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 34
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 great doctrine, now so universally recognized, that liberty of conscience is the right of the individual, - a concern between every man and his Maker, with which the civil magistrate is not authorized to interfere, - was scarcely, in their day, known, except in private theory and solitary speculation ; as a practical truth, to be acted upon by the civil power, it was absolutely and universally rejected by all men, all parties, and all sects, as totally subversive, not only of the peace of the church, but of the peace of society.1 That great truth, now deemed so simple
1 Hume's History of England, vol. vi. p. 168.
339
CITY GOVERNMENT.
and plain, was so far from being an easy discovery of the human intellect, that it may be doubted whether it would ever have been discovered by human reason at all, had it not been for the miseries in which man was involved in consequence of his igno- rance of it. That truth was not evolved by the cahn exertion of the human faculties, but was stricken out by the collision of the human passions. It was not the result of philosophic re- search, but was a hard lesson, taught under the lash of a severe discipline, provided for the gradual instruction of a being like man, not easily brought into subjection to virtue, and with natural propensities to pride, ambition, avarice, and selfishness. Previously to that time, in all modifications of society, ancient or modern, religion had been seen only in close connection with the state. It was the universal instrument by which worldly ambition shaped and moulded the multitude to its ends. To have attempted the establishment of a state on the basis of a perfect freedom of religious opinion, and the perfect right of every man to express his opinion, would then have been consi- dered as much a solecisin, and an experiment quite as wild and visionary, as it would be, at this day, to attempt the establish- ment of a state on the principle of a perfect liberty of individual action, and the perfect right of every man to conduct himself according to his private will. Had our carly ancestors adopted the course we, at this day, are apt to deem so easy and obvious, and placed their government on the basis of liberty for all sorts of consciences, it would have been, in that age, a certain intro- duction of anarchy. It cannot be questioned, that all the fond hopes they had cherished from emigration would have been lost. The agents of Charles and James would have planted here the standard of the transatlantic monarchy and hierarchy. Divided and broken, without practical energy, subject to court influences and court favorites, New England at this day would have been a colony of the parent state,1 her character yet to be formed and her independence yet to be vindicated.
1 Lest the consequences of an opposite poliey, had it been adopted by our ancestors, may seem to be exaggerated, as here represented, it is proper to state, that upon the strength and united spirit of New England mainly depended (under Heaven) the success of our revolutionary struggle. Had New England been divided, or even less unanimous, independence would have scarcely been attempted, or, if attempted, acquired. It will give additional strength to this
340
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
The non-toleration, which characterized our early ancestors, from whatever source it may have originated, had undoubtedly the effect they intended and wished. It excluded from influence in their infant settlement all the friends and adherents of the ancient monarchy and hierarchy; all who, from any motive, ecclesiastical or civil, were disposed to disturb their peace or their churches. They considered it a measure of " self-defence." And it is unquestionable, that it was chiefly instrumental in forming the homogeneous and exclusively republican character for which the people of New England have, in all times, been distinguished ; and, above all, that it fixed irrevocably in the country that noble security for religious liberty, the independent system of church government.
'The principle of the independence of the churches, including the right of every individual to unite with what church he pleases, under whatever sectarian auspices it may have been fostered, has, through the influence of time and experience, lost altogether its exclusive character. It has become the universal guaranty of religious liberty to all sects without discrimination, and is as much the protector of the Roman Catholic, the Epis- copalian, and the Presbyterian, as of the Independent form of worship. The security, which results from this principle, does not depend upon charters and constitutions, but on what is stronger than either, the nature of the principle in connection with the nature of man. So long as this intellectual, moral, and religious being, man, is constituted as he is, the unrestricted liberty of associating for public worship, and the independence of those associations of external control, will necessarily lead to a most happy mumber and variety of them. In the principle of the independence of each, the liberty of individual conscience is safe under the panoply of the common interest of all. No other perfect security for liberty of conscience was ever devised by man, except this independence of the churches. This pos- sessed, liberty of conscience has no danger. This denied, it has
argument to observe, that the number of troops, regular and militia, furnished by all the States during the war of the Revolution, was . . 288,134
Of these, New England furnished more than half, namely, . 147,674
And Massachusetts alone furnished nearly one third, namely, . 83,162
See the Collections of the New Hampshire Historical Society, vol. i. p. 236.
£
341
CITY GOVERNMENT.
no safety. There can be no greater human security than com- mon right, placed under the protection of common interest.
It is the excellence and beauty of this simple principle, that, while it secures all, it restricts none. They, who delight in lofty and splendid monuments of ecclesiastical architecture, may raise the pyramid of church power, with its aspiring steps and grada- tions, until it terminate in the despotism of one, or a few; the humble dwellers at the base of the proud edifice may wonder, and admire the ingenuity of the contrivance and the splendor of its massive dimensions, but it is without envy and without fear. Safe in the principle of independence, they worship, be it in tent, or tabernacle, or in the open air, as securely as though standing on the topmost pinnacle of the loftiest fabric ambition ever devised.
The glory of discovering and putting this principle to the test, on a scale capable of trying its efficacy, belongs to the fathers of Massachusetts,1 who are entitled to a full share of that acknow- ledgment made by Hume, when he asserts, "that for all the liberty of the English constitution that nation is indebted to the Puritans."
The glory of our ancestors radiates from no point more strongly than from their institutions of learning. The people of New England are the first known to history, who provided, in the original constitution of their society, for the education of the whole population out of the general fund. In other conn- tries, provisions have been made of this character in favor of certain particular classes, or for the poor by way of charity. But here first were the children of the whole community invested with the right of being educated at the expense of the whole society ; and not only this, the obligation to take advantage of that right was enforced by severe supervision and penalties. By simple laws they founded their commonwealth on the only basis on which a republic has any hope of happiness or continu- ance, the general information of the people. They denominated it " barbarism" not to be able "perfectly to read the English tongue and to know the general laws."" In soliciting a gene- ral contribution for the support of the neighboring University, they declare that "skill in the tongues and liberal arts, is not
1 Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. i. p. 438 and .490.
2 Old Colony Laws, p. 26.
09 *
3-42
MUNICIPAL HISTORY:
only laudable, but necessary for the well-being of the common- wealth."1 And in requiring every town, having one hundred householders, to set up a grammar school, provided with a master able to fit youth for the University, the object avowed is, " to enable men to obtain a knowledge of the Scriptures, and by acquaintance with the ancient tongues to qualify them to dis- cern the true sense and meaning of the original, however cor- rupted by false glosses." Thus liberal and thus elevated, in respect of learning, were the views of our ancestors."
To the same master-passion, dread of the English hierarchy, and the same main purpose, civil independence, may be attri- buted, in a great degree, the nature of the goverment which the principal civil and spiritual influences of the time established, and, notwithstanding its many objectionable features, the willing submission to it of the people.
It cannot be questioned, that the constitution of the state, as sketched in the first laws of our ancestors, was a skilful combi- nation of both civil and ecclesiastical powers. Church and state were very curiously and efficiently interwoven with each other. It is usual to attribute to religious bigotry the submis- sion of the mass of the people to a system thus stern and exclu- sive. It may, however, with quite as much justice, be resolved into love of independence and political sagacity.
'The great body of the first emigrants doubtless coincided in general religious views with those whose influence predominated in their church and state. 'They had, consequently, no personal objection to the stern discipline their political system established. They had also the sagacity to foresee that a system, which by its rigor should exclude from power all who did not concur with their religious views, would have a direct tendency to deter those in other countries from emigrating to their settlement, who did not agree with the general plan of policy they had adopted, and of consequence to increase the probability of their escape from the interference of their ancient oppressors, and the chance of success in laying the foundation of the free common- wealth they contemplated. They also doubtless perceived, that, with the unqualified possession of the elective franchise, they had little reason to apprehend that they could not easily control
1 Records of the Colony, p. 117 ; 19th Oct. 1652.
343
CITY GOVERNMENT.
or annihilate any ill effect upon their political system, arising from the union of church and state, should it become insup- portable.
There is abundant evidence, that the submission of the people to this new form of church and state combination was not owing to ignorance, or to indifference to the true principles of civil and religious liberty. Notwithstanding the strong attachment of the early emigrants to their civil, and their almost blind devotion to their ecclesiastical leaders, when, presuming on their influence, either attempted any thing inconsistent with general liberty, a corrective is seen almost immediately applied by the spirit and intelligence of the people.
In this respect, the character of the people of Boston has been at all times distinguished. In every period of our history, they have been second to none in quickness to discern or in readiness to meet every exigency, fearlessly hazarding life and fortune in support of the liberties of the commonwealth. It would be easy to maintain these positions by a recurrence to the annals of each successive age, and particularly to facts connected with our revo- lutionary struggle. A few instances only will be noticed, and those selected from the earliest times.
A natural jealousy soon sprung up in the metropolis as to the intentions of their civil and ecclesiastical leaders.1 In 1631 the people began to fear, lest, by reelecting Winthrop, they " should make way for a Governor for life." They accordingly gave some indications of a design to elect another person. Upon which John Cotton, their great ecclesiastical head, then at the height of his popularity, preached a discourse to the General Court, and delivered this doctrine, -" that a magistrate ought not to be turned out, without just cause, no more than a magis- trate might turn out a private man from his freehold, without trial."2 "To show their dislike of the doctrine by the most prac- tical of evidences, our ancestors gave the political divine and his adherents a succession of lessons, for which they were probably the wiser all the rest of their lives. They turned out Winthrop at the very same election, and put in Dudley. The year after, they turned out Dudley and put in Haynes. The year after, they turned out Haynes, and put in Vane. So much for the
1 Winthrop, vol. i. p. 299. 2 Ibid. vol. i. p. 132.
314
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
first broaching, in Boston, of the doctrine, that public office is of the nature of freehold.
In 1635, an attempt was made by the General Court, to elect a certain number of magistrates as counsellors for life.1 Al- though Cotton was the author also of this project, and notwith- standing his influence, yet such was the spirit displayed by our ancestors on the occasion, that within three years the General Court2 was compelled to pass a vote, denying any such intent, and declaring that the persons so chosen should not be accounted magistrates, or have any authority in consequence of such elec- tion.
In 1636, the great Antinomian controversy divided the country. Boston was for the covenant of grace; the General Court, for the covenant of works. Under pretence of the apprehension of a riot, the General Court adjourned to Newtown, and expelled the Boston deputies for daring to remonstrate. Boston, indig- nant at this infringement of its liberties, was about electing the same deputies a second time. At the carnest solicitation of Cotton, however, they chose others. One of these was also expelled by the Court; and a writ having been issued to the town ordering a new election, they refused making any return to the warrant, -a contempt which the General Court did not think it wise to resent.
In 1639, there being vacancies in the Board of Assistants, the Governor and magistrates met and nominated three persons, " not with intent," as they said, "to lead the people's choice of these, nor to divert them from any other, but only to propound for consideration (which any freeman may do) and so leave the people to use their liberties according to their consciences." The result was, that the people did use their liberties according to their consciences. They chose not a man of them.3 So much for the first legislative caucus in our history. It probably would have been happy for their posterity, if the people had always treated like nominations with as little ceremony.
About this time, also, the General Court took exception at the length of the " lectures," then the great delight of the people, and at the ill effects resulting from their frequency ; whereby poor people were led greatly to neglect their affairs, to the great
1 Ibid. p. 186. 2 Ibid. p. 302. 3 Ibid. vol. ii. p. 343.
315
CITY GOVERNMENT.
hazard also of their health, owing to their long continuance in the night. Boston expressed strong dislike 1 at this interference, " fearing that the precedent might inthral them to the civil power, and, besides, be a blemish upon them with their posterity, as though they needed to be regulated by the civil magistrate, and raise an ill-savor of their coldness, as if it were possible for the people of Boston to complain of too much preaching."
'The magistrates, fearful lest the people should break their bonds, were content to apologize, to abandon the scheme of shortening lectures or diminishing their mumber, and to rest satis- fied with a general understanding, that assemblies should break up in such season, as that people, dwelling a mile or two off, might get home by daylight. Winthrop, on this occasion, passes the following culogium ou the people of Boston, which every period of their history amply confirms : " They were gene- rally of that understanding and moderation, as that they would be easily guided in their way by any rule from Scripture or sound reason."
It is curious and instructive to trace the principles of our con- stitution as they were successively suggested by circumstances, and gradually gained by the intelligence and daring spirit of the people. For the first four years after their emigration, the free- men, like other corporations, met and transacted business in a body. At this time the people attained a representation under the name of deputies, who sat in the same room with the magis- trates, to whose negative all their proceedings were subjected. Next arose the struggle about the negative, which lasted for ten years, and eventuated in the separation of the General Court into two branches, with each a negative on the other.2 'Then came the jealousy of the deputies concerning the magistrates,3 as proceeding too much by their discretion for want of positive laws, and the demand by the deputies, that persons should be appointed to frame a body of fundamental laws in resemblance of the English Magna Charta.
After this occurred the controversy 4 relative to the powers of the magistrates, during the recess of the General Court; con- cerning which, when the deputies found that no compromise could be made, and the magistrates declared that, " if occasion
1 Winthrop, vol. i. p. 325. 3 Ilid. p. 322.
2 Ibid. vol. i. p. 160.
4 lbid. vol. ii. p. 169.
346
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
required, they should act according to the power and trust com- mitted to them," the Speaker of the House in his place replied, - " THEN, GENTLEMEN, YOU WILL NOT BE OBEYED."
In every period of our early history, the friends of the ancient hierarchy and monarchy were assiduous in their endeavors to introduce a form of government on the principle of an efficient colonial relation. Our ancestors were no less vigilant to avail themselves of their local situation and of the difficulties of the parent state to defeat those attempts ; or, in their language, " to avoid and protract." They lived, however, under a perpetual apprehension, that a royal governor would be imposed upon them by the law of force. Their resolution never faltered on the point of resistance to the extent of their power. Notwithstand- ing Boston would have been the scene of the struggle and the first victim to it, yet its inhabitants never shrunk from their duty through fear of danger, and were always among the fore- most to prepare for every exigency. Castle Island was fortified chiefly, and the battery at the north end of the town, and that called the " Sconce," wholly by the voluntary contributions of its inhabitants. After the restoration of Charles II., their instruc- tions to their representatives in the General Court breathe one uniform spirit, -" not to recede from their just rights and privi- leges as secured by the patent." When, in 1662, the King's Commissioners came to Boston, the inhabitants, to show their spirit in support of their own laws, took measures to have them all arrested for a breach of the Saturday evening law, and actu- ally brought them before the magistrate for riotous and abusive carriage. When Randolph, in 1684, came with his quo warranto against their charter, on the question being taken in town meet- ing, " whether the freemen were minded that the General Court should make full submission and entire resignation of their charter, and of the privileges therein granted, to his Majesty's pleasure," Boston resolved in the negative, without a dissentient.
In 1689, the tyranny of Andros, the Governor appointed by James II., having become insupportable to the whole country, Boston rose, like one man; took the battery on Fort Hill by assault in open day ; made prisoners of the King's Governor and the Captain of the King's frigate, then lying in the harbor; and restored, with the concurrence of the country, the authority of the old charter leaders.
347
CITY GOVERNMENT.
By accepting the charter of William and Mary, in 1692, the people of Massachusetts first yielded their claims of independ- ence to the Crown. It is only requisite to read the official account of the agents of the colony, to perceive both the resist- ance they made to that charter, and the necessity which com- pelled their acceptance of it.1 Those agents were told by the King's ministers, that they "must take that or none; " that "their consent to it was not asked ; " that if " they would not submit to the King's pleasure they must take what would fol- low." " The opinion of our lawyers," say the agents, " was, that a passive submission to the new was not a surrender of the old charter ; and that their taking up with this did not make the people of Massachusetts, in law, uncapable of obtaining all their old privileges, whenever a favorable opportunity should present itself?" In the year 1776, nearly a century afterwards, that " favorable opportunity did present itself," and the people of Massachusetts, in conformity with the opinion of their learned counsel and faithful agents, did vindicate and obtain all their "old privileges " of self-government.
Under the new colonial government, thus authoritatively imposed upon them, arose new parties and new struggles, - prerogative men, earnest for a permanent salary for the King's Governor ; patriots resisting such an establishment, and indig- nant at the negative exercised by that officer.
At the end of the first century after the settlement, three gene- rations of men had passed away. For vigor, boldness, enter- prise, and a self-sacrificing spirit, Massachusetts stood unri- valled. She had added wealth and extensive dominion to the English Crown. She had turned a barren wilderness into a cul- tivated field, and instead of barbarous tribes had planted civil- ized communities. She had prevented France from taking pos- session of the whole of North America ; conquered Port Royal and Acadia ; and attempted the conquest of Canada with a fleet of thirty-two sail and two thousand men. At one time, a fifth of her whole effective male population was in arms. When Nevis was plundered by Iberville, she voluntarily transmitted
1 See A Brief Account concerning the Agents of New England and their Negotiation with the Court of England. By Increase Mather. London, 1691. 2 See A Defence of the New England Charters, by Jeremiah Dummer, printed in 1721.
.
348
MUNICIPAL HISTORY.
two thousand pounds sterling for the relief of the inhabitants of that island. By these exertions her resources were exhausted, her treasury was impoverished, and she stood bereft and "alone with her glory."
Boston shared in the embarrassments of the Commonwealth. Her commerce was crippled by severe revenue laws and by a depreciated currency. Her population did not exceed fifteen thousand. In September, 1730, she was prevented from all notice of this anniversary by the desolations of the smallpox.
Notwithstanding the darkness of these clouds which overhung Massachusetts and its metropolis at the close of the first century, in other aspects the dawn of a brighter day may be discerned. The exclusive policy in matters of religion, to which the State had been subjected, began gradually to give place to a more per- fect liberty. Literature was exchanging subtle metaphysics, quaint conceits, and unwieldy lore for inartificial reasoning, sim- ple taste, and natural thought. Dummer defended the colony in language polished in the society of Pope and of Bolingbroke. Coleman, Cooper, Chauncy, Bowdoin, and others of that con- stellation, were on the horizon. By their side shone the star of. Franklin ; its early brightness giving promise of its meridian splendors. Even now began to appear signs of revolution. Voices of complaint and murmur were heard in the air. " Spi- rits finely touched and to fine issues," - willing and fearless, - breathing unutterable things, flashed along the darkness. In the sky were seen streaming lights, indicating the approach of lumi- maries yet below the horizon, - Adams, Hancock, Otis, War- ren, - leaders of a glorious host, precursors of eventful times, " with fear of change perplexing monarchs."
It would be appropriate, did time permit, to speak of these luminaries, in connection with our Revolution ; to trace the prin- ciples, which dictated the first emigration of the founders of this metropolis, through the several stages of their development; and to show that the declaration of independence, in 1776, itself, and all the struggles which preceded it, and all the voluntary sacri- fices, the self-devotion, and the sufferings, to which the people of that day submitted, for the attainment of independence, were, so far as respects Massachusetts, but the natural and inevitable consequences of the tern's of that noble engagement, made by our ancestors, in August, 1629, the year before their emigration;
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.