The ministers and passengers coming to settle in it were episcopally inclined when they left England, though they could not conform to many ceremonies and customs, nor submit to what they judged different corruptions, imposed upon their consciences by the king and prelates. They were also strongly prejudiced against the separatists in which class the Plymouthians were numbered. But long before they arrived, or even sailed, a Dr. Fuller, a deacon of the church at Plymouth, and well versed in its discipline, having been sent for, on account of a fatal sickness which broke out among the emigrants after their arrival at Salem, had, by his conversation with Captain Endicott, taken off the ill effect of common report, and brought him to think favorably of the outward form of worship espoused by the Plymouthians. The influence of the doctor’s intercourse with the Salem settlers cannot be thought to have been confined to the Captain. When the business of organizing a church was brought forward after the arrival of the consellors, the matter was frequently canvassed, and at length it was determined to form it, nearly upon the plan of the one at Plymouth; and to invite the latter to be present by their messengers, at the solemn ordination of the ministers Messrs. Skelton and Higginson, [August 6.] Notwithstanding cross winds the Plymouth messengers were time enough to give the right hand of fellowship, by which ceremony the two churches professed mutual affection and communion.

Probably none of the newly arrived settlers had the least idea of such ecclesiastic proceedings, when they left England; but thought very differently. Some continued to do so; for Mr. Bright, disagreeing in judgment from the other ministers, removed XXIIIto a distance before their ordination; and Messrs. John and Samuel Browne, dissatisfied with the proceedings of the society, separated with several who were like minded, and set up another. Governor Endicott, being of a hot temper, and not possessed of the greatest prudence, summoned the brothers before him as ringleaders of a faction; and apprehending that their conversation and conduct would occasion divisions, sent them back to England, against their own inclination notwithstanding their being counsellors, thinking himself justified by his public orders.

Let us return to the company in England.

[July 28.] Mr. Matthew Craddock, the governor, proposed at the general court, that, for the advancement of the plantation, the encouragement of persons of worth and quality to transplant themselves and families, and other weighty reasons, the government of the plantation should be transferred to its inhabitants, and not be continued in subordination to the company at London. The matter was debated; and it was agreed, that the persons present should seriously consider the business against the next general court; it was also requested, that they would in the mean while, conduct with that privacy, that the affair might not be divulged. At a month’s end they met, and consented that the government and patent should be settled in New-England, if it could be done legally. They soon after received letters respecting the difference between governor Endicott and Messrs. John and Samuel Browne; and fearing that these two had in their private letters defamed the plantation, they opened and read a number of them, and ordered that none from Mr. Samuel Browne should be delivered; however, upon application from the brothers, they directed that they should have a copy of the accusation sent against them from New-England. The company’s letter upon this business one to Messrs. Skelton and Higginson, and another to governor Endicott, intimated, that there had been in the parties addressed a degree of intemperance; that direct or oblique espersions had been thrown out against the state; and that undigested counsels had been too suddenly put into execution. They besides expressed an apprehension, lest, through an ill construction, the same might make the company obnoxious to any adversary.^[8]

The difference that happened in the plantation, the treatment of the Brownes, and the reports circulated by them, undoubtedly occasioned much talk. Many would think it strange, that, while the charter was totally silent upon the head of religion, and several of the grantees and company though strongly opposed to XXIVthe tyrannies of the high-churchmen, were real episcopalians; persons of this profession should be debarred the right of worshiping according to their own judgment and consience, and be even expelled the plantation. These occurrences most probably forwarded the plan of Mr. Craddock. The advice of learned council was ordered to be taken, and it was considered how to execute the projected removal without offending government.

Among the other weighty reasons which induced them to remove, we must include the hope of getting beyond the reach of Laud and the high commissoned court: for the Massachusetts general court declared in 1651, “That seeing just cause to fear the persecution of the then Bishop and high commission, for not conforming to the ceremonies, they thought it their safest course to get to this outside of the world (America) out of their view, and beyond their reach.

[October 20.] The company, at a general court, proceeded to a new election of officers, who were to repair to and settle in New-England. They chose for governor John Winthrop, esq. of Groton, in Suffolk, a gentleman well known for his piety, liberality, wisdom and gravity. The business of transferring the patent and corporation, and of taking over new settlers, was prosecuted with vigor. The enterprise produced a general rumour, as its extent and magnitude, the number and principles of the person engaging in it, opened upon the public. The intentions of the parties being suspected, and jealousies arising concerning them, governor Winthrop and other gentlemen, to remove prejudices, conciliate the minds of the disaffected, and recommend themselves and their expedition to the favourable regards of all serious christians of the episcopal persuasion, addressed their brethren in and of the church of England, [April 7, 1630.] and afterwards sailed from Yarmouth in the isle of Wight, for America. The signers of the address, pray in the most solemn manner to be considered as their brethren, and desire it to be noted, that the principals and body of their company esteem it their honour to call the church of England their dear mother. They acknowledge, that such hope and part as they have obtained in the common salvation, they have received in her bosom, and sucked from her breasts. They declare themselves members of her body, and that, while they have breath, they shall sincerely endeavour her welfare. They pronounce themselves a church springing out of her own bowels. Their professions are made in the strongest language.^[9]

[June 12.] The company arrived at Salem; and soon were in number more than fifteen hundred persons from different XXVcounties in England. Thy applyed themselves early to the forming of churches; but, the Rev. Mr. Cotton (who come from Boston in Lincolnshire to take leave of his departing friends at Southampton) having told them to advise with the Plymouthians and to do nothing to offend them, and a precedent existing in the church at Salem, they dismissed all the peculiarities of episcopacy, and preferred the congregational mode in general. However, they had no settled plan of church-discipline till after the arrival of Mr. Cotton, [1633.] who was considerd as a kind of oracle in both civil and sacred matters, and gradually moulded all their church administrations, and thus determined the ecclesiastic constitution of the colony; therein verifying what Mr. Robinson had judiciously predicted, when he said “Many of those who have both wrote and preached against me and my people, were they in a place where they could have liberty and live comfortably, should do as we do.”^[10]

Governor Winthrop inserted in his manuscript history, a couple of anecdotes, of an earlier date than Mr. Cotton’s arrival, which may amuse you. “July 30, 1631, Mr. Ludlow, in digging the foundation of his house at Dorchester, found two pieces of French money, one was coined 1596. They were in several places, above a foot within the firm ground.” “June 13, 1632, At Watertown there was in the view of divers witnesses, a great combat between a mouse and snake; and after a long fight, the mouse prevailed and killed the snake.” The minister of Boston, Mr Wilson a very sincere holy man, gives this interpretation—“The snake is the devil, the mouse is a poor contemptable people whom God has brought hither, and who shall overcome Satan here, and dispossess him of his kingdom.” “At the same time he told the governor, that before he resolved to come into the country, he dreamed that he was here, and saw a church arise out of the earth, which grew up and became a marvellous goodly church.” He might think his dream divine; but it is easily accounted for as a common event, arising with the church-building out of a lively imagination, warmed and directed by a preponderating inclination. If, instead of interpreting the combat, he had only mentioned, that the event suggested to him such thoughts, and such an improvement, he would have evidenced more judgment and an equal degree of wisdom in seizing the happy circumstance.

The colony increased apace, by frequent and numerous accessions. But “it appears by private letters, that the departure of so many of the best, both ministers and private christians, did breed sad thoughts in those behind of the Lord’s intention in XXVIthe work, and an apprehension of some evil days to come upon England; yea, it began to be viewed by the council as a matter of state, so that warrants were sent to stay the ships, and to call in the patent; but, upon the petition of the ship-masters, alledging how beneficial the plantation was, they were released: Mr. Craddock, however, had strict charge to deliver in the pattent, and wrote to the company to send it home upon receipt of his letter. [July, 1634.] The governor and assistants consulted about it, and resolved to answer Mr. Craddock, but not to return any answer or excuse to the council for the present^[11].”

On the death of the duke of Buckingham, Laud became the king’s prime minister in all affairs of both church and state; and on the death of Archbishop Abbot, he was exalted to the see of Canterbury. Possessed of such powers, he by his pliant tools made havock of the church, hauling and committing to prison conscientious ministers and laymen who would not bend to his antiscriptural impositions so that the people were scattered abroad and passed over the Atlantic into America. The daily inroads of the court on the civil rights of the subject, helped forward the emigration.

From the beginning of the colony, until the emigration ceased through a change of affairs in England, [1640.] there arrived in 298 vessels about 21200 settlers (men, women and children) or 4000 families, but they did not all confine themselves to the Massachusetts. Notwithstanding the numbers that repaired thither when Josselyn visited Boston, in 1638, “he found it rather a village than a town, there being not above 20 or 30 houses.” These settlers were no less strenuous for their own particular rights and previleges than the Plymouthians. When the governor and company removed from London to the Massachusetts they renounced the appearance of a corporation, and assumed the form of a commonwealth, varying, as it suited them, from the directions of the charter. The change of place and circumstances prevented their keeping to it in certain instances, tho’ not in others; but they could easily satisfy themselves as to any violations; for “they apprehended themselves subject to no other laws or rules of government, than what arose from natural reason and the principles of equity, except any positive rules from the word of God^[12].” Persons of influence among them held, that birth was no necessary cause of subjection; for that the subject of any prince or state, had a natural right to remove to any other state or quarter of the world, when deprived of liberty of conscience; and that upon such removal his subjection ceased. They called their own a voluntary civil subjection, XXVIIarising merely from a mutual compact between them and the king, founded upon the charter. By this compact they acknowledged themselves bound; so that they could not be subject to or seek protection from any other prince, neither could make laws repugnant to those of England, &c. but, on the other hand, they maintained, that they were to be governed by laws made by themselves, and by officers of their own electing^[13]. They meant to be independent of English parliaments; and therefore when their intimate friends were become leading members in the house of commons, and they were advised, on account of the great liberty to which king Charles left the parliament, to send over some to solicit for them, and had hopes given that they might obtain much, the governor and assistants, after meeting in council upon the occasion, “declined the motion, for this consideration, that, if they should put themselves under the protection of the parliament, they must then be subject to all such laws as they should make, or at least such as they might impose upon them, in which course, (though they should intend their good, yet) it might prove very prejudicial to them^[14].”

Whatever approbation such sentiments may meet with from the friends of liberty, these must regret the inconsistencies to which human nature is subject, in those very persons whose experience should have taught them, to do unto others, as they would that others should have done unto them, when they themselves were suffering under the relentless hand of arbitrary government. But, what is man! [May 18, 1631.] So early as the second general court after the arrival of the governor and company, instead of resolving to admit all the suitable and deserving, to a generous participation of their freedon, they passed the pernicious and disingenuous order, “For 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^[15].” They soon after concluded, that none but such should share in the administration of civil government, or have a voice in any election. Thus a powerful and mischievous alliance was formed between the churches and the state. The ascendency of the clergy was secured and much increased; for no one could be proposed to the church for a member, unless the minister allowed it. The ministers were consulted by the general court, in all matter of great moment; and nothing was determined in such cases, without a formal reference to them; XXVIIIwho, of course, used their influence with the people to procure an approbation of the measures which they themselves had advised^[16];

[May, 1634.] Instead of the freemen’s appearing personally in the general court, they for the first time sent deputies, to the number of twenty-four. This was a variation from the charter which gave no power to admit representatives. These with the governor, deputy-governor, and assistants, formed the legislature of the colony, met and voted together in one apartment till March 1644, when it was ordained, that the governor and assistants, should sit apart: and thus commenced the house of representatives, as a distinct body.

The general court assumed spiritual jurisdiction. Being church members, they might suppose they represented the churches no less than the colony. [March 8, 1636.] They would approve of no churches, after a certain period, unless they had the approbation of the magistrates and elders of most of the churches within the colony; nor would admit to freedom any of their members. They pressed colonial uniformity in religion, till they became persecutors^[17]. Whatever apology may be made for the treatment given to episcopalians, baptists and quakers, the colony cannot be cleared from the charge of persecuting: that however will not justify those who persecute with reproaches and ill-will the present generation, now reprobating the intolerance of their forefathers, which at that period was, more or less, the stain of most religious parties. “It was not peculiar to the Massachusetts people to think themselves bound in conscience to use the sword of the civil magistrate to convince, or cut off heretics, so that they might not infect the church, or injure the public peace^[18].” The true grounds of liberty of conscience, were not then known or embraced by many sects of christians. But remember, that the Massachusetts-Bay now surpasses the mother country, in its regard for the sacred and civil rights of mankind. It not only exempts those of other denominations from paying to the support of its own colonial establishments, the congregational churches; and has been a great number of years in this laudable practice; but it protects all protestants without requiring any qualifying subscriptions or tests, and excludes none by partial laws from the exercise of civil power.

The government was in divers respects absolute. Both magistrates and general court often judged and punished, in a summary way, without a jury, according to discretion, as occasions XXIXoccurred. It was four years before it was enacted or ordered, that no trial should pass upon any for life or banishment, but by a jury of freemen: and within three years after, [1637.] that law was violated even by the general court. They exercised, while sitting, legislative, judicial and executive powers—a practice which must ever be dangerous to the rights of a people, even when allowed to their own annual representatives.

The country at length grew uneasy at these proceedings; were suspicious that the general court had effected arbitrary government; and earnestly expected a body of laws to aid and protect them in all their just rights and previleges^[19]. It was the more necessary to comply with the prevailing expectation, for the business had been long in agitation: not only so, but a great majority of the inhabitants were not freemen not being members of the congregational churches, or declining to take up their freedom, in order to secure an exemption from serving in civil offices. It was not till 1648 that the body of laws was digested and printed.

The conduct of the colony on the one hand, and the inveteracy of the English administration on the other, would certainly have produced a revocation of the charter, and probably the ruin of the plantation, had not the disturbances in England prevented. It became a favorite upon the change that followed them; and while Oliver Cromwell ruled, met with the utmost indulgence. From 1640 to 1660 it approached very near to an independent commonwealth^[20]. The house of commons in a memorable resolve of the 10th of March 1642, passed in favour of it, gives New-England the title of kingdom^[21]. The commissioners for New-England, sent over by king Charles II. assert in their narrative^[22], that the colony solicited Cromwell to be declared a free state, which is not unlikely.

It has been already mentioned, that all the persons passing over to the Massachusetts did not confine themselves to that colony.

[1635.] Several families removed to Connecticut river, by mutual agreement with their fellow emigrants that remained behind. Plantations were formed at Hartford, Windsor and Weathersfield. The inhabitants being soon after fully satisfied, that they were out of the Massachusetts limits, and of course jurisdiction, entered into a combination among themselves, [1639.] became a body politic, without restraining the freedom of their civil government to the membership of their churches; and proceeded to the choice of magistrates and representatives. XXXBy the articles of government, it was determined that there should be annually two general courts; and that no person should be chosen governor more than once in two years. But it must be observed, that the same year, in which the families removed from the Massachusetts, Lords Say and Brooke, with other gentlemen, having obtained a grant, John Winthrop, esq. was appointed governor, took possission of Connecticut river, and began to erect a fort (which he called Say-Brooke) to secure the mouth of it. He was supplied with men, provisions, and all things necessary by a vessel from England, sent by the grantees, which arrived the latter end of November. Some of the grantees had in contemplation to transport themselves, families and effects, to the territory they had obtained; but the design of emigrating was laid aside, when matters began to take a new turn in their native country; and at length the agent Mr. Fenwick, was authorized to dispose of their lands, which were purchased, in 1644, by the people who had removed from the Massachusetts.

[1637.] Two large ships arrived at the Massachusetts-Bay with passengers from London. Great pains were taken to prevail upon them to remain in the colony; but they hoped by removing to a considerable distance, to be out of the reach of a general governor, with whom the country was then threatened. They sent to their friends in Connecticut to purchase of the natives the lands laying between them and Hudson’s river. They laid the foundation of a flourishing colony, of which New-Haven was the capital. They, as Connecticut, formed a government, much like the Massachusetts, by a voluntary agreement, without any charter, or commission, or authority whatsoever, from the crown or other powers in England. They admitted no one to any office civil or military, or to have a voice in any election, except he was a member of one of the churches in New-England. They had no jury either in civil or criminal cases.

Connecticut and New-Haven continued two distinct colonies for many years. At length the general court of Connecticut determined to prefer an address and petition to Charles II. professing their subjection and loyalty to his majesty, and soliciting a royal charter; and John Winthrop, esq. who had been chosen governor, was appointed to negociate the affair with the king. He succeeded, and a royal charter was obtained, April 23, 1662, constituting the two colonies forever one body corporate and politic. New-Haven took the affair ill; and for some time declined the union. But difficulties were amicably settled at last, and the colonies united by agreement. [1665.]

XXXIThe royal charter established a pure democracy. Every power, as well deliberative as active, was invested in the freemen of the corporation or their delegates, and the colony was under no obligation to communicate the acts of their local legislature to the king. It was the same as to the royal charter, granted the next year to Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations.^[23]

[1685.] In July various articles of high misdemeanor were exhibited against the governor and company of Connecticut, and orders were given to issue a writ of quo warranto forthwith against the colony. The next year two writs were served by Mr. Randolph; and after them a third in December. This is taken notice of by the governor and company in their letter of Jan. 26, 1686–7, wherein they mention their readiness to submit to his majesty’s royal commands; and that, “if it be to conjoin them with the other colonies and provinces under Sir Edmund Andros, it would be more pleasing than to be joined with any other province.” Such professed submission probably prevented the quo warranto’s being prosecuted with effect; and produced an order to Andros to accept the surrender of the charter and the submission of the colony. Sir Edmond went to Hartford in October; but when at night he expected the charter would have been surrendered into his hands, the candle was blown out, and the charter withdrawn from the table, carried off and secreted by one of the company: whose extraordinary service was afterwards rewarded by the general assembly with five shillings, agreeable to the plain simple manners of the people. He however published in the general court his orders and commission which every one tacitly obeyed. He dissolved the former government, and assumed the administration, receiving into his legislative council the late governor and secretary, for the better carrying on the business of the colony. The subsequent revolution in England brought matters back, after a while to the former course; as the legal validity of the charter was admitted.

The peopling of these three last colonies was owing chiefly to the Puritan Ministers, who, being silenced at home, repaired to New-England, that they might enjoy liberty of conscience; and drew after them vast numbers of their friends and favorers. They amounted to seventy-seven before 1641; and though all were not person of the greatets learning and abilities, they had a better share of each than most of sheir neighbouring clergy at that period; and were men of eminent soberiety and virtue, XXXIIplain, serious, affectionate preachers, exactly conformable to the doctrines of the church of England, and laboured much to promate a reformation of manners in their several parishes.—Many planters who accompained or followed them, were gentlemen of considerable fortunes and of no mean education, who spent their estates in New-England, and were at the charge of bringing over many poor families, that were not able of themselves to bear the expence.^[24] The body of laity and clergy, collectively considered, furnishes such a glorious constellation of characters, as would employ the pen of a first-rate writer to do them justice; notwithstanding what has been above remarked of their governmental mistake.

The dangers to which the New-England colonies were early exposed, induced them to think of confederating for their mutual safety. Articles were drawn up in 1638; but they were not finished and ratified till the seventh of September 1643; from which time we are to look upon Plymouth, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New-Haven as one body, in regard to all public transactions with their neighbours, though the private affairs of each colony were still managed by their own courts and magistrates.

Pass we on to the settlement of the other New-England colonies.

Mr. Roger Williams, who succeeded Mr. Skelton, upon his decease, as pastor of the church at Salem, being banished from the Massachusetts, repaired with twelve companions to the Narraganset country, [1635] and had land given him by the Indian Sachem Canonicus; of whom he afterwards purchased the large tract, lying between Pawtucket and Pawtuxet rivers (the great falls and the little falls, as the Indian names signify,) and stiled it Providence “from a sense of God’s merciful providence to him in his distress.” The authority and power of Miantonomy, another Sachem, and his uncle Canonicus, awed all the Indians round to assist him and his few associates. When the determinations of the Massachusetts general court (occasioned, by what they called antinomian disputes) banished many, and induced others to leave the colony, the heads of the party were entertained in a friendly manner by Mr. Williams; [1638.] who advised them to seek a settlement on Rhode-Island, and was very instrumental in procuring it of the Indian Sachems.

They, to the number of eighteen, incorporated themselves, and began settling the island. The plantations there and at Providence increased apace, owing to the liberel sentiments of the first settlers; and in 1643 Mr. Williams went to England as agent, XXXIIIand obtained [March 16, 1644.] “a free and absolute charter of incorporation of Providence and Rhode-Island Plantations, empowering them to rule themselves, by that form they might voluntarily agree upon.” They agreed upon a democratic. Mr. Williams justly claims the honor of having been the first legislator in the world, in its latter ages, who effectually provided for, and established a free, full, and absolute liberty of conscience. This was the chief cause that united the inhabitants of Rhode-Island and those of Providence, and made them one people, and one colony. The foundation principle on which this colony was first settled, was, that “every man who submits peaceably to the civil authority, may peaceably worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience without molestation.” When the colony was applied to in 1656 by the four United Colonies “to join them in taking effectual methods to suppress the quakers, and prevent their pernicious doctrines being propagated in the country; the assembly returned for answer “We shall strictly adhere to the foundation principle on which this colony was first settled.”

[July 8, 1663.] King Charles II. granted an ample charter, whereby the colony was made a body corporate and politic, by the name of the Governor and Company of the English colony of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, in New-England, in America. The charter reserved only allegiance to the king without the smallest share of the legislative or executive powers.

[1685.] A writ of quo warranto was issued out against the colony, which was brought June 26, 1686. The assembly determined not to stand suit. After the revolution, they were allowed by government to resume their charter, no judgment having been given against it.

New-Hampshire and the Main were settled about the same time with the Massachusetts, by different proprietors who had obtained patents, and whose views were to enrich themselves, by the fishing trade at sea, and the beaver trade ashore. Religion had little concern in the settlements; but it had some in the plantation of Exeter, on the river Pascataqua; which was began by Mr. Wheelwright (a minister banished from the Massachusetts, on account of the antinomian dissensions with which the colony was convulsed) and by a number of his adherents. They formed themselves into a body politic. Three other distinct governments were also established on the branches of the said river. These governments, being altogether voluntary, had no security as to their continuance; and the several settlers were too divided in opinion to form any good general plan of permanent administration. Therefore the more considerate among them treated XXXIVwith the Massachusetts, about taking them under its protection; which fully suited the wishes of that colony, as it afforded the heads of it the opportunity of realizing the construction they had put upon a clause of this charter, by which they extended their line, so as to comprehend both New-Hampshire and the Main. The business terminated in the incorporation of the two colonies, on condition that the inhabitants of each should enjoy equal privileges. They continued long united, and were of one heart and mind in civil and religious affairs.^[25] When separated by the king’s commission for the government of New-Hampshire, the new assembly at their first meeting, in a letter of March 25, 1680, to the governor of the Massachusetts, to be communicated to the general court, expressed their full satisfaction in the past connection; grateful sense of the care that had been exercised over them; and of their having been well governed; and an unfeigned desire, that a mutual correspondence between them might be settled.^[26]

The towns in the province of Main, after a time, fell into a state of confusion. The Massachusetts took that opportunity, for encouraging the disposition which prevailed in many of the inhabitants to submit to their jurisdiction; and, to forward their compliance, granted the people larger privileges than were enjoyed by their own; for they were all freemen upon taking the oath, whereas every where else no one could be made free, unless he was a church member. The province was made a county, by the name of Yorkshire; and the towns sent representatives to the general court at Boston. Though the major part of the inhabitants were brought to consent to this regulation, great opposition was made by some principal persons, who severely reproached the Massachusetts, for using force in order to reduce the province: but the people experienced the benefit of it, and were contented. They continued in union with the Massachusetts until 1665, when a short separation commenced.

You have now a sketch of the settlement of all New-England. It would have been far more concise, had it not been necessary, to correct the mistakes frequently committed, by those who publish on the subject; and to remove the reproaches cast upon the bulk of the inhabitants, on account of their religious profession. Whether there was any material difference between them and the other colonies, in regard to the opinion they entertained of their civil rights, you will be able to observe in the course of your reading. Their judgment in respect to the exercise of parliamentary powers over them, may be further known by what XXXVRandolph wrote concerning the Massachusetts, in his narrative and letters, after the restoration; from whence “it seems to have been a general opinion that acts of parliament had no other force than what they derived from acts passed by the general court to establish or confirm them.”

[1676.] Randolph declared, “No law is in force or esteem there, but such as are made by the general court; and therefore it is accounted a breach of their privileges, and a betraying the liberties of the commonwealth to urge the observation of the laws of England.”—“No oath shall be urged, or required to be taken by any person, but such oath as the general court hath considered, allowed and required.”—“there is no notice taken of the act of navigation, plantation, or any other laws made in England for the regulation of trade.”—“All nations have free liberty to come into their ports, and vend their commodities without any restraint; in this as well as in other things, that government would make the world believe they are a free state, and do act in all matters accordingly.”—“The magistrates have continually disobeyed his majesty’s command in his royal letters, of 1662, 64, 65, and those of March last; ever reserving to themselves a power to alter, evade and disannul any law or command not agreeing with their humour, or the absolute authority of their government, acknowledging no superior.”—” He (the governor) freely declared to me, that the laws made by your majesty and your parliament obligeth them in nothing, but what consists with the interest of the colony; that the legislative power is and abides in them solely.^[27]

The Massachusetts general court, in a letter to their agents, mentioned, that not being represented in parliament, they looked not upon themselves to be impeded in their trade by the acts of trade and navigation, and that these could not be observed by his majesty’s subjects in Massachusetts without invading their liberties and properties, until the general court made provision therein by a law, which they did in October. Notwithstanding such law, and a subsequent order, Feb. 15, 1681, “that the act of navigation and the act for the encouragement of trade, be published in Boston by beat of drum, and all clauses in said acts relating to the plantation be strictly observed.” Randolph complained to the commissioners of the customs in England, because of their not being duly observed. When the people found themselves in danger of a quo warranto, they agreed upon such XXXVIemendations of their acts of trade, as to make them accord in all things with the laws of England. But it was too late. A quo warranto was sent them, and brought by Randolph, Nov. 3, 1683; and the next year a writ of scire ficias was prosecuted in the court of chancery against the governor and company, and judgment given, that the charter should be annihilated. Considering the temper of Charles II. it is rather matter of astonishment, that the sentiments and conduct of the Massachusetts government did not provoke him to vacate the charter much sooner. However mortifying, yet it would have been more prudent, to have declined contending with the king, when they knew that they must be vanquished, than virtually to bid him defiance. Such submission might not have saved them from the arbitrary government that followed, but could have been of no disservice, had there not been a subsequent revolution: that event taking place, it would have been extremely beneficial. They might have been allowed to resume their charter, nearly, if not wholly.

Before we proceed to the southward, let it be noted, that in 1672, the English parliament enacted by law, “That if any vessel, which by law may trade in the plantations, shall take on board any enumerated commodities, and a bond shall not have been given with sufficient security to unlade them in England, there shall be rendered to his majesty, for sugars, tobacco, ginger, cocoa nut, indigo, logwood, fustic, cotton wool, the several duties mentioned in the law, to be paid in such places in the plantations, and to such officers as shall be appointed to collect the same: and for their better collection, it is enactad, that the whole business shall be managed, and the imposts be levied by officers appointed by the commissioners of the customs in England.” This is the first act that imposed customs on the colonies alone, to be regularly collected by colonial revenue officers. But the best affected colonies, Barbadoes, Virginia and Maryland, considering the laws of trade either as inconsistent with their privileges, or destructive to their infant commerce, hesitated to obey, or elude the provisions of the laws; and trafficked without restraint, wherever hope of gain directed their navigators. Charles II. reprimanded them, and his successors gave standing instructions upon the head, but without effect.^[28]

Governor Nicholson of Maryland wrote to the board of trade, August 16, 1698, “I have observed that a great many people in all these provinces and colonies, especially in those under proprietaries, and the two others under Connecticut and Rhode-Island, XXXVIIthink that no law of England ought to be in force and binding to them without their own consent; for they foolishly say, they have no representatives sent from themselves to the parliament of England; and they look upon all laws made in England, that put any restraint upon them, to be great hardships.” These were the colonial sentiments two years after passing the famous declaratory act of Willian and Mary, which you will find mentioned below. Molyneux’s Case of Ireland, asserting openly the same doctrines, was first published in February, 1697–8.

The colony of New-York demands our next attention. The Dutch had settled, and named it the New-Netherlands. Charles II. resolved upon its conquest in 1664, and in March granted to his brother the Duke of York, the region extending from the western banks of Connecticut to the eastern shore of the Delaware, together with Long-Island, conferring on him the civil and military powers of government. Colonel Nichols was sent with four frigates and three hundred soldiers to effect the business. The Dutch governor being unable to make resistance, the New-Netherlands submitted to the English crown, in September, without any other change than of rulers. Few of the Dutch removed; and Nichols instantly entered upon the exercise of his power, as deputy governor of the duke of York, the proprietary.

In July, 1673, the Dutch repossessed themselves of the province, by attacking it suddenly when in a defenceless state. By the peace in February following it was restored. The validity of the grant, while the Dutch were in quiet possession having been questioned, the duke of York thought it prudent to obtain a new one the following June, and Edmund Andros having been appointed governor, the Dutch resigned their authority to him in October. Thus was New-York regained; but the inhabitants were again enslaved to the will of the conqueror; for, being admitted to no share in the legislature, they were subject to laws to which they had never assented.

[1681.] To be relieved from a servitude that had degraded the colony, and now gave dissatisfaction to every one, the council, the court of assizes, and the corporation of New-York, concurred in soliciting the duke, “to permit the people to participate in the legislative power.” The duke, though strongly prejudiced against democratic assemblies, yet in expectation that the inhabitants would agree to raise money to discharge the public debts, and to settle such a fund for the future as might be sufficient for the maintenance of the government and garrison, informed the lieutenant-governor, in 1682, that “he intended to establish the same frame of government as the other plantations enjoyed, particularly in the choosing of an assembly.”

XXXVIIIMr. Dongan was appointed governor in September, and instructed to call an assembly, to consist of a council of ten, and of a house of representatives, chosen by the freeholders, of the number of eighteen members. The assembly was empowered to make laws for the people, agreeable to the general jurisprudence of the state of England, which should be of no force, however, without the ratification of the proprietary. “Thus the inhabitants of New-York, after being ruled almost twenty years at the will of the duke’s deputies, were first admitted to participate in the legislative power.”

[1683.] An assembly was called on governor Dongan’s arrival, which passed an act of general naturalization, in order to give equal privileges to the various kinds of people then inhabiting the province; together with an act “declaring the liberties of the people;” as also one “for defraying the requisite charges of government for a limitted time.” The legislature was convened once more in August 1684, when it explained the last act. These seem to have been the only assemblies called prior to the revolution.

When the duke became king of England, he refused to confirm that grant of privileges to which, as duke, he had agreed. He established a real tyranny, and reduced New-York once more to the deplorable condition of a conquered province.

New-Jersey, which was also taken from the Dutch (who were considered as having no right to any of their settlements in these parts of America) was included in the grant to the duke of York. The duke disposed of it to lord Berkely Sir George Carteret who, being sole proprietors, for the better settlement of it, agreed [1664.] upon certain constitutions of government, so well relished, that the eastern parts were soon considerably peopled. One of the stipulations was, “no qualified person, at any time, shall be any ways molested, punished, disquieted, or called into question, for any difference in opinion or practice in matters of religious concernments, who does not acturally disturb the civil peace of the province; but all and every such person and persons, may, from time to time, and at all times, freely and fully have and enjoy his and their judgments and consciences in matters of religion, they behaving themselves peaceably and quietly, and not using this liberty to licentiousness, nor to the civil injury or outward disturbance of others; any law, statute, or clause contained or to be contained, usage or custom of the realm of England, to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.”^[29] The lords proprietors further agreed, “for the XXXIXbetter security of all the inhabitants in the province—That they are not to impose, NOR SUFFER TO BE IMPOSED, any tax, custom, subsidy, tallage, assessment, or any other duty whatsoever, upon any colour or pretence, upon the said province and inhabitants thereof, other than what shall be imposed by the authority and consent of the general assembly.”^[30] What can more strongly express the then opinion of Lord Berkely and Sir George Carteret, as to the parliaments having no right to tax the inhabitants of the province, possessed by them as lords proprietors!

[1674.] Lord Berkely sold his moiety of the province to John Fenwick, in trust for Edward Byllinge and his assigns.—After which the proprietors, E. Byllinge, William Penn, Gawen Lawrie, Nicholas Lucas, and Edmund Warner, of the quaker persuasion, agreed with Sir George Carteret [1676.] upon a division; and that his moiety should be called New East-Jersey; and theirs New West-Jersey. The agreement respecting the not imposing or suffering to be imposed any tax, &c. was adopted: the other stipulation is worded somewhat differently—“No man, nor number of men upon earth, hath power or authority to rule over men’s conscience in religious matters; therefore it is consented, agreed and ordained, that no person or persons whatsoever, within the province, at any time or times hereafter, shall be any ways, upon any pretence whatsoever, called in question, or in the least punished or hurt, either in person, estate or privilege, for the sake of his opinion, judgment, faith or worship towards God in matters of religion; but that all and every such person and persons, may from time to time, and at all times, freely and fully have and enjoy his and their judgments, and the exercise of their consciences, in matters of religious worship, throughout all the province.”^[31] It was also agreed, “that all elections be not determined by the common and confused way of cries and voices; but by putting balls into balloting boxes, to be provided for that purpose, for the prevention of all partiality, and whereby every man may freely choose according to his own judgment and honest intention.”^[32]

Soon after, many quakers resorted to West-Jersey from England, and the country filled apace. But the people early experienced the dreadful effects of arbitrary power. Major Andros the governor of New-York, imposed 10 per cent. on all goods imported at the Hoar-kill,^[33] and demanded 5 percent. of the XLsettlers at arrival or afterwards, though neither West-Jersey, nor the Hoar-kill, was legally under his jurisdiction. They complained of the hardship from the first, but bore it patiently, till about 1680, when application was made to the duke of York, who referred the matter to the council, where it rested for a considerable time, and then was reported in their favour, and the duty ordered to be discontinued. Among the arguments used by Messrs. William Penn, George Hutchinson and others, chiefly if not all quakers, in the paper presented to the duke’s commissioners, were these, “Powers of government are expressly granted, in the cenveyance lord Berkely made us; for that only could have induced us to buy it; and the reason is plain, because to all prudent men, the government of any place is more inviting than the soil: for what is good land without good laws; the better, the worse. And if we could not assume people of an easy and free, and safe government, both with respect to their spiritual and worldly property, that is an uninterrupted liberty of conscience and an inviolable possession of their civil rights and freedoms, by a just and wise government, a mere wilderness would be no encouragement; for it were a madness to leave a free, good and improved country, to plant in a wilderness, and there adventure many thousands of pounds, to give an absolute title to another person to tax us at will and pleasure.” Natural right and human prudence oppose such doctrine all the world over, as says, “that people free by law, under their prince at home, are at his mercy in the plantations abroad.” The King’s grant to the duke of York, is plainly restrictive to the laws and government of England. Now, we humbly conceive, it is made a fundamental in our constitution, and government, that the king of England cannot justly take his subjects goods without their consent: this needs no more to be proved than a principal; ’tis jus indigene, and home-bore right, declared to be law by divers statutes; as in the great charter, ch. 29 and 34. Ed. III. ch. 2; again 25 Ed. ch. 7.^[34] To give up the power of making laws is to change the government, to sell or rather resign ourselves to the will of another; and that for nothing; for we buy nothing of the duke, if not the right of an undisturbed colonizing, with no diminution, but expectation of some increase of these freedoms and privileges enjoyed in our own country. We humbly say, that we have not lost any part of our liberty, by leaving our country; but we transplant to a place with express limitation to erect no policy contrary to the XLIestablished government (of England) but as near as may be to it; and this variation is allowed but for the sake of emergencies; and that latitude bounded with these words, for the good of the adventurer and planter. This tax is not to be found in the duke’s conveyances, but is an after business. Had the planters foreseen it, they would sooner have taken up in any other plantation in America—[a plain intimation that no such tax was imposed in any other American plantation.] Beside, there is no end of this power; for since we are by this precedent assessed without any law, and thereby excluded our English right of common assent to taxes; what security have we of any thing we possess? We can call nothing our own, but are tenants at will not only for the soil, but for all our personal estates; we endure penury, and the sweat of our brows, to improve them at our own hazard only. This is to transplant from good to bad. This sort of conduct has destroyed government, but never raised one to any true greatness.^[35]

The paper presented to the duke’s commissioners, evidently proves, that it was the opinion of these gentlemen, who were quakers, that no tax could be justly imposed upon the inhabitants, without their own consent first had, and by the authority of their own general assembly. The report of the council in favour of the aggrieved, and the relief that followed, were virtual concessions to the same purport. This will not be judged wholly unprecedented by those who are acquainted with what happened relative to the county-palatine and city of Chester, in the 35th year of the reign of Henry VIII. [1543.] The inhabitants complained in a petition to the king, that for want of knights and burgesses in the court of parliament, they sustained manifold damages, not only in their lands, goods, and bodies, but in the civil and politic governance and maintenance of the commonwealth of their said county; and that while they had been always bound by the acts and statutes of the said court of parliament, the same as other counties, cities, and boroughs, that had knights and burgesses in said court, they had often been touched, and grieved with acts and statutes made within the said court, as well derogatory unto the most ancient jurisdictions, liberties, and privileges of the said court-palatine, as prejudicial unto the commonwealth, quietness, and peace of his majesty’s subjects. They proposed to the king, as a remedy, that it would please his highness, that it be enacted, with the assent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and by the commons in parliament assembled, that from the end of the session, the county-palatine shall XLIIhave two knights for the said county, and likewise two citizens to be burgesses for the city of Chester. The complaint and remedy were thought to be so just and reasonable, that the relief for which they prayed was granted, and they were admitted to send representatives to parliament, to guard their interests and to secure their liberties and privileges.

The reasons for my passing from the Jerseys to Virginia will soon be obvious.

Virginia was the original name for all the English North-American continental claims, given in honor to the virgin queen, Elizabeth. King James, being applied to, granted letters patent to a body of gentlemen on the 6th of April, 1606, with powers to divide themselves into two distinct companies, the one consisting of London adventurers, called the first or southern colony of Virginia; the second or northern colony, composed of merchants belonging to Bristol, Plymouth and Exeter. The territory granted to the first or southern colony, was generally called Virginia without any distinguishing epithet; and retained that name after the second or northern colony obtained the name of New-England, in 1614.

The London company applied their attention immediately to the forming of a settlement, and sent off a hundred and ten emigrants, who arrived on the coast of Virginia, April 29th, 1607: a party landed on the promontory, called, in honor of the prince of Wales, Cape-Henry; afterward proceeded to and took possession of a peninsula in James-river, and began a settement at James-town. The instructions given by the company of proprietors, when they sent out their second supply the following year, show that the most active projectors in England had for their chief objects discovery and gain, rather than colonization.

[1609.] A new charter was obtained: many of the first nobility and gentry were added to the former proprietors, and were incorporared by the name of “The Treasurer and Company of Adventurers, of the city of London, for the first colony of Virginia.” To them was granted in absolute property the lands extending from Cape Comfort along the sea-coast southward 200 miles, from the same promontory 200 miles northward, and from the Atlantic westward to the South-sea. The company was empowered to make ordinances for the colony, and for those on the seas going thither. There was granted to the treasurer and company and their assigns, a freedom from all subsidies in Virginia for 21 years, and from all impositions on importations and exportations to and from England, or any other of the king’s dominions, “except only the five pounds in the hundred due for customs.” Little was conceded to the emigrants by the charter; XLIIIand much conferred on the corporation. The colonists were to be governed by the ordinances of a corporation residing in England, in which they were not represented, and over the deliberations of which they had no control. The powers of the corporation were indeed controlable, as it was subject to the superintendance of the courts of justice within the realm, which could compel it to act agreeable as well to the grant, as to the laws of the state.

The adventurers, warmed with golden dreams of great riches, soon fitted out nine ships, with 500 emigrants, and every necessary for the establishment of a permanent colony, excepting suitable encouragement to the settlers. Lord Delaware was appointed captain-general for life. Only seven vessels arrived safe.

When Mr. Smith, who had governed the colony, departed for England, he left behind him 500 persons, of whom, what with bad management, dissensions, attacks from the Indians, waste of provisions, which occasioned a famine, &c. there remained only sixty of all ages and sexes, at the expiration of six months. When Sir Thomas Gates, the lieutenant-governor arrived in May, 1610, and saw the calamitous situation of affairs, he concluded on embarking the colonists and sailing for England: but before he could proceed to sea, Lord Delaware arrived with three ships, bringing abundant supplies, and carried back with him to James-town the feeble remains of the colony. He soon re-established matters; but his health obliging him, he sailed for England the beginning of the subsequent year, [1611.] leaving about 200 colonists, possessed of health, plenty, and peace with their neighbours. After his departure they relapsed; but his successor, Sir Thomas Dale, arriving in May with more emigrants, cattle, and provision for a year, things were again restored. This same year the adventurers obtained a new charter, by which the two former were confirmed, and they had also granted to them all the islands situated in the ocean, within 300 leagues of any part of the Virginia coast. The corporation was now considerably new modelled, and, in order to promote the effectual settlement of the plantation, licence was given to open lotteries in any part of England. The lotteries alone, which were the first ever granted in England, brought 29,000l. into The campany’s treasury. At length being considered as a national evil, they attracted the notice of parliament, were presented by the commons as a grievance, and in March, 1620, suspended by an order of council.

Sir Thomas Gates was dispatched with six large ships, carrying 300 colonists, 100 cattle, and useful supplies. He arrived in August: and parties were sent out from James-town to form distant settlements. He returned the beginning of 1614, and the XLIVadministration devolved once more on Sir Thomas Dale, to whom the Virginians owe the introduction of landed property. In 1615, fifty acres of land were granted to every emigrant and his heirs, and the same quantity to every person imported by others. Dale sailed for England in the beginning of 1616, giving up the trust to Sir George Yeardley, as deputy governor, and in this year the cultivation of tobacco was introduced. It was originally carried from Tobago to England. Mr. Argal, a new deputy, arrived in May, 1617. He published a variety of edicts, and was guilty of those wrongs and oppressions, that the treasurer and council appointed Yeardly captain-general, and empowered him to examine into and redress grievances. Sir George arrived April, 1619, bringing with him several instructions favourable to freedom, and soon declared his intention of calling a general assembly, which gave the greatest joy to men, who had been hitherto subjected to the arbitrary orders of their prince, to the interested ordinances of an English corporation, or to the edicts of a haughty governor; and who enjoyed none of those liberties which Englishmen claim as their birth-right.

In June, Yeardley, pursuant to his instructions from the company, issued writs for the election of delegates, called burgesses. The colony had been divided into seven hundreds or distinct settlements, which seemed to enjoy some of the privileges of boroughs, and from this circumstance the democratic branch of the assembly has been called to this day the house of burgesses, though composed almost entirely of the representatives of counties. The assembly, formed of the governor and council of state, who were appointed by the treasurer and company, and of the burgesses chosen by the people, met together in one apartment, and transacted affairs like the parliament of Scotland of old, which mode continued till after the restoration of Charles II. Thus convened, and thus composed, the legislature “debated all matters thought expedient for the good of the whole.” The laws were transmitted to England, for the approbation of the treasurer and company, without whose confirmation they were of no validity. The introduction of an assembly was attended with the happiest effects. The emigrants, for the first time, resolved to settle themselves, and to perpetuate the plantation. The assembly thanked the company for their favour, and begged them “to reduce into a compendious form, with his majesty’s approbation, the laws of England proper for Virginia, with suitable additions;” giving as a reason, “that it was not fit that his subjects should be governed by any other rules, than such as received their influence from him.” This year the treasurer and council received a letter, “commanding them to send a hundred dissolute persons (convicts) to Virginia.” They XLVwere accordingly transported; and were at that period very acceptable to the colonies,” though the unlimited practice of emptying the English jails on the American continent has of late years been complained of as a nuisance. [1602.] The subsequent year must, on account of the introduction of African slaves into the colonies, be stigmatized as a much viler æra.—The Hollanders were not then precluded by any law from trading with the colonies. A Dutch vessel carried to Virginia a cargo of negroes, and the Virginians, who had themselves just emerged from a state of slavery, became chargeable with reducing their fellow men to the condition of brutes.

[1621.] In July, the treasurer and company carried into execution a resolution formerly taken, for establishing a proper constitution for the colony. The ordinance they passed, declared that there should be two supreme councils in Virginia, the one to be called the council of state, to be appointed and displaced by the treasurer and company, and which was to advise the governor in governmental affairs; the other was to be denominated the general assembly, and to consist of the governor and council, and of two burgesses, to be chosen, for the present, by the inhabitants of every town, hundred, and settlement in the colony. The assembly was to determine by the majority of the voices then present, and to enact general laws for the colony, reserving to the governor a negative voice. They were to imitate the laws and customs, and judicial proceedings used in England. “No acts were to be in force till confirmed by the general court in England: on the other hand, no order of the general court was to bind the colony, till assented to by the assembly.” The company having offered territory to those who should either emigrate themselves, or engage to transport people to the colony, found this policy so successful, that upward of 3500 persons emigrated to Virginia during this and the two preceding years.

[1622.] This year was remarkable for a massacre of the colonists by the Indians, which was executed with the utmost subtilty, and without any regard to age, sex, or dignity. A well concerted attack on all the settlements, destroyed, in one hour, and almost at the same instant, 347 persons, who were defenceless and incapable of making resistance. The emigrants, notwithstanding the orders they had received, had never been solicitous to cultivate the good-will of the natives, and had neither asked permission when they occupied their country, nor given a price for their valuable property, which was violently taken away. The miseries of famine were soon superadded to the horrors of massacre. Of eighty plantations, which were filling apace, XLVIonly eight remained; and of the numbers which had been transported thither, no more than about 1800 survived those manifold disasters.

Frequent complaints having been made to king James of the oppressions of the treasurer and company, and the before-mentioned calamities being attributed to their misconduct or neglect, it was determined that a commission should issue to enquire into the affairs of Virginia and the Somer-isles, from the earliest settlement of each. Upon the report of the commissioners, the king concluded on giving a new charter, and required of the company the surrender of former grants, which being refused, a writ of quo warranto issued in November, 1623, against the patents of the corporation; and judgment was given by the court of king’s-bench against the treasurer and company, in Trinity-term, 1624. These proceedings “were so conformable to the general strain of the arbitrary administration of that reign, that they made little impression at the time, though the Virginia company was composed of persons of the first quality, wealth, and consequence in the nation.” The company probably would not have exercised so tame and submissive a spirit, had they not been wholly disappointed in their visionary prospects, and met with considerable losses, instead of acquiring enormous profits. They had obtained from individuals, who sported in their lotteries from the hope of sudden riches, £. 29,000. but the transportation of more than 9000 English subjects, had cost them £.150,000. They did not, however, abandon the colony in its distress, while they continued a corporation. Timely supplies were sent from England to the Virginia settlers, which so animated them, that they carried on an offensive war against the Indians, pursued them into their fastnesses, and drove them from the neighbourhood of those rivers where they had fixed their own plantations.

As to king James, he “assuredly considered the colonies as acquired by conquest; and that they ought to be holden of his person, independent of his crown or political capacity; and might be ruled according to his good will, by prerogative; and he endeavored, agreeable to the strange œconomy of his reign, to convert them into a mere private estate, descendable to his personal heirs.”^[36]

The Virginia company being dissolved, James took the colony under his immediate dependence, which occasioned much confusion. Upon his death, king Charles [1625.] being of the XLVIIsame judgment with his father as to the government of Virginia, determined to tread in the same steps. In May he named a new governor and council for Virginia, and invested them with an authority fully legislative and arbitrary. They were empowered to make and execute laws, to impose taxes, and enforce payment. Neither the commission nor instructions mentioned expressly, or even alluded to an assembly, to the laws of England, or to the acts of the provincial legislature, as a rule of government. They were required to transport colonists into England, to be punished there for crimes committed in Virginia. This system increased the colonial dissatisfaction, which continued for years, till the Virginians received a letter containing the royal assurance, that “all their estates, trade, freedom, and privileges, should be enjoyed by them in as extensive a manner as they enjoyed them before the recalling of the company’s patent.” On this they were reconciled, and began again to exert themselves in making improvements.^[37]

Being left for some years in a manner to themselves, they increased beyond expectation. They remained under the administration of their governors and other officers, who respected their privileges because they loved the colony. The governor whom Charles had been anxious to appoint, had no opportunity of exercising those illegal and extraordinary powers with which he had been invested. His death in 1627, put an end to his authority, and prevented the colony’s feeling its full extent. His successor, John Harvey, esq. was nominated in March 1629; and his commission and instructions were precisely the same with those of the former. He departed soon after for Virginia. The spirit of his administration was an exact counterpart of what had too long prevailed in England. He was severe in his extortions, proud in his councils, unjust and arbitrary in every department of his government. The Virginians, roused almost to madness by oppression, seized and sent him prisoner to England, accompanied with two deputies, to represent their grievances and his misconduct. His behaviour was so thought of, that he was honored with a new commission which confirmed former powers, and he was sent back to Virginia in April, 1637. After that, his government was so excessively oppressive and cruel, that the complaints of the colonists became at length too loud to be longer neglected, and his commission was revoked in January, 16389—. During his ten years administration, the Virginians were ruled rather as the vassels of an eastern despot, than as subjects entitled to English liberties; but it is to their credit, that, having tasted the sweets of a simple government, they opposed with a firm spirit, XLVIIIduring the reign of Charles, the attempts of those who endeavoured to revive the patents, and to restore the corporation.