1

[1660 A.D.] majesty's council was besieged with their complaints. A court was convened (December 19th), and addresses were prepared for the king and the parliament. The style of these addresses has been censured as fulsome. The agency of the clergy in their preparation is apparent; but, with the exception of hyperboles drawn from the Old Testament, and metaphors according with the customary adulation of princes in the East, they are straightforward, consistent, and manly productions. With these addresses, letters were forwarded to several gentlemen of note, and instructions were sent to Mr. Leverett, their agent, a large portion of whose life was spent in the service of the colony, to interest as many as possible to favour the cause of the colonies, and to obtain speedy information of his majesty's sense of their petition.e

The fugitive regicides had already retired to New Haven, thus escaping a royal order for their arrest which arrived at Boston in February, 1661, by the hands of some zealous young royalists, to whom the general court of Massachusetts intrusted its execution. But, with all show of zeal, there was no intention to give them up, if it could be avoided. By great privacy and the aid of faithful friends, they remained undiscovered, and were presently joined by Colonel John Dixwell, another of the late king's judges. In spite of diligent efforts for their arrest, all three finished their days in New England. Dixwell lived openly at New Haven under a feigned name; the other two remained in concealment, sometimes in Connecticut, sometimes in Massachusetts.

Alarmed by repeated rumours from England of changes intended to be made in their government, the general court, at their meeting in June, judged it proper to set forth, with the assistance of the elders, a distinct declaration of what they deemed their rights under the charter. This declaration claimed for the freemen power to choose their own governor, deputy governor, magistrates, and representatives; to prescribe terms for the admission of additional freemen; to set up all sorts of officers, superior and inferior, with such powers and duties as they might appoint; to exercise, by their annually elected magistrates and deputies, all authority, legislative, executive, and judicial; to defend themselves by force of arms against every aggression; and to reject any and every imposition which they might judge prejudicial to the colony. This statement of rights2 might seem to leave hardly any perceptible power either to parliament or the king. It accorded, however, sufficiently well with the practice of the colony ever since its foundation-a practice maintained with equal zeal against both royal and parliamentary interference.

At length, after more than a year's delay, Charles II was formally proclaimed at Boston in August, 1661. But all disorderly demonstrations of joy on the occasion were strictly prohibited. None were to presume to drink the king's health, which, the magistrates did not scruple to add, "he hath in an especial manner forbidden"; meaning, we must suppose, that the king spake in their laws. As if to make up in words what was wanting in substance, a second loyal address, in the extremest style of oriental hyperbole, designated the king as one "of the gods among men."

With the late leaders of the independents it had gone hard in England. Several of them had been already executed for their concern in the late king's death. Sir Henry Vane, formerly governor of Massachusetts, and always

[Ebeling accuses them of "oriental adulation"; he is, says Bancroft,d "rarely so uncharitable."]

[Elson f calls this Declaration of Rights of 1661, "one of the memorable documents of the colonial era. It was aimed, for the most part, at the Navigation Acts. It has the true American ring." Doyle, the British historian of the colonies, says that it seems to take us forward a hundred years, and that "the men of 1776 had nothing to add to or take away from the words of their ancestors."]

[1661-1662 A.D.]

a firm friend of New England, presently suffered a similar fate. Others were concealed or in exile. These changes in the mother country occasioned some emigration to New England, but not to any great extent.

The Massachusetts agents, Bradstreet and Norton, returned in September, 1662, bearers of a royal letter, in which the king recognised the charter, and promised oblivion of all past offences. But he demanded the repeal of all laws inconsistent with his due authority; an oath of allegiance to the royal person, as formerly in use, but dropped since the commencement of the late civil war; the administration of justice in his name; complete toleration for the Church of England; the repeal of the law which restricted the privilege of voting and tenure of office to church members, and the substitution of a property qualification instead; finally, the admission of all persons of honest lives to the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Little favour was shown for the Quakers; indeed, liberty was expressly given to make a "sharp law" against them-a permission eagerly availed of to revive the act by which vagabond Quakers were ordered to be whipped from town to town out of the jurisdiction. The claimants for toleration, formerly suppressed with such prompt severity, were now encouraged, by the king's demands in their favour, again to raise their heads. They advocated, also, the supremacy of the crown, sole means in that day of curbing the theocracy and compelling it to yield its monopoly of power.

The vigour of the theocratic system, by the operation of internal causes, was already somewhat relaxed. A synod met to take this subject into consideration. The majority of the ministers, alarmed at the aspect of things in England, and always better informed and more liberal than the majority of the church members, were willing to enlarge somewhat the basis of their polity. Under the influence of Mitchell-successor of Shepard as minister of Cambridge-the synod came to a result the same with that agreed upon by a select council of Massachusetts ministers five years before, authorising what was called the "half-way covenant"; the admission to baptism, that is, of the children of persons of acceptable character, who approved the confession of faith, and had themselves been baptised in infancy, though not church members in full communion. This result was approved by the Massachusetts general court.

CONNECTICUT AND RHODE ISLAND OBTAIN CHARTERS

Connecticut and Rhode Island, having favours to ask, had been more prompt than Massachusetts to acknowledge the authority of Charles II. Winthrop for Connecticut, of which colony he was governor, and Clarke for Rhode Island presented themselves at Charles' court in quest of charters. The season was propitious. The restoration, at least for the moment, was a sort of era of good feeling. Winthrop might be subject to suspicion as the son-in-law of Hugh Peters; but his talents, his scientific acquirements-he was one of the founders of the Royal Society-and his suavity of address, secured him many friends. He seems to have encountered little difficulty in obtaining the charter which he sought. That instrument, dated April 23rd, 1662, following the terms of the old alleged grant to the earl of Warwick, established for the boundaries of Connecticut the Narragansett river, the south line of Massachusetts, the shore of the Sound, and the Atlantic Ocean. It thus not only embraced a large part of the continental portion of Rhode Island, but the whole of New Haven also an absorption about which the inhabitants of that colony had not been consulted, and with which, at first, they were not very well satisfied. Clarke

[1663 A.D]

was obliged to expend a considerable sum of money, for which he mortgaged his own house in Newport, and which the colony was a long time in paying back. An agreement, presently entered into between Clarke and Winthrop, fixed for the limit between the two colonies the Pawcatuck, declared to be the Narragansett river mentioned in the Connecticut charter; and this agreement was specially set forth (July 8th, 1663) in the charter of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.

The charters thus granted vested in the proprietary freemen of Connecticut and Rhode Island the right of admitting new associates, and of choosing annually from among themselves a governor, magistrates, and representatives, with powers of legislation and judicial authority. No appellate jurisdiction and no negative on the laws were reserved to the crown any more than in the charters of Massachusetts, Maryland, and Carolina.

Historians have expressed surprise that, under the reign of Charles II, charters so democratic should have been granted. But, in a legal point of view, in the grant by the crown of independent jurisdiction, they did not differ from the other charters hitherto granted for plantations in America. The inconveniences of such independent governments had not yet attracted attention. Twenty years after, when Penn obtained the grant of Pennsylvania, intervening experience caused the insertion into his charter of several additional safeguards for metropolitan authority.

The privileges of freemen were restricted in Rhode Island, by act of the colonial assembly, to freeholders and their eldest sons. For the long period that Rhode Island remained chiefly an agricultural community, this limitation was hardly felt as a grievance. Later, amidst a manufacturing population, it excited serious discontents, occasioning almost a civil war, only appeased by the adoption of a more liberal provision. The New Haven people appealed to the commissioners for the United Colonies of New England against the invasion of their independence on the part of Connecticut. But the alarm occasioned, the next year, by the grant of New York, which extended as far east as Connecticut river, and threatened thus to absorb New Haven under a far less congenial jurisdiction; more than all, Winthrop's prudent and conciliatory measures, at length consolidated the new colony in 1664, of which for the next twelve years he was annually chosen governor. The office of deputy governor, at first bestowed on Mason, for several years before deputy governor of Connecticut and acting_governor in Winthrop's absence, was afterwards given, in 1667, to William Leet, of New Haven, one of the original planters of that colony, its last governor, and after Winthrop's death, his successor as governor of the united colony. The peculiar usages of New Haven being abandoned, the laws of Connecticut were extended to the whole province. The theocratic system of New Haven thus lost its legal establishment, but the administration of the entire colony was long greatly influenced by theocratic ideas. The ministers and churches, upheld by taxes levied on the whole population, retained for many years a predominating and almost unlimited authority.

DECLINE OF THE NEW ENGLAND CONFEDERATION (1663 A.D.)

New Haven thus absorbed into Connecticut, the new province sent henceforward but two representatives to the meeting of commissioners for the United Colonies of New England. The political consequence of that board was, however, terminated. The superintendence of the Indian missions, and the disbursement of the funds remitted from England for that purpose, became

[1664 A.D.] henceforth its chief business. The meetings became triennial, and soon entirely ceased.

While Connecticut and Rhode Island were rejoicing in their charters, Massachusetts remained uneasy and suspicious. An evasive answer had been returned to the royal letter. The only concession actually made was the administration of justice in the king's name. Meanwhile, complaints against the colony were multiplying. Gorges and Mason, grandsons of the grantees of Maine and New Hampshire, alleged that Massachusetts had occupied their provinces. Wrongs and encroachments were also alleged by the chiefs of the Narragansetts, who prayed the king's interference and protection. Controversies had arisen as to the boundaries of Connecticut and Rhode Island on the one side, and of Rhode Island and Plymouth colony on the other, and as to the title to lands in that vicinity under purchases from the Indians. The king presently signified his intention to send out commissioners for hearing and determining all these matters-a piece of information which occasioned no little alarm in Massachusetts, aggravated by the appearance of a large comet. A fast was proclaimed. The charter was intrusted to a select committee of the general court for safe-keeping.

The commissioners selected by the king were sent with a small armament to take possession of New Netherlands. On the arrival of the commissioners at Boston, in August, 1664, and their first intercourse with the magistrates, the magistrates declared themselves unauthorised to raise troops for the expedition thither without the consent of the general court. The commissioners declined to await the meeting of that body, and departed, advising the magistrates against their return to take the king's letter into serious consideration. The court, which presently met, voted two hundred soldiers; but they were not needed, New Netherlands having already submitted.

The people of Connecticut, well satisfied at the subjection of the Dutch, with whom they had been in such constant collision, and having boundary questions to settle both on the east and west, received the king's commissioners with all respect. Governor Winthrop, as we have seen in a former chapter, accompanied them to the conquest of New Netherlands. After settling the boundaries of Connecticut and New York, and leaving Nichols at New York as governor, Carr and Cartwright proceeded to Massachusetts to meet Maverick. The hopes of the sectaries in that colony had been so far raised that Thomas Gould, with eight others, after meeting for some time in secret, had formally organised a Baptist church in Boston (May 28th, 1664). Prosecutions were commenced against its prominent members, who were first admonished, then fined for absence from public worship, then disfranchised, imprisoned, and presently banished. But still the organisation contrived to survive, the first Baptist church of Massachusetts. Still another inroad, not less alarming, was now made upon ecclesiastical uniformity. The commissioners, on their arrival, caused the English church service to be celebrated at Boston-the first performance of that hated ceremonial in that Puritan town. Out of respect to the inveterate prejudices of the people, the surplice was not used. But the liturgy alone was sufficiently distasteful.

MASSACHUSETTS IN CONFLICT WITH THE KING'S COMMISSIONERS

The remonstrances of Massachusetts against the powers and appointment of the commissioners were esteemed in England unreasonable and groundless. The magistrates were sturdy and unbending; the commissioners were haughty,

[1665-1666 A.D.]

overbearing, and consequential. Both parties disliked and suspected each other, and the correspondence between them soon degenerated into a bitter altercation.

The commissioners proposed, at length, to sit in form, for the purpose of hearing complaints against the colony, of which no less than thirty had been exhibited. The general court, by public proclamation (May 24th, 1665), at the sound of the trumpet, prohibited any such procedure, as contrary to their charter, and invasive of their exclusive jurisdiction within the limits of Massachusetts. Thus met, and without a military force, or any means to support their authority, the commissioners were obliged to forego their intentions. They presently left Boston, and proceeded to New Hampshire and Maine, where they decided in favour of the claims of Mason and Gorges. But the New Hampshire towns, satisfied with the rule of Massachusetts, and afraid of Mason's pretensions to quit-rents, did not favour the plans of the commissioners. More successful in Maine, where they were supported by the old Episcopal party, they issued commissions for a new government, which was accordingly organised in June. On their return to Boston, the magistrates complained that they had disturbed the peace of Maine, and requested an interview. The commissioners refused with much asperity, accusing the magistrates of treason, and threatening them with the king's vengeance.

The commissioners were accustomed to hold of Saturday nights a social party at a tavern in Ann street kept by one Robert Vyal, vintner. This was contrary to the law, which required the strict observance of Saturday night as a part of the Lord's Day. A constable went to break them up (January 18th, 1666), but was beaten and driven off by Sir Robert Carr and his servant. Mason, another constable, bolder and more zealous, immediately proceeded to Vyal's tavern; but, meanwhile, the party had adjourned to the house of a merchant over the way. Mason went in, staff in hand, and reproached them, king's officers as they were, who ought to set a better example, for being so uncivil as to beat a constable; telling them it was well they had changed their quarters, as otherwise he should have arrested them all. "What," said Carr, "arrest the king's commissioners!" "Yes," answered Mason, "the king himself, had he been there." "Treason! treason!" shouted Maverick; "knave, thou shalt presently hang for this!" And he called on the company to take notice of the words. The matter finally came before the general court, where Mason was acquitted of the more serious charge, but was fined for insolence and indiscretion, principally, no doubt, through apprehension lest some handle might be made of the matter by the commissioners.

Having transmitted to England the results of their labours, the commissioners presently received letters of recall, approving their conduct, and that of all the colonies except Massachusetts. That province was ordered by the king to appoint "five able and meet persons to make answer for refusing the jurisdiction of his commissioners." This demand, transmitted through Maverick, who sent a copy of the royal letter to the magistrates, occasioned no little alarm. The general court was called together in special session in September. From sending over agents, as that paper required, they excused themselves on the ground that no agents they could send could make their case any plainer. Prostrate before his majesty," they beseech him "to be graciously pleased to rest assured of their loyalty according to their former professions." At the same time they sent a present of masts for the royal navy, and a contribution of provisions for the English fleet in the West Indies -seasonable supplies, which were graciously acknowledged. This bold step