54

CHAPTER III

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT AND MASSACHUSETTS PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE GREAT CIVIL WAR

It is clear that the dissolution of the Virginia company was in large measure the result of the attitude of political opposition which those who directed its affairs between 1619 and 1624 maintained toward the king. It was a minor phase in the great struggle which was then in progress between the Stuarts, with their autocratic ideals, and the growing body of Englishmen who looked to an invigorated parliament for an assertion of the ancient liberties of the nation and the maintenance of a system of guarantied rights. Puritanism contributed much toward the growth of that national sentiment which expressed itself in the demands of the parliamentarians, but very many who were not Puritans in the technical sense gave evidence of possessing their spirit and contributed greatly toward the strength of the common movement. Such men were Sir Edwin Sandys and the Ferrars, with others also who shared their labors and plans in the councils of the Virginia company. The sympathy between that company and the Puritans who settled Plymouth and Massachusetts is clearly evident, and their enterprises, though amid great diversity, sprang from motives which were in some ways related.

But if the leaders in the Virginia company had shown irritation, combined with tendencies toward independence and self government, the Massachusetts company and colony had exhibited all these in a much higher degree. Massachusetts, by its very organization, to say nothing of the spirit by which it was animated, had practically declared independence at the very outset. It boldly made its challenge and awaited the result. If James I had found it necessary to restrain the ambitions of parliamentarians in the Virginia company, it would

55

seem inevitable that Charles I should presently inquire into the use which men who in fact were already Puritan dissenters were making of the charter which he had granted them. But as these patentees had removed with their charter into their American colony and were themselves directly administering its affairs, the issue must naturally be taken on questions which were more purely colonial than those that arose between the king and the Virginia company. This must be a controversy between the king and men who were actively colonists, residents in America, and not with English noblemen and merchants who were interested in colonization. Pressure, therefore, must be applied under somewhat different conditions in the one case from those which existed in the other.

The theories held by the Stuarts concerning government naturally led them to favor, at least ostensibly, a system of strong executive control over the colonies. Such was the policy of James I, while Charles I, at the beginning of his reign, made formal announcement that he should follow a similar course not only in reference to Virginia, but toward the other colonies as well. “Our full resolution is,” he declared in the proclamation¹ of May 13, 1625, concerning Virginia, “that there may be one uniform Course of Government in and through all our whole Monarchies; That the Government of the Collonie of Virginia shall immediately depend upon Ourself, and not be commytted to anie Company, or Corporation, to whome it may be proper to trust Matters of Trade and Commerce, but cannot be fitt or safe to communicate the ordering of State Affairs be they of never soe mean Consequence.”

Had the policy thus outlined been consistently pursued, corporations would never again have been intrusted with powers of government. It is possible that proprietary grants might have been made; but the strictly logical outcome of the policy would have been a system of royal provinces. Virginia had now reached the form which best suited the purposes of the English executive. The king had thus early expressed his preference for that form, and all his successors, together with the officials who served them, expressed their

56

substantial agreement with him in that preference. But, as we know, the policy dictated by that view was far from being followed. And indeed it could not be followed, for individual initiative and resources were indispensable to the founding of colonies, while court favoritism accounts for the rest. Within four years after the Stuart monarch had proclaimed his dislike of colonial corporations, he created one on the petition of men who, though relatively obscure, were his determined political opponents, and this was to have a more remarkable career than any similar body in that century. Three years later he gave away to one who had been a favorite minister a principality, and that almost without express condition. The same policy was followed on a much larger scale by his son during the twenty or more years which followed the Restoration.

But underneath and behind these exhibitions of royal favor and proofs of court influence which followed one another in such long succession, appears the tendency which was set forth in the royal proclamation of May, 1625. It was the tendency toward the maintenance of strict executive control over the colonies, through officials of royal appointment and directed by a policy which had primary, though not exclusive, reference to the interests of the mother country. It had first manifested itself in the relations between James I. and Virginia. Its second manifestation arose from the desire of the English officials to correct the error which, when viewed from their standpoint, seemed to have been made by the ill-considered grant of Massachusetts.

The consequences of that grant and of the use which had been made of it by the removal of the governing body of the Massachusetts company into the colony, were gradually revealed to the authorities in England. The territorial claims of the Gorges family and of John Mason had been infringed by the grant, though in its original form the patent had been issued by the New England council. The grant which had been made to Robert Gorges had been wholly included within its bounds, as was also a part of the territory called Mariana for which Mason had procured an indenture from the council. Years after Sir Ferdinando Gorges wrote in his

57

Briefe Narration¹ that, when the Earl of Warwick, who on this, as on other occasions, acted as patron of the Puritans of Massachusetts and Plymouth, requested his consent to the issue of the patent to Sir Henry Roswell and his associates, he gave it, “so far forth as it might not be prejudiciall” to the interests of his son, Robert Gorges. But, whatever may have been the cause, those interests were in no way regarded. In these conflicting territorial claims, as well as in the antagonism between Anglican and Puritan, loyalist and parliamentarian, originated the controversy between Massachusetts and the Gorges-Mason interests both in England and New England. Gorges had sufficient influence, though it was prudently exercised, to materially advance at court not only his own cause, but that of other complainants than himself. Such complainants, some of them in fact malcontents, were not slow in appearing.

In describing the earliest essays of the Massachusetts magistrates in the administration of criminal justice, reference was made to the cases of Thomas Morton and Philip Ratcliff. Both were sent back to England, the latter suffering a punishment of great severity in the colony. Ratcliff’s offence was angry denunciation of the magistrates and church at Salem. Morton, though his sentence recited only certain trivial offences which he was charged with having committed toward the Indians, was really banished because he was regarded as an incongruous element within the colony, one who would never adapt himself to a Puritan environment. Previous to the arrival of Winthrop and his colonists, Morton had trafficked in firearms with the Indians, and had refused to submit to the rules of the company. Both he and the settlement with which he was connected had been disorderly.

The case of Sir Christopher Gardiner, the third individual against whom the magistrates felt it necessary to protect themselves and the colony, was different. He was a widely²

58

travelled man of some culture, possibly also of high connection, certainly of loose morals, who appeared in Massachusetts in 1630, about a month before the arrival of Winthrop. He brought with him a servant or two, and a “comely yonge woman,” whom he called his cousin, but who was thought to be his mistress. At first he seemed to intend a permanent residence in the colony, and even offered to join one of its churches. He built a dwelling of some kind, probably on the Neponset, south of Boston, and may have lived there for a brief time. But presently information came that he already had two wives whom he had deserted in Europe, and both of whom, though for opposite reasons, were seeking to ascertain his whereabouts. Letters from both these women reached Governor Winthrop, and on the strength of the charges of bigamy, desertion, theft, and general ill living which they contained, the court at Boston ordered Gardiner’s arrest and deportation to England by a ship which was about to sail. But he, hearing in advance of their intent, escaped alone into the forest, where, in the neighborhood of Taunton river, he wandered about for nearly a month, when he was captured by the Indians and brought to Plymouth. Thence he was taken back to Massachusetts. His companion, Mary Grove, had in the meantime been examined by the magistrates, but little information of importance had been elicited from her. Though for a time after his return Gardiner was kept under close watch, there was no intention of treating him with severity.

In June, 1631, a boat from Piscataqua brought, under cover to Winthrop, a package of letters addressed to Sir Christopher Gardiner. Acting as guardian of the community and following the practices of the times in the same way as Bradford had done in the case of Rev. John Lyford at Plymouth, Winthrop opened the letters. They were from Sir Ferdinando Gorges, and were addressed to Gardiner as his agent. A letter from Gorges to Morton was also in the package. By both these letters it appeared that Gorges “had some secret design to recover his pretended right” to the soil of Massachusetts. The errand on which Gardiner had come to New England was now revealed. He was the

59

agent of Sir Ferdinando Gorges. It would therefore naturally occur to the governor that to send such a person back to England, would be playing into the hands of the enemies of Massachusetts. Probably for that reason he was treated with courtesy so long as he remained in the colony, and at his departure was “dismissed in peace.” From Massachusetts he accompanied Mary Grove and Thomas Purchase, to whom she had recently been married, to their home near the modern Brunswick, Maine. There Gardiner remained for about a year and then returned to England.

Morton, Ratcliff, and Gardiner were now in England, armed with complaints against Massachusetts, and ready to coöperate with Gorges and Mason in efforts to procure the recall of its charter. The severity of Massachusetts had sent two of them thither, and of the two Morton’s representations in particular were sure to enlist the support of the active members of the New England council.

On December 19, 1632, Gardiner, Morton, and Ratcliff, supported by Gorges and Mason, petitioned¹ the king in council. The petition has been lost, but we are told that it contained many charges against Massachusetts. The leaders of the colony were accused of having renounced allegiance to England and of an intention to rebel. It was affirmed that they had separated from both the laws and Church of England, and that the ministers and people continually railed against the government, church, and bishops of the mother country. We may also suppose that the harsh usage to which the petitioners had been subjected in the colony was referred to. The petition was evidently an indictment of the main features of Massachusetts policy, stated in harsh and exaggerated terms and intended to convey the impression that the policy was wholly illegal, that it was leading to disorder and would end in rebellion. It was the first, but by no means the last, manifesto of this kind the influence of which upon the king and council Massachusetts was forced, if possible, to counteract. To do this proved to be easy in this case, though as time went on it came to be different. The difficulty arose

60

from the fact that the charges against Massachusetts, though exaggerated, contained a considerable element of truth. It could with truth be stated that independency both in church and state, though in a somewhat disguised form, was the ideal of the leaders; that, so far as they dared, and by all means in their power they would contend for this and defend it if ever it should be really attacked.

The petition was followed by a hearing before a committee of the privy council. Emanuel Downing,¹ a brother-in-law of Governor Winthrop, Captain Thomas Wiggin of Piscataqua, members of the company, and friends of Massachusetts, some of whom had recently returned from the colony, appeared in its defence, and for the time the efforts of Gorges and his associates were defeated. Most of the charges were denied, and others, it was found, could not be proven except by witnesses from the colony itself. A reply to the charges of the petitioners concerning the attitude of Massachusetts toward the English Church was prepared and sent by the governor and assistants, but it must have arrived too late to affect the decision. It was also found that various enterprises which the adventurers had in hand, involving the despatch of colonists, food, and merchandise to America, would be defeated if the colony now fell under suspicion. For these reasons the council declared that, appearances being so fair and hopes so great, the adventurers might rest assured, if the terms of the charter and the purposes expressed at the time it was granted were fulfilled, the king would not only maintain their privileges but add what might further tend to the good government and prosperity of the colonists. The king was reported to have said that he would have those punished who abused the governor and plantation. So

60

gratified were the authorities of Massachusetts when they heard of the result, that Winthrop, through the governor of Plymouth, asked that colony to join in a day of thanksgiving for a merciful deliverance “out of so desperate a danger.”¹

With the rejection of this petition Sir Christopher Gardiner disappears from view. Ratcliff at a later time gave testimony again before the council. Morton continued, however, to be an active and persistent foe of Massachusetts and aided its enemies in their plans whenever it was possible. As the period of personal government on which Charles I had entered progressed, it was accompanied with the more general and stringent execution of Laud’s policy of repressing dissent. His appointment as archbishop in 1633, combined with the elevation of Neile to the see of York, made certain the triumph of that policy for the time being. The realization of this fact by the Puritans was followed by their emigration in large numbers to New England. The population of Massachusetts rapidly increased, and the colonies of Connecticut and New Haven were founded. English noblemen even began seriously to consider plans of removal. The repressive policy of the English government at home was rapidly making the New England experiment a success.

All this very seriously affected the interests of Gorges and the New England council. The territory north of the fortieth degree of latitude, which they for nearly fifteen years had been vainly endeavoring to colonize, was being settled, but by colonists who to them were unwelcome. These colonists did not recognize the title of the council to the region in question, and its agents they supplanted or drove out. They had also proved too strong for Gorges before the privy council. But there, if anywhere, the battle must be won. Gorges, therefore, renewed his efforts in that quarter and this time with the assistance of Archbishop Laud. That primate had never before turned his attention to the colonies, but, becoming impressed with the fact that they might be a refuge for the Puritans, he was ready at once to extend his

62

repressive measures thither also. The enforcement of conformity, which he was already attempting in Scotland and Ireland, might be tried in the colonies as well. In connection with the desire thus begotten in the mind of Laud, to suppress dissent even in those remote regions, the monarchical idea of colonial administration appears again in the foreground. By utilizing these forces Gorges was able to win what for a time appeared to be a triumph over his foes.

In February, 1634, in consequence of the reports that many persons were leaving the kingdom because of religious discontent, eleven ships bound for New England were stopped by order of the privy council. Before the end of the month, however, though not until the passengers had taken the oath of allegiance and promised to use the Book of Common Prayer in worship during the voyage, the ships were allowed to proceed.^l If Morton’s statement in his letter to Jeffery² is true, an inquiry into the origin and provisions of the Massachusetts charter was soon after held before the privy council, Sir Richard Saltonstall and other patentees being present, and Morton and Ratcliff perhaps testifying again against the colony. The patent, it is said, was solemnly declared to be void, and the king took the matter into his own hands.

On April 28, 1634, as partly a result, we may suppose, of this opinion, a royal commission³ was issued appointing Archbishop Laud and eleven other privy councillors as a board of commissioners for trade and plantations. Among the members who were associated with the archbishop were Lord Keeper Coventry, the archbishop of York, the lord treasurer, the Earl of Portland, the Earl of Manchester, who was lord privy seal, Earl Arundel, who was the marshal of England, with the Earl of Dorset and Lord Cottington, who held the other chief offices in the royal household, John Coke and

63

Francis Windebank, who were secretaries of state. It thus appears that many of the leading ministers of the king had seats upon this board. It consisted wholly of privy councillors. Very large powers were intrusted to the new board of commissioners, and, though relations with New England were the immediate occasion of its appointment, its powers were to be exercised over all the colonies alike. They were to have “power of protection and government” over all existing and prospective colonies; to make, with the royal assent, “laws, ordinances, and constitutions” both concerning the public affairs of the colonies, as about the interests and estates of individuals therein. They were to secure maintenance for the colonial clergy by tithes and oblations, distribute the same and regulate “all other matters ecclesiastical.” They were given power to punish offenders even with death. They might also examine into the conduct of governors, call them to account for violation of ordinances, depose and otherwise punish them. They were to establish and regulate courts and appoint magistrates. They were to act as a court of appeal and bring before themselves in England any governor or officer who should usurp another’s authority, wrong another, fail to suppress rebels or to obey the king’s commands. Through them letters patent were to be issued for the founding of new colonies, and orders to do all other things which should be necessary for the government and protection of the colonies. In 1638 and 1639 we find a subcommittee associated with this board, but this was probably a group of experts temporarily brought together to advise concerning Virginia affairs and matters of revenue.¹

On February 21, 1634, more than two months before the appointment of this commission, the privy council had ordered Mr. Cradock, then before the board, to have the royal charter of Massachusetts produced.² This command Cradock transmitted to New England. When the letter arrived, Winthrop, whose popularity had temporarily waned, had been succeeded by Dudley in the governorship. The

64

message, which was regarded as unofficial, was submitted to the assistants in July, who after long consideration adopted the policy of delay and evasion, a course which the colony was to pursue in similar relations with the crown throughout the future. In reply to Cradock, it was stated that it would be impossible to send the charter without the consent of the general court, a session of which would be held in the following September. Edward Winslow of Plymouth was about to sail for England and to him this reply was intrusted. Winslow went as agent¹ for his colony, and incidentally to serve the larger cause of Massachusetts, thus helping to bring the important institution of the colonial agency clearly into existence. His chief errands on behalf of Plymouth were to explain to Lord Say and his partners the share which Plymouth men had had in the death of Hocking near their trading post on the Kennebec river, and to procure the aid of the home government in restraint of the operations of the Dutch on the Connecticut river, and of the French on the northeast, they having recently destroyed the trading post which Plymouth had established on the Penobscot river. Either diplomatic interposition by the English government concerning these matters was desired, or special authority which should legalize any combined effort that the New England colonies might make to defend themselves against all foreign enemies. An errand like this the Massachusetts authorities would never have undertaken or approved, and the fact that Plymouth should undertake it shows how much more conciliatory and submissive was its attitude toward the home government than was that of Massachusetts. Though Winslow performed the duties of his mission with ability, he played into the hands of those who were laboring to destroy Puritan independence in New England and himself temporarily suffered in consequence.

When he arrived in England and began prosecuting his errand before the plantation board Winslow, though at first succeeding well, soon found himself opposed by the Gorges and Mason influence and by the archbishop of Canterbury.² The plan that, upon the recall of the Massachusetts charter,

65

Gorges should be appointed governor of New England, was already formed, and Winslow’s suggestion that the existing colonies should be empowered to resist the Dutch and French at their own expense was inconsistent with the scheme of Gorges, as well as with that of Laud to enforce uniformity in the colonies. Thereupon, when Winslow seemed on the point of succeeding, Morton was procured to enter further complaints against the New Englanders. After Winslow had replied to him, the archbishop began to ask questions—some of which were suggested by Morton’s statements—about the extent to which the canons of the Church were violated in Plymouth. Winslow confessed that occasionally, when they lacked a pastor, he, though a layman, had officiated publicly in church. He also admitted that when they were without a minister, he had performed the marriage ceremony, and went even so far as to defend civil marriage before their lordships as not inconsistent with Scripture. “For these things,” says Bradford in his account of the episode, “ye bishop, by vemente importunity, gott ye bord at last to consente to his committemente; so he was comited to ye Fleete, and lay there 17 weeks, or ther aboute, before he could gett to be released. And this was ye end of this petition, and this business.” The last statement of the Plymouth historian is not quite true, for from his prison Winslow addressed a petition to the privy council, in which, while again admitting the truth of what he had previously stated about his own conduct, he justified it as necessary, and defended the Plymouth people against the charge of being factious, while he exposed the bad character of Morton and of the other assailants of Massachusetts.¹

Meantime, within the New England council, and beginning as early as February, 1634, preparations² were in progress for the surrender of its charter, so that the way might be cleared for the appointment of a governor general of New England. On February 3, a meeting of the council at Lord

66

Gorges’ house, which was attended both by Sir Ferdinando and by Captain John Mason, agreed upon a redivision of the sea coast from the fortieth degree of latitude to Nova Scotia. This was substantially a repetition of the attempted division by lot which occurred at Greenwich in 1623, but which had never been confirmed or carried into execution. The territory was now divided into eight sections and distributed among the members of the council, Mason receiving New Hampshire and the section between Naumkeag and the Merrimac river, Gorges receiving the region which was soon to be known as the province of Maine. Deeds of feoffment were made out for the proprietors of the several sections.

A formal surrender of the charter of the New England council to the king was drawn on April 28, though it was not executed until the 7th of June. In this the failure of its enterprise thus far was acknowledged, and the cause was found in the alleged surreptitious¹ grant to Massachusetts and its confirmation by the king which was obtained without the knowledge of the council. “By which means they,” the document continued, “made themselves a free People, . . . whereby they did rend in pieces ye first foundation of the building, and so framed into themselves both new laws and new consceipts of Religion and forms of ecclesiasticall and temporall Orders and Government, punishing divers that would not approve thereof, some by whipping, others by burning their houses over their heads, and some by banishing and the like.” The complaints which arose from these events the council had been called upon to redress. It had referred the petitions to the king. Its members had been called before the privy council, but there had disclaimed all share in the evils. They had then referred the whole matter to the king and his ministers, and of their resolve to take it fully into their hands this surrender of the charter was the first and natural result.

The surrender of the charter was duly accepted by the king, and he announced his resolve to appoint Sir Ferdinando Gorges governor general of New England, and to give

67

him adequate royal support. One of the provinces should be allotted to him for his maintenance, while provision was made for the succession of his office. These steps having been taken, the king was petitioned to order the attorney general to prepare patents for the eight lords among whom the territory had been divided by lot, that thereby fully organized proprietary provinces might be formed within the governor generalship. On May 5, 1635, Thomas Morton received an appointment from the council as solicitor for the confirmation of the deeds under the great seal, as also to prosecute a suit at law for the repeal of the Massachusetts patent. But the confirmation of the deeds was evidently beset with delays, for, on November 26, an order was issued that the passing of the patents should be expedited with all conveniency. The decisive steps, however, which would make them effective patents seem never to have been taken.

While the events which have now been outlined were occurring in England, Massachusetts showed the spirit in which she intended to meet the attack. The general court, during the session of September, 1634,¹ instead of considering the order for the return of the charter, took the first decisive steps toward creating a system of defence within the colony. Authority was bestowed on the assistants to impress laborers for public works. Defences on Castle island and at Charlestown and Dorchester were ordered to be built, and a committee was appointed to take charge of them. A committee was also appointed to provide ammunition, and another to take general charge of any war which might occur within a year. Arms were to be distributed and trainings held. With equal zeal the court legislated against new and extravagant fashions in dress, an enactment which to the Puritan mind fitly accompanied strenuous preparations for defence. In the November which followed this important session of the general court, John Endicott at Salem vented his feelings on the situation by cutting the cross from the English colors. This act savored more of sedition than any event which had yet occurred, and the magistrates feared that such an interpretation would be put upon it in

68

England;¹ but some delay ensued before he was punished by exclusion from office for one year. So strong, however, did the feeling against the colors seem to be that all the ensigns were ordered to be laid aside.

In January, 1635,² the governor and assistants submitted to the ministers the question, what should be done if a general governor should be sent from England; and the unanimous reply was that, if one were sent, he ought not to be received, but the colony, if able, should defend its lawful possessions. Later a beacon was ordered to be set on Sentry Hill in Boston, while on a day early in April a false alarm of the approach of two ships quickly brought together the train bands of Boston and the adjacent towns. In this state of preparedness the colony awaited events in England.

Gorges, on the other hand, was striving to secure means to take him to New England. It was his expedition, if any, which the outlook on Beacon Hill would some day see approaching. But it never came. The English government was busy with ship money and other devices for supplying the exchequer independently of appropriations by parliament. It had neither money nor soldiers with which to support Gorges’ enterprise. The archbishop could fulminate decrees and imprison luckless New England Puritans, if they came within the realm; but more, it was proved, he was unable to do. Gorges soon found that the elements of his problem were much the same now as they had ever been. He could command only his own resources, and they were painfully inadequate. Never very great, they had been seriously reduced by his previous experiments in colonization. An effort was made to fit out a single vessel to bear the governor general across the sea, but that utterly failed. Thus Gorges’ direct share in the great scheme of reducing New England to the condition of a royal province ended in complete failure. Like all his plans, it was large in conception but feeble in execution. In the light of these facts, the military preparations of Massachusetts do not appear so absurdly inadequate as they would if they had been directed

69

against a great European power which was in a condition to strike the little colony.

But this was not the end of the episode. The plan of Gorges and of the officials who were supporting him involved the revocation of the Massachusetts charter. Only by this step could the way be legally cleared for the establishment of the royal province. Thomas Morton had been retained to aid in prosecuting this suit. It was begun in June, 1635, by the attorney general filing before the King’s Bench an information in the nature of a writ of quo warranto against the Massachusetts company. The charge was that their charter was void ab initio and therefore that the company should be dissolved. As this case, especially when compared with that of the Virginia Company, illustrates very clearly the way in which the removal of a corporation across the sea affected the exercise of judicial control over it, it deserves somewhat extended notice.

The information¹ filed by the attorney general in this instance was directed not against the corporation itself, but against its members, whether resident in England or New England. It cited the main provisions of the charter, and declared that the said franchises and liberties had been usurped in contempt of his majesty the king. At this point appeared the significance, from the standpoint of judicial control, of the removal of the Massachusetts company into New England. The writ issued in pursuance of the information was not served upon the officers and members of the corporation who were resident in New England, and probably could not have been served and a return secured within the specified legal time. The information was filed in Trinity Term of 1635 (11 Charles I) and the trial was held in Michaelmas Term of the same year. At the trial, which was before the King’s Bench, fourteen members of the company appeared and pleaded that they had not usurped any of the said liberties and did not claim them.² There

70

upon in each case it was decreed by the court that the individual concerned “shall not for the future intermeddle with any of the liberties, privileges or franchises aforesaid, but shall be forever excluded from all use and claime of the same and every of them.”¹ Matthew Cradock made default and was convicted of the usurpation charged. It was decreed that the liberties, so far as Cradock possessed them, should be seized into the king’s hands, that he should be excluded from the further use of them and should be held to answer for the usurpation. The record closed with the statement that the rest of the patentees stood outlawed and noe judgment entered up against them.”

The effect of this action on the part of King’s Bench seems to have been to exclude from the company such of its members as were accessible and appeared, while the corporation itself remained intact. The governing body of the company defaulted through non-appearance, and the record states that they stood outlawed. But it also states that no judgment was entered up against them. We have no record that steps were taken to complete the process of outlawry, which would have required the issue of several additional writs, and those directed toward the execution of a judgment already pronounced and recorded.² Had it not been for the legal difficulty connected with the service of the writ, it is altogether probable that the Massachusetts company would have shared the fate of the Virginia company, and the way would then have been cleared for the governor generalship of Gorges, as soon as the New England council surrendered its charter. As it was, on three³ occasions between the summer of 1631 and the spring of 1639, authoritative information came to Massachusetts from the

71

commissioners of foreign plantations in England, that the magistrates and others had no legal right to govern the colony, that a judgment had passed against the charter and that it should be sent home. To one of these messages a reply was sent excusing themselves for not transmitting the charter lest it might be interpreted as its surrender. Of the last peremptory demand no notice was taken. That the government, had the corporation been resident in England, would have allowed itself to be balked in this way is hardly credible, even though it were at the time on the eve of a civil war. But the corporation stood, and, when the Restoration came, was treated as in full legal existence.

The attitude which Massachusetts maintained toward the obligations of allegiance and the degree of its isolation as a colony are illustrated by a discussion in 1636 concerning the necessity of flying the English colors on the fort at Castle island.¹ A mate on an English ship had charged them with being rebels because they did not keep the king’s flag flying on the fort. The controversy which followed revealed the fact that there was no English flag in the colony. The seamen offered them one. But the magistrates scrupled to receive it, because “we were fully persuaded that the cross in the ensign was idolatrous.” But after consulting Cotton and others, it was decided that, as the fort was the king’s and maintained in his name, “his own colors might be spread there.” And it was done, though some of the magistrates, Winthrop among them, did not approve and would not join in the act.

← Vol. III, Pt. IV, Ch. II   Table of Contents   Vol. III, Pt. IV, Ch. IV →