XII. hundred copies of the proceedings against London, chap. were sent over to be dispersed among the people. The governor and assistants, the patrician branch of 1683. the government, were persuaded of the hopelessness of further resistance; even a tardy surrender of the charter might conciliate the monarch. They, there- Nov. fore, resolved to remind the king of his promises, and "not to contend with his majesty in a court of law;" they would "send agents, empowered to receive his majesty's commands." The magistrates referred this vote to "their brethren the deputies" for concurrence. During a full fortnight the subject was debated, that a decision might be made in harmony with the people. "Ought the government of Massachusetts," thus it was argued, "submit to the pleasure of the court as to alteration of their charter? Submission would be an offence against the majesty of Heaven; the religion of the people of New England and the court's pleasure cannot consist together. By submission Massachusetts will gain nothing. The court design an essential alteration, destructive to the vitals of the charter. The corporations in England that have made an entire resignation, have no advantage over those that have stood a suit in law; but if we maintain a suit, though we should be condemned, we may bring the matter to chancery or to a parliament, and in time recover all again. We ought not to act contrary to that way, in which God hath owned our worthy predecessors, who, in 1633, when there was a quo warranto against the charter, durst not submit. In 1664, they did not submit to the commissioners. We, their successors, should walk in their steps, and so trust in the God of our fathers, that we shall see his salvation. Submission would gratify our adversaries and grieve our friends. 15. 126 XII. SHALL THE CHARTER BE SURRENDERED? CHAP. Our enemies know it will sound ill in the world, for them to take away the liberties of a poor people of 1683. God in a wilderness. A resignation will bring slavery upon us sooner than otherwise it would be; and will grieve our friends in other colonies, whose eyes are now upon New England, expecting that the people there will not, through fear, give a pernicious example unto others. "Blind obedience to the pleasure of the court cannot be without great sin, and incurring the high displeasure of the King of Kings. Submission would be contrary unto that which has been the unanimous advice of the ministers, given after a solemn day of prayer. The ministers of God in New England have more of the spirit of John Baptist in them, than now, when a storm hath overtaken them, to be reeds, shaken with the wind. The priests were to be the first that set their foot in the waters, and there to stand till the danger be past. Of all men, they should be an example to the Lord's people, of faith, courage, and constancy. Unquestionably, if the blessed Cotton, Hooker, Davenport, Mather, Shepherd, Mitchell, were now living, they would, as is evident from their printed books, say, Do not sin in giving away the inheritance of your fathers. "Nor ought we submit without the consent of the body of the people. But the freemen and churchmembers throughout New England will never consent hereunto. Therefore the government may not do it. “The civil liberties of New England are part of the inheritance of their fathers; and shall we give that inheritance away? Is it objected that we shall be exposed to great sufferings? Better suffer than sin. It is better to trust the God of our fathers, than to put confidence in princes. If we suffer because we XII. dare not comply with the wills of men against the CHAP. will of God, we suffer in a good cause, and shall be accounted martyrs in the next generation and at the 1683. great day."1 The decision of the colony, by its representatives, i on record. "The deputies consent not, but adhere to Nov their former bills." 30. Addresses were forwarded to the king, urging forbearance; but entreaty and remonstrance were vain. 1684 A scire facias was issued in England; and before the colony could act upon it, just one year and six days after the judgment against the city of London, the charter was conditionally adjudged to be forfeited; and 18. the judgment was confirmed on the first day of the Michaelmas term. A copy of the judgment was 1685 received in Boston in July of the following year. Thus fell the charter, which the fleet of Winthrop had brought to the shores of New England, which had been cherished with anxious care through every vicissitude, and on which the fabric of New England liberties had rested. There was now no barrier between the people of Massachusetts and the absolute will of the court of England. Was religion in danger? Was landed property secure? Would commercial enterprise be paralyzed by restrictions? Was New England destined to learn from its own experience the nature of despotism? Gloomy forebodings overspread the colony. 1 Mass. Hist. Coll. xxi. 74–81. Every word, unless it be some small connecting words, is taken exactly from the old Hutchinson papers. June July 2. CHAPTER XIII. SHAFTESBURY AND LOCKE LEGISLATE FOR CAROLINA. СНАР. MEANTIME Civilization had advanced at the south and twin stars were emerging beyond the limits of Virginia. The country over which Soto had rambled in quest of gold, where Calvinists, befriended by Coligny, had sought a refuge, and where Raleigh had hoped to lay the foundations of colonial principalities, was beginning to submit to the culture of civilization. Massachusetts and Carolina were both colonized under proprietary charters, and of both the charters were subverted; but while the proprietaries of the former were emigrants themselves, united by the love of religious liberty, the proprietaries of the latter were a company of English courtiers, combined for the purpose of a vast speculation in lands. The government established in Massachusetts was essentially popular, and was the growth of the soil; the constitution of Carolina was invented in England. Massachusetts was originally colonized by a feeble band of suffering yet resolute exiles, and its institutions were the natural result of the good sense and instinct for liberty of an agricultural people; Carolina was settled under the auspices of the wealthiest and most influential nobility, and its fundamental laws were framed with forethought by the most sagacious politician and the XIII. most profound philosopher of England. The king, CHAP. through an obsequious judiciary, annulled the government of Massachusetts; the colonists repudiated the constitutions of Carolina. The principles of the former possessed an inherent vitality, which nothing has yet been able to destroy; the frame of the latter, as it disappeared, left no trace of its transitory existence, except in the institutions which sprung from its decay. Mar. The reign of Charles II. was not less remarkable for the rapacity of the courtiers, than for the debauchery of the monarch. The southern part of our republic, ever regarded as capable of producing all the staples that thrive on the borders of the tropics, was coveted by statesmen who controlled the whole patronage of the British realms. The province of Carolina, extending from the thirty-sixth degree of 1663 north latitude to the River San Matheo, was accordingly 24. erected into one territory; and the historian Clarendon, the covetous though experienced minister, hated by the people, faithful only to the king;' Monk, so conspicuous in the restoration, and now ennobled as duke of Albemarle; Lord Craven, a brave Cavalier, an old soldier of the German discipline, supposed to be husband to the queen of Bohemia; Lord Ashley Cooper, afterwards earl of Shaftesbury; Sir John Colleton, a royalist of no historical notoriety; Lord John Berkeley, with his younger brother, Sir William Berkeley, the governor of Virginia; and the passionate, and ignorant, and not too honest Sir George Carteret,* -were constituted its proprietors and immediate sove 3 3 Morryson, in Burk, iii. 266. 4 Pepys, i. 356, 140, 235, 236, 228, 176, and Grahame's U. S. ii. 317. |