« 上一頁繼續 »
sound learning. Several of them had enjoyed a university education in England, and were men of considerable acquirements. Their literary taste was of course in accordance with their religious views. We find Josselyn carrying with him from England to “Mr. Cotton, the teacher of Boston Church,” the same who defended the cause of Massachusetts intolerance against the attacks of Roger Williams, “the translation of several Psalms in English metre for his approbation, as a present
from Mr. Francis Quarles, the poet.”
Controversial divinity was extensively cultivated. Free schools and grammar schools were provided. A sort of training college had been established at
Newtown, a suburb of Boston, which Mr. John Harvard, at his death in 1638, endowed with his library and half his estate. It was now styled by the name of the generous benefactor, and the place was called Cambridge af. ter the famous University in England. By annual grants, donations of individuals, etc., the new college was enabled to lay the foundation of its future strength and influence. It was at Cambridge—about 1640—that the first printing press in America, was set up. Who could then have dreamed what less than two hundred years has brought forth, or have predicted the mighty power of the press in the nineteenth century Ż . . . . .
C EIA PT E R X II.
N E W E N G L AND UN DER C H A R L E S II. AND J. A. M. ES II.
Restoration of Charles II. — Course adopted by the colonists — Declaration of Rights—Internal difficulties and trials – Majority in favor of resisting royal supremacy – Consequences of the Restoration in England — Massachusetts' commission —The king's reply — Winthrop's and Clarke's mission for Connecticut and Rhode Island — Charter of Connecticut—Its principles — Charter of Rhode Island-Toleration according to Rhode Island laws — Massachusetts' reply to king's requisitions — Commissioners sent out- Their course and ill success— The king's summons — His probable designs— King Philip's War — Its fearful details — Philip's death – Results — Peace—New Hampshire — Randolph collector of royal customs – Charter declared to be forfeited — Andros appointed governor—Connecticut—Saving of her charter- Revolution in England of 1688.
It was with no little anxiety that the New England colonists watched the rapid progress of that revolution in the mother country which led to the restoration of Charles II. to the throne of England; and it seemed a curious coincidence that the same vessel which brought the news to Boston, in July,
1660, brought also two of the regicide judges, Whalley and Goffe, who had fled to the New World to escape the vengeance of the son of Charles I. These were well received by Endicott the governor, and for a time they lived without disguise or concealment. The news having been con
OF RIGHTS. J.05
firmed by later arrivals, the General Court, in December, adopted an apologetical address to the king, petitioning for the preservation of their civil and religious liberties, making excuse for the capital punishments inflicted on the Quakers, etc. prompt and favorable. Soon after, however, early in 1661, an order arrived for the arrest of Whalley and Goffe; but they had retired to New Haven, and though various efforts were made they were never apprehended, most probably because the authorities at no time seriously purposed bringing them to punishment. Further to make show of their loyal. ty, the authorities condemned Eliot's “Christian Commonwealth,” which had been drawn up for the converted Indians, and incautiously published in England. Eliot also himself recanted the anti-monarchical principles contained in his book. In the struggle which it was evident was approaching, the leaders in New England felt that they must trust, under Providence, mainly to their own determined energies. Their first measure was to draw up and publish a declaration of what they held to be their rights. These were defined to be “the power to choose their own governor, deputy governor, magistrates, and representatives; to prescribe terms for the admission of additional freemen; to set up all sorts of officers, superior and inferior, with such powers and duties as they might appoint; to exercise, by their annually-elected magistrates and deputies, all authority, legislative, executive, and judicial; to defend themselves Wol. I.-16
The king's answer was
by force of arms against every aggres. sion; and to reject any and every interposition which they might judge prejudicial to the colony.” At length, after more than a year's delay, Charles II. was formally proclaimed, but all demonstrations usual on such occasions were strictly forbidden, under the ingenious but rather queer pretence that rejoicing was contrary to the orders issued by the king himself! Beside the enemies of the colonists in England, there were many active opponents of the ruling party at home. Those in favor of liberal measures, as Episcopalians, Baptists, and others, who were excluded from a share in the government, had largely increased, and, encouraged by the posture of affairs, urgently called for a relaxation of the unjust restrictions under which they labored. Even among the theocratic freemen themselves there was a division of opinion. The greater part adhered to their original principles, but many finding them too rigorous, a “half-way covenant” had been adopted, by which those who strictly conformed to the established worship, but without professing themselves regenerate and elect, were admitted to the civil prerogatives of church membership. There were also many who deemed it the wisest policy to bend to necessity, and not to risk the loss of every thing by refusing to make reasonable and timely concessions. But the majority sternly resolved to maintain their independence of English supremacy, whatever might be the issue. To avert, however, if possible, the necessity of a recourse to armed resistance, Norton and Bradstreet, two confidential envoys, were sent over to attempt, if possible, to - amuse the English ministry, but they were at the same time instructed to deprecate its interference, or, if it came to the worst, openly to disclaim its authority. It was a mission by no means without hazard, under all the circumstances; for when Norton and his colleague arrived in England they found various and important changes had already taken place, changes, too, which were well calculated to alarm the New England colonists. Weary of the unsettled state of things in the last days of the Commonwealth, all classes had welcomed the Restoration. Charles promised every thing, but his promises were very soon forgotten. There was besides a general reaction against all parties concerned in overturning the monarchy, which tended to fortify the prerogative of the king, and to abet the arbitrary proceedings of his advisers. The Church of England was again in the ascendant, the Act of Uniformity had been passed, and Presbyterians and Independents were compelled to submit. The royalist party had to the utmost gratified their thirst for revenge. Such of the regicides as could be taken were hung, drawn, and quartered—among them Hugh Peters, father-in-law of the younger Winthrop, and formerly minister of Salem. A more illustrious victim, Sir Henry Vane, was soon after conducted to the block. Though opposed to the intolerance of the Massachusetts theocracy, he had ever been a firm friend to New England, and his by which the Pawcatuck was fixed upon for the limit between the two colonies. This agreement, as Mr. Hildreth says, was specially set forth in the charter of RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS. The founder and people of Rhode Island were, beyond doubt, sincerely desirous of entire freedom and toleration in religious matters. “Yet how difficult it is to act up to a principle in the face of prevailing prejudice and opposing example ! The Rhode Island laws, as first printed, many years posterior to the charter, contain an express exclusion from the privileges of freedom of Roman Catholics, and of all persons not professing Christianity. These laws had undergone repeated revisals, and it is now impossible to tell when these restrictions were first introduced, though probably not till after the English revolution of 1688. While Connecticut and Rhode Island were rejoicing in the privileges just conferred upon them by their new charters, Massachusetts remained uneasy and unwilling to make any submission. Their answer to the king's requisitions, spoken of above, was couched in respectful but evasive language. “For the repealing of all laws here established since the late changes contrary and derogatory to his majesty's authority, we, having considered thereof, are not conscious to any of that tendency; concerning the oath of allegiance, we are ready to attend to it as formerly, according to the charter; concerning liberty to use the Common
influence had procured a charter for Rhode Island from the Long Parliament. When charged with treason he was “not afraid to bear witness to the glorious cause” of popular liberty, nor to “seal it with his blood,” and his conduct on the scaffold won the admiration of even his enemies. The Massachusetts commission were only partially successful in their object. The confirmation of the charter was conceded, together with a conditional amnesty for all recent offences; but the king, firmly insisting upon the maintenance of his prerogative, demanded the repeal of all laws derogatory to his authority, the imposition of an oath of allegiance, and the administration of justice in his own name. He also required complete toleration for the Church of England, and the repeal of the law confining the privilege of voting to church members alone, with the concession of the franchise to every inhabitant possessing a certain amount of property. In one respect, indeed, he responded cordially to the wishes of the Massachusetts council: they were freely allowed to punish the pertinacious Quakers in any way they might see fit. Connecticut and Rhode Island were more prompt than Massachusetts to acknowledge the authority of Charles II. The younger Winthrop for Connecticut, and Clarke for Rhode Island, went to England in quest of charters. Their arrival was timely. Winthrop, a scholar and a man of high standing, easily secured to himself influential friends at court. He was also possessed of a va
luable ring, which had been given by
Hildreth’s “History of the United States,” vol. i., p. 459.
Prayer Book, none as yet among us have appeared to desire it; touching administration of the sacraments, this matter hath been under consideration of a synod, orderly called, the result whereof our last General Court commended to the several congregations, and we hope will have a tendency to general satisfaction.” Such a reply, it may be well conceived, gave but little satisfaction; and as fresh complaints against the government of Massachusetts continued to pour in, the king declared his intention of presently sending out commissioners, armed with authority to inquire into and decide upon the matters in dispute. The commissioners, Nichols, Carr, Cartwright, and Maverick, arrived in Boston about the end of July, prepared to enter upon their work; but they were met with icy coldness and most steadfast and determined opposition. The leaders of Massachusetts were well aware of the vast importance of the contest, and while they never for a moment failed in profuse professions of loyalty, they on the other hand never at any time yielded to the demands of the commissioners. The demands which these made, and the measures they purposed to adopt, were considered by the colonists as a violation of their charters. The first session of the commissioners was held at Plymouth, where but little business was transacted; the next in Rhode Island, where they heard complaints from the Indians, and all who were discontented, and made several decisions respecting titles to land, which were but little regarded. In Massachusetts, the General Court complied