The Loyalists of America and Their Times Volume I Part 21
At the close of the war between England and France by the peace and treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, 1749, Mr. Hutchinson thus describes the state of Ma.s.sachusetts:
"The people of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay were never in a more easy and happy situation than at the conclusion of the war with France (1749). By the generous reimburs.e.m.e.nt of the whole charge (183,000) incurred by the expedition against Cape Breton, the province was set free from a heavy debt in which it must otherwise have remained involved, and was enabled to exchange a depreciating paper medium, which had long been the sole instrument of trade, for a stable medium of silver and gold; the advantages whereof to all branches of their commerce was evident, and excited the envy of other colonies; in each of which paper was the princ.i.p.al currency."[222]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 203: Palfrey's History of New England, Vol. III., B. iii., Chap. ix, pp. 396-398.]
[Footnote 204: The Plymouth Colony tolerating the proscribed Baptists of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay, the Court of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay admonished them in a letter, in 1649, saying "that it had come to its knowledge that divers Anabaptists had been connived at within the Plymouth jurisdiction, and it appeared that the 'patient bearing' of the Plymouth authorities had 'encreased' the same errors; that thirteen or fourteen persons (it was reported) had been re-baptized at Sea Cunke, under which circ.u.mstances 'effectual restriction' was desired, 'the more as the interests of Ma.s.sachusetts were concerned therein.' The infection of such diseases being so near us, are likely to spread into our jurisdiction, and G.o.d equally requires the suppression of error as the maintenance of truth at the hands of Christian magistrates."--_British_ (Congregational) _Quarterly Review_ for January, 1876, pp. 150, 151.
"The Ma.s.sachusetts did maintain Punham (a petty Sachem in this province of Rhode Island) twenty years against this colony, and his chief Sachem, and did by armed soldiers besiege and take prisoners Gorton, Hamden, Weeks, Green, and others in this province, and carried them away to Boston, put them in irons, and took eighty head of cattle from them, for all of which they could never obtain any satisfaction. This colony (of Rhode Island) could never be acknowledged (by Ma.s.sachusetts) for a colony till his Majesty's Charter was published (in 1663), though in the year 1643 they sent over some in England to procure the King's Charter; but finding that unnatural war begun, and the King gone from London, they took a Charter from the Lords and Commons." (Report of the King's Commissioners, in Hutchinson's Collection of Original Papers relative to the History of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay, pp. 415, 416.)]
[Footnote 205: In an audience of King William, obtained by the Duke of Devonshire, April 28, 1691, Mr. Mather humbly prayed his Majesty's favour to New England in restoring the old Charter privileges; adding at the same time these words: "Sir,--Your subjects there have been willing to venture their lives to enlarge your dominions; the expedition to Canada was a great and n.o.ble undertaking. May it please your Majesty also to consider the circ.u.mstances of that people, as in your wisdom you have considered the circ.u.mstances of England and Scotland. In New England they differ from other Plantations; they are called Congregationalists and Presbyterians[206], so that such a Governor as will not suit with the people of New England, may be very proper for other English Plantations." (Neal's History of New England, Vol. II., Chap. xi., pp. 475, 476.)]
[Footnote 206: This was very ingenious on the part of Dr. Increase Mather to say that the people of New England were called "Presbyterians"
as well as "Congregationalists," as the Church of Holland, of which King William as Prince of Orange was Stadtholder, was "Presbyterian." But Dr.
Mather did not inform the King that the Presbyterian worship was no more tolerated in Ma.s.sachusetts than was the Baptist or Episcopalian worship.]
[Footnote 207: "The Rev. Mr. Increase Mather, Rector of Harvard College, had been at Court in the year 1688, and laid before the King a representation of their grievances, which the King promised in part to redress, but was prevented by the revolution. When the Prince and Princess of Orange were settled on the throne, he, with the rest of the New England agents, addressed their Majesties for the restoring of their Charter, and applied to the Convention Parliament, who received a Bill for this purpose and pa.s.sed it in the Lower House; but that Parliament being soon dissolved, the Bill was lost." (Neal's History of New England, Vol. II., Chap. xi., p. 474.)
Mr. J.G. Barry says: "Anxious for the restoration of the old Charter and its privileges, under which the colony had prospered so well, the agent applied himself diligently to that object, advising with the wisest statesmen for its accomplishment. It was the concurrent judgment of all that the best course would be to obtain a reversion of the judgment against the Charter by Act of Parliament, and then apply to the King for such additional privileges as were necessary. Accordingly in the (Convention) House of Commons, _where the whole subject of seizing Charters in the reign of Charles the Second was up, the Charters of New England were inserted with the rest_, and though enemies opposed the measure, it was voted with the rest as a grievance, and that they should be forthwith restored. Thus the popular branch of the Parliament acted favourably towards the colonies; but as the Bill was yet to be submitted to the House of Lords, great pains were taken to interest that branch of the Parliament in the measure; and at the same time letters having arrived giving an account of the proceedings in Boston, another interview was held with the King, before whom, in 'a most excellent speech,' Mr. Mather 'laid the state of the people,' and his Majesty was pleased to signify his acceptance of what had been done in New England, and his intention to restore the inhabitants to their ancient privileges; but 'behold,' adds the narrative, 'while the Charter Bill was depending, the Convention Parliament was unexpectedly prorogued and afterwards dissolved, and the Sisyphaean labour of the whole year came to nothing.' All that was obtained was an order that the Government of the colony should be continued under the old Charter until a new one was settled; and a letter from the King was forwarded to that effect, signed by the Earl of Nottingham, for the delivery of Sir Edmund Andros and the others detained with him, who were to be sent to England for trial."
(Barry's History of Ma.s.sachusetts, First Period, Chap. xviii., pp.
508-510.)]
[Footnote 208: Hutchinson's History of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp.
388, 389. But, in addition, Mr. Mather had the countenance of Archbishop Tillotson and Bishop Burnet, who had not only received him kindly, but recommended his applications to the favourable consideration of the King.]
[Footnote 209: The King, on starting for Holland, "left orders with his Attorney-General to draw up a draft of Charter, according as his Majesty expressed in Council, to be ready for him to sign at his return. The Attorney-General presented his draft to the Council Board, June the 8th (1691), which was rejected, and a new one ordered to be drawn up, which deprived the people of New England of several essential privileges contained in their former Charter. Mr. Mather in his great zeal protested against it; but was told that the agents of New England were not plenipotentiaries from a foreign State, and therefore must submit to the King's pleasure. The agents, having obtained a copy of this Charter, sent over their objections against it to the King, in Flanders, praying that certain clauses which they pointed out to his Majesty in their pet.i.tion might be altered. And the Queen herself, with her own royal hand, wrote to the King that the Charter of New England might pa.s.s as it was drawn up by the Attorney-General at first, or be deferred till his return. But, after all, it was his Majesty's pleasure that the Charter of New England should run in the main points according to the second draft; and all that the agents could do was to get two or three articles which they apprehended to be for the good of the country added to it.
The expectations of the people (of the Congregationalists) of New England were very much disappointed, and their agents were censured as men not very well skilled in the intrigues of a Court. It was thought that if they had applied themselves to the proper persons, and in a right way, they might have made better terms for their country; but they acted in the uprightness of their hearts, though the success did not answer their expectations. It was debated among them whether they should accept of the new Charter or stand a trial at law for reversing the judgment against the old one; but, upon the advice of some of the best politicians and lawyers, the majority resolved to acquiesce in the King's pleasure and accept what was now offered them." (Neal's History of New England, Vol. II., Chap, xi., pp. 476, 477.)]
[Footnote 210: Neal's History of New England, Vol. II., Chap, xi., p.
476.
Ma.s.sachusetts would doubtless have retained the election of their Governor and their first Charter, as did the colonies of Rhode Island and Connecticut, had her rulers submitted to the conditions on which Charles the Second proposed to continue their Charter. Mr. Hildreth says: "The Charters of Connecticut and Rhode Island never having been formally annulled, and having already been resumed, were p.r.o.nounced by the English lawyers to be in full force.... The English lawyers held that the judgment which Ma.s.sachusetts had persisted in braving was binding and valid in law, until renewed by a writ of error, of which there was little or no hope." (History of the United States, Chap, xviii., pp. 94, 95.)]
[Footnote 211: The platform of Church government which they settled was of the Congregational mode, connecting the several Churches together to a certain degree, and yet exempting each of them from any jurisdiction, by way of censure or any power extensive to their own.... No man could be qualified to elect or be elected to office who was not a Church member, and no Church could be formed but by a license from a magistrate; so that the civil and ecclesiastical powers were intimately combined. The clergy were consulted about the laws, were frequently present at the pa.s.sing of them, and by the necessity of their influence in the origination, demonstrated how much the due execution of them depended on their power.
"But the error of establishing one rule for all men in ecclesiastical policy and discipline (which experience has proved cannot be maintained, even in matters of indifference) could not fail of discovering itself in very serious instances as the Society increased. The great body of the English nation being of a different persuasion in this respect, numbers belonging to their Church, who came into the country, necessarily formed an opposition which, as they had the countenance of the King, could not be crushed like those other sectaries. It became a constant subject of royal attention, to allow freedom and liberty of conscience, especially in the use of the Common Prayer, and the rights of sacrament and baptism as thereby prescribed. The law confining the rights of freemen to Church members was at length repealed (in pretence); and pecuniary qualifications for those who were not Church members, with good morals and the absurd requisite of orthodoxy of opinion, certified by a clergyman, were subst.i.tuted in its place. But the great ascendency which the Congregationalists had gained over every other sect made the chance of promotion to office, and the share of influence in general, very unequal, and was, without doubt, one of the most important causes which conspired to the loss of the Charter." (Minot's Continuation of the History of the Province of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay, etc., Vol. I., Chap. i, pp. 29-31.)]
[Footnote 212: "Mr. Mather was so dissatisfied that he declared that he would sooner part with his life than consent to them. He was told 'the agents of Ma.s.sachusetts were not plenipotentiaries from a sovereign State; if they declared they would not submit to the King's pleasure, his Majesty would settle the country, and they might take what would follow.' Sir Henry Ashurst with Mr. Mather withdrew, notwithstanding, their objections against the minutes of Council. The objections were presented to the Attorney-General (Treby), and laid before the Council, and a copy sent to the King in Flanders; but all had no effect. The King approved of the minutes and disliked the objections to them, and the Charter was drawn up by Mr. Blaithwait according to them." (Hutchinson's History of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 409-411.).]
[Footnote 213: "A people who were of opinion that their Commonwealth was established by free consent (_a_); that the place of their habitation was their own; that no man had a right to enter into their society without their permission; that they had the full and absolute power of governing all the people by men chosen from among themselves, and according to such laws as they should see fit to establish, not repugnant to those of England (a restriction and limitation which they wholly ignored and violated), they paying only the fifth part of the ore of gold and silver that should be there found for all duties, demands, exactions, and services whatsoever; of course, that they held the keys of their territory, and had a right to prescribe the terms of naturalization to all noviciates; such a people, I say, whatever alterations they might make in their polity, from reason and conviction of their own motion, would not be easily led to comply with the same changes, when required by a king to whom they held themselves subject, and upon whose authority they were dependent only according to their Charter; and we shall find that their compliance was accordingly slow and occasional, as necessity compelled them to make it." (Minot's Continuation of the History of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 42, 43.)
(_a_) _Note_ by the Author.--The Colony of Plymouth was established in 1620, by free consent, by the Pilgrim Fathers on board of the _Mayflower_, without a Charter; yet that colony was always tolerant and loyal. But the Colony of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay was established by the Puritan Fathers in 1629, under the authority of a Royal Charter; and it was the pretension to and a.s.sumption of independent power and absolute government, though a chartered colony, that resulted in their disloyalty to England and intolerance towards all cla.s.ses of their fellow-colonists not Congregationalists.]
[Footnote 214: Neal's History of New England, Vol. II., pp. 480, 481.
"Sir William Phips was born, of mean and obscure parents, at a small plantation in the eastern part of New England, on the banks of the River Kennebeck, February 2, 1620; his father was a gunsmith, and left his mother a widow, with a large family of small children. William, being one of the youngest, kept sheep in the wilderness until he was eighteen years of age, and was then bound apprentice to a ship carpenter. When he was out of his time he took to the sea, and after several adventures, at last made his fortune by finding a Spanish wreck near Port de la Plata, which got him a great deal of reputation at the English Court, and introduced him into the acquaintance of the greatest men of the nation.
Though King James II. gave him the honour of knighthood, yet he always opposed his arbitrary measures, as appears by his refusing the Government of New England when offered to him by a messenger of the abdicated King. Sir William joined heartily in the Revolution, and used his interest at the Court of King William and Queen Mary for obtaining a Charter for his country, in conjunction with the rest of the agents, for which, and his other great services, they nominated him to the King as the most acceptable and deserving person they could think of for Governor."--_Ib._, pp. 544, 545.]
[Footnote 215: Modern historians of New England generally speak of the Ma.s.sachusetts Colony as having been unjustly deprived of its first Charter, after having faithfully observed it for more than half a century, and of having been treated harshly in not having the Charter restored. While Dr. Mather was earnestly seeking the restoration of the Charter at the hands of King William, Mr. Hampden (grandson of the famous John Hampden) consulted Mr. Hooke, a counsellor of note of the Puritan party, and friend of New England. Mr. Hooke stated that "a bare restoration of the Charter of Ma.s.sachusetts would be of no service at all," as appears both from the Charter itself and the practice of that colony, who have hardly pursued the terms thereof in any one instance, which has given colour to evil-minded men to give them disturbance.
"I. As to the Charter itself, that colony, should they have their Charter, would want--
"1. Power to call a Parliament, or select a.s.sembly; for their many thousand freemen have, thereby, an equal right to sit in their General a.s.sembly.
"2. Power to levy taxes and raise money, especially on inhabitants not being of the company, and strangers coming to or trading thither.
"3. They have not any Admiralty.
"4. Nor have they power to keep a Prerogative Court, prove wills, etc.
"5. Nor to erect Courts of Judicature, especially Chancery Courts.
"II. The deficiency of their Charter appears from their practice, wherein they have not had respect thereto; but having used the aforesaid powers without any grant, they have exercised their Charter powers, also, otherwise than the Charter directed:
"1. They have made laws contrary to the laws of England.
"2. Their laws have not been under their seal.
"3. They have not used their name of corporation.
"4. They have not used their seal in their grants.
"5. They have not kept their General Courts, nor
"6. Have they observed the number of a.s.sistants appointed by the Charter." (Hutchinson's History of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 410, 411, in a note.)
It is clear from the legal opinion, as has been shown in the foregoing pages, that the first Puritans of Ma.s.sachusetts, though only a chartered company, set up an independent government, paid no attention whatever to the provisions of the Charter under which they held their land and had settled the colony, but acted in entire disregard and defiance of the authority, which had granted their Charter. Mr. Neal very candidly says: "The old Charter was, in the opinion of persons learned in the law, defective as to several powers which are absolutely necessary to the subsistence of the Plantation: for example, it gave the Government no more power than every corporation in England has; power in capital cases was not expressed in it; it mentioned no House of Deputies, or a.s.sembly of Representatives; the Government had thereby no legal power to impose taxes on the inhabitants that were not freemen (that is, on _four-fifths_ of the male population), nor to erect Courts of Admiralty, so that if the judgment against this Charter should be reversed, yet if the Government of New England should exercise the same powers as they had done before the _quo warranto_, a new writ of _scire facias_ might undoubtedly be issued out against them. Besides, if the old Charter should have been restored without a grant of some other advantages, the country would have been very much incommoded, because the provinces of _Maine_ and _New Hampshire_ would have been taken from Ma.s.sachusetts, and _Plymouth_ would have been annexed to New York, whereby the Ma.s.sachusetts Colony would have been very much straitened and have made a mean figure both as to its trade and influence.
"The new Charter grants a great many privileges to New England which it had not before. The colony is now made a province, and the General Court has, with the King's approbation, as much power in New England as the King and Parliament have in England. They have all English liberties, and can be touched by no law, by no tax, but of their own making. All the liberties of their religion are for ever secured, and their t.i.tles to their lands, once, for want of some form of conveyance, contested, are now confirmed for ever." (History of New England, Vol. II., pp. 478, 479.)]
[Footnote 216: Although a party was formed which opposed submission to the Charter, yet the majority of the Court wisely and thankfully accepted it, and appointed a day of solemn thanksgiving to Almighty G.o.d for "granting a safe arrival to His Excellency the Governor and the Rev.
Mr. Increase Mather, who have industriously endeavoured the service of the people, and have brought over with them 'a settlement of government, in which their Majesties have graciously given us distinguishing marks of their Royal favour and goodness.'" (Hutchinson's History of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 416.)
Judge Story remarks: "With a view to advance the growth of the province by encouraging new settlements, it was expressly provided 'that there should be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of G.o.d to all Christians, except Papists;' and that all subjects inhabiting in the province, and their children born there, or on the seas going and returning, should have all the liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects, as if they were born within the realm of England. And in all cases an appeal was allowed from the judgments of any Courts of the province to the King in the Privy Council in England, where the matter of difference exceeded three hundred pounds sterling. And finally there was a reservation of the whole Admiralty jurisdiction to the Crown, and of the right to all subjects to fish on the coasts.
Considering the spirit of the times, it must be acknowledged that, on the whole, the Charter contains a liberal grant of authority to the province and a reasonable reservation of royal prerogative. It was hailed with sincere satisfaction by the colony after the dangers which had so long a time menaced its liberties and peace." (Story's Commentaries on the Const.i.tution of the United States, Vol. I., Book i., Chap. iv., p. 41.)]
[Footnote 217: _Ib._, Vol. I., Book i., Chap. iv., p. 45.]
[Footnote 218: History of New England, Vol. II., p. 616.]
[Footnote 219: Fellowship of the Churches: Annexed to the Sermon preached on the Ordination of Mr. Prince, p. 76; Boston, 1718; quoted in Neal's History of New England, Vol. II., pp. 610, 611.
But the spirit of the old leaven of bigotry and persecution remained with not a few of the old Congregational clergy, who were jealous for the honour of those days when they ruled both Church and State, silenced and proscribed all dissenters from their own opinions and forms of worship. They could not endure any statements which reflected upon the justice and policy of those palmy days of ecclesiastical oligarchy, and were very much stung by some pa.s.sages in Neal's History of New England.
The celebrated Dr. Isaac Watts seems to have been written to on the subject. His letter, apparently in reply, addressed to the Rev. Dr.
Cotton Mather, dated February 19, 1720, is very suggestive. The sweet poet and learned divine says:
"Another thing I take occasion to mention to you at this time is my good friend Mr. Neal's History of New England. He has been for many years pastor of a Congregational Church in London--a man of valuable talents in the ministry. I could wish indeed that he had communicated his design to you, but I knew nothing of it till it was almost out of the press....