CHAPTER II. THE MASSACHUSETTS COLONY. AFTER the death of James I., in 1625, his son Charles I., succeeded to the throne. He cherished the political theories of his predecessor, showed only small respect for Parliaments, to whom he granted "liberty of counsel, but not of control," and did not hesitate to invade the rights and religious scruples of his people. One of his earliest and most obnoxious acts was to depose the lenient Abbott, and to place the infamous Laud at the head of ecclesiastical affairs. As a result of this proceeding, the severest penalties were imposed upon all those who refused to become members of the Established Church. The commotions in church and state bore heavily upon the Puritans, who now began to look around them for some safe retreat. Already the good reports from the Plymouth colony had awakened their attention; and to America they also dared to turn "for the tranquil and peaceful enjoyment" of their rights.1 The Dorchester Company, which, as has been related in the previous chapter, established a colony at Cape Ann in the autumn of 1623, was dissolved in 1626. Mr. Roger Conant, who had been placed in charge of the colony, soon became dissatisfied with the location, and removed to "a fruitful neck of land" at Naumkeag, now Salem, "secretly 1 Barry, i. 153. Parl. Hist. Eng., ix. 69, seq. its members were not chosen by the freemen of the place; and though its powers were extensive, they were by no means unlimited. Punishment for ordinary offences could be inflicted, but to some cases neither its jurisdiction nor that of the company at this time extended; and in these cases the guilty parties were to be returned to England for the final adjudication of their offences, where the supreme legislative authority then lay." 1 Land was apportioned among the settlers, and restrictions were laid upon their manner of habitation. A just and honorable policy was adopted towards the Indians. All territory was to be purchased from them by agreement, and nothing was to be wrested by force. Little or no familiar intercourse was to be maintained with them, however; but a deference and respect were to be cherished for their natural rights. The moral regulation of the colony was an object of the first importance. The Sabbath was to be "celebrated in a religious manner;" profanity was absolutely forbidden under penalty; industry was to be always encouraged, and idleness proscribed. As moderation was deemed the first duty of a pioneer, all cases of drunkenness were to be exemplarily punished. In June, 1629, a company of emigrants, under the conduct of Mr. Francis Higginson, a minister of Leicestershire, and a man "mighty in the Scriptures and learned in the tongues," arrived at Naumkeag. Mr. Higginson is still remembered as the author of "New England's Plantation,” a small volume, first published in London, in 1630, and which contains one of the best descriptions of the country. Shortly after the arrival of this company, three brothers, Ralph, Richard, and William Sprague, and others, made a journey 1 Barry, i. 165. to "Mishawum," now Charlestown. The report which they brought back of the place was extremely favorable, and led to the laying out of a town in that locality, "with streets around the hill." Before the year had drawn to a close, there were living at Charlestown nearly one hundred inhabitants, and at Salem at least four hundred. It will thus be seen that the Puritan colony had far outstripped in numbers that of the impoverished Pilgrims. In midsummer a council was held with the "Plymouth brethren " with regard to the organization of a church. On this interesting occasion thirty members were gathered; a choice was made of the elders and deacons, and a covenant and confession of faith were subscribed. Mr. Samuel Skelton, of Lincolnshire, was ordained pastor, and Mr. Higginson teacher of this small body. Thus was established the church at Salem, the second in Massachusetts on the basis of Independent Congregationalism.1 - And yet there were a few among these Puritans who pronounced these proceedings arbitrary. Two brothers, John and Samuel Browne, complained bitterly because the service of the Episcopal Church was "taken of no account," and thus aroused the indiscretion of their associates. Governor Endicott, "finding these two brothers to be of high spirits, and their speeches and practices tending to mutiny and faction," 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."2 Posterity has variously judged the conduct of Mr. Endicott. But whatever may be thought of it now, it is certainly to be regretted that an exclusive spirit should so early have taken 1 Mather, Magnalia. Felt's Hist. of Salem. Barry, i. 171. root in a colony founded, as was the Massachusetts colony, upon the broad grounds of Christian toleration. We have now to record one of the most unique transactions in the history of English colonization, and one, too, which has oftentimes been the subject of warm discussion. In July, 1629, Matthew Cradock, governor of the Massachusetts Company, presented at one of the courts "certain propositions conceived by himself, namely: that for the advancement of the plantation, the inducing and encouraging persons of worth and quality 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 subordination to the company here, as it now is." 1 Hitherto the Massachusetts Company and the Massachusetts colony had been closely identified; but now they were virtually distinct bodies, "the latter subordinate to the former, and dependent upon it for support." The change which Mr. Cradock proposed was one of the most vital importance, and consequently it awakened great interest. This is not the place to enter into any discussion either of its merits or demerits, or even to revive the question of its legality. It is sufficient for us to know that Justice Story has written that "the whole structure of the charter" granted to the Massachusetts Company "presupposes the residence of the company in England, and the transaction of all its business there; "2 while, on the other hand, not a few eminent jurists have expressed the opinion that the so-called transfer of the charter was wholly legal. The Hubbard, 123. * Story, Com. on Const., i. 48. See Washburn's Judicial History, 13. Chalmers's Annals, 173. |