Project Gutenberg's The Loyalists of Massachusetts, by James H. Stark This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license Title: The Loyalists of Massachusetts And the Other Side of the American Revolution Author: James H. Stark Release Date: March 31, 2012 [EBook #39316] Language: English Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LOYALISTS OF MASSACHUSETTS *** Produced by Andrew Wainwright, Jonathan Ingram and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries) THOMAS HUTCHINSON. THOMAS HUTCHINSON. Born in Boston, Sept. 9, 1711. Governor of Massachusetts 1771-4. Died in London June 3, 1780. THE LOYALISTS OF MASSACHUSETTS AND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION BY JAMES H. STARK "History makes men wise."—Bacon. W. B. CLARKE CO. 26 Tremont Street Boston COPYRIGHTED 1907 BY JAMES H. STARK To The Memory of the Loyalists of The Massachusetts Bay WHOSE FAITHFUL SERVICES AND MEMORIES ARE NOW FORGOTTEN BY THE NATION THEY SO WELL SERVED, THIS WORK IS DEDICATED BY THE AUTHOR TABLE OF CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION 5 CHAPTER I THE FIRST CHARTER 7 CHAPTER II THE SECOND CHARTER 16 [i] CHAPTER III CAUSES THAT LED TO THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 27 CHAPTER IV BOSTON MOBS AND THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE REVOLUTION 40 CHAPTER V THE LOYALISTS OF MASSACHUSETTS 54 CHAPTER VI THE REVOLUTIONIST 68 CHAPTER VII INDIANS IN THE REVOLUTION 88 CHAPTER VIII THE EXPULSION OF THE LOYALISTS AND THE SETTLEMENT OF CANADA 93 CHAPTER IX THE WAR OF 1812 AND THE ATTEMPTED CONQUEST OF CANADA 98 CHAPTER X THE CIVIL WAR AND THE PART TAKEN BY GREAT BRITAIN IN SAME 107 CHAPTER XI RECONCILIATION. THE DISMEMBERED EMPIRE REUNITED IN BONDS OF FRIENDSHIP. "BLOOD IS THICKER THAN WATER." 113 PART II BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE LOYALISTS OF MASS. 122 THE ADDRESS OF THE MERCHANTS AND OTHERS OF BOSTON TO GOVERNOR HUTCHINSON 123 ADDRESS OF THE BARRISTERS AND ATTORNEYS OF MASSACHUSETTS TO GOVERNOR HUTCHINSON 125 ADDRESS OF THE INHABITANTS OF MARBLEHEAD TO GOVERNOR HUTCHINSON 127 ADDRESS TO GOVERNOR HUTCHINSON FROM HIS FELLOW TOWNSMEN IN THE TOWN OF MILTON 128 ADDRESS PRESENTED TO GOVERNOR GAGE ON HIS ARRIVAL AT SALEM 131 ADDRESS TO GOVERNOR GAGE ON HIS DEPARTURE 132 LIST OF INHABITANTS OF BOSTON WHO REMOVED TO HALIFAX WITH THE ARMY MARCH, 1776 133 MANDAMUS COUNSELLORS 136 THE BANISHMENT ACT OF MASSACHUSETTS 137 THE WORCESTER RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ABSENTEES AND REFUGEES 141 THE CONFISCATION ACT 141 CONSPIRACY ACT 141 ABSENTEES ACT 143 BIOGRAPHIES THOMAS HUTCHINSON 145 LIST OF GOV. HUTCHINSON'S CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY 174 THOMAS HUTCHINSON, SON OF THE GOVERNOR 175 ELISHA HUTCHINSON 177 FOSTER HUTCHINSON 177 ELIAKIM HUTCHINSON 178 LIST OF ELIAKIM HUTCHINSON'S CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY 180 ANDREW OLIVER—LIEUT. GOVERNOR 181 THOMAS OLIVER 183 PETER OLIVER—CHIEF JUSTICE 188 SIR FRANCIS BERNARD 191 SIR WILLIAM PEPPERRELL 205 JOHN SINGLETON COPLEY AND HIS SON LORD LYNDHURST 216 KING HOOPER OF MARBLEHEAD 221 WILLIAM BOWES 224 CONFISCATED ESTATES OF WILLIAM BOWES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY 225 [ii] [iii] GENERAL TIMOTHY RUGGLES 225 THE FANEUIL FAMILY OF BOSTON 229 THE COFFIN FAMILY OF BOSTON. ADMIRAL SIR ISAAC COFFIN SIR THOMAS ASTON COFFIN ADMIRAL FROMAN H. COFFIN GENERAL JOHN COFFIN 233 CONFISCATED ESTATES OF JOHN COFFIN IN SUFFOLK COUNTY 246 JUDGE SAMUEL CURWEN 246 JAMES MURRAY 254 SIR BENJAMIN THOMPSON—COUNT RUMFORD 261 COL. RICHARD SALTONSTALL 272 REV. MATHER BYLES 275 THE HALLOWELL FAMILY OF BOSTON 281 CONFISCATED ESTATES OF BENJAMIN HALLOWELL IN SUFFOLK COUNTY 284 THE VASSALLS 285 CONFISCATED ESTATES OF JOHN VASSALL IN SUFFOLK COUNTY 290 GENERAL ISAAC ROYALL 290 GENERAL WILLIAM BRATTLE 294 CONFISCATED ESTATE OF WILLIAM BRATTLE IN BOSTON 297 JOSEPH THOMPSON 297 COLONEL JOHN ERVING 298 CONFISCATED ESTATES BELONGING TO COL. JOHN ERVING 299 MAJOR GENERAL SIR DAVID OCTHERLONY 299 JUDGE AUCHMUTY'S FAMILY 301 CONFISCATED ESTATES OF ROBERT AUCHMUTY 305 COLONEL ADINO PADDOCK 305 CONFISCATED ESTATES OF ADINO PADDOCK IN SUFFOLK COUNTY 308 THEOPHILUS LILLIE 308 CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO THEOPHILUS LILLIE 313 DR. SYLVESTER GARDINER 313 CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO SYLVESTER GARDINER 317 RICHARD KING 317 CHARLES PAXTON 318 JOSEPH HARRISON 319 CAPTAIN MARTIN GAY 321 CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO MARTIN GAY 325 DANIEL LEONARD 325 JUDGE GEORGE LEONARD 332 COLONEL GEORGE LEONARD 333 HARRISON GRAY—RECEIVER GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS 334 CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO HARRISON GRAY 337 REV. WILLIAM WALTER, RECTOR OF TRINITY CHURCH 338 CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO REV. WILLIAM WALTER 342 THOMAS AMORY 343 REV. HENRY CANER 346 CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO REV. HENRY CANER 349 FREDERICK WILLIAM GEYER 350 CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO FREDERICK WILLIAM GEYER 351 THE APTHORP FAMILY OF BOSTON 351 CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO CHARLES WARD APTHORP 354 THE GOLDTHWAITE FAMILY OF BOSTON 355 CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO JOSEPH GOLDTHWAIT 361 JOHN HOWE 361 SAMUEL QUINCY, SOLICITOR GENERAL 364 COLONEL JOHN MURRAY 376 JUDGE JAMES PUTNAM, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY 378 JUDGE TIMOTHY PAINE 382 DR. WILLIAM PAINE 385 JOHN CHANDLER 388 JOHN GORE 392 JOHN JEFFRIES 394 [iv] [v] THOMAS BRINLEY 395 CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO THOMAS BRINLEY 397 REV. JOHN WISWELL 398 HENRY BARNES 399 THOMAS FLUCKER, SECRETARY OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY 402 MARGARET DRAPER 404 CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO MARGARET DRAPER 405 RICHARD CLARKE 405 PETER JOHONNOT 409 CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO PETER JOHONNOT 411 JOHN JOY 411 RICHARD LECHMERE 413 CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO RICHARD LECHMERE 414 EZEKIEL LEWIS 414 BENJAMIN CLARK 415 LADY AGNES FRANKLAND 417 COLONEL DAVID PHIPS 418 THE DUNBAR FAMILY OF HINGHAM 421 EBENEZER RICHARDSON 422 COMMODORE JOSHUA LORING 423 CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO JOSHUA LORING 426 ROBERT WINTHROP 426 NATHANIEL HATCH 429 CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO NATHANIEL HATCH 430 CHRISTOPHER HATCH 430 WARD CHIPMAN 431 GOVERNOR EDWARD WINSLOW 433 CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO ISAAC WINSLOW 439 SIR ROGER HALE SHEAFFE, BARONET 439 JONATHAN SAYWARD 443 DEBLOIS FAMILY 445 CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO GILBERT DEBLOIS 446 LYDE FAMILY 447 CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO EDWARD LYDE 447 JAMES BOUTINEAU 448 CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO JAMES BOUTINEAU 449 COL. WILLIAM BROWNE 449 ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM 451 CAPTAIN JOHN MALCOMB 451 THE RUSSELL FAMILY OF CHARLESTOWN 452 EZEKIEL RUSSELL 453 JONATHAN SEWALL 454 CONFISCATED ESTATES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BELONGING TO SAMUEL SEWALL 457 THOMAS ROBIE 457 BENJAMIN MARSTON 459 HON. BENJAMIN LYNDE, CHIEF JUSTICE OF MASSACHUSETTS 462 PAGAN FAMILY 464 THE WYER FAMILY OF CHARLESTOWN 465 JEREMIAH POTE 467 EBENEZER CUTLER 468 APPENDIX THE TRUE STORY CONCERNING THE KILLING OF THE TWO SOLDIERS AT CONCORD BRIDGE, APRIL 19, 1775. THE FIRST BRITISH SOLDIER KILLED IN THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR 471 THE ENGAGEMENT AT THE NORTH BRIDGE IN CONCORD WHERE THE TWO SOLDIERS WERE KILLED 476 PAUL REVERE, THE SCOUT OF THE REVOLUTION 477 WILLIAM FRANKLIN, SON OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN 481 THE ROYAL COAT OF ARMS 482 JUDGE MELLEN CHAMBERLAIN'S OPINION OF COLONEL THOMAS GOLDTHWAITE 483 NOTE ON PELHAM'S MAP OF BOSTON 483 NOTE ON GOV. JOHN WINTHROP 483 LIST OF LOYALISTS WHOSE NAMES OR BIOGRAPHIES ARE NOT FOUND IN THIS WORK 484 [vi] [vii] signature PELHAM'S MAP OF BOSTON IN POCKET IN THE BACK COVER. ACKNOWLEDGMENT. The author wishes to acknowledge the great assistance he has received from the New England Historic Genealogical Society, of which he has been a member for twenty-eight years,—whose library consisting of biographies and genealogies is the most complete in America. Other authorities consulted, have been the "Royalist" records in the original manuscript preserved in the archives of the State of Massachusetts, the Record Commissioners' Reports of the City of Boston, the Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, and the numerous town histories, and ancient records published in recent years, to the most important of which he has acknowledged his obligations in the reference given, and also to the Boston Athenaeum for the use of their paintings and engravings, in making copies of same. He also wishes to acknowledge the assistance rendered him by his daughter, Mildred Manton Stark, in preparing many of the biographies, also the assistance rendered by Mr. Thomas F. O'Malley, who prepared the very copious index to this work, which will, he thinks be appreciated by all historical students who may have occasion to use same. ILLUSTRATIONS. Thomas Hutchinson's Portrait, Opposite the title page. James H. Stark, Portrait, Opposite Page 7. Landing of the Commissioners at Boston, 1664, " " 13. Randolph threatened, " " 15. Proclaiming King William and Queen Mary, " " 17. Killing and scalping Father Rasle at Norridgewock, " " 32. Reading the Stamp Act in King street, opposite the State House, " " 37. Andrew Oliver, Stamp Collector attacked by the Mob, " " 41. Bostonians paying the Exciseman or Tarring and Feathering, " " 49. Colonel Mifflin's Interview with the Caughnawaga Indians, " " 89. Cartoon illustrating Franklin's diabolical Scalp story, " " 91. Burning of Newark, Canada, by United States Troops, " " 103. Burning of Jay in Effigy, " " 105. Map, Boundary line between Maine and New Brunswick, " " 115. Governor Hutchinson's House Destroyed by the Mob, Page 155. Benjamin Franklin Before the Privy Council, Opposite Page 165. Views from Governor Hutchinson's Field, Page 168. Governor Hutchinson's House on Milton Hill, " 170. Inland View from Governor Hutchinson's House, Page 171. Andrew Oliver, portrait, Opposite Page 181. Andrew Oliver Mansion, Washington street, Dorchester, " " 183. Thomas Oliver and John Vassall Mansion, Dorchester, " " 185. Revolutionists Marching to Cambridge, " " 187. Sir Francis Bernard, Portrait, " " 191. Province House, " " 195. Pepperell House, " " 210. Reception of the American Loyalists in England, Page 214. Arrest of William Franklin by order of Congress, Opposite Page 215. John Singleton Copley, Portrait, " " 218. Lord Lyndhurst, Lord High Chancellor of England, Portrait, " " 221. King Hooper Mansion, Danvers, " " 223. Admiral Sir Isaac Coffin, Portrait, " " 239. Curwin House, Salem, Page 247. Samuel Curwin, Portrait, Opposite Page 253. Country Residence of James Smith, Brush Hill, Milton, Page 256. Birthplace of Benjamin Thompson, North Woburn, " 261. Sir Benjamin Thompson, Portrait, Opposite Page 267. Rev. Mather Byles, D. D., Portrait, " " 277. The Old Vassall House, Cambridge, " " 285. Colonel John Vassall's Mansion, Cambridge, " " 289. General Isaac Royall's Mansion, Medford, " " 293. Major General Sir David Ochterlony, Portrait, " " 299. British Troops preventing the destruction of New York, " " 303. Landing a Bishop, Cartoon, " " 341. Rev. Henry Caner, Portrait, " " 349. Leonard Vassall and Frederick W. Geyer Mansion, " " 351. Bishop's Palace, Residence of Rev. East Apthorp, " " 353. Samuel Quincy, Portrait, " " 369. Dr. John Jeffries, Portrait, " " 395. Clark-Frankland House, " " 417. Sir Roger Hale Sheaffe, Baronet, Portrait, " " 439. The Engagement at the North Bridge in Concord, " " 471. Monument to Commemorate the Skirmish at Concord Bridge, " " 475. Pursuit and Capture of Paul Revere, " " 479. Pelham Map of Boston, In the envelop of the back cover. INTRODUCTION. At the dedication of the monument erected on Dorchester Heights to commemorate the evacuation of Boston by the British, the oration was delivered by that Nestor of the United States Senate, Senator Hoar. In describing the government of the colonies at the outbreak of the Revolution, he made the following statement: "The government of England was, in the main, a gentle government, much as our fathers complained of it. Her yoke was easy and her burden was light; our fathers were a hundred times better off in 1775 than were the men of Kent, the vanguard of liberty in England. There was more happiness in Middlesex on the Concord, than there was in Middlesex on the Thames."[1] A few years later Hon. Edward B. Callender, a Republican candidate for mayor of Boston, in his campaign speech said: "I know something about how this city started. It was not made by the rich men or the so-called high-toned men of Boston—they were with the other party, with the king; they were Loyalists. Boston was founded by the ordinary man—by Paul Revere, the coppersmith; Sam Adams, the poor collector of the town of Boston, who did not hand over to the town even the sums he collected as taxes; by John Hancock, the smuggler of rum; by John Adams, the attorney, who naively remarked in his book that after the battle of Lexington they never heard anything about the suits against John Hancock. Those were settled."[2] These words of our venerable and learned senator and our State Senator Edward B. Callender, seemed strangely unfamiliar to us who had derived our history of the Revolution from the school text-books. These had taught us that the Revolution was due solely to the oppression and tyranny of the British, and that Washington, Franklin, Adams, Hancock, Otis, and the host of other Revolutionary patriots, had in a supreme degree all the virtues ever exhibited by men in their respective spheres, and that the Tories or Loyalists, such as Hutchinson, the Olivers, Saltonstalls, Winslows, Quincys and others, were to be detested and their memory execrated for their abominable and unpatriotic actions. This led me to inquire and to examine whether there might not be two sides to the controversy which led to the Revolutionary War. I soon found that for more than a century our most gifted writers had almost uniformly suppressed or misrepresented all matter bearing upon one side of the question, and that it would seem to be settled by precedent that this nation could not be trusted with all portions of its own history. But it seemed to me that history should know no concealment. The people have a right to the whole truth, and to the full benefit of unbiased historical teachings, and if, in an honest attempt to discharge a duty to my fellow citizens, I relate on unquestionable authority facts that politic men have intentionally concealed, let no man say that I wantonly expose the errors of the fathers. In these days we are recognizing more fully than ever the dignity of history, we are realizing that patriotism is not the sole and ultimate object of its study, but the search for truth, and abiding by the truth when found, for "the truth shall make you free" is an axiom that applies here as always. Much of the ill will towards England which until recently existed in great sections of the American people, and which the mischief-making politician could confidently appeal to, sprung from a false view of what the American Revolution was, and the history of England was, in connection with it. The feeling of jealousy and anger, which was born in the throes of the struggle for independence, we indiscriminately perpetuated by false and superficial school text-books. The influence of false history and of crude one-sided history is enormous. It is a natural and logical step that when our children pass [5] [6] from our schoolroom into active life, feelings so born should die hard and at times become a dangerous factor in the national life, and it is not too much to say that the persistent ill will towards England as compared with the universal kindliness of English feeling towards us, is to be explained by the very different spirit in which the history of the American Revolution is taught in the schools of one country and in those of the other. James H Stark THE LOYALISTS OF MASSACHUSETTS AND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION CHAPTER I. THE FIRST CHARTER. A nation's own experience should be its best political guide, but it is not certain that as a people we have improved by all the teachings of our own history, for the reason that our "patriot" writers and orators mostly bound their vision in retrospect by the revolutionary era. And yet, all beyond that is not dark, barren, and profitless to explore. It should be known that the most important truths on which our free forms of government now rest are not primarily the discoveries of the revolutionary sages. Writing of the Revolution, Mr. John Adams, the successor of Washington, declared that it was his opinion that the Revolution "began as early as the first plantation of the country," and that "independence of church and state was the fundamental principle of the first colonization, has been its principle for two hundred years, and now I hope is past dispute. Who was the author, inventor, discoverer of independence? The only true answer must be, the first emigrants." Before this time he had declared that "The claim of the men of 1776 to the honor of first conceiving the idea of [7] American independence or of first inventing the project of it, is ridiculous. I hereby disclaim all pretension to it, because it was much more ancient than my nativity." It was the inestimable fortune of our ancestors to have been taught the difficulties of government in two distinct schools, under the Colonial and Provincial charters, known as the first and second charters. The Charter government as moulded and modelled by our ancestors, was as perfect as is our own constitution of today. It was as tender of common right, as antagonistic to special privilege to classes or interests, and as sensitive, too, to popular impulses, good or evil. And it is thus in all self-governing communities, that their weal or woe, being supposedly in their own keeping, the freest forms of delegated government written on parchment are in themselves no protection, but will be such instruments of blessing or of destruction as may best gratify the controlling influences or interests for the time being. In tracing the origin and development of the sentiment and the desires, the fears and the prejudices which culminated in the American Revolution, in the separation of thirteen colonies from Great Britain, it is necessary to notice the early settlement and progress of those New England colonies in which the seeds of that Revolution were first sown and nurtured to maturity. The Colonies of New England were the result of two distinct emigrations of English Puritans, two classes of Puritans, two distinct governments for more than sixty years—one class of these emigrants, now known as the "Pilgrim Fathers," having first fled from England to Holland, thence emigrated to New England in 1620 in "the Mayflower," and named their place of settlement "New Plymouth." Here they elected seven governors in succession, and existed under a self-constituted government for seventy years. The second class was called "Puritan Fathers." The first installment of their immigrants arrived in 1629, under Endicott, the ancestor of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's wife. They were known as the "Massachusetts Bay Company," and their final capital was Boston, which afterwards became the capital of the Province and of the State. The characteristics of the separate and independent governments of these two classes of Puritans were widely different. The one was tolerant, non-persecuting, and loyal to the King, during the whole period of its seventy years' existence; the other was an intolerant persecutor of all religionists who did not adopt its worship, and disloyal, from the beginning, to the government from which it held its Charter, and sedulously sowed and cultivated the seeds of disaffection and hostility to the Royal government until they grew and ripened into the harvest of the American Revolution. English Puritanism, transferred from England to the head of Massachusetts Bay in 1629, presents the same characteristics which it developed in England. In Massachusetts it had no competitor, it developed its principles and spirit without restraint; it was absolute in power from 1629 to 1689. During these sixty years it assumed independence of the government to which it owed its corporate existence; it made it a penal crime for any immigrant to appeal to England against a local decision of courts or of government; it permitted no oath of allegiance to the King, nor the administration of the laws in his name; it allowed no elective franchise to any Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist, Quaker or Papist. Every non-member of the Congregational church was compelled to pay taxes and bear all other Puritan burdens, but was allowed no representation by franchise, nor had he eligibility for any public office. When the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Company emigrated from England, they professed to be members of the Church of England, but Endicott, who had imbibed views of church government and of forms of worship, determined not to perpetuate here the worship of the Established Church, to which he had professed to belong when he left England, but to establish a new church with a new form of worship. He seemed to have brought over some thirty of the immigrants to his new scheme, but a majority either stood aloof from, or were opposed to his extraordinary proceeding. Among the most noted adherents of the old Church of the Reformation were two brothers, John and Samuel Brown, who refused to be parties to this new and locally devised church revolution, and resolved for themselves, their families, and such as thought with them, to continue to worship God according to the custom of their fathers. It is the fashion of many American historians, as well as their echoes in England, to apply epithets of contumely or scorn to these men. Both the Browns were men of wealth, one a lawyer, the other a private gentleman, and both of them were of a social position in England much superior to that of Endicott. They were among the original patentees and first founders of the colony; they were church reformers, but neither of them a church revolutionist. The brothers were brought before the Governor, who informed them that New England was no place for such as they, and therefore he sent them both back to England, on the return of the ships the same year. Endicott resolved to admit of no opposition. They who could not be terrified into silence were not commanded to withdraw, but were seized and banished as criminals.[3] A year later John Winthrop was appointed to supersede Endicott as Governor. On his departure with a fleet of eleven ships from England an address to their "Fathers and Brethren of the Church of England" was published by Winthrop from his ship, the Arbella, disclaiming the acts of some among them hostile to the Church of England, declaring their obligations and attachment to it. He said: "We desire you would be pleased to take notice of the principles and body of our Company as those who esteem it an honor to call the Church of England, from whence we rise, our dear Mother, and cannot part from our native countrie, where she especially resideth, without much sadness of heart and many tears in our eyes." It might be confidently expected that Mr. Winthrop, after this address of loyalty and affection to his Father and Brethren of the Church of England, would, on his arrival at Massachusetts Bay, and assuming its government, have rectified the wrongs of Endicott and his party, and have secured at least freedom of worship to the children of his "dear Mother." But he did nothing of the kind; he seems to have fallen in with the very proceedings of Endicott which had been disclaimed by him in his address. [8] [9] Thus was the first seed sown, which germinated for one hundred and thirty years, and then ripened in the American Revolution. It was the opening wedge which shivered the transatlantic branches from the parent stock. It was the consciousness of having abused the Royal confidence, and broken faith with their Sovereign, of having acted contrary to the laws and statutes of England, that led the Government of Massachusetts Bay to resist and evade all inquiries into their proceedings; to prevent all evidence from being transmitted to England, and to punish as criminals all who should appeal to England against any of their proceedings; to claim, in short, independence and immunity from all responsibility to the Crown for anything they did or might do. This spirit of tyranny and intolerance, of proscription and persecution, caused all the disputes with the parent Government, and all the bloodshed on account of religion in Massachusetts, which its Government inflicted in subsequent years, in contradistinction to the Governments of Plymouth, Rhode Island, Connecticut and even Maryland. The church government established by the Puritans at Boston was not a government of free citizens elected by a free citizen suffrage, or even of property qualification, but was the "reign of the church, the members of which constituted but about one-sixth of the population, five-sixths being mere helots bound to do the work and pay the taxes imposed upon them by the reigning church but denied all eligibility to any office in the Commonwealth." It was indeed such a "connection between church and state" as had never existed in any Protestant country; it continued for sixty years, until suppressed by a second Royal Charter, as will appear in the next chapter. The Puritans were far from being the fathers of American Liberty. They neither understood nor practiced the first principles of civil and religious liberty nor the rights of British subjects as then understood and practiced in the land they had left "for conscience sake." The first Charter obtained of Charles I. is still in existence, and can be seen in the Secretary's Office at the State House, Boston. A duplicate copy of this Charter was sent over in 1629 to Governor Endicott, at Salem, and is now in the Salem Athenæum. If the conditions of the Charter had been observed the colonists would have been independent indeed, and would have enjoyed extraordinary privileges for those times. They would have had the freest government in the world. They were allowed to elect their own governor and members of the General Court, and the government of the Colony was but little different from that of the State today, so far as the rights conferred by the charter were concerned. The people were subjects of the Crown in name, but in reality were masters of their own public affairs. The number of the early emigrants to New England who renounced allegiance to the mother church was exceedingly small, for the obvious reason that it was at the same time a renunciation of their allegiance to the Crown. A company of restless spirits had been got rid of, and whether they conformed to all the laws of church and state or not, they were three thousand miles away and could not be easily brought to punishment even if they deserved it, or be made to mend the laws if they broke them. The restriction of subjecting those who wished to emigrate to the oaths of allegiance and supremacy did not last long. Those who chose "disorderly to leave the Kingdom" did so, and thus what they gained in that kind of liberty is a loss to their descendants who happen to be antiquaries and genealogists. Under the charter they were allowed to make laws or ordinances for the government of the plantation, which should not be repugnant to the laws of England; all subjects of King Charles were to be allowed to come here; and these emigrants and their posterity were declared "to be natural-born subjects, and entitled to the immunities of Englishmen." The time of the principal emigration was auspicious. The rise of the civil war in England gave its rulers all the work they could do at home. The accession of Oliver Cromwell to the Protectorate was regarded very favorably by the colonists, who belonged to the same political party, and they took advantage of this state of affairs to oppress all others who had opinions different from their own. The Quakers, both men and women, were persecuted, and treated with great severity; many were hung, a number of them were whipped at the cart's tail through the town, and then driven out into the wilderness; others had their ears cut off, and other cruelties were perpetrated of a character too horrible to be here related. It was in vain that these poor Quakers demanded wherein they had broken any laws of England. They were answered with additional stripes for their presumption, and not without good reason did they exclaim against "such monstrous illegality," and that such "great injustice was never heard of before." Magna Charta, they said, was trodden down and the guaranties of the Colonial Charter were utterly disregarded. The following is a striking example of the very many atrocities committed by the authorities at that time: "Nicholas Upshall, an old man, full of years, seeing their cruelty to the harmless Quakers and that they had condemned some of them to die, bothe he and Elder Wiswell, or otherwise Deacon Wiswell, members of the church in Boston, bore their testimony in publick against their brethren's horrid cruelty to said Quakers. And Upshall declared, 'That he did look at it as a sad forerunner of some heavy judgment to follow upon the country.'... Which they took so ill at his hands that they fined him twenty pounds and three pound more at their courts, for not coming to this meeting and would not abate him one grote, but imprisoned him and then banished him on pain of death, which was done in a time of such extreme bitter weather for frost, and snow, and cold, that had not the Heathen Indians in the wilderness woods taken compassion on his misery, for the winter season, he in all likelihood had perished, though he had then in Boston a good estate, in houses and land, goods and money, as also wife and children, but not suffered to come unto him, nor he to them."[4] After the death of Oliver Cromwell, Charles II. was proclaimed in London the lawful King of England, and the news of it in due time reached Boston. It was a sad day to many, and they received the intelligence with sorrow and concern, for they saw that a day of retribution would come. But there was no alternative, and the people of Boston made up their [10] [11] [12] minds to submit to a power they could not control. They, however, kept a sort of sullen silence for a time, but fearing this might be construed into contempt, or of opposition to the King, they formally proclaimed him, in August, 1661, more than a year after news of the Restoration had come. Meanwhile the Quakers in England had obtained the King's ear, and their representations against the government at Boston caused the King to issue a letter to the governor, requiring him to desist from any further proceedings against them, and calling upon the government here to answer the complaints made by the Quakers. A ship was chartered, and Samuel Shattock, who had been banished, was appointed to carry the letter, and had the satisfaction of delivering it to the governor with his own hand. After perusing it, Mr. Endicott replied, "We shall obey his Majesty's command," and then issued orders for the discharge of all Quakers then in prison. The requisition of the king for some one to appear to answer the complaints against the government of Boston, caused much agitation in the General Court; and when it was decided to send over agents, it was not an easy matter to procure suitable persons, so sensible was everybody that the complaints to be answered had too much foundation to be easily excused, or by any subterfuge explained away. It is worthy of note that the two persons finally decided upon (Mr. Bradstreet and Mr. Norton) were men who had been the most forward in the persecutions of the Quakers. And had it not been for the influence which Lord Saye and Seale of the king's Council, and Col. Wm. Crowne, had with Charles II., the colony would have felt his early and heavy displeasure. Col. Crowne was in Boston when Whalley and Goffe, the regicides, arrived here, and he could have made statements regarding their reception, and the persecution of the Quakers, which might have caused the king to take an entirely different course from the mild and conciliatory one which, fortunately for Boston, was taken. Having "graciously" received the letter from the hands of the agents, and, although he confirmed the Patent and Charter, objects of great and earnest solicitude in their letter to him, yet "he required that all their laws should be reviewed, and that such as were contrary or derogatory to the king's authority should be annulled; that the oath of allegiance should be administered; that administration of justice should be in the king's name; that liberty should be given to all who desired it, to use the Book of Common Prayer; in short, establishing religious freedom in Boston." This was not all—the elective franchise was extended "to all freeholders of competent estates," if they sustained good moral characters. LANDING OF THE COMMISSIONERS AT BOSTON LANDING OF THE COMMISSIONERS AT BOSTON, 1664. The Royal Commissioners were appointed to hold Court and correct whatever errors and abuses they might discover. The return of the agents to New England, bearing such mandates from the king, was the cause of confusion and dismay to the whole country. Instead of being thankful for such lenity, many were full of resentment and indignation, and most unjustly assailed the agents for failing to accomplish an impossibility. Meanwhile four ships had sailed from Portsmouth, with about four hundred and fifty soldiers, with orders to proceed against the Dutch in the New Netherlands (New York), and then to land the commissioners at Boston and enforce the [13] king's authority. The Dutch capitulated, and the expedition thus far was completely successful. The commissioners landed in Boston on Feb. 15th, 1664, and held a Court to correct whatever errors and abuses they might discover. The commission was composed of the following gentlemen: Col. Richard Nichols, who commanded the expedition; Sir Robert Carr, Col. Geo. Cartwright and Mr. Samuel Maverick. Maverick had for several years made his home on Noddle Island (now known as East Boston), but, like his friends, Blackstone of Beacon Hill and other of the earliest settlers, had been so harshly and ungenerously treated by the Puritan colonists of Boston that he was compelled to remove from his island domain. An early adventurous visitor to these shores mentions him in his diary as "the only hospitable man in all the country." These gentlemen held a commission from the king constituting them commissioners for visiting the colonies of New England, to hear and determine all matters of complaint, and to settle the peace and security of the country, any three or two of them being a quorum. The magistrates of Boston having assembled, the commissioners made known their mission, and added that so far was the king from wishing to abridge their liberties, he was ready to enlarge them, but wished them to show, by proper representation of their loyalty, reasons to remove all causes of jealousy from their royal master. But it was of no avail; the word loyalty had been too long expunged from their vocabulary to find a place in it again. At every footstep the commissioners must have seen that whatever they effected, and whatever impressions they made, would prove but little better than footprints in the sand. The government thought best to comply with their requirements, so far, at least, as appearances were concerned. They therefore agreed that their allegiance to the king should be published "by sound of trumpet;" that Mr. Oliver Purchis should proclaim the same on horseback, and that Mr. Thomas Bligh, Treasurer, and Mr. Richard Wait, should accompany him; that the reading in every place should end with the words, "God save the King!" Another requirement of the commissioners was that the government should stop coining money; that Episcopalians should not be fined for non-attendance at the religious meetings of the community, as they had hitherto been; that they should let the Quakers alone, and permit them to go about their own affairs. These were only a part of the requirements, but they were the principal ones. Notwithstanding a pretended acquiescence on the part of the government to the requests of the commissioners, it was evident from the first that little could be effected by them from the evasive manner in which all their orders and recommendations were accepted. At length the commissioners found it necessary to put the question to the Governor and Council direct, "Whether they acknowledged his Majesty's Commission?" The Court sent them a message, desiring to be excused from giving a direct answer, inasmuch as their charter was their plea. Being still pressed for a direct answer, they declared that "it was enough for them to give their sense of the powers granted them by charter, and that it was beyond their line to determine the power, intent, or purpose of his Majesty's commission." The authorities then issued a proclamation calling upon the people, in his Majesty's name (!), not to consent unto, or give approbation to the proceedings of the King's Commission, nor to aid or to abet them. This proclamation was published through the town by sound of trumpet, and, oddly enough, added thereto "God save the King." The commissioners then sent a threatening protest, saying they thought the king and his council knew what was granted to them in their charter; but that since they would misconstrue everything, they would lose no more of their labor upon them; at the same time assuring them that their denial of the king's authority, as vested in his commission, would be represented to his Majesty only in their own words. The conduct of Col. Nichols, at Boston, is spoken of in terms of high commendation; but Maverick, Carr and Cartwright are represented as totally unfitted for their business. It is, however, difficult to see how any commissioners, upon such an errand, could have given greater satisfaction; for a moment's consideration is sufficient to convince any one that the difficulty was not so much in the commissioners, as in their undertaking. After the return of the commissioners to England the government continued their persecutions of the Quakers, Baptists, Episcopalians, and all others who held opinions differing from their own. The laws of England regulating trade were entirely disregarded; the reason alleged therefor being, "that the acts of navigation were an invasion of the rights and privileges of the subjects of his Majesty's colony, they not being represented in Parliament." Again the king wrote to the authorities of Boston, requiring them not to molest the people, in their worship, who were of the Protestant faith, and directing that liberty of conscience should be extended to all. This letter was dated July 24th, 1679. It had some effect on the rulers; but they had become so accustomed to what they called interference from England, and at the same time so successful in evading it, that to stop now seemed, to the majority of the people, as well as the rulers, not only cowardly, but an unworthy relinquishment of privileges which they had always enjoyed, and which they were at all times ready to assert, as guaranteed to them in their charter. However, there was a point beyond which even Bostonians could not go, and which after-experience proved. [14] RANDOLPH THREATENED RANDOLPH THREATENED. This Royal Commissioner reported that he was in danger of his life, and that the authorities resolved to prosecute him as a subverter of their government. Edward Randolph brought the king's letter to Boston, and was required to make a report concerning the state of affairs in the colony, and to see that the laws of England were properly executed; but he did not fare well in his mission. He wrote home that every one was saying they were not subject to the laws of England, and that those laws were of no force in Massachusetts until confirmed by the Legislature of the colony. Every day aggravated his disposition more strongly against the people, who used their utmost endeavors to irritate his temper and frustrate his designs. Any one supporting him was accounted an enemy of the country. His servants were beaten while watching for the landing of contraband goods. Going on board a vessel to seize it, he was threatened to be knocked on the head, and the offending ship was towed away by Boston boats. Randolph returned to England, reporting that he was in danger of his life, and that the authorities were resolved to prosecute him as a subserver of their government. If they could, they would execute him; imprisonment was the least he expected. Well might the historian exclaim, as one actually did, "To what a state of degradation was a king of England reduced!" his commissioners, one after another, being thwarted, insulted and obliged to return home in disgrace, and his authority openly defied. What was the country to expect when this state of affairs should be laid before the king? A fleet of men- of-war to bring it to its duty? Perhaps some expected this; but there came again, instead, the evil genius of the colony, Edward Randolph, bringing from the king the dreaded quo warranto. This was Randolph's hour of triumph; he said "he would now make the whole faction tremble," and he gloried in their confusion and the success which had attended his efforts to humble the people of Boston. To give him consequence a frigate brought him, and as she lay before the town the object of her employment could not be mistaken. An attempt was made, however, to prevent judgment being rendered on the return of the writ of quo warranto. An attorney was sent to England, with a very humble address, to appease the king, and to answer for the country, but all to no purpose. Judgment was rendered, and thus ended the first charter of Massachusetts, Oct. 23rd, 1684. CHAPTER II. THE SECOND CHARTER. [15] [16] Charles II. died Feb. 6th, 1685, and was succeeded by his brother, James II. News of this was brought to Boston by private letter, but no official notification was made to the governor. In a letter to him, however, he was told that he was not written to as governor, for as much as now he had no government, the charter being vacated. These events threw the people of Boston into great uncertainty and trouble as to what they were in future to expect from England. Orders were received to proclaim the new king, which was done "with sorrowful and affected pomp," at the town house. The ceremony was performed in the presence of eight military companies of the town, and "three volleys of cannon" were discharged. Sir Edmund Andros, the new Royal Governor, arrived in Boston Dec. 20th, 1686, and, as was to be expected, he was not regarded favorably by the people, especially as his first act after landing was a demand for the keys of the Old South Church "that they may say prayers there." Such a demand from the new governor could not be tolerated by the now superseded governing authority of Boston, and defy it they would. The Puritan oligarchy stoutly objected to being deprived of the right to withhold from others than their own sect the privileges of religious liberty. To enjoy religious liberty in full measure they had migrated from the home of their fathers, but in New England had become more intolerant than the church which they had abandoned, and became as arbitrary as the Spanish inquisition. Under direction of the king, Andros had come to proclaim the equality of Christian religion in the new colonies. Too evidently this was not what was wanted here. At last came the news of the landing of the Prince of Orange in England and the abdication of James the Second. The people of Boston rose against Andros and his government and seized him and fifty of his associates and confined them in the "Castle" until February, 1690, when they were sent to England for trial; but having committed no offence, they were discharged. Andros was received so favorably at home that under the new administration he was appointed governor of Virginia and Maryland. He took over with him the charter of William and Mary college, and later laid the foundation stone of that great institution of learning. PROCLAIMING KING WILLIAM AND QUEEN MARY PROCLAIMING KING WILLIAM AND QUEEN MARY, 1689. This is said to have been the most joyful news ever before received in Boston. Andros has never received justice from Massachusetts historians. Before his long public career ended he had been governor of every Royal Province in North America. His services were held in such high esteem that he was honored with office by four successive monarchs. It is gratifying to notice that at last his character and services are beginning to be better appreciated in the provinces over which he ruled, and we may hope that in time the Andros of partisan history will give place, even in the popular narratives of colonial affairs, to the Andros who really existed, stern, proud and uncompromising it is true, but honest, upright and just; a loyal servant of the crown and a friend to the best interests of the people. [17] Not only were the governor and all of his adherents arrested and thrown into jail, but Captain George, of the Rose frigate, being found on shore, was seized by a party of ship carpenters and handed over to the guard. So strong was the feeling against the prisoners that it was found necessary to guard them against the infuriated people, lest they should be torn into pieces by the mob. The insurrection was completely successful, and the result was that the resumption of the charter was once more affirmed. A general court was formed after the old model, and the venerable Bradstreet was made governor. Nothing now seemed wanting to the popular satisfaction but favorable news from England, and that came in a day or two. On the 26th of May, 1689, a ship arrived from the old country with an order to the Massachusetts authorities to proclaim King William and Queen Mary. This was done on the 29th, and grave, Puritanical Boston went wild with joy, and all thanked God that a Protestant sovereign once more ruled in England. This has been said to have been the most joyful news ever before received in Boston. May 14, 1692, Sir William Phipps, a native of Massachusetts, arrived in Boston from England, bringing with him the new Charter of the province, and a commission constituting him governor of the same. Unfortunately he countenanced and upheld the people in their delusion respecting witchcraft, and confirmed the condemnation and execution of the victims. The delusion spread like flames among dry leaves in autumn, and in a short time the jails in Boston were filled with the accused. During the prevalence of this moral disease, nineteen persons in the colony were hanged, and one pressed to death. At last the delusion came to an end, and the leaders afterwards regretted the part they had taken in it. The new Charter of Massachusetts gave the Province a governor appointed by the Crown. While preserving its assembly and its town organization, it tended to encourage and develop, even in that fierce democracy, those elements of a conservative party which had been called into existence some years before by the disloyalty and tyranny of the ecclesiastical oligarchy. Thus, side by side with a group of men who were constantly regretting their lost autonomy, and looking with suspicion and prejudice at every action of the royal authorities, there arose another group of men who constantly dwelt upon the advantages they derived from their connection with the mother country. The Church of England also had at last waked up to a sense of the spiritual needs of its children beyond the seas. Many of the best of the laity forsook their separatist principles and returned to the historic church of the old home. This influence tended inevitably to maintain and strengthen the feeling of national unity in those of the colonists who came under the ministration of the church. In all the Royal Provinces there was an official class gradually growing up, that was naturally imperial rather than local in its sympathy. The war with the French, in which colonists fought side by side with "regulars" in a contest of national significance, tended upon the whole to intensify the sense of imperial unity. "The people of Massachusetts Bay were never in a more easy and happy situation than at the conclusion of the war with France in 1749. By generous reimbursement of the whole charge of £183,000 incurred by the expedition against Cape Breton, the English government set the Province free from a heavy debt by which it must otherwise have remained involved, and enabled by it to exchange a depreciating paper medium, which had long been the sole instrument of trade, for a stable medium of gold and silver. Soon the advantage of this reli...