USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston > Municipal history of the town and city of Boston during two centuries : from September 17, 1630, to September 17, 1830 > Part 33
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45
" 'The address of Massachusetts above-mentioned, it should seem, gave perfect satisfaction to Cromwell. Its winning courtship seems to have captivated his rugged heart, and, notwithstanding a variety of complaints were made to him against that Colony, so strong were his attachments, that all attempts, either to obtain redress, or to prejudice it in his esteem, were to no purpose. Thus did Massachusetts, by the prudence or vigor of its councils, triumph over its oppo- ments abroad." Book I. e. viii. p. 188.
"After the death of Cromwell, Massachusetts acted with a cautions neutrality, She refused to acknowledge the authority of Richard any more than that of the Par- liament or Protector, BECAUSE ALL SUBMISSION WOULD HAVE BEEN INCON- SISTENT WITH HER INDEPENDENCE."
" She heard the tidings of the restoration with that serupulous incredulity, with which men listen to news which they wish not to be true." Book I. e. x. p. 249.
" Prince Charles II. had received so many proofs of the attachment of the Colonies, during the season of trial, New England only excepted, that he judged rightly, when he presumed they would listen to the news of his restoration with pleasure, and submit to his just authority with alacrity. Nor was he in the least deceived. They proclaimed his accession with a joy in proportion to their recol- lection of their late sufferings, and to their hope of future blessings. Of the recent condnet of Massachusetts, he was well instructed ; he foresaw what really happened, that it would receive the tidings of his good fortune with extreme coldness; he was informed of the proceedings of a society which assembled at Cooper's Hall in order to promote its interests, and with them, the good old cause of enmity to regal power. "And in May, 1661, he appointed the great officers of state a committee, 'touching the affairs of New England.' That Prince and Colony mutually hated and contemned and feared each other, during his reign, because the one suspected its principles of attachment, and the other dreaded an invasion of its privileges." Book I. p. 243.
"The same vessel which brought King Charles's proclamation to Boston, in 1660, brought also Whalley and Goffe, two of the regicides. Far from conceal- ing themselves, they were received very courteously by Governor Endicott, and with universal regard by the people of New England. Of this conduct, Charles II. was perfectly informed, and with it he afterwards reproached Massa- chusetts." Book I. c. x. pp. 219, 250.
" The General Court soon turned its attention to a subject of higher concern- ment, - the present condition of affairs. In order rightly to understand that duty which the people owed to themselves, and that obedience which was due to the authority of England, a committee at length reported a declaration of rights and duties, which at once shows the extent of their clains, and their dex- terity at involving what they wished to conceal. The General Court resolved, ' That the patent (under God) was the first and main foundation of the civil polity of that Colony ; that the Governor and Company are, by the patent, a
9
332
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
oppressor, they devised a plan, which, as they thought, would enable them to establish, under a nominal subjection, an actual independence. The bold and original conception which they had the spirit to form and successfully to execute, was the attainment and perpetuation of religious liberty, under the auspices of a free commonwealth.1 This is the master key to all their policy ; this the glorious spirit which breathes in all their institutions. Whatever in them is stern, exclusive, or at this day seems questionable, may be accounted for, if not justi- fied, by its connection with this great purpose.
body politic, which is vested with power to make freemen; that they have authority to choose a governor, deputy-governor, assistants, and select represent- atives ; that this government hath ability to set up all kinds of offices; that the governor, deputy-governor, assistants, and select deputies, have full juris- diction, both legislative and executive, for the government of the people here, without appeals, 'excepting law or laws repugnant to the laws of Eng- land ;' that this Company is privileged to defend itself against all who shall attempt its annoyance ; that any imposition, prejudicial to the country, contrary to any of its just ordinances (not repugnant to the laws of England) is an infringement of its rights.' Having thus, with a genuine air of sovereignty, by its own act, established its own privileges, it decided ' concerning its duties and allegiance ;' and these were declared to consist in npholding that Colony as of right belonging to his Majesty, and not subject to any foreign potentate ; in pre- serving his person and dominions; in settling the peace and prosperity of the king and nation, by punishing crimes and by propagating the gospel. It was at the same time determined, that the royal warrant for apprehending Whalley and Goffe ought to be faithfully executed ; that if any legally obnoxious, and fleeing from the civil justice of the state of England, shall come over to these parts, they may not expect shelter.' What a picture do these resolutions display of the embarrassments of the General Court, between its principles of independence on the one hand, and its apprehension of giving offence to the state of England on the other." Book I. p. 252.
" During the whole reign of Charles H. Massachusetts continued to act as she always had done, as an independent state.
" Disregarding equally her charter and the laws of England, Massachusetts established for herself an independent government, similar to those of the Grecian republics." Book I. c. xvi. p. 400 ; also e. xii. p. 682.
It is not easy to perceive on what ground Chalmers supports the charge against our ancestors of " concealment " of their real intentions by the General Court, in their declaration of rights above quoted, from page 252 of his Annals. On the contrary, it seems to have been conceived in a spirit of boldness, which, considering the weakness of the Colony, might be much better denominated imprudently explicit than evasive. It is difficult to conceive what the General Court could have added to that declaration of their right to independent self- government, unless they had been prepared to draw the sword against the King, and throw away the scabbard.
1 This is apparent from the fact, that they did form and maintain such a com- monwealth, and from the further fact, that in no other way could they, in that age, have had any hope successfully to maintain and transmit to their posterity religious liberty, according to their conception of that blessing. Those who rea- son practically concerning the motives of mankind, must take their data from their master-passions and the necessities of their situation. Acts best develop
333
CITY GOVERNMENT.
The question has often been raised, when and by whom the idea of independence of the parent state was first conceived, and by whose act a settled purpose to effect it was first indicated. History does not permit the people of Massachusetts to make a question of this kind. The honor of that thought, and of as efficient a declaration of it as in their circumstances was pos- sible, belongs to Winthrop, and Dudley, and Saltonstall, and their associates, and was included in the declaration, that " the only condition on which they with their families would remove to this country, was, that the patent and charter should remove with them." 1
intentions. Official language takes its modification from circumstances, and is often necessarily a very equivocal indication of motives.
To escape from the dominion of the English hierarchy, was our ancestors lead- ing design and firm purpose. They took refuge in the forms and principles of a common wealth ; trusting to their own intellectual skill and physical power for its support. They were well apprised of the fixed determination of the English hierarchy, from the earliest times of their emigration, to subject them to its supremacy, if possible ; and this design is distinctly avowed by Chalmers.
" The enjoyment of liberty of conscience, the free worship of the Supreme Being in the manner most agreeable to themselves, were the great objects of the colonists, which they often declared was the principal end of their emigration. Nevertheless, though their historians assert the contrary, the charter did not grant spontaneously to them a freedom, which had been denied to the solicitations of the Brownists ; and it is extremely probable that so essential an omission arose, not from accident, but design.
" In conformity to his intentions of establishing the Church of England in the plantations, James had refused to grant to that seet the privilege of exercising its own peculiar modes, though solicited by the powerful interest of the Virginia Company. His successor adopted and pursued the same policy, under the direction of Land, ' who, we are assured, kept a jealous eye over New England? And this reasoning is confirmed by the present patent, which required, with peculiar caution, that . THE OATH OF SUPREMACY shall be administered to every one, who shall pass to the Colony and inhabit there?" Book I. e. vi. p. 141.
! The consentaneousness of the views entertained by Chalmers, with those presented in the text, respecting the motives of our ancestors in making the removal of the charter the condition of their emigration, is remarkable.
" Several persons of considerable consequence in the nation, who had adopted the principles of the Puritans, and who wished to enjoy their own mode of wor- ship, formed the resolution of emigrating to Massachusetts. But they felt theni- selves inferior, neither to the governor nor assistants of the company. They saw and dreaded the inconvenience of being governed by lawes made for them without their consent ; and it appeared more rational to them, that the colony should be ruled by those who made it the place of their residence, than by men dwelling at the distance of three thousand miles, over whom they had no control. At the same time, therefore, that they proposed to transport themselves, their families, and their estates, to that country, they insisted that the charter should be trans- mitted with them, and that the corporate powers, which were conferred by it, should be executed, in future, in New England."
" A transaction, similar to this, in all its circumstances, is not to be easily met with in story." -- Book I. c. vi. pp. 150, 151.
It is very plain, from the above extract, that Chalmers understood the transfer
334
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
This simple declaration and resolve included, as they had the sagacity to perceive, all the consequences of an effectual inde- pendence, under a nominal subjection. For protection against foreign powers, a charter from the parent state was necessary. Its transfer to New England vested, effectually, independence. Those wise leaders foresaw,1 that, among the troubles in Europe,
of the charter to this country in the light in which it is represented in the text ; - that the object was self-government ; an intention " not to be governed by laws made for them, without their consent ; "-a determination that those " should rule in New England, who made it the place of their residence;" and " not those who dwelt at the distance of three thousand miles, ocer whom they had no control."
Two causes have concurred to keep the motives of our ancestors in that mea- sure, from the direct development which its nature deserves. The first was, that their motives could not be avowed consistently with that nominal depend- ence, which, in the weakness of the carly emigrants, was unavoidable. The other was, that almost all the impressions left concerning our early history, have been derived through the medium of the clergy, who naturally gave an exclui- sive attention to the predominating motive, which was, unquestionably, religious liberty, and paid less regard to what the colonial statesmen of that day as unquestionably considered to be the essential means to that end. The men who said " they would not go to New England unless the patent went with them," . were not clergymen, but high-minded statesmen; who knew what was included in that transfer. Their conduct and that of their immediate descendants, speak a language of determined civil independence, not, at this day, to be gainsaid.
Winthrop gives, incidentally, a remarkable evidence of his own sensibility, on the subject of the right of self-government, in the very earliest period after their emigration.
" Mr. Winslow, the late Governor of Plymouth," Winthrop relates, " being this year (1635) in England, petitioned the council for a commission to with- stand the intrusions of the Dutch and French. Now this," Winthrop remarks, " was undertaken with ill advice ; for such precedents endanger our liberty, THAT WE SHOULD DO NOTHING HEREAFTER BUT BY COMMISSION OUT OF ENG- LAND." - Winthrop, vol. i. p. 172.
1 That the early emigrants foresaw that the transfer of the charter would effectually vest independence, may be deduced, not only from the whole tenor of their conduct after their emigration, which was an effectnal exercise of inde- pendence, but from the fact of the secrecy, with which this intention to transfer the charter was maintained, until it was actually on this side of the Atlantic.
Our ancestors readily anticipated with what jealousy this transfer would be viewed by the English government ; and were accordingly solicitous to keep it from being known until they and the original charter were beyond their power. The original records of the General Court, in which the topic of this transfer of the charter was first agitated, speak a language on this subject, not to be mistaken.
The terms of this record are as follows : -
" At a General Court hohlen at London, for the Company of the Massa- chusetts Bay in New England, in Mr. Deputy's house, on Tuesday, the 28th of July, 1629. Present, Mr. MATHEW CRADOCK, Governor,
Mr. GOFF, Deputy Governor."
Here follow the names of the "assistants" and "generality," who were present.
" Mr. Governor read certain propositions conceived by himself, namely, that
335
CITY GOVERNMENT.
incident to the age, and then obviously impending over their parent state, their settlement, from its distance and early insig- nificance, would probably escape notice. They trusted to events, and doubtless anticipated, that, with its increasing strength, even nominal subjection would be abrogated. They knew that weakness was the law of nature, in the relation between parent states and their distant and detached colonies. Nothing else can be inferred, not only from their making the transfer of the charter the essential condition of their emigration, thereby sever- ing themselves from all responsibility to persons abroad, but also from their instant and undeviating course of policy after their emigration ; in boldly assuming whatever powers were neces- sary to their condition, or suitable to their ends, whether attri- butes of sovereignty or not, without regard to the nature of the consequences resulting from the exercise of those powers. Nor was this assumption limited to powers which might be deduced from the charter, but was extended to such as no act of incorpo- ration, like that which they possessed, could, by any possibility of legal construction, be deemed to include. By the magic of
for the advancement of the plantation, the induring and encouraging persons of worth and quality to transplant themselves and families thither, and for other weighty reasons therein contained to transfer the government of the plantain to those that should inteubit these, and not to continue the same in subordination to the company here, as now it is. This business occasionol some debate ; but by reason of the nowy great and considerable consequences thereupon depending. it was not now resolved upon, but those present are privately and seriously to con- sider hereof, and to set flown their particular rasmus in writing. pro and entra, aal to priplace the same at the best General Court, where they bring reduce ! to head- ami maturely con-ilered of the company may then proceed to a final resolution therein, airl in the mean tinse THEY ARE DI-IRED TO CARRY THIS BUSINESS EYALETLY, THAT THE SAME BE NOT DIVULGED." - See original Records of Massachusetts. p. 18.
What our ancestors thought they had gained, or what practical consequences they intended to deduce fran this transfer of the patent, au from their posses- sion of it in this country. i: apparent from the reasons, given by Winthrop, for not obeying the court man date. to send the patent to Englan L
Winthrop's account is as follows :-
" The General Court was assembled, [1636.] in which it was agreel. that whereas a very strict order was sent from the Lords Commissioners for Planta- tions, for sending home our patent, upon pretence that judgment hal prassel against it upon a que surranto, a letter should be written in the Governor in the name of the Court, to excuse our not semliny it: for it was resolved to be best. not to send it, because then sach of our friends and others in England would conceive it to be surrenderal, and that there you, we should be trand to receive such a Guverner and suit onder, us dell t want to us, and many best minds. yes, and some real bres dning wrede. WOULD THINK IT LAWFUL, IF KUI NECESSARY, TO ACCEPT A GENERAL GOVERNOS."- Winthrop, vol i p. 209.
336
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
their daring, a private act of incorporation was transmuted into a civil constitution of state; under the authority of which they made peace and declared war; erected judicatures ; coined money ; raised armies; built fleets ; laid taxes and imposts ; inflicted fines, penalties, and death; and, in imitation of the British constitution, by the consent of all its own branches, without asking leave of any other, their legislature modified its own powers and relations, prescribed the qualifications of those who should conduct its authority, and enjoy, or be excluded from its privileges. The administration of the civil affairs of Massa- chusetts, for the sixty years next succeeding the settlement of this metropolis, was a phenomenon in the history of civil govern- ment. Under a theoretic colonial relation, an efficient and independent Commonwealth was erected, claiming and exer- cising attributes of sovereignty, higher and far more extensive than, at the present day, in consequence of its connection with the general government, Massachusetts pretends either to exer- cise or possess. Well might Chalmers assert, as in his Political Annals of the Colonies he does, that " Massachusetts, with a peculiar dexterity, abolished her charter; "1 that she was always " fruitful in projects of independence, the principles of which, at all times, governed her actions."2 In this point of view, it is glory enough for our early ancestors, that, under manifold dis- advantages, in the midst of internal discontent and external violence and intrigue, of wars with the savages and with the neighboring colonies of France, they effected their purpose, and for two generations of men, from 1630 to 1692, enjoyed liberty of conscience, according to their view of that subject, under the auspices of a free commonwealth.
The three objects, which our ancestors proposed to attain and perpetuate by all their institutions, were the noblest within the grasp of the human mind, and those on which, more than on any other, depend human happiness and hope; - religious liberty, -civil liberty,-and, as essential to the attainment and maintenance of both, - intellectual power.
On the subject of religious liberty, their intolerance of other seets has been reprobated as an inconsistency, and as violating the very rights of conscience for which they emigrated. The
1 Vol. i. p. 200. 2 Vol. i. pp. 158, 177.
337
CITY GOVERNMENT.
inconsistency, if it exist, is altogether constructive, and the charge proceeds on a false assumption. The necessity of the policy,1 considered in connection with their great design of independence, is apparent. They had abandoned house and home, had sacrificed the comforts of kindred and cultivated life, had dared the dangers of the sea, and were then braving the still more appalling terrors of the wilderness; for what ?- to acquire liberty for all sorts of consciences? Not so; but to vindicate and maintain the liberty of their own consciences. They did not cross the Atlantic, on a crusade, in behalf of the rights of
1 The object of this policy was perceived by Chalmers. This he reprobates the law, that " none should be admitted to the freedom of the company but such as were church members, and that none but freemen should vote at elections or act as magistrates and jurymen," because it excluded from all participation in the government, those who could not comply with the necessary requisites. He understood well, that it was a means of defence against the English hierarchy, and intended to exclude from influence all who were of the English church; and complains of it as being " made in the true spirit of retaliation," (Book I. p. 153,) and adds, that "this severe law, notwithstanding the vigorous exertions of Charles IL., continued in force till the quo warranto laid in ruins the structure of the goverment that had established it."
To prove the necessity of this exclusive policy of our ancestors, and that it was strictly a measure of " self-defence," it is proper to reinark, that as early as April, 1635, a commission was issued for the government of the Plantations, granting absolute power to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to others, " TO MAKE LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONS, CONCERNING EITHER THEIR STATE PUBLIC OR THE UTILITY OF INDIVIDUALS, AND FOR THE RELIEF OF THE CLERGY TO CONSIGN CONVENIENT MAINTENANCE UNTO THEM BY TITHES AND OBLATIONS AND OTHER PROFITS ACCORDING TO THEIR DISCRETION," AND THEY WERE EM- POWERED TO INFLICT PUNISHMENTS, EITHER BY IMPRISONMENT OR BY LOSS OF LIFE AND MEMBERS.
A broader charter of hierarchical despotisin was never conceived. The only means of' protection against it, to which our ancestors could resort, was that which they adopted. By the principle of making church-membership a qualifi- cation for the enjoyment of the rights of a freeman, they excluded from all poli- tical influence the friends of the hierarchy. To the same motive may be referred that other principle, that " no churches should be gathered but such as were approved by the magistrate." Notwithstanding that the direct tendeney of these principles was to destroy the influence of the crown and the hierarchy in the colony, the obviousness of the motive is munoticed by Chahners, for the sake of repeating the gross charge of bigotry ; and this too at the very time when he is urging their design of independence against our ancestors as their great crime. Our ancestors could not avow their ruling motive ; and they seem at all times to be actuated by the noble principle of being content to submit in their own cha- racters to the obloquy of bigotry, as a less evil than that their children should become subject to the hierarchy of the Stuarts.
It is difficult to perceive how the principles of this commission could have been otherwise resisted by our ancestors, than by putting at once out of influ- ence all those disposed to yield submission to it. Nor was it possible for them to apply their disqualification directly to the adherents of the English hierarchy. They were compelled, if it were adopted at all, to make it general, and to acquiesce in the charge of bigotry in order to give efficacy to their policy.
29
338
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
mankind in general, but in support of their own rights and liber- ties. Tolerate! Tolerate whom ? The legate of the Roman Pontiff, or the emissary of Charles I. and Archbishop Laud ? How consummate would have been their folly and madness, to have fled into the wilderness to escape the horrible persecu- tions of those hierarchies, and at once have admitted into the bosom of their society, men brandishing, and ready to apply, the very flames and fetters from which they had fled! Those who are disposed to condemn them on this account, neither realize the necessities of their condition, nor the prevailing character of the times. Under the stern discipline of Elizabeth and James, the stupid bigotry of the First Charles, and the spiritual pride of Archbishop Laud, the spirit of the English hierarchy was very different from that which it assumed, when, after having been tamed and humanized under the wholesome discipline of Cromwell and his Commonwealth, it yielded itself to the mild influence of the principles of 1688, and to the liberal spirit of Tillotson.
But it is said, if they did not tolerate their ancient persecutors, they might, at least, have tolerated rival sects. That is, they ought to have tolerated sects, imbued with the same principles of intolerance as the transatlantic hierarchies; sects, whose first use of power would have been to endeavor to uproot the liberty of our fathers, and persecute them, according to the known principles of sectarian action, with a virulence in the inverse ratio of their reciprocal likeness and proximity. Those, who this reason and thus condemn, have considered but very super- ficially the nature of the human mind and its actual condition in the time of our ancestors.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.