A crisis was now approaching. The state of things shown in the latter part of the preceding chapter could not be suffered always to continue. Means must be devised to bring it to an end.

The Massachusetts Court had sent successive agents to England to explain and to make promises concerning many things complained of, to crave indulgence and delay in other things which they could not explain or justify; but they prohibited their agents, by private instructions, from conceding anything which the Charter, as they interpreted it, had given them--namely, absolute independence. But this double game was nearly played out. Party struggles in England had absorbed the attention of the King and Cabinet, and caused a public and vacillating policy to be pursued in regard to Massachusetts; but the King's Government were at length roused to decisive action, and threatened the colony with a writ of _quo warranto_ in respect to matters so often demanded and as often evaded.

The Massachusetts Court met forthwith, passed an Act to control the commission of the King's Collector, Edward Randolph, and another Act charging their own newly-appointed Collector to look strictly after the enforcement of the Acts of Trade (but in reality to counteract them); repealed another Act which imposed a penalty for plotting the overthrow of the Colonial Constitution--an Act levelled against Randolph; passed another Act substituting the word "Jurisdiction" for the word "Commonwealth" in their laws. They authorized their agents merely to lay these concessions before the King, and humbly hoped they would satisfy his Majesty. They also bribed clerks of the Privy Council to keep them informed of its proceedings on Massachusetts affairs, and offered a bribe of £2,000 to King Charles himself. Mr. Hildreth says (1683): "On the appearance of these agents at Court, with powers so restricted, a _quo warranto_ was threatened forthwith unless they were furnished with ampler authority. Informed of this threat, the General Court (of Massachusetts), after great debates, authorized their agents to consent to the regulation of anything wherein the Government might _ignorantly_, or _through mistake_, have deviated from the Charter; to accept, indeed, any demands consistent with the Charter (as they interpreted it), the existing Government established under it, and the 'main ends of our predecessors in coming hither,' which main ends were defined by them to be 'our liberties and privileges in matters of religion and worship of God, which you are, therefore, in no wise to consent to any infringement of.' They were authorized to give up Maine to the King, and even to tender him a private gratuity of two thousand guineas. Bribes were quite fashionable at Charles's Court; the King and his servants were accustomed to take them. The Massachusetts agents[180] had expended considerable sums to purchase a favour, or to obtain information, and by having clerks of the Privy Council in their pay they were kept well informed of the secret deliberations of that body. But this offer (of a bribe of two thousand guineas to the King), unskilfully managed, and betrayed by Cranfield, the lately appointed Royal Governor of New Hampshire, who had advised the magistrates to make it, exposed the Colony to blame and ridicule."[181]

"If a liberty of appeal to England were insisted on, the agents were 'not to include the colony in any act or consent of theirs, but to crave leave to transmit the same to the General Court for their further consideration.' They were 'not to make any alteration of the qualifications that were required by law, as at present established, respecting the _admission of freemen_.'"[182]

It having appeared, on the perusal of the commission of the Massachusetts agents by Sir Lionel Jenkins, Secretary of State, that they did not possess the powers required to enable them to act, they were informed by Lord Radnor that "the Council had unanimously agreed to report to his Majesty, that unless the agents speedily obtained such powers as might render them capable to satisfy in all points, a _quo warranto_ should proceed."

"Upon receipt of these advices," says Mr. Hutchinson, "it was made a question, not in the General Court only, but amongst all the inhabitants, whether to surrender or not. The opinions of many of the ministers, and their arguments in support of them, were given in writing, and in general it was thought better to die by the hands of others than by their own.[183] The address was agreed upon by the General Court; another was prepared and sent through the colony, to be signed by the several inhabitants, which the agents were to present or not, as they thought proper; and they were (privately) to deliver up the deeds of the Province of Maine, if required, and it would tend to preserve their Charter, otherwise not; and they were to make no concessions of any privileges conferred on the colony by the Charter."[184] (That is, according to their interpretation and pretensions.)

"Governor Bradstreet and the moderate party were inclined to authorise the agents to receive the King's commands. The magistrates passed a vote to that effect. But all the zeal and obstinacy of the theocratic party had been roused by the present crisis--a zeal resulting, as hot zeal often does, in the ultimate loss of what it was so anxious to save."[185]

The agents of the colony were not willing to undertake the defence and management of the question upon the Charter in Westminster Hall. The writ of _quo warranto_, which summoned the Corporation of Massachusetts Bay to defend their acts against the complaints and charges made against them, was issued the 27th of June, 1683, and on the 20th of July "It was ordered by the Privy Council, 'that Mr. Edward Randolph be sent to New England with the notification of the said _quo warranto_, which he was to deliver to the said Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay, and thereupon to return to give his Majesty an account of his proceedings therein.'"[186] This writ was accompanied by a declaration from the King "that the private interests and properties of all persons within the colony should be continued and preserved to them, so that no man should receive any prejudice in his freehold or estate;" also, "that in case the said Corporation of the Massachusetts Bay should, before the prosecution had upon the said _quo warranto_, make a full submission and entire resignation to his pleasure, he would then regulate their Charter (as stated in another place, by adding supplementary clauses) in such a manner as should be for his service and the good of the colony, without any other alterations than such as he should find necessary for the better support of his Government."[187]

On the issue of the writ of _quo warranto_, the business of the colony's agents in London was at an end. They returned home, and arrived in Boston the 23rd of October, 1683; and the same week Randolph arrived with the _quo warranto_ and the King's accompanying declaration. The announcement of this decisive act on the part of the King produced a profound sensation throughout the colony, and gave rise to the question, "What shall Massachusetts do?" One part of the colony advocated _submission_; another party advocated _resistance_. The former were called the "Moderate party," the latter the "Patriot party"--the commencement of the two parties which were afterwards known as United Empire Loyalists and Revolutionists.[188] The Moderate party was led by the memorable Governor Bradstreet, Stoughton, and Dudley, and included a majority of the assistants or magistrates, called the "Upper branch of the Government." The Independence party was headed by the Deputy Governor Danforth, Gookin, and Nowell, and included a majority of the House of Deputies, over whose elections and proceedings the elders or ministers exerted a potent influence.[189]

Governor Bradstreet and a majority of the assistants, or magistrates, adopted the following resolution:

"The magistrates have voted that an humble address be sent to his Majesty by this ship, declaring that, upon a serious consideration of his Majesty's gracious intimations in his former letters, and more particularly in his late declaration, that his pleasure and purpose is only to regulate our Charter in such a manner as shall be for his service and the good of this his colony, and without any other alteration than what is necessary for the support of his Government here, we will not presume to contend with his Majesty in a Court of law, but humbly lay ourselves at his Majesty's feet, in submission to his pleasure so declared, and that we have resolved by the next opportunity to send our agents empowered to receive his Majesty's commands accordingly. And, for saving a default for non-appearance upon the return of the writ of _quo warranto_, that some person or persons be appointed and empowered, by letter of attorney, to appear and make defence until our agents may make their appearance and submission as above.

"The magistrates have passed this without reference to the consent of their brethren the deputies hereto.

(Signed) "EDMUND RAWSON, _Secretary_.

"15th November, 1683."

This resolution was laid before the House of Deputies and debated by them a fortnight, when the majority of them adopted the following resolution:

"November 30, 1683.--The deputies consent not, but adhere to their former bills.

"WILLIAM TERRY, _Clerk_."[190]

"They voted instead," says Mr. Hildreth, "an Address to the King, praying forbearance; but they authorized Robert Humphreys, a London barrister and the legal adviser of the agents, to enter an appearance and to retain counsel, requesting him 'to leave no stone unturned that may be of service either to the case itself, or the spinning out of the time as much as possibly may be.' No less than three letters were written to Humphreys; money was remitted; but all hopes of defence were futile. Before the letters arrived in London, a default had already been recorded. That default could not be got off, and judgment was entered the next year pronouncing the Charter void."[191]

The manner in which the questions at issue were put to a popular vote in Massachusetts was unfair and misleading; the epithets applied to the "Moderate" or loyal party were offensive and unjust; and the statements of Palfrey, respecting the acts of the King immediately following the vacation of the Charter, are very disingenuous, not to say untrue.

The King had expressly and repeatedly declared that he would not proceed to vacate the Charter if they would submit to his decision on the six grounds mentioned in his first letter to them, June 28, 1662, twenty years before, as the conditions of continuing the Charter, and which they had persistently evaded and resisted; that his decision should be in the form of certain "Regulations" for the future administration of the Charter, and not the vacation of it. Every reader knows the difference between a Royal Charter of incorporation and the Royal instructions issued twenty years afterwards to remedy irregularities and abuses which had been shown to have crept in, and practised in the local administration of the Charter. Yet the ruling party in Massachusetts Bay did not put the question as accepting the King's offers, but as of vacating the Charter. This was raising a false issue, and an avowed imputation and contempt of the King. It is true that Dr. Palfrey and other modern New England historians have said that Charles the Second had from the beginning intended to abolish the Charter; that the "vacation of the Charter was a foregone conclusion." In reply to which it may be said that this is mere assumption, unsupported by facts; that if Charles the Second had wished or intended to vacate the Charter, he had the amplest opportunity and reasons to do so, in the zenith of his popularity and power, when they refused to comply with the conditions on which he proposed to pardon and obliterate the past and continue the Charter, and when they resisted his Commissioners, and employed military force to oppose the exercise of their powers, and set aside their decisions; instead of which he remonstrated with them for more than twenty years, and then gave them long notice and choice to retain the Charter with his "Regulations" on the disputed points, or contest the Charter, as to their observance of it, in a Court of law. Under the impulse and guidance of violent counsels they chose the latter, and lost their Charter. In their very last address to the King, they gratefully acknowledged his kindness in all his despatches and treatment of them, contrary to the statements and imputations of modern New England historians; yet they denied him the authority universally acknowledged and exercised by Queen Victoria and English Courts of law over the legislative, judicial, and even administrative acts of every province of the British Empire. Dr. Palfrey says: "In the Upper branch of the Government there was found at length a _servile_ majority;" but "the deputies were prepared for no such _suicide_, though there were not wanting faint hearts and grovelling aims among them."[192] At the head of what Dr. Palfrey terms the "servile majority" was the venerable Governor Bradstreet, now more than ninety years of age, the only survivor of the original founders of the colony, who had been a magistrate more than fifty years, more than once Governor, always a faithful and safe counsellor, the agent of the colony in England, and obtaining in June, 1662, the King's letter of pardon--oblivion of the past and promised continuance of the Charter on certain conditions--a letter which the Colonial Court said filled them with inexpressible joy and gratitude (see above, page 141), who then advised them to comply with the King's requirements, and who, after twenty years' further experience and knowledge of public affairs and parties, advises them to pursue the same course for which he is now termed "servile," and ranked with cowards and men of "grovelling aims," advising the colony to commit political "suicide." The result showed who were the real authors of the "suicide," and Dr. Palfrey forcibly states the result of their doings in the following words:

"Massachusetts, as a body politic, was now no more. The elaborate fabric, that had been fifty-four years in building, was levelled to the dust. The hopes of the fathers were found to be mere dreams. It seemed that their brave struggles had brought no result. The honoured ally (Massachusetts) of the Protector (Cromwell) of England lay under the feet of Charles the Second. It was on the Charter granted to Roswell and his associates, Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay, that the structure of the cherished institutions of Massachusetts, religious and civil, had been reared. The abrogation of that Charter swept the whole away. Massachusetts, in English law, was again what it had been before James the First made a grant of it to the Council of New England. It belonged to the King of England, by virtue of the discovery of the Cabots. No less than this was the import of the decree in Westminster Hall. Having secured its great triumph, the Court had no thought of losing anything by the weakness of compassion. The person selected by the King to govern the people of his newly-acquired province was Colonel Piercy Kirk. That campaign in the West of England had not yet taken place which has made the name of Kirk immortal; but fame enough had gone abroad of his brutal character, to make his advent an anticipation of horror to those whom he was appointed to govern. It was settled that he was to be called 'His Majesty's Lieutenant and Governor-General,' and that his authority should be unrestricted."[193]

This quotation from Dr. Palfrey suggests one or two remarks, and requires correction, as it is as disingenuous in statement as it is eloquent in diction. He admits and assumes the validity of the judicial act by which the Charter was declared forfeited; though the loyalty of this decision was denied by the opposing party in Massachusetts, who denied that any English Court, or that even the King himself, had any authority in Massachusetts to disallow any of its acts or decisions, much less to vacate its Charter, and professed to continue its elections of deputies, etc., and to pass and administer laws as aforetime. Dr. Palfrey's language presents all such pretensions and proceedings as baseless and puerile.

Dr. Palfrey states what is true, that the Massachusetts Government had been the "ally" of Cromwell; but this they had denied in their addresses to Charles the Second. (See above, pp. 153-9.)

It is hardly ingenuous or correct in Dr. Palfrey speaking of Col. Kirk's appointment of the "newly-acquired Province." The office extended over New Hampshire, Maine, and Plymouth as well as Massachusetts; but Kirk never was Governor of Massachusetts, for before his commission and instructions were completed, all was annulled by the demise of King Charles, which took place the 6th of February, 1685. Mr. Hutchinson says: "Before any new Government was settled, King Charles died. Mr. Blaithwait wrote to the Governor and recommended the proclaiming of King James without delay. This was done with great ceremony in the high street of Boston (April 20th)."[194]

Mr. Joseph Dudley, a native of the colony, and one of the two last agents sent to England, was appointed the first Governor after the annulling of the Charter. Mr. Hutchinson says: "The 15th of May (1686), the _Rose_ frigate arrived from England, with a commission to Mr. Dudley as President, and divers others, gentlemen of the Council, to take upon them the administration of government." Mr. Dudley's short administration was not very grievous. The House of Deputies, indeed, was laid aside; but the people, the time being short, felt little or no effect from the change. Mr. Stoughton was Mr. Dudley's chief confidant. Mr. Dudley professed as great an attachment to the interest of the colony as Mr. Stoughton, and was very desirous of retaining their favour. A letter from Mr. Mather, then the minister of the greatest influence, is a proof of it.[195] There was no molestation to the Churches of the colony, but they continued both worship and discipline as before. The affairs of the towns were likewise managed in the same manner as formerly. Their Courts of justice were continued upon the former plan, Mr. Stoughton being at the head of them. Trials were by juries, as usual. Dudley considered himself as appointed to preserve the affairs of the colony from confusion until a Governor arrived and a rule of administration should be more fully settled.[196]

The administration of Dudley was only of seven months' duration. Dudley was superseded by Sir Edmund Andros, who arrived at Boston on the 20th of December (1686), with a commission from King James for the government of New England.[197] He was instructed to appoint no one of the Council to any offices but those of the least estates and characters, and to displace none without sufficient cause; to continue the former laws of the country, as far as they were not inconsistent with his commission or instructions, until other regulations were established by the Governor and Council; to allow no printing press; to give universal toleration in religion, but encouragement to the Church of England; to execute the laws of trade, and prevent frauds in Customs.[198] But Andros had other instructions of a more despotic and stringent character; and being, like King James himself, of an arbitrary disposition, he fulfilled his instructions to the letter. And when his Royal master was dethroned for his unconstitutional and tyrannical conduct, Andros was seized at Boston and sent prisoner to England, to answer for his conduct; but he was acquitted by the new Government, not for his policy in New England, but because he had acted according to his instructions, which he pleaded as his justification.[199]

It is singular that _toleration_ in Massachusetts should have been proclaimed by the arbitrary James, in a declaration above and contrary to the law for which he received the thanks of the ministers in that colony, but which resulted in his loss of his Crown in England.

"James's Declaration of Indulgence was proclaimed (1687), and now, for the first time, Quakers, Baptists, and Episcopalians enjoyed toleration in Massachusetts. That system of religious tyranny, coeval with the settlement of New England, thus unexpectedly received its death-blow from a Catholic bigot, who professed a willingness to allow religious freedom to others as a means of securing it for himself." ... "Mather, who carried with him (1689) an address from the ministers, thanking James, in behalf of themselves and their brethren, for his Declaration of Indulgence arriving in England while King James was yet in power, had been graciously received by that monarch. But, though repeatedly admitted to an audience, his complaints against the Royal Governor (Andros) had produced no effect. The Revolution intervening, he hastened, with greater hopes of success, to address himself to the new King, and his remonstrances prevented, as far as Massachusetts was concerned, the despatch of a circular letter confirming the authority of all Colonial officers holding commissions from James II. The letters actually received at Boston authorized those in authority to retain provisionally the administration, and directed that Andros and the other prisoners should be sent to England."[200]

I have now traced the proceedings of the founders and rulers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony during the fifty-four years of their first Charter, with short notices of some occurrences during the three years' reign of James the Second, their revenge not only in his own dethronement, but also on his Governor Andros, for the tyranny which he practised upon them by imprisoning him and his helpers, and by Royal command sending them as prisoners to England, together with the removal of the local officers appointed by Andros and the restoration of their own elected authorities until further instruction from the new King.

There can be no question that the founders of that colony were not only men of wealth, but men of education, of piety, of the highest respectability, of great energy, enterprize, and industry, contributing to the rapid progress of their settlements and increase of their wealth, and stamping the character of their history; but after their emigration to Massachusetts Bay, and during the progress of their settlements and the organization and development of their undertakings, their views became narrowed to the dimensions of their own Plantation in government and trade, irrespective of the interests of England, or of the other neighbour colonies, and their theology and religious spirit was of the narrowest and most intolerant character. They assumed to be the chosen Israel of God, subject to no King but Jehovah, above the rulers of the land, planted there to cast out the heathen, to smite down every dagon of false worship, whether Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist, or Quaker, and responsible to no other power on earth for either their legislative or administrative acts. I will not here recapitulate those acts, so fully stated in preceding pages, and established by evidence of documents and testimony which cannot be successfully denied. But there are two features of their pretensions and government which demand further remark.

I. The first is the character and narrowness of the foundation on which rested their legislation and government. None but members of the Congregational Churches were eligible to legislate or fill any office in the colony, or even to be an elector. A more narrow-minded and corrupting test of qualification for civil or political office, or for the elective franchise, can hardly be conceived.[201] However rich a man might be, and whatever might be his education or social position, if he were not a member of the Congregational Church he was an "alien in the Commonwealth" of the Massachusetts Israel, was ineligible for office, or to be an elector; while his own servant, if a member of the Church, though not worth a shilling, or paying a penny to the public revenue, was an elector, or eligible to be elected to any public office. The non-members of the Congregational Church were subject to all military and civil burdens and taxes of the State, without any voice in its legislation or administration. Such was the free (?) Government of Massachusetts Bay, eulogized by New England historians during half a century, until abolished by judicial and royal authority. What would be thought at this day of a Government, the eligibility to public office and the elective franchise under which should be based on membership in a particular Church?

II. But, secondly, this Government must be regarded as equally unjust and odious when we consider not merely the sectarian basis of its assumptions and acts against the Sovereign on the one hand, and the rights of citizens of Massachusetts and of neighbouring colonies on the other, but the small proportion of the population enfranchised in comparison with the population which was disfranchised. Even at the beginning it was not professed that the proportion of Congregational Church members to the whole population was more than one to three; in after years it was alleged, at most, not to have been more than one to six.

This, however, is of little importance in comparison with the question, what was the proportion of electors to non-electors in the colony? On this point I take as my authority the latest and most able apologist and defender of the Massachusetts Government, Dr. Palfrey. He says: "Counting the lists of persons admitted to the franchise in Massachusetts, and making what I judge to be reasonable allowance for persons deceased, I come to the conclusion that the number of freemen in Massachusetts in 1670 may have been between 1,000 and 1,200, or one freeman to every four or five adult males."[202]

The whole population of the colony at this time is not definitely stated, but there was one elector to every "four or five" of the adult "_males_." This eleven hundred men, because they were Congregationalists, influenced and controlled by their ministers, elected from themselves all the legislators and rulers of Massachusetts Bay Colony in civil, judicial, and military matters, who bearded the King and Parliament, persecuted all who dissented from them in religious worship, encroached upon the property and rights of neighbouring colonies, levied and imposed all the burdens of the State upon four-fifths of their fellow (male) colonists who had no voice in the legislation or administration of the Government. Yet this sectarian Government is called by New England historians a free Government; and these eleven hundred electors--electors not because they have property, but because they are Congregationalists--are called "the people of Massachusetts," while four-fifths of the male population and more than four-fifths of the property are utterly ignored, except to pay the taxes or bear the other burdens of the State, but without a single elective voice, or a single free press to state their grievances or express their wishes, much less to advocate their rights and those of the King and Parliament.

III. Thirdly, from the facts and authorities given in the foregoing pages, there cannot be a reasonable pretext for the statement that the rulers of Massachusetts Bay had not violated both the objects and provisions of the Royal Charter, variously and persistently, during the fifty-four years of its existence; while there is not an instance of either Charles the First or Second claiming a single prerogative inconsistent with the provisions of the Charter, and which is not freely recognized at this day in the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain, by the free inhabitants of every Province of the British Empire. The fact that neither of the Charleses asked for anything more than the toleration of Episcopal worship, never objected to the perfect freedom of worship claimed by the Congregationalists of Massachusetts; and the fact that Charles the Second corresponded and remonstrated for twenty years and more to induce the rulers of Massachusetts Bay to acknowledge those rights of King and Parliament, and their duties as British subjects, shows that there could have been no desire to interfere with their freedom of worship or to abolish the Charter, except as a last resort, after the failure of all other means to restrain the disloyal and oppressive acts of the rulers of that one colony. In contradistinction to the practice of other colonies of New England, and of every British colony at this day, Charles the First and Second were bad kings to England and Scotland, but were otherwise to New England; and when New England historians narrate at great length, and paint in the darkest colours, the persecutions and despotic acts of the Stuart kings over England and Scotland, and then infer that they did or sought to do the same in New England, they make groundless assumptions, contrary to the express declarations and policy of the two Charleses and the whole character and tenor of New England history. The demands of Charles the Second, and the conditions on which he proposed to continue the first Charter in 1662, were every one sanctioned and provided for in the second Royal Charter issued by William and Mary in 1690, and under which, for seventy years, the Government was milder and more liberal, the legislation broader, the social state more happy, and the colony more loyal and prosperous than it had ever been during the fifty-four years of the first Charter. All this will be proved and illustrated in the following chapter.