1 .... gerous offenders. Upon a very small number, who were more feared, the harshest infliction was banishment from the society in which they could not be prevailed on to live in peace. They were required to do nothing worse than what the settlers in Connecticut had just been doing of their own accord; and, in choosing a new home, they had regions close at hand not less eligible than what they would relinquish. The number of persons disarmed was seventy-six. "Two of the sergeants of Boston were disfranchised and fined; William Balston, twenty pounds; Edward Hutchinson, forty pounds."2 Coggeshall, Underhill, and six others were disfranchised.3 Wheelwright, Aspinwall, and Mrs. Hutchinson were banished.* Coddington and ten others, having "desired and obtained license to remove themselves and their families out of the jurisdiction," were ordered to carry their professed wish into effect within seven weeks, or else "to appear at the next Court, to abide the further order of the Court." 5 It may well be doubted whether an exasperating civil commotion was ever composed at less cost to the unsuccessful side. "5 In point of moderation and good temper, it cannot be maintained that the malecontents compared favorably with that which proved to be the predominant party. But it is 1 Mass. Col. Rec., I. 211, 212.The order for disarming took effect only upon such as should refuse to apologize. (Ibid., 212.) And in due time (November 5, 1639), "It was ordered, that all that were disarmed, remaining amongst us, carrying themselves peaceably, shall have their arms restored unto them." (Ibid., 278.) 2 Antinomians and Familists, 30. 3 Mass. Col. Rec., I. 207, 208. 4 Ibid., 207. "He [Wheelwright] refused to depart voluntarily from us, which the Court had now offered him, and in a manner persuaded him unto." (Antinomians and Familists, 26.) 5 Mass. Col. Rec., I. 223. not necessary to deny to them meritorious qualities of character, in order to prove the substantial rectitude of the course taken for their overthrow. The natural leaders in an insurrection are the ablest men, and sometimes the most virtuous men, of those embarked in it. And it is almost too obvious to bear to be repeated, that the duty of a government, supposing it to have right on its side, is to secure the public safety by putting down the movement, and that the movement is most effectually, and at the same time most mercifully, put down, by striking at those who lend to it its greatest strength. It is not the camp-followers who enlist sympathy, but the men of thought and resolution at the head of the array. The desire is natural that they, rather than others, should be saved from the adversary's aim. But such is not the condition of civil, any more than of martial conflict. If it is right and necessary that opposition be subdued, it is eminently right to assail its chief strength. When extreme danger threatens a community, and martial law is proclaimed, private respects, as well as the maxims and processes which are the ordinary securities of liberty, yield to the overruling emergency of the time. Their inade of themselves. It may further be freely allowed, without impeachment of the substantial wisdom or integrity of the course of the government on this occasion, that its expoquate defence sition and defence of its course sometimes failed to do it justice. If, misguided by an erroneous system of Scriptural interpretation, the rulers sometimes attempted, with very imperfect success, to rest their case on the authority of single texts in the Bible, this should not deprive them of the benefit of the real justification which they had, -and which they equally put forward, resting on the grounds of political duty and common sense. And if sometimes slender reasons seem to be alleged in place of those reasons, of a weighty and comprehensive character, which in our judgment must have de termined the action of the time, we are not to forget that while silence respecting some of the objects in view was essential to the final attainment of those objects, it also constituted one of the chief embarrassments in their prosecution. Beneficial re course. If it should be said, that, by their strenuous proceedings, the rulers of Massachusetts impaired the public strength which they aimed to consolidate, the subsequent history would refute the stricture. sults of their She scarcely lost a citizen whom it was desirable to retain, and the later course of not a few who took final leave of her showed that it was well for her quiet and credit that they had departed. Edward Hutchinson, Wheelwright, Savage, Aspinwall, almost every considerable member of the discomfited party, after making a sufficient experiment of absence from Massachusetts, found that, after all, hers was the best society to live in, and came back to lead a quiet life. time, only four men of much that permanently stayed away. Clarke, Coggeshall, and Easton. years passed before the recurrence of any serious internal dissension in Massachusetts, the substantial wisdom of the course now pursued may be deemed to be vindicated by the event.' If the treatment was harsh, it was effective. As the Pequot war prevented a repetition of Indian hostilities for forty years, so the defeat of Mrs. Hutchinson's party introduced a long term of internal tranquillity. Among the exiles of this importance can be named, These were Coddington, When two scores of Few passages in our early history are of more importance than that which has now been treated of. The received accounts of it have gone far to confirm some unjust impressions of the character of the early NewEngland people, while its true interpretation illustrates their position and designs, in a way harmonizing them with other great features, better understood, of that pub lic action of theirs which has so mightily influenced the destinies of America and the world, and colored the politics of the present age. For this reason it has been here dwelt upon at such length. If by unchecked internal dissension, or by foreign force introduced by it, the little colony of Massachusetts had been broken up two centuries and a quarter ago, where would have been the American Revolution of the last century, with its influence on the authority of free principles of government in the Christian world? Praiseworthy Winthrop. 1 It was after the troubles introduced by Mrs. Hutchinson had reached their height, that Winthrop, as has been related, was restored to the chief magistracy. While it is natural to suppose, that, had he been continued in that office, his calm wisdom might have checked them at an earlier stage and at less cost, certainly his admiracourse of ble qualities never shone more brightly than during the period when he held subordinate positions. When Dudley had failed to have his policy prevail, he was hardly persuaded not to withdraw from office. When Ludlow heard of a proposed popular encroachment, "he protested he would then return back into England"; and when he could not be Governor, he would not be captain of the Castle. When Vane found himself thwarted as to a favorite object, he "thought it best for him to give place for a time." 4 No such petulance swayed the firmly balanced self-respect of the first Governor. When deposed from the chief office, he persevered with undiscouraged diligence in watching over the public weal in the inferior places in which it pleased the people to employ him; and he never served them more industriously or heartily, than when deprived of the highest tokens of their regard. 3 On the defeat of the Antinomian party, a portion of its members, expelled or voluntarily departing, dispersed in 1 Winthrop, I. 73. 2 Ibid., 74. 3 Mass. Col. Rec., I. 145. 4 Winthrop, I. 207. different directions, to the north and the south. Several went to Williams's settlement at Providence, where, not changing their mind with their climate, they took part in disturbances, to be recorded hereafter. A more considerable number established themselves together at a lower point on Narragansett Bay. When Mrs. Hutchinson left Boston, it was her intention to join her brother-in-law on the Piscataqua. At Mount Wollaston, however, she changed her plan, in consequence of hearing of an arrangement of her husband with some friends to make a settlement in a different quarter. Before the final action of the government, Hutchinson, Coddington, John Clarke, and others, -apparently satisfied that, if it should be left to their option, it would be best for them to remove, had been looking out for a suitable habitation. By reason of the suffocating heat of the summer before," Clarke, with a party, first "went to the north, to be somewhat cooler; but the winter following proved so cold, that they were forced in the spring to make towards the south." They had in view Long Island or the shore of Delaware Bay, "having sought the Lord for direction"; but, taking Providence in their way, they were induced by the representations of Roger Williams to turn their attention to the beautiful island of Aquetnet, which the Plymouth people, whom Clarke and Williams, with two others, made a journey to consult, told them was beyond the bounds of the Plymouth patent.1 There, accordingly, nineteen persons associated themselves March 7. in a body politic, and chose Coddington to be their Settlement on the island of Aquetnet. 1638. follows: "We whose names are underwritten do here solemnly, in the presence of Jehovah, incorporate ourselves into a body politic, and, as He shall help, will submit our persons, lives, and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the 1 Clarke, in the "Brief Discourse," prefixed to "Ill Newes from New England.” He had arrived in Boston in November, 1637. He says that it was he who made the proposal to look for another residence. 2 Their engagement together was as King of kings and Lord of lords, and |