THE BEGINNINGS OF NEW ENGLAND OR THE PURITAN THEOCRACY IN ITS RELATIONS TO CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY BY JOHN FISKE "The Lord Christ intends to achieve greater matters by this littlehandful than the world is aware of. " EDWARD JOHNSON, _Wonder-WorkingProvidence of Zion's Saviour in New England_ 1654 1892 To MY DEAR CLASSMATES, BENJAMIN THOMPSON FROTHINGHAM, WILLIAM AUGUSTUS WHITE, AND FREDERIC CROMWELL, I DEDICATE THIS BOOK. PREFACE. This book contains the substance of the lectures originally given atthe Washington University, St. Louis, in May, 1887, in the course of myannual visit to that institution as University Professor of AmericanHistory. The lectures were repeated in the following month of June atPortland, Oregon, and since then either the whole course, or one or moreof the lectures, have been given in Boston, Newton, Milton, Chelsea, New Bedford, Lowell, Worcester, Springfield, and Pittsfield, Mass. ;Farmington, Middletown, and Stamford, Conn. ; New York, Brooklyn, andTarrytown, N. Y. ; Philadelphia and Ogontz, Pa. ; Wilmington, Del. ;Chicago, 111. ; San Francisco and Oakland, Cal. In this sketch of the circumstances which attended the settlement of NewEngland, I have purposely omitted many details which in a formal historyof that period would need to be included. It has been my aim to give theoutline of such a narrative as to indicate the principles at work inthe history of New England down to the Revolution of 1689. When I waswriting the lectures I had just been reading, with much interest, thework of my former pupil, Mr. Brooks Adams, entitled "The Emancipation ofMassachusetts. " With the specific conclusions set forth in that book I found myselfoften agreeing, but it seemed to me that the general aspect of the casewould be considerably modified and perhaps somewhat more adequatelypresented by enlarging the field of view. In forming historicaljudgments a great deal depends upon our perspective. Out of the veryimperfect human nature which is so slowly and painfully casting off theoriginal sin of its inheritance from primeval savagery, it is scarcelypossible in any age to get a result which will look quite satisfactoryto the men of a riper and more enlightened age. Fortunately we can learnsomething from the stumblings of our forefathers, and a good manythings seem quite clear to us to-day which two centuries ago were onlybeginning to be dimly discerned by a few of the keenest and boldestspirits. The faults of the Puritan theocracy, which found its mostcomplete development in Massachusetts, are so glaring that it is idle toseek to palliate them or to explain them away. But if we would reallyunderstand what was going on in the Puritan world of the seventeenthcentury, and how a better state of things has grown out of it, we mustendeavour to distinguish and define the elements of wholesome strengthin that theocracy no less than its elements of crudity and weakness. The first chapter, on "The Roman Idea and the English Idea, " contains asomewhat more developed statement of the points briefly indicated in thethirteenth section (pp. 85-95) of "The Destiny of Man. " As all of thepresent book, except the first chapter, was written here under theshadow of the Washington University, I take pleasure in dating it fromthis charming and hospitable city where I have passed some of the mostdelightful hours of my life. St. Louis, April 15, 1889. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. THE ROMAN IDEA AND THE ENGLISH IDEA. When did the Roman Empire come to an end? . . . 1-3 Meaning of Odovakar's work . . . 3 The Holy Roman Empire . . . 4, 5 Gradual shifting of primacy from the men who spoke Latin, and theirdescendants, to the men who speak English . . . 6-8 Political history is the history of nation-making . . . 8, 9 The ORIENTAL method of nation-making; _conquest without incorporation_. . . 9 Illustrations from eastern despotisms . . . 10 And from the Moors in Spain . . . 11 The ROMAN method of nation-making; _conquest with incorporation, butwithout representation_ . . . 12 Its slow development . . . 13 Vices in the Roman system. . . . 14 Its fundamental defect . . . 15 It knew nothing of political power delegated by the people torepresentatives . . . 16 And therefore the expansion of its dominion ended in a centralizedDespotism . . . 16 Which entailed the danger that human life might come to stagnate inEurope, as it had done in Asia . . . 17 The danger was warded off by the Germanic invasions, which, however, threatened to undo the work which the Empire had done in organizingEuropean society . . . 17 But such disintegration was prevented by the sway which the Roman Churchhad come to exercise over the European mind . . . 18 The wonderful thirteenth century . . . 19 The ENGLISH method of nation-making; _incorporation with representation_. . . 20 Pacific tendencies of federalism . . . 21 Failure of Greek attempts at federation . . . 22 Fallacy of the notion that republics must be small . . . 23 "It is not the business of a government to support its people, but ofthe people to support their government" . . . 24 Teutonic March-meetings and representative assemblies . . . 25 Peculiarity of the Teutonic conquest of Britain . . . 26, 27 Survival and development of the Teutonic representative assembly inEngland . . . 28 Primitive Teutonic institutions less modified in England than in Germany. . . 29 Some effects of the Norman conquest of England . . . 30 The Barons' War and the first House of Commons . . . 31 Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty . . . 32 Conflict between Roman Idea and English Idea begins to become clearlyvisible in the thirteenth century . . . 33 Decline of mediaeval Empire and Church with the growth of modernnationalities . . . 34 Overthrow of feudalism, and increasing power of the crown . . . 35 Formidable strength of the Roman Idea . . . 36 Had it not been for the Puritans, political liberty would probably havedisappeared from the world . . . 37 Beginnings of Protestantism in the thirteenth century . . . 38 The Cathari, or Puritans of the Eastern Empire . . . 39 The Albigenses . . . 40 Effects of persecution; its feebleness in England . . . 41 Wyclif and the Lollards . . . 42 Political character of Henry VIII. 's revolt against Rome . . . 43 The yeoman Hugh Latimer . . . 44 The moment of Cromwell's triumph was the most critical moment in history. . . 45 Contrast with France; fate of the Huguenots . . . 46, 47 Victory of the English Idea . . . 48 Significance of the Puritan Exodus . . . 49 CHAPTER II. THE PURITAN EXODUS. Influence of Puritanism upon modern Europe . . . 50, 51 Work of the Lollards . . . 52 They made the Bible the first truly popular literature in England . . . 53, 54 The English version of the Bible . . . 54, 55 Secret of Henry VIII. 's swift success in his revolt against Rome . . . 56 Effects of the persecution under Mary . . . 57 Calvin's theology in its political bearings . . . 58, 59 Elizabeth's policy and its effects . . . 60, 61 Puritan sea-rovers . . . 61 Geographical distribution of Puritanism in England; it was strongest inthe eastern counties . . . 62 Preponderance of East Anglia in the Puritan exodus . . . 63 Familiar features of East Anglia to the visitor from New England . . . 64 Puritanism was not intentionally allied with liberalism . . . 65 Robert Brown and the Separatists . . . 66 Persecution of the Separatists . . . 67 Recantation of Brown; it was reserved for William Brewster to take thelead in the Puritan exodus . . . 68 James Stuart, and his encounter with Andrew Melville . . . 69 What James intended to do when he became King of England . . . 70 His view of the political situation, as declared in the conference atHampton Court . . . 71 The congregation of Separatists at Scrooby . . . 72 The flight to Holland, and settlement at Leyden in 1609 . . . 73 Systematic legal toleration in Holland . . . 74 Why the Pilgrims did not stay there; they wished to keep up theirdistinct organization and found a state . . . 74 And to do this they must cross the ocean, because European territory wasall preoccupied . . . 75 The London and Plymouth companies . . . 75 First explorations of the New England coast; Bartholomew Gosnold (1602), and George Weymouth (1605) . . . 76 The Popham colony (1607) . . . 77 Captain John Smith gives to New England its name (1614) . . . 78 The Pilgrims at Leyden decide to make a settlement near the Delawareriver . . . 79 How King James regarded the enterprise . . . 80 Voyage of the Mayflower; she goes astray and takes the Pilgrims to CapeCod bay . . . 81 Founding of the Plymouth colony (1620) . . . 82, 83 Why the Indians did not molest the settlers . . . 84, 85 The chief interest of this beginning of the Puritan exodus lies not somuch in what it achieved as in what it suggested . . . 86, 87 CHAPTER III. THE PLANTING OF NEW ENGLAND. Sir Ferdinando Gorges and the Council for New England . . . 88, 89 Wessagusset and Merrymount . . . 90, 91 The Dorchester adventurers . . . 92 John White wishes to raise a bulwark against the Kingdom of Antichrist. . . 93 And John Endicott undertakes the work of building it . . . 94 Conflicting grants sow seeds of trouble; the Gorges and Mason claims . . . 94, 95 Endicott's arrival in New England, and the founding of Salem . . . 95 The Company of Massachusetts Bay; Francis Higginson takes a powerfulreinforcement to Salem . . . 96 The development of John White's enterprise into the Company ofMassachusetts Bay coincided with the first four years of the reign ofCharles I . . . 97 Extraordinary scene in the House of Commons (June 5, 1628) . . . 98, 99 The King turns Parliament out of doors (March 2, 1629) . . . 100 Desperate nature of the crisis . . . 100, 101 The meeting at Cambridge (Aug. 26, 1629), and decision to transfer thecharter of the Massachusetts Bay Company, and the government establishedunder it, to New England . . . 102 Leaders of the great migration; John Winthrop . . . 102 And Thomas Dudley . . . 103 Founding of Massachusetts; the schemes of Gorges overwhelmed . . . 104 Beginnings of American constitutional history; the question as toself-government raised at Watertown . . . 105 Representative system established . . . 106 Bicameral assembly; story of the stray pig . . . 107 Ecclesiastical polity; the triumph of Separatism . . . 108 Restriction of the suffrage to members of the Puritan congregationalchurches . . . 109 Founding of Harvard College . . . 110 Threefold danger to the New England settlers in 1636:-- 1. From the King, who prepares to attack the charter, but is foiled bydissensions at home . . . 111-113 2. From religious dissensions; Roger Williams . . . 114-116 Henry Vane and Anne Hutchinson . . . 116-119 Beginnings of New Hampshire and Rhode Island . . . 119-120 3. From the Indians; the Pequot supremacy . . . 121 First movements into the Connecticut valley, and disputes with the Dutchsettlers of New Amsterdam . . . 122, 123 Restriction of the suffrage leads to disaffection in Massachusetts;profoundly interesting opinions of Winthrop and Hooker . . . 123, 124 Connecticut pioneers and their hardships . . . 125 Thomas Hooker, and the founding of Connecticut . . . 120 The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (Jan 14, 1639); the first writtenconstitution that created a government . . . 127 Relations of Connecticut to the genesis of the Federal Union . . . 128 Origin of the Pequot War; Sassacus tries to unite the Indian tribes in acrusade against the English . . . 129, 130 The schemes of Sassacus are foiled by Roger Williams . . . 130 The Pequots take the war path alone . . . 131 And are exterminated . . . 132-134 John Davenport, and the founding of New Haven . . . 135 New Haven legislation, and legend of the "Blue Laws" . . . 136 With the meeting of the Long Parliament, in 1640, the Puritan exoduscomes to its end . . . 137 What might have been . . . 138, 391 CHAPTER IV. THE NEW ENGLAND CONFEDERACY. The Puritan exodus was purely and exclusively English . . . 140 And the settlers were all thrifty and prosperous; chiefly countrysquires and yeomanry of the best and sturdiest type . . . 141, 142 In all history there has been no other instance of colonization soexclusively effected by picked and chosen men . . . 143 What, then, was the principle of selection? The migration was notintended to promote what we call religious liberty . . . 144, 145 Theocratic ideal of the Puritans . . . 146 The impulse which sought to realize itself in the Puritan ideal was anethical impulse . . . 147 In interpreting Scripture, the Puritan appealed to his Reason . . . 148, 149 Value of such perpetual theological discussion as was carried on inearly New England . . . 150, 151 Comparison with the history of Scotland . . . 152 Bearing of these considerations upon the history of the New Englandconfederacy . . . 153 The existence of so many colonies (Plymouth, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Haven, Rhode Island, the Piscataqua towns, etc. ) was due todifferences of opinion on questions in which men's religious ideas wereinvolved . . . 154 And this multiplication of colonies led to a notable and significantattempt at confederation . . . 155 Turbulence of dissent in Rhode Island . . . 156 The Earl of Warwick, and his Board of Commissioners . . . 157 Constitution of the Confederacy . . . 158 It was only a league, not a federal union . . . 159 Its formation involved a tacit assumption of sovereignty . . . 160 The fall of Charles I. Brought up, for a moment, the question as to thesupremacy of Parliament over the colonies . . . 161 Some interesting questions . . . 162 Genesis of the persecuting spirit . . . 163 Samuel Gorton and his opinions . . . 163-165 He flees to Aquedneck and is banished thence . . . 166 Providence protests against him . . . 167 He flees to Shawomet, where he buys land of the Indians . . . 168 Miantonomo and Uncas . . . 169, 170 Death of Miantonomo . . . 171 Edward Johnson leads an expedition against Shawomet . . . 172 Trial and sentence of the heretics . . . 173 Winthrop declares himself in a prophetic opinion . . . 174 The Presbyterian cabal . . . 175-177 The Cambridge Platform; deaths of Winthrop and Cotton . . . 177 Views of Winthrop and Cotton as to toleration in matters of Religion . . . 178 After their death, the leadership in Massachusetts was in the hands ofEndicott and Norton . . . 179 The Quakers; their opinions and behavior . . . 179-181 Violent manifestations of dissent . . . 182 Anne Austin and Mary Fisher; how they were received in Boston . . . 183 The confederated colonies seek to expel the Quakers; noble attitude ofRhode Island . . . 184 Roger Williams appeals to his friend, Oliver Cromwell . . . 185 The "heavenly speech" of Sir Harry Vane . . . 185 Laws passed against the Quakers . . . 186 How the death penalty was regarded at that time in New England . . . 187 Executions of Quakers on Boston Common . . . 188, 189 Wenlock Christison's defiance and victory . . . 189, 190 The "King's Missive" . . . 191 Why Charles II. Interfered to protect the Quakers . . . 191 His hostile feeling toward the New England governments . . . 192 The regicide judges, Goffe and Whalley . . . 193, 194 New Haven annexed to Connecticut . . . 194, 195 Abraham Pierson, and the founding of Newark . . . 196 Breaking-down of the theocratic policy . . . 197 Weakening of the Confederacy . . . 198 CHAPTER V. KING PHILIP'S WAR. Relations between the Puritan settlers and the Indians . . . 199 Trade with the Indians . . . 200 Missionary work; Thomas Mayhew . . . 201 John Eliot and his translation of the Bible . . . 202 His preaching to the Indians . . . 203 His villages of Christian Indians . . . 204 The Puritan's intention was to deal gently and honourably with the redmen . . . 205 Why Pennsylvania was so long unmolested by the Indians . . . 205, 206 Difficulty of the situation in New England . . . 207 It is hard for the savage and the civilized man to understand oneanother . . . 208 How Eliot's designs must inevitably have been misinterpreted by theIndians . . . 209 It is remarkable that peace should have been so long preserved . . . 210 Deaths of Massasoit and his son Alexander . . . 211 Very little is known about the nature of Philip's designs . . . 212 The meeting at Taunton . . . 213 Sausamon informs against Philip . . . 213 And is murdered . . . 214 Massacres at Swanzey and Dartmouth . . . 214 Murder of Captain Hutchinson . . . 215 Attack on Brookfield, which is relieved by Simon Willard . . . 216 Fighting in the Connecticut valley; the mysterious stranger at Hadley. . . 217, 218 Ambuscade at Bloody Brook . . . 219 Popular excitement in Boston . . . 220 The Narragansetts prepare to take the war-path . . . 221 And Governor Winslow leads an army against them . . . 222, 223 Storming of the great swamp fortress . . . 224 Slaughter of the Indians . . . 225 Effect of the blow . . . 226 Growth of the humane sentiment in recent times, due to the fact that thehorrors of war are seldom brought home to everybody's door . . . 227, 228 Warfare with savages is likely to be truculent in character . . . 229 Attack upon Lancaster . . . 230 Mrs. Rowlandson's narrative . . . 231-233 Virtual extermination of the Indians (February to August, 1676) . . . 233, 234 Death of Canonchet . . . 234 Philip pursued by Captain Church . . . 235 Death of Philip . . . 236 Indians sold into slavery . . . 237 Conduct of the Christian Indians . . . 238 War with the Tarratines . . . 239 Frightful destruction of life and property . . . 240 Henceforth the red man figures no more in the history of New England, except in frontier raids under French guidance . . . 241 CHAPTER VI. THE TYRANNY OF ANDROS. Romantic features in the early history of New England . . . 242 Captain Edward Johnson, of Woburn, and his book on "The Wonder-workingProvidence of Zion's Saviour in New England" . . . 243, 244 Acts of the Puritans often judged by an unreal and impossible standard. . . 245 Spirit of the "Wonder-working Providence" . . . 246 Merits and faults of the Puritan theocracy . . . 247 Restriction of the suffrage to church members . . . 248 It was a source of political discontent . . . 249 Inquisitorial administration of justice . . . 250 The "Half way Covenant" . . . 251 Founding of the Old South church . . . 252 Unfriendly relations between Charles II and Massachusetts . . . 253 Complaints against Massachusetts . . . 254 The Lords of Trade . . . 255 Arrival of Edward Randolph in Boston . . . 256 Joseph Dudley and the beginnings of Toryism in New England . . . 257, 258 Charles II. Erects the four Piscataqua towns into the royal province ofNew Hampshire . . . 259 And quarrels with Massachusetts over the settlement of the Gorges claimto the Maine district . . . 260 Simon Bradstreet and his verse-making wife . . . 261 Massachusetts answers the king's peremptory message . . . 262 Secret treaty between Charles II. And Louis XIV . . . 263 Shameful proceedings in England . . . 264 Massachusetts refuses to surrender her charter; and accordingly it isannulled by decree of chancery, June 21, 1684 . . . 265 Effect of annulling the charter . . . 266 Death of Charles II, accession of James II. , and appointment of SirEdmund Andros as viceroy over New England, with despotic powers . . . 267 The charter oak . . . 268 Episcopal services in Boston . . . 268, 269 Founding of the King's Chapel . . . 269 The tyranny . . . 270 John Wise of Ipswich . . . 271 Fall of James II . . . 271 Insurrection in Boston, and overthrow of Andros . . . 272 Effects of the Revolution of 1689 . . . 273 Need for union among all the northern colonies . . . 274 Plymouth, Maine, and Acadia annexed to Massachusetts . . . 275 Which becomes a royal province . . . 276 And is thus brought into political sympathy with Virginia . . . 276 The seeds of the American Revolution were already sown, and the spiritof 1776 was foreshadowed in 1689 . . . 277, 278 THE BEGINNINGS OF NEW ENGLAND. CHAPTER I. THE ROMAN IDEA AND THE ENGLISH IDEA. It used to be the fashion of historians, looking superficially at thefacts presented in chronicles and tables of dates, without analyzing andcomparing vast groups of facts distributed through centuries, or evensuspecting the need for such analysis and comparison, to assign the date476 A. D. As the moment at which the Roman Empire came to an end. It wasin that year that the soldier of fortune, Odovakar, commander of theHerulian mercenaries in Italy, sent the handsome boy Romulus, son ofOrestes, better known as "little Augustus, " from his imperial throneto the splendid villa of Lucullus near Naples, and gave him a yearlypension of $35, 000 [6, 000 solidi] to console him for the loss of aworld. As 324 years elapsed before another emperor was crowned at Rome, and as the political headship of Europe after that happy restorationremained upon the German soil to which the events of the eighth centuryhad shifted it, nothing could seem more natural than the habit whichhistorians once had, of saying that the mighty career of Rome had ended, as it had begun, with a Romulus. Sometimes the date 476 was even set upas a great landmark dividing modern from ancient history. For those, however, who took such a view, it was impossible to see the events ofthe Middle Ages in their true relations to what went before and whatcame after. It was impossible to understand what went on in Italy inthe sixth century, or to explain the position of that great Roman powerwhich had its centre on the Bosphorus, which in the code of Justinianleft us our grandest monument of Roman law, and which for a thousandyears was the staunch bulwark of Europe against the successiveaggressions of Persian, Saracen, and Turk. It was equally impossible tounderstand the rise of the Papal power, the all-important politics ofthe great Saxon and Swabian emperors, the relations of mediaeval Englandto the Continental powers, or the marvellously interesting growth of themodern European system of nationalities. [Sidenote: When did the RomanEmpire come to an end?] Since the middle of the nineteenth century the study of history hasundergone changes no less sweeping than those which have in the sametime affected the study of the physical sciences. Vast groups of factsdistributed through various ages and countries have been subjected tocomparison and analysis, with the result that they have not only thrownfresh light upon one another, but have in many cases enabled us torecover historic points of view that had long been buried in oblivion. Such an instance was furnished about twenty-five years ago by Dr. Bryce's epoch-making work on the Holy Roman Empire. Since thenhistorians still recognize the importance of the date 476 as that whichleft the Bishop of Rome the dominant personage in Italy, and marked theshifting of the political centre of gravity from the Palatine to theLateran. This was one of those subtle changes which escape notice untilafter some of their effects have attracted attention. The most importanteffect, in this instance, realized after three centuries, was not theoverthrow of Roman power in the West, but its indefinite extension andexpansion. The men of 476 not only had no idea that they were enteringupon a new era, but least of all did they dream that the Roman Empirehad come to an end, or was ever likely to. Its cities might be pillaged, its provinces overrun, but the supreme imperial power itself wassomething without which the men of those days could not imagine theworld as existing. It must have its divinely ordained representative inone place if not in another. If the throne in Italy was vacant, itwas no more than had happened before; there was still a throne atConstantinople, and to its occupant Zeno the Roman Senate sent amessage, saying that one emperor was enough for both ends of the earth, and begging him to confer upon the gallant Odovakar the title ofpatrician, and entrust the affairs of Italy to his care. So whenSicambrian Chlodwig set up his Merovingian kingdom in northern Gaul, hewas glad to array himself in the robe of a Roman consul, and obtain fromthe eastern emperor a formal ratification of his rule. [Transcriber's note: page missing in original. ] still survives inpolitical methods and habits of thought that will yet be long in dyingout. With great political systems, as with typical forms of organiclife, the processes of development and of extinction are exceedinglyslow, and it is seldom that the stages can be sharply marked by dates. The processes which have gradually shifted the seat of empire until theprominent part played nineteen centuries ago by Rome and Alexandria, on opposite sides of the Mediterranean, has been at length assumed byLondon and New York, on opposite sides of the Atlantic, form a mostinteresting subject of study. But to understand them, one must do muchmore than merely catalogue the facts of political history; one mustacquire a knowledge of the drifts and tendencies of human thought andfeeling and action from the earliest ages to the times in which welive. In covering so wide a field we cannot of course expect to obtainanything like complete results. In order to make a statement simpleenough to be generally intelligible, it is necessary to pass over manycircumstances and many considerations that might in one way and anotherqualify what we have to say. Nevertheless it is quite possible for us todiscern, in their bold general outlines, some historic truths of supremeimportance. In contemplating the salient features of the change whichhas now for a long time been making the world more English and lessRoman, we shall find not only intellectual pleasure and profit butpractical guidance. For in order to understand this slow but mightychange, we must look a little into that process of nation-making whichhas been going on since prehistoric ages and is going on here among usto-day, and from the recorded experience of men in times long pastwe may gather lessons of infinite value for ourselves and for ourchildren's children. As in all the achievements of mankind it is onlyafter much weary experiment and many a heart-sickening failure thatsuccess is attained, so has it been especially with nation-making. Skillin the political art is the fruit of ages of intellectual and moraldiscipline; and just as picture-writing had to come before printing andcanoes before steamboats, so the cruder political methods had to betried and found wanting, amid the tears and groans of unnumberedgenerations, before methods less crude could be put into operation. Inthe historic survey upon which we are now to enter, we shall see thatthe Roman Empire represented a crude method of nation-making which beganwith a masterful career of triumph over earlier and cruder methods, buthas now for several centuries been giving way before a more potent andsatisfactory method. And just as the merest glance at the history ofEurope shows us Germanic peoples wresting the supremacy from Rome, so inthis deeper study we shall discover a grand and far-reaching TeutonicIdea of political life overthrowing and supplanting the Roman Idea. Ourattention will be drawn toward England as the battle-ground and theseventeenth century as the critical moment of the struggle; we shall seein Puritanism the tremendous militant force that determined the issue;and when our perspective has thus become properly adjusted, we shallbegin to realize for the first time how truly wonderful was the age thatwitnessed the Beginnings of New England. We have long had before ourminds the colossal figure of Roman Julius as "the foremost man of allthis world, " but as the seventeenth century recedes into the pastthe figure of English Oliver begins to loom up as perhaps even morecolossal. In order to see these world-events in their true perspective, and to make perfectly clear the manner in which we are to estimate them, we must go a long distance away from them. We must even go back, asnearly as may be, to the beginning of things. [Sidenote: Gradualshifting of primacy from the men who spoke Latin, and their descendants, to the men who speak English] If we look back for a moment to the primitive stages of society, we maypicture to ourselves the surface of the earth sparsely and scantilycovered with wandering tribes of savages, rude in morals and manners, narrow and monotonous in experience, sustaining life very much as loweranimals sustain it, by gathering wild fruits or slaying wild game, andwaging chronic warfare alike with powerful beasts and with rival tribesof men. [Sidenote: Political history is the history of nation-making] In the widest sense the subject of political history is the descriptionof the processes by which, under favourable circumstances, innumerablesuch primitive tribes have become welded together into mighty nations, with elevated standards of morals and manners, with wide and variedexperience, sustaining life and ministering to human happiness byelaborate arts and sciences, and putting a curb upon warfare by limitingits scope, diminishing its cruelty, and interrupting it by intervals ofpeace. The story, as laid before us in the records of three thousandyears, is fascinating and absorbing in its human interest for those whocontent themselves with the study of its countless personal incidents, and neglect its profound philosophical lessons. But for those who studyit in the scientific spirit, the human interest of its details becomesstill more intensely fascinating and absorbing. Battles and coronations, poems and inventions, migrations and martyrdoms, acquire new meaningsand awaken new emotions as we begin to discern their bearings upon thesolemn work of ages that is slowly winning for humanity a richer andmore perfect life. By such meditation upon men's thoughts and deeds isthe understanding purified, till we become better able to comprehend ourrelations to the world and the duty that lies upon each of us to shapehis conduct rightly. In the welding together of primitive shifting tribes into stable andpowerful nations, we can seem to discern three different methods thathave been followed at different times and places, with widely differentresults. In all cases the fusion has been effected by war, but it hasgone on in three broadly contrasted ways. The first of these methods, which has been followed from time immemorial in the Oriental world, maybe roughly described as _conquest without incorporation. _ A tribe growsto national dimensions by conquering and annexing its neighbours, without admitting them to a share in its political life. Probably thereis always at first some incorporation, or even perhaps some crude germof federative alliance; but this goes very little way, --only far enoughto fuse together a few closely related tribes, agreeing in speech andhabits, into a single great tribe that can overwhelm its neighbours. Inearly society this sort of incorporation cannot go far without beingstopped by some impassable barrier of language or religion. Afterreaching that point, the conquering tribe simply annexes its neighboursand makes them its slaves. It becomes a superior caste, ruling overvanquished peoples, whom it oppresses with frightful cruelty, whileliving on the fruits of their toil in what has been aptly termedOriental luxury. Such has been the origin of many eastern despotisms, inthe valleys of the Nile and Euphrates, and elsewhere. Such a politicalstructure admits of a very considerable development of materialcivilization, in which gorgeous palaces and artistic temples may bebuilt, and perhaps even literature and scholarship rewarded, with moneywrung from millions of toiling wretches. There is that sort of brutalstrength in it, that it may endure for many long ages, until it comesinto collision with some higher civilization. Then it is likely to endin sudden collapse, because the fighting quality of the people hasbeen destroyed. Populations that have lived for centuries in fear ofimpalement or crucifixion, and have known no other destination forthe products of their labour than the clutches of the omnipresenttax-gatherer, are not likely to furnish good soldiers. A handful offreemen will scatter them like sheep, as the Greeks did twenty-threecenturies ago at Kynaxa, as the English did the other day at Telel-Kebir. On the other hand, where the manliness of the vanquishedpeople is not crushed, the sway of the conquerors who cannot enter intopolitical union with them is likely to be cast off, as in the case ofthe Moors in Spain. There was a civilization in many respects admirable. It was eminent for industry, science, art, and poetry; its annals arefull of romantic interest; it was in some respects superior to theChristian system which supplanted it; in many ways it contributedlargely to the progress of the human race; and it was free from someof the worst vices of Oriental civilizations. Yet because of thefundamental defect that between the Christian Spaniard and hisMussulman conqueror there could be no political fusion, this brilliantcivilization was doomed. During eight centuries of more or lessextensive rule in the Spanish peninsula, the Moor was from first to lastan alien, just as after four centuries the Turk is still an alien inthe Balkan peninsula. The natural result was a struggle that lastedage after age till it ended in the utter extermination of one of theparties, and left behind it a legacy of hatred and persecution that hasmade the history of modern Spain a dismal record of shame and disaster. [Sidenote: The Oriental method of nation-making] In this first method of nation-making, then, which we may call theOriental method, one now sees but little to commend. It was better thansavagery, and for a long time no more efficient method was possible, but the leading peoples of the world have long since outgrown it; andalthough the resulting form of political government is the oldest weknow and is not yet extinct, it nevertheless has not the elementsof permanence. Sooner or later it will disappear, as savagery isdisappearing, as the rudest types of inchoate human society havedisappeared. The second method by which nations have been made may be calledthe Roman method; and we may briefly describe it as _conquest withincorporation, but without representation_. The secret of Rome'swonderful strength lay in the fact that she incorporated the vanquishedpeoples into her own body politic. In the early time there was a fusionof tribes going on in Latium, which, if it had gone no further, wouldhave been similar to the early fusion of Ionic tribes in Attika or ofIranian tribes in Media. But whereas everywhere else this politicalfusion soon stopped, in the Roman world it went on. One after anotherItalian tribes and Italian towns were not merely overcome but admittedto a share in the political rights and privileges of the victors. By thetime this had gone on until the whole Italian peninsula was consolidatedunder the headship of Rome, the result was a power incomparably greaterthan any other that the world had yet seen. Never before had so manypeople been brought under one government without making slaves of mostof them. Liberty had existed before, whether in barbaric tribes orin Greek cities. Union had existed before, in Assyrian or Persiandespotisms. Now liberty and union were for the first time joinedtogether, with consequences enduring and stupendous. The wholeMediterranean world was brought under one government; ancient barriersof religion, speech, and custom were overthrown in every direction; andinnumerable barbarian tribes, from the Alps to the wilds of northernBritain, from the Bay of Biscay to the Carpathian mountains, were moreor less completely transformed into Roman citizens, protected by Romanlaw, and sharing in the material and spiritual benefits of Romancivilization. Gradually the whole vast structure became permeated byHellenic and Jewish thought, and thus were laid the lasting foundationsof modern society, of a common Christendom, furnished with a commonstock of ideas concerning man's relation to God and the world, andacknowledging a common standard of right and wrong. This was aprodigious work, which raised human life to a much higher plane thanthat which it had formerly occupied, and endless gratitude is due to thethousands of steadfast men who in one way or another devoted their livesto its accomplishment. [Sidenote: The Roman method of nation-making] This Roman method of nation-making had nevertheless its fatalshortcomings, and it was only very slowly, moreover, that it wroughtout its own best results. It was but gradually that the rights andprivileges of Roman citizenship were extended over the whole Romanworld, and in the mean time there were numerous instances whereconquered provinces seemed destined to no better fate than had awaitedthe victims of Egyptian or Assyrian conquest. The rapacity and crueltyof Caius Verres could hardly have been outdone by the worst of Persiansatraps; but there was a difference. A moral sense and political sensehad been awakened which could see both the wickedness and the folly ofsuch conduct. The voice of a Cicero sounded with trumpet tones againstthe oppressor, who was brought to trial and exiled for deeds which underthe Oriental system, from the days of Artaxerxes to those of the GrandTurk, would scarcely have called forth a reproving word. It was by slowdegrees that the Roman came to understand the virtues of his own method, and learned to apply it consistently until the people of all parts ofthe empire were, in theory at least, equal before the law. In theory, Isay, for in point of fact there was enough of viciousness in the Romansystem to prevent it from achieving permanent success. Historians havebeen fond of showing how the vitality of the whole system was impairedby wholesale slave-labour, by the false political economy which taxesall for the benefit of a few, by the debauching view of civil officewhich regards it as private perquisite and not as public trust, and--worst of all, perhaps--by the communistic practice of feeding anidle proletariat out of the imperial treasury. The names of these deadlysocial evils are not unfamiliar to American ears. Even of the last wehave heard ominous whispers in the shape of bills to promote mendicancyunder the specious guise of fostering education or rewarding militaryservices. And is it not a striking illustration of the slowness withwhich mankind learns the plainest rudiments of wisdom and of justice, that only in the full light of the nineteenth century, and at the costof a terrible war, should the most intelligent people on earth have gotrid of a system of labour devised in the crudest ages of antiquity andfraught with misery to the employed, degradation to the employers, andloss to everybody? [Sidenote: Its slow development] These evils, we see, in one shape or another, have existed almosteverywhere; and the vice of the Roman system did not consist in the factthat under it they were fully developed, but in the fact that it had noadequate means of overcoming them. Unless helped by something suppliedfrom outside the Roman world, civilization must have succumbed to theseevils, the progress of mankind must have been stopped. What was neededwas the introduction of a fierce spirit of personal liberty and localself-government. The essential vice of the Roman system was that it hadbeen unable to avoid weakening the spirit of personal independence andcrushing out local self-government among the peoples to whom it had beenapplied. It owed its wonderful success to joining Liberty with Union, but as it went on it found itself compelled gradually to sacrificeLiberty to Union, strengthening the hands of the central government andenlarging its functions more and more, until by and by the politicallife of the several parts had so far died away that, under the pressureof attack from without, the Union fell to pieces and the whole politicalsystem had to be slowly and painfully reconstructed. Now if we ask why the Roman government found itself thus obliged tosacrifice personal liberty and local independence to the paramountnecessity of holding the empire together, the answer will point us tothe essential and fundamental vice of the Roman method of nation-making. It lacked the principle of representation. The old Roman world knewnothing of representative assemblies. [Sidenote: It knew nothing ofrepresentation] Its senates were assemblies of notables, constituting in the main anaristocracy of men who had held high office; its popular assemblies wereprimary assemblies, --town-meetings. There was no notion of such a thingas political power delegated by the people to representatives who wereto wield it away from home and out of sight of their constituents. TheRoman's only notion of delegated power was that of authority delegatedby the government to its generals and prefects who discharged at adistance its military and civil functions. When, therefore, the Romanpopular government, originally adapted to a single city, had cometo extend itself over a large part of the world, it lacked the oneinstitution by means of which government could be carried on overso vast an area without degenerating into despotism. [Sidenote: Andtherefore ended in despotism] Even could the device of representation have occurred to the mind ofsome statesman trained in Roman methods, it would probably have made nodifference. Nobody would have known how to use it. You cannot inventan institution as you would invent a plough. Such a notion as that ofrepresentative government must needs start from small beginnings andgrow in men's minds until it should become part and parcel of theirmental habits. For the want of it the home government at Rome becamemore and more unmanageable until it fell into the hands of the army, while at the same time the administration of the empire became more andmore centralized; the people of its various provinces, even while theirsocial condition was in some respects improved, had less and lessvoice in the management of their local affairs, and thus the spirit ofpersonal independence was gradually weakened. This centralization wasgreatly intensified by the perpetual danger of invasion on the northernand eastern frontiers, all the way from the Rhine to the Euphrates. Do what it would, the government must become more and more a militarydespotism, must revert toward the Oriental type. The period extendingfrom the third century before Christ to the third century after was aperiod of extraordinary intellectual expansion and moral awakening; butwhen we observe the governmental changes introduced under the emperorDiocletian at the very end of this period, we realize how serious hadbeen the political retrogression, how grave the danger that the streamof human life might come to stagnate in Europe, as it had long sincestagnated in Asia. Two mighty agents, cooperating in their opposite ways to prevent anysuch disaster, were already entering upon the scene. The first was thecolonization of the empire by Germanic tribes already far advancedbeyond savagery, already somewhat tinctured with Roman civilization, yetat the same time endowed with an intense spirit of personal and localindependence. With this wholesome spirit they were about to refresh andrevivify the empire, but at the risk of undoing its work of politicalorganization and reducing it to barbarism. The second was theestablishment of the Roman church, an institution capable of holdingEuropean society together in spite of a political disintegration thatwas widespread and long-continued. While wave after wave of Germaniccolonization poured over romanized Europe, breaking down oldboundary-lines and working sudden and astonishing changes on the map, setting up in every quarter baronies, dukedoms, and kingdoms fermentingwith vigorous political life; while for twenty generations this salutarybut wild and dangerous work was going on, there was never a moment whenthe imperial sway of Rome was quite set aside and forgotten, there wasnever a time when union of some sort was not maintained through thedominion which the church had established over the European mind. Whenwe duly consider this great fact in its relations to what went beforeand what came after, it is hard to find words fit to express the debt ofgratitude which modern civilization owes to the Roman Catholic church. When we think of all the work, big with promise of the future, that wenton in those centuries which modern writers in their ignorance used onceto set apart and stigmatize as the "Dark Ages"; when we consider how theseeds of what is noblest in modern life were then painfully sown uponthe soil which imperial Rome had prepared; when we think of the variouswork of a Gregory, a Benedict, a Boniface, an Alfred, a Charlemagne; wefeel that there is a sense in which the most brilliant achievementsof pagan antiquity are dwarfed in comparison with these. Until quitelately, indeed, the student of history has had his attention toonarrowly confined to the ages that have been preeminent for literatureand art--the so-called classical ages--and thus his sense of historicalperspective has been impaired. When Mr. Freeman uses Gregory of Tours asa text-book, he shows that he realizes how an epoch may be none the lessportentous though it has not had a Tacitus to describe it, and certainlyno part of history is more full of human interest than the troubledperiod in which the powerful streams of Teutonic life pouring into RomanEurope were curbed in their destructiveness and guided to noble ends bythe Catholic church. Out of the interaction between these two mightyagents has come the political system of the modern world. The momentwhen this interaction might have seemed on the point of reaching acomplete and harmonious result was the glorious thirteenth century, theculminating moment of the Holy Roman Empire. Then, as in the times ofCaesar or Trajan, there might have seemed to be a union among civilizedmen, in which the separate life of individuals and localities was notsubmerged. In that golden age alike of feudal system, of empire, and ofchurch, there were to be seen the greatest monarchs, in fullest sympathywith their peoples, that Christendom has known, --an Edward I. , a St. Louis, a Frederick II. Then when in the pontificates of Innocent III. And his successors the Roman church reached its apogee, the religiousyearnings of men sought expression in the sublimest architecture theworld has seen. Then Aquinas summed up in his profound speculations thesubstance of Catholic theology, and while the morning twilight of modernscience might be discerned in the treatises of Roger Bacon, whilewandering minstrelsy revealed the treasures of modern speech, soon tobe wrought under the hands of Dante and Chaucer into forms of exquisitebeauty, the sacred fervour of the apostolic ages found itself renewed inthe tender and mystic piety of St. Francis of Assisi. It was a wonderfultime, but after all less memorable as the culmination of mediaevalempire and mediaeval church than as the dawning of the new era in whichwe live to-day, and in which the development of human society proceedsin accordance with more potent methods than those devised by the geniusof pagan or Christian Rome. [Sidenote: The German invaders and the Romanchurch] [Sidenote: The wonderful thirteenth century] For the origin of these more potent methods we must look back to theearly ages of the Teutonic people; for their development and applicationon a grand scale we must look chiefly to the history of that mostTeutonic of peoples in its institutions, though perhaps not more thanhalf-Teutonic in blood, the English, with their descendants in the NewWorld. The third method of nation-making may be called the Teutonic orpreeminently the English method. It differs from the Oriental and Romanmethods which we have been considering in a feature of most profoundsignificance; it contains the principle of representation. For thisreason, though like all nation-making it was in its early stagesattended with war and conquest, it nevertheless does not necessarilyrequire war and conquest in order to be put into operation. Of the othertwo methods war was an essential part. In the typical Oriental nation, such as Assyria or Persia, we see a conquering tribe holding down anumber of vanquished peoples, and treating them like slaves: here thenation is very imperfectly made, and its government is subject to suddenand violent changes. In the Roman empire we see a conquering people holdsway over a number of vanquished peoples, but instead of treating themlike slaves, it gradually makes them its equals before the law; herethe resulting political body is much more nearly a nation, and itsgovernment is much more stable. A Lydian of the fifth century beforeChrist felt no sense of allegiance to the Persian master who simplyrobbed and abused him; but the Gaul of the fifth century after Christwas proud of the name of Roman and ready to fight for the empire ofwhich he was a citizen. We have seen, nevertheless, that for want ofrepresentation the Roman method failed when applied to an immenseterritory, and the government tended to become more and more despotic, to revert toward the Oriental type. Now of the English or Teutonicmethod, I say, war is not an essential part; for where representativegovernment is once established, it is possible for a great nation to beformed by the peaceful coalescence of neighbouring states, or by theirunion into a federal body. An instance of the former was the coalescenceof England and Scotland effected early in the eighteenth centuryafter ages of mutual hostility; for instances of the latter we haveSwitzerland and the United States. Now federalism, though its riseand establishment may be incidentally accompanied by warfare, isnevertheless in spirit pacific. Conquest in the Oriental sense is quiteincompatible with it; conquest in the Roman sense is hardly less so. Atthe close of our Civil War there were now and then zealous people tobe found who thought that the southern states ought to be treated asconquered territory, governed by prefects sent from Washington, and helddown by military force for a generation or so. Let us hope that thereare few to-day who can fail to see that such a course would have beenfraught with almost as much danger as the secession movement itself. At least it would have been a hasty confession, quite uncalled forand quite untrue, that American federalism had thus far proved itselfincompetent, --that we had indeed preserved our national unity, but onlyat the frightful cost of sinking to a lower plane of national life. [Sidenote: The English method of nation-making] [Sidenote: Pacifictendencies of federalism] But federalism, with its pacific implications, was not an invention ofthe Teutonic mind. The idea was familiar to the city communities ofancient Greece, which, along with their intense love of self-government, felt the need of combined action for warding off external attack. Intheir Achaian and Aitolian leagues the Greeks made brilliant attemptstoward founding a nation upon some higher principle than that of mereconquest, and the history of these attempts is exceedinglyinteresting and instructive. They failed for lack of the principleof representation, which was practically unknown to the world untilintroduced by the Teutonic colonizers of the Roman empire. Until theidea of power delegated by the people had become familiar to men's mindsin its practical bearings, it was impossible to create a great nationwithout crushing out the political life in some of its parts. Somecentre of power was sure to absorb all the political life, and grow atthe expense of the outlying parts, until the result was a centralizeddespotism. Hence it came to be one of the commonplace assumptions ofpolitical writers that republics must be small, that free governmentis practicable only in a confined area, and that the only strong anddurable government, capable of maintaining order throughout a vastterritory, is some form of absolute monarchy. [Sidenote: Fallacy of thenotion that republics must be small] It was quite natural that people should formerly have held this opinion, and it is indeed not yet quite obsolete, but its fallaciousness willbecome more and more apparent as American history is better understood. Our experience has now so far widened that we can see that despotismis not the strongest but wellnigh the weakest form of government; thatcentralized administrations, like that of the Roman empire, have fallento pieces, not because of too much but because of too little freedom;and that the only perdurable government must be that which succeeds inachieving national unity on a grand scale, without weakening the senseof personal and local independence. For in the body politic this spiritof freedom is as the red corpuscles in the blood; it carries the lifewith it. It makes the difference between a society of self-respectingmen and women and a society of puppets. Your nation may have art, poetry, and science, all the refinements ofcivilized life, all the comforts and safeguards that human ingenuity candevise; but if it lose this spirit of personal and local independence, it is doomed and deserves its doom. As President Cleveland has wellsaid, it is not the business of a government to support its people, butof the people to support their government; and once to lose sightof this vital truth is as dangerous as to trifle with some stealthynarcotic poison. Of the two opposite perils which have perpetuallythreatened the welfare of political society--anarchy on the one hand, loss of self-government on the other--Jefferson was right in maintainingthat the latter is really the more to be dreaded because its beginningsare so terribly insidious. Many will understand what is meant by athreat of secession, where few take heed of the baneful principleinvolved in a Texas Seed-bill. That the American people are still fairly alive to the importance ofthese considerations, is due to the weary ages of struggle in which ourforefathers have manfully contended for the right of self-government. From the days of Arminius and Civilis in the wilds of lower Germany tothe days of Franklin and Jefferson in Independence Hall, we have beenengaged in this struggle, not without some toughening of our politicalfibre, not without some refining of our moral sense. Not among ourEnglish forefathers only, but among all the peoples of mediaeval andmodern Europe has the struggle gone on, with various and instructiveresults. In all parts of romanized Europe invaded and colonized byTeutonic tribes, self-government attempted to spring up. What may havebeen the origin of the idea of representation we do not know; like mostorigins, it seems lost in the prehistoric darkness. Wherever we findTeutonic tribes settling down over a wide area, we find them holdingtheir primary assemblies, usually their annual March-meetings, likethose in which Mr. Hosea Biglow and others like him have figured. Everywhere, too, we find some attempt at representative assemblies, based on the principle of the three estates, clergy, nobles, andcommons. But nowhere save in England does the representative principlebecome firmly established, at first in county-meetings, afterward in anational parliament limiting the powers of the national monarch as theprimary tribal assembly had limited the powers of the tribal chief. Itis for this reason that we must call the method of nation-making bymeans of a representative assembly the English method. While the idea ofrepresentation was perhaps the common property of the Teutonic tribes, it was only in England that it was successfully put into practice andbecame the dominant political idea. We may therefore agree with Dr. Stubbs that in its political development England is the most Teutonic ofall European countries, --the country which in becoming a great nationhas most fully preserved the local independence so characteristic of theancient Germans. The reasons for this are complicated, and to try toassign them all would needlessly encumber our exposition. But there isone that is apparent and extremely instructive. There is sometimes agreat advantage in being able to plant political institutions in avirgin soil, where they run no risk of being modified or perhapsmetamorphosed through contact with rival institutions. In America theTeutonic idea has been worked out even more completely than in Britain;and so far as institutions are concerned, our English forefatherssettled here as in an empty country. They were not obliged to modifytheir political ideas so as to bring them into harmony with those of theIndians; the disparity in civilization was so great that the Indianswere simply thrust aside, along with the wolves and buffaloes. [Sidenote: Teutonic March-meetings and representative assemblies] This illustration will help us to understand the peculiar features ofthe Teutonic settlement of Britain. Whether the English invaders reallyslew all the romanized Kelts who dwelt in the island, except those whofound refuge in the mountains of Cumberland, Wales, and Cornwall, orfled across the channel to Brittany, we need not seek to decide. Itis enough to point out one respect in which the Teutonic conquest wasimmeasurably more complete in Britain than in any other part of theempire. Everywhere else the tribes who settled upon Roman soil--theGoths, Vandals, Suevi, and Burgundians--were christianized, and so tosome extent romanized, before they came to take possession. Even themore distant Franks had been converted to Christianity before theyhad completed their conquest of Gaul. Everywhere except in Britain, therefore, the conquerors had already imbibed Roman ideas, and theauthority of Rome was in a certain sense acknowledged. There was nobreak in the continuity of political events. In Britain, on the otherhand, there was a complete break, so that while on the continent thefifth and sixth centuries are seen in the full midday light of history, in Britain they have lapsed into the twilight of half-legendarytradition. The Saxon and English tribes, coming from the remote wildsof northern Germany, whither Roman missionaries had not yet penetrated, still worshipped Thor and Wodan; and their conquest of Britain waseffected with such deadly thoroughness that Christianity was destroyedthere, or lingered only in sequestered nooks. A land once christianizedthus actually fell back into paganism, so that the work of converting itto Christianity had to be done over again. From the landing of heathenHengest on the isle of Thanet to the landing of Augustine and his monkson the same spot, one hundred and forty-eight years elapsed, duringwhich English institutions found time to take deep root in Britishsoil with scarcely more interference, as to essential points, than inAmerican soil twelve centuries afterward. [Sidenote: Peculiarity of theTeutonic conquest of Britain] The century and a half between 449 and 597 is therefore one of the mostimportant epochs in the history of the people that speak the Englishlanguage. Before settling in Britain our forefathers had been tribes inthe upper stages of barbarism; now they began the process of coalescenceinto a nation in which the principle of self-government should beretained and developed. The township and its town-meeting we find there, as later in New England. The county-meeting we also find, while thecounty is a little state in itself and not a mere administrativedistrict. And in this county-meeting we may observe a singular feature, something never seen before in the world, something destined to workout vaster political results than Caesar ever dreamed of. Thiscounty-meeting is not a primary assembly; all the freemen from all thetownships cannot leave their homes and their daily business to attendit. Nor is it merely an assembly of notables, attended by the mostimportant men of the neighbourhood. It is a representative assembly, attended by select men from each township. We may see in it the germ ofthe British parliament and of the American congress, as indeed of allmodern legislative bodies, for it is a most suggestive commentary uponwhat we are saying that in all other countries which have legislatures, they have been copied, within quite recent times, from English orAmerican models. We can seldom if ever fix a date for the beginningof anything, and we can by no means fix a date for the beginning ofrepresentative assemblies in England. We can only say that wherewe first find traces of county organization, we find traces ofrepresentation. Clearly, if the English conquerors of Britain had leftthe framework of Roman institutions standing there, as it remainedstanding in Gaul, there would have been great danger of this principleof representation not surviving. It would most likely have been crushedin its callow infancy. The conquerors would insensibly have fallen intothe Roman way of doing things, as they did in Gaul. [Sidenote: Survivaland development of Teutonic representative assembly in England] From the start, then, we find the English nationality growing up undervery different conditions from those which obtained in other partsof Europe. So far as institutions are concerned, Teutonism was lessmodified in England than in the German fatherland itself, For thegradual conquest and Christianization of Germany which began withCharles the Great, and went on until in the thirteenth century thefrontier had advanced eastward to the Vistula, entailed to a certainextent the romanization of Germany. For a thousand years after Charlesthe Great, the political head of Germany was also the political headof the Holy Roman Empire, and the civil and criminal code by which thedaily life of the modern German citizen is regulated is based upon thejurisprudence of Rome. Nothing, perhaps, could illustrate more forciblythan this sheer contrast the peculiarly Teutonic character of Englishcivilization. Between the eighth and the eleventh centuries, when theformation of English nationality was approaching completion, it receiveda fresh and powerful infusion of Teutonism in the swarms of heathenNorthmen or Danes who occupied the eastern coasts, struggled long forthe supremacy, and gradually becoming christianized, for a momentsucceeded in seizing the crown. Of the invasion of partially romanizedNorthmen from Normandy which followed soon after, and which has soprofoundly affected English society and English speech, we need noticehere but two conspicuous features. First, it increased the power of thecrown and the clergy, brought all England more than ever under one law, and strengthened the feeling of nationality. It thus made England aformidable military power, while at the same time it brought her intocloser relations with continental Europe than she had held since thefourth century. Secondly, by superposing a new feudal nobility as theupper stratum of society, it transformed the Old-English thanehood intothe finest middle-class of rural gentry and yeomanry that has everexisted in any country; a point of especial interest to Americans, sinceit was in this stratum of society that the two most powerful streams ofEnglish migration to America--the Virginia stream and the NewEngland stream--alike had their source. [Sidenote: Primitive Teutonicinstitutions less modified in England than in Germany] By the thirteenth century the increasing power and pretensions of thecrown, as the unification of English nationality went on, brought abouta result unlike anything known on the continent of Europe; it broughtabout a resistless coalition between the great nobles, the rural gentryand yeomanry, and the burghers of the towns, for the purpose of curbingroyalty, arresting the progress of centralization, and setting uprepresentative government on a truly national scale. This grand resultwas partly due to peculiar circumstances which had their origin inthe Norman conquest; but it was largely due to the political habitsgenerated by long experience of local representative assemblies, --habitswhich made it comparatively easy for different classes of society tofind their voice and use it for the attainment of ends in common. On thecontinent of Europe the encroaching sovereign had to contend withhere and there an arrogant vassal, here and there a high-spirited andrebellious town; in England, in this first great crisis of populargovernment, he found himself confronted by a united people. The fruitsof the grand combination were _first_, the wresting of Magna Charta fromKing John in 1215, and _secondly_, the meeting of the first House ofCommons in 1265. Four years of civil war were required to secure thesenoble results. The Barons' War, of the years 1263 to 1267, was anevent of the same order of importance as the Great Rebellion of theseventeenth century and the American Revolution; and among thefounders of that political freedom which is enjoyed to-day by allEnglish-speaking people, the name of Simon de Montfort, Earl ofLeicester, deserves a place in our grateful remembrance beside the namesof Cromwell and Washington. Simon's great victory at Lewes in 1264 mustrank with Naseby and Yorktown. The work begun by his House of Commonswas the same work that has continued to go on without essentialinterruption down to the days of Cleveland and Gladstone. Thefundamental principle of political freedom is "no taxation withoutrepresentation"; you must not take a farthing of my money withoutconsulting my wishes as to the use that shall be made of it. Onlywhen this principle of justice was first practically recognized, didgovernment begin to divorce itself from the primitive bestial barbaricsystem of tyranny and plunder, and to ally itself with the forces thatin the fulness of time are to bring peace on earth and good will tomen. Of all dates in history, therefore, there is none more fit to becommemorated than 1265; for in that year there was first asserted andapplied at Westminster, on a national scale, that fundamental principleof "no taxation without representation, " that innermost kernel of theEnglish Idea, which the Stamp Act Congress defended at New York exactlyfive hundred years afterward. When we think of these dates, by the way, we realize the import of the saying that in the sight of the Lord athousand years are but as a day, and we feel that the work of the Lordcannot be done by the listless or the slothful. So much time and so muchstrife by sea and land has it taken to secure beyond peradventure theboon to mankind for which Earl Simon gave up his noble life on the fieldof Evesham! Nor without unremitting watchfulness can we be sure that theday of peril is yet past. From kings, indeed, we have no more to fear;they have come to be as spooks and bogies of the nursery. But thegravest dangers are those which present themselves in new forms, againstwhich people's minds have not yet been fortified with traditionalsentiments and phrases. The inherited predatory tendency of men to seizeupon the fruits of other people's labour is still very strong, and whilewe have nothing more to fear from kings, we may yet have trouble enoughfrom commercial monopolies and favoured industries, marching to thepolls their hordes of bribed retainers. Well indeed has it been saidthat eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. God never meant that inthis fair but treacherous world in which He has placed us we should earnour salvation without steadfast labour. [Eternal vigilance is the priceof liberty] To return to Earl Simon, we see that it was just in that wonderfulthirteenth century, when the Roman idea of government might seem tohave been attaining its richest and most fruitful development, that thericher and more fruitful English idea first became incarnate in thepolitical constitution of a great and rapidly growing nation. It was notlong before the struggle between the Roman Idea and the English Idea, clothed in various forms, became the dominating issue in Europeanhistory. We have now to observe the rise of modern nationalities, as newcentres of political life, out of the various provinces of the Romanworld. In the course of this development the Teutonic representativeassembly is at first everywhere discernible, in some form or other, as in the Spanish Cortes or the States-General of France, but on thecontinent it generally dies out. Only in such nooks as Switzerland andthe Netherlands does it survive. In the great nations it succumbs beforethe encroachments of the crown. The comparatively novel Teutonic idea ofpower delegated by the people to their representatives had not becomedeeply enough rooted in the political soil of the continent; andaccordingly we find it more and more disused and at length almostforgotten, while the old and deeply rooted Roman idea of power delegatedby the governing body to its lieutenants and prefects usurps its place. Let us observe some of the most striking features of this growth ofmodern nationalities. [Sidenote: Conflict between Roman Idea and EnglishIdea begins to become clearly visible in the thirteenth century] The reader of medieval history cannot fail to be impressed with thesuddenness with which the culmination of the Holy Roman Empire, inthe thirteenth century, was followed by a swift decline. The imperialposition of the Hapsburgs was far less splendid than that of theHohenstauffen; it rapidly became more German and less European, untilby and by people began to forget what the empire originally meant. The change which came over the papacy was even more remarkable. Thegrandchildren of the men who had witnessed the spectacle of a king ofFrance and a king of England humbled at the feet of Innocent III. , thechildren of the men who had found the gigantic powers of a Frederick II. Unequal to the task of curbing the papacy, now beheld the successors ofSt. Peter carried away to Avignon, there to be kept for seventy yearsunder the supervision of the kings of France. Henceforth the glory ofthe papacy in its political aspect was to be but the faint shadow ofthat with which it had shone before. This sudden change in its positionshowed that the medieval dream of a world-empire was passing away, and that new powers were coming uppermost in the shape of modernnationalities with their national sovereigns. So long as thesenationalities were in the weakness of their early formation, it waspossible for pope and emperor to assert, and sometimes to come nearmaintaining, universal supremacy. But the time was now at hand whenkings could assert their independence of the pope, while the emperor wasfast sinking to be merely one among kings. As modern kingdoms thus grew at the expense of empire and papacy above, so they also grew at the expense of feudal dukedoms, earldoms, andbaronies below. The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were as fatalto feudalism as to world-empire and world-church. A series of warsoccurring at this time were especially remarkable for the wholesaleslaughter of the feudal nobility, whether on the field or under theheadsman's axe. This was a conspicuous feature of the feuds of theTrastamare in Spain, of the English invasions of France, followed by thequarrel between Burgundians and Armagnacs, and of the great war of theRoses in England. So thorough-going was the butchery in England, forexample, that only twenty-nine lay peers could be found to sit in thefirst parliament of Henry VII in 1485. The old nobility was almostannihilated, both in person and in property; for along with theslaughter there went wholesale confiscation, and this added greatly tothe disposable wealth of the crown. The case was essentially similar inFrance and Spain. In all three countries the beginning of the sixteenthcentury saw the power of the crown increased and increasing. Its vastaccessions of wealth made it more independent of legislative assemblies, and at the same time enabled it to make the baronage more subservient incharacter by filling up the vacant places with new creations of its own. Through the turbulent history of the next two centuries, we see theroyal power aiming at unchecked supremacy and in the principal instancesattaining it except in England. Absolute despotism was reached first inSpain, under Philip II. ; in France it was reached a century later, underLouis XIV. ; and at about the same time in the hereditary estates ofAustria; while over all the Italian and German soil of the disorganizedempire, except among the glaciers of Switzerland and the dykes of theNetherlands, the play of political forces had set up a host of pettytyrannies which aped the morals and manners of the great autocrats atParis and Madrid and Vienna. [Sidenote: Increasing power of the crown] As we look back over this growth of modern monarchy, we cannot butbe struck with the immense practical difficulty of creating a strongnationality without sacrificing self-government. Powerful, indeed, isthe tendency toward over-centralization, toward stagnation, towardpolitical death. Powerful is the tendency to revert to the Roman, if notto the Oriental method. As often as we reflect upon the general state ofthings at the end of the seventeenth century--the dreadful ignorance andmisery which prevailed among most of the people of continental Europe, and apparently without hope of remedy--so often must we be impressedanew with the stupendous significance of the part played byself-governing England in overcoming dangers which have threatened thevery existence of modern civilization. It is not too much to say thatin the seventeenth century the entire political future of mankind wasstaked upon the questions that were at issue in England. To keep thesacred flame of liberty alive required such a rare and wonderfulconcurrence of conditions that, had our forefathers then succumbed inthe strife, it is hard to imagine how or where the failure could havebeen repaired. Some of these conditions we have already considered; letus now observe one of the most important of all. Let us note the partplayed by that most tremendous of social forces, religious sentiment, in its relation to the political circumstances which we have passedin review. If we ask why it was that among modern nations absolutedespotism was soonest and most completely established in Spain, we findit instructive to observe that the circumstances under which theSpanish monarchy grew up, during centuries of deadly struggle with theMussulman, were such as to enlist the religious sentiment on the side ofdespotic methods in church and state. It becomes interesting, then, toobserve by contrast how it was that in England the dominant religioussentiment came to be enlisted on the side of political freedom. [Illustration: Had it not been for the Puritans, political liberty wouldprobably have disappeared from the world] In such an inquiry we have nothing to do with the truth or falsity ofany system of doctrines, whether Catholic or Protestant. The legitimatepurposes of the historian do not require him to intrude upon theprovince of the theologian. Our business is to trace the sequence ofpolitical cause and effect. Nor shall we get much help from crudesweeping statements which set forth Catholicism as invariably the enemyand Protestantism as invariably the ally of human liberty. The Catholichas a right to be offended at statements which would involve aHildebrand or a St. Francis in the same historical judgment with aSigismund or a Torquemada. The character of ecclesiastical as of allother institutions has varied with the character of the men who haveworked them and the varying needs of the times and places in which theyhave been worked; and our intense feeling of the gratitude we owe toEnglish Puritanism need in nowise diminish the enthusiasm with which wepraise the glorious work of the mediaeval church. It is the duty ofthe historian to learn how to limit and qualify his words of blame orapproval; for so curiously is human nature compounded of strength andweakness that the best of human institutions are likely to be infectedwith some germs of vice or folly. [Sidenote: Beginnings of Protestantismin the thirteenth century] Of no human institution is this more true than of the great medievalchurch of Gregory and Innocent when viewed in the light of its claimsto unlimited temporal and spiritual sovereignty. In striking down theheadship of the emperors, it would have reduced Europe to a sort ofOriental caliphate, had it not been checked by the rising spirit ofnationality already referred to. But there was another and even mightieragency coming in to curb its undue pretensions to absolute sovereignty. That same thirteenth century which witnessed the culmination of itspower witnessed also the first bold and determined manifestation of theProtestant temper of revolt against spiritual despotism. It was longbefore this that the earliest Protestant heresy had percolated intoEurope, having its source, like so many other heresies, in that easternworld where the stimulating thought of the Greeks busied itself with theancient theologies of Asia. From Armenia in the eighth century came theManichaean sect of Paulicians into Thrace, and for twenty generationsplayed a considerable part in the history of the Eastern Empire. In theBulgarian tongue they were known as Bogomilians, or men constant inprayer. In Greek they were called Cathari, or "Puritans. " They acceptedthe New Testament, but set little store by the Old; they laughed attransubstantiation, denied any mystical efficiency to baptism, frownedupon image-worship as no better than idolatry, despised the intercessionof saints, and condemned the worship of the Virgin Mary. As for thesymbol of the cross, they scornfully asked, "If any man slew the son ofa king with a bit of wood, how could this piece of wood be dear to theking?" Their ecclesiastical government was in the main presbyterian, andin politics they showed a decided leaning toward democracy. They worelong faces, looked askance at frivolous amusements, and were terribly inearnest. Of the more obscure pages of mediaeval history, none are fullerof interest than those in which we decipher the westward progress ofthese sturdy heretics through the Balkan peninsula into Italy, andthence into southern France, where toward the end of the twelfth centurywe find their ideas coming to full blossom in the great Albigensianheresy. It was no light affair to assault the church in the days ofInnocent III. The terrible crusade against the Albigenses, beginning in1207, was the joint work of the most powerful of popes and one of themost powerful of French kings. On the part of Innocent it was thestamping out of a revolt that threatened the very existence ofthe Catholic hierarchy; on the part of Philip Augustus it was thesuppression of those too independent vassals the Counts of Toulouse, andthe decisive subjection of the southern provinces to the government atParis. Nowhere in European history do we read a more frightful storythan that which tells of the blazing fires which consumed thousand afterthousand of the most intelligent and thrifty people in France. It wasnow that the Holy Inquisition came into existence, and after forty yearsof slaughter these Albigensian Cathari or Puritans seemed exterminated. The practice of burning heretics, first enacted by statute in Aragon in1197, was adopted in most parts of Europe during the thirteenth century, but in England not until the beginning of the fifteenth. The Inquisitionwas never established in England. Edward II. Attempted to introduceit in 1311 for the purpose of suppressing the Templars, but his utterfailure showed that the instinct of self-government was too strong inthe English people to tolerate the entrusting of so much power overmen's lives to agents of the papacy. Mediaeval England was ignorant andbigoted enough, but under a representative government which so stronglypermeated society, it was impossible to set the machinery of repressionto work with such deadly thoroughness as it worked under the guidance ofRoman methods. When we read the history of persecution in England, thestory in itself is dreadful enough; but when we compare it with thehorrors enacted in other countries, we arrive at some startling results. During the two centuries of English persecution, from Henry IV. To JamesI. , some 400 persons were burned at the stake, and three-fourths ofthese cases occurred in 1555-57, the last three years of Mary Tudor. Now in a single province of Spain, in the single year 1482, about 2000persons were burned. The lowest estimates of the number slain for heresyin the Netherlands in the course of the sixteenth century place it at75, 000. Very likely such figures are in many cases grossly exaggerated. But after making due allowance for this, the contrast is sufficientlyimpressive. In England the persecution of heretics was feeble andspasmodic, and only at one moment rose to anything like the appallingvigour which ordinarily characterized it in countries where theInquisition was firmly established. Now among the victims of religiouspersecution must necessarily be found an unusual proportion of men andwomen more independent than the average in their thinking, and morebold than the average in uttering their thoughts. The Inquisition was adiabolical winnowing machine for removing from society the most flexibleminds and the stoutest hearts; and among every people in which it wasestablished for a length of time it wrought serious damage to thenational character. It ruined the fair promise of Spain, and inflictedincalculable detriment upon the fortunes of France. No nation couldafford to deprive itself of such a valuable element in its politicallife as was furnished in the thirteenth century by the intelligent andsturdy Cathari of southern Gaul. [Sidenote: The Cathari, or Puritans ofthe Eastern Empire] [Sidenote: The Albigenses] [Sidenote: Effects ofpersecution; its feebleness in England] The spirit of revolt against the hierarchy, though broken and repressedthus terribly by the measures of Innocent III. , continued to live onobscurely in sequestered spots, in the mountains of Savoy, and Bosnia, and Bohemia, ready on occasion to spring into fresh and vigorous life. In the following century Protestant ideas were rapidly germinating inEngland, alike in baron's castle, in yeoman's farmstead, in citizen'sshop, in the cloistered walks of the monastery. Henry Knighton, writing in the time of Richard II. , declares, with the exaggeration ofimpatience, that every second man you met was a Lollard, or "babbler, "for such was the nickname given to these free-thinkers, of whom the mosteminent was John Wyclif, professor at Oxford, and rector of Lutterworth, greatest scholar of the age. [Sidenote: Wyclif and the Lollards] The career of this man is a striking commentary upon the differencebetween England and continental Europe in the Middle Ages. Wyclif deniedtransubstantiation, disapproved of auricular confession, opposed thepayment of Peter's pence, taught that kings should not be subject toprelates, translated the Bible into English and circulated it among thepeople, and even denounced the reigning pope as Antichrist; yet he wasnot put to death, because there was as yet no act of parliament for theburning of heretics, and in England things must be done according to thelaws which the people had made. [1] Pope Gregory XI. Issued five bullsagainst him, addressed to the king, the archbishop of Canterbury, andthe university of Oxford; but their dictatorial tone offended thenational feeling, and no heed was paid to them. Seventeen years afterWyclif's death, the statute for burning heretics was passed, and thepersecution of Lollards began. It was feeble and ineffectual, however. Lollardism was never trampled out in England as Catharism was trampledout in France. Tracts of Wyclif and passages from his translation ofthe Bible were copied by hand and secretly passed about to be read onSundays in the manor-house, or by the cottage fireside after the day'stoil was over. The work went on quietly, but not the less effectively, until when the papal authority was defied by Henry VIII. , it soon becameapparent that England was half-Protestant already. It then appearedalso that in this Reformation there were two forces cooperating, --thesentiment of national independence which would not brook dictation fromRome, and the Puritan sentiment of revolt against the hierarchy ingeneral. The first sentiment had found expression again and again inrefusals to pay tribute to Rome, in defiance of papal bulls, and in thefamous statutes of _praemunire_, which made it a criminal offence toacknowledge any authority in England higher than the crown. The revoltof Henry VIII. Was simply the carrying out of these acts of Edward I. And Edward III. To their logical conclusion. It completed the detachmentof England from the Holy Roman Empire, and made her free of all theworld. Its intent was political rather than religious. Henry, who wroteagainst Martin Luther, was far from wishing to make England a Protestantcountry. Elizabeth, who differed from her father in not caring a strawfor theology, was by temperament and policy conservative. Yet Englandcould not cease to be Papist without ceasing in some measure to beCatholic; nor could she in that day carry on war against Spain withoutbecoming a leading champion of Protestantism. The changes in creed andritual wrought by the government during this period were cautious andskilful; and the resulting church of England, with its long line oflearned and liberal divines, has played a noble part in history. [Sidenote: Political character of Henry VIII's revolt against Rome] But along with this moderate Protestantism espoused by the Englishgovernment, as consequent upon the assertion of English nationalindependence, there grew up the fierce uncompromising democraticProtestantism of which the persecuted Lollards had sown the seeds. Thiswas not the work of government. [Sidenote: The yeoman, Hugh Latimer] By the side of Henry VIII. Stands the sublime figure of Hugh Latimer, most dauntless of preachers, the one man before whose stern rebuke theheadstrong and masterful Tudor monarch quailed. It was Latimerthat renewed the work of Wyclif. And in his life as well as in hismartyrdom, --to use his own words of good cheer uttered while the fagotswere kindling around him, --lighted "such a candle in England as by God'sgrace shall never be put out. " This indomitable man belonged to thatmiddle-class of self-governing, self-respecting yeomanry that has beenthe glory of free England and free America. He was one of the sturdyrace that overthrew French chivalry at Crecy and twice drove thesoldiery of a tyrant down the slope of Bunker Hill. In boyhood he workedon his father's farm and helped his mother to milk the thirty kine; hepractised archery on the village green, studied in the village school, went to Cambridge, and became the foremost preacher of Christendom. Nowthe most thorough and radical work of the English Reformation was doneby this class of men of which Latimer was the type. It was work that wasnational in its scope, arousing to fervent heat the strong religiousand moral sentiment of the people, and hence it soon quite outran thecautious and conservative policy of the government, and tended tointroduce changes extremely distasteful to those who wished to keepEngland as nearly Catholic as was consistent with independence of thepope. Hence before the end of Elizabeth's reign, we find the crown setalmost as strongly against Puritanism as against Romanism. Hence, too, when under Elizabeth's successors the great decisive struggle betweendespotism and liberty was inaugurated, we find all the tremendous forceof this newly awakened religious enthusiasm cooperating with the Englishlove of self-government and carrying it under Cromwell to victory. Fromthis fortunate alliance of religious and political forces has come allthe noble and fruitful work of the last two centuries in which men ofEnglish speech have been labouring for the political regeneration ofmankind. But for this alliance of forces, it is quite possible that thefateful seventeenth century might have seen despotism triumphant inEngland as on the continent of Europe, and the progress of civilizationindefinitely arrested. [Sidenote: The moment of Cromwell's triumph wasthe most critical moment in history] In illustration of this possibility, observe what happened in Franceat the very time when the victorious English tendencies were shapingthemselves in the reign of Elizabeth. In France there was a strongProtestant movement, but it had no such independent middle-class tosupport it as that which existed in England; nor had it been able toprofit by such indispensable preliminary work as that which Wyclif haddone; the horrible slaughter of the Albigenses had deprived France ofthe very people who might have played a part in some way analogous tothat of the Lollards. Consequently the Protestant movement in Francefailed to become a national movement. Against the wretched Henry III whowould have temporized with it, and the gallant Henry IV who honestlyespoused it, the oppressed peasantry and townsmen made common cause byenlisting under the banner of the ultra-Catholic Guises. The mass ofthe people saw nothing in Protestantism but an idea favoured by thearistocracy and which they could not comprehend. Hence the great kingwho would have been glad to make France a Protestant country could onlyobtain his crown by renouncing his religion, while seeking to protectit by his memorable Edict of Nantes. But what a generous despot couldgrant, a bigoted despot might revoke; and before another century hadelapsed, the good work done by Henry IV. Was undone by Louis XIV. , theEdict of Nantes was set aside, the process of casting out the mostvaluable political element in the community was carried to completion, and seven percent of the population of France was driven away and addedto the Protestant populations of northern Germany and England andAmerica. The gain to these countries and the damage to France was fargreater than the mere figures would imply; for in determining thecharacter of a community a hundred selected men and women are morepotent than a thousand men and women taken at random. Thus while theReformation in France reinforced to some extent the noble army offreemen, its triumphs were not to be the triumphs of Frenchmen, but ofthe race which has known how to enlist under its banner the forces thatfight for free thought, free speech, and self-government, and all thatthese phrases imply. [Sidenote: Contrast with France; fate of theHuguenots] In view of these facts we may see how tremendous was the question atstake with the Puritans of the seventeenth century. Everywhere else theRoman idea seemed to have conquered or to be conquering, while theyseemed to be left as the forlorn hope of the human race. But from thevery day when Oliver Cromwell reached forth his mighty arm to stop thepersecutions in Savoy, the victorious English idea began to change theface of things. The next century saw William Pitt allied with Frederickof Prussia to save the work of the Reformation in central Europe and setin motion the train of events that were at last to make the people ofthe Teutonic fatherland a nation. At that same moment the keenestminds in France were awaking to the fact that in their immediateneighbourhood, separated from them only by a few miles of salt water, was a country where people were equal in the eye of the law. It was theideas of Locke and Milton, of Vane and Sidney, that, when transplantedinto French soil, produced that violent but salutary Revolution whichhas given fresh life to the European world. And contemporaneously withall this, the American nation came upon the scene, equipped as noother nation had ever been, for the task of combining sovereignty withliberty, indestructible union of the whole with indestructible life inthe parts. The English idea has thus come to be more than national, it has become imperial. It has come to rule, and it has come to stay. [Sidenote: Victory of the English Idea] We are now in a position to answer the question when the Roman Empirecame to an end, in so far as it can be answered at all. It did not cometo its end at the hands of an Odovakar in the year 476, or of a MahometII in 1453, or of a Napoleon in 1806. It has been coming to its end asthe Roman idea of nation-making has been at length decisively overcomeby the English idea. For such a fact it is impossible to assign a date, because it is not an event but a stage in the endless processionof events. But we can point to landmarks on the way. Of movementssignificant and prophetic there have been many. The whole course of theProtestant reformation, from the thirteenth century to the nineteenth, is coincident with the transfer of the world's political centre ofgravity from the Tiber and the Rhine to the Thames and the Mississippi. The whole career of the men who speak English has within this periodbeen the most potent agency in this transfer. In these giganticprocesses of evolution we cannot mark beginnings or endings by years, hardly even by centuries. But among the significant events whichprophesied the final triumph of the English over the Roman idea, perhapsthe most significant--the one which marks most incisively the dawningof a new era--was the migration of English Puritans across the AtlanticOcean, to repeat in a new environment and on a far grander scale thework which their forefathers had wrought in Britain. The voyage of theMayflower was not in itself the greatest event in this migration; butit serves to mark the era, and it is only when we study it in the moodawakened by the general considerations here set forth that we canproperly estimate the historic importance of the great Puritan Exodus. [Sidenote: Significance of the Puritan Exodus] CHAPTER II. THE PURITAN EXODUS. In the preceding chapter I endeavoured to set forth and illustrate someof the chief causes which have shifted the world's political centre ofgravity from the Mediterranean and the Rhine to the Atlantic and theMississippi; from the men who spoke Latin to the men who speak English. In the course of the exposition we began to catch glimpses of thewonderful significance of the fact that--among the people who hadfirst suggested the true solution of the difficult problem of making apowerful nation without sacrificing local self-government--when thesupreme day of trial came, the dominant religious sentiment was arrayedon the side of political freedom and against political despotism. If weconsider merely the territorial area which it covered, or the numbersof men slain in its battles, the war of the English parliament againstCharles I. Seems a trivial affair when contrasted with the giganticbut comparatively insignificant work of barbarians like Jinghis orTamerlane. But if we consider the moral and political issues involved, and the influence of the struggle upon the future welfare of mankind, we soon come to see that there never was a conflict of more world-wideimportance than that from which Oliver Cromwell came out victorious. Itshattered the monarchical power in England at a time when monarchicalpower was bearing down all opposition in the other great countries ofEurope. It decided that government by the people and for the peopleshould not then perish from the earth. It placed free England in aposition of such moral advantage that within another century theEnglish Idea of political life was able to react most powerfully uponcontinental Europe. It was the study of English institutions by such menas Montesquieu and Turgot, Voltaire and Rousseau, that gave shape anddirection to the French Revolution. That violent but wholesome clearingof the air, that tremendous political and moral awakening, which usheredin the nineteenth century in Europe, had its sources in the spiritwhich animated the preaching of Latimer, the song of Milton, the solemnimagery of Bunyan, the political treatises of Locke and Sidney, thepolitical measures of Hampden and Pym. The noblest type of modernEuropean statesmanship, as represented by Mazzini and Stein, is thespiritual offspring of seventeenth-century Puritanism. To speak ofNaseby and Marston Moor as merely English victories would be asabsurd as to restrict the significance of Gettysburg to the state ofPennsylvania. If ever there were men who laid down their lives in thecause of all mankind, it was those grim old Ironsides whose watchwordswere texts from Holy Writ, whose battle-cries were hymns of praise. [Sidenote: Influence of Puritanism upon modern Europe] It was to this unwonted alliance of intense religious enthusiasm withthe instinct of self-government and the spirit of personal independencethat the preservation of English freedom was due. When James I. Ascendedthe English throne, the forces which prepared the Puritan revolt hadbeen slowly and quietly gathering strength among the people for at leasttwo centuries. The work which Wyclif had begun in the fourteenth centuryhad continued to go on in spite of occasional spasmodic attempts todestroy it with the aid of the statute passed in 1401 for the burningof heretics. The Lollards can hardly be said at any time to haveconstituted a sect, marked off from the established church by thepossession of a system of doctrines held in common. The name by whichthey were known was a nickname which might cover almost any amountof diversity in opinion, like the modern epithets "free-thinker" and"agnostic. " The feature which characterized the Lollards in common was abold spirit of inquiry which led them, in spite of persecution, to readWyclif's English Bible and call in question such dogmas and rites of thechurch as did not seem to find warrant in the sacred text. Clad in longrobes of coarse red wool, barefoot, with pilgrim's staff in hand, theLollard preachers fared to and fro among the quaint Gothic towns andshaded hamlets, setting forth the word of God wherever they could findlisteners, now in the parish church or under the vaulted roof of thecathedral, now in the churchyard or market-place, or on some greenhillside. During the fifteenth century persecution did much to checkthis open preaching, but passages from Wyclif's tracts and texts fromthe Bible were copied by hand and passed about among tradesmen andartisans, yeomen and plough-boys, to be pondered over and talked aboutand learned by heart. It was a new revelation to the English people, this discovery of the Bible. Christ and his disciples seemed to comevery near when the beautiful story of the gospels was first read inthe familiar speech of every-day life. Heretofore they might well haveseemed remote and unreal, just as the school-boy hardly realizes thatthe Cato and Cassius over whom he puzzles in his Latin lessons were onceliving men like his father and neighbours, and not mere nominativesgoverning a verb, or ablatives of means or instrument. Now it becamepossible for the layman to contrast the pure teachings of Christ withthe doctrines and demeanour of the priests and monks to whom thespiritual guidance of Englishmen had been entrusted. Strong andself-respecting men and women, accustomed to manage their own affairs, could not but be profoundly affected by the contrast. [Sidenote: Work ofthe Lollards] While they were thus led more and more to appeal to the Bible as thedivine standard of right living and right thinking, at the same timethey found in the sacred volume the treasures of a most original andnoble literature unrolled before them; stirring history and romanticlegend, cosmical theories and priestly injunctions, profound metaphysicsand pithy proverbs, psalms of unrivalled grandeur and pastorals ofexquisite loveliness, parables fraught with solemn meaning, the mournfulwisdom of the preacher, the exultant faith of the apostle, the matchlesseloquence of Job and Isaiah, the apocalyptic ecstasy of St. John. At atime when there was as yet no English literature for the common people, this untold wealth of Hebrew literature was implanted in the Englishmind as in a virgin soil. Great consequences have flowed from the factthat the first truly popular literature in England--the first whichstirred the hearts of all classes of people, and filled their minds withideal pictures and their every-day speech with apt and telling phrases--was the literature comprised within the Bible. The superiority of thecommon English version of the Bible, made in the reign of James I. , overall other versions, is a fact generally admitted by competent critics. The sonorous Latin of the Vulgate is very grand, but in sublimity offervour as in the unconscious simplicity of strength it is surpassedby the English version, which is scarcely if at all inferior to theoriginal, while it remains to-day, and will long remain, the noblestmonument of English speech. The reason for this is obvious. The commonEnglish version of the Bible was made by men who were not aiming atliterary effect, but simply gave natural expression to the feelingswhich for several generations had clustered around the sacred text. Theyspoke with the voice of a people, which is more than the voice of themost highly gifted man. They spoke with the voice of a people to whomthe Bible had come to mean all that it meant to the men who wrote it. Tothe Englishmen who listened to Latimer, to the Scotchmen who listenedto Knox, the Bible more than filled the place which in modern timesis filled by poem and essay, by novel and newspaper and scientifictreatise. To its pages they went for daily instruction and comfort, with its strange Semitic names they baptized their children, upon itsprecepts, too often misunderstood and misapplied, they sought to buildup a rule of life that might raise them above the crude and unsatisfyingworld into which they were born. [Sidenote: The English version of theBible] It would be wrong to accredit all this awakening of spiritual life inEngland to Wyclif and the Lollards, for it was only after the Bible, inthe translations of Tyndall and Coverdale, had been made free to thewhole English people in the reign of Edward VI. That its significancebegan to be apparent; and it was only a century later, in the time ofCromwell and Milton, that its full fruition was reached. It was with theLollards, however, that the spiritual awakening began and was continueduntil its effects, when they came, were marked by surprising maturityand suddenness. Because the Lollards were not a clearly defined sect, itwas hard to trace the manifold ramifications of their work. During theterrible Wars of the Roses, contemporary chroniclers had little ornothing to say about the labours of these humble men, which seemedof less importance than now, when we read them in the light of theirworld-wide results. From this silence some modern historians havecarelessly inferred that the nascent Protestantism of the Lollards hadbeen extinguished by persecution under the Lancastrian kings, and was innowise continuous with modern English Protestantism. Nothing could bemore erroneous. The extent to which the Lollard leaven had permeated allclasses of English society was first clearly revealed when Henry VIII. Made his domestic affairs the occasion for a revolt against the Papacy. Despot and brute as he was in many ways, Henry had some characteristicswhich enabled him to get on well with his people. He not onlyrepresented the sentiment of national independence, but he had a trulyEnglish reverence for the forms of law. In his worst acts he relied uponthe support of his Parliament, which he might in various ways cajole orpack, but could not really enslave. In his quarrel with Rome he couldhave achieved but little, had he not happened to strike a chord offeeling to which the English people, trained by this slow and subtlework of the Lollards, responded quickly and with a vehemence upon whichhe had not reckoned. As if by magic, the fabric of Romanism was brokento pieces in England, monasteries were suppressed and their abbotshanged, the authority of the Pope was swept away, and there was nopowerful party, like that of the Guises in France to make such sweepingmeasures the occasion for civil war. The whole secret of Henry's swiftsuccess lay in the fact that the English people were already more thanhalf Protestant in temper, and needed only an occasion for declaringthemselves. Hence, as soon as Catholic Henry died, his youthful sonfound himself seated on the throne of a Protestant nation. The terriblebut feeble persecution which followed under Mary did much to strengthenthe extreme Protestant sentiment by allying it with the outraged feelingof national independence. The bloody work of the grand-daughter ofFerdinand and Isabella, the doting wife of Philip II. , was rightly feltto be Spanish work; and never, perhaps, did England feel such a sense ofrelief as on the auspicious day which welcomed to the throne the greatElizabeth, an Englishwoman in every fibre, and whose mother withal wasthe daughter of a plain country gentleman. But the Marian persecutionnot only increased the strength of the extreme Protestant sentiment, butindirectly it supplied it with that Calvinistic theology which was tomake it indomitable. Of the hundreds of ministers and laymen who fledfrom England in 1555 and the two following years, a great part foundtheir way to Geneva, and thus came under the immediate personalinfluence of that man of iron who taught the very doctrines for whichtheir souls were craving, and who was then at the zenith of his power. [Sidenote: Secret of Henry VIII. 's swift success in his revolt againstRome] [Sidenote: Effects of the persecution under Mary] Among all the great benefactors of mankind the figure of Calvin isperhaps the least attractive. He was, so to speak, the constitutionallawyer of the Reformation, with vision as clear, with head as cool, withsoul as dry, as any old solicitor in rusty black that ever dwelt inchambers in Lincoln's Inn. His sternness was that of the judge whodooms a criminal to the gallows. His theology had much in it that is instriking harmony with modern scientific philosophy, and much in it, too, that the descendants of his Puritan converts have learned to loathe assheer diabolism. It is hard for us to forgive the man who burned MichaelServetus, even though it was the custom of the time to do such thingsand the tender-hearted Melanchthon found nothing to blame in it. It isnot easy to speak of Calvin with enthusiasm, as it comes natural tospeak of the genial, whole-souled, many-sided, mirth-and-song-lovingLuther. Nevertheless it would be hard to overrate the debt which mankindowe to Calvin. The spiritual father of Coligny, of William the Silent, and of Cromwell must occupy a foremost rank among the champions ofmodern democracy. Perhaps not one of the mediaeval popes was moredespotic in temper than Calvin; but it is not the less true that thepromulgation of his theology was one of the longest steps that mankindhave taken toward personal freedom. Calvinism left the individual manalone in the presence of his God. His salvation could not be wrought bypriestly ritual, but only by the grace of God abounding in his soul; andwretched creature that he felt himself to be, through the intense moralawakening of which this stern theology was in part the expression, hissoul was nevertheless of infinite value, and the possession of it wasthe subject of an everlasting struggle between the powers of heaven andthe powers of hell. In presence of the awful responsibility of life, alldistinctions of rank and fortune vanished; prince and pauper were alikethe helpless creatures of Jehovah and suppliants for his grace. Calvindid not originate these doctrines; in announcing them he was but settingforth, as he said, the Institutes of the Christian religion; but inemphasizing this aspect of Christianity, in engraving it upon men'sminds with that keen-edged logic which he used with such unrivalledskill, Calvin made them feel, as it had perhaps never been felt before, the dignity and importance of the individual human soul. It was areligion fit to inspire men who were to be called upon to fight forfreedom, whether in the marshes of the Netherlands or on the moors ofScotland. In a church, moreover, based upon such a theology there wasno room for prelacy. Each single church tended to become an independentcongregation of worshippers, constituting one of the most effectiveschools that has ever existed for training men in local self-government. [Sidenote: Calvin's theology in its political bearings] When, therefore, upon the news of Elizabeth's accession to the throne, the Protestant refugees made their way back to England, they came asCalvinistic Puritans. Their stay upon the Continent had been short, butit had been just enough to put the finishing touch upon the work thathad been going on since the days of Wyclif. Upon such men and theirtheories Elizabeth could not look with favour. With all her father'sdespotic temper, Elizabeth possessed her mother's fine tact, andshe represented so grandly the feeling of the nation in itslife-and-death-struggle with Spain and the pope, that never perhaps inEnglish history has the crown wielded so much real power as during thefive-and-forty years of her wonderful reign. One day Elizabeth asked a lady of the court how she contrived to retainher husband's affection. The lady replied that "she had confidencein her husband's understanding and courage, well founded on her ownsteadfastness not to offend or thwart, but to cherish and obey, wherebyshe did persuade her husband of her own affection, and in so doing didcommand his. " "Go to, go to, mistress, " cried the queen, "You arewisely bent, I find. After such sort do I keep the good will of allmy husbands, my good people; for if they did not rest assured of somespecial love towards them, they would not readily yield me such goodobedience. " [2] Such a theory of government might work well in the handsof an Elizabeth, and in the circumstances in which England was thenplaced; but it could hardly be worked by a successor. The seeds ofrevolt were already sown. The disposition to curb the sovereign wasgrowing and would surely assert itself as soon as it should have someperson less loved and respected than Elizabeth to deal with. The queenin some measure foresaw this, and in the dogged independence anduncompromising enthusiasm of the Puritans she recognized the rock onwhich the monarchy might dash itself into pieces. She therefore hatedthe Puritans, and persecuted them zealously with one hand, whilecircumstances forced her in spite of herself to aid and abet them withthe other. She could not maintain herself against Spain without helpingthe Dutch and the Huguenots; but every soldier she sent across thechannel came back, if he came at all, with his head full of thedoctrines of Calvin; and these stalwart converts were reinforced by therefugees from France and the Netherlands who came flocking into Englishtowns to set up their thrifty shops and hold prayer-meetings in theirhumble chapels. To guard the kingdom against the intrigues of Philip andthe Guises and the Queen of Scots, it was necessary to choose the mostzealous Protestants for the most responsible positions, and such menwere more than likely to be Calvinists and Puritans. Elizabeth's greatministers, Burleigh, Walsingham, and Nicholas Bacon, were inclinedtoward Puritanism; and so were the naval heroes who won the mostfruitful victories of that century, by shattering the maritime power ofSpain and thus opening the way for Englishmen to colonize North America. If we would realize the dangers that would have beset the Mayflower andher successors but for the preparatory work of these immortal sailors, we must remember the dreadful fate of Ribault and his Huguenot followersin Florida, twenty-three years before that most happy and gloriousevent, the destruction of the Spanish Armada. But not even the devotedmen and women who held their prayer-meetings in the Mayflower's cabinwere more constant in prayer or more assiduous in reading the Bible thanthe dauntless rovers, Drake and Hawkins, Gilbert and Cavendish. In thechurch itself, too, the Puritan spirit grew until in 1575-83 it seizedupon Grindal, archbishop of Canterbury, who incurred the queen'sdisfavour by refusing to meddle with the troublesome reformers or tosuppress their prophesyings. By the end of the century the majorityof country gentlemen and of wealthy merchants in the towns had becomePuritans, and the new views had made great headway in both universities, while at Cambridge they had become dominant. [Sidenote: Elizabeth'spolicy, and its effects] [Sidenote: Puritan Sea-rovers] This allusion to the universities may serve to introduce the veryinteresting topic of the geographical distribution of Puritanism inEngland. No one can study the history of the two universities withoutbeing impressed with the greater conservatism of Oxford, and the greaterhospitality of Cambridge toward new ideas. Possibly the explanationmay have some connection with the situation of Cambridge upon the EastAnglian border. The eastern counties of England have often been remarkedas rife in heresy and independency. For many generations the coastregion between the Thames and the Humber was a veritable _litushaereticum. _ Longland, bishop of Lincoln in 1520, reported Lollardism asespecially vigorous and obstinate in his diocese, where more than twohundred heretics were once brought before him in the course of a singlevisitation. It was in Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex, andamong the fens of Ely, Cambridge, and Huntingdon, that Puritanism wasstrongest at the end of the sixteenth century. It was as member andleading spirit of the Eastern Counties Association that Oliver Cromwellbegan his military career; and in so far as there was anything sectionalin the struggle between Charles I. And the Long Parliament, it was astruggle which ended in the victory of east over west. East Anglia wasfrom first to last the one region in which the supremacy of Parliamentwas unquestionable and impregnable, even after the strength of itspopulation had been diminished by sending some thousands of picked menand women to America. While every one of the forty counties of Englandwas represented in the great Puritan exodus, the East Anglian countiescontributed to it far more than all the rest. Perhaps it would not befar out of the way to say that two-thirds of the American people who cantrace their ancestry to New England might follow it back to the EastAnglian shires of the mother-country; one-sixth might follow it to thosesouthwestern countries--Devonshire, Dorset, and Somerset--which solong were foremost in maritime enterprise; one-sixth to other parts ofEngland. I would not insist upon the exactness of such figures, in amatter where only a rough approximation is possible; but I do not thinkthey overstate the East Anglian preponderance. It was not by accidentthat the earliest counties of Massachusetts were called Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex, or that Boston in Lincolnshire gave its name to thechief city of New England. The native of Connecticut or Massachusettswho wanders about rural England to-day finds no part of it so homelikeas the cosy villages and smiling fields and quaint market towns as hefares leisurely and in not too straight a line from Ipswich toward Hull. Countless little unobtrusive features remind him of home. The very nameson the sign-boards over the sleepy shops have an unwontedly familiarlook. In many instances the homestead which his forefathers left, whenthey followed Winthrop or Hooker to America, is still to be found, well-kept and comfortable; the ancient manor-house built of massiveunhewn stone, yet in other respects much like the New England farmhouse, with its long sloping roof and gable end toward the road, its staircasewith twisted balusters running across the shallow entry-way, its lowceilings with their sturdy oaken beams, its spacious chimneys, and itsnarrow casements from which one might have looked out upon the anxiousmarch of Edward IV. From Ravenspur to the field of victory at Barnetin days when America was unknown. Hard by, in the little parish churchwhich has stood for perhaps a thousand years, plain enough and bleakenough to suit the taste of the sternest Puritan, one may read uponthe cold pavement one's own name and the names of one's friends andneighbours in startling proximity, somewhat worn and effaced by thecountless feet that have trodden there. And yonder on the village greenone comes with bated breath upon the simple inscription which tells ofsome humble hero who on that spot in the evil reign of Mary suffereddeath by fire. Pursuing thus our interesting journey, we may come atlast to the quiet villages of Austerfield and Scrooby, on oppositebanks of the river Idle, and just at the corner of the three shires ofLincoln, York, and Nottingham. It was from this point that the Puritanexodus to America was begun. [Sidenote: Puritanism was strongest in theeastern counties] [Sidenote: Preponderance of East Anglia in the Puritanexodus] It was not, however, in the main stream of Puritanism, but in one of itsobscure rivulets that this world-famous movement originated. During thereign of Elizabeth it was not the purpose of the Puritans to separatethemselves from the established church of which the sovereign was thehead, but to remain within it and reform it according to their ownnotions. For a time they were partially successful in this work, especially in simplifying the ritual and in giving a Calvinistic tingeto the doctrines. In doing this they showed no conscious tendency towardfreedom of thought, but rather a bigotry quite as intense as that whichanimated the system against which they were fighting. The most advancedliberalism of Elizabeth's time was not to be found among the Puritans, but in the magnificent treatise on "Ecclesiastical Polity" by thechurchman Richard Hooker. But the liberalism of this great writer, likethat of Erasmus a century earlier, was not militant enough to meet thesterner demands of the time. It could not then ally itself with thedemocratic spirit, as Puritanism did. It has been well said that whileLuther was the prophet of the Reformation that has been, Erasmus was theprophet of the Reformation that is to come, and so it was to some extentwith the Puritans and Hooker. The Puritan fight against the hierarchywas a political necessity of the time, something without which no realand thorough reformation could then be effected. In her antipathy tothis democratic movement, Elizabeth vexed and tormented the Puritansas far as she deemed it prudent; and in the conservative temper of thepeople she found enough support to prevent their transforming the churchas they would have liked to do. Among the Puritans themselves, indeed, there was no definite agreement on this point. Some would have stoppedshort with Presbyterianism, while others held that "new presbyter wasbut old priest writ large, " and so pressed on to Independency. It wasearly in Elizabeth's reign that the zeal of these extreme brethren, inflamed by persecution, gave rise to the sect of Separatists, whoflatly denied the royal supremacy over ecclesiastical affairs, andasserted the right to set up churches of their own, with pastorsand elders and rules of discipline, independent of queen or bishop. [Sidenote: Puritanism was not intentionally allied with liberalism] In 1567 the first congregation of this sort, consisting of about ahundred persons assembled in a hall in Anchor Lane in London, wasforcibly broken up and thirty-one of the number were sent to jail andkept there for nearly a year. By 1576 the Separatists had come to berecognized as a sect, under the lead of Robert Brown, a man of highsocial position, related to the great Lord Burleigh. Brown fled toHolland, where he preached to a congregation of English exiles, andwrote books which were smuggled into England and privately circulatedthere, much to the disgust, not only of the queen, but of all parties, Puritans as well as High Churchmen. The great majority of Puritans, whose aim was not to leave the church, but to stay in it and controlit, looked with dread and disapproval upon these extremists who seemedlikely to endanger their success by forcing them into deadly oppositionto the crown. Just as in the years which ushered in our late Civil War, the opponents of the Republicans sought to throw discredit upon them byconfusing them with the little sect of Abolitionists; and just as theRepublicans, in resenting the imputation, went so far as to frown uponthe Abolitionists, so that in December, 1860, men who had just voted forMr. Lincoln were ready to join in breaking up "John Brown meetings" inBoston; so it was with religious parties in the reign of Elizabeth. Theopponents of the Puritans pointed to the Separatists, and cried, "Seewhither your anarchical doctrines are leading!" and in their eagernessto clear themselves of this insinuation, the leading Puritans were assevere upon the Separatists as anybody. It is worthy of note that inboth instances the imputation, so warmly resented, was true. Under thepressure of actual hostilities the Republicans did become Abolitionists, and in like manner, when in England it came to downright warfare thePuritans became Separatists. But meanwhile it fared ill with the littlesect which everybody hated and despised. Their meetings were broken upby mobs. In an old pamphlet describing a "tumult in Fleet Street, raisedby the disorderly preachment, pratings, and prattlings of a swarm ofSeparatists, " one reads such sentences as the following: "At length theycatcht one of them alone, but they kickt him so vehemently as if theymeant to beat him into a jelly. It is ambiguous whether they have kil'dhim or no, but for a certainty they did knock him about as if they meantto pull him to pieces. I confesse it had been no matter if they hadbeaten the whole tribe in the like manner. " For their leaders thepenalty was more serious. The denial of the queen's ecclesiasticalsupremacy could be treated as high treason, and two of Brown's friends, convicted of circulating his books, were sent to the gallows. In spiteof these dangers Brown returned to England in 1585. William the Silenthad lately been murdered, and heresy in Holland was not yet safe fromthe long arm of the Spaniard. Brown trusted in Lord Burleigh's abilityto protect him, but in 1588, finding himself in imminent danger, hesuddenly recanted and accepted a comfortable living under the bishopswho had just condemned him. His followers were already known asBrownists; henceforth their enemies took pains to call them so and twitthem with holding doctrines too weak for making martyrs. [Sidenote:Robert Brown and the Separatists] The flimsiness of Brown's moral texture prevented him from becoming theleader in the Puritan exodus to New England. That honour was reservedfor William Brewster, son of a country gentleman who had for manyyears been postmaster at Scrooby. The office was then one of highresponsibility and influence. After taking his degree at Cambridge, Brewster became private secretary to Sir William Davison, whom heaccompanied on his mission to the Netherlands. When Davison's publiccareer came to an end in 1587, Brewster returned to Scrooby, and soonafterward succeeded his father as postmaster, in which position heremained until 1607. During the interval Elizabeth died, and JamesStuart came from Scotland to take her place on the throne. [Sidenote:William Brewster] The feelings with which the late queen had regarded Puritanism were mildcompared with the sentiments entertained by her successor. For someyears he had been getting worsted in his struggle with the Presbyteriansof the northern kingdom. His vindictive memory treasured up the day whena mighty Puritan preacher had in public twitched him by the sleeve andcalled him "God's silly vassal. " "I tell you, sir, " said Andrew Melvilleon that occasion, "there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland. There is Christ Jesus the King, and his kingdom the Kirk, whose subjectJames VI. Is, and of whose kingdom not a king, nor a lord, nor a head, but a member. And they whom Christ hath called to watch over his kirkand govern his spiritual kingdom have sufficient power and authority soto do both together and severally. " In this bold and masterful speechwe have the whole political philosophy of Puritanism, as in a nutshell. Under the guise of theocratic fanaticism, and in words as arrogant asever fell from priestly lips, there was couched the assertion of thepopular will against despotic privilege. Melville could say such thingsto the king's face and walk away unharmed, because there stood behindhim a people fully aroused to the conviction that there is an eternallaw of God, which kings no less than scullions must obey. [3] Melvilleknew this full well, and so did James know it in the bitterness of hisheart. He would have no such mischievous work in England. He despisedElizabeth's grand national policy which his narrow intellect could notcomprehend. He could see that in fighting Spain and aiding Dutchmen andHuguenots she was strengthening the very spirit that sought to pullmonarchy down. In spite of her faults, which were neither few nor small, the patriotism of that fearless woman was superior to any personalambition. It was quite otherwise with James. He was by no meansfearless, and he cared more for James Stuart than for either England orScotland. He had an overweening opinion of his skill in kingcraft. Incoming to Westminster it was his policy to use his newly acquiredpower to break down the Puritan party in both kingdoms and to fastenepiscopacy upon Scotland. In pursuing this policy he took no heed ofEnglish national sentiment, but was quite ready to defy and insult it, even to the point of making--before children who remembered the Armadahad yet reached middle age--an alliance with the hated Spaniard. In suchwise James succeeded in arraying against the monarchical principle thestrongest forces of English life, --the sentiment of nationality, thesentiment of personal freedom, and the uncompromising religious fervourof Calvinism; and out of this invincible combination of forces has beenwrought the nobler and happier state of society in which we live to-day. [Sidenote: James Stuart and Andrew Melville] Scarcely ten months had James been king of England when he invitedthe leading Puritan clergymen to meet himself and the bishops in aconference at Hampton Court, as he wished to learn what changes theywould like to make in the government and ritual of the church. In thecourse of the discussion he lost his temper and stormed, as was hiswont. [Sidenote: King James's view of the political situation] The mention of the word "presbytery" lashed him into fury. "A Scottishpresbytery, " he cried, "agreeth as well with a monarchy as God and theDevil. Then Jack and Tom and Will and Dick shall meet, and at theirpleasures censure me and my council and all our proceedings . . . . Stay, I pray you, for one seven years, before you demand that from me, and ifthen you find me pursy and fat, and my windpipes stuffed, I will perhapshearken to you . . . . Until you find that I grow lazy, let that alone. "One of the bishops declared that in this significant tirade his Majestyspoke by special inspiration from Heaven! The Puritans saw that theironly hope lay in resistance. If any doubt remained, it was dispelled bythe vicious threat with which the king broke up the conference. "I will_make_ them conform, " said he, "or I will harry them out of the land. " These words made a profound sensation in England, as well they might, for they heralded the struggle which within half a century was todeliver up James's son to the executioner. The Parliament of 1604 metin angrier mood than any Parliament which had assembled at Westminstersince the dethronement of Richard II. Among the churches non-conformitybegan more decidedly to assume the form of secession. The key-note ofthe conflict was struck at Scrooby. Staunch Puritan as he was, Brewsterhad not hitherto favoured the extreme measures of the Separatists. Nowhe withdrew from the church, and gathered together a company of men andwomen who met on Sundays for divine service in his own drawing-room atScrooby Manor. In organizing this independent Congregationalistsociety, Brewster was powerfully aided by John Robinson, a native ofLincolnshire. Robinson was then thirty years of age, and had taken hismaster's degree at Cambridge in 1600. He was a man of great learning andrare sweetness of temper, and was moreover distinguished for a broad andtolerant habit of mind too seldom found among the Puritans of that day. Friendly and unfriendly writers alike bear witness to his spirit ofChristian charity and the comparatively slight value which he attachedto orthodoxy in points of doctrine; and we can hardly be wrong insupposing that the comparatively tolerant behaviour of the Plymouthcolonists, whereby they were contrasted with the settlers ofMassachusetts, was in some measure due to the abiding influence of theteachings of this admirable man. Another important member of the Scroobycongregation was William Bradford, of the neighbouring village ofAusterfield, then a lad of seventeen years, but already remarkable formaturity of intelligence and weight of character. Afterward governor ofPlymouth for nearly thirty years, he became the historian of his colony;and to his picturesque chronicle, written in pure and vigorous English, we are indebted for most that we know of the migration that startedfrom Scrooby and ended in Plymouth. [Sidenote: The congregation ofSeparatists at Scrooby] It was in 1606--two years after King James's truculent threat--thatthis independent church of Scrooby was organized. Another year had notelapsed before its members had suffered so much at the hands of officersof the law, that they began to think of following the example of formerheretics and escaping to Holland. After an unsuccessful attempt inthe autumn of 1607, they at length succeeded a few months later inaccomplishing their flight to Amsterdam, where they hoped to find ahome. But here they found the English exiles who had preceded them sofiercely involved in doctrinal controversies, that they decided togo further in search of peace and quiet. This decision, which we mayascribe to Robinson's wise counsels, served to keep the society ofPilgrims from getting divided and scattered. They reached Leyden in1609, just as the Spanish government had sullenly abandoned the hopelesstask of conquering the Dutch, and had granted to Holland the TwelveYears Truce. During eleven of these twelve years the Pilgrims remainedin Leyden, supporting themselves by various occupations, while theirnumbers increased from 300 to more than 1000. Brewster opened apublishing house, devoted mainly to the issue of theological books. Robinson accepted a professorship in the university, and engaged in thedefence of Calvinism against the attacks of Episcopius, the successorof Arminius. The youthful Bradford devoted himself to the study oflanguages, --Dutch, French, Latin, Greek, and finally Hebrew; wishing, as he said, to "see with his own eyes the ancient oracles of God in alltheir native beauty. " During their sojourn in Leyden the Pilgrims wereintroduced to a strange and novel spectacle, --the systematic legaltoleration of all persons, whether Catholic or Protestant, who calledthemselves followers of Christ. Not that there was not plenty ofintolerance in spirit, but the policy inaugurated by the idolizedWilliam the Silent held it in check by law. All persons who came toHolland, and led decorous lives there, were protected in their opinionsand customs. By contemporary writers in other countries this eccentricbehaviour of the Dutch government was treated with unspeakable scorn. "All strange religions flock thither, " says one; it is "a common harbourof all heresies, " a "cage of unclean birds, " says another; "the greatmingle mangle of religion, " says a third. [4] In spite of the relieffrom persecution, however, the Pilgrims were not fully satisfied withtheir new home. The expiration of the truce with Spain might prove thatthis relief was only temporary; and at any rate, complete tolerationdid not fill the measure of their wants. Had they come to Holland asscattered bands of refugees, they might have been absorbed into theDutch population, as Huguenot refugees have been absorbed in Germany, England, and America. But they had come as an organized community, andabsorption into a foreign nation was something to be dreaded. Theywished to preserve their English speech and English traditions, keep uptheir organization, and find some favoured spot where they might lay thecorner-stone of a great Christian state. The spirit of nationality wasstrong in them; the spirit of self-government was strong in them; andthe only thing which could satisfy these feelings was such a migrationas had not been seen since ancient times, a migration like that ofPhokaians to Massilia or Tyrians to Carthage. [Sidenote: The flight toHolland] [Sidenote: Why the Pilgrims did not stay there] It was too late in the world's history to carry out such a scheme uponEuropean soil. Every acre of territory there was appropriated. The onlyfavourable outlook was upon the Atlantic coast of America, where Englishcruisers had now successfully disputed the pretensions of Spain, andwhere after forty years of disappointment and disaster a flourishingcolony had at length been founded in Virginia. The colonization of theNorth American coast had now become part of the avowed policy of theBritish government. In 1606 a great joint-stock company was formed forthe establishment of two colonies in America. The branch which was totake charge of the proposed southern colony had its headquarters inLondon; the management of the northern branch was at Plymouth inDevonshire. Hence the two branches are commonly spoken of as the Londonand Plymouth companies. The former was also called the Virginia Company, and the latter the North Virginia Company, as the name of Virginia wasthen loosely applied to the entire Atlantic coast north of Florida. TheLondon Company had jurisdiction from 34 degrees to 38 degrees northlatitude; the Plymouth Company had jurisdiction from 45 degrees down to41 degrees; the intervening territory, between 38 degrees and 41 degreeswas to go to whichever company should first plant a self-supportingcolony. The local government of each colony was to be entrusted to acouncil resident in America and nominated by the king; while generalsupervision over both colonies was to be exercised by a council residentin England. [Sidenote: The London and Plymouth companies] In pursuance of this general plan, though with some variations indetail, the settlement of Jamestown had been begun in 1607, and itssuccess was now beginning to seem assured. On the other hand all theattempts which had been made to the north of the fortieth parallel hadfailed miserably. As early as 1602 Bartholomew Gosnold, with 32 men, hadlanded on the headland which they named Cape Cod from the fish foundthereabouts in great numbers. This was the first English name given toany spot in that part of America, and so far as known these were thefirst Englishmen that ever set foot there. They went on and gave namesto Martha's Vineyard and the Elizabeth Islands in Buzzard's Bay; andon Cuttyhunk they built some huts with the intention of remaining, butafter a month's experience they changed their mind and went back toEngland. Gosnold's story interested other captains, and on EasterSunday, 1605, George Weymouth set sail for North Virginia, as it wascalled. He found Cape Cod and coasted northward as far as the Kennebecriver, up which he sailed for many miles. Weymouth kidnapped fiveIndians and carried them to England, that they might learn the languageand acquire a wholesome respect for the arts of civilization and theresistless power of white men. His glowing accounts of the spaciousharbours, the abundance of fish and game, the noble trees, the luxuriantherbage, and the balmy climate, aroused general interest in England, anddoubtless had some influence upon the formation, in the following year, of the great joint-stock company just described. The leading spirit ofthe Plymouth Company was Sir John Popham, chief-justice of England, andhe was not disposed to let his friends of the southern branch excel himin promptness. Within three months after the founding of Jamestown, aparty of 120 colonists, led by the judge's kinsman George Popham, landedat the mouth of the Kennebec, and proceeded to build a rude village ofsome fifty cabins, with storehouse, chapel, and block-house. Whenthey landed in August they doubtless shared Weymouth's opinion of theclimate. These Englishmen had heard of warm countries like Italy andcold countries like Russia; harsh experience soon taught them that thereare climates in which the summer of Naples may alternate with the winterof Moscow. The president and many others fell sick and died. News cameof the death of Sir John Popham in England, and presently the weary anddisappointed settlers abandoned their enterprise and returned to theirold homes. Their failure spread abroad in England the opinion thatNorth Virginia was uninhabitable by reason of the cold, and no furtherattempts were made upon that coast until in 1614 it was visited byCaptain John Smith. [Sidenote: First exploration of the New Englandcoast] The romantic career of this gallant and garrulous hero did not end withhis departure from the infant colony at Jamestown. By a curious destinyhis fame is associated with the beginnings of both the southern and thenorthern portions of the United States. To Virginia Smith may be said tohave given its very existence as a commonwealth; to New England hegave its name. In 1614 he came over with two ships to North Virginia, explored its coast minutely from the Penobscot river to Cape Cod, andthinking it a country of such extent and importance as to deserve a nameof its own, rechristened it New England. On returning home he made avery good map of the coast and dotted it with English names suggested byPrince Charles. Of these names Cape Elizabeth, Cape Ann, Charles River, and Plymouth still remain where Smith placed them. In 1615 Smith againset sail for the New World, this time with a view to planting a colonyunder the auspices of the Plymouth Company, but his talent for strangeadventures had not deserted him. He was taken prisoner by a Frenchfleet, carried hither and thither on a long cruise, and finally setashore at Rochelle, whence, without a penny in his pocket, he contrivedto make his way back to England. Perhaps Smith's life of hardship mayhave made him prematurely old. After all his wild and varied experiencehe was now only in his thirty-seventh year, but he does not seem to havegone on any more voyages. The remaining sixteen years of his lifewere spent quietly in England in writing books, publishing maps, andotherwise stimulating the public interest in the colonization of the NewWorld. But as for the rocky coast of New England, which he had exploredand named, he declared that he was not so simple as to suppose that anyother motive than riches would "ever erect there a commonwealth or drawcompany from their ease and humours at home, to stay in New England. "[Sidenote: John Smith] In this opinion, however, the bold explorer was mistaken. Of allmigrations of peoples the settlement of New England is preeminentlythe one in which the almighty dollar played the smallest part, howeverimportant it may since have become as a motive power. It was left forreligious enthusiasm to achieve what commercial enterprise had failedto accomplish. By the summer of 1617 the Pilgrim society at Leyden haddecided to send a detachment of its most vigorous members to laythe foundations of a Puritan state in America. There had been muchdiscussion as to the fittest site for such a colony. Many were in favourof Guiana, which Sir Walter Raleigh had described in such glowingcolours; but it was thought that the tropical climate would beill-suited to northern men of industrious and thrifty habit, and thesituation, moreover, was dangerously exposed to the Spaniards. Half acentury had scarcely elapsed since the wholesale massacre of Huguenotsin Florida. Virginia was then talked of, but Episcopal ideas had alreadytaken root there. New England, on the other hand, was considered toocold. Popham's experience was not encouraging. But the country aboutthe Delaware river afforded an opportunity for erecting an independentcolony under the jurisdiction of the London Company, and this seemedthe best course to pursue. Sir Edwin Sandys, the leading spirit in theLondon Company, was favourably inclined toward Puritans, and through himnegotiations were begun. Capital to the amount of £7000 was furnishedby seventy merchant adventurers in England, and the earnings of thesettlers were to be thrown into a common stock until these subscribersshould have been remunerated. A grant of land was obtained from theLondon Company, and the king was asked to protect the emigrants by acharter, but this was refused. James, however, made no objections totheir going, herein showing himself less of a bigot than Louis XIV. In later days, who would not suffer a Huguenot to set foot in Canada, though France was teeming with Huguenots who would have been gladenough to go. When James inquired how the colonists expected to supportthemselves, some one answered, most likely by fishing. "Very good, "quoth the king, "it was the Apostles' own calling. " He declared that noone should molest them so long as they behaved themselves properly. Fromthis unwonted urbanity it would appear that James anticipated no troublefrom the new colony. A few Puritans in America could not do much toannoy him, and there was of course a fair chance of their perishing, asso many other colonizers had perished. [Sidenote: The Pilgrims at Leydendecide to make a settlement near the Delaware river] The congregation at Leyden did not think it wise to cut loose fromHolland until they should have secured a foothold in America. It was butan advance guard that started out from Delft haven late in July, 1620, in the rickety ship Speedwell, with Brewster and Bradford, and sturdyMiles Standish, a trained soldier whose aid was welcome, though he doesnot seem to have belonged to the congregation. Robinson remained atLeyden, and never came to America. After a brief stop at Southampton, where they met the Mayflower with friends from London, the Pilgrimsagain set sail in the two ships. The Speedwell sprang a leak, and theystopped at Dartmouth for repairs. Again they started, and had put threehundred miles of salt water between themselves and Land's End, when theSpeedwell leaked so badly that they were forced to return. When theydropped anchor at Plymouth in Devonshire, about twenty were left onshore, and the remainder, exactly one hundred in number, crowded intothe Mayflower and on the 6th of September started once more to cross theAtlantic. The capacity of the little ship was 180 tons, and her strengthwas but slight. In a fierce storm in mid-ocean a mainbeam amidships waswrenched and cracked, and but for a huge iron screw which one of thepassengers had brought from Delft, they might have gone to the bottom. The foul weather prevented any accurate calculation of latitude andlongitude, and they were so far out in their reckoning that when theycaught sight of land on the 9th of November, it was to Cape Cod thatthey had come. Their patent gave them no authority to settle here, asit was beyond the jurisdiction of the London Company. They turned theirprow southward, but encountering perilous shoals and a stiff headwindthey desisted and sought shelter in Cape Cod bay. On the 11th theydecided to find some place of abode in this neighbourhood, anticipatingno difficulty in getting a patent from the Plymouth Company, which wasanxious to obtain settlers. For five weeks they stayed in the ship whilelittle parties were exploring the coast and deciding upon the best sitefor a town. It was purely a coincidence that the spot which they chosehad already received from John Smith the name of Plymouth, the beautifulport in Devonshire from which the Mayflower had sailed. [Sidenote:Founding of Plymouth] There was not much to remind them of home in the snow-covered coast onwhich they landed. They had hoped to get their rude houses built beforethe winter should set in, but the many delays and mishaps had served tobring them ashore in the coldest season. When the long winter came toan end, fifty-one of the hundred Pilgrims had died, --a mortality evengreater than that before which the Popham colony had succumbed. ButBrewster spoke truth when he said, "It is not with us as with men whomsmall things can discourage or small discontentments cause to wishthemselves at home again. " At one time the living were scarcely able tobury the dead; only Brewster, Standish, and five other hardy ones werewell enough to get about. At first they were crowded under a singleroof, and as glimpses were caught of dusky savages skulking among thetrees, a platform was built on the nearest hill and a few cannon wereplaced there in such wise as to command the neighbouring valleys andplains. By the end of the first summer the platform had grown to afortress, down from which to the harbour led a village street with sevenhouses finished and others going up. Twenty-six acres had been cleared, and a plentiful harvest gathered in; venison, wild fowl, and fish wereeasy to obtain. When provisions and fuel had been laid in for theensuing winter, Governor Bradford appointed a day of Thanksgiving. Town-meetings had already been held, and a few laws passed. The historyof New England had begun. This had evidently been a busy summer for the forty-nine survivors. On the 9th of November, the anniversary of the day on which they hadsighted land, a ship was descried in the offing. She was the Fortune, bringing some fifty more of the Leyden company. It was a welcomereinforcement, but it diminished the rations of food that could beserved during the winter, for the Fortune was not well supplied. Whenshe set sail for England, she carried a little cargo of beaver-skins andchoice wood for wainscoting to the value of L500 sterling, as a firstinstalment of the sum due to the merchant adventurers. But this cargonever reached England, for the Fortune was overhauled by a Frenchcruiser and robbed of everything worth carrying away. For two years more it was an anxious and difficult time for the newcolony. By 1624 its success may be said to have become assured. That theIndians in the neighbourhood had not taken advantage of the distress ofthe settlers in that first winter, and massacred every one of them, wasdue to a remarkable circumstance. Early in 1617 a frightful pestilencehad swept over New England and slain, it is thought, more than half theIndian population between the Penobscot river and Narragansett bay. Manyof the Indians were inclined to attribute this calamity to the murder oftwo or three white fishermen the year before. They had not got over thesuperstitious dread with which the first sight of white men had inspiredthem, and now they believed that the strangers held the demon of theplague at their disposal and had let him loose upon the red men inrevenge for the murders they had committed. This wholesome delusionkept their tomahawks quiet for a while. When they saw the Englishmenestablishing themselves at Plymouth, they at first held a powwow inthe forest, at which the new-comers were cursed with all the elaborateingenuity that the sorcery of the medicine-men could summon for somomentous an occasion; but it was deemed best to refrain from merelyhuman methods of attack. It was not until the end of the first winterthat any of them mustered courage to visit the palefaces. Then an Indiannamed Samoset, who had learned a little English from fishermen and forhis own part was inclined to be friendly, came one day into thevillage with words of welcome. He was so kindly treated that presentlyMassasoit, principal sachem of the Wampanoags, who dwelt betweenNarragansett and Cape Cod bays, came with a score of painted andfeathered warriors and squatting on a green rug and cushions in thegovernor's log-house smoked the pipe of peace, while Standish withhalf-a-dozen musketeers stood quietly by. An offensive and defensivealliance was then and there made between King Massasoit and King James, and the treaty was faithfully kept for half a century. Some timeafterward, when Massasoit had fallen sick and lay at death's door, hislife was saved by Edward Winslow, who came to his wigwam and skilfullynursed him. Henceforth the Wampanoag thought well of the Pilgrim. Thepowerful Narragansetts, who dwelt on the farther side of the bay, feltdifferently, and thought it worth while to try the effect of a threat. A little while after the Fortune had brought its reinforcement, theNarragansett sachem Canonicus sent a messenger to Plymouth with a bundleof newly-made arrows wrapped in a snake-skin. The messenger threw itin at the governor's door and made off with unseemly haste. Bradfordunderstood this as a challenge, and in this he was confirmed by afriendly Wampanoag. The Narragansetts could muster 2000 warriors, forwhom forty or fifty Englishmen, even with firearms, were hardly a fairmatch; but it would not do to show fear. Bradford stuffed the snake-skinwith powder and bullets, and sent it back to Canonicus, telling him thatif he wanted war he might come whenever he liked and get his fill of it. When the sachem saw what the skin contained, he was afraid to touchit or have it about, and medicine-men, handling it no doubt gingerlyenough, carried it out of his territory. [Sidenote: Why the colony wasnot attacked by the Indians] It was a fortunate miscalculation that brought the Pilgrims to NewEngland. Had they ventured upon the lands between the Hudson and theDelaware, they would probably have fared worse. They would soon havecome into collision with the Dutch, and not far from that neighbourhooddwelt the Susquehannocks, at that time one of the most powerful andferocious tribes on the continent. For the present the new-comers wereless likely to be molested in the Wampanoag country than anywhere else. In the course of the year 1621 they obtained their grant from thePlymouth Company. This grant was not made to them directly but tothe joint-stock company of merchant adventurers with whom they wereassociated. But the alliance between the Pilgrims and these Londonmerchants was not altogether comfortable; there was too much divergencebetween their aims. In 1627 the settlers, wishing to be entirelyindependent, bought up all the stock and paid for it by instalmentsfrom the fruits of their labour. By 1633 they had paid every penny, andbecome the undisputed owners of the country they had occupied. Such was the humble beginning of that great Puritan exodus from Englandto America which had so much to do with founding and peopling the UnitedStates. These Pilgrims of the Mayflower were but the pioneers of amighty host. Historically their enterprise is interesting not so muchfor what it achieved as for what it suggested. Of itself the Plymouthcolony could hardly have become a wealthy and powerful state. Its growthwas extremely slow. After ten years its numbers were but three hundred. In 1643, when the exodus had come to an end, and the New EnglandConfederacy was formed, the population of Plymouth was but threethousand. In an established community, indeed, such a rate of increasewould be rapid, but it was not sufficient to raise in New England apower which could overcome Indians and Dutchmen and Frenchmen, andassert its will in opposition to the crown. It is when we view thefounding of Plymouth in relation to what came afterward, that it assumesthe importance which belongs to the beginning of a new era. We have thus seen how it was that the political aspirations of James I. Toward absolute sovereignty resulted in the beginnings of the Puritanexodus to America. In the next chapter we shall see how the still morearbitrary policy of his ill-fated son all at once gave new dimensions tothat exodus and resulted in the speedy planting of a high-spirited andpowerful New England. CHAPTER III. THE PLANTING OF NEW ENGLAND. When Captain George Weymouth in the summer of 1605 sailed into theharbour of Plymouth in Devonshire, with his five kidnapped savages andhis glowing accounts of the country since known as New England, thegarrison of that fortified seaport was commanded by Sir FerdinandoGorges. The Christian name of this person now strikes us as rather odd, but in those days it was not so uncommon in England, and it does notnecessarily indicate a Spanish or Italian ancestry for its bearer. Gorges was a man of considerable ability, but not of high character. Onthe downfall of his old patron the Earl of Essex he had contrived tosave his own fortunes by a course of treachery and ingratitude. He hadserved in the Dutch war against Spain, and since 1596 had been militarygovernor of Plymouth. The sight of Weymouth's Indians and the recital ofhis explorations awakened the interest of Gorges in the colonization ofNorth America. He became one of the most active members of the Plymouth, or North Virginia, Company established in the following year. It was hewho took the leading part in fitting out the two ships with which JohnSmith started on his unsuccessful expedition in 1615. In the followingyears he continued to send out voyages of exploration, became largelyinterested in the fisheries, and at length in 1620 succeeded inobtaining a new patent for the Plymouth Company, by which it was madeindependent of the London Company, its old yoke-fellow and rival. Thisnew document created a corporation of forty patentees who, sitting incouncil as directors of their enterprise, were known as the Council forNew England. The president of this council was King James's unpopularfavourite the Duke of Buckingham, and its most prominent memberswere the earls of Pembroke and Lenox, Sir Ferdinando Gorges, andShakespeare's friend the Earl of Southampton. This council was empoweredto legislate for its American territory, to exercise martial law thereand expel all intruders, and to exercise a monopoly of trade within thelimits of the patent. Such extensive powers, entrusted to a company ofwhich Buckingham was the head, excited popular indignation, and in thegreat struggle against monopolies which was then going on, the PlymouthCompany did not fail to serve as a target for attacks. It started, however, with too little capital to enter upon schemes involvingimmediate outlay, and began almost from the first to seek to increaseits income by letting or selling portions of its territory, whichextended from the latitude of Philadelphia to that of Quebec, thusencroaching upon regions where Holland and France were already gaininga foothold. It was from this company that the merchant adventurersassociated with the Mayflower Pilgrims obtained their new patent inthe summer of 1621, and for the next fifteen years all settlers in NewEngland based their claims to the soil upon territorial rights conveyedto them by the Plymouth Company. The grants, however, were oftenignorantly and sometimes unscrupulously made, and their limits were soill-defined that much quarrelling ensued. [Sidenote: Sir FerdinandoGorges, and the Council for New England] During the years immediately following the voyage of the Mayflower, several attempts at settlement were made about the shores ofMassachusetts bay. One of the merchant adventurers, Thomas Weston, tookit into his head in 1622 to separate from his partners and send out acolony of seventy men on his own account. These men made a settlementat Wessagusset, some twenty-five miles north of Plymouth. They were adisorderly, thriftless rabble, picked up from the London streets, andsoon got into trouble with the Indians; after a year they were gladto get back to England as best they could, and in this the Plymouthsettlers willingly aided them. In June of that same year 1622 therearrived on the scene a picturesque but ill understood personage, ThomasMorton, "of Clifford's Inn, Gent. , " as he tells on the title-page ofhis quaint and delightful book, the "New English Canaan. " Bradforddisparagingly says that he "had been a kind of petie-fogger ofFurnifell's Inn"; but the churchman Samuel Maverick declares that hewas a "gentleman of good qualitie. " He was an agent of Sir FerdinandoGorges, and came with some thirty followers to make the beginnings ofa royalist and Episcopal settlement in the Massachusetts bay. He wasnaturally regarded with ill favour by the Pilgrims as well as by thelater Puritan settlers, and their accounts of him will probablybear taking with a grain or two of salt. [Sidenote: Wessagusset andMerrymount] In 1625 there came one Captain Wollaston, with a gang of indented whiteservants, and established himself on the site of the present townof Quincy. Finding this system of industry ill suited to northernagriculture, he carried most of his men off to Virginia, where he soldthem. Morton took possession of the site of the settlement, which hecalled Merrymount. There, according to Bradford, he set up a "schoole ofathisme, " and his men did quaff strong waters and comport themselves "asif they had anew revived and celebrated the feasts of ye Roman GoddesFlora, or the beastly practices of ye madd Bachanalians. " Charges ofatheism have been freely hurled about in all ages. In Morton's case theaccusation seems to have been based upon the fact that he used the Bookof Common Prayer. His men so far maintained the ancient customs ofmerry England as to plant a Maypole eighty feet high, about which theyfrolicked with the redskins, while furthermore they taught them theuse of firearms and sold them muskets and rum. This was positivelydangerous, and in the summer of 1628 the settlers at Merrymount weredispersed by Miles Standish. Morton was sent to England, but returnedthe next year, and presently again repaired to Merrymount. By this time other settlements were dotted about the coast. There werea few scattered cottages or cabins at Nantasket and at the mouth of thePiscataqua, while Samuel Maverick had fortified himself on Noddle'sIsland, and William Blackstone already lived upon the Shawmut peninsula, since called Boston. These two gentlemen were no friends to thePuritans; they were churchmen and representatives of Sir FerdinandoGorges. The case was very different with another of these earliest settlements, which deserves especial mention as coming directly in the line ofcausation which led to the founding of Massachusetts by Puritans. Forsome years past the Dorchester adventurers--a small company of merchantsin the shire town of Dorset--had been sending vessels to catch fish offthe New England coast. In 1623 these men conceived the idea of plantinga small village as a fishing station, and setting up a church andpreacher therein, for the spiritual solace of the fishermen and sailors. In pursuance of this scheme a small party occupied Cape Ann, where aftertwo years they got into trouble with the men of Plymouth. Several grantsand assignments had made it doubtful where the ownership lay, andalthough this place was not near their own town, the men of Plymouthclaimed it. The dispute was amicably arranged by Roger Conant, anindependent settler who had withdrawn from Plymouth because he did notfully sympathize with the Separatist views of the people there. Thenext step was for the Dorchester adventurers to appoint Conant as theirmanager, and the next was for them to abandon their enterprise, dissolvetheir partnership, and leave the remnant of the little colony to shiftfor itself. The settlers retained their tools and cattle, and Conantfound for them a new and safer situation at Naumkeag, on the site of thepresent Salem. So far little seemed to have been accomplished; one moreseemed added to the list of failures. But the excellent John White, the Puritan rector of Trinity Church inDorchester, had meditated carefully about these things. He saw thatmany attempts at colonization had failed because they made use of unfitinstruments, "a multitude of rude ungovernable persons, the very scum ofthe land. " So Virginia had failed in its first years, and only succeededwhen settled by worthy and industrious people under a strong government. The example of Plymouth, as contrasted with Wessagusset, taught asimilar lesson. We desire, said White, "to raise a bulwark against thekingdom of Antichrist. " Learn wisdom, my countrymen, from the ruin whichhas befallen the Protestants at Rochelle and in the Palatinate; learn"to avoid the plague while it is foreseen, and not to tarry as they didtill it overtook them. " The Puritan party in England was numerous andpowerful, but the day of strife was not far off and none might foretellits issue. Clearly it was well to establish a strong and secure retreatin the New World, in case of disaster in the Old. What had been done atPlymouth by a few men of humble means might be done on a much greaterscale by an association of leading Puritans, including men of wealth andwide social influence. Such arguments were urged in timely pamphlets, ofone of which White is supposed to have been the author. The matter wasdiscussed in London, and inquiry was made whether fit men could be found"to engage their persons in the voyage. " "It fell out that among othersthey lighted at last on Master Endicott, a man well known to diverspersons of good note, who manifested much willingness to accept of theoffer as soon as it was tendered. " All were thereby much encouraged, theschemes of White took definite shape, and on the 19th of March, 1628, atract of land was obtained from the Council for New England, consistingof all the territory included between three miles north of the Merrimackand three miles south of the Charles in one direction, and the Atlanticand Pacific Oceans in the other. [Sidenote: John White and his noblescheme] This liberal grant was made at a time when people still supposed thePacific coast to be not far west of Henry Hudson's river. The territorywas granted to an association of six gentlemen, only one of whom--JohnEndicott--figures conspicuously in the history of New England. Thegrant was made in the usual reckless style, and conflicted with variouspatents which had been issued before. In 1622 Gorges and John Masonhad obtained a grant of all the land between the rivers Kennebecand Merrimack, and the new grant encroached somewhat upon this. Thedifficulty seems to have been temporarily adjusted by some sort ofcompromise which restricted the new grant to the Merrimack, for in 1629we find Mason's title confirmed to the region between that river and thePiscataqua, while later on Gorges appears as proprietor of the territorybetween the Piscataqua and the Kennebec. A more serious difficulty wasthe claim of Robert Gorges, son of Sir Ferdinando. That young man had in1623 obtained a grant of some 300 square miles in Massachusetts, and hadgone to look after it, but had soon returned discouraged to Englandand shortly afterward died. But his claim devolved upon his survivingbrother, John Gorges, and Sir Ferdinando, in consenting to the grant toEndicott and his friends, expressly reserved the rights of his sons. Nosuch reservation, however, was mentioned in the Massachusetts charter, and the colonists never paid the slightest heed to it. In theseconflicting claims were sown seeds of trouble which bore fruit for morethan half a century. In such cases actual possession is apt to make ninepoints in the law, and accordingly Endicott was sent over, as soon aspossible, with sixty persons, to reinforce the party at Naumkeag andsupersede Conant as its leader. On Endicott's arrival in September, 1628, the settlers were at first inclined to dispute his authority, butthey were soon conciliated, and in token of this amicable adjustment theplace was called by the Hebrew name of Salem, or "peace. " [Sidenote:Conflicting grants sow seeds of trouble] [Sidenote: John Endicot and thefounding of Salem] Meanwhile Mr. White and the partners in England were pushing thingsvigorously. Their scheme took a wider scope. They were determined toestablish something more than a trading company. From Charles I. Itwas sometimes easy to get promises because he felt himself under noobligation to keep them. In March, 1629, a royal charter was granted, creating a corporation, under the legal style of the Governor andCompany of Massachusetts Bay in New England. The affairs of thiscorporate body were to be managed by a governor, deputy-governor, and acouncil of eighteen assistants, to be elected annually by the company. They were empowered to make such laws as they liked for their settlers, provided they did not contravene the laws of England, --a provisosusceptible of much latitude of interpretation. The place where thecompany was to hold its meetings was not mentioned in the charter. Thelaw-officers of the crown at first tried to insert a condition thatthe government must reside in England, but the grantees with skilfulargument succeeding in preventing this. Nothing was said in the charterabout religious liberty, for a twofold reason: the crown would not havegranted it, and it was not what the grantees wanted; such a provisionwould have been liable to hamper them seriously in carrying out theirscheme. They preferred to keep in their own hands the question as to howmuch or how little religious liberty they should claim or allow. Sixsmall ships were presently fitted out, and upon them were embarked 300men, 80 women, and 26 children, with 140 head of cattle, 40 goats, andabundance of arms, ammunition, and tools. The principal leader of thiscompany was Francis Higginson, of St. John's College, Cambridge, rectorof a church in Leicestershire, who had been deprived of his living fornon-conformity. With him were associated two other ministers, alsograduates of Cambridge. All three were members of the council. By thearrival of this company at Salem, Endicott now became governor of acolony larger than any yet started in New England, --larger than Plymouthafter its growth of nearly nine years. [Sidenote: The Company ofMassachusetts Bay] The time was at length ripe for that great Puritan exodus of which thevoyage of the Mayflower had been the premonitory symptom. The grandcrisis for the Puritans had come, the moment when decisive action couldno longer be deferred. It was not by accident that the rapid developmentof John White's enterprise into the Company of Massachusetts Baycoincided exactly with the first four years of the reign of Charles I. They were years well fitted to bring such a scheme to quick maturity. The character of Charles was such as to exacerbate the evils of hisfather's reign. James could leave some things alone in the comfortablehope that all would by and by come out right, but Charles was notsatisfied without meddling everywhere. Both father and son cherishedsome good intentions; both were sincere believers in their narrow theoryof kingcraft. For wrong-headed obstinacy, utter want of tact, andbottomless perfidy, there was little to choose between them. Thehumorous epitaph of the grandson "whose word no man relies on" mighthave served for them all. But of this unhappy family Charles I. Waseminently the dreamer. He lived in a world of his own, and was slowin rendering thought into action; and this made him rely upon thequick-witted but unwise and unscrupulous Buckingham, [5] who was sillyenough to make feeble attempts at unpopular warfare without consultingParliament. During each of Charles's first four years there was anangry session of Parliament, in which, through the unwillingness of thepopular leaders to resort to violence, the king's policy seemed ableto hold its ground. Despite all protest the king persisted in levyingstrange taxes and was to some extent able to collect them. Men whorefused to pay enforced loans were thrown into jail and the writ of_habeas corpus_ was denied them. Meanwhile the treatment of Puritansbecame more and more vexatious. It was clear enough that Charles meantto become an absolute monarch, like Louis XIII. , but Parliament beganby throwing all the blame upon the unpopular minister and seeking toimpeach him. On the 5th of June, 1628, the House of Commons presented the mostextraordinary spectacle, perhaps in all its history. The famous Petitionof Right had been Passed by both Houses, and the royal answer had justbeen received. Its tone was that of gracious assent, but it omitted thenecessary legal formalities, and the Commons well knew what this meant. They were to be tricked with sweet words, and the petition was not toacquire the force of a statute. How was it possible to deal with such aslippery creature? There was but one way of saving the dignity of thethrone without sacrificing the liberty of the people, and that was tohold the king's ministers responsible to Parliament, in anticipationof modern methods. It was accordingly proposed to impeach the Dukeof Buckingham before the House of Lords. The Speaker now "brought animperious message from the king, . . . Warning them . . . That he would nottolerate any aspersion upon his ministers. " Nothing daunted by this, Sir John Eliot arose to lead the debate, when the Speaker called him toorder in view of the king's message. "Amid a deadly stillness" Eliotsat down and burst into tears. For a moment the House was overcomewith despair. Deprived of all constitutional methods of redress, theysuddenly saw yawning before them the direful alternative--slavery orcivil war. Since the day of Bosworth a hundred and fifty years hadpassed without fighting worthy of mention on English soil, such an eraof peace as had hardly ever before been seen on the earth; now half thenation was to be pitted against the other half, families were to bedivided against themselves, as in the dreadful days of the Roses, andwith what consequences no one could foresee. "Let us sit in silence, "quoth Sir Dudley Digges, "we are miserable, we know not what to do!"Nay, cried Sir Nathaniel Rich, "we _must_ now speak, or forever hold ourpeace. " Then did grim Mr. Prynne and Sir Edward Coke mingle their wordswith sobs, while there were few dry eyes in the House. Presently theyfound their voices, and used them in a way that wrung from the startledking his formal assent to the Petition of Right. [Sidenote: Remarkablescene in the House of Commons] There is something strangely pathetic and historically significant [6]in the emotion of these stern, fearless men. The scene was no lessstriking on the 2d of the following March, when, "amid the cries andentreaties of the Speaker held down in his chair by force, " while theUsher of the Black Rod was knocking loudly at the bolted door, and thetramp of the king's soldiers was heard in the courtyard, Eliot's clearvoice rang out the defiance that whoever advised the levy of tonnage andpoundage without a grant from Parliament, or whoever voluntarily paidthose duties, was to be counted an enemy to the kingdom and a betrayerof its liberties. As shouts of "Aye, aye, " resounded on every side, "thedoors were flung open, and the members poured forth in a throng. " Thenoble Eliot went to end his days in the Tower, and for eleven years noParliament sat again in England. [7] It was in one and the same week that Charles I. Thus began hisexperiment of governing without a Parliament, and that he granted acharter to the Company of Massachusetts Bay. He was very far, as weshall see, from realizing the import of what he was doing. To thePuritan leaders it was evident that a great struggle was at hand. Affairs at home might well seem desperate, and the news from abroad wasnot encouraging. It was only four months since the surrender of Rochellehad ended the existence of the Huguenots as an armed political party. They had now sunk into the melancholy condition of a tolerated sectwhich may at any moment cease to be tolerated. In Germany theterrible Thirty Years War had just reached the darkest moment forthe Protestants. Fifteen months were yet to pass before the immortalGustavus was to cross the Baltic and give to the sorely harassed causeof liberty a fresh lease of life. The news of the cruel Edict ofRestitution in this same fateful month of March, 1629, could not butgive the English Puritans great concern. Everywhere in Europe thechampions of human freedom seemed worsted. They might well think thatnever had the prospect looked so dismal; and never before, as neversince, did the venture of a wholesale migration to the New World sostrongly recommend itself as the only feasible escape from a situationthat was fast becoming intolerable. Such were the anxious thoughts ofthe leading Puritans in the spring of 1629, and in face of so grave aproblem different minds came naturally to different conclusions. Somewere for staying in England to fight it out to the bitter end; some werefor crossing the ocean to create a new England in the wilderness. Eithertask was arduous enough, and not to be achieved without steadfast andsober heroism. [Sidenote: Desperate nature of the crisis] On the 26th of August twelve gentlemen, among the most eminent in thePuritan party, held a meeting at Cambridge, and resolved to lead amigration to New England, provided the charter of the Massachusetts BayCompany and the government established under it could be transferred tothat country. On examination it appeared that no legal obstacle stood inthe way. Accordingly such of the old officers as did not wish to takepart in the emigration resigned their places, which were forthwithfilled by these new leaders. For governor the choice fell upon JohnWinthrop, a wealthy gentleman from Groton in Suffolk, who was henceforthto occupy the foremost place among the founders of New England. Winthropwas at this time forty-one years of age, having been born in thememorable year of the Armada. He was a man of remarkable strength andbeauty of character, grave and modest, intelligent and scholarlike, intensely religious and endowed with a moral sensitiveness that wasalmost morbid, yet liberal withal in his opinions and charitable indisposition. When his life shall have been adequately written, as itnever has been, he will be recognized as one of the very noblest figuresin American history. From early youth he had that same power ofwinning confidence and commanding respect for which Washington was soremarkable; and when he was selected as the Moses of the great Puritanexodus, there was a wide-spread feeling that extraordinary results werelikely to come of such an enterprise. In marked contrast to Winthrop stands the figure of the man associatedwith him as deputy-governor. Thomas Dudley came of an ancient family, the history of which, alike in the old and in the new England, has notbeen altogether creditable. He represented the elder branch of thatNorman family, to the younger branch of which belonged the unfortunatehusband of Lady Jane Grey and the unscrupulous husband of Amy Robsart. There was, however, very little likeness to Elizabeth's gay loverin grim Thomas Dudley. His Puritanism was bleak and stern, and forChristian charity he was not eminent. He had a foible for making verses, and at his death there was found in his pocket a poem of his, containinga quatrain wherein the intolerance of that age is neatly summed up:-- "Let men of God in courts and churches watch O'er such as do aToleration hatch, Lest that ill egg bring forth a cockatrice To poisonall with heresy and vice. " Such was the spirit of most of the Puritans of that day, but in themanifestation of it there were great differences, and here was thestrong contrast between Dudley and Winthrop, --a contrast which showsitself in their portraits. In that of Dudley we see the typicalnarrow-minded, strait-laced Calvinist for whom it is so much easier toentertain respect than affection. In that of Winthrop we see a faceexpressive of what was finest in the age of Elizabeth, --the face of aspiritual brother of Raleigh and Bacon. The accession of two men so important as Winthrop and Dudley served tobring matters speedily to a crisis. Their embarkation in April, 1630, was the signal for a general movement on the part of the EnglishPuritans. Before Christmas of that year seventeen ships had come toNew England, bringing more than 1000 passengers. This huge wave ofimmigration quite overwhelmed and bore away the few links of possessionby which Gorges had thus far kept his hold upon the country. In January, 1629, John Gorges had tried to assert the validity of his late brother'sclaim by executing conveyances covering portions of it. One of thesewas to John Oldham, a man who had been harshly treated at Plymouth, andmight be supposed very ready to defend his rights against settlersof the Puritan company. Gorges further maintained that he retainedpossession of the country through the presence of his brother's tenants, Blackstone, Maverick, Walford, and others on the shores of the bay. InJune, 1629, Endicott had responded by sending forward some fifty personsfrom Salem to begin the settlement of Charlestown. Shortly beforeWinthrop's departure from England, Gorges had sent that singularpersonage Sir Christopher Gardiner to look after his interests in theNew World, and there he was presently found established near the mouthof the Neponset river, in company with "a comly yonge woman whom hecaled his cousin. " But these few claimants were now at once lost in thehuman tide which poured over Charlestown, Boston, Newtown, Watertown, Roxbury, and Dorchester. The settlement at Merrymount was againdispersed, and Morton sent back to London; Gardiner fled to the coastof Maine and thence sailed for England in 1632. The Puritans had indeedoccupied the country in force. Here on the very threshold we are confronted by facts which show thatnot a mere colonial plantation, but a definite and organized state wasin process of formation. The emigration was not like that of Jamestownor of Plymouth. It sufficed at once to make the beginnings of half adozen towns, and the question as to self-government immediately sprangup. Early in 1631 a tax of £60 was assessed upon the settlements, inorder to pay for building frontier fortifications at Newtown. Thisincident was in itself of small dimensions, as incidents in newlyfounded states are apt to be. But in its historic import it may serveto connect the England of John Hampden with the New England of SamuelAdams. The inhabitants of Watertown at first declined to pay this tax, which was assessed by the Board of Assistants, on the ground thatEnglish freemen cannot rightfully be taxed save by their own consent. This protest led to a change in the constitution of the infant colony, and here, at once, we are introduced to the beginnings of Americanconstitutional history. At first it was thought that public businesscould be transacted by a primary assembly of all the freemen in thecolony meeting four times in the year; but the number of freemenincreased so fast that this was almost at once (in October, 1630) foundto be impracticable. The right of choosing the governor and making thelaws was then left to the Board of Assistants; and in May, 1631, it wasfurther decided that the assistants need not be chosen afresh everyyear, but might keep their seats during good behaviour or until oustedby special vote of the freemen. If the settlers of Massachusetts hadbeen ancient Greeks or Romans, this would have been about as far as theycould go in the matter; the choice would have been between a primaryassembly and an assembly of notables. It is curious to see Englishmenpassing from one of these alternatives to the other. But it was only fora moment. The protest of the Watertown men came in time to check theseproceedings, which began to have a decidedly oligarchical look. Tosettle the immediate question of the tax, two deputies were sent fromeach settlement to advise with the Board of Assistants; while the powerof choosing each year the governor and assistants was resumed by thefreemen. Two years later, in order to reserve to the freemen the powerof making laws without interfering too much with the ordinary businessof life, the colonists fell back upon the old English rural plan ofelecting deputies or representatives to a general court. [Sidenote: Thequestion as to self-government raised at Watertown] At first the deputies sat in the same chamber with the assistants, butat length in 1644 they were formed into a second chamber with increasedpowers, and the way in which this important constitutional change cameabout is worth remembering, as an illustration of the smallness of thestate which so soon was to play a great part in history. As Winthropputs it, "there fell out a great business upon a very small occasion. "To a certain Captain Keayne, of Boston, a rich man deemed to be hard andoverbearing toward the poor, there was brought a stray pig, whereof hegave due public notice through the town-crier, yet none came to claim ittill after he had killed a pig of his own which he kept in the same styewith the stray. A year having passed by, a poor woman named Sherman cameto see the stray and to decide if it were one that she had lost. Notrecognizing it as hers, she forthwith laid claim to the slaughtered pig. The case was brought before the elders of the church of Boston, whodecided that the woman was mistaken. Mrs. Sherman then accused thecaptain of theft, and brought the case before a jury, which exoneratedthe defendant with £3 costs. The captain then sued Mrs. Sherman fordefamation of character and got a verdict for £40 damages, a roundsum indeed to assess upon the poor woman. But long before this it hadappeared that she had many partisans and supporters; it had become apolitical question, in which the popular protest against aristocracy wasimplicated. Not yet browbeaten, the warlike Mrs. Sherman appealed to theGeneral Court. The length of the hearing shows the importance whichwas attached to the case. After seven days of discussion, the votewas taken. Seven assistants and eight deputies approved the formerdecisions, two assistants and fifteen deputies condemned them, whileseven deputies refrained from voting. In other words, Captain Keayne hasa decided majority among the more aristocratic assistants, while Mrs. Sherman seemed to prevail with the more democratic deputies. Regardingthe result as the vote of a single body, the woman had a plurality oftwo; regarding it as the vote of a double body, her cause had prevailedin the lower house, but was lost by the veto of the upper. No decisionwas reached at the time, but after a year of discussion the legislaturewas permanently separated into two houses, each with a veto power uponthe other; and this was felt to be a victory for the assistants. As forthe ecclesiastical polity of the new colony, it had begun to takeshape immediately upon the arrival of Endicott's party at Salem. Theclergymen, Samuel Skelton and Francis Higginson, consecrated eachother, and a church covenant and confession of faith were drawn up byHigginson. Thirty persons joining in this covenant constituted the firstchurch in the colony; and several brethren appointed by this churchproceeded formally to ordain the two ministers by the laying on ofhands. In such simple wise was the first Congregational church inMassachusetts founded. The simple fact of removal from England convertedall the Puritan emigrants into Separatists, as Robinson had alreadypredicted. Some, however, were not yet quite prepared for so radical ameasure. These proceedings gave umbrage to two of the Salem party, whoattempted forthwith to set up a separate church in conformity withepiscopal models. A very important question was thus raised at once, butit was not allowed to disturb the peace of the colony. Endicott was aman of summary methods. He immediately sent the two malcontents back toEngland; and thus the colonial church not only seceded from the nationalestablishment, but the principle was virtually laid down that theEpiscopal form of worship would not be tolerated in the colony. For thepresent such a step was to be regarded as a measure of self-defence onthe part of the colonists. Episcopacy to them meant actual and practicaltyranny--the very thing they had crossed the ocean expressly to getaway from--and it was hardly to be supposed that they would encouragethe growth of it in their new home. One or two surpliced priests, conducting worship in accordance with the Book of Common Prayer, mightin themselves be excellent members of society; but behind the surplicedpriest the colonist saw the intolerance of Laud and the despotism ofthe Court of High Commission. In 1631 a still more searching measureof self-protection was adopted. It was decided that "no man shall beadmitted to the freedom of this body politic, but such as are members ofsome of the churches within the limits of the same. " Into the merits ofthis measure as illustrating the theocratic ideal of society which thePuritans sought to realize in New England, we shall inquire hereafter. At present we must note that, as a measure of self-protection, thisdecree was intended to keep out of the new community all emissaries ofStrafford and Laud, as well as such persons as Morton and Gardiner andother agents of Sir Ferdinando Gorges. By the year 1634 the scheme of the Massachusetts Company had so farprospered that nearly 4000 Englishmen had come over, and some twentyvillages on or near the shores of the bay had been founded. The buildingof permanent houses, roads, fences, and bridges had begun to go on quitebriskly; farms were beginning to yield a return for the labour of thehusbandman; lumber, furs, and salted fish were beginning to be sent toEngland in exchange for manufactured articles; 4000 goats and 1500 headof cattle grazed in the pastures, and swine innumerable rooted in theclearings and helped to make ready the land for the ploughman. Politicalmeetings were held, justice was administered by magistrates after oldEnglish precedents, and church services were performed by a score ofclergymen, nearly all graduates of Cambridge, though one or two hadtheir degrees from Oxford, and nearly all of whom had held livings inthe Church of England. The most distinguished of these clergymen, JohnCotton, in his younger days a Fellow and Tutor of Emmanuel College, hadfor more than twenty years been rector of St. Botolph's, when he leftthe most magnificent parish church in England to hold service in thefirst rude meeting-house of the new Boston. From Emmanuel College camealso Thomas Hooker and John Harvard. Besides these clergymen, so many ofthe leading persons concerned in the emigration were university men thatit was not long before a university began to seem indispensable tothe colony. In 1636 the General Court appropriated £400 toward theestablishment of a college at Newtown. In 1638 John Harvard, dyingchildless, bequeathed his library and the half of his estate to the newcollege, which the Court forthwith ordered to be called by his name;while in honour of the mother university the name of the town waschanged to Cambridge. [Illustration: Founding of Harvard College] It has been said that the assembly which decreed the establishmentof Harvard College was "the first body in which the people, by theirrepresentatives, ever gave their own money to found a place ofeducation. " [8] The act was a memorable one if we have regard to all thecircumstances of the year in which it was done. On every side danger wasin the air. Threatened at once with an Indian war, with the enmity ofthe home government, and with grave dissensions among themselves, theyear 1636 was a trying one indeed for the little community of Puritans, and their founding a college by public taxation just at this time is astriking illustration of their unalterable purpose to realize, in thisnew home, their ideal of an educated Christian society. [Sidenote:Threefold danger in the year 1636] That the government of Charles I. Should view with a hostile eye thegrowth of a Puritan state in New England is not at all surprising. (1. From the king, who prepares to attack the infant colony but is fueled bydissensions at home. ) The only fit ground for wonder would seem to bethat Charles should have been willing at the outset to grant a charterto the able and influential Puritans who organized the Company ofMassachusetts Bay. Probably, however, the king thought at first that itwould relieve him at home if a few dozen of the Puritan leaders couldbe allowed to concentrate their minds upon a project of colonization inAmerica. It might divert attention for a moment from his own despoticschemes. Very likely the scheme would prove a failure and theMassachusetts colony incur a fate like that of Roanoke Island; and atall events the wealth of the Puritans might better be sunk in a remoteand perilous enterprise than employed at home in organizing resistanceto the crown. Such, very likely, may have been the king's motive ingranting the Massachusetts charter two days after turning his Parliamentout of doors. But the events of the last half-dozen years had come topresent the case in a new light. The young colony was not languishing. It was full of sturdy life; it had wrought mischief to the schemes ofGorges; and what was more, it had begun to take unheard-of libertieswith things ecclesiastical and political. Its example was getting to bea dangerous one. It was evidently worth while to put a strong curb uponMassachusetts. Any promise made to his subjects Charles regarded asa promise made under duress which he was quite justified in breakingwhenever it suited his purpose to do so. Enemies of Massachusetts werebusy in England. Schismatics from Salem and revellers from Merrymountwere ready with their tales of woe, and now Gorges and Mason werevigorously pressing their territorial claims. They bargained withthe king. In February, 1635, the moribund Council for New Englandsurrendered its charter and all its corporate rights in America, oncondition that the king should disregard all the various grants by whichthese rights had from time to time been alienated, and should divideup the territory of New England in severalty among the members of theCouncil. In pursuance of this scheme Gorges and Mason, together withhalf a dozen noblemen, were allowed to parcel out New England amongthemselves as they should see fit. In this way the influence of theMarquis of Hamilton, with the Earls of Arundel, Surrey, Carlisle, andStirling, might be actively enlisted against the Massachusetts Company. A writ of _quo warranto_ was brought against it; and it was proposed tosend Sir Ferdinando to govern New England with viceregal powers likethose afterward exercised by Andros. For a moment the danger seemed alarming; but, as Winthrop says, "theLord frustrated their design. " It was noted as a special providence thatthe ship in which Gorges was to sail was hardly off the stocks when itfell to pieces. Then the most indefatigable enemy of the colony, JohnMason, suddenly died. The king issued his famous writ of ship-money andset all England by the ears; and, to crown all, the attempt to read theEpiscopal liturgy at St. Giles's church in Edinburgh led straight tothe Solemn League and Covenant. Amid the first mutterings of the GreatRebellion the proceedings against Massachusetts were dropped, and theunheeded colony went on thriving in its independent course. Possibly toosome locks at Whitehall may have been turned with golden keys, [9] forthe company was rich, and the king was ever open to such arguments. Butwhen the news of his evil designs had first reached Boston the people ofthe infant colony showed no readiness to yield to intimidation. In theirmeasures there was a decided smack of what was to be realized a hundredand forty years later. Orders were immediately issued for fortifyingCastle Island in the harbour and the heights at Charlestown andDorchester. Militia companies were put in training, and a beacon wasset up on the highest hill in Boston, to give prompt notice to all thesurrounding country of any approaching enemy. While the ill will of the home government thus kept the colonists in astate of alarm, there were causes of strife at work at their very doors, of which they were fain to rid themselves as soon as possible. Among allthe Puritans who came to New England there is no more interesting figurethan the learned, quick-witted pugnacious Welshman, Roger Williams. Hewas over-fond of logical subtleties and delighted in controversy. Therewas scarcely any subject about which he did not wrangle, from thesinfulness of persecution to the propriety of women wearing veils inchurch. Yet, with all this love of controversy, there has perhapsnever lived a more gentle and kindly soul. Within five years from thesettlement of Massachusetts this young preacher had announced the trueprinciples of religious liberty with a clearness of insight quiteremarkable in that age. Roger Williams had been aided in securing aneducation by the great lawyer Sir Edward Coke, and had lately taken hisdegree at Pembroke College, Cambridge; but the boldness with which hedeclared his opinions had aroused the hostility of Laud, and in 1631 hehad come over to Plymouth, whence he removed two years later to Salem, and became pastor of the church there. The views of Williams, iflogically carried out, involved the entire separation of church fromstate, the equal protection of all forms of religious faith, the repealof all laws compelling attendance on public worship, the abolition oftithes and of all forced contributions to the support of religion. Suchviews are to-day quite generally adopted by the more civilized portionsof the Protestant world; but it is needless to say that they were notthe views of the seventeenth century, in Massachusetts or elsewhere. Fordeclaring such opinions as these on the continent of Europe, anywhereexcept in Holland, a man like Williams would in that age have run greatrisk of being burned at the stake. In England, under the energeticmisgovernment of Laud, he would very likely have had to stand in thepillory with his ears cropped, or perhaps, like Bunyan and Baxter, wouldhave been sent to jail. In Massachusetts such views were naturallyenough regarded as anarchical, but in Williams's case they were furthercomplicated by grave political imprudence. He wrote a pamphlet in whichhe denied the right of the colonists to the lands which they held in NewEngland under the king's grant. He held that the soil belonged to theIndians, that the settlers could only obtain a valid title to it bypurchase from them, and that the acceptance of a patent from a mereintruder, like the king, was a sin requiring public repentance. Thisdoctrine was sure to be regarded in England as an attack upon the king'ssupremacy over Massachusetts, and at the same time an incident occurredin Salem which made it all the more unfortunate. The royal colours underwhich the little companies of militia marched were emblazoned with thered cross of St. George. The uncompromising Endicott loathed this emblemas tainted with Popery, and one day he publicly defaced the flag of theSalem company by cutting out the cross. The enemies of Massachusettsmisinterpreted this act as a defiance aimed at the royal authority, andthey attributed it to the teachings of Williams. In view of the king'sunfriendliness these were dangerous proceedings. Endicott was summonedbefore the General Court at Boston, where he was publicly reprimandedand declared incapable of holding office for a year. A few monthsafterward, in January, 1636, Williams was ordered by the General Courtto come to Boston and embark in a ship that was about to set sail forEngland. But he escaped into the forest, and made his way through thesnow to the wigwam of Massasoit. He was a rare linguist, and had learnedto talk fluently in the language of the Indians, and now he passed thewinter in trying to instill into their ferocious hearts something of thegentleness of Christianity. In the spring he was privately notified byWinthrop that if he were to steer his course to Narragansett bay hewould be secure from molestation; and such was the beginning of thesettlement of Providence. [Sidenote: From religious dissensions; RogerWilliams] Shortly before the departure of Williams, there came to Boston one ofthe greatest Puritan statesmen of that heroic age, the younger HenryVane. It is pleasant to remember that the man and Anne who did so muchto overthrow the tyranny of Strafford, who brought the military strengthof Scotland to the aid of the hard-pressed Parliament, who administeredthe navy with which Blake won his astonishing victories, who dared evenwithstand Cromwell at the height of his power when his measures becametoo violent, --it is pleasant to remember that this admirable man wasonce the chief magistrate of an American commonwealth. It is pleasantfor a Harvard man to remember that as such he presided over the assemblythat founded our first university. Thorough republican and enthusiasticlover of liberty, he was spiritually akin to Jefferson and to SamuelAdams. Like Williams he was a friend to toleration, and like Williamshe found Massachusetts an uncomfortable home. In 1636 he was onlytwenty-four years of age, "young in years, " and perhaps not yet "insage counsel old. " He was chosen governor for that year, and hisadministration was stormy. Among those persons who had followed Mr. Cotton from Lincolnshire was Mrs. Anne Hutchinson, a very bright andcapable lady, if perhaps somewhat impulsive and indiscreet. She hadbrought over with her, says Winthrop, "two dangerous errors: first, thatthe person of the Holy Ghost dwells in a justified person; second, thatno sanctification can help to evidence to us our justification. " Intothe merits of such abstruse doctrines it is not necessary for thehistorian to enter. One can hardly repress a smile as one reflectshow early in the history of Boston some of its characteristic socialfeatures were developed. It is curious to read of lectures there in1636, lectures by a lady, and transcendentalist lectures withal! Neverdid lectures in Boston arouse greater excitement than Mrs. Hutchinson's. Many of her hearers forsook the teachings of the regular ministers, tofollow her. [Sidenote: Henry Vane and Anne Hutchinson] She was very effectively supported by her brother-in-law, Mr. Wheelwright, an eloquent preacher, and for a while she seemed to becarrying everything before her. She won her old minister Mr. Cotton, shewon the stout soldier Captain Underhill, she won Governor Vane himself;while she incurred the deadly hatred of such men as Dudley and Cotton'sassociate John Wilson. The church at Boston was divided into two hostilecamps. The sensible Winthrop marvelled at hearing men distinguished "bybeing under a covenant of grace or a covenant of works, as in othercountries between Protestants and Papists, " and he ventured to doubtwhether any man could really tell what the difference was. Thetheological strife went on until it threatened to breed civildisaffection among the followers of Mrs. Hutchinson. A peculiarbitterness was given to the affair, from the fact that she professed tobe endowed with the spirit of prophecy and taught her partisans that itwas their duty to follow the biddings of a supernatural light; and therewas nothing which the orthodox Puritan so steadfastly abhorred as theanarchical pretence of living by the aid of a supernatural light. In astrong and complex society the teachings of Mrs. Hutchinson would haveawakened but a languid speculative interest, or perhaps would havepassed by unheeded. In the simple society of Massachusetts in 1636, physically weak and as yet struggling for very existence, the practicaleffect of such teachings may well have been deemed politicallydangerous. When things came to such a pass that the forces of the colonywere mustered for an Indian campaign and the men of Boston were ready toshirk the service because they suspected their chaplain to be "under acovenant of works, " it was naturally thought to be high time to put Mrs. Hutchinson down. In the spring of 1637 Winthrop was elected governor, and in August Vane returned to England. His father had at that momentmore influence with the king than any other person except Strafford, and the young man had indiscreetly hinted at an appeal to the homegovernment for the protection of the Antinomians, as Mrs. Hutchinson'sfollowers were called. But an appeal from America to England wassomething which Massachusetts would no more tolerate in the days ofWinthrop than in the days of Hancock and Adams. Soon after Vane'sdeparture, Mrs. Hutchinson and her friends were ordered to leave thecolony. It was doubtless an odious act of persecution, yet of allsuch acts which stain the history of Massachusetts in the seventeenthcentury, it is just the one for which the plea of political necessitymay really be to some extent accepted. We now begin to see how the spreading of the New England colonization, and the founding of distinct communities, was hastened by thesedifferences of opinion on theological questions or on questionsconcerning the relations between church and state. Of Mrs. Hutchinson'sfriends and adherents, some went northward, and founded the towns ofExeter and Hampton. Some time before Portsmouth and Dover had beensettled by followers of Mason and Gorges. In 1641 these towns were addedto the domain of Massachusetts, and so the matter stood until 1679, whenwe shall see Charles II. Marking them off as a separate province, undera royal government. Such were the beginnings of New Hampshire. Mrs. Hutchinson herself, however, with the rest of her adherents, boughtthe island of Aquedneck from the Indians, and settlements were made atPortsmouth and Newport. After a quarter of a century of turbulence, these settlements coalesced with Williams's colony at Providence, andthus was formed the state of Rhode Island. After her husband's death in1642, Mrs. Hutchinson left Aquedneck and settled upon some land to thewest of Stamford and supposed to be within the territory of the NewNetherlands. There in the following year she was cruelly murdered byIndians, together with nearly all her children and servants, sixteenvictims in all. One of her descendants was the illustrious ThomasHutchinson, the first great American historian, and last royal governorof Massachusetts. To the dangers arising from the ill-will of the crown, and from thesetheological quarrels, there was added the danger of a general attack bythe savages. Down to this time, since the landing of the Pilgrims atPlymouth, the settlers of New England had been in no way molested by thenatives. Massasoit's treaty with the Pilgrims was scrupulously observedon both sides, and kept the Wampanoags quiet for fifty-four years. Thesomewhat smaller tribe which took its name from the _Massawachusett_, orGreat Hill, of Milton, kept on friendly terms with the settlers aboutBoston, because these red men coveted the powerful aid of the whitestrangers in case of war with their hereditary foes the Tarratines, whodwelt in the Piscataqua country. It was only when the English beganto leave these coast regions and press into the interior that troublearose. The western shores of Narragansett bay were possessed bythe numerous and warlike tribe of that name, which held in partialsubjection the Nyantics near Point Judith. To the west of these, andabout the Thames river, dwelt the still more formidable Pequots, a tribewhich for bravery and ferocity asserted a preeminence in New Englandnot unlike that which the Iroquois league of the Mohawk valley was fastwinning over all North America east of the Mississippi. North of thePequots, the squalid villages of the Nipmucks were scattered over thebeautiful highlands that stretch in long ridges from Quinsigamond toNichewaug, and beyond toward blue Monadnock. Westward, in the lowerConnecticut valley, lived the Mohegans, a small but valiant tribe, nowfor some time held tributary to their Pequot cousins, and very restiveunder the yoke. The thickly wooded mountain ranges between theConnecticut and the Hudson had few human inhabitants. These hundredmiles of crag and forest were a bulwark none too wide or strong againstthe incursions of the terrible Mohawks, whose name sent a shiver of fearthroughout savage New England, and whose forbearance the Nipmucks andMohegans were fain to ensure by a yearly payment of blackmail. Eachsummer there came two Mohawk elders, secure in the dread that Iroquoisprowess had everywhere inspired; and up and down the Connecticut valleythey seized the tribute of weapons and wampum, and proclaimed the lastharsh edict issued from the savage council at Onondaga. The scowls thatgreeted their unwelcome visits were doubtless nowhere fiercer than amongthe Mohegans, thus ground down between Mohawk and Pequot as between theupper and the nether millstone. [Sidenote: From the Indians: the Pequotsupremacy] Among the various points in which civilized man surpasses the savagenone is more conspicuous than the military brute force which in thehighest civilization is always latent though comparatively seldomexerted. The sudden intrusion of English warfare into the Indian worldof the seventeenth century may well have seemed to the red men asupernatural visitation, like the hurricane or the earthquake. Theuncompromising vigour with which the founders of Massachusetts carriedon their work was viewed in some quarters with a dissatisfaction whichsoon thrust the English migration into the very heart of the Indiancountry. The first movement, however, was directed against the encroachments ofthe New Netherlands. In October, 1634, some men of Plymouth, led byWilliam Holmes, sailed up the Connecticut river, and, after bandyingthreats with a party of Dutch who had built a rude fort on the site ofHartford, passed on and fortified themselves on the site of Windsor. Next year Governor Van Twiller sent a company of seventy men to driveaway these intruders, but after reconnoitring the situation the Dutchmenthought it best not to make an attack. Their little stronghold atHartford remained unmolested by the English, and, in order to securethe communication between this advanced outpost and New Amsterdam, VanTwiller decided to build another fort at the mouth of the river, butthis time the English were beforehand. Rumours of Dutch designs mayhave reached the ears of Lord Say and Sele and Lord Brooke--"fanaticBrooke, " as Scott calls him in "Marmion"--who had obtained from theCouncil for New England a grant of territory on the shores of the Sound. These noblemen chose as their agent the younger John Winthrop, son ofthe Massachusetts governor, and this new-comer arrived upon the scenejust in time to drive away Van Twiller's vessel and build an Englishfort which in honour of his two patrons he called "Say-Brooke. " Had it not been for seeds of discontent already sown in Massachusetts, the English hold upon the Connecticut valley might perhaps have beenfor a few years confined to these two military outposts at Windsor andSaybrook. But there were people in Massachusetts who did not look withfavour upon the aristocratic and theocratic features in its polity. Theprovision that none but church-members should vote or hold office wasby no means unanimously approved. We see it in the course of anothergeneration putting altogether too much temporal power into the hands ofthe clergy, and we can trace the growth of the opposition to it until inthe reign of Charles II. It becomes a dangerous source of weakness toMassachusetts. At the outset the opposition seems to have been strongestin Dorchester, Newtown, and Watertown. When the Board of Assistantsundertook to secure for themselves permanency of tenure, together withthe power of choosing the governor and making the laws, these threetowns sent deputies to Boston to inspect the charter and see if itauthorized any such stretch of power. They were foremost in insistingthat representatives chosen by the towns must have a share in thegeneral government. Men who held such opinions were naturally unwillingto increase the political weight of the clergy, who, during these earlydisputes and indeed until the downfall of the charter, were inclined totake aristocratic views and to sympathize with the Board of Assistants. Cotton declared that democracy was no fit government either for churchor for commonwealth, and the majority of the ministers agreed withhim. Chief among those who did not was the learned and eloquent ThomasHooker, pastor of the church at Newtown. When Winthrop, in a letter toHooker, defended the restriction of the suffrage on the ground that "thebest part is always the least, and of that best part the wiser part isalways the lesser;" Hooker replied that "in matters which concern thecommon good, a general council, chosen by all, to transact businesseswhich concern all, I conceive most suitable to rule and most safe forrelief of the whole. " It is interesting to meet, on the very thresholdof American history, with such a lucid statement of the stronglycontrasted views which a hundred and fifty years later were to berepresented on a national scale by Hamilton and Jefferson. There weremany in Newtown who took Hooker's view of the matter; and there, asalso in Watertown and Dorchester, which in 1633 took the initiative inframing town governments with selectmen, a strong disposition was shownto evade the restrictions upon the suffrage. While such things were talked about in the summer of 1633 theadventurous John Oldham was making his way through the forest and overthe mountains into the Connecticut valley, and when he returned tothe coast his glowing accounts set some people to thinking. Two yearsafterward a few pioneers from Dorchester pushed through the wildernessas far as the Plymouth men's fort at Windsor, while a party fromWatertown went farther and came to a halt upon the site of Wethersfield. A larger party, bringing cattle and such goods as they could carry, set out in the autumn and succeeded in reaching Windsor. Their wintersupplies were sent around by water to meet them, but early in Novemberthe ships had barely passed the Saybrook fort when they found the riverblocked with ice and were obliged to return to Boston. The sufferings ofthe pioneers, thus cut off from the world, were dreadful. Their cattleperished, and they were reduced to a diet of acorns and ground-nuts. Some seventy of them, walking on the frozen river to Saybrook, wereso fortunate as to find a crazy little sloop jammed in the ice. Theysucceeded in cutting her adrift, and steered themselves back to Boston. Others surmounted greater obstacles in struggling back through the snowover the region which the Pullman car now traverses, regardless ofseasons, in three hours. A few grim heroes, the nameless founders of anoble commonwealth, stayed on the spot and defied starvation. In thenext June, 1636, the Newtown congregation, a hundred or more in number, led by their sturdy pastor, and bringing with them 160 head of cattle, made the pilgrimage to the Connecticut valley. Women and children tookpart in this pleasant summer journey; Mrs. Hooker, the pastor's wife, being too ill to walk, was carried on a litter. Thus, in the memorableyear in which our great university was born, did Cambridge become, inthe true Greek sense of a much-abused word, the _metropolis_ or "mothertown" of Hartford. The migration at once became strong in numbers. During the past twelvemonth a score of ships had brought from Englandto Massachusetts more than 3000 souls, and so great an accession madefurther movement easy. Hooker's pilgrims were soon followed by theDorchester and Watertown congregations, and by the next May 800 peoplewere living in Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield. As we read of thesemovements, not of individuals, but of organic communities, united inallegiance to a church and its pastor, and fervid with the instinctof self-government, we seem to see Greek history renewed, but withcenturies of added political training. For one year a board ofcommissioners from Massachusetts governed the new towns, but at the endof that time the towns chose representatives and held a General Court atHartford, and thus the separate existence of Connecticut was begun. Asfor Springfield, which was settled about the same time by a party fromRoxbury, it remained for some years doubtful to which state it belonged. At the opening session of the General Court, May 31, 1638, Mr. Hookerpreached a sermon of wonderful power, in which he maintained that "thefoundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people, ""that the choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God'sown allowance, " and that "they who have power to appoint officers andmagistrates have the right also to set the bounds and limitations ofthe power and place unto which they call them. " On the 14th of January, 1639, all the freemen of the three towns assembled at Hartford andadopted a written constitution in which the hand of the great preacheris clearly discernible. It is worthy of note that this document containsnone of the conventional references to a "dread sovereign" or a"gracious king, " nor the slightest allusion to the British or any othergovernment outside of Connecticut itself, nor does it prescribe anycondition of church-membership for the right of suffrage. It was thefirst written constitution known to history, that created a government, [10] and it marked the beginnings of American democracy, of which ThomasHooker deserves more than any other man to be called the father. Thegovernment of the United States today is in lineal descent more nearlyrelated to that of Connecticut than to that of any of the other thirteencolonies. The most noteworthy feature of the Connecticut republic wasthat it was a federation of independent towns, and that all attributesof sovereignty not expressly granted to the General Court remained, as of original right, in the towns. Moreover, while the governor andcouncil were chosen by a majority vote of the whole people, and by asuffrage that was almost universal, there was for each township anequality of representation in the assembly. [11] This little federalrepublic was allowed to develop peacefully and normally; itsconstitution was not violently wrenched out of shape like that ofMassachusetts at the end of the seventeenth century. It silently grewtill it became the strongest political structure on the continent, aswas illustrated in the remarkable military energy and the unshakenfinancial credit of Connecticut during the Revolutionary War; and in thechief crisis of the Federal Convention of 1787 Connecticut, with hercompromise which secured equal state representation in one branch of thenational government and popular representation in the other, played thecontrolling part. [Sidenote: Connecticut Pioneers] [Sidenote: The firstwritten constitution] Before the little federation of towns had framed its government, it hadits Indian question to dispose of. Three years before the migration ledby Hooker, a crew of eight traders, while making their way up the riverto the Dutch station on the site of Hartford, had been murdered by aparty of Indians subject to Sassacus, chief sachem of the Pequots. Negotiations concerning this outrage had gone on between Sassacus andthe government at Boston, and the Pequots had promised to deliver upthe murderers, but had neglected to do so. In the summer of 1636 someIndians on Block Island subject to the Narragansetts murdered thepioneer John Oldham, who was sailing on the Sound, and captured hislittle vessel. At this, says Underhill, "God stirred up the hearts" ofGovernor Vane and the rest of the magistrates. They were determined tomake an end of the Indian question and show the savages that such thingswould not be endured. First an embassy was sent to Canonicus and hisnephew Miantonomo, chief sachems of the Narragansetts, who hastenedto disclaim all responsibility for the murder, and to throw the blameentirely upon the Indians of the island. Vane then sent out threevessels under command of Endicott, who ravaged Block Island, burningwigwams, sinking canoes, and slaying dogs, for the men had taken to thewoods. Endicott then crossed to the mainland to reckon with the Pequots. He demanded the surrender of the murderers, with a thousand fathoms ofwampum for damages; and not getting a satisfactory answer, he attackedthe Indians, killed a score of them, seized their ripe corn, and burnedand spoiled what he could. But such reprisals served only to enrage thered men. Lyon Gardiner, commander of the Saybrook fort, complained toEndicott: "You come hither to raise these wasps about my ears; thenyou will take wing and flee away. " The immediate effect was to inciteSassacus to do his utmost to compass the ruin of the English. Thesuperstitious awe with which the white men were at first regarded hadbeen somewhat lessened by familiar contact with them, as in Aesop'sfable of the fox and the lion. The resources of Indian diplomacy wereexhausted in the attempt to unite the Narragansett warriors with thePequots in a grand crusade against the white men. Such a combinationcould hardly have been as formidable as that which was effected fortyyears afterward in King Philip's war; for the savages had not as yetbecome accustomed to firearms, and the English settlements did notpresent so many points exposed to attack; but there is no doubt thatit might have wrought fearful havoc. We can, at any rate, find nodifficulty in comprehending the manifold perplexity of the Massachusettsmen at this time, threatened as they were at once by an Indian crusade, by the machinations of a faithless king, and by a bitter theologicalquarrel at home, in this eventful year when they laid aside part oftheir incomes to establish Harvard College. [Sidenote: Origin of thePequot War] The schemes of Sassacus were unsuccessful. The hereditary enmity of theNarragansetts toward their Pequot rivals was too strong to be lightlyovercome. Roger Williams, taking advantage of this feeling, so workedupon the minds of the Narragansett chiefs that in the autumn of 1636they sent an embassy to Boston and made a treaty of alliance with theEnglish. The Pequots were thus left to fight out their own quarrel; andhad they still been separated from the English by the distance betweenBoston and the Thames river, the feud might very likely have smouldereduntil the drift of events had given a different shape to it. But as theEnglish had in this very year thrown out their advanced posts into thelower Connecticut valley, there was clearly no issue from the situationsave in deadly war. All through the winter of 1636-37 the Connecticuttowns were kept in a state of alarm by the savages. Men going to theirwork were killed and horribly mangled. A Wethersfield man was kidnappedand roasted alive. Emboldened by the success of this feat, the Pequotsattacked Wethersfield, massacred ten people, and carried away two girls. [Sidenote: Sassacus is foiled by Roger Williams] [Sidenote: The Pequotstake the warpath alone] Wrought up to desperation by these atrocities, the Connecticut menappealed to Massachusetts and Plymouth for aid, and put into serviceninety of their own number, under command of John Mason, an excellentand sturdy officer who had won golden opinions from Sir Thomas Fairfax, under whom he had served in the Netherlands. It took time to get menfrom Boston, and all that Massachusetts contributed to the enterprise atits beginning was that eccentric daredevil John Underhill, with a forceof twenty men. Seventy friendly Mohegans, under their chief Uncas, eagerto see vengeance wrought upon their Pequot oppressors, accompanied theexpedition. From the fort at Saybrook this little company set sail onthe twentieth of May, 1637, and landed in brilliant moonlight near PointJudith, where they were reinforced by four hundred Narragansetts andNyantics. From this point they turned westward toward the stronghold ofthe Pequots, near the place where the town of Stonington now stands. Asthey approached the dreaded spot the courage of the Indian allies gaveout, and they slunk behind, declaring that Sassacus was a god whomit was useless to think of attacking. The force with which Masonand Underhill advanced to the fray consisted of just seventy-sevenEnglishmen. Their task was to assault and carry an entrenched fort orwalled village containing seven hundred Pequots. The fort was acircle of two or three acres in area, girdled by a palisade ofsturdy sapling-trunks, set firm and deep into the ground, the narrowinterstices between them serving as loopholes wherefrom to reconnoitreany one passing by and to shoot at assailants. At opposite sides ofthis stronghold were two openings barely large enough to let any one gothrough. Within this enclosure were the crowded wigwams. The attack wasskilfully managed, and was a complete surprise. A little before daybreakMason, with sixteen men, occupied one of the doors, while Underhill madesure of the other. The Indians in panic sought first one outlet and thenthe other, and were ruthlessly shot down, whichever way they turned. Afew succeeded in breaking loose, but these were caught and tomahawked bythe Indian allies, who, though afraid to take the risks of the fight, were ready enough to help slay the fugitives. The English threwfirebrands among the wigwams, and soon the whole village was in a lightblaze, and most of the savages suffered the horrible death which theywere so fond of inflicting upon their captives. Of the seven hundredPequots in the stronghold, but five got away with their lives. All thisbloody work had been done in less than an hour, and of the English therehad been two killed and sixteen wounded. It was the end of the Pequotnation. Of the remnant which had not been included in this wholesaleslaughter, most were soon afterwards destroyed piecemeal in a runningfight which extended as far westward as the site of Fairfield. Sassacusfled across the Hudson river to the Mohawks, who slew him and sent hisscalp to Boston, as a peace-offering to the English. The few survivorswere divided between the Mohegans and Narragansetts and adopted intothose tribes. Truly the work was done with Cromwellian thoroughness. Thetribe which had lorded it so fiercely over the New England forests wasall at once wiped out of existence. So terrible a vengeance the Indianshad never heard of. If the name of Pequot had hitherto been a name ofterror, so now did the Englishmen win the inheritance of that deadlyprestige. Not for eight-and-thirty years after the destruction of thePequots, not until a generation of red men had grown up that knew notUnderhill and Mason, did the Indian of New England dare again to lifthis hand against the white man. [Sidenote: And are exterminated] Such scenes of wholesale slaughter are not pleasant reading in thismilder age. But our forefathers felt that the wars of Canaan affordeda sound precedent for such cases; and, indeed, if we remember whatthe soldiers of Tilly and Wallenstein were doing at this very time inGermany, we shall realize that the work of Mason and Underhill would nothave been felt by any one in that age to merit censure or stand in needof excuses. As a matter of practical policy the annihilation of thePequots can be condemned only by those who read history so incorrectlyas to suppose that savages, whose business is to torture and slay, canalways be dealt with according to the methods in use between civilizedpeoples. A mighty nation, like the United States, is in honour bound totreat the red man with scrupulous justice and refrain from cruelty inpunishing his delinquencies. But if the founders of Connecticut, inconfronting a danger which threatened their very existence, struck withsavage fierceness, we cannot blame them. The world is so made that itis only in that way that the higher races have been able to preservethemselves and carry on their progressive work. The overthrow of the Pequots was a cardinal event in the planting ofNew England. It removed the chief obstacle to the colonization ofthe Connecticut coast, and brought the inland settlements into suchunimpeded communication with those on tide-water as to prepare the wayfor the formation of the New England confederacy. Its first fruits wereseen in the direction taken by the next wave of migration, which endedthe Puritan exodus from England to America. About a month after thestorming of the palisaded village there arrived in Boston a company ofwealthy London merchants, with their families. The most prominent amongthem, Theophilus Eaton, was a member of the Company of MassachusettsBay. Their pastor, John Davenport, was an eloquent preacher and a man ofpower. He was a graduate of Oxford, and in 1624 had been chosen vicarof St. Stephen's parish, in Coleman street, London. When he heard thatCotton and Hooker were about to sail for America, he sought earnestly toturn them from what he deemed the error of their ways, but instead hebecame converted himself and soon incurred the especial enmity of Laud, so that it became necessary for him to flee to Amsterdam. In 1636 hereturned to England, and in concert with Eaton organized a scheme ofemigration that included men from Yorkshire, Hertfordshire, and Kent. The leaders arrived in Boston in the midst of the Antinomian disputes, and although Davenport won admiration for his skill in battling withheresy, he may perhaps have deemed it preferable to lead his flockto some new spot in the wilderness where such warfare might not berequired. The merchants desired a fine harbour and good commercialsituation, and the reports of the men who returned from hunting thePequots told them of just such a spot at Quinnipiack on Long IslandSound. Here they could carry out their plan of putting into practicea theocratic ideal even more rigid than that which obtained inMassachusetts, and arrange their civil as well as ecclesiastical affairsin accordance with rules to be obtained from a minute study of theScriptures. [Sidenote: The colony of New Haven] In the spring of 1638 the town of New Haven was accordingly founded. The next year a swarm from this new town settled Milford, while anotherparty, freshly arrived from England, made the beginnings of Guilford. In1640 Stamford was added to the group, and in 1643 the four towns wereunited into the republic of New Haven, to which Southold, on LongIsland, and Branford were afterwards added. As being a confederation ofindependent towns, New Haven resembled Connecticut. In other respectsthe differences between the two reflected the differences betweenDavenport and Hooker; the latter was what would now be called moreradical than Winthrop or Cotton, the former was more conservative. In the New Haven colony none but church-members could vote, and thismeasure at the outset disfranchised more than half the settlers in NewHaven town, nearly half in Guilford, and less than one fifth in Milford. This result was practically less democratic than in Massachusetts whereit was some time before the disfranchisement attained such dimensions. The power of the clergy reached its extreme point in New Haven, whereeach of the towns was governed by seven ecclesiastical officers known as"pillars of the church. " These magistrates served as judges, and trialby jury was dispensed with, because no authority could be found for itin the laws of Moses. The legislation was quaint enough, though thefamous "Blue Laws" of New Haven, which have been made the theme of somany jests at the expense of our forefathers, never really existed. Thestory of the Blue Laws was first published in 1781 by the Rev. SamuelPeters, a Tory refugee in London, who took delight in horrifying ourBritish cousins with tales of wholesale tarring and feathering done bythe patriots of the Revolution. In point of strict veracity Dr. Petersreminds one of Baron Munchausen; he declares that the river at BellowsFalls flows so fast as to float iron crowbars, and he gravely describessundry animals who were evidently cousins to the Jabberwok. The mostfamous passage of his pretended code is that which enacts that "no womanshall kiss her child on the Sabbath, " and that "no one shall play on anyinstrument of music except the drum, trumpet, or jewsharp. " [Sidenote:Legend of the "Blue Laws"] When the Long Parliament met in 1640, the Puritan exodus to New Englandcame to an end. During the twenty years which had elapsed since thevoyage of the Mayflower, the population had grown to 26, 000 souls. Ofthis number scarcely 500 had arrived before 1629. It is a striking fact, since it expresses a causal relation and not a mere coincidence, thatthe eleven years, 1629-1640, during which Charles I. Governed Englandwithout a parliament, were the same eleven years that witnessed theplanting of New England. For more than a century after this there was noconsiderable migration to this part of North America. Puritan Englandnow found employment for all its energies and all its enthusiasm athome. The struggle with the king and the efforts toward reorganizationunder Cromwell were to occupy it for another score of years, andthen, by the time of the Restoration the youthful creative energy ofPuritanism had spent itself. The influence of this great movementwas indeed destined to grow wider and deeper with the progress ofcivilization, but after 1660 its creative work began to run in newchannels and assume different forms. [Sidenote: End of the Puritanexodus] It is curious to reflect what might have been the result, to America andto the world, had things in England gone differently between 1620 and1660. Had the policy of James and Charles been less formidable, thePuritan exodus might never have occurred, and the Virginian type ofsociety, varied perhaps by a strong Dutch infusion, might have becomesupreme in America. The western continent would have lost in richnessand variety of life, and it is not likely that Europe would have made acorresponding gain, for the moral effect of the challenge, the struggle, and the overthrow of monarchy in England was a stimulus sorely neededby neighbouring peoples. It is not always by avoiding the evil, itis rather by grappling with it and conquering it that character isstrengthened and life enriched, and there is no better example of thisthan the history of England in the seventeenth century. On the other hand, if the Stuart despotism had triumphed in England, thePuritan exodus would doubtless have been swelled to huge dimensions. NewEngland would have gained strength so quickly that much less irritationthan she actually suffered between 1664 and 1689 would probably havegoaded her into rebellion. The war of independence might have been wageda century sooner than it was. It is not easy to point to any especialadvantage that could have come to America from this; one is ratherinclined to think of the peculiarly valuable political training of theeighteenth century that would have been lost. Such surmises are for themost part idle. But as concerns Europe, it is plain to be seen, forreasons stated in my first chapter, that the decisive victory of CharlesI. Would have been a calamity of the first magnitude. It would have beenlike the Greeks losing Marathon or the Saracens winning Tours, supposingthe worst consequences ever imagined in those hypothetical cases to havebeen realized. Or taking a more contracted view, we can see how England, robbed of her Puritan element, might still have waxed in strength, asFrance has done in spite of losing the Huguenots; but she could nothave taken the proud position that she has come to occupy as mother ofnations. Her preeminence since Cromwell's time has been chiefly due toher unrivalled power of planting self-supporting colonies, and thatpower has had its roots in English self-government. It is the vitalityof the English Idea that is making the language of Cromwell andWashington dominant in the world. CHAPTER IV. THE NEW ENGLAND CONFEDERACY. The Puritan exodus to New England, which came to an end about 1640, waspurely and exclusively English. There was nothing in it that came fromthe continent of Europe, nothing that was either Irish or Scotch, verylittle that was Welsh. As Palfrey says, the population of 26, 000 thathad been planted in New England by 1640 "thenceforward continued tomultiply on its own soil for a century and a half, in remarkableseclusion from other communities. " During the whole of this period NewEngland received but few immigrants; and it was not until after theRevolutionary War that its people had fairly started on their westwardmarch into the state of New York and beyond, until now, after yetanother century, we find some of their descendants dwelling in ahomelike Salem and a Portland of charming beauty on the Pacific coast. Three times between the meeting of the Long Parliament and the meetingof the Continental Congress did the New England colonies receive aslight infusion of non-English blood. In 1652, after his victories atDunbar and Worcester, Cromwell sent 270 of his Scottish prisoners toBoston, where the descendants of some of them still dwell. After therevocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, 150 families of Huguenotscame to Massachusetts. And finally in 1719, 120 Presbyterian familiescame over from the north of Ireland, and settled at Londonderry in NewHampshire, and elsewhere. In view of these facts it may be said thatthere is not a county in England of which the population is more purelyEnglish than the population of New England at the end of the eighteenthcentury. From long and careful research, Mr. Savage, the highestauthority on this subject, concludes that more than 98 in 100 of the NewEngland people at that time could trace their origin to England inthe narrowest sense, excluding even Wales. As already observed, everyEnglish shire contributed something to the emigration, but there wasa marked preponderance of people from the East Anglian counties. [Sidenote: The exodus was purely English] The population of New England was nearly as homogeneous in socialcondition as it was in blood. The emigration was preeminent for itsrespectability. Like the best part of the emigration to Virginia, itconsisted largely of country squires and yeomen. The men who followedWinthrop were thrifty and prosperous in their old homes from which theirdevotion to an idea made them voluntary exiles. They attached so muchimportance to regular industry and decorous behaviour that for a longtime the needy and shiftless people who usually make trouble in newcolonies were not tolerated among them. Hence the early history of NewEngland is remarkably free from those scenes of violence and disorderwhich have so often made hideous the first years of new communities. Of negro slaves there were very few, and these were employed wholly indomestic service; there were not enough of them to affect the industriallife of New England or to be worth mentioning as a class. Neither werethere many of the wretched people, kidnapped from the jails and slumsof English sea-ports, such as in those early days when negro labour wasscarce, were sent by ship-loads to Virginia, to become the progenitorsof the "white trash. " There were a few indented white servants, usuallyof the class known as "redemptioners, " or immigrants who voluntarilybound themselves to service for a stated time in order to defray thecost of their voyage from Europe. At a later time there were many ofthese "redemptioners" in the middle colonies, but in New England theywere very few; and as no stigma of servitude was attached to manuallabour, they were apt at the end of their terms of service to becomeindependent farmers; thus they ceased to be recognizable as a distinctclass of society. Nevertheless the common statement that no traces ofthe "mean white" are to be found in New England is perhaps somewhattoo sweeping. Interspersed among those respectable and tidy mountainvillages, once full of such vigorous life, one sometimes comes uponlittle isolated groups of wretched hovels whose local reputation issufficiently indicated by such terse epithets as "Hardscrabble" or"Hell-huddle. " Their denizens may in many instances be the degenerateoffspring of a sound New England stock, but they sometimes show strongpoints of resemblance to that "white trash" which has come to be arecognizable strain of the English race; and one cannot help suspectingthat while the New England colonies made every effort to keep out suchriff raff, it may nevertheless have now and then crept in. However thismay be, it cannot be said that this element ever formed a noticeablefeature in the life of colonial New England. As regards their socialderivation, the settlers of New England were homogeneous in character toa remarkable degree, and they were drawn from the sturdiest part ofthe English stock. In all history there has been no other instance ofcolonization so exclusively effected by picked and chosen men. Thecolonists knew this, and were proud of it, as well they might be. It wasthe simple truth that was spoken by William Stoughton when he said, inhis election sermon of 1688: "God sifted a whole nation, that He mightsend choice grain into the wilderness. " [Sidenote: Respectable characterof the emigration] This matter comes to have more than a local interest, when we reflectthat the 26, 000 New Englanders of 1640 have in two hundred and fiftyyears increased to something like 15, 000, 000. From these men have comeat least one-fourth of the present population of the United States. Striking as this fact may seem, it is perhaps less striking than thefact of the original migration when duly considered. In these times, when great steamers sail every day from European ports, bringingimmigrants to a country not less advanced in material civilizationthan the country which they leave, the daily arrival of a thousand newcitizens has come to be a commonplace event. But in the seventeenthcentury the transfer of more than twenty thousand well-to-do peoplewithin twenty years from their comfortable homes in England to theAmerican wilderness was by no means a commonplace event. It reminds oneof the migrations of ancient peoples, and in the quaint thought ofour forefathers it was aptly likened to the exodus of Israel from theEgyptian house of bondage. In this migration a principle of selection was at work which insured anextraordinary uniformity of character and of purpose among the settlers. To this uniformity of purpose, combined with complete homogeneity ofrace, is due the preponderance early acquired by New England in thehistory of the American people. In view of this, it is worth while toinquire what were the real aims of the settlers of New England. What wasthe common purpose which brought these men together in their resolve tocreate for themselves new homes in the wilderness? This is a point concerning which there has been a great deal of popularmisapprehension, and there has been no end of nonsense talked about it. It has been customary first to assume that the Puritan migration wasundertaken in the interests of religious liberty, and then to upbraidthe Puritans for forgetting all about religious liberty as soon aspeople came among them who disagreed with their opinions. But this viewof the case is not supported by history. It is quite true that thePuritans were chargeable with gross intolerance; but it is not true thatin this they were guilty of inconsistency. The notion that they came toNew England for the purpose of establishing religious liberty, inany sense in which we should understand such a phrase, is entirelyincorrect. It is neither more nor less than a bit of popular legend. Ifwe mean by the phrase "religious liberty" a state of things in whichopposite or contradictory opinions on questions of religion shall existside by side in the same community, and in which everybody shalldecide for himself how far he will conform to the customary religiousobservances, nothing could have been further from their thoughts. Thereis nothing they would have regarded with more genuine abhorrence. Ifthey could have been forewarned by a prophetic voice of the generalfreedom--or, as they would have termed it, license--of thought andbehaviour which prevails in this country to-day, they would very likelyhave abandoned their enterprise in despair. [12] The philosophic studentof history often has occasion to see how God is wiser than man. In otherwords, he is often brought to realize how fortunate it is that theleaders in great historic events cannot foresee the remote results ofthe labours to which they have zealously consecrated their lives. It ispart of the irony of human destiny that the end we really accomplish bystriving with might and main is apt to be something quite different fromthe end we dreamed of as we started on our arduous labour. So it waswith the Puritan settlers of New England. The religious liberty thatwe enjoy to-day is largely the consequence of their work; but it is aconsequence that was unforeseen, while the direct and conscious aim oftheir labours was something that has never been realized, and probablynever will be. [Sidenote: The migration was not intended to promote whatwe call religious liberty] The aim of Winthrop and his friends in coming to Massachusetts was theconstruction of a theocratic state which should be to Christians, underthe New Testament dispensation, all that the theocracy of Moses andJoshua and Samuel had been to the Jews in Old Testament days. Theyshould be to all intents and purposes freed from the jurisdiction ofthe Stuart king, and so far as possible the text of the Holy Scripturesshould be their guide both in weighty matters of general legislation andin the shaping of the smallest details of daily life. In such a schemethere was no room for religious liberty as we understand it. No doubtthe text of the Scriptures may be interpreted in many ways, but amongthese men there was a substantial agreement as to the important points, and nothing could have been further from their thoughts than to founda colony which should afford a field for new experiments in the art ofright living. The state they were to found was to consist of a unitedbody of believers; citizenship itself was to be co-extensive withchurch-membership; and in such a state there was apparently no more roomfor heretics than there was in Rome or Madrid. This was the idea whichdrew Winthrop and his followers from England at a time when--as eventswere soon to show--they might have stayed there and defied persecutionwith less trouble than it cost them to cross the ocean and found a newstate. [Sidenote: Theocratic ideal of the Puritans] Such an ideal as this, considered by itself and apart from the concreteacts in which it was historically manifested, may seem like the merestfanaticism. But we cannot dismiss in this summary way a movement whichhas been at the source of so much that is great in American history:mere fanaticism has never produced such substantial results. Merefanaticism is sure to aim at changing the constitution of human societyin some essential point, to undo the work of evolution, and offer insome indistinctly apprehended fashion to remodel human life. But inthese respects the Puritans were intensely conservative. The impulse bywhich they were animated was a profoundly ethical impulse--the desireto lead godly lives, and to drive out sin from the community--the sameethical impulse which animates the glowing pages of Hebrew poets andprophets, and which has given to the history and literature of Israeltheir commanding influence in the world. The Greek, says Matthew Arnold, held that the perfection of happiness was to have one's thoughts hit themark; but the Hebrew held that it was to serve the Lord day and night. It was a touch of this inspiration that the Puritan caught from hisearnest and reverent study of the sacred text, and that served tojustify and intensify his yearning for a better life, and to give itthe character of a grand and holy ideal. Yet with all this religiousenthusiasm, the Puritan was in every fibre a practical Englishman withhis full share of plain common-sense. He avoided the error ofmediaeval anchorites and mystics in setting an exaggerated value uponotherworldliness. In his desire to win a crown of glory hereafter he didnot forget that the present life has its simple duties, in the exactperformance of which the welfare of society mainly consists. He likewiseavoided the error of modern radicals who would remodel the fundamentalinstitutions of property and of the family, and thus disturb the verygroundwork of our ethical ideals. The Puritan's ethical conception ofsociety was simply that which has grown up in the natural course ofhistorical evolution, and which in its essential points is thereforeintelligible to all men, and approved by the common-sense of men, however various may be the terminology--whether theological orscientific--in which it is expounded. For these reasons there wasnothing essentially fanatical or impracticable in the Puritan scheme: insubstance it was something that great bodies of men could at once putinto practice, while its quaint and peculiar form was something thatcould be easily and naturally outgrown and set aside. [Sidenote: Theimpulse which sought to realize itself in the Puritan ideal was anethical impulse] Yet another point in which the Puritan scheme of a theocratic societywas rational and not fanatical was its method of interpreting theScriptures. That method was essentially rationalistic in two ways. First, the Puritan laid no claim to the possession of any peculiarinspiration or divine light whereby he might be aided in ascertainingthe meaning of the sacred text; but he used his reason just as he wouldin any matter of business, and he sought to convince, and expected tobe convinced, by rational argument, and by nothing else. Secondly, itfollowed from this denial of any peculiar inspiration that there was noroom in the Puritan commonwealth for anything like a priestly class, andthat every individual must hold his own opinions at his own personalrisk. The consequences of this rationalistic spirit have been veryfar-reaching. In the conviction that religious opinion must be consonantwith reason, and that religious truth must be brought home to eachindividual by rational argument, we may find one of the chief causes ofthat peculiarly conservative yet flexible intelligence which has enabledthe Puritan countries to take the lead in the civilized world oftoday. Free discussion of theological questions, when conducted withearnestness and reverence, and within certain generally acknowledgedlimits, was never discountenanced in New England. On the contrary, therehas never been a society in the world in which theological problems havebeen so seriously and persistently discussed as in New England in thecolonial period. The long sermons of the clergymen were usually learnedand elaborate arguments of doctrinal points, bristling with quotationsfrom the Bible, or from famous books of controversial divinity, and inthe long winter evenings the questions thus raised afforded the occasionfor lively debate in every household. The clergy were, as a rule, menof learning, able to read both Old and New Testaments in the originallanguages, and familiar with the best that had been talked and written, among Protestants at least, on theological subjects. They were also, forthe most part, men of lofty character, and they were held in high socialesteem on account of their character and scholarship, as well as onaccount of their clerical position. But in spite of the reverence inwhich they were commonly held, it would have been a thing quite unheardof for one of these pastors to urge an opinion from the pulpit on thesole ground of his personal authority or his superior knowledge ofScriptural exegesis. The hearers, too, were quick to detect noveltiesor variations in doctrine; and while there was perhaps no more than theordinary human unwillingness to listen to a new thought merely becauseof its newness, it was above all things needful that the orthodoxsoundness of every new suggestion should be thoroughly and severelytested. This intense interest in doctrinal theology was part and parcelof the whole theory of New England life; because, as I have said, it wastaken for granted that each individual must hold his own opinions athis own personal risk in the world to come. Such perpetual discussion, conducted, under such a stimulus, afforded in itself no mean schoolof intellectual training. Viewed in relation to the subsequent mentalactivity of New England, it may be said to have occupied a positionsomewhat similar to that which the polemics of the medieval schoolmenoccupied in relation to the European thought of the Renaissance, and ofthe age of Hobbes and Descartes. At the same time the Puritan theory oflife lay at the bottom of the whole system of popular education in NewEngland. According to that theory, it was absolutely essential thatevery one should be taught from early childhood how to read andunderstand the Bible. So much instruction as this was assumed to be asacred duty which the community owed to every child born within itsjurisdiction. In ignorance, the Puritans maintained, lay the principalstrength of popery in religion as well as of despotism in politics; andso, to the best of their lights, they cultivated knowledge with mightand main. But in this energetic diffusion of knowledge they wereunwittingly preparing the complete and irreparable destruction of thetheocratic ideal of society which they had sought to realize by crossingthe ocean and settling in New England. This universal education, andthis perpetual discussion of theological questions, were no morecompatible with rigid adherence to the Calvinistic system than withsubmission to the absolute rule of Rome. The inevitable result was theliberal and enlightened Protestantism which is characteristic of thebest American society at the present day, and which is continuallygrowing more liberal as it grows more enlightened--a Protestantismwhich, in the natural course of development, is coming to realize thenoble ideal of Roger Williams, but from the very thought of which suchmen as Winthrop and Cotton and Endicott would have shrunk with dismay. [Sidenote: In interpreting Scripture, the Puritan appealed to hisreason] [Sidenote: Value of theological discussion] In this connection it is interesting to note the similarity between theexperience of the Puritans in New England and in Scotland with respectto the influence of their religious theory of life upon generaleducation. Nowhere has Puritanism, with its keen intelligence and itsiron tenacity of purpose, played a greater part than it has played inthe history of Scotland. And one need not fear contradiction in sayingthat no other people in modern times, in proportion to their numbers, have achieved so much in all departments of human activity as the peopleof Scotland have achieved. It would be superfluous to mention thepreeminence of Scotland in the industrial arts since the days of JamesWatt, or to recount the glorious names in philosophy, in history, inpoetry and romance, and in every department of science, which since themiddle of the eighteenth century have made the country of Burns andScott, of Hume and Adam Smith, of Black and Hunter and Hutton andLyell, illustrious for all future time. Now this period of magnificentintellectual fruition in Scotland was preceded by a period ofCalvinistic orthodoxy quite as rigorous as that of New England. Theministers of the Scotch Kirk in the seventeenth century cherished atheocratic ideal of society not unlike that which the colonists of NewEngland aimed at realizing. There was the same austerity, the sameintolerance, the same narrowness of interests, in Scotland that therewas in New England. Mr. Buckle, in the book which thirty years agoseemed so great and stimulating, gave us a graphic picture of this stateof society, and the only thing which he could find to say about it, asthe result of his elaborate survey, was that the spirit of the ScotchKirk was as thoroughly hostile to human progress as the spirit of theSpanish Inquisition! If this were really so, it would be difficultindeed to account for the period of brilliant mental activity whichimmediately followed. But in reality the Puritan theory of life ledto general education in Scotland as it did in New England, and forprecisely the same reasons, while the effects of theological discussionin breaking down the old Calvinistic exclusiveness have been illustratedin the history of Edinburgh as well as in the history of Boston. [Sidenote: Comparison with the case of Scotland] It is well for us to bear in mind the foregoing considerations as wedeal with the history of the short-lived New England Confederacy. Thestory is full of instances of an intolerant and domineering spirit, especially on the part of Massachusetts, and now and then this spiritbreaks forth in ugly acts of persecution. In considering these facts, itis well to remember that we are observing the workings of a systemwhich contained within itself a curative principle; and it is furtherinteresting to observe how political circumstances contributed tomodify the Puritan ideal, gradually breaking down the old theocraticexclusiveness and strengthening the spirit of religious liberty. Scarcely had the first New England colonies been established when it wasfound desirable to unite them into some kind of a confederation. It isworthy of note that the separate existence of so many colonies was atthe outset largely the result of religious differences. The uniformityof purpose, great as it was, fell far short of completeness. [Sidenote:Existence of so many colonies due to slight religious differences] Could all have agreed, or had there been religious toleration in themodern sense, there was still room enough for all in Massachusetts;and a compact settlement would have been in much less danger from theIndians. But in the founding of Connecticut the theocratic idea had lessweight, and in the founding of New Haven it had more weight, thanin Massachusetts. The existence of Rhode Island was based upon thatprinciple of full toleration which the three colonies just mentionedalike abhorred, and its first settlers were people banished fromMassachusetts. With regard to toleration Plymouth occupied a middleground; without admitting the principles of Williams, the people of thatcolony were still fairly tolerant in practice. Of the four towns of NewHampshire, two had been founded by Antinomians driven from Boston, andtwo by Episcopal friends of Mason and Gorges. It was impossible thatneighbouring communities, characterized by such differences of opinion, but otherwise homogeneous in race and in social condition, should failto react upon one another and to liberalize one another. Still more wasthis true when they attempted to enter into a political union. When, forexample, Massachusetts in 1641-43 annexed the New Hampshire townships, she was of necessity obliged to relax in their case her policy ofinsisting upon religious conformity as a test of citizenship. So informing the New England Confederacy, there were some matters of disputethat had to be passed over by mutual consent or connivance. [Sidenote:It led to a notable attempt at federation] The same causes which had spread the English settlements over so wide aterritory now led, as an indirect result, to their partial union into aconfederacy. The immediate consequence of the westward movement had beenan Indian war. Several savage tribes were now interspersed between thesettlements, so that it became desirable that the military force shouldbe brought, as far as possible, under one management. The colony ofNew Netherlands, moreover, had begun to assume importance, and thesettlements west of the Connecticut river had already occasioned hardwords between Dutch and English, which might at any moment be followedby blows. In the French colonies at the north, with their extensiveIndian alliances under Jesuit guidance, the Puritans saw a rival powerwhich was likely in course of time to prove troublesome. With a view tomore efficient self-defence, therefore, in 1643 the four colonies ofMassachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven formed themselvesinto a league, under the style of "The United Colonies of New England. "These four little states now contained thirty-nine towns, with anaggregate population of 24, 000. To the northeast of Massachusetts, which now extended to the Piscataqua, a small colony had at length beenconstituted under a proprietary charter somewhat similar to that held bythe Calverts in Maryland. Of this new province or palatinate of Mainethe aged Sir Ferdinando Gorges was Lord Proprietary, and he hadundertaken not only to establish the Church of England there, but alsoto introduce usages of feudal jurisdiction like those remaining in theold country. Such a community was not likely to join the Confederacy;apart from other reasons, its proprietary constitution and the feudbetween the Puritans and Gorges would have been sufficient obstacles. As for Rhode Island, on the other hand, it was regarded with strongdislike by the other colonies. It was a curious and noteworthyconsequence of the circumstances under which this little state wasfounded that for a long time it became the refuge of all the fanaticaland turbulent people who could not submit to the strict and orderlygovernments of Connecticut or Massachusetts. All extremes met onNarragansett bay. There were not only sensible advocates of religiousliberty, but theocrats as well who saw flaws in the theocracy ofother Puritans. The English world was then in a state of theologicalfermentation. People who fancied themselves favoured with directrevelations from Heaven; people who thought it right to keep the seventhday of the week as a Sabbath instead of the first day; people whocherished a special predilection for the Apocalypse and the Book ofDaniel; people with queer views about property and government; peoplewho advocated either too little marriage or too much marriage; all sucheccentric characters as are apt to come to the surface in periods ofreligious excitement found in Rhode Island a favoured spot where theycould prophesy without let or hindrance. But the immediate practicalresult of so much discordance in opinion was the impossibility offounding a strong and well-ordered government. The early history ofRhode Island was marked by enough of turbulence to suggest the questionwhether, after all, at the bottom of the Puritan's refusal to recognizethe doctrine of private inspiration, or to tolerate indiscriminately allsorts of opinions, there may not have been a grain of shrewd politicalsense not ill adapted to the social condition of the seventeenthcentury. In 1644 and again in 1648 the Narragansett settlers asked leaveto join the Confederacy; but the request was refused on the groundthat they had no stable government of their own. They were offeredthe alternative of voluntary annexation either to Massachusetts or toPlymouth, or of staying out in the cold; and they chose the lattercourse. Early in 1643 they had sent Roger Williams over to England toobtain a charter for Rhode Island. In that year Parliament created aBoard of Commissioners, with the Earl of Warwick at its head, for thesuperintendence of colonial affairs; and nothing could better illustratethe loose and reckless manner in which American questions were treatedin England than the first proceedings of this board. It gave an earlyinstance of British carelessness in matters of American geography. InDecember, 1643, it granted to Massachusetts all the territory on themainland of Narragansett bay; and in the following March it incorporatedthe townships of Newport and Portsmouth, which stood on the island, together with Providence, which stood on the mainland, into anindependent colony empowered to frame a government and make laws foritself. With this second document Williams returned to Providence in theautumn of 1644. Just how far it was intended to cancel the first one, nobody could tell, but it plainly afforded an occasion for a conflict ofclaims. [Sidenote: Turbulence of dissent in Rhode Island] [Sidenote: TheEarl of Warwick and his Board of Commissioners] The league of the four colonies is interesting as the first Americanexperiment in federation. By the articles it was agreed that each colonyshould retain full independence so far as concerned the management ofits internal affairs, but that the confederate government should haveentire control over all dealings with the Indians or with foreignpowers. The administration of the league was put into the hands ofa board of eight Federal Commissioners, two from each colony. Thecommissioners were required to be church-members in good standing. Theycould choose for themselves a president or chairman out of their ownnumber, but such a president was to have no more power than the othermembers of the Board. If any measure were to come up concerningwhich the commissioners could not agree, it was to be referred forconsideration to the legislatures or general courts of the fourcolonies. Expenses for war were to be charged to each colony inproportion to the number of males in each between sixteen years ofage and sixty. A meeting of the Board might be summoned by any twomagistrates whenever the public safety might seem to require it; but aregular meeting was to be held once every year. In this scheme of confederacy all power of taxation was expressly leftto the several colonies. The scheme provided for a mere league, not fora federal union. The government of the Commissioners acted only upon thelocal governments, not upon individuals. The Board had thus but littleexecutive power, and was hardly more than a consulting body. Anothersource of weakness in the confederacy was the overwhelming preponderanceof Massachusetts. Of the 24, 000 people in the confederation, 15, 000belonged to Massachusetts, while the other three colonies had only about3, 000 each. Massachusetts accordingly had to carry the heaviest burden, both in the furnishing of soldiers and in the payment of war expenses, while in the direction of affairs she had no more authority than one ofthe small colonies. As a natural consequence, Massachusetts triedto exert more authority than she was entitled to by the articles ofconfederation; and such conduct was not unnaturally resented by thesmall colonies, as betokening an unfair and domineering spirit. Inspite of these drawbacks, however, the league was of great value toNew England. On many occasions it worked well as a high court ofjurisdiction, and it made the military strength of the colonies moreavailable than it would otherwise have been. But for the interferenceof the British government, which brought it to an untimely end, theConfederacy might have been gradually amended so as to become enduring. After its downfall it was pleasantly remembered by the people of NewEngland; in times of trouble their thoughts reverted to it; and thehistorian must in fairness assign it some share in preparing men's mindsfor the greater work of federation which was achieved before the end ofthe following century. [Sidenote: It was only a league, not a federalunion] The formation of such a confederacy certainly involved something verylike a tacit assumption of sovereignty on the part of the four colonies. It is worthy of note that they did not take the trouble to ask thepermission of the home government in advance. They did as they pleased, and then defended their action afterward. In England the act ofconfederation was regarded with jealousy and distrust. But EdwardWinslow, who was sent over to London to defend the colonies, pithilysaid: "If we in America should forbear to unite for offence and defenceagainst a common enemy till we have leave from England, our throatsmight be all cut before the messenger would be half seas through. "Whether such considerations would have had weight with Charles I. Or notwas now of little consequence. His power of making mischief soon cameto an end, and from the liberal and sagacious policy of Cromwell theConfederacy had not much to fear. Nevertheless the fall of Charles I. Brought up for the first time that question which a century later wasto acquire surpassing interest, --the question as to the supremacy ofParliament over the colonies. Down to this time the supreme control over colonial affairs had been inthe hands of the king and his privy council, and the Parliament hadnot disputed it. In 1624 they had grumbled at James I. 's high-handedsuppression of the Virginia Company, but they had not gone so far asto call in question the king's supreme authority over the colonies. In1628, in a petition to Charles I. Relating to the Bermudas, they hadfully admitted this royal authority. But the fall of Charles I. For themoment changed all this. Among the royal powers devolved upon Parliamentwas the prerogative of superintending the affairs of the colonies. Such, at least, was the theory held in England, and it is not easy to see howany other theory could logically have been held; but the Americans neverformally admitted it, and in practice they continued to behave towardParliament very much as they had behaved toward the crown, yieldingjust as little obedience as possible. When the Earl of Warwick'scommissioners in 1644 seized upon a royalist vessel in Boston harbour, the legislature of Massachusetts debated the question whether it wascompatible with the dignity of the colony to permit such an act ofsovereignty on the part of Parliament. It was decided to wink at theproceeding, on account of the strong sympathy between Massachusetts andthe Parliament which was overthrowing the king. At the same time thelegislature sent over to London a skilfully worded protest againstany like exercise of power in future. In 1651 Parliament orderedMassachusetts to surrender the charter obtained from Charles I. And takeout a new one from Parliament, in which the relations of the colony tothe home government should be made the subject of fresh and more precisedefinition. To this request the colony for more than a year vouchsafedno answer; and finally, when it became necessary to do something, instead of sending back the charter, the legislature sent back amemorial, setting forth that the people of Massachusetts were quitecontented with their form of government, and hoped that no change wouldbe made in it. War between England and Holland, and the difficultpolitical problems which beset the brief rule of Cromwell, preventedthe question from coming to an issue, and Massachusetts was enabled topreserve her independent and somewhat haughty attitude. [Sidenote: Fallof Charles I. Brings up the question as to supremacy of Parliament overthe colonies] During the whole period of the Confederacy, however, disputes keptcoming up which through endless crooked ramifications were apt to endin an appeal to the home government, and thus raise again and again thequestion as to the extent of its imperial supremacy. For our presentpurpose, it is enough to mention three of these cases: 1, the adventuresof Samuel Gorton; 2, the Presbyterian cabal; 3, the persecution of theQuakers. Other cases in point are those of John Clarke and the Baptists, and the relations of Massachusetts to the northeastern settlements; butas it is not my purpose here to make a complete outline of New Englandhistory, the three cases enumerated will suffice. The first case shows, in a curious and instructive way, how religiousdissensions were apt to be complicated with threats of an Indian war onthe one hand and peril from Great Britain on the other; and as we cometo realize the triple danger, we can perhaps make some allowances forthe high-handed measures with which the Puritan governments sometimessought to avert it. [Genesis of the persecuting spirit] As I have elsewhere tried to show, the genesis of the persecuting spiritis to be found in the conditions of primitive society, where "aboveall things the prime social and political necessity is social cohesionwithin the tribal limits, for unless such social cohesion be maintained, the very existence of the tribe is likely to be extinguished inbloodshed. " The persecuting spirit "began to pass away after menhad become organized into great nations, covering a vast extent ofterritory, and secured by their concentrated military strength againstthe gravest dangers of barbaric attack. " [13] Now as regards these considerations, the Puritan communities in theNew England wilderness were to some slight extent influenced by suchconditions as used to prevail in primitive society; and this will helpus to understand the treatment of the Antinomians and such cases as thatwith which we have now to deal. Among the supporters of Mrs. Hutchinson, after her arrival at Aquedneck, was a sincere and courageous, but incoherent and crotchetty man namedSamuel Gorton. [Sidenote: Samuel Gorton] In the denunciatory language of that day he was called a "proud andpestilent seducer, " or, as the modern newspaper would say, a "crank. " Itis well to make due allowances for the prejudice so conspicuous in theaccounts given by his enemies, who felt obliged to justify their harshtreatment of him. But we have also his own writings from which to forman opinion as to his character and views. Lucidity, indeed, was not oneof his strong points as a writer, and the drift of his argument is notalways easy to decipher; but he seems to have had some points of contactwith the Familists, a sect established in the sixteenth century inHolland. The Familists held that the essence of religion consists notin adherence to any particular creed or ritual, but in cherishing thespirit of divine love. The general adoption of this point of view was toinaugurate a third dispensation, superior to those of Moses and Christ, the dispensation of the Holy Ghost. The value of the Bible lay not somuch in the literal truth of its texts as in their spiritual import;and by the union of believers with Christ they came to share in theineffable perfection of the Godhead. There is much that is modern andenlightened in such views, which Gorton seems to some extent to haveshared. He certainly set little store by ritual observances andmaintained the equal right of laymen with clergymen to preach thegospel. Himself a London clothier, and thanking God that he had not beenbrought up in "the schools of human learning, " he set up as a preacherwithout ordination, and styled himself "professor of the mysteries ofChrist. " He seems to have cherished that doctrine of private inspirationwhich the Puritans especially abhorred. It is not likely that he had anydistinct comprehension of his own views, for distinctness was just whatthey lacked. [14] But they were such as in the seventeenth century couldnot fail to arouse fierce antagonism, and if it was true that whereverthere was a government Gorton was against it, perhaps that only showsthat wherever there was a government it was sure to be against him. In the case of such men as Gorton, however, --and the type is by nomeans an uncommon one, --their temperament usually has much more to dowith getting them into trouble than their opinions. Gorton's temperamentwas such as to keep him always in an atmosphere of strife. Otherheresiarchs suffered persecution in Massachusetts, but Gorton was in hotwater everywhere. His arrival in any community was the signal for animmediate disturbance of the peace. His troubles began in Plymouth, where the wife of the pastor preferred his teachings to those of herhusband. In 1638 he fled to Aquedneck, where his first achievement was aschism among Mrs. Hutchinson's followers, which ended in some staying tofound the town of Portsmouth while others went away to found Newport. Presently Portsmouth found him intolerable, flogged and banished him, and after his departure was able to make up its quarrel with Newport. He next made his way with a few followers to Pawtuxet, within thejurisdiction of Providence, and now it is the broad-minded and gentleRoger Williams who complains of his "bewitching and madding poorProvidence. " The question is here suggested what could it have beenin Gorton's teaching that enabled him thus to "bewitch" these littlecommunities? We may be sure that it could not have been the element ofmodern liberalism suggested in the Familistic doctrines above cited. That was the feature then least likely to appeal to the minds of commonpeople, and most likely to appeal to Williams. More probably suchsuccess as Gorton had in winning followers was due to some of themystical rubbish which abounds in his pages and finds in a modern mindno doorway through which to enter. [Sidenote: He flees to Aquedneck andis banished thence] Williams disapproved of Gorton, but was true to his principles oftoleration and would not take part in any attempt to silence him. But in1641 we find thirteen leading citizens of Providence, headed by WilliamArnold, [15] sending a memorial to Boston, asking for assistance andcounsel in regard to this disturber of the peace. How was Massachusettsto treat such an appeal? She could not presume to meddle with the affairunless she could have permanent jurisdiction over Pawtuxet; otherwiseshe was a mere intruder. How strong a side-light does this littleincident throw upon the history of the Roman republic, and of allrelatively strong communities when confronted with the problem ofpreserving order in neighbouring states that are too weak to preserve itfor themselves! Arnold's argument, in his appeal to Massachusetts, wasprecisely the same as that by which the latter colony excused herselffor banishing the Antinomians. He simply says that Gorton and hiscompany "are not fit persons to be received, and made members of a bodyin so weak a state as our town is in at present;" and he adds, "There isno state but in the first place will seek to preserve its own safety andpeace. " Whatever might be the abstract merits of Gorton's opinions, hisconduct was politically dangerous; and accordingly the jurisdiction overPawtuxet was formally conceded to Massachusetts. Thereupon that colony, assuming jurisdiction, summoned Gorton and his men to Boston, to provetheir title to the lands they occupied. They of course regarded thesummons as a flagrant usurpation of authority, and instead of obeyingit they withdrew to Shawomet, on the western shore of Narragansett bay, where they bought a tract of land from the principal sachem of theNarragansetts, Miantonomo. The immediate rule over this land belonged totwo inferior chiefs, who ratified the sale at the time, but six monthsafterward disavowed the ratification, on the ground that it had beengiven under duress from their overlord Miantonomo. Here was a stateof things which might easily bring on an Indian war. The two chiefsappealed to Massachusetts for protection, and were accordingly summoned, along with Miantonomo, to a hearing at Boston. Here we see how a kind ofEnglish protectorate over the native tribes had begun to grow up so soonafter the destruction of the Pequots. Such a result was inevitable. After hearing the arguments, the legislature decided to defend the twochiefs, provided they would put themselves under the jurisdiction ofMassachusetts. This was done, while further complaints against Gortoncame from the citizens of Providence. Gorton and his men were nowperemptorily summoned to Boston to show cause why they should notsurrender their land at Shawomet and to answer the charges against them. On receiving from Gorton a defiant reply, couched in terms which somethought blasphemous, the government of Massachusetts prepared to useforce. [Sidenote: Providence protests against him] [Sidenote: He fleesto Shawomet, where he buys land of the Indians] Meanwhile the unfortunate Miantonomo had rushed upon his doom. Theannihilation of the Pequots had left the Mohegans and Narragansettscontending for the foremost place among the native tribes. Between therival sachems, Uncas and Miantonomo, the hatred was deep and deadly. As soon as the Mohegan perceived that trouble was brewing betweenMiantonomo and the government at Boston, he improved the occasion bygathering a few Narragansett scalps. Miantonomo now took the war-pathand was totally defeated by Uncas in a battle on the Great Plain in thepresent township of Norwich. Encumbered with a coat of mail which hisfriend Gorton had given him, Miantonomo was overtaken and captured. Byordinary Indian usage he would have been put to death with fiendishtorments, as soon as due preparations could be made and a fit companyassembled to gloat over his agony; but Gorton sent a messenger to Uncas, threatening dire vengeance if harm were done to his ally. This messagepuzzled the Mohegan chief. The appearance of a schism in the Englishcounsels was more than he could quite fathom. When the affair hadsomewhat more fully developed itself, some of the Indians spoke ofthe white men as divided into two rival tribes, the Gortonoges andWattaconoges. [16] Roger Williams tells us that the latter term, appliedto the men of Boston, meant coat-wearers. Whether it is to be inferredthat the Gortonoges went about in what in modern parlance would becalled their "shirt-sleeves, " the reader must decide. [Sidenote:Miantonomo and Uncas] In his perplexity Uncas took his prisoner to Hartford, and afterward, upon the advice of the governor and council, sent him to Boston, thathis fate might be determined by the Federal Commissioners who werethere holding their first regular meeting. It was now the turn of thecommissioners to be perplexed. According to English law there was nogood reason for putting Miantonomo to death. The question was whetherthey should interfere with the Indian custom by which his life wasalready forfeit to his captor. The magistrates already suspected theNarragansetts of cherishing hostile designs. To set their sachem atliberty, especially while the Gorton affair remained unsettled, might bedangerous; and it would be likely to alienate Uncas from the English. Intheir embarrassment the commissioners sought spiritual guidance. A synodof forty or fifty clergymen, from all parts of New England, was insession at Boston, and the question was referred to a committee of fiveof their number. The decision was prompt that Miantonomo must die. Hewas sent back to Hartford to be slain by Uncas, but two messengersaccompanied him, to see that no tortures were inflicted. A select bandof Mohegan warriors journeyed through the forest with the prisoner andthe two Englishmen, until they came to the plain where the battle hadbeen fought. Then at a signal from Uncas, the warrior walking behindMiantonomo silently lifted his tomahawk and sank it into the brain ofthe victim who fell dead without a groan. Uncas cut a warm slice fromthe shoulder and greedily devoured it, declaring that the flesh ofhis enemy was the sweetest of meat and gave strength to his heart. Miantonomo was buried there on the scene of his defeat, which has eversince been known as the Sachem's Plain. This was in September, 1643, andfor years afterward, in that month, parties of Narragansetts used tovisit the spot and with frantic gestures and hideous yells lament theirfallen leader. A heap of stones was raised over the grave, and noNarragansett came near it without adding to the pile. After many asummer had passed and the red men had disappeared from the land, aYankee farmer, with whom thrift prevailed over sentiment, cleared awaythe mound and used the stones for the foundation of his new barn. [17][Sidenote: Death of Miantonomo] One cannot regard this affair as altogether creditable to the FederalCommissioners and their clerical advisers. One of the clearest-headedand most impartial students of our history observes that "if the Englishwere to meddle in the matter at all, it was their clear duty to enforceas far as might be the principles recognized by civilized men. When theyaccepted the appeal made by Uncas they shifted the responsibility fromthe Mohegan chief to themselves. " [18] The decision was doubtless basedpurely upon grounds of policy. Miantonomo was put out of the way becausehe was believed to be dangerous. In the thirst for revenge that wasaroused among the Narragansetts there was an alternative source ofdanger, to which I shall hereafter refer. [19] It is difficult now todecide, as a mere question of safe policy, what the English ought tohave done. The chance of being dragged into an Indian war, through thefeud between Narragansetts and Mohegans, was always imminent. The policywhich condemned Miantonomo was one of timidity, and fear is merciless. The Federal Commissioners heartily approved the conduct of Massachusettstoward Gorton, and adopted it in the name of the United Colonies. Aftera formal warning, which passed unheeded, a company of forty men, underEdward Johnson of Woburn and two other officers, was sent to Shawomet. Some worthy citizens of Providence essayed to play the part ofmediators, and after some parley the Gortonites offered to submit toarbitration. The proposal was conveyed to Boston, and the clergy wereagain consulted. They declared it beneath the dignity of Massachusettsto negotiate "with a few fugitives living without law or government, "and they would no more compound with Gorton's "blasphemous revilings"than they would bargain with the Evil One. The community must be"purged" of such wickedness, either by repentance or by punishment. Theministers felt that God would hold the community responsible for Gortonand visit calamities upon them unless he were silenced. [20] Thearbitration was refused, Gorton's blockhouse was besieged and captured, and the agitator was carried with nine of his followers to Boston, wherethey were speedily convicted of heresy and sedition. Before passingjudgment the General Court as usual consulted with the clergy whorecommended a sentence of death. Their advice was adopted by theassistants, but the deputies were more merciful, and the hereticswere sentenced to imprisonment at the pleasure of the court. In thisdifference between the assistants and the deputies, we observe an earlysymptom of that popular revolt against the ascendancy of the clergywhich was by and by to become so much more conspicuous and effectivein the affair of the Quakers. Another symptom might be seen in thecircumstance that so much sympathy was expressed for the Gortonites, especially by women, that after some months of imprisonment and abusethe heretics were banished under penalty of death. [Sidenote: Trial andsentence of the heretics] Gorton now went to England and laid his tale of woe before theparliamentary Board of Commissioners. The Earl of Warwick behaved withmoderation. He declined to commit himself to an opinion as to themerits of the quarrel, but Gorton's title to Shawomet was confirmed. Hereturned to Boston with an order to the government to allow him to passunmolested through Massachusetts, and hereafter to protect him inthe possession of Shawomet. If this little commonwealth of 15, 000inhabitants had been a nation as powerful as France, she could not havetreated the message more haughtily. By a majority of one vote it wasdecided not to refuse so trifling a favour as a passage through thecountry for just this once; but as for protecting the new town ofWarwick which the Gortonites proceeded to found at Shawomet, although itwas several times threatened by the Indians, and the settlers appealedto the parliamentary order, that order Massachusetts flatly and doggedlyrefused to obey. [21] [Sidenote: Gorton appeals to Parliament] In the discussions of which these years were so full, "King Winthrop, "as his enemy Morton called him, used some very significant language. Bya curious legal fiction of the Massachusetts charter the colonists weresupposed to hold their land as in the manor of East Greenwich nearLondon, and it was argued that they were represented in Parliament bythe members of the county or borough which contained that manor, andwere accordingly subject to the jurisdiction of Parliament. It wasfurther argued that since the king had no absolute sovereigntyindependent of Parliament he could not by charter impart any suchindependent sovereignty to others. Winthrop did not dispute thesepoints, but observed that the safety of the commonwealth was the supremelaw, and if in the interests of that safety it should be found necessaryto renounce the authority of Parliament, the colonists would bejustified in doing so. [Sidenote: Winthrop's prophetic opinion] [22]This was essentially the same doctrine as was set forth ninety-nineyears later by young Samuel Adams in his Commencement Oration atHarvard. The case of the Presbyterian cabal admits of briefer treatment than thatof Gorton. There had now come to be many persons in Massachusetts whodisapproved of the provision which restricted the suffrage to members ofthe Independent or Congregational churches of New England, and in 1646the views of these people were presented in a petition to the GeneralCourt. The petitioners asked "that their civil disabilities might beremoved, and that all members of the churches of England and Scotlandmight be admitted to communion with the New England churches. If thiscould not be granted they prayed to be released from all civil burdens. Should the court refuse to entertain their complaint, they would beobliged to bring their case before Parliament. " [23] The leading signersof this menacing petition were William Vassall, Samuel Maverick, and ThePresbyterian cabal. Dr. Robert Child. Maverick we have already met. Fromthe day when the ships of the first Puritan settlers had sailed pasthis log fortress on Noddle's Island, he had been their enemy; "a man ofloving and curteous behaviour, " says Johnson, "very ready to entertainestrangers, yet an enemy to the reformation in hand, being strong for thelordly prelatical power. " Vassall was not a denizen of Massachusetts, but lived in Scituate, in the colony of Plymouth, where there were nosuch restrictions upon the suffrage. Child was a learned physician whoafter a good deal of roaming about the world had lately taken it intohis head to come and see what sort of a place Massachusetts was. Although these names were therefore not such as to lend weight to such apetition, their request would seem at first sight reasonable enough. At a superficial glance it seems conceived in a modern spirit ofliberalism. In reality it was nothing of the sort. In England it wasjust the critical moment of the struggle between Presbyterians andIndependents which had come in to complicate the issues of the greatcivil war. Vassall, Child, and Maverick seem to have been the leadingspirits in a cabal for the establishment of Presbyterianism in NewEngland, and in their petition they simply took advantage of thediscontent of the disfranchised citizens in Massachusetts in orderto put in an entering wedge. This was thoroughly understood by thelegislature of Massachusetts, and accordingly the petition was dismissedand the petitioners were roundly fined. Just as Child was about to startfor England with his grievances, the magistrates overhauled his papersand discovered a petition to the parliamentary Board of Commissioners, suggesting that Presbyterianism should be established in New England, and that a viceroy or governor-general should be appointed to rulethere. To the men of Massachusetts this last suggestion was a crowninghorror. It seemed scarcely less than treason. The signers of thispetition were the same who had signed the petition to the General Court. They were now fined still more heavily and imprisoned for six months. By and by they found their way, one after another, to London, while thecolonists sent Edward Winslow, of Plymouth, as an advocate to thwarttheir schemes. Winslow was assailed by Child's brother in a spicypamphlet entitled "New England's Jonas cast up at London, " and repliedafter the same sort, entitling his pamphlet "New England's Salamanderdiscovered. " The cabal accomplished nothing because of the decisivedefeat of Presbyterianism in England. "Pride's Purge" settled all that. The petition of Vassall and his friends was the occasion for themeeting of a synod of churches at Cambridge, in order to complete theorganization of Congregationalism. In 1648 the work of the synod wasembodied in the famous Cambridge Platform, which adopted the WestminsterConfession as its creed, carefully defined the powers of the clergy, anddeclared it to be the duty of magistrates to suppress heresy. In 1649the General Court laid this platform before the congregations; in1651 it was adopted; and this event may be regarded as completing thetheocratic organization of the Puritan commonwealth in Massachusetts. [Sidenote: The Cambridge Platform; deaths of Winthrop and Cotton] It was immediately preceded and followed by the deaths of the twoforemost men in that commonwealth. John Winthrop died in 1649 and JohnCotton in 1652. Both were men of extraordinary power. Of Winthrop it isenough to say that under his skilful guidance Massachusetts had beenable to pursue the daring policy which had characterized the firsttwenty years of her history, and which in weaker hands would almostsurely have ended in disaster. Of Cotton it may be said that he was themost eminent among a group of clergymen who for learning and dialecticalskill have seldom been surpassed. Neither Winthrop nor Cotton approvedof toleration upon principle. Cotton, in his elaborate controversywith Roger Williams, frankly asserted that persecution is not wrong initself; it is wicked for falsehood to persecute truth, but it is thesacred duty of truth to persecute falsehood. This was the theologian'sview. Winthrop's was that of a man of affairs. They had come to NewEngland, he said, in order to make a society after their own model;all who agreed with them might come and join that society; those whodisagreed with them might go elsewhere; there was room enough on theAmerican continent. But while neither Winthrop nor Cotton understood theprinciple of religious liberty, at the same time neither of them had thetemperament which persecutes. Both were men of genial disposition, soundcommon-sense, and exquisite tact. Under their guidance no suchtragedy would have been possible as that which was about to leave itsineffaceable stain upon the annals of Massachusetts. It was most unfortunate that at this moment the places of these two menshould have been taken by two as arrant fanatics as ever drew breath. For thirteen out of the fifteen years following Winthrop's death, thegovernor of Massachusetts was John Endicott, a sturdy pioneer, whoseservices to the colony had been great. He was honest and conscientious, but passionate, domineering, and very deficient in tact. At the sametime Cotton's successor in position and influence was John Norton, a manof pungent wit, unyielding temper, and melancholy mood. He was possessedby a morbid fear of Satan, whose hirelings he thought were walkingup and down over the earth in the visible semblance of heretics andschismatics. Under such leaders the bigotry latent in the Puritancommonwealth might easily break out in acts of deadly persecution. [Sidenote: Endicott and Norton take the lead] [Sidenote: The Quakers andtheir views] The occasion was not long in coming. Already the preaching of George Foxhad borne fruit, and the noble sect of Quakers was an object of scornand loathing to all such as had not gone so far as they toward learningthe true lesson of Protestantism. Of all Protestant sects the Quakerswent furthest in stripping off from Christianity its non-essentialfeatures of doctrine and ceremonial. Their ideal was not a theocracybut a separation between church and state. They would abolish alldistinction between clergy and laity, and could not be coaxed or bulliedinto paying tithes. They also refused to render military service, orto take the oath of allegiance. In these ways they came at once intoantagonism both with church and with state. In doctrine their chiefpeculiarity was the assertion of an "Inward Light" by which everyindividual is to be guided in his conduct of life. They did not believethat men ceased to be divinely inspired when the apostolic ages cameto an end, but held that at all times and places the human soul may beenlightened by direct communion with its Heavenly Father. Such viewsinvolved the most absolute assertion of the right of private judgment;and when it is added that in the exercise of this right many Quakerswere found to reject the dogmas of original sin and the resurrection ofthe body, to doubt the efficacy of baptism, and to call in question thepropriety of Christians turning the Lord's Day into a Jewish Sabbath, wesee that they had in some respects gone far on the road toward modernrationalism. It was not to be expected that such opinions shouldbe treated by the Puritans in any other spirit than one of extremeabhorrence and dread. The doctrine of the "Inward Light, " or of privateinspiration, was something especially hateful to the Puritan. To themodern rationalist, looking at things in the dry light of history, it may seem that this doctrine was only the Puritan's own appeal toindividual judgment, stated in different form; but the Puritan could notso regard it. To such a fanatic as Norton this inward light was buta reflection from the glare of the bottomless pit, this privateinspiration was the beguiling voice of the Devil. As it led the Quakersto strange and novel conclusions, this inward light seemed to arrayitself in hostility to that final court of appeal for all goodProtestants, the sacred text of the Bible. The Quakers were accordinglyregarded as infidels who sought to deprive Protestantism of its onlyfirm support. They were wrongly accused of blasphemy in their treatmentof the Scriptures. Cotton Mather says that the Quakers were in the habitof alluding to the Bible as the Word of the Devil. Such charges, frompassionate and uncritical enemies, are worthless except as they serve toexplain the bitter prejudice with which the Quakers were regarded. Theyremind one of the silly accusation brought against Wyclif two centuriesearlier, that he taught his disciples that God ought to obey the Devil;[24] and they are not altogether unlike the assumptions of some moderntheologians who take it for granted that any writer who accepts theDarwinian theory must be a materialist. [Sidenote: Endicott and Nortontake the lead] [Sidenote: The Quakers and their views] But worthless as Mather's statements are, in describing the views ofthe Quakers, they are valuable as indicating the temper in which thesedisturbers of the Puritan theocracy were regarded. In accusing them ofrejecting the Bible and making a law unto themselves, Mather simply puton record a general belief which he shared. Nor can it be doubted thatthe demeanour of the Quaker enthusiasts was sometimes such as to seemto warrant the belief that their anarchical doctrines entailed, as anatural consequence, disorderly and disreputable conduct. In thosedays all manifestations of dissent were apt to be violent, and thepersecution which they encountered was likely to call forth strange andunseemly vagaries. When we remember how the Quakers, in their scorn ofearthly magistrates and princes, would hoot at the governor as hewalked up the street; how they used to rush into church on Sundays andinterrupt the sermon with untimely remarks; how Thomas Newhouse oncecame into the Old South Meeting-House with a glass bottle in each hand, and, holding them up before the astonished congregation, knocked themtogether and smashed them, with the remark, "Thus will the Lord breakyou all in pieces"; how Lydia Wardwell and Deborah Wilson ran about thestreets in the primitive costume of Eve before the fall, and calledtheir conduct "testifying before the Lord"; we can hardly wonder thatpeople should have been reminded of the wretched scenes enacted atMunster by the Anabaptists of the preceding century. [Sidenote: Violentmanifestations of dissent] Such incidents, however, do not afford the slightest excuse for thecruel treatment which the Quakers received in Boston, nor do they gofar toward explaining it. Persecution began immediately, before thenew-comers had a chance to behave themselves well or ill. Their merecoming to Boston was taken as an act of invasion. It was indeed anattack upon the Puritan theocratic idea. Of all the sectaries of thatage of sects, the Quakers were the most aggressive. There were at onetime more than four thousand of them in English jails; yet when any ofthem left England, it was less to escape persecution than to preachtheir doctrines far and wide over the earth. Their missionaries foundtheir way to Paris, to Vienna; even to Rome, where they testified underthe very roof of the Vatican. In this dauntless spirit they came to NewEngland to convert its inhabitants, or at any rate to establish theprinciple that in whatever community it might please them to stay, therethey would stay in spite of judge or hangman. At first they came toBarbadoes, whence two of their number, Anne Austin and Mary Fisher, sailed for Boston. When they landed, on a May morning in 1656, Endicotthappened to be away from Boston, but the deputy-governor, RichardBellingham, was equal to the occasion. He arrested the two women andlocked them up in jail, where, for fear they might proclaim theirheresies to the crowd gathered outside, the windows were boarded up. There was no law as yet enacted against Quakers, but a council summonedfor the occasion pronounced their doctrines blasphemous and devilish. The books which the poor women had with them were seized and publiclyburned, and the women themselves were kept in prison half-starved forfive weeks until the ship they had come in was ready to return toBarbadoes. Soon after their departure Endicott came home. He found faultwith Bellingham's conduct as too gentle; if he had been there he wouldhave had the hussies flogged. [Sidenote: Anne Austin and Mary Fisher] Five years afterward Mary Fisher went to Adrianople and tried to convertthe Grand Turk, who treated her with grave courtesy and allowed her toprophesy unmolested. This is one of the numerous incidents that, on asuperficial view of history, might be cited in support of the opinionthat there has been on the whole more tolerance in the Mussulman than inthe Christian world. Rightly interpreted, however, the fact has no suchimplication. In Massachusetts the preaching of Quaker doctrines might(and did) lead to a revolution; in Turkey it was as harmless as thebarking of dogs. Governor Endicott was afraid of Mary Fisher; MahometIII. Was not. No sooner had the two women been shipped from Boston than eight otherQuakers arrived from London. They were at once arrested. While they werelying in jail the Federal Commissioners, then in session at Plymouth, recommended that laws be forthwith enacted to keep these dreadedheretics out of the land. Next year they stooped so far as to seek theaid of Rhode Island, the colony which they had refused to admit intotheir confederacy. "They sent a letter to the authorities of thatcolony, signing themselves their loving friends and neighbours, andbeseeching them to preserve the whole body of colonies against 'such apest' by banishing and excluding all Quakers, a measure to which 'therule of charity did oblige them. '" Roger Williams was then president ofRhode Island, and in full accord with his noble spirit was the reply ofthe assembly. "We have no law amongst us whereby to punish any for onlydeclaring by words their minds and understandings concerning the thingsand ways of God as to salvation and our eternal condition. " As for theseQuakers we find that where they are "most of all suffered to declarethemselves freely and only opposed by arguments in discourse, therethey least of all desire to come. " Any breach of the civil law shall bepunished, but the "freedom of different consciences shall be respected. "This reply enraged the confederated colonies, and Massachusetts, as thestrongest and most overbearing, threatened to cut off the trade ofRhode Island, which forthwith appealed to Cromwell for protection. Thelanguage of the appeal is as touching as its broad Christian spirit isgrand. It recognizes that by stopping trade the men of Massachusettswill injure themselves, yet, it goes on to say, "for the safeguard oftheir religion they may seem to neglect themselves in that respect; forwhat will not men do for their God?" But whatever fortune may befall, "let us not be compelled to exercise any civil power over men'sconsciences. " [25] [Sidenote: Noble conduct of Rhode Island] There could never, of course, be a doubt as to who drew up this statepaper. During his last visit to England, three years before, RogerWilliams had spent several weeks at Sir Harry Vane's country house inLincolnshire, and he had also been intimately associated with Cromwelland Milton. The views of these great men were the most advanced ofthat age. They were coming to understand the true principle upon whichtoleration should be based. (See my Excursions of an Evolutionist, pp. 247, 289-293. ) Vane had said in Parliament, "Why should the labours ofany be suppressed, if sober, though never so different? We now professto seek God, we desire to see light!" [Sidenote: Roger Williams appealsto Cromwell] This Williams called a "heavenly speech. " The sentiment it expressed wasin accordance with the practical policy of Cromwell, and in the appealof the president of Rhode Island to the Lord Protector one hears thetone with which friend speaks to friend. In thus protecting the Quakers, Williams never for a moment concealedhis antipathy to their doctrines. The author of "George Fox digged outof his Burrowes, " the sturdy controversialist who in his seventy-thirdyear rowed himself in a boat the whole length of Narragansett bay toengage in a theological tournament against three Quaker champions, wasanimated by nothing less than the broadest liberalism in his bold replyto the Federal Commissioners in 1657. The event showed that under hisguidance the policy of Rhode Island was not only honourable but wise. The four confederated colonies all proceeded to pass laws banishingQuakers and making it a penal offence for shipmasters to bring them toNew England. These laws differed in severity. Those of Connecticut, inwhich we may trace the influence of the younger John Winthrop, were themildest; those of Massachusetts were the most severe, and as Quakerskept coming all the more in spite of them, they grew harsher andharsher. At first the Quaker who persisted in returning was to beflogged and imprisoned at hard labour, next his ears were to be cut off, and for a third offence his tongue was to be bored with a hot iron. At length in 1658, the Federal Commissioners, sitting at Boston withEndicott as chairman, recommended capital punishment. It must be bornein mind that the general reluctance toward prescribing or inflicting thedeath penalty was much weaker then than now. On the statute-books therewere not less than fifteen capital crimes, including such offences asidolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, marriage within the Levitical degrees, "presumptuous sabbath-breaking, " and cursing or smiting one's parents. [26] The infliction of the penalty, however, lay practically very muchwithin the discretion of the court, and was generally avoided except incases of murder or other heinous felony. In some of these ecclesiasticaloffences the statute seems to have served the purpose of a threat, andwas therefore perhaps the more easily enacted. Yet none of the coloniesexcept Massachusetts now adopted the suggestion of the FederalCommissioners and threatened the Quakers with death. [Sidenote: Lawspassed against the Quakers] In Massachusetts the opposition was very strong indeed, and itscharacter shows how wide the divergence in sentiment had already becomebetween the upper stratum of society and the people in general. Thisdivergence was one result of the excessive weight given to the clergy bythe restriction of the suffrage to church members. One might almost saythat it was not the people of Massachusetts, after all, that shedthe blood of the Quakers; it was Endicott and the clergy. The billestablishing death as the penalty for returning after banishment waspassed in the upper house without serious difficulty; but in the lowerhouse it was at first defeated. Of the twenty-six deputies fifteen wereopposed to it, but one of these fell sick and two were intimidated, so that finally the infamous measure was passed by a vote of thirteenagainst twelve. Probably it would not have passed but for a hopefulfeeling that an occasion for putting it into execution would notbe likely to arise. It was hoped that the mere threat would proveeffective. Endicott begged the Quakers to keep away, saying earnestlythat he did not desire their death; but the more resolute spiritswere not deterred by fear of the gallows. In September, 1659, WilliamRobinson, Marmaduke Stevenson, and Mary Dyer, who had come to Bostonexpressly to defy the cruel law, were banished. Mrs. Dyer was a ladyof good family, wife of the secretary of Rhode Island. She had been anintimate friend of Mrs. Hutchinson. While she went home to her husband, Stevenson and Robinson went only to Salem and then faced about and cameback to Boston. Mrs. Dyer also returned. All three felt themselvesunder divine command to resist and defy the persecutors. On the 27th ofOctober they were led to the gallows on Boston Common, under escort ofa hundred soldiers. Many people had begun to cry shame on suchproceedings, and it was thought necessary to take precautions against atumult. The victims tried to address the crowd, but their voices weredrowned by the beating of drums. While the Rev. John Wilson railed andscoffed at them from the foot of the gallows the two brave men werehanged. The halter had been placed upon Mrs. Dyer when her son, whohad come in all haste from Rhode Island, obtained her reprieve onhis promise to take her away. The bodies of the two men were deniedChristian burial and thrown uncovered into a pit. All the efforts ofhusband and son were unable to keep Mrs. Dyer at home. In the followingspring she returned to Boston and on the first day of June was againtaken to the gallows. At the last moment she was offered freedom if shewould only promise to go away and stay, but she refused. "In obedienceto the will of the Lord I came, " said she, "and in his will I abidefaithful unto death. " And so she died. [Sidenote: Executions on BostonCommon] [Sidenote: Wenlock Christison's defiance and victory] Public sentiment in Boston was now turning so strongly against themagistrates that they began to weaken in their purpose. But therewas one more victim. In November, 1660, William Leddra returned frombanishment. The case was clear enough, but he was kept in prison fourmonths and every effort was made to induce him to promise to leave thecolony, but in vain. In the following March he too was put to death. Afew days before the execution, as Leddra was being questioned in court, a memorable scene occurred. Wenlock Christison was one of those who hadbeen banished under penalty of death. On his return he made straight forthe town-house, strode into the court-room, and with uplifted fingeraddressed the judges in words of authority. "I am come here to warnyou, " said he, "that ye shed no more innocent blood. " He was instantlyseized and dragged off to jail. After three months he was brought totrial before the Court of Assistants. The magistrates debated for morethan a fortnight as to what should be done. The air was thick withmutterings of insurrection, and they had lost all heart for theirdreadful work. Not so the savage old man who presided, frowning gloomilyunder his black skull cap. Losing his patience at last, Endicott smotethe table with fury, upbraided the judges for their weakness, anddeclared himself so disgusted that he was ready to go back to England. [27] "You that will not consent, record it, " he shouted, as the questionwas again put to vote, "I thank God I am not afraid to give judgment. "Christison was condemned to death, but the sentence was never executed. In the interval the legislature assembled, and the law was modified. Themartyrs had not died in vain. Their cause was victorious. A revolutionhad been effected. The Puritan ideal of a commonwealth composed of aunited body of believers was broken down, never again to be restored. The principle had been admitted that the heretic might come toMassachusetts and stay there. It was not in a moment, however, that these results were fully realized. For some years longer Quakers were fined, imprisoned, and now and thentied to the cart's tail and whipped from one town to another. But theseacts of persecution came to be more and more discountenanced by publicopinion until at length they ceased. It was on the 25th of May, 1660, just one week before the martyrdom ofMary Dyer, that Charles II. Returned to England to occupy his father'sthrone. One of the first papers laid before him was a memorial in behalfof the oppressed Quakers in New England. In the course of the followingyear he sent a letter to Endicott and the other New England governors, ordering them to suspend proceedings against the Quakers, and if anywere then in prison, to send them to England for trial. Christison'svictory had already been won, but the "King's Missive" was now partiallyobeyed by the release of all prisoners. As for sending anybody toEngland for trial, that was something that no New England governmentcould ever be made to allow. Charles's defence of the Quakers was due, neither to liberalityof disposition nor to any sympathy with them, but rather to hisinclinations toward Romanism. Unlike in other respects, Quakers andCatholics were alike in this, that they were the only sects which theProtestant world in general agreed in excluding from toleration. Charleswished to secure toleration for Catholics, and he could not prudentlytake steps toward this end without pursuing a policy broad enough todiminish persecution in other directions, and from these circumstancesthe Quakers profited. At times there was something almost like apolitical alliance between Quaker and Catholic, as instanced in therelations between William Penn and Charles's brother, the Duke of York. [Sidenote: The "King's Missive"] [Sidenote: Why Charles II. Interferedto protect the Quakers] Besides all this, Charles had good reason to feel that the governmentsof New England were assuming too many airs of sovereignty. There wereplenty of people at hand to work upon his mind. The friends of Gortonand Child and Vassall were loud with their complaints. Samuel Maverickswore that the people of New England were all rebels, and he could proveit. The king was assured that the Confederacy was "a war combination, made by the four colonies when they had a design to throw off theirdependence on England, and for that purpose. " The enemies of the NewEngland people, while dilating upon the rebellious disposition ofMassachusetts, could also remind the king that for several years thatcolony had been coining and circulating shillings and sixpences with thename "Massachusetts" and a tree on one side, and the name "New England"with the date on the other. There was no recognition of England uponthis coinage, which was begun in 1652 and kept up for more than thirtyyears. Such pieces of money used to be called "pine-tree shillings";but, so far as looks go, the tree might be anything, and an adroitfriend of New England once gravely assured the king that it was meantfor the royal oak in which his majesty hid himself after the battle ofWorcester! Against the colony of New Haven the king had a special grudge. Two ofthe regicide judges, who had sat in the tribunal which condemned hisfather, escaped to New England in 1660 and were well received there. They were gentlemen of high position. Edward Whalley was a cousin ofCromwell and Hampden. He had distinguished himself at Naseby and Dunbar, and had risen to the rank of lieutenant-general. He had commanded atthe capture of Worcester, where it is interesting to observe that theroyalist commander who surrendered to him was Sir Henry Washington, owncousin to the grandfather of George Washington. The other regicide, William Goffe, as a major-general in Cromwell's army, had won suchdistinction that there were some who pointed to him as the proper personto succeed the Lord Protector on the death of the latter. He had marriedWhalley's daughter. Soon after the arrival of these gentlemen, a royalorder for their arrest was sent to Boston. If they had been arrested andsent back to England, their severed heads would soon have been placedover Temple Bar. The king's detectives hotly pursued them through thewoodland paths of New England, and they would soon have been taken butfor the aid they got from the people. Many are the stories of theirhairbreadth escapes. Sometimes they took refuge in a cave on a mountainnear New Haven, sometimes they hid in friendly cellars; and once, beinghard put to it, they skulked under a wooden bridge, while their pursuerson horseback galloped by overhead. After lurking about New Haven andMilford for two or three years, on hearing of the expected arrivalof Colonel Nichols and his commission, they sought a more secludedhiding-place near Hadley, a village lately settled far up theConnecticut river, within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. Here theavengers lost the trail, the pursuit was abandoned, and the wearyregicides were presently forgotten. The people of New Haven had beenespecially zealous in shielding the fugitives. Mr. Davenport had notonly harboured them in his own house, but on the Sabbath before theirexpected arrival he had preached a very bold sermon, openly advisinghis people to aid and comfort them as far as possible. [28] The colony, moreover, did not officially recognize the restoration of Charles II. Tothe throne until that event had been commonly known in New England formore than a year. For these reasons the wrath of the king was speciallyroused against New Haven, when circumstances combined to enable him atonce to punish this disloyal colony and deal a blow at the Confederacy. We have seen that in restricting the suffrage to church members NewHaven had followed the example of Massachusetts, but Connecticut hadnot; and at this time there was warm controversy between the two youngercolonies as to the wisdom Of such a policy. As yet none of the coloniessave Massachusetts had obtained a charter, and Connecticut was naturallyanxious to obtain one. Whether through a complaisant spirit connectedwith this desire, or through mere accident, Connecticut had been promptin acknowledging the restoration of Charles II. ; and in August, 1661, she dispatched the younger Winthrop to England to apply for a charter. Winthrop was a man of winning address and of wide culture. Hisscientific tastes were a passport to the favour of the king at a timewhen the Royal Society was being founded, of which Winthrop himself wassoon chosen a fellow. In every way the occasion was an auspicious one. The king looked upon the rise of the New England Confederacy withunfriendly eyes. Massachusetts was as yet the only member of the leaguethat was really troublesome; and there seemed to be no easier way toweaken her than to raise up a rival power by her side, and extend to itsuch privileges as might awaken her jealousy. All the more would sucha policy be likely to succeed if accompanied by measures of whichMassachusetts must necessarily disapprove, and the suppression ofNew Haven would be such a measure. [Sidenote: New Haven annexed toConnecticut] In accordance with these views, a charter of great liberality was atonce granted to Connecticut, and by the same instrument the colony ofNew Haven was deprived of its separate existence and annexed to itsstronger neighbour. As if to emphasize the motives which had led to thisdisplay of royal favour toward Connecticut, an equally liberal charterwas granted to Rhode Island. In the summer of 1664 Charles II. Sent acouple of ships-of-war to Boston harbour, with 400 troops under commandof Colonel Richard Nichols, who had been appointed, along with SamuelMaverick and two others as royal commissioners, to look after theaffairs of the New World. Colonel Nichols took his ships to NewAmsterdam, and captured that important town. After his return thecommissioners held meetings at Boston, and for a time the Massachusettscharter seemed in danger. But the Puritan magistrates were shrewd, andmonths were frittered away to no purpose. Presently the Dutch made warupon England, and the king felt it to be unwise to irritate the peopleof Massachusetts beyond endurance. The turbulent state of Englishpolitics which followed still further absorbed his attention, and NewEngland had another respite of several years. [Sidenote: Founding ofNewark] In New Haven a party had grown up which was dissatisfied with itsextreme theocratic policy and approved of the union with Connecticut. Davenport and his followers, the founders of the colony, were beyondmeasure disgusted. They spurned "the Christless rule" of the sistercolony. Many of them took advantage of the recent conquest of NewNetherland, and a strong party, led by the Rev. Abraham Pierson, ofBranford, migrated to the banks of the Passaic in June, 1667, and laidthe foundations of Newark. For some years to come the theocratic ideathat had given birth to New Haven continued to live on in New Jersey. Asfor Mr. Davenport, he went to Boston and ended his days there. CottonMather, writing at a later date, when the theocratic scheme of the earlysettlers had been manifestly outgrown and superseded, says of Davenport:"Yet, after all, the Lord gave him to see that in this world aChurch-State was impossible, whereinto there enters nothing whichdefiles. " The theocratic policy, alike in New Haven and in Massachusetts, brokedown largely through its inherent weakness. It divided the community, and created among the people a party adverse to its arrogance andexclusiveness. This state of things facilitated the suppression ofNew Haven by royal edict, and it made possible the victory of WenlockChristison in Massachusetts. We can now see the fundamental explanationof the deadly hostility with which Endicott and his party regarded theQuakers. The latter aimed a fatal blow at the very root of the ideawhich had brought the Puritans to New England. Once admit these hereticsas citizens, or even as tolerated sojourners, and there was an end ofthe theocratic state consisting of a united body of believers. It was alife-and-death struggle, in which no quarter was given; and the Quakers, aided by popular discontent with the theocracy, even more than by theintervention of the crown, won a decisive victory. As the work of planting New England took place chiefly in the elevenyears 1629-1640, during which Charles I. Contrived to reign without aparliament, so the prosperous period of the New England Confederacy, 1643-1664, covers the time of the Civil War and the Commonwealth, andjust laps on to the reign of Charles II. By the summary extinction ofthe separate existence of one of its members for the benefit of another, its vigour was sadly impaired. But its constitution was revised so asto make it a league of three states instead of four; and the FederalCommissioners kept on holding their meetings, though less frequently, until the revocation of the Massachusetts charter in 1684. Duringthis period a great Indian war occurred, in the course of which thisconcentration of the military strength of New England, imperfect as itwas, proved itself very useful. In the history of New England, from therestoration of the Stuarts until their final expulsion, the two mostimportant facts are the military struggle of the newly founded stateswith the Indians, and their constitutional struggle against the Britishgovernment. The troubles and dangers of 1636 were renewed on a much moreformidable scale, but the strength of the people had waxed greatly inthe mean time, and the new perils were boldly overcome or skilfullywarded off; not, however, until the constitution of Massachusetts hadbeen violently wrenched out of shape in the struggle, and seeds ofconflict sown which in the following century were to bear fruit in theAmerican Revolution. [Sidenote: Breaking down of the theocratic policy][Sidenote: Weakening of the Confederacy] CHAPTER V. KING PHILIP'S WAR. For eight-and-thirty years after the destruction of the Pequots, theintercourse between the English and the Indians was to all outwardappearance friendly. The policy pursued by the settlers was in themain well considered. While they had shown that they could strike withterrible force when blows were needed, their treatment of the natives intime of peace seems to have been generally just and kind. Except in thesingle case of the conquered Pequot territory, they scrupulously paidfor every rood of ground on which they settled, and so far as possiblethey extended to the Indians the protection of the law. On these pointswe have the explicit testimony of Josiah Winslow, governor of Plymouth, in his report to the Federal Commissioners in May, 1676; and whathe says about Plymouth seems to have been equally true of the othercolonies. Says Winslow, "I think I can clearly say that before thesepresent troubles broke out, the English did not possess one foot of landin this colony but what was fairly obtained by honest purchase of theIndian proprietors. Nay, because some of our people are of a covetousdisposition, and the Indians are in their straits easily prevailed withto part with their lands, we first made a law that none should purchaseor receive of gift any land of the Indians without the knowledge andallowance of our Court . . . . And if at any time they have broughtcomplaints before us, they have had justice impartial and speedy, sothat our own people have frequently complained that we erred on theother hand in showing them overmuch favour. " The general laws ofMassachusetts and Connecticut as well as of Plymouth bear out whatWinslow says, and show us that as a matter of policy the colonialgovernments were fully sensible of the importance of avoiding alloccasions for quarrel with their savage neighbours. [Sidenote: Puritansand Indians] There can, moreover, be little doubt that the material comfort of theIndians was for a time considerably improved by their dealings with thewhite men. Hitherto their want of foresight and thrift had been wont toinvolve them during the long winters in a dreadful struggle with famine. Now the settlers were ready to pay liberally for the skin of everyfur-covered animal the red men could catch; and where the trade thusarising did not suffice to keep off famine, instances of generouscharity were frequent. The Algonquin tribes of New England lived chieflyby hunting, but partly by agriculture. They raised beans and corn, andsuccotash was a dish which they contributed to the white man's table. They could now raise or buy English vegetables, while from dogs andhorses, pigs and poultry, oxen and sheep, little as they could availthemselves of such useful animals, they nevertheless derived somebenefit. [29] Better blankets and better knives were brought withintheir reach; and in spite of all the colonial governments could do toprevent it, they were to some extent enabled to supply themselves withmuskets and rum. [Sidenote: Trade with the Indians] Besides all this trade, which, except in the article of liquor, tendedto improve the condition of the native tribes, there was on the part ofthe earlier settlers an earnest and diligent effort to convert themto Christianity and give them the rudiments of a civilized education. Missionary work was begun in 1643 by Thomas Mayhew on the islands ofNantucket and Martha's Vineyard. The savages at first declared they werenot so silly as to barter thirty-seven tutelar deities for one, butafter much preaching and many pow-wows Mayhew succeeded in persuadingthem that the Deity of the white man was mightier than all their_manitous. _ Whether they ever got much farther than this toward acomprehension of the white man's religion may be doubted; but they wereprevailed upon to let their children learn to read and write, and evento set up little courts, in which justice was administered according tosome of the simplest rules of English law, and from which there lay anappeal to the court of Plymouth. In 1646 Massachusetts enacted that theelders of the churches should choose two persons each year to go andspread the gospel among the Indians. In 1649 Parliament established theSociety for propagating the Gospel in New England, and presently fromvoluntary contributions the society was able to dispose of an annualincome of £2000. Schools were set up in which agriculture was taught aswell as religion. It was even intended that Indians should go to HarvardCollege, and a building was erected for their accommodation, but as nonecame to occupy it, the college printing-press was presently set to workthere. One solitary Indian student afterward succeeded in climbing tothe bachelor's degree, --Caleb Cheeshahteaumuck of the class of 1665. Itwas this one success that was marvellous, not the failure of the scheme, which vividly shows how difficult it was for the white man of that dayto understand the limitations of the red man. [Sidenote: Missionarywork: Thomas Mayhew] The greatest measure of success in converting the Indians was attainedby that famous linguist and preacher, the apostle John Eliot. Thisremarkable man was a graduate of Jesus College, Cambridge. He had cometo Massachusetts in 1631, and in the following year had been settled asteacher in the church at Roxbury of which Thomas Welde was pastor. Hehad been distinguished at the university for philological scholarshipand for linguistic talent--two things not always found inconnection--and now during fourteen years he devoted such time as hecould to acquiring a complete mastery of the Algonquin dialect spoken bythe Indians of Massachusetts bay. To the modern comparative philologisthis work is of great value. He published not only an excellent Indiangrammar, but a complete translation of the Bible into the Massachusettslanguage, --a monument of prodigious labour. It is one of the mostinstructive documents in existence for the student of Algonquin speech, though the Massachusetts tribe and its language have long been extinct, and there are very few scholars living who can read the book. It hasbecome one of the curiosities of literature and at auction sales ofprivate libraries commands an extremely high price. Yet out of this rarebook the American public has somehow or other within the last fiveor six years contrived to pick up a word which we shall very likelycontinue to hear for some time to come. In Eliot's Bible, the word whichmeans a great chief--such as Joshua, or Gideon, or Joab--is "mugwump. " It was in 1646 that Eliot began his missionary preaching at a smallIndian village near Watertown. President Dunster, of Harvard College, and Mr. Shepard, the minister at Cambridge, felt a warm interest in theundertaking. These worthy men seriously believed that the aboriginesof America were the degenerate descendants of the ten lost tribes ofIsrael, and from this strange backsliding it was hoped that they mightnow be reclaimed. With rare eloquence and skill did Eliot devote himselfto the difficult work of reaching the Indian's scanty intelligence andstill scantier moral sense. His ministrations reached from the sands ofCape Cod to the rocky hillsides of Brookfield. But he soon found thatsingle-handed he could achieve but little over so wide an area, andaccordingly he adopted the policy of colonizing his converts in villagecommunities near the English towns, where they might be sequestered fromtheir heathen brethren and subjected to none but Christian influences. In these communities he hoped to train up native missionaries who mightthence go and labour among the wild tribes until the whole lump ofbarbarism should be leavened. In pursuance of this scheme a stockadedvillage was built at Natick in 1651 Under the direction of an Englishcarpenter the Indians built log-houses for themselves, and most of themadopted the English dress. Their simple government was administered bytithing-men, or "rulers of tens, " chosen after methods prescribed in thebook of Exodus. Other such communities were formed in the neighbourhoodsof Concord and Grafton. By 1674 the number of these "praying Indians, "as they were called, was estimated at 4000, of whom about 1500 were inEliot's villages, as many more in Martha's Vineyard, 300 in Nantucket, and 700 in the Plymouth colony. There seems to be no doubt that theseIndians were really benefited both materially and morally by the changein their life. In theology it is not likely that they reached any higherview than that expressed by the Connecticut sachem Wequash who "seeingand beholding the mighty power of God in the English forces, how theyfell upon the Pequots, . . . From that time was convinced and persuadedthat our God was a most dreadful God;" accordingly, says the author of"New England's First Fruits, " "he became thoroughly reformed accordingto his light. " Matters of outward observance, too, the Indians couldunderstand; for we read of one of them rebuking an Englishman "forprofaning the Lord's Day by felling of a tree. " The Indian's notions ofreligion were probably confined within this narrow compass; the notionsof some people that call themselves civilized perhaps do not extend muchfurther. [Sidenote: Villages of Christian Indians] From such facts as those above cited we may infer that the earlyrelations of the Puritan settlers to the Algonquin tribes of New Englandwere by no means like the relations between white men and red men inrecent times on our western plains. During Philip's War, as we shallsee, the Puritan theory of the situation was entirely changed and ourforefathers began to act in accordance with the frontiersman's doctrinethat the good Indians are dead Indians. But down to that time it isclear that his intention was to deal honourably and gently with histawny neighbour. We sometimes hear the justice and kindness of theQuakers in Pennsylvania alleged as an adequate reason for the successwith which they kept clear of an Indian war. This explanation, however, does not seem to be adequate; it does not appear that, on the whole, thePuritans were less just and kind than the Quakers in their treatment ofthe red men. The true explanation is rather to be found in the relationsbetween the Indian tribes toward the close of the seventeenth century. Early in that century the Pennsylvania region had been in the handsof the ferocious and powerful Susquehannocks, but in 1672, after afrightful struggle of twenty years, this great tribe was swept from theface of the earth by the resistless league of the Five Nations. Whenthe Quakers came to Pennsylvania in 1682, the only Indians in thatneighbourhood were the Delawares, who had just been terribly beaten bythe Five Nations and forced into a treaty by which they submitted to becalled "women, " and to surrender their tomahawks. Penn's famous treatywas made with the Delawares as occupants of the land and also with theIroquois league as overlords. [30] Now the great central fact of earlyAmerican history, so far as the relations between white men and redmen are concerned, is the unshaken friendship of the Iroquois for theEnglish. This was the natural consequence of the deadly hostilitybetween the Iroquois and the French which began with Champlain's defeatof the Mohawks in 1609. During the seventy-three years which intervenedbetween the founding of Pennsylvania and the defeat of Braddock therewas never a moment when the Delawares could have attacked the Quakerswithout incurring the wrath and vengeance of their overlords the FiveNations. This was the reason why Pennsylvania was left so long in quiet. No better proof could be desired than the fact that in Pontiac's war, after the overthrow of the French and when Indian politics had changed, no state suffered so much as Pennsylvania from the horrors of Indianwarfare. [Sidenote: Why Pennsylvania was so long unmolested by theIndians] In New England at the time of Philip's War, the situation was verydifferent from what it was between the Hudson and the Susquehanna. Thesettlers were thrown into immediate relations with several tribes whosemutual hostility and rivalry was such that it was simply impossible tokeep on good terms with all at once. Such complicated questions as thatwhich involved the English in responsibility for the fate of Miantonomodid not arise in Pennsylvania. Since the destruction of the Pequots wehave observed the Narragansetts and Mohegans contending for the foremostplace among New England tribes. Of the two rivals the Mohegans werethe weaker, and therefore courted the friendship of the formidablepalefaces. The English had no desire to take part in these barbarousfeuds, but they could not treat the Mohegans well without incurring thehostility of the Narragansetts. For thirty years the feeling of thelatter tribe toward the English had been very unfriendly and woulddoubtless have vented itself in murder but for their recollection ofthe fate of the Pequots. After the loss of their chief Miantonomo theirattitude became so sullen and defiant that the Federal Commissioners, inorder to be in readiness for an outbreak, collected a force of 300 men. At the first news of these preparations the Narragansetts, overcome withterror, sent a liberal tribute of wampum to Boston, and were fain toconclude a treaty in which they promised to behave themselves well inthe future. It was impossible that this sort of English protectorate over the nativetribes, which was an inevitable result of the situation, should be otherthan irksome and irritating to the Indians. They could not but see thatthe white man stood there as master, and even in the utter absenceof provocation, this fact alone must have made them hate him. It isdifficult, moreover, for the civilized man and the savage to understandeach other. As a rule the one does not know what the other is thinkingabout. When Mr. Hamilton Gushing a few years ago took some of his Zunifriends into a hotel in Chicago, they marvelled at his entering such amighty palace with so little ceremony, and their wonder was heightenedat the promptness with which "slaves" came running at his beck and call;but all at once, on seeing an American eagle over one of the doorways, they felt that the mystery was solved. Evidently this palace was thecommunal dwelling of the Eagle Clan of palefaces, and evidently Mr. Gushing was a great sachem of this clan, and as such entitled to lordlysway there! The Zunis are not savages, but representatives of a remoteand primitive phase of what Mr. Morgan calls the middle status ofbarbarism. The gulf between their thinking and that of white men iswide because there is a wide gulf between the experience of the two. [Sidenote: Difficulty of the situation in New England] [Sidenote: It ishard for the savage and the civilized man to understand one another] This illustration may help us to understand an instance in which theIndians of New England must inevitably have misinterpreted the actionsof the white settlers and read them in the light of their uneasy fearsand prejudices. I refer to the work of the apostle Eliot. His design infounding his villages of Christian Indians was in the highest degreebenevolent and noble; but the heathen Indians could hardly be expectedto see anything in it but a cunning scheme for destroying them. Eliot's converts were for the most part from the Massachusetts tribe, the smallest and weakest of all. The Plymouth converts came chieflyfrom the tribe next in weakness, the Pokanokets or Wampanoags. The morepowerful tribes--Narragansetts, Nipmucks, and Mohegans--furnished veryfew converts. When they saw the white intruders gathering members of theweakest tribes into villages of English type, and teaching them strangegods while clothing them in strange garments, they probably supposedthat the pale-faces were simply adopting these Indians into their whitetribe as a means of increasing their military strength. At any rate, such a proceeding would be perfectly intelligible to the savage mind, whereas the nature of Eliot's design lay quite beyond its ken. As theIndians recovered from their supernatural dread of the English, andbegan to regard them as using human means to accomplish their ends, they must of course interpret their conduct in such light as savageexperience could afford. It is one of the commonest things in the worldfor a savage tribe to absorb weak neighbours by adoption, and thusincrease its force preparatory to a deadly assault upon otherneighbours. When Eliot in 1657 preached to the little tribe of Podunksnear Hartford, and asked them if they were willing to accept of JesusChrist as their saviour, their old men scornfully answered No! they hadparted with most of their land, but they were not going to become thewhite man's servants. A rebuke administered to Eliot by Uncas in 1674has a similar implication. When the apostle was preaching one evening ina village over which that sachem claimed jurisdiction, an Indian aroseand announced himself as a deputy of Uncas. Then he said, "Uncas is notwell pleased that the English should pass over Mohegan river to call_his_ Indians to pray to God. " [31] Thus, no matter how benevolent the white man's intentions, he could notfail to be dreaded by the Indians as a powerful and ever encroachingenemy. Even in his efforts to keep the peace and prevent tribes from taking thewarpath without his permission, he was interfering with the red man'scherished pastime of murder and pillage. The appeals to the court atPlymouth, the frequent summoning of sachems to Boston, to explaintheir affairs and justify themselves against accusers, must have beenmaddening in their effects upon the Indian; for there is one soundinstinct which the savage has in common with the most progressiveraces, and that is the love of self-government that resents all outsideinterference. All things considered, it is remarkable that peace shouldhave been maintained in New England from 1637 to 1675; and probablynothing short of the consuming vengeance wrought upon the Pequots couldhave done it. But with the lapse of time the wholesome feeling of dreadbegan to fade away, and as the Indians came to use musket instead of bowand arrow, their fear of the English grew less, until at length theirferocious temper broke forth in an epidemic of fire and slaughter thatlaid waste the land. [Sidenote: It is remarkable that peace should havebeen so long preserved] Massasoit, chief sachem of the Wampanoags and steadfast ally of thePlymouth colonists, died in 1660, leaving two sons, Wamsutta andMetacom, or as the English nicknamed them, Alexander and Philip. Alexander succeeded to his father's position of savage dignity andinfluence, but his reign was brief. Rumours came to Plymouth that he wasplotting mischief, and he was accordingly summoned to appear before theGeneral Court of that colony and explain himself. He seems to have gonereluctantly, but he succeeded in satisfying the magistrates of hisinnocence of any evil designs. Whether he caught cold at Plymouth ordrank rum as only Indians can, we do not know. At any rate, on startinghomeward, before he had got clear of English territory, he was seized bya violent fever and died. The savage mind knows nothing of pneumonia ordelirium tremens. It knows nothing of what we call natural death. Tothe savage all death means murder, for like other men he judges of theunknown by the known. In the Indian's experience normal death was bytomahawk or firebrand; abnormal death (such as we call natural)must come either from poison or from witchcraft. So when the honestchronicler Hubbard tells us that Philip suspected the Plymouth people ofpoisoning his brother, we can easily believe him. It was long, however, before he was ready to taste the sweets of revenge. He schemed andplotted in the dark. In one respect the Indian diplomatist is unlike hiswhite brethren; he does not leave state-papers behind him to rewardthe diligence and gratify the curiosity of later generations; andaccordingly it is hard to tell how far Philip was personally responsiblefor the storm which was presently to burst upon New England. [Sidenote:Deaths of Massasoit and Alexander] [Sidenote: Philip's designs] Whether his scheme was as comprehensive as that of Pontiac in 1763, whether or not it amounted to a deliberate combination of all red menwithin reach to exterminate the white men, one can hardly say withconfidence. The figure of Philip, in the war which bears his name, doesnot stand out so prominently as the figure of Pontiac in the laterstruggle. This may be partly because Pontiac's story has been told bysuch a magician as Mr. Francis Parkman. But it is partly because thedata are too meagre. In all probability, however, the schemes ofSassacus the Pequot, of Philip the Wampanoag, and of Pontiac the Ottawa, were substantially the same. That Philip plotted with the Narragansettsseems certain, and the early events of the war point clearly to aprevious understanding with the Nipmucks. The Mohegans, on the otherhand, gave him no assistance, but remained faithful to their whiteallies. For thirteen years had Philip been chief sachem of his tribe before thecrisis came. Rumours of his unfriendly disposition had at intervalsfound their way to the ears of the magistrates at Plymouth, but Philiphad succeeded in setting himself right before them. In 1670 the rumourswere renewed, and the Plymouth men felt that it was time to strike, butthe other colonies held them back, and a meeting was arranged betweenPhilip and three Boston men at Taunton in April, 1671. There the craftysavage expressed humility and contrition for all past offences, andeven consented to a treaty in which he promised that his tribe shouldsurrender all their fire-arms. On the part of the English this was anextremely unwise measure, for while it could not possibly be enforced, and while it must have greatly increased the irritation of the Indians, it was at the same time interpretable as a symptom of fear. With ominousscowls and grunts some seventy muskets were given up, but this was all. Through the summer there was much uneasiness, and in September Philipwas summoned to Plymouth with five of his under-sachems, and solemnlywarned to keep the peace. The savages again behaved with humility andagreed to pay a yearly tribute of five wolves' heads and to do no act ofwar without express permission. For three years things seemed quiet, until late in 1674 the alarm wasagain sounded. Sausamon, a convert from the Massachusetts tribe, hadstudied a little at Harvard College, and could speak and write Englishwith facility. He had at one time been employed by Philip as a sort ofprivate secretary or messenger, and at other times had preached andtaught school among the Indian converts at Natick. Sausamon now came toPlymouth and informed Governor Winslow that Philip was certainly engagedin a conspiracy that boded no good to the English. Somehow or otherPhilip contrived to find out what Sausamon had said, and presentlycoming to Plymouth loudly asseverated his innocence; but the magistrateswarned him that if they heard any more of this sort of thing hisarms would surely be seized. A few days after Philip had gone home, Sausamon's hat and gun were seen lying on the frozen surface ofAssowamsett Pond, near Middleborough, and on cutting through the ice hisbody was found with unmistakable marks of beating and strangling. Aftersome months the crime was traced to three Wampanoags, who were forthwitharrested, tried by a mixed jury of Indians and white men, found guilty, and put to death. On the way to the gallows one of them confessedthat he had stood by while his two friends had pounded and choked theunfortunate Sausamon. [Sidenote: Murder of Sausamon] More alarming reports now came from Swanzey, a pretty village of someforty houses not far from Philip's headquarters at Mount Hope. On SundayJune 20, while everybody was at church, a party of Indians had stoleninto the town and set fire to two houses. Messengers were hurried fromPlymouth and from Boston, to demand the culprits under penalty ofinstant war. As they approached Swanzey the men from Boston saw a sightthat filled them with horror. The road was strewn with corpses of men, women, and children, scorched, dismembered, and mangled with thatdevilish art of which the American Indian is the most finished master. The savages had sacked the village the day before, burning the housesand slaying the people. Within three days a small force of colonialtroops had driven Philip from his position at Mount Hope; but whilethey were doing this a party of savages swooped upon Dartmouth, burningthirty houses and committing fearful atrocities. Some of their victimswere flayed alive, or impaled on sharp stakes, or roasted over slowfires. Similar horrors were wrought at Middleborough and Taunton; andnow the misery spread to Massachusetts, where on the 14th of July thetown of Mendon was attacked by a party of Nipmucks. [Sidenote: Massacresat Swanzey and Dartmouth, June, 1675] At that time the beautiful highlands between Lancaster and theConnecticut river were still an untrodden wilderness. On their southernslope Worcester and Brookfield were tiny hamlets of a dozen houses each. Up the Connecticut valley a line of little villages, from Springfieldto Northfield, formed the remotest frontier of the English, and theirexposed position offered tempting opportunities to the Indians. GovernorLeverett saw how great the danger would be if the other tribes shouldfollow the example set by Philip, and Captain Edward Hutchinson wasaccordingly sent to Brookfield to negotiate with the Nipmucks. Thisofficer was eldest son of the unfortunate lady whose preaching in Bostonnearly forty years before had been the occasion of so much strife. Notonly his mother, but all save one or two of his brothers and sisters--and there were not less than twelve of them--had been murdered byIndians on the New Netherland border in 1643; now the same cruel fateovertook the gallant captain. The savages agreed to hold a parley andappointed a time and place for the purpose, but instead of keeping trystthey lay in ambush and slew Hutchinson with eight of his men on theirway to the conference. [Sidenote: Murder of Captain Hutchinson] Three days afterward Philip, who had found home too hot for him, arrivedin the Nipmuck country, and on the night of August 2, took part in afierce assault on Brookfield. Thirty or forty men, with some fifty womenand children--all the inhabitants of the hamlet--took refuge in a largehouse, where they were besieged by 300 savages whose bullets pierced thewooden walls again and again. Arrows tipped with burning rags wereshot into the air in such wise as to fall upon the roof, but they whocrouched in the garret were watchful and well supplied with water, whilefrom the overhanging windows the volleys of musketry were so brisk andsteady that the screaming savages below could not get near enough to thehouse to set it on fire. For three days the fight was kept up, whileevery other house in the village was destroyed. By this time the Indianshad contrived to mount some planks on barrels so as to make a kind ofrude cart which they loaded with tow and chips. They were just aboutsetting it on fire and preparing to push it against the house with longpoles, when they were suddenly foiled by a heavy shower. That noon thegallant Simon Willard, ancestor of two presidents of Harvard College, aman who had done so much toward building up Concord and Lancaster thathe was known as the "founder of towns, " was on his way from Lancaster toGroton at the head of forty-seven horsemen, when he was overtaken by acourier with the news from Brookfield. The distance was thirty miles, the road scarcely fit to be called a bridle-path, and Willard's yearswere more than threescore-and-ten; but by an hour after sunset he hadgallopped into Brookfield and routed the Indians who fled to a swamp tenmiles distant. [Sidenote: Attack on Brookfield] The scene is now shifted to the Connecticut valley, where on the 25th ofAugust Captain Lothrop defeated the savages at Hatfield. On the 1st ofSeptember simultaneous attacks were made upon Deerfield and Hadley, andamong the traditions of the latter place is one of the most interestingof the stories of that early time. The inhabitants were all in churchkeeping a fast, when the yells of the Indians resounded. Seizing theirguns, the men rushed out to meet the foe; but seeing the village greenswarming on every side with the horrid savages, for a moment theircourage gave way and a panic was imminent; when all at once a strangerof reverend aspect and stately form, with white beard flowing on hisbosom, appeared among them and took command with an air of authoritywhich none could gainsay. He bade them charge on the screeching rabble, and after a short sharp skirmish the tawny foe was put to flight. Whenthe pursuers came together again, after the excitement of the rout, their deliverer was not to be found. In their wonder, as they knew notwhence he came or whither he had gone, many were heard to say thatan angel had been sent from heaven for their deliverance. It was theregicide William Goffe, who from his hiding-place had seen the savagesstealing down the hillside, and sallied forth to win yet one morevictory over the hosts of Midian ere death should come to claim him inhis woodland retreat. Sir Walter Scott has put this pretty story intothe mouth of Major Bridgenorth in "Peveril of the Peak, " and Cooper hasmade use of it in "The Wept of Wish-ton-wish. " Like many other romanticstories, it rests upon insufficient authority and its truth has beencalled in question. [32] But there seems to be nothing intrinsicallyimprobable in the tradition; and a paramount regard for Goffe's personalsafety would quite account for the studied silence of contemporarywriters like Hubbard and Increase Mather. [Sidenote: The mysteriousstranger of Hadley] This repulse did not check for a moment the activity of the Indians, though for a long time we hear nothing more of Philip. On the 2dof September they slew eight men at Northfield and on the 4th theysurrounded and butchered Captain Beers and most of his company ofthirty-six marching to the relief of that village. The next day butone, as Major Robert Treat came up the road with his 100 Connecticutsoldiers, they found long poles planted by the wayside bearing the headsof their unfortunate comrades. They in turn were assaulted, but beat offthe enemy, and brought away the people of Northfield. That village wasabandoned, and presently Deerfield shared its fate and the people werecrowded into Hadley. Yet worse remained to be seen. A large quantity ofwheat had been left partly threshed at Deerfield, and on the 11th ofSeptember eighteen wagons were sent up with teamsters and farmers tofinish the threshing and bring in the grain. They were escorted byCaptain Lothrop, with his train-band of ninety picked men, known as the"Flower of Essex, " perhaps the best drilled company in the colony. Thethreshing was done, the wagons were loaded, and the party made a nightmarch southward. At seven in the morning, as they were fording a shallowstream in the shade of overarching woods, they were suddenly overwhelmedby the deadly fire of 700 ambushed Nipmucks, and only eight of themescaped to tell the tale. A "black and fatal" day was this, says thechronicler, "the saddest that ever befell New England. " To this day thememory of the slaughter at Bloody Brook survives, and the visitor toSouth Deerfield may read the inscription over the grave in which MajorTreat's men next day buried all the victims together. The Indians nowbegan to feel their power, and on the 5th of October they attackedSpringfield and burned thirty houses there. [Sidenote: Ambuscade atBloody Brook, September 12] Things were becoming desperate. For ten weeks, from September 9 toNovember 19, the Federal Commissioners were in session daily in Boston. The most eminent of their number, for ability and character, was theyounger John Winthrop, who was still governor of Connecticut. Plymouthwas represented by its governor, Josiah Winslow, with the youngerWilliam Bradford; Massachusetts by William Stoughton, Simon Bradstreet, and Thomas Danforth. These strong men were confronted with a difficultproblem. From Batten's journal, kept during that disastrous summer, welearn the state of feeling of excitement in Boston. The Puritans hadby no means got rid of that sense of corporate responsibility whichcivilized man has inherited from prehistoric ages, and which has beenone of the principal causes of religious persecution. This sombrefeeling has prompted men to believe that to spare the heretic is tobring down the wrath of God upon the whole community; and now in Bostonmany people stoutly maintained that God had let loose the savages, withfirebrand and tomahawk, to punish the people of New England for ceasingto persecute "false worshippers and especially idolatrous Quakers. "Quaker meetings were accordingly forbidden under penalty of fine andimprisonment. Some harmless Indians were murdered. At Marblehead twowere assaulted and killed by a crowd of women. There was a bitterfeeling toward the Christian Indians, many of whom had joined theirheathen kinsmen in burning and slaying. Daniel Gookin, superintendent ofthe "praying Indians, " a gentleman of the highest character, was toldthat it would not be safe to show himself in the streets of Boston. Mrs. Mary Pray, of Providence, wrote a letter recommending the totalextermination of the red men. The measures adopted by the Commissioners certainly went far towardcarrying out Mrs. Pray's suggestion. The demeanour of the Narragansettshad become very threatening, and their capacity for mischief exceededthat of all the other tribes together. In July the Commissioners hadmade a treaty with them, but in October it became known in Bostonthat they were harbouring some of Philip's hostile Indians. When theCommissioners sharply called them to account for this, their sachemCanonchet, son of Miantonomo, promised to surrender the fugitiveswithin ten days. But the ten days passed and nothing was heard from theNarragansetts. The victory of their brethren at Bloody Brook had workedupon their minds, so that they no longer thought it worth while to keepfaith with the white men. They had overcome their timidity and were nowready to take part in the work of massacre. [33] The Commissioners soonlearned of their warlike preparations and lost no time in forestallingthem. The Narragansetts were fairly warned that if they did not at oncefulfil their promises they must expect the utmost severities of war. Athousand men were enlisted for this service and put under command ofGovernor Winslow, and in December they marched against the enemy. Theredoubtable fighter and lively chronicler Benjamin Church accompaniedthe expedition. The Indians had fortified themselves on a piece of rising ground, sixacres in extent, in the middle of a hideous swamp impassable at mostseasons but now in some places frozen hard enough to afford a precariousfooting. They were surrounded by rows of tall palisades which formed awall twelve feet in thickness; and the only approach to the single doorof this stronghold was over the trunk of a felled tree some two feet indiameter and slippery with snow and ice. A stout block-house filled withsharpshooters guarded this rude bridge, which was raised some five feetfrom the ground. Within the palisaded fortress perhaps not less than2000 warriors, with many women and children, awaited the onset of thewhite men, for here had Canonchet gathered together nearly the whole ofhis available force. This was a military mistake. It was cooping up hismen for slaughter. They would have been much safer if scattered about inthe wilderness, and could have given the English much more trouble. Butreadily as they acknowledged the power of the white man, they did notyet understand it. One man's courage is not another's, and the Indianknew little or nothing of that Gothic fury of self-abandonment whichrushes straight ahead and snatches victory from the jaws of death. Hisfortress was a strong one, and it was no longer, as in the time of thePequots, a strife in which firearms were pitted against bow and arrow. Many of the Narragansetts were equipped with muskets and skilled intheir use, and under such circumstances victory for the English was notto be lightly won. [Sidenote: Expedition against the Narragansetts] On the night of December 18 their little army slept in an open fieldat Pettyquamscott without other blanket than a "moist fleece of snow. "Thence to the Indian fortress, situated in what is now South Kingston, the march was eighteen miles. The morrow was a Sunday, but Winslowdeemed it imprudent to wait, as food had wellnigh given out. Getting upat five o'clock, they toiled through deep snow till they came withinsight of the Narragansett stronghold early in the afternoon. First camethe 527 men from Massachusetts, led by Major Appleton, of Ipswich, andnext the 158 from Plymouth, under Major Bradford; while Major RobertTreat, with the 300 from Connecticut, brought up the rear. There were985 men in all. As the Massachusetts men rushed upon the slippery bridgea deadly volley from the blockhouse slew six of their captains, whileof the rank and file there were many killed or wounded. Nothing dauntedthey pressed on with great spirit till they forced their way into theenclosure, but then the head of their column, overcome by sheer weightof numbers in the hand-to-hand fight, was pushed and tumbled out intothe swamp. Meanwhile some of the Connecticut men had discovered a pathacross the partly frozen swamp leading to a weak spot in the rear, wherethe palisades were thin and few, as undue reliance had been placed uponthe steep bank crowned with a thick rampart of bushes that had beenreinforced with clods of turf. In this direction Treat swept along withhis men in a spirited charge. Before they had reached the spot a heavyfire began mowing them down, but with a furious rush they came up, andclimbing on each other's shoulders, some fought their way over therampart, while others hacked sturdily with axes till such a breach wasmade that all might enter. This was effected just as the Massachusettsmen had recovered themselves and crossed the treacherous log in a secondcharge that was successful and soon brought the entire English forcewithin the enclosure. In the slaughter which filled the rest of thatSunday afternoon till the sun went down behind a dull gray cloud, thegrim and wrathful Puritan, as he swung his heavy cutlass, thought ofSaul and Agag, and spared not. The Lord had delivered up to him theheathen as stubble to his sword. As usual the number of the slainis variously estimated. Of the Indians probably not less than 1000perished. Some hundreds, however, with Canonchet their leader, savedthemselves in flight, well screened by the blinding snow-flakes thatbegan to fall just after sunset. Within the fortified area had beenstored the greater part of the Indians' winter supply of corn, and theloss of this food was a further deadly blow. Captain Church advisedsparing the wigwams and using them for shelter, but Winslow seems tohave doubted the ability of his men to maintain themselves in a positionso remote from all support. The wigwams with their tubs of corn wereburned, and a retreat was ordered. Through snowdrifts that deepenedevery moment the weary soldiers dragged themselves along until two hoursafter midnight, when they reached the tiny village of Wickford. Nearlyone-fourth of their number had been killed or wounded, and many of thelatter perished before shelter was reached. Forty of these were buriedat Wickford in the course of the next three days. Of the Connecticut meneighty were left upon the swamp and in the breach at the rear of thestronghold. Among the spoils which the victors brought away were anumber of good muskets that had been captured by the Nipmucks in theirassault upon Deerfield. [Sidenote: Storming of the great swamp fortress, December 19] This headlong overthrow of the Narragansett power completely changed theface of things. The question was no longer whether the red men couldpossibly succeed in making New England too hot for the white men, butsimply how long it would take for the white men to exterminate the redmen. The shiftless Indian was abandoning his squalid agriculture andsubsisting on the pillage of English farms; but the resources of thecolonies, though severely taxed, were by no means exhausted. The duskywarriors slaughtered in the great swamp fight could not be replaced;but, as Roger Williams told the Indians, there were still ten thousandwhite men who could carry muskets, and should all these be slain, headded, with a touch of hyperbole, the Great Father in England could sendten thousand more. For the moment Williams seems to have cherished ahope that his great influence with the savages might induce them tosubmit to terms of peace while there was yet a remnant to be saved; butthey were now as little inclined to parley as tigers brought to bay, norwas the temper of the colonists a whit less deadly, though it did notvent itself in inflicting torture or in merely wanton orgies of cruelty. [Sidenote: Effect of the blow] To the modern these scenes of carnage are painful to contemplate. In thewholesale destruction of the Pequots, and to a less degree in that ofthe Narragansetts, the death-dealing power of the white man stands forthso terrible and relentless that our sympathy is for a moment calledout for his victim. The feeling of tenderness toward the weak, almostunknown among savages, is one of the finest products of civilization. Where murderous emotions are frequently excited, it cannot thrive. Suchadvance in humanity as we have made within recent times is chieflydue to the fact that the horrors of war are seldom brought home toeverybody's door. Either war is conducted on some remote frontier, or ifarmies march through a densely peopled country the conditions ofmodern warfare have made it essential to their efficiency as militaryinstruments that depredation and riot should be as far as possiblechecked. Murder and pillage are comparatively infrequent, massacreis seldom heard of, and torture is almost or quite as extinct ascannibalism. The mass of citizens escape physical suffering, the angryemotions are so directed upon impersonal objects as to acquire a strongethical value, and the intervals of strife may find individual soldiersof hostile armies exchanging kindly services. Members of a complexindustrial society, without direct experience of warfare save in thismitigated form, have their characters wrought upon in a way that isdistinctively modern, as they become more and more disinclined toviolence and cruelty. European historians have noticed, with wordsof praise, the freedom from bloodthirstiness which characterizes theAmerican people. Mr. Lecky has more than once remarked upon this humanetemperament which is so characteristic of our peaceful civilization, andwhich sometimes, indeed, shows the defects of its excellence and tendsto weaken society by making it difficult to inflict due punishment uponthe vilest criminals. In respect of this humanity the American of thenineteenth century has without doubt improved very considerably upon hisforefathers of the seventeenth. The England of Cromwell and Miltonwas not, indeed, a land of hard-hearted people as compared with theircontemporaries. The long experience of internal peace since the Warof the Roses had not been without its effect; and while the Tudor andStuart periods had atrocities enough, we need only remember what wasgoing on at the same time in France and Germany in order to realize howmuch worse it might have been. In England, as elsewhere, however, itwas, when looked at with our eyes, a rough and brutal time. It was a dayof dungeons, whipping-posts, and thumbscrews, when slight offenders weremaimed and bruised and great offenders cut into pieces by sentence ofcourt. The pioneers of New England had grown up familiar with suchthings; and among the townspeople of Boston and Hartford in 1675 werestill many who in youth had listened to the awful news from Magdeburg orturned pale over the horrors in Piedmont upon which Milton invoked thewrath of Heaven. [Sidenote: Growth of humane sentiment in recent times] When civilized men are removed from the safeguards of civilization andplaced in the wilderness amid the hideous dangers that beset humanexistence in a savage state of society, whatever barbarism lies latentin them is likely to find many opportunities for showing itself. The feelings that stir the meekest of men, as he stands among thesmouldering embers of his homestead and gazes upon the mangled bodiesof wife and children, are feelings that he shares with the mostbloodthirsty savage, and the primary effect of his higher intelligenceand greater sensitiveness is only to increase their bitterness. Theneighbour who hears the dreadful story is quick to feel likewise, forthe same thing may happen to him, and there is nothing so pitiless asfear. With the Puritan such gloomy and savage passions seemed to findjustification in the sacred text from which he drew his rules of life. To suppose that one part of the Bible could be less authoritative thananother would have been to him an incomprehensible heresy; and boundbetween the same covers that included the Sermon on the Mount were talesof wholesale massacre perpetrated by God's command. Evidently thered men were not stray children of Israel, after all, but ratherPhilistines, Canaanites, heathen, sons of Belial, firebrands of hell, demons whom it was no more than right to sweep from the face of theearth. Writing in this spirit, the chroniclers of the time werecompletely callous in their accounts of suffering and ruin inflictedupon Indians, and, as has elsewhere been known to happen, those whodid not risk their own persons were more truculent in tone than theprofessional fighters. Of the narrators of the war, perhaps the fairesttoward the Indian is the doughty Captain Church, while none is morebitter and cynical than the Ipswich pastor William Hubbard. [Sidenote:Warfare with savages likely to be truculent in character] While the overthrow of the Narragansetts changed the face of things, itwas far from putting an end to the war. It showed that when the whiteman could find his enemy he could deal crushing blows, but the Indianwas not always so easy to find. Before the end of January Winslow'slittle army was partially disbanded for want of food, and its threecontingents fell back upon Stonington, Boston, and Plymouth. Early inFebruary the Federal Commissioners called for a new levy of 600 men toassemble at Brookfield, for the Nipmucks were beginning to renew theirincursions, and after an interval of six months the figure of Philipagain appears for a moment upon the scene. What he had been doing, orwhere he had been, since the Brookfield fight in August, was neverknown. When in February, 1676, he re-appeared it was still in companywith his allies the Nipmucks, in their bloody assault upon Lancaster. On the 10th of that month at sunrise the Indians came swarming into thelovely village. Danger had already been apprehended, the pastor, JosephRowlandson, the only Harvard graduate of 1652, had gone to Boston tosolicit aid, and Captain Wadsworth's company was slowly making itsway over the difficult roads from Marlborough, but the Indians werebeforehand. Several houses were at once surrounded and set on fire, and men, women, and children began falling under the tomahawk. Theminister's house was large and strongly built, and more than fortypeople found shelter there until at length it took fire and they weredriven out by the flames. Only one escaped, a dozen or more were slain, and the rest, chiefly women and children, taken captive. The Indiansaimed at plunder as well as destruction; for they were in sore need offood and blankets, as well as of powder and ball. Presently, as they sawWadsworth's armed men approaching, they took to flight and got away, with many prisoners and a goodly store of provisions. [Sidenote: Attackupon Lancaster, February 10, 1676] Among the captives was Mary Rowlandson, the minister's wife, whoafterward wrote the story of her sad experiences. The treatment of theprisoners varied with the caprice or the cupidity of the captors. Thosefor whom a substantial ransom might be expected fared comparativelywell; to others death came as a welcome relief. One poor woman with achild in her arms was too weak to endure the arduous tramp over the icyhillsides, and begged to be left behind, till presently the savageslost their patience. They built a fire, and after a kind of demon dancekilled mother and child with a club and threw the bodies into theflames. Such treatment may seem exceptionally merciful, but those modernobservers who best know the Indian's habits say that he seldom indulgesin torture except when he has abundance of leisure and a mind quiteundisturbed. He is an epicure in human agony and likes to enjoy it inlong slow sips. It is for the end of the march that the accumulationof horrors is reserved; the victims by the way are usually despatchedquickly; and in the case of Mrs. Rowlandson's captors their irregularand circuitous march indicates that they were on the alert. Theirmovements seem to have covered much of the ground between Wachusettmountain and the Connecticut river. They knew that the white squaw ofthe great medicine man of an English village was worth a heavy ransom, and so they treated Mrs. Rowlandson unusually well. She had beencaptured when escaping from the burning house, carrying in her arms herlittle six-year-old daughter. She was stopped by a bullet that grazedher side and struck the child. The Indian who seized them placed thelittle girl upon a horse, and as the dreary march began she kept moaning"I shall die, mamma. " "I went on foot after it, " says the mother, "withsorrow that cannot be expressed. At length I took it off the horse, andcarried it in my arms till my strength failed me, and I fell down withit . . . . After this it quickly began to snow, and when night came on theystopped. And now down I must sit in the snow, by a little fire, and afew boughs behind me, with my sick child in my lap, and calling much forwater, being now, through the wound, fallen into a violent fever . . . . Oh, may I see the wonderful power of God that my spirit did not utterlysink under my affliction; still the Lord upheld me with his gracious andmerciful spirit. " The little girl soon died. For three months the wearyand heartbroken mother was led about the country by these loathsomesavages, of whose habits and manners she gives a vivid description. Atfirst their omnivorousness astonished her. "Skunks and rattlesnakes, yeathe very bark of trees" they esteemed as delicacies. "They would pick upold bones and cut them in pieces at the joints, . . . Then boil them anddrink up the liquor, and then beat the great ends of them in a mortarand so eat them. " After some weeks of starvation Mrs. Rowlandson herselfwas fain to partake of such viands. One day, having made a cap for oneof Philip's boys, she was invited to dine with the great sachem. "Iwent, " she says, "and he gave me a pancake about as big as two fingers. It was made of parched wheat, beaten, and fried in bear's grease; but Ithought I never tasted pleasanter meat in my life. " Early in May she wasredeemed for 20 pounds, and went to find her husband in Boston, wherethe Old South Church society hired a house for them. [Sidenote: Mrs. Rowlandson's narrative] Such was the experience of a captive whose treatment was, according toIndian notions, hospitable. There were few who came off so well. Almostevery week while she was led hither and thither by the savages. Mrs. Rowlandson heard ghastly tales of fire and slaughter. It was a busywinter and spring for these Nipmucks. Before February was over, theirexploit at Lancaster was followed by a shocking massacre at Medfield. They sacked and destroyed the towns of Worcester, Marlborough, Mendon, and Groton, and even burned some houses in Weymouth, within a dozenmiles of Boston. Murderous attacks were made upon Sudbury, Chelmsford, Springfield, Hatfield, Hadley, Northampton, Wrentham, Andover, Bridgewater, Scituate, and Middleborough. On the 18th of April CaptainWadsworth, with 70 men, was drawn into an ambush near Sudbury, surrounded by 500 Nipmucks, and killed with 50 of his men; sixunfortunate captives were burned alive over slow fires. But Wadsworth'sparty made the enemy pay dearly for his victory; that afternoon 120Nipmucks bit the dust. In such wise, by killing two or three for one, did the English wear out and annihilate their adversaries. Just onemonth from that day Captain Turner surprised and slaughtered 300 ofthese warriors near the falls of the Connecticut river which havesince borne his name, and this blow at last broke the strength ofthe Nipmucks. [Sidenote: Virtual exterminations of the Indians, February--August, 1676] Meanwhile the Narragansetts and Wampanoags had burned the towns ofWarwick and Providence. After the wholesale ruin of the great "swampfight, " Canonchet had still some 600 or 700 warriors left, and withthese, on the 26th of March, in the neighbourhood of Pawtuxet, hesurprised a company of 50 Plymouth men under Captain Pierce and slewthem all, but not until he had lost 140 of his best warriors. Ten dayslater Captain Denison, with his Connecticut company, defeated andcaptured Canonchet, and the proud son of Miantonomo met the same fateas his father. He was handed over to the Mohegans and tomahawked. TheNarragansett sachem had shown such bravery that it seemed, says thechronicler Hubbard, as if "some old Roman ghost had possessed the bodyof this western pagan. " But next moment this pious clergyman, as ifashamed of the classical eulogy just bestowed upon the hated redskin, alludes to him as a "damned wretch. " [Sidenote: Death of Canonchet] The fall of Canonchet marked the beginning of the end. In four sharpfights in the last week of June, Major Talcott, of Hartford, slewfrom 300 to 400 warriors, being nearly all that were left of theNarragansetts; and during the month of July Captain Church patrolled thecountry about Taunton, making prisoners of the Wampanoags. Once moreKing Philip, shorn of his prestige, comes upon the scene. We have seenthat his agency in these cruel events had been at the outset a potentone. Whatever else it may have been, it was at least the agency of thematch that explodes the powder-cask. Under the conditions of that savagesociety, organized leadership was not to be looked for. In the irregularand disorderly series of murdering raids Philip may have been oftenpresent, but except for Mrs. Rowlandson's narrative we should have knownnothing of him since the Brookfield fight. At length in July, 1676, having seen the last of his Nipmuck friendsoverwhelmed, the tattered chieftain showed himself near Bridgewater, with a handful of followers. In these his own hunting-grounds some ofhis former friends had become disaffected. The daring and diplomaticChurch had made his way into the wigwam of Ashawonks, the squaw sachemof Saconet, near Little Compton, and having first convinced her that aflask of brandy might be tasted without fatal results, followed up hisadvantage and persuaded her to make an alliance with the English. ManyIndians came in and voluntarily surrendered themselves, in order toobtain favourable terms, and some lent their aid in destroying their oldsachem. Defeated at Taunton, the son of Massasoit was hunted by Churchto his ancient lair at Bristol Neck and there besieged. His only escapewas over the narrow isthmus of which the pursuers now took possession, and in this dire extremity one of Philip's men presumed to advise hischief that the hour for surrender had come. For his unwelcome counselthe sachem forthwith lifted his tomahawk and struck him dead at hisfeet. Then the brother of the slain man crept away through the bushes toChurch's little camp, and offered to guide the white men to the morasswhere Philip lay concealed. At daybreak of August 12 the Englishstealthily advancing beat up their prey. The savages in sudden panicrushed from under cover, and as the sachem showed himself running at thetop of his speed, a ball from an Indian musket pierced his heart, and"he fell upon his face in the mud and water, with his gun under him. "His severed head was sent to Plymouth, where it was mounted on a poleand exposed aloft upon the village green, while the meeting-housebell summoned the townspeople to a special service of thanksgiving. [Sidenote: Death of Philip, August 12] It may be supposed that in such services at this time a Christianfeeling of charity and forgiveness was not uppermost. Among the captiveswas a son of Philip, the little swarthy lad of nine years for whom Mrs. Rowlandson had made a cap, and the question as to what was to be donewith him occasioned as much debate as if he had been a Jesse Pomeroy[34] or a Chicago anarchist. The opinions of the clergy were, of course, eagerly sought and freely vouchsafed. One minister somewhat doubtfullyurged that "although a precept in Deuteronomy explicitly forbids killingthe child for the father's sin, " yet after all "the children of Saul andAchan perished with their parents, though too young to have shared theirguilt. " Thus curiously did this English reverence for precedent, with asort of grim conscientiousness colouring its gloomy wrath, search forguidance among the ancient records of the children of Israel. Commentingupon the truculent suggestion, Increase Mather, soon to be president ofHarvard, observed that, "though David had spared the infant Hadad, yetit might have been better for his people if he had been less merciful. "These bloodthirsty counsels did not prevail, but the course that wasadopted did not lack in harshness. Among the sachems a dozen leadingspirits were hanged or shot, and hundreds of captives were shipped offto the West Indies to be sold into slavery; among these was Philip'slittle son. The rough soldier Church and the apostle Eliot were amongthe few who disapproved of this policy. Church feared it might goad suchIndians as were still at large to acts of desperation. Eliot, in anearnest letter to the Federal Commissioners, observed: "To sell soulsfor money seemeth to me dangerous merchandise. " But the plan ofexporting the captives was adhered to. As slaves they were understood tobe of little or no value, and sometimes for want of purchasers they wereset ashore on strange coasts and abandoned. A few were even carried toone of the foulest of mediaeval slave-marts, Morocco, where their fatewas doubtless wretched enough. [Sidenote: Indians sold into slavery] In spite of Church's doubts as to the wisdom of this harsh treatment, it did not prevent the beaten and starving savages from surrenderingthemselves in considerable numbers. To some the Federal Commissionersoffered amnesty, and the promise was faithfully fulfilled. Among thosewho laid down arms in reliance upon it were 140 Christian Indians, withtheir leader known as James the Printer, because he had been employed atCambridge in setting up the type for Eliot's Bible. Quite early in thewar it had been discovered that these converted savages still felt theties of blood to be stronger than those of creed. At the attack onMendon, only three weeks after the horrors at Swanzey that ushered inthe war, it was known that Christian Indians had behaved themselvesquite as cruelly as their unregenerate brethren. Afterwards they madesuch a record that the jokers and punsters of the day--for such therewere, even among those sombre Puritans--in writing about the "PrayingIndians, " spelled _praying_ with an _e_. The moral scruples of thesesavages, under the influence of their evangelical training, betrayedqueer freaks. One of them, says Mrs. Rowlandson, would rather die thaneat horseflesh, so narrow and scrupulous was his conscience, although itwas as wide as the whole infernal abyss, when it came to torturingwhite Christians. The student of history may have observed similarinconsistencies in the theories and conduct of people more enlightenedthan these poor red men. "There was another Praying Indian, " continuesMrs. Rowlandson, "who, when he had done all the mischief he could, betrayed his own father into the English's hands, thereby to purchasehis own life; . . . And there was another . . . So wicked . . . As to weara string about his neck, strung with Christian fingers. " [Sidenote:Conduct of the Christian Indians] Such incidents help us to comprehend the exasperation of our forefathersin the days of King Philip. The month which witnessed his death saw alsothe end of the war in the southern parts of New England; but, almostbefore people had time to offer thanks for the victory, there came newsof bloodshed on the northeastern frontier. The Tarratines in Maine hadfor some time been infected with the war fever. How far they may havebeen comprehended in the schemes of Philip and Canonchet, it would behard to say. They had attacked settlers on the site of Brunswick asearly as September, 1675. About the time of Philip's death, MajorWaldron of Dover had entrapped a party of them by an unworthy stratagem, and after satisfying himself that they were accomplices in thatchieftain's scheme, sent them to Boston to be sold into slavery. Aterrible retribution was in store for Major Waldron thirteen yearslater. For the present the hideous strife, just ended in southern NewEngland, was continued on the northeastern frontier, and there wasscarcely a village between the Kennebec and the Piscataqua but was laidin ashes. [Sidenote: War with the Tarratines, 1676-78] By midsummer of 1678 the Indians had been everywhere suppressed, andthere was peace in the land. For three years, since Philip's massacreat Swanzey, there had been a reign of terror in New England. Withinthe boundaries of Connecticut, indeed, little or no damage had beeninflicted, and the troops of that colony, not needed on their own soil, did noble service in the common cause. In Massachusetts and Plymouth, on the other hand, the destruction oflife and property had been simply frightful. Of ninety towns, twelve hadbeen utterly destroyed, while more than forty others had been the sceneof fire and slaughter. Out of this little society nearly a thousandstaunch men, including not few of broad culture and strong promise, hadlost their lives, while of the scores of fair women and poor littlechildren that had perished under the ruthless tomahawk, one can hardlygive an accurate account. Hardly a family throughout the land but wasin mourning. The war-debt of Plymouth was reckoned to exceed the totalamount of personal property in the colony; yet although it pinched everyhousehold for many a year, it was paid to the uttermost farthing; norin this respect were Massachusetts and Connecticut at all behind-hand. [Sidenote: Destructiveness of the war] But while King Philip's War wrought such fearful damage to the English, it was for the Indians themselves utter destruction. Most of thewarriors were slain, and to the survivors, as we have seen, theconquerors showed but scant mercy. The Puritan, who conned his Bible soearnestly, had taken his hint from the wars of the Jews, and swepthis New English Canaan with a broom that was pitiless and searching. Henceforth the red man figures no more in the history of New England, except as an ally of the French in bloody raids upon the frontier. Inthat capacity he does mischief enough for yet a half-century more, butfrom central and southern New England, as an element of disturbance or apower to be reckoned with, he disappears forever. CHAPTER VI. THE TYRANNY OF ANDROS. The beginnings of New England were made in the full daylight of modernhistory. It was an age of town records, of registered deeds, ofcontemporary memoirs, of diplomatic correspondence, of controversialpamphlets, funeral sermons, political diatribes, specific instructions, official reports, and private letters. It was not a time in whichmythical personages or incredible legends could flourish, and suchthings we do find in the history of New England. There was neverthelessa romantic side to this history, enough to envelop some of itscharacters and incidents in a glamour that may mislead the modernreader. This wholesale migration from the smiling fields of merryEngland to an unexplored wilderness beyond a thousand leagues of sea wasof itself a most romantic and thrilling event, and when viewed in thelight of its historic results it becomes clothed with sublimity. The menwho undertook this work were not at all free from self-consciousness. They believed that they were doing a wonderful thing. They feltthemselves to be instruments in accomplishing a kind of "manifestdestiny. " Their exodus was that of a chosen people who were at lengthto lay the everlasting foundations of God's kingdom upon earth. Suchopinions, which took a strong colour from their assiduous study of theOld Testament, reacted and disposed them all the more to search itspages for illustrations and precedents, and to regard it as an oracle, almost as a talisman. In every propitious event they saw a specialprovidence, an act of divine intervention to deliver them from thesnares of an ever watchful Satan. This steadfast faith in an unseenruler and guide was to them a pillar of cloud by day and of fire bynight. It was of great moral value. It gave them clearness of purposeand concentration of strength, and contributed toward making them, like the children of Israel, a people of indestructible vitality andaggressive energy. At the same time, in the hands of the Puritanwriters, this feeling was apt to warp their estimates of events andthrow such a romantic haze about things as seriously to interfere with atrue historical perspective. [Sidenote: Romantic features in the earlyhistory of New England] Among such writings that which perhaps best epitomizes the Puritanphilosophy is "The Wonder-working Providence of Zion's Saviour in NewEngland, " by Captain Edward Johnson, one of the principal founders ofWoburn. It is an extremely valuable history of New England from 1628 to1651, and every page is alive with the virile energy of that stirringtime. With narrative, argument, and apologue, abounding in honestyof purpose, sublimity of trust, and grotesqueness of fancy, whereintouching tenderness is often alternated with sternness most grim andmerciless, yet now and then relieved by a sudden gleam of humour, --andall in a style that is usually uncouth and harsh, but sometimes burstsforth in eloquence worthy of Bunyan, --we are told how the founders ofNew England are soldiers of Christ enlisted in a holy war, and how theymust "march manfully on till all opposers of Christ's kingly power beabolished. " "And as for you who are called to sound forth his silvertrumpets, blow loud and shrill to this chiefest treble tune--for thearmies of the great Jehovah are at hand. " "He standeth not as an idlespectator beholding his people's ruth and their enemies' rage, but as anactor in all actions, to bring to naught the desires of the wicked, . . . Having also the ordering of every weapon in its first produce, guidingevery shaft that flies, leading each bullet to his place of settling, and weapon to the wound it makes. " To men engaged in such a crusadeagainst the powers of evil, nothing could seem insignificant or trivial;for, as Johnson continues, in truly prophetic phrase, "the Lord Christintends to achieve greater matters by this little handful than the worldis aware of. " [Sidenote: Edward Johnson] The general sentiment of the early New England writers was like thatof the "Wonder-working Providence, " though it did not always find suchrhapsodic expression. It has left its impress upon the minds of theirchildren's children down to our own time, and has affected the opinionsheld about them by other people. It has had something to do with acertain tacit assumption of superiority on the part of New Englanders, upon which the men and women of other communities have been heardto comment in resentful and carping tones. There has probably neverexisted, in any age or at any spot on the earth's surface, a group ofpeople that did not take for granted its own preeminent excellence. Uponsome such assumption, as upon an incontrovertible axiom, all historicalnarratives, from the chronicles of a parish to the annals of an empire, alike proceed. But in New England it assumed a form especially apt toprovoke challenge. One of its unintentional effects was the setting upof an unreal and impossible standard by which to judge the acts andmotives of the Puritans of the seventeenth century. We come uponinstances of harshness and cruelty, of narrow-minded bigotry, andsuperstitious frenzy; and feel, perhaps, a little surprised thatthese men had so much in common with their contemporaries. Hence theinterminable discussion which has been called forth by the history ofthe Puritans, in which the conclusions of the writer have generally beendetermined by circumstances of birth or creed, or perhaps of reactionagainst creed. One critic points to the Boston of 1659 or the Salem of1692 with such gleeful satisfaction as used to stir the heart of ThomasPaine when he alighted upon an inconsistency in some text of the Bible;while another, in the firm conviction that Puritans could do no wrong, plays fast and loose with arguments that might be made to justify thedeeds of a Torquemada. [Sidenote: Acts of the Puritans often judged by awrong standard] From such methods of criticism it is the duty of historians as far aspossible to free themselves. If we consider the Puritans in the lightof their surroundings as Englishmen of the seventeenth century andinaugurators of a political movement that was gradually to change forthe better the aspect of things all over the earth, we cannot fail todiscern the value of that sacred enthusiasm which led them to regardthemselves as chosen soldiers of Christ. It was the spirit of the"Wonder-working Providence" that hurled the tyrant from his throne atWhitehall and prepared the way for the emancipation of modern Europe. Nospirit less intense, no spirit nurtured in the contemplation of thingsterrestrial, could ever have done it. The political philosophy of a Vaneor a Sidney could never have done it. The passion for liberty as feltby a Jefferson or an Adams, abstracted and generalized from the loveof particular liberties, was something scarcely intelligible to theseventeenth century. The ideas of absolute freedom of thought andspeech, which we breathe in from childhood, were to the men of that agestrange and questionable. They groped and floundered among them, verymuch as modern wool growers in Ohio or iron-smelters in Pennsylvaniaflounder and grope among the elementary truths of political economy. Butthe spirit in which the Hebrew prophet rebuked and humbled an idolatrousking was a spirit they could comprehend. Such a spirit was sure tomanifest itself in narrow cramping measures and in ugly acts ofpersecution; but it is none the less to the fortunate alliance ofthat fervid religious enthusiasm with the Englishman's love ofself-government that our modern freedom owes its existence. [Sidenote:Spirit of the Wonder-working Providence] The history of New England under Charles II. Yields abundant proof thatpolitical liberty is no less indebted in the New World than in the Oldto the spirit of the "Wonder-working Providence. " The theocratic idealwhich the Puritan sought to put into practice in Massachusetts andConnecticut was a sacred institution in faults of the defence ofwhich all his faculties were kept perpetually alert. Much as he lovedself-government he would never have been so swift to detect and sostubborn to resist every slightest encroachment on the part of the crownhad not the loss of self-government involved the imminent danger thatthe ark of the Lord might be abandoned to the worshippers of Dagon. It was in Massachusetts, where the theocracy was strongest, that theresistance to Charles II. Was most dogged and did most to prepare theway for the work of achieving political independence a century later. Naturally it was in Massachusetts at the same time that the faultsof the theocracy were most conspicuous. It was there that priestlyauthority most clearly asserted itself in such oppressive acts as arealways witnessed when too much power is left in the hands of men whoseprimary allegiance is to a kingdom not of this world. Much as we owe tothe theocracy for warding off the encroachments of the crown, we cannotbe sorry that it was itself crushed in the process. It was well thatit did not survive its day of usefulness, and that the outcome ofthe struggle was what has been aptly termed "the emancipation ofMassachusetts. " [Sidenote: Merits and faults of the theocracy] The basis of the theocratic constitution of this commonwealth was theprovision by which the exercise of the franchise was made an incident ofchurch-membership. Unless a man could take part in the Lord's Supper, asadministered in the churches of the colony, he could not vote orhold office. Church and state, parish and town, were thus virtuallyidentified. Here, as in some other aspects of early New England, one isreminded of the ancient Greek cities, where the freeman who couldvote in the market-place or serve his turn as magistrate was the manqualified to perform sacrifices to the tutelar deities of the tribe;other men might dwell in the city but had no share in making orexecuting its laws. The limitation of civil rights by religious tests isindeed one of those common inheritances from the old Aryan world thatwe find again and again cropping out, even down to the exclusion ofCatholics from the House of Commons from 1562 to 1829. The obviouspurpose of this policy in England was self-protection; and in likemanner the restriction of the suffrage in Massachusetts was designedto protect the colony against aggressive episcopacy and to maintainunimpaired the uniformity of purpose which had brought the settlersacross the ocean. Under the circumstances there was something to besaid in behalf of such a measure of self-protection, and the principlerequired but slight extension to cover such cases as the banishment ofRoger Williams and the Antinomians. There was another side to the case, however. From the very outset this exclusive policy was in some waysa source of weakness to Massachusetts, though we have seen that theindirect effect was to diversify and enrich the political life of NewEngland as a whole. [Sidenote: Restriction of the suffrage to churchmembers] At first it led to the departure of the men who founded Connecticut, and thereafter the way was certainly open for those who preferred theConnecticut policy to go where it prevailed. Some such segregation wasno doubt effected, but it could not be complete and thorough. Men whopreferred Boston without the franchise to Hartford with it would remainin Massachusetts; and thus the elder colony soon came to possess adiscontented class of people, always ready to join hand in glove withdissenters or mischief-makers, or even with emissaries of the crown. Itafforded a suggestive commentary upon all attempts to suppress humannature by depriving it of a share in political life; instead of keepingit inside where you can try conclusions with it fairly, you thrust itout to plot mischief in the dark. Within twenty years from the foundingof Boston the disfranchisement of such citizens as could not participatein church-communion had begun to be regarded as a serious politicalgrievance. These men were obliged to pay taxes and were liable to becalled upon for military service against the Indians; and they naturallyfelt that they ought to have a voice in the management of publicaffairs. [Sidenote: It was a source of political discontent] Besides this fundamental ground of complaint, there were derivativegrievances. Under the influence of the clergy justice was administeredin somewhat inquisitorial fashion, there was an uncertainty as to justwhat the law was, a strong disposition to confuse questions of law withquestions of ethics, and great laxity in the admission and estimation ofevidence. As early as 1639 people had begun to complain that too muchpower was rested in the discretion of the magistrate, and they clamouredfor a code of laws; but as Winthrop says, the magistrates and ministerswere "not very forward in this matter, " for they preferred to supplementthe common law of England by decisions based on the Old Testament ratherthan by a body of statutes. It was not until 1649, after a persistentstruggle, that the deputies won a decisive victory over the assistantsand secured for Massachusetts a definite code of laws. In the New Havencolony similar theocratic notions led the settlers to dispense withtrial by jury because they could find no precedent for it in the laws ofMoses. Here, as in Massachusetts, the inquisitorial administration ofjustice combined with partial disfranchisement to awaken discontent, andit was partly for this reason that New Haven fell so easily under thesway of Connecticut. [Sidenote: Inquisitorial administration of justice] In Massachusetts after 1650 the opinion rapidly gained ground that allbaptized persons of upright and decorous lives ought to be considered, for practical purposes, as members of the church, and therefore entitledto the exercise of political rights, even though unqualified forparticipation in the Lord's Supper. This theory of church-membership, based on what was at that time stigmatized as the "Halfway Covenant, "aroused intense opposition. It was the great question of the day. In1657 a council was held in Boston, which approved the principle of theHalfway Covenant; and as this decision was far from satisfying thechurches, a synod of all the clergymen in Massachusetts was held fiveyears later, to reconsider the great question. The decision of the synodsubstantially confirmed the decision of the council, but there were somedissenting voices. Foremost among the dissenters, who wished to retainthe old theocratic regime in all its strictness, was Charles Chauncey, the president of Harvard College, and Increase Mather agreed with himat the time, though he afterward saw reason to change his opinion, andpublished two tracts in favour of the Halfway Covenant. Most bitter ofall toward the new theory of church-membership was, naturally enough, Mr. Davenport of New Haven. [Sidenote: The "Halfway Covenant"] This burning question was the source of angry contentions in the FirstChurch of Boston. Its teacher, the learned and melancholy Norton, diedin 1663, and four years later the aged pastor, John Wilson, followedhim. In choosing a successor to Wilson the church decided to declareitself in opposition to the liberal decision of the synod, and in tokenthereof invited Davenport to come from New Haven to take charge of it. Davenport, who was then seventy years old, was disgusted at the recentannexation of his colony to Connecticut. He accepted the invitationand came to Boston, against the wishes of nearly half of the Bostoncongregation who did not like the illiberal principle which herepresented. In little more than a year his ministry at Boston was endedby death; but the opposition to his call had already proceeded so farthat a secession from the old church had become inevitable. In 1669the advocates of the Halfway Covenant organized themselves into a newsociety under the title of the "Third Church in Boston. " A woodenmeeting-house was built on a lot which had once belonged to the lategovernor Winthrop, in what was then the south part of the town, so thatthe society and its meeting-house became known as the South Church; andafter a new church founded in Summer Street in 1717 took the name of theNew South, the church of 1669 came to be further distinguished as theOld South. As this church represented a liberal idea which was growingin favour with the people, it soon became the most flourishing churchin America. After sixty years its numbers had increased so that the oldmeeting-house could not contain them; and in 1729 the famous buildingwhich still stands was erected on the same spot, --a building with agrander history than any other on the American continent, unless it bethat other plain brick building in Philadelphia where the Declaration ofIndependence was adopted and the Federal Constitution framed. [Sidenote:Founding of the Old South Church, 1669] The wrath of the First Church at this secession from its ranks wasdeep and bitter, and for thirteen years it refused to entertainecclesiastical intercourse with the South Church. But by 1682 it hadbecome apparent that the king and his friends were meditating an attackupon the Puritan theocracy in New England. It had even been suggested, in the council for the colonies, that the Church of England should beestablished in Massachusetts, and that none but duly ordained Episcopalclergymen should be allowed to solemnize marriages. Such alarmingsuggestions began to impress the various Puritan churches with theimportance of uniting their forces against the common enemy; andaccordingly in 1682 the quarrel between the two Boston societies came toan end. There was urgent need of all the sympathy and good feeling thatthe community could muster, whereby to cheer itself in the crisis thatwas coming. The four years from 1684 to 1688 were the darkest years inthe history of New England. Massachusetts, though not lacking in thespirit, had not the power to beard the tyrant as she did eighty yearslater. Her attitude toward the Stuarts--as we have seen--had beensometimes openly haughty and defiant, sometimes silent and sullen, butalways independent. At the accession of Charles II. The colonists hadthought it worth while to send commissioners to England to confer withthe king and avoid a quarrel. Charles promised to respect their charter, but insisted that in return they must take an oath of allegiance to thecrown, must administer justice in the king's name, and must repeal theirlaws restricting the right of suffrage to church members and prohibitingthe Episcopal form of worship. [Sidenote: Founding of the Old SouthChurch, 1669] [Sidenote: Demands of Charles II. ] When the people of Massachusetts received this message they consented toadminister justice in the king's name, but all the other matters werereferred for consideration to a committee, and so they dropped out ofsight. When the royal commissioners came to Boston in 1664, they wereespecially instructed to ascertain whether Massachusetts had compliedwith the king's demands; but upon this point the legislature stubbornlywithheld any definite answer, while it frittered away the time intrivial altercations with the royal commissioners. The war with Hollandand the turbulent state of English politics operated for several yearsin favour of this independent attitude of the colonists, though duringall this time their enemies at court were busy with intrigues andaccusations. Apart from mere slanders the real grounds of complaintwere the restriction of the suffrage, whereby members of the Church ofEngland were shut out; the claims of the eastern proprietors, heirsof Mason and Gorges, whose territory Massachusetts had absorbed;the infraction of the navigation laws; and the coinage of pine-treeshillings. The last named measure had been forced upon the colonists bythe scarcity of a circulating medium. Until 1661 Indian wampum had beena legal tender, and far into the eighteenth century it remained currentin small transactions. "In 1693 the ferriage from New York to Brooklynwas eight stivers in wampum or a silver twopence. " [35] As early as1652 Massachusetts had sought to supply the deficiency by the issue ofshillings and sixpences. It was an affair of convenience and probablyhad no political purpose. The infraction of the navigation laws was amore serious matter. "Ships from France, Spain, and the Canaries tradeddirectly with Boston, and brought in goods which had never paid duty inany English port. " [36] The effect of this was to excite the jealousyof the merchants in London and other English cities and to depriveMassachusetts of the sympathy of that already numerous and powerfulclass of people. [Sidenote: Complaints against Massachusetts] In 1675, the first year of King Philip's War, the British governmentmade up its mind to attend more closely to the affairs of its Americancolonies. It had got the Dutch war off its hands, and could give heed toother things. The general supervision of the colonies was assigned toa standing committee of the privy council, styled the "Lords of theCommittee of Trade and Plantations, " and henceforth familiarly knownas the "Lords of Trade. " Next year the Lords of Trade sent an agent toBoston, with a letter to Governor Leverett about the Mason and Gorgesclaims. Under cover of this errand the messenger was to go about andascertain the sentiments which people in the Kennebec and Piscataquatowns, as well as in Boston, entertained for the government ofMassachusetts. The person to whom this work was entrusted was EdwardRandolph, a cousin of Robert Mason who inherited the property claim tothe Piscataqua county. To these men had old John Mason bequeathed hisdeadly feud with Massachusetts, and the fourteen years which Randolphnow spent in New England were busily devoted to sowing the seeds ofstrife. In 1678 the king appointed him collector and surveyor of customsat the port of Boston, with instructions to enforce the navigation laws. Randolph was not the man to do unpopular things in such a way as to dullthe edge of the infliction; he took delight in adding insult to injury. He was at once harsh and treacherous. His one virtue was pecuniaryintegrity; he was inaccessible to bribes and did not pick and steal fromthe receipts at the custom-house. In the other relations of life hewas disencumbered of scruples. His abilities were not great, but hisindustry was untiring, and he pursued his enemies with the tenacity of asleuth-hound. As an excellent British historian observes, "he was one ofthose men who, once enlisted as partisans, lose every other feeling inthe passion which is engendered of strife. " [37] [Sidenote: The Lords ofTrade] [Sidenote: Edward Randolph] The arrival of such a man boded no good to Massachusetts. His receptionat the town-house was a cold one. Leverett liked neither his looks norhis message, and kept his peaked hat on while he read the letter; whenhe came to the signature of the king's chief secretary of state, heasked, with careless contempt, "Who is this Henry Coventry?" Randolph'schoking rage found vent in a letter to the king, taking pains to remindhim that the governor of Massachusetts had once been an officer inCromwell's army. As we read this and think with what ghoulish glee thewriter would have betrayed Colonel Goffe into the hands of the headsman, had any clue been given him, we can quite understand why Hubbard andMather had nothing to say about the mysterious stranger at Hadley. Everything that Randolph could think of that would goad and irritate theking, he reported in full to London; his letters were specimens of thatworst sort of lie that is based upon distorted half-truths; and hismalicious pen but seldom lay idle. While waiting for the effects of these reports to ripen, Randolph wasbusily intriguing with some of the leading men in Boston who weredissatisfied with the policy of the dominant party, and under hiscareful handling a party was soon brought into existence which was readyto counsel submission to the royal will. Such was the birth of Toryismin New England. The leader of this party was Joseph Dudley, son ofthe grim verse-maker who had come over as lieutenant to Winthrop. Theyounger Dudley was graduated at Harvard in 1665, and proceeded to studytheology, but soon turned his attention entirely to politics. In 1673 hewas a deputy from Roxbury in the General Court; in 1675 he took part inthe storming of the Narragansett fort; in 1677 and the three followingyears he was one of the Federal Commissioners. In character and temperhe differed greatly from his father. Like the proverbial minister's sonwhose feet are swift toward folly, Joseph Dudley seems to have learnedin stern bleak years of childhood to rebel against the Puritan theory oflife. Much of the abuse that has been heaped upon him, as a renegade andtraitor, is probably undeserved. It does not appear that he ever madeany pretence of love for the Puritan commonwealth, and there were manylike him who had as lief be ruled by king as by clergy. But it cannot bedenied that his suppleness and sagacity went along with a moral naturethat was weak and vulgar. Joseph Dudley was essentially a self-seekingpolitician and courtier, like his famous kinsman of the previouscentury, Robert, Earl of Leicester. His party in Massachusetts waslargely made up of men who had come to the colony for commercialreasons, and had little or no sympathy with the objects for which it wasfounded. Among them were Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Baptists, whowere allowed no chance for public worship, as well as many others who, like Gallio, cared for none of these things. Their numbers, moreover, must have been large, for Boston had grown to be a town of 5000inhabitants, the population of Massachusetts was approaching 30, 000, and, according to Hutchinson, scarcely one grown man in five was achurch-member qualified to vote or hold office. Such a fact speaksvolumes as to the change which was coming over the Puritan world. Nowonder that the clergy had begun to preach about the weeds and taresthat were overrunning Christ's pleasant garden. No wonder that thespirit of revolt against the disfranchising policy of the theocracy wasripe. [Sidenote: Joseph Dudley] It was in 1679, when this weakness of the body politic had been dulystudied and reported by Randolph, and when all New England was groaningunder the bereavements and burdens entailed by Philip's war, that theStuart government began its final series of assaults upon Massachusetts. The claims of the eastern proprietors, the heirs of Mason and Gorges, furnished the occasion. Since 1643 the four Piscataqua towns--Hampton, Exeter, Dover, and Portsmouth--had remained under the jurisdiction ofMassachusetts. After the Restoration the Mason claim had been revived, and in 1677 was referred to the chief-justices North and Rainsford. Their decision was that Mason's claim had always been worthless as basedon a grant in which the old Plymouth Company had exceeded its powers. They also decided that Massachusetts had no valid claim since thecharter assigned her a boundary just north of the Merrimack. Thisdecision left the four towns subject to none but the king, who forthwithin 1679 proceeded to erect them into the royal province of NewHampshire, with president and council appointed by the crown, and anassembly chosen by the people, but endowed with little authority, --atricksome counterfeit of popular government. Within three years anarrogant and thieving ruler, Edward Cranfield, had goaded New Hampshireto acts of insurrection. [Sidenote: Royal province of New Hampshire] To the decisions of the chief-justices Massachusetts must needs submit. The Gorges claim led to more serious results. Under Cromwell's rule in1652--the same year in which she began coining money--Massachusettshad extended her sway over Maine. In 1665 Colonel Nichols and hiscommissioners, acting upon the express instructions of Charles II. , took it away from her. In 1668, after the commissioners had gone home, Massachusetts coolly took possession again. In 1677 the chief-justicesdecided that the claim of the Gorges family, being based on a grant fromJames I. , was valid. Then the young Ferdinando Gorges, grandson of thefirst proprietor, offered to sell the province to the king, who had nowtaken it into his head that he would like to bestow it upon the Dukeof Monmouth, his favourite son by Lucy Walters. Before Charles hadresponded, Governor Leverett had struck a bargain with Gorges, who cededto Massachusetts all his rights over Maine for L1250 in hard cash. Whenthe king heard of this transaction he was furious. He sent a letter toBoston, commanding the General Court to surrender the province again onrepayment of this sum of L1250, and expressing his indignation thatthe people should thus dare to dispose of an important claim off-handwithout consulting his wishes. In the same letter the colony wasenjoined to put in force the royal orders of seventeen years before, concerning the oath of allegiance, the restriction of the suffrage, andthe prohibition of the Episcopal form of worship. [Sidenote: The Gorgesclaim] This peremptory message reached Boston about Christmas, 1679. Leverett, the sturdy Ironsides, had died six months before, and his placewas filled by Simon Bradstreet, a man of moderate powers but greatintegrity, and held in peculiar reverence as the last survivor of thosethat had been chosen to office before leaving England by the leaders ofthe great Puritan exodus. Born in a Lincolnshire village in 1603, he wasnow seventy-six years old. He had taken his degree at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, had served as secretary to the Earl of Warwick, and in 1629had been appointed member of the board of assistants for the colonyabout to be established on Massachusetts bay. In this position he hadremained with honour for half a century, while he had also served asFederal Commissioner and as agent for the colony in London. His wife, who died in 1672, was a woman of quaint learning and quainter verses, which her contemporaries admired beyond measure. One of her books wasrepublished in London, with the title: "The Tenth Muse, lately sprung upin America. " John Norton once said that if Virgil could only have heardthe seraphic poems of Anne Bradstreet, he would have thrown his heathendoggerel into the fire. She was sister of Joseph Dudley, and evidentlyinherited this rhyming talent, such as it was, from her father. GovernorBradstreet belonged to the moderate party who would have been glad toextend the franchise, but he did not go with his brother-in-law insubservience to the king. [Sidenote: Simon Bradstreet and his wife] When the General Court assembled, in May, 1680, the full number ofeighteen assistants appeared, for the first time in the history of thecolony, and in accordance with an expressed wish of the king. Theywere ready to yield in trifles, but not in essentials. After wearisomediscussion, the answer to the royal letter was decided on. It stated invague and unsatisfactory terms that the royal orders of 1662 either hadbeen carried out already or would be in good time, while to the demandfor the surrender of Maine no reply whatever was made, save that "theywere heartily sorry that any actings of theirs should be displeasingto his Majesty. " After this, when Randolph wrote home that the king'sletters were of no more account in Massachusetts than an old LondonGazette, he can hardly be accused of stretching the truth. Randolph keptbusily at work, and seems to have persuaded the Bishop of London thatif the charter could be annulled, episcopacy might be established inMassachusetts as in England. In February, 1682, a letter came from theking demanding submission and threatening legal proceedings against thecharter. Dudley was then sent as agent to London, and with him was senta Mr. Richards, of the extreme clerical party, to watch him. [Sidenote:Massachusetts answers the king] Meanwhile the king's position at home had been changing. He had madeup his mind to follow his father's example and try the experiment ofsetting his people at defiance and governing without a parliament. Thiscould not be done without a great supply of money. Louis XIV. Hadplenty of money, for there was no constitution in France to prevent hissqueezing what he wanted out of the pockets of an oppressed people. France was thriving greatly now, for Colbert had introduced acomparatively free system of trade between the provinces and inauguratedan era of prosperity soon to be cut short by the expulsion of theHuguenots. Louis could get money enough for the asking, and would bedelighted to foment civil disturbances in England, so as to tie thehands of the only power which at that moment could interfere with hisseizing Alsace and Lorraine and invading Flanders. The pretty Louise deKeroualle Duchess of Portsmouth, with her innocent baby face and heartas cold as any reptile's, was the French Delilah chosen to shear thelocks of the British Samson. By such means and from such motives asecret treaty was made in February, 1681, by which Louis agreed to payCharles 2, 000, 000 livres down, and 500, 000 more in each of the next twoyears, on condition that he should summon no more parliaments withinthat time. This bargain for securing the means of overthrowing the lawsand liberties of England was, on the part of Charles II. , an act no lessreprehensible than some of those for which his father had gone to theblock. But Charles could now afford for a while to wreak his evil will. He had already summoned a parliament for the 21st of March, to meet atOxford within the precincts of the subservient university, and out ofreach of the high-spirited freemen of London. He now forced a quarrelwith the new parliament and dissolved it within a week. A joiner namedStephen College, who had spoken his mind too freely in the taverns atOxford with regard to these proceedings, was drawn and quartered. TheWhig leader Lord Shaftesbury was obliged to flee to Holland. In theabsence of a parliament the only power of organized resistance to theking's tyranny resided in the corporate governments of the charteredtowns. The charter of London was accordingly attacked by a writ of_quo warranto_, and in June, 1683, the time-serving judges declared itconfiscated. George Jeffreys, a low drunken fellow whom Charles had madeLord Chief Justice, went on a circuit through the country; and, as RogerNorth says, "made all the charters, like the walls of Jericho, fall downbefore him, and returned laden with surrenders, the spoils of towns. "At the same time a terrible blow was dealt at two of the greatest Whigfamilies in England. Lord William Russell, son of the Earl of Bedford, and Algernon Sidney, younger son of the Earl of Leicester, two of thepurest patriots and ablest liberal leaders of the day, were tried on afalse charge of treason and beheaded. [Sidenote: Secret treaty betweenCharles II. And Louis XIV] [Sidenote: Shameful proceedings in England] By this quick succession of high-handed measures, the friends of law andliberty were for a moment disconcerted and paralyzed. In the frightfulabasement of the courts of justice which these events so clearly showed, the freedom of Englishmen seemed threatened in its last stronghold. Thedoctrine of passive obedience to monarchs was preached in the pulpitsand inculcated by the university of Oxford, which ordered the works ofJohn Milton to be publicly burned. Sir Robert Filmer wrote that "notonly in human laws, but even in divine, a thing may by the king becommanded contrary to law, and yet obedience to such a command isnecessary. " Charles felt so strong that in 1684 he flatly refused tosummon a parliament. It was not long before the effects of all this were felt in New England. The mission of Dudley and his colleague was fruitless. They returned toBoston, and Randolph, who had followed them to London, now followed themback, armed with a writ of _quo warranto_ which he was instructed not toserve until he should have given Massachusetts one more chance to humbleherself in the dust. Should she modify her constitution to please atyrant or see it trampled under foot? Recent events in England servedfor a solemn warning; for the moment the Tories were silenced; perhapsafter all, the absolute rule of a king was hardly to be preferred to thesway of the Puritan clergy; the day when the House of Commons sat stilland wept seemed to have returned. A great town-meeting was held in theOld South Meeting-House, and the moderator requested all who were forsurrendering the charter to hold up their hands. Not a hand was lifted, and out from the throng a solitary voice exclaimed, with deep-drawnbreath, "The Lord be praised!" Then arose Increase Mather, presidentof Harvard College, and reminded them how their fathers did win thischarter, and should they deliver it up unto the spoiler who demanded it"even as Ahab required Naboth's vineyard, Oh! their children would bebound to curse them. " Such was the attitude of Massachusetts, and whenit was known in London, the blow was struck. For technical reasonsRandolph's writ was not served; but on the 21st of June a decree inchancery annulled the charter of Massachusetts. [Sidenote: Massachusettsrefuses to surrender her charter] [Sidenote: It is annulled by degree ofchancery, June 21, 1684] To appreciate the force of this blow we must pause for a moment andconsider what it involved. The right to the soil of North America hadbeen hitherto regarded in England, on the strength of the discoveries ofthe Cabots, as an appurtenance to the crown of Henry VII. , --as somethingwhich descended from father to son like the palace at Hampton Court orthe castle at Windsor, but which the sovereign might alienate by hisvoluntary act just as he might sell or give away a piece of his royaldomain in England. Over this vast territory it was doubtful how farParliament was entitled to exercise authority, and the rights ofEnglishmen settled there had theoretically no security save in theprovisions of the various charters by which the crown had delegated itsauthority to individual proprietors or to private companies. It was thuson the charter granted by Charles I. To the Company of Massachusetts Baythat not only the cherished political and ecclesiastical institutionsof the colony, but even the titles of individuals to their lands andhouses, were supposed to be founded. By the abrogation of the charter, all rights and immunities that had been based upon it were at once sweptaway, and every rood of the soil of Massachusetts became the personalproperty of the Stuart king, who might, if he should possess the willand the power, turn out all the present occupants or otherwise deal withthem as trespassers. Such at least was the theory of Charles II. , andto show that he meant to wreak his vengeance with no gentle hand, heappointed as his viceroy the brutal Percy Kirke, --a man who would haveno scruples about hanging a few citizens without trial, should occasionrequire it. [Sidenote: Effect of annulling the charter] But in February, 1685, just as Charles seemed to be getting everythingarranged to his mind, a stroke of apoplexy carried him off the scene, and his brother ascended the throne. Monmouth's rebellion, and thehorrible cruelties that followed, kept Colonel Kirke busy in Englandthrough the summer, and left the new king scant leisure to think aboutAmerica. Late in the autumn, having made up his mind that he could notspare such an exemplary knave as Kirke, James II. Sent over Sir EdmundAndros. In the mean time the government of Massachusetts had beenadministered by Dudley, who showed himself willing to profit by themisfortunes of his country. Andros had long been one of James'sfavourites. He was the dull and dogged English officer such as one oftenmeets, honest enough and faithful to his master, neither cruel norrapacious, but coarse in fibre and wanting in tact. Some yearsbefore, when governor of New York, he had a territorial dispute withConnecticut, and now cherished a grudge against the people of NewEngland, so that, from James's point of view, he was well fitted to betheir governor. James wished to abolish all the local governmentsin America, and unite them, as far as possible, under a singleadministration. With Plymouth there could be no trouble; she had neverhad a charter, but had existed on sufferance from the outset. In 1687the charters of Rhode Island and Connecticut were rescinded, but thedecrees were not executed in due form. In October of that year Androswent to Hartford, to seize the Connecticut charter but it was notsurrendered. While Sir Edmund was bandying threats with stout RobertTreat, the queller of Indians and now governor of Connecticut, in thecourse of their evening conference the candles were suddenly blown out, and when after some scraping of tinder they were lighted again thedocument was nowhere to be found, for Captain Wadsworth had carriedit away and hidden it in the hollow trunk of a mighty oak tree. Nevertheless for the moment the colony was obliged to submit to thetyrant. Next day the secretary John Allyn wrote "Finis" on the colonialrecords and shut up the book. Within another twelvemonth New York andNew Jersey were added to the viceroyalty of Andros; so that all thenorthern colonies from the forests of Maine to the Delaware river werethus brought under the arbitrary rule of one man, who was responsible tono one but the king for whatever he might take it into his head to do. [Sidenote: Sir Edmund Andros] [Sidenote: The Charter Oak] The vexatious character of the new government was most strongly felt atBoston where Andros had his headquarters. Measures were at once takenfor the erection of an Episcopal church, and meantime the royal orderwas that one of the principal meeting-houses should be seized for theuse of the Church of England. This was an ominous beginning. In theeyes of the people it was much more than a mere question of disturbingPuritan prejudices. They had before them the experience of Scotlandduring the past ten years, the savage times of "Old Mortality, " thetimes which had seen the tyrannical prelate, on the lonely moor, beggingin vain for his life, the times of Drumclog and Bothwell Brigg, ofClaverhouse and his flinty-hearted troopers, of helpless women tied tostakes on the Solway shore and drowned by inches in the rising tide. What had happened in one part of the world might happen in another, forthe Stuart policy was the same. It aimed not at securing toleration butat asserting unchecked supremacy. Its demand for an inch was the preludeto its seizing an ell, and so our forefathers understood it. SirEdmund's formal demand for the Old South Meeting-House was flatlyrefused, but on Good Friday, 1687, the sexton was frightened intoopening it, and thenceforward Episcopal services were held therealternately with the regular services until the overthrow of Andros. Thepastor, Samuel Willard, was son of the gallant veteran who had rescuedthe beleaguered people of Brookfield in King Philip's war. Amusingpassages occurred between him and Sir Edmund, who relished thepleasantry of keeping minister and congregation waiting an hour ortwo in the street on Sundays before yielding to them the use of theirmeeting-house. More kindly memories of the unpopular governor areassociated with the building of the first King's Chapel on the spotwhere its venerable successor now stands. The church was not finisheduntil after Sir Edmund had taken his departure, but Lady Andros, whodied in February, 1688, lies in the burying-ground hard by. Her gentlemanners had won all hearts. For the moment, we are told, one touch ofnature made enemies kin, and as Sir Edmund walked to the townhouse"many a head was bared to the bereaved husband that before had remainedstubbornly covered to the exalted governor. " [38] [Sidenote: Episcopalservices in Boston] [Sidenote: Founding of the King's Chapel, 1689] The despotic rule of Andros was felt in more serious ways than in theseizing upon a meetinghouse. Arbitrary taxes were imposed, encroachmentswere made upon common lands as in older manorial times, and the writ of_habeas corpus_ was suspended. Dudley was appointed censor of the press, and nothing was allowed to be printed without his permission. All thepublic records of the late New England governments were ordered to bebrought to Boston, whither it thus became necessary to make a tediousjourney in order to consult them. All deeds and wills were requiredto be registered in Boston, and excessive fees were charged for theregistry. It was proclaimed that all private titles to land were to beransacked, and that whoever wished to have his title confirmed must paya heavy quit-rent, which under the circumstances amounted to blackmail. The General Court was abolished. The power of taxation was taken fromthe town-meetings and lodged with the governor. Against this crowninginiquity the town of Ipswich, led by its sturdy pastor, John Wise, madeprotest. In response Mr. Wise was thrown into prison, fined £50, andsuspended from the ministry. A notable and powerful character was thisJohn Wise. One of the broadest thinkers and most lucid writers of histime, he seems like a forerunner of the liberal Unitarian divines ofthe nineteenth century. His "Vindication of the Government of the NewEngland Churches, " published in 1717, was a masterly exposition of theprinciples of civil government, and became "a text book of liberty forour Revolutionary fathers, containing some of the notable expressionsthat are used in the Declaration of Independence. " [Sidenote: Tyranny][Sidenote: John Wise of Ipswich] It was on the trial of Mr. Wise in October, 1687, that Dudley openlydeclared that the people of New England had now no further privilegesleft them than not to be sold for slaves. Such a state of things in thevalley of the Euphrates would not have attracted comment; the peasantryof central Europe would have endured it until better instructed; but inan English community it could not last long. If James II. Had remainedupon the throne, New England would surely have soon risen in rebellionagainst Andros. But the mother country had by this time come to repentthe fresh lease of life which she had granted to the Stuart dynastyafter Cromwell's death. Tired of the disgraceful subservience of herCourt to the schemes of Louis XIV. , tired of fictitious plots andjudicial murders, tired of bloody assizes and declarations of indulgenceand all the strange devices of Stuart tyranny, England endured thearrogance of James but three years, and then drove him across theChannel, to get such consolation as he might from his French paymasterand patron. On the 4th of April, 1689, the youthful John Winslow broughtto Boston the news of the landing of the Prince of Orange in England. For the space of two weeks there was quiet and earnest deliberationamong the citizens, as the success of the Prince's enterprise was notyet regarded as assured. But all at once, on the morning of the 18th, the drums beat to arms, the signal-fire was lighted on Beacon Hill, ameeting was held at the Town-House, militia began to pour in from thecountry, and Andros, summoned to surrender, was fain to beseech Mr. Willard and the other ministers to intercede for him. But the ministersrefused. Next day the Castle was surrendered, the Rose frigate riding inthe harbour was seized and dismantled, and Andros was arrested as he wastrying to effect his escape disguised in woman's clothes. Dudley and theother agents of tyranny were also imprisoned, and thus the revolutionwas accomplished. It marks the importance which the New England colonieswere beginning to attain, that, before the Prince of Orange had fullysecured the throne, he issued a letter instructing the people of Bostonto preserve decorum and acquiesce yet a little longer in the governmentof Andros, until more satisfactory arrangements could be made. ButIncrease Mather, who was then in London on a mission in behalf of NewEngland, judiciously prevented this letter of instructions from beingsent. The zeal of the people outstripped the cautious policy of thenew sovereign, and provisional governments, in accordance with the oldcharters, were at once set up in the colonies lately ruled by Andros. Bradstreet now in his eighty-seventh year was reinstated as governor ofMassachusetts. Five weeks after this revolution in Boston the order toproclaim King William and Queen Mary was received, amid such rejoicingsas had never before been seen in that quiet town, for it was believedthat self-government would now be guaranteed to New England. [Sidenote:Fall of James II. ] [Sidenote: Insurrection in Boston, and overthrow ofAndros, April 18, 1689] This hope was at least so far realized that from the most formidabledangers which had threatened it, New England was henceforth secured. The struggle with the Stuarts was ended, and by this second revolutionwithin half a century the crown had received a check from which it neverrecovered. There were troubles yet in store for England, but no moresuch outrages as the judicial murders of Russell and Sidney. New Englandhad still a stern ordeal to go through, but never again was she to beso trodden down and insulted as in the days of Andros. The efforts ofGeorge III. To rule Englishmen despotically were weak as compared withthose of the Stuarts. In his time England had waxed strong enough tocurb the tyrant, America had waxed strong enough to defy and disown him. After 1689 the Puritan no longer felt that his religion was in danger, and there was a reasonable prospect that charters solemnly granted himwould be held sacred. William III. Was a sovereign of modern type, fromwhom freedom of thought and worship had nothing to fear. In his theologyhe agreed, as a Dutch Calvinist, more nearly with the Puritans than withthe Church of England. At the same time he had no great liking for somuch independence of thought and action as New England had exhibited. Inthe negotiations which now definitely settled the affairs of this partof the world, the intractable behaviour of Massachusetts was borne inmind and contrasted with the somewhat less irritating attitude ofthe smaller colonies. It happened that the decree which annulled thecharters of Rhode Island and Connecticut had not yet been formallyenrolled. It was accordingly treated as void, and the old charters wereallowed to remain in force. They were so liberal that no change inthem was needed at the time of the Revolution, so that Connecticut wasgoverned under its old charter until 1818, and Rhode Island until 1842. [Sidenote: Effects of the Revolution of 1689] There was at this time a disposition on the part of the Britishgovernment to unite all the northern colonies under a singleadministration. The French in Canada were fast becoming rivals to befeared; and the wonderful explorations of La Salle, bringing the St. Lawrence into political connection with the Mississippi, had at lengthforeshadowed a New France in the rear of all the English colonies, aiming at the control of the centre of the continent and eager toconfine the English to the sea-board. Already the relations of positionwhich led to the great Seven Years' War were beginning to shapethemselves; and the conflict between France and England actually brokeout in 1689, as soon as Louis XIV. 's hired servant, James II. , wassuperseded by William III. As king of England and head of a Protestantleague. [Sidenote: Need for union among all the northern colonies] In view of this new state of affairs, it was thought desirable to unitethe northern English colonies under one head, so far as possible, inorder to secure unity of military action. But natural prejudices had tobe considered. The policy of James II. Had aroused such bitter feelingin America that William must needs move with caution. Accordingly he didnot seek to unite New York with New England, and he did not think itworth while to carry out the attack which James had only begun uponConnecticut and Rhode Island. As for New Hampshire, he seems to havebeen restrained by what in the language of modern politics would becalled "pressure, " brought to bear by certain local interests. [39]But in the case of the little colony founded by the Pilgrims of theMayflower there was no obstacle. She was now annexed to Massachusetts, which also received not only Maine but even Acadia, just won from theFrench; so that, save for the short break at Portsmouth, the coast ofMassachusetts now reached all the way from Martha's Vineyard to the Gulfof St. Lawrence. [Sidenote: Plymouth, Maine, and Acadia, annexed toMassachusetts] But along with this great territorial extension there went somecurtailment of the political privileges of the colony. By the newcharter of 1692 the right of the people to be governed by a legislatureof their own choosing was expressly confirmed. The exclusive right ofthis legislature to impose taxes was also confirmed. But henceforth noqualification of church-membership, but only a property qualification, was to be required of voters; the governor was to be appointed by thecrown instead of being elected by the people; and all laws passed bythe legislature were to be sent to England for royal approval. Thesefeatures of the new charter, --the extension, or if I may so call it, the_secularization_ of the franchise, the appointment of the governorby the crown, and the power of veto which the crown expresslyreserved, --were grave restrictions upon the independence whichMassachusetts had hitherto enjoyed. Henceforth her position was to belike that of the other colonies with royal governors. But her historydid not thereby lose its interest or significance, though it became, like the history of most of the colonies, a dismal record ofirrepressible bickerings between the governor appointed by the crown andthe legislature elected by the people. In the period that began in 1692and ended in 1776, the movements of Massachusetts, while restrictedand hampered, were at the same time forced into a wider orbit. She wasbrought into political sympathy with Virginia. While two generationsof men were passing across the scene, the political problems ofMassachusetts were assimilated to those of Virginia. In spite of allthe other differences, great as they were, there was a likeness in thestruggles between the popular legislature and the royal governor whichsubordinated them all. It was this similarity of experience, duringthe eighteenth century, that brought these two foremost colonies intocordial alliance during the struggle against George III. , and thus madeit possible to cement all the colonies together in the mighty nationwhose very name is fraught with so high and earnest a lesson tomankind, --the UNITED STATES! [Sidenote: Massachusetts becomes a royalprovince] For such a far-reaching result, the temporary humiliation ofMassachusetts was a small price to pay. But it was not until long afterthe accession of William III. That things could be seen in these grandoutlines. With his coronation began the struggle of seventy yearsbetween France and England, far grander than the struggle between Romeand Carthage, two thousand years earlier, for primacy in the world, for the prerogative of determining the future career of mankind. Thatwarfare, so fraught with meaning, was waged as much upon American asupon European ground; and while it continued, it was plainly for theinterest of the British government to pursue a conciliatory policytoward its American colonies, for without their wholehearted assistanceit could have no hope of success. As soon as the struggle was ended, andthe French power in the colonial world finally overthrown, the perpetualquarrels between the popular legislatures and the royal governors ledimmediately to the Stamp Act and the other measures of the Britishgovernment that brought about the American revolution. People sometimesargue about that revolution as if it had no past behind it and wassimply the result of a discussion over abstract principles. [Sidenote:Seeds of the American Revolution already sown] We can now see that while the dispute involved an abstract principle offundamental importance to mankind, it was at the same time for Americansillustrated by memories sufficiently concrete and real. James Otisin his prime was no further distant from the tyranny of Andros thanmiddle-aged men of to-day are distant from the Missouri Compromise. Thesons of men cast into jail along with John Wise may have stood silent inthe moonlight on Griffin's Wharf and looked on while the contents of thetea-chests were hurled into Boston harbour. In the events we have herepassed in review, it may be seen, so plainly that he who runs may read, how the spirit of 1776 was foreshadowed in 1689. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE. An interesting account of the Barons' War and the meeting of the firstHouse of Commons is given in Prothero's _Simon de Montfort_, London, 1877. For Wyclif and the Lollards, see Milman's _Latin Christianity_, vol. Vii. The ecclesiastical history of the Tudor period may best be studied inthe works of John Strype, to wit, _Historical Memorials_, 6 vols. ;_Annals of the Reformation_, 7 vols. ; _Lives of Cranmer, Parker, Whitgift, etc. _, Oxford, 1812-28. See also _Burnet's History of theReformation of the Church of England_, 3 vols. , London, 1679-1715;Neal's _History of the Puritans_, London, 1793; Tulloch, _Leaders of theReformation_, Boston, 1859. A vast mass of interesting information isto be found in _The Zurich Letters, comprising the Correspondenceof Several English Bishops, and Others, with some of the HelvetianReformers_, published by the Parker Society, 4 vols. , Cambridge, Eng. , 1845-46. Hooker's _Ecclesiastical Polity_ was published in London, 1594;a new edition, containing two additional books, the first completeedition, was published in 1622. For the general history of England in the seventeenth century, there aretwo modern works which stand far above all others, --Gardiner's _Historyof England_, 10 vols. , London, 1883-84; and Masson's _Life of Milton, narrated in connection with the Political, Ecclesiastical, and LiteraryHistory of his Time_, 6 vols. , Cambridge, Eng. , 1859-80. These arebooks of truly colossal erudition, and written in a spirit of judicialfairness. Mr. Gardiner's ten volumes cover the forty years from theaccession of James I. To the beginning of the Civil War, 1603-1643. Mr. Gardiner has lately published the first two volumes of his history ofthe Civil War, and it is to be hoped that he will not stop until hereaches the accession of William and Mary. Indeed, such books as hisought never to stop. My friend and colleague, Prof. Hosmer, tells methat Mr. Gardiner is a lineal descendant of Cromwell and Ireton. Hislittle book, _The Puritan Revolution_, in the "Epochs of History"series, is extremely useful, and along with it one should read Airy's_The English Restoration and Louis XIV_. , in the same series, New York, 1889. The best biography of Cromwell is by Mr. Allanson Picton, London, 1882; see also Frederic Harrison's _Cromwell_, London, 1888, anexcellent little book. Hosmer's _Young Sir Henry Vane_, Boston, 1888, should be read in the same connection; and one should not forgetCarlyle's _Cromwell_. See also Tulloch, _English Puritanism and itsLeaders_, 1861, and _Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy inEngland in the Seventeenth Century_, 1872; Skeats, _History of theFree Churches of England_, London, 1868; Mountfield, _The Church andPuritans_, London, 1881. Dexter's _Congregationalism of the Last ThreeHundred Years_, New York, 1880, is a work of monumental importance. On the history of New England the best general works are Palfrey, _History of New England_, 4 vols. , Boston, 1858-75; and Doyle, _TheEnglish in America--The Puritan Colonies_, 2 vols. , London, 1887. Inpoint of scholarship Dr. Palfrey's work is of the highest order, andit is written in an interesting style. Its only shortcoming is that itdeals somewhat too leniently with the faults of the Puritan theocracy, and looks at things too exclusively from a Massachusetts point of view. It is one of the best histories yet written in America. Mr. Doyle's workis admirably fair and impartial, and is based throughout upon a carefulstudy of original documents. The author is a Fellow of All SoulsCollege, Oxford, and has apparently made American history his specialty. His work on the Puritan colonies is one of a series which when completedwill cover the whole story of English colonization in America. I havelooked in vain in his pages for any remark or allusion indicating thathe has ever visited America, and am therefore inclined to think that hehas not done so. He now and then makes a slight error such as wouldnot be likely to be made by a native of New England, but this is veryseldom. The accuracy and thoroughness of its research, its judicialtemper, and its philosophical spirit make Mr. Doyle's book in somerespects the best that has been written about New England. Among original authorities we may begin by citing John Smith's_Description of New England_, 1616, and _New England's Trial_, 1622, contained in Arber's new edition of Smith's works, London, 1884. Bradford's narrative of the founding of Plymouth was for a long timesupposed to be lost. Nathaniel Morton's _New England's Memorial_, published in 1669, was little more than an abridgment of it. After twocenturies Bradford's manuscript was discovered, and an excellent editionby Mr. Charles Deane was published in the _Massachusetts HistoricalCollections_, 4th series, vol. Iii. , 1856. Edward Winslow's _Journal ofthe Proceedings of the English Plantation settled at Plymouth_, 1622, and _Good News from New England_, 1624, are contained, with othervaluable materials, in Young's _Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers_, Boston, 1844. See also Shurtleff and Pulsifer, _Records of Plymouth_, 12 vols. , ending with the annexation of the colony to Massachusetts in1692; Prince's _Chronological History of New England_, ed. Drake, 1852;and in this connection Hunter's _Founders of New Plymouth_, London, 1854; Steele's _Life of Brewster_, Philadelphia, 1857; Goodwin's_Pilgrim Republic_, Boston, 1887; Bacon's _Genesis of the New EnglandChurches_, New York, 1874; Baylies's _Historical Memoir_, 1830;Thacher's _History of the Town of Plymouth_, 1832. Sir Ferdinando Gorges wrote a _Briefe Narration of the OriginallUndertakings of the advancement of plantations into the parts ofAmerica, especially showing the beginning, progress, and continuanceof that of New England_, London, 1658, contained in his grandson'scollection entitled _America Painted to the Life_. Thomas Morton, ofMerrymount, gave his own view of the situation in his _New EnglishCanaan_, which has been edited for the Prince Society, with greatlearning, by C. F. Adams. Samuel Maverick also had his say in a valuablepamphlet entitled _A Description of New England_, which has only cometo light since 1875 and has been edited by Mr. Deane. Maverick is, ofcourse, hostile to the Puritans. See also Lechford's _Plain Dealing inNew England_, ed. J. H. Trumbull, 1867. The earliest history of Massachusetts is by Winthrop himself, a work ofpriceless value. In 1790, nearly a century and a half after the author'sdeath, it was published at Hartford. The best edition is that of 1853. In 1869 a valuable life of Winthrop was published by his descendantRobert Winthrop. Hubbard's _History of New England_ (_Mass. Hist. Coll. _, 2d series, vols. V. , vi. ) is drawn largely from Winthrop andfrom Nathaniel Morton. There is much that is suggestive in WilliamWood's _New England's Prospect_, 1634, and Edward Johnson's_Wonder-working Providence of Zion's Saviour in New England_, 1654; thelatter has been ably edited by W. F. Poole, Andover, 1867. The recordsof the Massachusetts government, from its founding in 1629 down to theoverthrow of the charter in 1684, were edited by Dr. Shurtleff in 6vols. Quarto, 1853-54; and among the documents in the British RecordOffice, published since 1855, three volumes--_Calendar of State Papers_, _Colonial America_, vol. I. , 1574-1660; vol. V. , 1661-1668; vol. Vii. , 1669--are especially useful. Of the later authorities the best isHutchinson's _History of Massachusetts Bay_, the first volume of which, coming down to 1689, was published in Boston in 1764. The second volume, continuing the narrative to 1749, was published in 1767. The thirdvolume, coming down to 1774, was found among the illustrious author'sMSS. After his death, and was published in London in 1828. Hutchinsonhad access to many valuable documents since lost, and his sound judgmentand critical acumen deserve the highest praise. In 1769 he publisheda volume of _Original Papers_, illustrating the period covered by thefirst volume of his history. Many priceless documents perished in theshameful sacking of his house by the Boston rioters, Aug. 26, 1765. Thesecond volume of Hutchinson's _History_ was continued to 1764 by G. R. Minot, 2 vols. , 1798, and to 1820 by Alden Bradford, 3 vols. , 1822-29. Of recent works, the best is Barry's _History of Massachusetts_, 3vols. , 1855-57. Many original authorities are collected in Young's_Chronicles of Massachusetts_, Boston, 1846. Cotton Mather's _MagnoliaChristi Americana_, London, 1702 (reprinted in 1820 and 1853), thoughcrude and uncritical, is full of interest. Many of the early Massachusetts documents relate to Maine. Of laterbooks, especial mention should be made of Folsom's _History of Saco andBiddeford_, Saco, 1830; Willis's _History of Portland_, 2 vols. , 1831-33(2d ed. 1865); _Memorial Volume of the Popham Celebration_, Portland, 1862; Chamberlain's _Maine, Her Place in History_, Augusta, 1877. On NewHampshire the best general work is Belknap's _History of New Hampshire_, 3 vols. , Phila. , 1784-92; the appendix contains many originaldocuments, and others are to be found in the _New Hampshire HistoricalCollections_, 8 vols. , 1824-66. The _Connecticut Colonial Records_ are edited by Dr. J. H. Trumbull, 12 vols. , 1850-82. The _Connecticut Historical Society's Collections_, 1860-70, are of much value. The best general work is Trumbull's _Historyof Connecticut_, 2 vols. , Hartford, 1797. See also Stiles's _AncientWindsor_, 2 vols. , 1859-63; Cothren's _Ancient Woodbury_, 3 vols. , 1854-79. Of the Pequot War we have accounts by three of the principalactors. Mason's _History of the Pequod War_ is in the _Mass. Hist. Coll. _, 2d series, vol. Viii. ; Underhill's _News from America_ is in the3d series, vol. Vi. ; and Lyon Gardiner's narrative is in the 3d series, vol. Iii. In the same volume with Underhill is contained _A TrueRelation of the late Battle fought in New England between the Englishand the Pequod Savages_, by Philip Vincent, London, 1638. The _New HavenColony Records_ are edited by C. J. Hoadly, 2 vols. , Hartford, 1857-58. See also the _New Haven Historical Society's Papers_, 3 vols. , 1865-80;Lambert's _History of New Haven_, 1838; Atwater's _History of NewHaven_, 1881; Levermore's _Republic of New Haven_, Baltimore, 1886;Johnston's _Connecticut_, Boston, 1887. The best account of the BlueLaws is by J. H. Trumbull, _The True Blue Laws of Connecticut and NewHaven, and the False Blue Laws invented by the Rev. Samuel Peters_, etc. , Hartford, 1876. See also Hinman's _Blue Laws of New Haven Colony_, Hartford, 1838; Barber's _History and Antiquities of New Haven_, 1831;Peters's _History of Connecticut_, London, 1781. The story of theregicides is set forth in Stiles's _History of the Three Judges_ [thethird being Colonel Dixwell], Hartford, 1794; see also the _MatherPapers_ in _Mass. Hist. Coll. _, 4th series, vol. Viii. _The Rhode Island Colonial Records_ are edited by J. R. Bartlett, 7vols. , 1856-62. One of the best state histories ever written is thatof S. G. Arnold, _History of the State of Rhode Island and ProvidencePlantations_, 2 vols. , New York, 1859-60. Many valuable documents arereprinted in the _Rhode Island Historical Society's Collections_. The_History of New England, with particular reference to the denominationcalled Baptists_, by Rev. Isaac Backus, 3 vols. , 1777-96, has muchthat is valuable relating to Rhode Island. The series of _Rhode IslandHistorical Tracts_, issued since 1878 by Mr. S. S. Rider, is of greatmerit. Biographies of Roger Williams have been written by J. D. Knowles, 1834; by William Gammell, 1845; and by Romeo Elton, 1852. Williams'sworks have been republished by the Narragansett Club in 6 vols. , 1866. The first volume contains the valuable _Key to the Indian Languages ofAmerica_, edited by Dr. Trumbull. Williams's views of religious libertyare set forth in his _Bloudy Tenent of Persecution_, London, 1644; towhich John Cotton replied in _The Bloudy Tenent washed and made White inthe Blood of the Lamb_, London, 1647; Williams's rejoinder was entitled_The Bloudy Tenent made yet more Bloudy through Mr. Cotton's attemptto Wash it White_, London, 1652. The controversy was conducted on bothsides with a candour and courtesy rare in that age. The titles ofWilliams's other principal works, _George Fox digged out of hisBurrowes_, Boston, 1676; _Hireling Ministry none of Christ's_, London, 1652; and _Christenings make not Christians_, 1643; sufficientlyindicate their character. The last-named tract was discovered in theBritish Museum by Dr. Dexter and edited by him in Rider's _Tracts_, No. Xiv. , 1881. The treatment of Roger Williams by the governmentof Massachusetts is thoroughly discussed in Dexter's _As to RogerWilliams_, Boston, 1876. See also G. E. Ellis on "The Treatment ofIntruders and Dissentients by the Founders of Massachusetts, " in _LowellLectures_, Boston, 1869. The case of Mrs. Hutchinson is treated, from a hostile and somewhattruculent point of view, in Thomas Welde's pamphlet entitled _A ShortStory of the Rise, Reign, and Ruin of Antinomians, Familists, andLibertines that infected the Churches of New England_, London, 1644. Itwas answered in an anonymous pamphlet entitled _Mercurius Americanus_, republished for the Prince Society, Boston, 1876, with prefatory noticeby C. H. Bell. Cotton's view of the theocracy may be seen in his _Milkfor Babes, drawn out of the Breasts of both Testaments_, London, 1646;_Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven_; and _Way of the CongregationalChurches Cleared_, London, 1648. See also Thomas Hooker's _Survey of theSumme of Church Discipline_, London, 1648. The intolerant spirit of thetime finds quaint and forcible expression in Nathaniel Ward's satiricalbook, _The Simple Cobbler of Aggawam_, 1647. For the Gorton controversy the best original authorities are his ownbook entitled _Simplicitie's Defence against Sevenheaded Polity_, London, 1646; and Winslow's answer entitled _Hypocracie Unmasked_, London, 1646. See also Mackie's _Life of Samuel Gorton_, Boston, 1845, and Brayton's _Defence of Samuel Gorton_, in Rider's _Tracts_, No. Xvii. For the early history of the Quakers, see Robert Barclay's _Inner Lifeof the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth_, London, 1876, --anadmirable book. See also _New England a Degenerate Plant_, 1659;Bishop's _New England judged by the Spirit of the Lord_, 1661; Sewel's_History of the Quakers_, 1722; Besse's _Sufferings of the Quakers_, 1753; _The Popish Inquisition newly erected in New England_, London, 1659; _The Secret Works of a Cruel People made Manifest_, 1659; and thepamphlet of the martyrs Stevenson and Robinson, entitled _A Call fromDeath to Life_, 1660. John Norton's view of the case was presented inhis book, _The Heart of New England Rent at the Blasphemies of thePresent Generation_, London, 1660. See also J. S. Pike's _New Puritan_, New York, 1879; Hallowell's _Pioneer Quakers_, Boston, 1887; and his_Quaker Invasion of Massachusetts_, Boston, 1883; Brooks Adams, _TheEmancipation of Massachusetts_, Boston, 1887; Ellis, _The Puritan Ageand Rule_, Boston, 1888. Some additional light upon the theocratic idea may be found in atreatise by the apostle Eliot, _The Christian Commonwealth; or, theCivil Polity of the Rising Kingdom of Jesus Christ_, London, 1659. Anaccount of Eliot's missionary work is given in _The Day breaking, if notthe Sun rising, of the Gospel with the Indians in New England_, London, 1647; and _The Glorious Progress of the Gospel amongst the Indians inNew England_, 1649. See also Shepard's _Clear Sunshine of the Gospelbreaking forth upon the Indians_, 1648; and Whitfield's _Light appearingmore and more towards the Perfect Day_, 1651. The principal authority for Philip's war is Hubbard's _Present State ofNew England, being a Narrative of the Troubles with the Indians_, 1677. Church's _Entertaining Passages relating to Philip's War_, published in1716, and republished in 1865, with notes by Mr. Dexter, is a charmingbook. See also Mrs. Rowlandson's _True History_, Cambridge, Mass. , 1682; Mather's _Brief History of the War_, 1676; Drake's _Old IndianChronicle_, Boston, 1836; Gookin's _Historical Collections of theIndians in New England_, 1674; and _Account of the Doings and Sufferingsof the Christian Indians_, in _Archchaeologia Americana_, vol. Ii. Batten's _Journal_ is the diary of a citizen of Boston, sent to England, and it now in MS. Among the _Colonial Papers_. Mrs. Mary Pray's letter(Oct. 20, 1675) is in _Mass. Hist. Coll. _, 5th series, vol. I. P. 105. The great storehouse of information for the Andros period is the _AndrosTracts_, 3 vols. , edited for the Prince Society by W. H. Whitmore. Seealso Sewall's _Diary, Mass. Hist. Coll. _, 5th series, vols. V. --viii. Sewall has been appropriately called the Puritan Pepys. His book is amirror of the state of society in Massachusetts at the time when it wasbeginning to be felt that the old theocratic idea had been tried in thebalance and found wanting. There is a wonderful charm in such a book. Itmakes one feel as if one had really "been there" and taken part in thehomely scenes, full of human interest, which it so naively portrays. Anne Bradstreet's works have been edited by J. H. Ellis, Charlestown, 1867. For further references and elaborate bibliographical discussions, seeWinsor's _Narrative and Critical History of America_, vol. Iii. ; and his_Memorial History of Boston_, 4 vols. , Boston, 1880. There is a goodaccount of the principal New England writers of the seventeenth century, with illustrative extracts, in Tyler's _History of American Literature_, 2 vols. , New York, 1878. For extracts see also the first two volumes ofStedman and Hutchinson's _Library of American Literature_, New York, 1888. In conclusion I would observe that town histories, though seldom writtenin a philosophical spirit and apt to be quite amorphous in structure, are a mine of wealth for the philosophic student of history. NOTES: [1] Milman, _Lat. Christ. _ vii. 395. [2] Gardiner, _The Puritan Revolution_, p. 12. [3] Green, _History of the English People_, iii. 47. [4] Steele's _Life of Brewster, _ p. 161. [5] Gardiner, _Puritan Revolution_, p. 50. [6] It is now 204 years since a battle has been fought in England. Thelast was Sedgmoor in 1685. For four centuries, since Bosworth, in 1485, the English people have lived in peace in their own homes, except forthe brief episode of the Great Rebellion, and Monmouth's slight affair. This long peace, unparalleled in history, has powerfully influenced theEnglish and American character for good. Since the Middle Ages mostEnglish warfare has been warfare at a distance, and that does notnourish the brutal passions in the way that warfare at home does. An instructive result is to be seen in the mildness of temper whichcharacterized the conduct of our stupendous Civil War. Nothing like itwas ever seen before. [7] Picton's _Cromwell_, pp. 61, 67; Gardiner, _Puritan Revolution_, p. 72. [8] Quincy, History of Harvard University, ii. 654. [9] C. F. Adams, _Sir Christopher Gardiner, Knight_, p. 31. [10] The compact drawn up in the Mayflower's cabin was not, in thestrict sense a constitution, which is a document defining and limitingthe functions of government. Magna Charta partook of the nature ofa written constitution, as far as it went, but it did not create agovernment. [11] See Johnston's Connecticut, p. 321, a very brilliant book. [12] See the passionate exclamation of Endicott, below, p. 190. [13] Excursions of an Evolutionist: pp. 250, 255. [14] A glimmer of light upon Gorton may be got from reading thetitle-page of one of his books: "AN INCORRUPTIBLE KEY, composed of theCX PSALME, wherewith you may open the Rest of the Holy Scriptures;Turning itself only according to the Composure and Art of that Lock, ofthe Closure and Secresie of that great Mystery of God manifest in theFlesh, but justified only by the Spirit, which it evidently openethand revealeth, out of Fall and Resurrection, Sin and Righteousness, Ascension and Descension, Height and Depth, First and Last, Beginningand Ending, Flesh and Spirit, Wisdome and Foolishnesse, Strengthand Weakness, Mortality and Immortality, Jew and Gentile, Light andDarknesse, Unity and Multiplication, Fruitfulness and Barrenness, Curseand Blessing, Man and Woman, Kingdom and Priesthood, Heaven and Earth, Allsufficiency and Deficiency, God and Man. And out of every Unity madeup of twaine, it openeth that great two-leafed Gate, which is the soleEntrie into the City of God, of New Jerusalem, _into which none but theKing of glory can enter_; and as that Porter openeth the Doore of theSheepfold, _by which whosoever entreth is the Shepheard of the Sheep_;See Isa. 45. 1. Psal. 24. 7, 8, 9, 10. John 10. 1, 2, 3; Or, (accordingto the Signification of the Word translated _Psalme_, ) it is aPruning-Knife, to lop off from the Church of Christ all superfluousTwigs _of earthly and carnal Commandments_, Leviticall Services orMinistery, and fading and vanishing Priests, or Ministers, who are takenaway and cease, and are not established and confirmed by Death, asholding no Correspondency with the princely Dignity, Office, andMinistry of our _Melchisedek_, who is the only Minister and Ministry ofthe Sanctuary, and of that true Tabernacle which the Lord pitcht, andnot Man. For it supplants the Old Man, and implants the New; abrogatesthe Old Testament or Covenant, and confirms the New, unto a thousandGenerations, or in Generations forever. By Samuel Gorton, _Gent. _, and at the time of penning hereof, in the Place of Judicature (uponAquethneck, alias Road Island) of Providence Plantations in theNanhyganset Bay, New England. Printed in the Yeere 1647. " [15] Father of Benedict Arnold, afterward governor of Rhode Island, andowner of the stone windmill (apparently copied from one in Chesterton, Warwickshire) which was formerly supposed by some antiquarians to be avestige of the Northmen. Governor Benedict Arnold was great-grandfatherof the traitor. [16] _Gorton, Simplicitie's Defence against Seven-headed Policy_, p. 88. [17] De Forest, _History of the Indians of Connecticut_, Hartford, 1850, p. 198. [18] Doyle, _Puritan Colonies_, i. 324. [19] See below, p. 222, note. [20] See my _Excursions of an Evolutionist, _ pp. 239-242, 250-255, 286-289. [21] Gorton's life at Warwick, after all these troubles, seems to havebeen quiet and happy. He died in 1677 at a great age. In 1771 Dr. EzraStiles visited, in Providence, his last surviving disciple, born in1691. This old man said that Gorton wrote in heaven, and none canunderstand his books except those who live in heaven while on earth. [22] Doyle, _Puritan Colonies_, : i. 369. [23] Doyle, i. : 372. [24] Milman, _Latin Christianity_, vii. 390. [25] Doyle, ii. 133, 134; Rhode Island Records, i. 377, 378. [26] Colonial Laws of Massachusetts, pp. 14-16; Levermore's Republic ofNew Haven, p. 153. [27] See my remarks above, p. 145. [28] The daring passage in the sermon is thus given in Bacon's_Historical Discourses_, New Haven, 1838: "Withhold not countenance, entertainment, and protection from the people of God--whom men may callfools and fanatics--if any such come to you from other countries, as from France or England, or any other place. Be not forgetful toentertain strangers. Remember those that are in bonds, as bound withthem. The Lord required this of Moab, saying, 'Make thy shadow as thenight in the midst of the noonday; hide the outcasts; bewray not himthat wandereth. Let mine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab; be thou acovert to them from the face of the spoiler. ' Is it objected--'But so Imay expose myself to be spoiled or troubled'? He, therefore, to removethis objection, addeth, 'For the extortioner is at an end, the spoilerceaseth, the oppressors are consumed out of the land. ' While we areattending to our duty in owning and harbouring Christ's witnesses, Godwill be providing for their and our safety, by destroying those thatwould destroy his people. " [29] Palfrey, _History of New England, _ in. 138-140. [30] See Parkman, _Conspiracy of Pontiac_, i. 80-85. [31] De Forest, _History of the Indians of Connecticut, _ pp. 252, 257. [32] The story rests chiefly upon the statements of Hutchinson, anextremely careful and judicious writer, and not in the least whatthe French call a _gobemouche_. Goffe kept a diary which came intoHutchinson's possession, and was one of the priceless manuscripts thatperished in the infamous sacking of his house by the Boston mob ofAugust 26, 1765. What light that diary might have thrown upon the mattercan never be known. Hutchinson was born in 1711, only thirty-six yearsafter the event, so that his testimony is not so very far removed fromthat of a contemporary. Whalley seems to have died in Hadley shortlybefore 1675, and Goffe deemed it prudent to leave that neighbourhood in1676. His letters to Increase Mather are dated from "Ebenezer, " i. E. , wherever in his roamings he set up his Ebenezer. One of these letters, dated September 8, 1676, shows that his Ebenezer was then set up inHartford, where probably he died about 1679 In 1676 the arrival ofEdward Randolph (see below, p. 256) renewed the peril of the regicidejudge, and his sudden removal from his skilfully contrived hiding-placeat Hadley might possibly have been due to his having exposed himselfto recognition in the Indian fight. Possibly even the supernaturalexplanation might have been started, with a touch of Yankee humour, asa blind. The silence of Mather and Hubbard was no more remarkable thansome of the other ingenious incidents which had so long served toconceal the existence of this sturdy and crafty man. The reasons fordoubting the story are best stated by Mr. George Sheldon of Deerfield, in _Hist. -Genealogical Register_, October, 1874. [33] If Philip was half the diplomatist that he is represented intradition, he never would have gone into such a war without assurance ofNarragansett help. Canonchet was a far more powerful sachem than Philip, and played a more conspicuous part in the war. May we not suppose thatCanonchet's desire to avenge his father's death was one of the principalincentives to the war; that Philip's attack upon Swanzey was a prematureexplosion; and that Canonchet then watched the course of events for awhile before making up his mind whether to abandon Philip or supporthim? [34] A wretched little werewolf who some few years ago, being then a ladof fourteen or fifteen years, most cruelly murdered two or threeyoung children, just to amuse himself with their dying agonies. Themisdirected "humanitarianism, " which in our country makes every murdereran object of popular sympathy, prevailed to save this creature fromthe gallows. Massachusetts has lately witnessed a similar instance ofmisplaced clemency in the case of a vile woman who had poisoned eight orten persons, including some of her own children, in order to profitby their life insurance. Such instances help to explain the prolongedvitality of "Judge Lynch, " and sometimes almost make one regret the daysin old England when William Probert, after escaping in 1824 as "king'sevidence, " from the Thurtell affair, got caught and hanged within atwelvemonth for horse-stealing. Any one who wishes to study the resultsof allowing criminality to survive and propagate itself should readDugdale's The Jukes; Hereditary Crime, New York, 1877. [35] Weeden, _Indian Money as a Factor in New England Civilization_, Johns Hopkins University Studies, II. Viii. , ix. P. 30. [36] Doyle, ii. 253. [37] Doyle, _Puritan Colonies_, ii. 254. [38] The quotation is from an unpublished letter of Rev. RobertRatcliffe to the Bishop of London, cited in an able article in the_Boston Herald_, January 4, 1888. I have not seen the letter. [39] Doyle, _Puritan Colonies_, ii. 379, 380.