The Loyalists of America and Their Times Volume I Part 20
[Footnote 201: "As a matter of course, this Church test of citizenship did not work well. The more unscrupulous the conscience, the easier it was to join the Church; and abandoned men who wanted public preferment could join the Church with loud professions and gain their ends, and make Church membership a byeword. Under the Charter by William and Mary, in 1691, the qualification of electors was then fixed at a 'freehold of forty shillings per annum, or other property of the value of 40 sterling.'" (Elliott's New England History, Vol. I., p. 113.)]
[Footnote 202: Palfrey's History of New England, Vol. III., B. iii., Chap. ii., p. 41, in a note.]
CHAPTER VII.
THE SECOND ROYAL CHARTER; HOW OBTAINED--Ma.s.sACHUSETTS NEARLY SIXTY YEARS UNDER THE SECOND CHARTER, FROM 1691 TO 1748; TO THE CLOSE OF THE FIRST WAR BETWEEN ENGLAND AND FRANCE, AND THE PEACE OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE.
I have traced the characteristics of the Government of the Ma.s.sachusetts Bay Colony during fifty-four years under its first Charter, in its relations to the Crown, to the citizens of its own jurisdiction, to the inhabitants of the neighbouring colonies, and to the Indians; its denial of Royal authority; its renunciation of one form of worship and Church polity, and adoption of another; its denial of toleration to any but Congregationalists, and of the elective franchise, to four-fifths of the male population; its taxing without representation; its denial of the right of appeal to the King, or any right on the part of the King or Parliament to receive appeals, or to the exercise of any supervision or means of seeing that "the laws of England were not contravened" by their acts of legislation or government, while they were sheltered by the British navy from the actual and threatened invasion of the Dutch, Spaniards, and French, not to say the Indians, always prompted and backed by the French, thus claiming all the attributes of an independent Government, but resting under the aegis of an Imperial protection to maintain an independence which they a.s.serted, but could not themselves maintain against foreign enemies.
I will now proceed to note the subsequent corresponding facts of their history during seventy years under the second Royal Charter.
They averred, and no doubt brought themselves to believe, that with their first Charter, as interpreted by themselves, was bound up their _political life_, or what they alleged to be dearer to them than life, and that in its loss was involved their _political death_; but they made no martial effort to prolong that life, or to save themselves from that premature death.
Mr. Palfrey a.s.signs various reasons for this non-resistance to the cancelling of their Charter; but he omits or obscurely alludes to the real ones.
Dr. Palfrey says: "The reader asks how it could be that the decree by which Ma.s.sachusetts fell should fail to provoke resistance. He inquires whether nothing was left of the spirit which, when the colony was much poorer, had often defied and baffled the designs of the father of the reigning King. He must remember how times were changed. There was no longer a great patriot party in England, to which the colonists might look for sympathy and help, and which it had even hoped might reinforce them by a new emigration. There was no longer even a Presbyterian party which, little as it had loved them, a sense of common insecurity and common interest might enlist in their behalf.... Relatively to her population and wealth, Ma.s.sachusetts had large capacities for becoming a naval power--capacities which might have been vigorously developed if an alliance with the great naval powers of Continental Europe had been possible. But Holland was now at peace with England; not to say that such an arrangement was out of the question for Ma.s.sachusetts, while _the rest of New England was more or less inclined to the adverse interest_. Unembarra.s.sed by any foreign war, England was armed with that efficient navy which the Duke of York had organized, and which had lately distressed the rich and energetic Netherlanders; and the dwellings of two-thirds of the inhabitants of Ma.s.sachusetts stood where they could be battered from the water. They had a commerce which might be molested in every sea by English cruisers. Neither befriended nor interfered with, they might have been able to defend themselves against the corsairs of Barbary in the resorts of their most gainful trade; but England had given them notice, that if they were stubborn that commerce would be dismissed from her protection, and in the circ.u.mstances such a notice threatened more than a mere abstinence from aid. The Indian war had emptied the colonial exchequer. On the other hand, a generation earlier the colonists might have retreated to the woods, but now they had valuable stationary property to be kept or sacrificed. To say no more, the ancient unanimity was broken in upon. Jealousy had risen and grown.... Nor was even public morality altogether of its pristine tone.
The prospect of material prosperity had introduced a degree of luxury; and luxury had brought ambition and mean longings. Venality had become possible; and clever and venal men had a motive for enlisting the selfish and the stupid, and decrying the generous and wise."[203]
These eloquent words of Dr. Palfrey are very suggestive, and deserve to be carefully pondered by the reader.
I. In the concluding sentences he tacitly admits that the Government of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay had become, at the end of fifty-four years, partially at least, a failure in "public morality" and patriotism; yet during that period the Government had been exclusively, in both its legislation and administration, in the hands of one religious denomination, under the influence of its ministers, who were supported by taxation on the whole population, controlled the elections, and whose counsels ruled in all conflicts with the King and Parliament of England. None but a Congregationalist could be a governor, or a.s.sistant, or deputy, or judge, or magistrate, or juror, or officer of the army, or constable, or elector, or have liberty of worship. The union of Church and State in Ma.s.sachusetts was more intimate and intolerant than it had or ever has been in England; and their contests with England in claiming absolute and irresponsible powers under the Charter were at bottom, and in substance, contests for Congregational supremacy and exclusive and proscriptive rule in Church and State--facts so overlooked and misrepresented by New England historians. Yet under this denominational and virtually hierarchical government, while wealth was largely acc.u.mulated, the "pristine tone of public morality" declined, and patriotism degenerated into "ambition and venality."
II. It is also worthy of remark, that, according to Dr. Palfrey, had not the spirit of the first generation of the rulers of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay departed, the war of the American Revolution would have been antic.i.p.ated by a century, and the sword would have been unsheathed, not to maintain the right of representation co-extensive with subjection to taxation, but to maintain a Government which for half a century had taxed four-fifths of its citizens without allowing them any representation, supported the ministers of one Church by taxes on the whole population, and denied liberty of worship to any but the members of that one denomination.
III. I remark further, that Mr. Palfrey hints at the two real causes why the disloyal party (calling itself the "patriotic party") did not take up arms of rebellion against the mother country. The one was _disunion_ in the colony--"the ancient unanimity was broken in upon." It has been seen that a majority of the "Upper branch" of even this denominational Government, and a large minority of the a.s.sembly of deputies, were in favour of submitting to the conditions which the King had twenty years before prescribed as the terms of continuing the Charter. If the defection from disloyalty was so great within the limits of the denomination, it is natural to infer that it must have been universal among the four-fifths of the male population who were denied the rights and privileges of "freemen," yet subject to all the burdens of the State. Deprived also of all freedom of the press, and punished by fine and imprisonment if, even in pet.i.tions to the local Legislature for redress of grievances, they complained of the acts of local legislation or government, they could only look to the mother country for deliverance from local oppression, for liberty of worship and freedom of citizens. The "ministers" had lost their ascendency even within the enfranchised circle of their own established churches, while the great body of the disfranchised Nonconformists could only regard them as had the Nonconformists in England regarded Bancroft and Laud. They could a.s.sume high prerogatives, arrogate to themselves divine favour and protection, threaten divine judgments on their adversaries, boast of courage and power; but they knew that in a trial of strength on the battlefield their strength would prove weakness, and that they would be swept from power, and perhaps proscribed and oppressed by the very victims of their intolerance. The "breaking in upon ancient unanimity"
was but the declining power of a disloyal Church and State Government of one denomination. A second cause hinted at by Dr. Palfrey why the rulers of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay did not resort to arms at this time was, that "_the rest of New England was more or less inclined to the adverse interest_." They could command no rallying watchword to combine the other New England colonies against the King, such as they were enabled to employ the following century to combine all the American colonies.
"The rest of New England" had found that in the King and Council was their only effectual protection against the aggressions and domination of the rulers of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay, who denied all right of appeal to the Crown, and denied the right of the Crown to receive and decide upon such appeals. These rulers not only encroached upon the lands of neighbouring colonies, but interfered with their exercise of religious toleration.[204] The extinction of the pretensions to supremacy and monopoly of power and trade by the rulers of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay, was the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of the other New England Colonies to protection against aggression, and of four-fifths of the male inhabitants of Ma.s.sachusetts itself to the enjoyment of equal civil and religious liberty.
I think therefore that "ambitions and mean longings," and even "venality," had quite as much to do on the part of those who wished to perpetuate the government of disloyalty, proscription, and persecution as on the part of those who desired to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's," and to place the Government of Ma.s.sachusetts, like that of the other New England Colonies, upon the broad foundation of equal and general franchise and religious liberty.
But to return from this digression. After "the fall of the Charter,"
November, 1684, the Congregationalists of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay continued their government for two years, as if nothing had happened to their Charter; they promptly proclaimed and took the oath of allegiance to James the Second; and two years afterwards sent the celebrated Increase Mather as agent to England, to thank the King for the Proclamation of Indulgence, which trampled on English laws, and cost the King his throne, to pray for the restoration of the Charter, and to accuse and pray for the removal of the King's obnoxious Governor-General of New England, Sir Edmund Andros. The King received him very courteously, and granted him several audiences. It would have been amusing to witness the exchange of compliments between the potent minister of Ma.s.sachusetts Congregationalism and the bigoted Roman Catholic King of England; but though James used flattering words, he bestowed no favours, did not relax the rigour of his policy, and retained his Governor of New England. On the dethronement of James, Dr. Mather paid his homage to the rising sun of the new Sovereign--professed overflowing loyalty to William and Mary,[205] and confirmed his professions by showing that his const.i.tuents, on learning of the revolution in England, seized and sent prisoner to England, Andros, the hated representative of the dethroned King. But King William did not seem to estimate very highly that sort of loyalty, much less to recognize the Ma.s.sachusetts a.s.sumptions under the old Charter, though he was ready to redress every just complaint and secure to them all the privileges of British subjects.[207] Mr.
Hutchinson says: "Soon after the withdrawal of King James, Dr. Mather was introduced to the Prince of Orange by Lord Wharton, and presented the circular before mentioned, for confirming Governors being sent to New England. The 14th of March, Lord Wharton introduced him again to the King, when, after humbly congratulating his Majesty on his accession, Dr. Mather implored his Majesty's favour to New England. The King promised all the favour in his power, but hinted at what had been irregular in their former government; whereupon Dr. Mather undertook that upon the first word they would reform any irregularities they should be advised of, and Lord Wharton offered to be their guarantee.
The King then said that he would give orders that Sir Edmund Andros should be removed and called to an account for his maladministration, and that the King and Queen should be proclaimed (in Ma.s.sachusetts) by the former magistrates. Dr. Mather was a faithful agent, and was unwearied in securing friends for his country. Besides several of the n.o.bility and princ.i.p.al commoners, he had engaged the dissenting ministers, whose weight at that time was far from inconsiderable."[208]
Dr. Mather's earnestness, ability, and appeals made a favourable impression on the mind of the King, supported as they were by liberal Churchmen as well as Nonconformists, and also by the entreaties of the Queen. The King, on the eve of going to Holland, where he was long detained--which delayed the issuing of the Ma.s.sachusetts Charter for twelve months--directed the Chief Justice, Attorney and Solicitor-Generals to prepare the draft of a new Charter for Ma.s.sachusetts. They did so, embodying the provisions of the old Charter, with additional provisions to give powers which had not been given but had been usurped in the administration of the old Charter. The majority of the King's Council disapproved of this draft of Charter, and directed the preparation of a second draft. Both drafts were sent over to Holland to the King, with the reasons for and against each; his Majesty agreed with the majority of his Council in disapproving of the first, and approving of the second draft of Charter.[209]
But even before the King and his Council decided upon the provisions of the new Charter, he determined upon appointing a Governor for Ma.s.sachusetts, while meeting their wishes as far as possible in his selection of the Governor; for, as Mr. Neal says, "Two days after he had heard Dr. Mather against continuing the Governor and officers appointed over Ma.s.sachusetts by King James the Second, but restoring the old officers, the King inquired of the Chief Justice and some other Lords of the Council whether, without the breach of law, he might appoint a Governor over New England? To which they answered that whatever might be the merits of the cause, inasmuch as the Charter of New England stood vacated by a judgment against them, it was in the King's power to put them under that form of government he should think best for them. The King replied, he believed then it would be for the advantage of the people of that colony to be under a Governor appointed by himself; nevertheless, because of what Dr. Mather had spoken to him, he would consent that the agents of New England should nominate such a person as would be agreeable to the inclinations of the people there; but, notwithstanding this, he would have Charter privileges restored and confirmed to them."[210]
It seems to me that King William was not actuated by any theoretical notions of high prerogative, as attributed to him by Messrs. Bancroft and Palfrey, in regard to Ma.s.sachusetts, but was anxious to restore to that colony every just privilege and power desired, with the exception of the power of the Congregationalists of Ma.s.sachusetts to prosecute and persecute their fellow-religionists of other persuasions, and of depriving them and other colonists of the right of appeal to the protection of England.[211] This continued possession of usurped powers by the Congregationalists of Ma.s.sachusetts, of sole legislation and government under the first Charter, and which they so mercilessly and disloyally exercised for more than half a century, was manifestly the real ground of their opposition to a new Charter, and especially to the second and final draft of it. Their agent in England, Dr. Increase Mather, who had inflamed and caused the citizens of Boston, and a majority of the popular a.s.sembly of the Legislature, to reject the conditions insisted upon by Charles the Second, and contest in a Court of law the continuance of the first Charter, with their pretensions under it, said that he would rather die than consent to the provisions of the second draft of Charter,[212] and sent his objections to it to King William, who was in Holland. The King disapproved of Dr. Mather's objections, and approved of the Charter as revised and as was finally issued, and under which Ma.s.sachusetts was governed and prospered for three-fourths of a century, notwithstanding the continued opposition of a set of separationists and smugglers in Boston, who had always been the enemies of loyal and liberal government under the first Charter.[213]
But when the new Charter pa.s.sed the Seals, and the nomination of the first Governor was left to the agent of Ma.s.sachusetts, Dr. Mather changed his language of protest into that of grat.i.tude. He nominated Sir William Phips; and on being introduced to the King, at parting, by the Earl of Nottingham, made the following speech:
"Sir, I do, in behalf of New England, most humbly thank your Majesty, in that you have been pleased by a Charter to restore English liberties unto them, to confirm them in their properties, and to grant them some peculiar privileges. I doubt not but your subjects will demean themselves with that dutiful affection and loyalty to your Majesty, as that you will see cause to enlarge your Royal favour towards them; and I do most humbly thank your Majesty that you have been pleased to leave to those that are concerned for New England to nominate their Governor."
"Sir William Phips has been accordingly nominated by us at the Council Board. He has done good service to the Crown, by enlarging your dominions and reducing Nova Scotia to your obedience; I know that he will faithfully serve your Majesty to the utmost of his capacity; and if your Majesty shall think fit to confirm him in that place, it will be a further obligation to your subjects there."
"Hereupon Sir William Phips was admitted to kiss his Majesty's hand; and was, by commission under the Broad Seal, appointed Captain-General over the Province of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay, in New England."[214]
In the preamble of the Charter, the dates, objects and provisions of previous Charters are recited, and t.i.tles to property, etc., acquired under them confirmed; after which it was provided--
1. That there should be "one Governor, one Lieutenant or Deputy Governor, one Secretary of the Province, twenty-eight councillors or members of a.s.sembly, to be chosen by popular election, and to possess and exercise the general powers of legislation and government."
2. That there should be "liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of G.o.d to all Christians (except Papists) inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within our said province or territory."
3. That "all our subjects should have liberty to appeal to us, our heirs and successors, in case either party shall not rest satisfied with the judgment or sentence of any judicatories or courts within our said province or territory, in any personal action wherein the matter of difference doth exceed the value of three hundred pounds sterling, provided such appeals be made within fourteen days after the sentence or judgment given."
4. That the Governor and General a.s.sembly should have "full power and authority, from time to time, to make, ordain and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable orders, laws, statutes or ordinances, directions, and instructions, either with penalties or without (so as the same be not repugnant or contrary to the laws of this our realm of England), as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of our said province or territory."
5. That in the framing and pa.s.sing of all orders, laws, etc., the Governor should have "a negative voice, subject also to the approbation or disallowance of the King within three years after the pa.s.sing thereof."
6. That "every freeholder or person holding land within the province or territory, to the annual value of forty shillings, or other estate of fifty pounds sterling, should have a vote in the election of members to serve in the General Court or a.s.sembly."
7. That "the King should appoint, from time to time, the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and Secretary of the Province; but that the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Council or a.s.sistants, from time to time should nominate and appoint Judges, Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer, Sheriffs, Provosts, Marshals, Justices of the Peace," etc.
8. The usual oath of allegiance and supremacy was required to be taken by all persons appointed to office, free from the restrictions and neutralising mutilations introduced into the oath of allegiance by the ecclesiastico-political oligarchy of the Ma.s.sachusetts Bay Colony under the first Charter.
9. The new Charter also incorporated "_Plymouth_ and _Maine, and a tract further east_ in the province of Ma.s.sachusetts." The Plymouth Colony of the Pilgrim Fathers had existed from 1620 to 1690 as a separate Colonial Government, first established by common consent, under seven successive Governors. It now ceased to exist as a distinct Government, to the great regret of its inhabitants, after having been administered tolerantly and loyally for a period of seventy years, as has been narrated above, in Chap. II.
Such is an abstract of the provisions of the second Ma.s.sachusetts Charter--provisions similar to those which have been incorporated into the const.i.tution and government of every British North American Province for the last hundred years.[215]
It remains to note how the new Charter was received, and what was the effect of its operation. A faction in Boston opposed its reception, and desired to resume the old contests; but a large majority of the deputies and the great body of the colony cordially and thankfully accepted the new Charter as a great improvement upon the first Charter in terminating their disputes and defining their relations with England, in putting an end to a denominational franchise and tyranny inconsistent with religious or civil liberty, and in placing the elective franchise, eligibility to office, legislation and government upon the broad foundation of public freedom and equal rights to all cla.s.ses of citizens.[216]
The influence of the new Charter upon the social state of Ma.s.sachusetts, as well as upon its legislation and government, was manifestly beneficial. Judge Story observes: "After the grant of the provincial Charter, in 1691, the legislation of the colony took a wider scope, and became more liberal as well as more exact."[217]
The improved spirit of loyalty was not less conspicuous. Mr. Neal, writing more than twenty years (1720) after the granting of the new Charter, says: "The people of New England are a dutiful and loyal people.... King George is not known to have a single enemy to his person, family, or government in New England."[218]
The influence of the new state of things upon the spirit of toleration and of Christian charity among Christians of different denominations, and on society at large, was most remarkable. In a sermon preached on a public Fast Day, March 22, 1716 (and afterwards published), by the Rev.
Mr. Coleman, one of the ministers of Boston, we have the following words:
"If there be any customs in our Churches, derived from our ancestors, wherein those terms of Church communion are imposed which Christ has not imposed in the New Testament, they ought to be laid aside, for they are justly to be condemned by us, because we complain of imposing in other communions, and our fathers fled for the same. If there ever was a custom among us, whereby communion in our Churches was made a test for the enjoyment of civil privileges in the State, we have done well long since to abolish such corrupt and persecuting maxims, which are a mischief to any free people, and a scandal to any communion to retain.
If there were of old among our fathers any laws enacted or judgments given or executions done according to those laws which have carried too much the face of cruelty and persecution, we ought to be humbled greatly for such errors of our fathers, and confess them to have been sinful; and blessed be G.o.d for the more catholic spirit of charity which now distinguishes us. Or if any of our fathers have dealt proudly in censuring and judging others who differed from them in modes of worship, let us their posterity the rather be clothed with humility, meekness, and charity, preserving truth and holiness with the laudable zeal of our predecessors" (pp. 20, 21, 22).
The Rev. Dr. Cotton Mather, the distinguished son of the famous Rev. Dr.
Increase Mather, but more tolerant than his father, has a pa.s.sage equally significant and suggestive with that just quoted from Mr.
Coleman:
"In this capital city of Boston," says Dr. Cotton Mather, "there are ten a.s.semblies of Christians of different persuasions, who live lovingly and peaceably together, doing all the offices of good neighbourhood for one another in such manner as may give a sensible rebuke to all the bigots of uniformity, and show them how consistent a variety of rites in religion may be with the tranquillity of human society, and may demonstrate to the world that such persecution for conscientious dissents in religion is an _abomination of desolation_--a thing whereof all wise and just men will say, _cursed be its anger, for it is fierce, and its wrath, for it is cruel_."[219]
It is not needful that I should trace the legislation and government of the Province of Ma.s.sachusetts under the second Charter with the same minuteness with which I have narrated that of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay under the first Charter. The successive Governors appointed by England over the province were, upon the whole, men of good sense, and were successful in their administration, notwithstanding the active opposition of a Boston disaffected party that prevented any salary being granted to the Judges or Governor for more than one year at a time. Yet, upon the whole, the new system of government in the Province of Ma.s.sachusetts was considered preferable to that of the neighbouring colonies of Rhode Island and Connecticut, which retained their old Charters and elected their Governors. Mr. Hutchinson says:
"Seventy years' practice under a new Charter, in many respects to be preferred to the old, has taken away not only all expectation, but all desire, of ever returning to the old Charter. We do not envy the neighbouring Governments which retained and have ever since practised upon their ancient Charters. Many of the most sensible in those Governments would be glad to be under the same Const.i.tution that the Ma.s.sachusetts Province happily enjoys."[220]
But Ma.s.sachusetts and other New England colonies had incurred considerable debts in their wars with the Indians, prompted and aided by the French, who sought the destruction of the English colonies. But most of these debts were incurred by loans to individual inhabitants and by the issue of paper money, which became greatly depreciated and caused much confusion and embarra.s.sment in the local and Transatlantic trade.[221]