USA > Massachusetts > The history of Massachusetts, the colonial period. 1492-1692 v. I > Part 15
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
1 Hubbard, 114, 122; Chron. Mass., 66-8, 193, 196, 201-04 ; Hazard, 1. 268-71; Mass. Rec's .- Hubbard, 115, defines the duty of Mr. Endicott during this period, which was to " take care of the wel- fare of the company, to order the servants belonging to them, and to improve them in making preparation for the reception of the gentlemen
when they should come. And also some endeavors were used to pro- mote the welfare of the Planta- tion ... by laying some foundation of religion, as well as civil govern- ment."
2 Chron. Mass., 197-200; Hazard, 1. 275-6.
3 Chron. Mass., 133-6, 142, 156-9, 172-6.
167
THE MORAL REGULATION OF THE COLONY.
For the maintenance of religion among the colonists, CHAP. the ministers were to be duly respected, and disputes
1629.
VI. between them and the people were to be carefully sup- pressed ; libertines, masters or servants, were to be admon- ished and punished ; errors were to be "reformed with lenity or mild correction," if possible, but if any proved incorrigible, they were to be shipped back by the Lion's Whelp, rather than left to infect or be an occasion of scandal to others.1 That the Sabbath might be "celebrated in a religious manner," all labor was to surcease every Saturday throughout the year at three o'clock in the after- noon -a custom long observed by our fathers- and the rest of the day was to be spent in catechising, &c., as the ministers should direct. Morning and evening family devo- tion was to be observed; laws for the punishment of pro- fanity were to be passed ; industry was enjoined, and " no idle drone " was to be suffered in the colony. Intoxicating liquors were not to be sold freely to the savages, and drunkenness among the colonists was to be exemplarily punished. And lastly, a house of correction was to be set up for the punishment of offenders.2
With the Seal of the Company 3 and the duplicate of the charter, 4 were sent inventories of goods, cattle and pro- visions ; lists of the several adventurers, with the amount of each one's stock ; the names, and distribution into fami- lies of the servants of the Company ; copies of the agree- ments with different individuals employed, with their names, and particular directions concerning their employ- ment. As Mr. White, Sir Richard Saltonstall, and Isaac Johnson, Esq., were largely interested in the Company, their interests were to be carefully looked after; and as
1 It was upon this ground, proba- bly, that Mr. Endicott justified the expulsion of the Browns.
2 Chron. Mass.,163, 167-8, 176-7, 188-91.
3 See Chron. Mass., 155.
4 Yet preserved in Salem. Chron. Mass., 142; Felt's Salem. 1. 86.
168
OLDHAM AND BRERETON'S CLAIMS.
CHAP. Mr. Cradock, the Governor, had extensively invested in VI. different enterprises, these investments were to be man- 1629. aged as much to his advantage as possible. 1
One other matter is alluded to on the Records of the Company : - the claims of John Oldham, and Sir William Brereton. Oldham, with one John Dorrell, had purchased an interest in the grant to Robert Gorges, of lands between the Charles and Abousett rivers ; and being in England in 1628, frequently, during his stay, his claims were brought to the notice of the Company, which esteemed them " void in law." In their letters, they complain of him as delaying their business with his absurd propositions of extraordinary gain ; and, finding him tenacious of his real or assumed rights, and an " unfit man to deal with," they " left him to his own way ; " and he, with others inimical to the Com- pany, sought to forestall their movements by sending colonists to settle on his claimed lands : - whereupon instructions were sent to Mr. Endicott to forward a party immediately to occupy the ground before his arrival; and an early agreement was recommended to be made with the "old planters," to prevent them from hearkening to his " dangerous though vain propositions."2
The claims of Sir William Brereton, who is mentioned with respect, also originated from the grant to Robert Gorges, who, dying without issue, his lands descended to 1628-9. his brother John; and he granted to Sir William a tract in the vicinity of Nahant, and two islands called Brereton and Susanna. Under this grant, leases were made, and families were sent over; and Sir William was himself preparing to emigrate, but was prevented by the breaking out of the civil war, in which, taking the popular side, he found em-
1 Chron. Mass., 153-90. Antiqua- 2 Chron. Mass., 169-70; Lewis's rians will regret the loss of these Lynn. lists of names, none of which are probably now in existence.
...
----
.
l
u 4
C l
169
EMIGRATION UNDER HIGGINSON.
ployment in the Long Parliament and the army, and was CHAP. at the head of the forces that reduced Chester. As no~ VI. compromise could be made with him by the Company, his claim and its litigation were bequeathed to posterity ; and leaving one son, Sir Thomas, who died without issue, and one daughter, Susanna, who married Edward Len- thall, Esq., of the Inner Temple, the latter, in 1691, claimed the lands in the right of his wife ; but his claim met with no countenance from the Committee of the Coun- cil, and thus the affair ended.1
The vessels which were to transport Mr. Higginson and his company to Naumkeag, expected to sail the last of April, but did not leave the coast until some time in May. May 4. The George sailed May 4, and arrived June 23; and the 1629. May 13. June 23, Talbot and the Lion's Whelp left Land's End May 13, and arrived in the harbor at Salem June 29. We have a sketch June 29. of the voyage of the Talbot from the pen of Mr. Higgin- son ;2 and soon after his arrival he sent home a description of the country, which was printed at London, in 1630, under the title of " New England's Plantation," in a small quarto of twenty-five pages, which passed through three editions in the course of a year.3 To this was appended a letter from Mr. Higginson, to his friends at Leicester ; another from Mr. Graves, the engineer-and letters in those days were regarded as " sacred scripts," and read everywhere in the kingdom4-and a curious "catalogue " of " things needful to Planters."" The "flattering " and " hyperbolical " accounts given in these letters, exerted a
1 Chron. Mass., 51; Hutchinson, 1. 23; Mass. Archives, Lands, Vol. 1. 1; Frothingham's. Chas'n., 15, 16; Lewis's Lynn, 44; Drake's Boston, 77. I find frequent references to Sir William in the papers published dur- ing the civil war, entitled the " Per- fect Occurrences of every day's Jour- nal in Parliament."
2 Chron. Mass., 213-38; Hutch. Coll., 32-47. We take our dates of the commencement and termination of the voyage of the Talbot from this document.
& Chron. Mass., 239-59.
Scottow's Narrative.
Hutch. Coll., 47-50; Chron. Mass., 264-8.
15
.
C N 232-233
170
SETTLEMENT OF CHARLESTOWN.
CHAP. powerful influence upon subsequent emigration, and was one VI. cause, among others, of the setting out of many of Gov- ernor Winthrop's party, in 1630.1
Either previous to, or immediately upon the arrival of this company, three brothers, Ralph, Richard, and Wil- liam Sprague, who came to America at "their own cost, "2 and some three or four others, whose names are not given, by the consent of Mr. Endicott, journeyed to "Mishawum," now Charlestown, where they found one English palisaded house, erected by Thomas Walford, a smith, of the date of whose arrival nothing is certainly known. The site being eligible for a town, the same year Mr. Graves was June 24, sent to attend to its survey ; the town was modelled and 1629. laid out with streets around the hill ; the Spragues and others began to build their "huts;" and the "Great House," used for a short time as a Court House, afterwards as a place of public worship, and still later as a tavern, was erected in the square. Mr. Bright accompanied these settlers, and officiated as their minister ; but remained not over a year, nor was any church formed until some time afterwards. 3
Thus at two prominent places, Salem and Charles- town, were settlements commenced by the Massachusetts Company. Mr. Higginson, on his arrival at Salem, found but " about half a score houses built," and one more stately edifice, occupied by Mr. Endicott, though other build- ings were doubtless erected by fall, and shelters of some kind were provided for all the emigrants.4 At Charles- town were but a few " wigwams," the " palisaded house " of Walford, and the " Great House " built by Mr. Graves.
1 Dudley's Letter, 12, ed. 1696, or the same as in Force, and Chron. Mass.
2 Chas'n. Rec's., in Chron, Mass. ; Frothingham's Chas'n., 13; Everett's Orations, 210-11.
8 Frothingham's Chas'n., 19, 23; Mass. Rec's. 1. 86, 107 ; Buddington, Ilist, First Ch. Chas'n., 11; 2 M. H. Coll., 2. 165.
4 Chron Mass., 258; Hutchinson, 1. 18, and Coll., 46-7.
171
CHURCH ORGANIZED AT SALEM.
The exact number of inhabitants at either place cannot be (HAT. determined. There were, probably, at least one hundred at VI. Charlestown, and nearly four hundred at Salem.1 Already 1629. was the second colony more populous than the first ; and in another year, it was destined as with a giant's stride to outstrip it in the race.
The Pilgrims were a church at the date of their landing, and the compact in the Mayflower gave them a government. The Massachusetts Colonists had a government provided for them by the Company in England, which was now established ;2 but as yet no church had been organized. Before the arrival of the second body of emigrants, wor- ship seems to have been conducted in the Episcopal form.3 Now, however, that ministers had arrived in the colony, the organization of a church was immediately attended to, and a day was set apart for prayer and fasting, and the July 30. trial and choice of a pastor and teacher. Consulting with their "Plymouth brethren"4 concerning their church estate, and requesting their presence on the interesting occasion, a church of thirty members was gathered; elders and Ang .. 6. deacons were chosen and ordained ; a confession and cove- nant were drawn up and subscribed ;5 and Mr. Skelton was ordained pastor, and Mr. Higginson teacher.6 Thus the church at Salem was the second in Massachusetts estab- lished on the basis of Independent Congregationalism."
There were some, however, who were dissatisfied with the covenant of this church, and complained because the
1 Smith, in 3 M. H. Coll., 3; Higginson, in Hutch. Coll., 47. I infer that two hundred planters tarried at Salem, and the body of the one hundred and eighty serv- ants; and one hundred planters went to Charlestown.
2 Higginson, in Hutch. Coll., 47. 8 Hubbard, 116; Felt's Salem, 2. 568, 2d ed.
* Winslow, in Chron. Pil., 386. Comp. Cotton's Way, 16, 17.
5 Given by Mather, Mag., Vol. 1 .; Bentley, in 1 M. H. Coll., 6. 283-5 ; Felt's Salem, &c.
6 Hubbard, 119-20; Morton's Mem., 75-7; Prince, N. E. Chron. 7 Morton's Mem., 75-7, our prin- cipal carly authority. Comp. also Heylin's Cosmog., 1027, ed. 1670.
4
.
172
EPISCOPACY EXPELLED FROM THE COLONY.
CHAP. service of the Episcopal church was omitted. Among VI. these were John and Samuel Browne, the lawyer and the 1629. merchant, both of whom were members of the Colonial Council, and of the Massachusetts Company. Their oppo- sition aroused Mr. Endicott to action ; and himself one who had little sympathy with anything relating to Episco- pacy, he was determined to give no countenance to what he regarded as their " seditious " proceedings ; and, as the ministers favored some departure from the forms of the Established Church, and the Governor and Council, with the generality of the people, approved their views, they, " finding these two brothers to be of high spirits, and their speeches and practices tending to mutiny and faction, the Governor told them that New England was no place for them, and therefore he sent them both back to England, at the return of the ships the same year."
Thus was Episcopacy professed and expelled from the Colony. We are aware that the conduct of Mr. Endicott has been severely censured by many writers,1 and some of the Company in England seem to have trembled for its consequences, and in their letters advised more moderation and prudence.2 If, however, it is admitted that, upon the broad grounds of Christian toleration, the course of the Puritans can hardly be justified, is it not equally true that the same verdict must be passed upon the course of the English Church ? It should be borne in mind, that the Puri- tans only copied the example set them at home; and, as they came here to enjoy their own faith, in their own way, they regarded the intrusion of the Common Prayer worship among them, as in England their presence was regarded by the National Church, and adopted the same course to rid themselves of its encroachments, as had been adopted there
1 As Chalmers, Robertson, Coit, 1 M. H. Coll., 6. 245. But sce Haliburton, &c. Even the prudent Hubbard, p 64. Dr. Bentley joins in these censures. 2 Chron. Mass.
173
REMARKS ON THIS PROCEEDING.
to exclude them from the Episcopal Church. We are not CHAP. now speaking of the propriety of this course on the part VI. of either, nor would it probably be approved by either 1629. if enforced at the present day ; but we speak of things as they were then ; and there was quite as much justice in banishing Episcopacy from New England, as in banishing Puritanism from Old England, or adopting a course which necessitated such banishment. Both parties were doubtless sincere, but both were mistaken. Both have since grown wiser, and for this let us rejoice. We have no wish to justify an exclusive spirit at any time, but we do wish to see as exact justice rendered to Puritans as to Church- men. Each may learn by the errors of the other, and it would harm neither to copy what is good in the other.
15*
CHAPTER VII.
TRANSFER OF THE CHARTER.
CHAP. VII. IN the summer of 1629, the Massachusetts Company and the Massachusetts Colony, were virtually distinct bodies, 1629. the latter subordinate to the former, and dependent upon it for support. The Charter of Charles I., gave vitality to the Company. That Charter was at first resident in Eng- land, and there its powers were principally exercised. But it seems to have been the intention of part at least of the grantees, and the most influential part, in procuring this instrument, to make it the basis of a civil government in America. Gentlemen of distinguished family and ample estate were connected with the Company. Some of these had already sent servants to New England. And, intending to hazard their persons as well as to employ their fortunes in erecting a Commonwealth on these shores, they were „aware of the disadvantages inseparable from the residence of the chief legislative authority in England, and were reluctant to embark unless these difficulties were obviated, and the custody of the Charter was committed to the cmi- grants. It was their desire to identify the Company and the Colony ; to make both one ; that the latter might no longer look abroad for its privileges, but act within itself, and exercise, on the place, all the powers claimed by the former.
As yet, the views of these gentlemen seem not to have been openly avowed ; but as Mr. Cradock, the Governor of the Company, was doubtless acquainted with the same, and may have himself had thoughts of removing hither, at one
j
1
175
TRANSFER OF THE CHARTER.
of the General Courts he "presented certain propositions CHAP. . conceived by himself, viz: That for the advancement of VII. the Plantation, the inducing and encouraging persons of July 4. 1629.
wealth and quality 1 to transport themselves and families thither, and for other weighty reasons therein contained, to transfer the government of the Plantation to those that shall inhabit there, and not to continue the same in sub- ordination to the Company here, as it now is."
It is obvious that the change here proposed was of the utmost importance. By leaving the charter in England, "it would necessarily have followed that all the measures of the corporation would have been taken with final reference to the interests of the undertakers at home. It would have been a company to be enriched, and not a people to be governed."2 Hence the proposition was calculated to awaken great interest; and the surprise which it caused led to an earnest debate. But, as a matter which could not be hastily decided, its immediate decision was not pressed, and the members were desired "privately to consider it," and to "present their reasons in writing pro et contra, at the next court," that the Company might " come to a final resolution ;" and in the meantime they were requested to "carry the business secretly, that the same might not be divulged." 3
The transaction here brought to our notice is unique, and unparalleled in the annals of English colonization ; and, as it is one upon which serious charges, affecting the integrity of the Company, have ever since been based, it merits a full and careful discussion. The legality of this transfer has been questioned, and even denied. Mr. Chalmers as- serts, that the docket of the grant to Sir Henry Rosewell shows, that "only such privileges as are usually allowed to
1 It is "worth and quality," in 9. 203; Willard's Lancaster Ad- Hubbard, 123.
dress., 19, 20.
2 J. Q. Adams, in 3 M. H. Coll., 8 Chron. Mass., 85-6. .
.
176
TRANSFER OF THE CHARTER.
CHAP. corporations in England," were conferred by the King; VII. and that, among the same papers, is one drawn up by Mr.
1629. Blathwayt, showing "it was intended thereby the corpora- tion should be resident in England."1 Hutchinson 2 and Pownal3 take the same view. And even Judge Story, an eminent American writer, says : "The whole structure of the charter pre-supposes the residence of the Company in England, and the transaction of all its business there."4
It may not, however, be unworthy of notice, that the colonists confidently and uniformly maintained that their charter made them a corporation on the place.5 In 1677, the Chief Justices Rainsford and North took the same ground, and the court of Charles II. sanctioned their deci- sion.6 The Attorney General Sawyer, likewise, gave it as his official opinion, that the grantees might transfer their charter, and act in New England.7 And what, perhaps, is of still more consequence, Charles himself, who granted the instrument, and who probably knew best his own intentions in so doing, did not, so far as we have learned, object to the act at the time it took place, and without interruption from him it was carried into effect. 8
This conflict of opinion among gentlemen of the legal profession is not a little remarkable were the transaction palpably contrary to the law of the realm ; and it seems to us to prove, that there may have been circumstances, not now clearly known, which would justify a decision favora- ble to the Company, rather than impeaching the honor and
1 Polit. Ann., 147.
: 2 Hist. Mass., 1. 20.
3 Admin. Brit. Col's., 2. 6.
4 Com. Const., 1. 48. See also Minot, 1. 19, and Washburn's Judi- cial Hist., 13.
5 Winthrop,Jour.,2. 351, 354, 360.
& Belknap's N. H., 1. App., xxxi. Yet Charles II., in his letter of July 24, 1679, speaks in different terms,
and says : "The charter, by its frame and contents, was originally to be executed in this kingdom, and not in New England, otherwise than by deputation, as is accordingly prac- ticed in all other charters of like nature." Hutch. Coll., 519.
7 Chalmers Ann., 173.
8 Robertson's Ann., lib. 10. § 20,
21. Comp. Grahame, 1. 161.
177
TRANSFER OF THE CHARTER.
integrity of the persons connected with it. One thing, CHAP. however, is certain : - the step was not taken without legal VII. advice, and probably the best which could then be obtain- 1629. ed;1 so that, if it be admitted, judging from the stand- point of English jurisprudence, that the proceeding was irregular, the Company is exonerated from having clandes- tinely and fraudently accomplished it; and in an age of unconstiutional acts, when the example was set by royalty itself, the fons justitia, subjects may well be excused for seeking their own interests, especially when their conduct was quite as reasonable as that of their rulers.
But there are other and broader points from which this measure may be viewed. It is generally admitted that the principles which governed both James and Charles in granting patents and charters, were vague and obscure. The corporations created by the crown were strictly royal corporations ; the lands which were conveyed belonged to the royal domain ; and the prerogatives of the king were vast and undefined.2 Both father and son, therefore, stood upon their prerogative; nor was it until " the civil wars and the Restoration had decided the nature of the English constitution, had marked out and fixed the various powers of each component part of it, that the nation gave to her provinces permanent systems, analagous to her own." 3 Hence, under the old regime, the grantees, as they were authorized by the wording of their charter, interpreted that instrument " most favorably on the behalf and for the benefit and behoof of the Governor and Company and their successsors." They contended that their charter cre- ated a corporation of, but not necessarily within England ; that the powers of government which it granted were full
1 Chron. Mass., 91, &c. p. 112-13; R. Williams, in 1. M.
' Hazard, 1. 204 ; Chalmers, Ann., II. Coll., 1. 282; J. Q. Adams, in 675, 681-2; Lord Bacon's edit. of 3 M. HI. Coll., 9. 200. Holbourne's "Learned Readings," 3 Chalmers, Ann., 682.
.
178
TRANSFER OF THE CHARTER.
CHAP. and absolute, admitting of no appeal ; that they held this VII. not by commission, but by free donation; that their alle- 1629. giance was local, not general ; that they were not even subject to the laws of England, though by the terms of their charter they were to enact no contrary laws ; that parliament could not interfere to countermand their orders and judgments, nor could it set over them a general gov- ernor without their consent; that, like Normandy, Gas- coigne, Burgundy, Flanders, and the Hanse Towns of Germany, so were they "independent in respect of govern- ment ; " yet a limited allegiance to the mother country was acknowledged, because their commonwealth was founded upon the state, held its lands by an English tenure, and depended upon England for protection, advice, and the "continuance of naturalization and free liegance of them- selves and posterity."1
Such were the views of the leaders of the Massachusetts . Company. Their correctness, in some respects, we are aware has been questioned ; in others it has been admitted.2 And though these views were probably more democratic than were acceptable to Charles I., they were sanctioned by the Long Parliament,3 nor did the colonists hesitate to avow them to Charles II.4 And such being their views, they did not look upon their corporation solely as a trading corporation, " under the narrow construction of the com- mon law, but as affording the means of founding a broad political government, subject to the crown of England, but yet enjoying many exclusive privileges." 5 "Other plantations," say they, "have been undertaken at the charge of others in England, and the planters have their
4
1 Winthrop's Journal, 2. 341, 345, 347, 348, 351, 352, 354, 360-3, 365-6; Hutch. Coll., 199, 420. 2 Chalmers, Polit. Ann. Ch. xxii; Hutchinson, 1. 230-1; Pownal Admin., &c., Pt. 2.
3 Winthrop, Journal, Vol. 2. + Hazard, 2. 591-2; Hutch. Coll., 325-9.
5 Story on the Const., 1. 51.
179
TRANSFER OF THE CHARTER.
dependence upon the companies there, and those planters CHIAP go and come chiefly for matters of profit; but we came to VII. abide here, and to plant the gospel, and people the country, 1629. and herein God hath marvellously blessed us."1 Hence they looked upon their plantation as of a different nature from the former ; and the charter under which it was estab- lished was valuable, in their estimation, only so far as it conduced to these ends; which could not be fully attained while it was resident in England, and which could only be effectually secured by taking it with them, and making it the basis of their government, the sanction of its authority, and the vindication of its claims.
Independent of these considerations, however, still broader grounds may be taken in justification of the course of the Company. It seems virtually to have been the maxim of those days, that
-" All a man sailed by or saw was his own;"
and this maxim was held, among all the nations of Europe, " a just and sufficient foundation, on which to rest their respective claims to the American continent. It received a universal acquiescence, if not a ready approbation, and became the basis of European polity, and regulated the exercise of the rights of sovereignty and settlement in all the Cis-Atlantic Plantations."2 And yet, not only did the colonists deny the correctness of this maxim,3 but the Eng- lish nation itself, in the reign of Elizabeth, questioned its validity ; 4 in the House of Commons, in 1621, a similar position was taken;5 and eminent writers upon Interna-
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.