« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
cellor saw no harm in the project; and the royal assent was easily obtained. The re-established Society
o, derived respect from the high rank of many
the Society o: of its members. The associates first named *P* in the charter were the Earl of Clarendon, the
Earl of Southampton, Lord Roberts, the Duke of Ormond, and the Duke of Albemarle." Nine members of the old Society were renominated. Henry Ashurst was continued as Treasurer. In general personal estimation, as well as in eminence among the philosophers of Europe, no man in England stood higher than the Society's new President, Robert Boyle. The place, he says, was given to him “without his seeking, or so much as knowl
log edge.” He immediately wrote to the Commis
** sidners of the United Colonies, acquainting them with the steps which had been taken, and with the desire of the new corporation to avail itself of their continued agency.” The business of converting the Indians of New England continued in the same hands; and, with little or no interruption from the transfer of the governing power abroad, the missions were prosecuted on the same principles as before.
There were other proceedings of the restored King's first ministry more materially affecting the New-England Colonies. But they must be reserved for a later stage of this narrative.
urst, with a request that “two of the
the original members of the Corpora-
No one of the confederate Colonies of New England proclaimed either of the Protectors. They recognized the sovereignty of Oliver as a fact, and had some communications with him, especially in relation to his expedition for the conquest of New Netherland." At his death, the Council of State sent an order to Massachusetts to proclaim his son;” but it received no attention, even so far as to be mentioned in the public records. A letter from Richard, recommending to the favor of the General Court a friend of his who had an estate to administer upon within their jurisdiction, is the only memorial of him that appears in their archives. He subscribed the letter as their “very loying friend,” and assured them that their compliance with his request he should “esteem as a particular respect done to him, and should be ready to acknowledge and return the same upon any occasion wherein he might procure or further their good and welfare.”
Intelligence of the accession of Charles the Second to the throne of his ancestors was not long in reaching Boston. The Journal of the General Court which sat three months later contains no 9°.
1659. March 23.
1660. July 27.
* Sedgwick and Leverett wrote to the Protector from Boston, July 1, 1654, giving a full and laudatory account of their interview with the messengers from Connecticut and New Haven. The papers are in Thurloe, Collection of State Papers, II. 418– 420.
* Hutch. Hist, I. 193, note
* Ibid., 455. — Leverett wrote, on the 25th of the preceding December, that he had waited on the young Protector, a fortnight after his accession, with an “application on the behalf of the country,” and had been favorably received. (Hutch. Coll., 317.)
reference to the new state of things." The Court had not been long adjourned, when information arrived from Leverett, its agent, that the affairs of New England had already been brought to the King's notice. Complaining that he was without instructions how to act in the embarrassing circumstances which had occurred, he informed them that the Quakers and some of the Eastern people had been making known their grievances; that a petition had been presented for the subjection of New England to a General Governor; and that, while awaiting express directions, he had engaged the good offices of Lord Say and Sele, and Lord Manchester, to endeavor to ward off that calamity. He added: “Episcopacy, common prayer, bowing at the name of Jesus, sign of the cross in baptism, the altar, and organs are in use, and like to be more. The Lord keep and preserve his churches, that there may not be fainting in the day of trial "% The Magistrates immediately convoked an extraordinary General Court, and, in anticipation of its meeting, addressed letters to Lord Manchester, and to Lord Say and Sele, to fortify their agent's application for the interest of those noblemen.” The Court, having read Leverett's letter, at once “ordered, that Addresses be made to the King's most excellent Majesty, as also to the High Court of Parliament.” The Address sent accordingly to the King was profuse in compliments, conveyed mostly in Scriptural phraseology. The Court prayed for his “gracious protection of them in the continuance both of their civil privileges and of their religion and liberties, according to the grantees’ known end of suing for the patent conferred upon the plantation by his royal father.” They declared that their “liberty to walk in the faith of the Gospel with all good conscience . . . . . was the cause of their transporting themselves, with their wives, little ones, and their substance, from that pleasant land over the ocean into the vast and waste wilderness.” In reply to the complaint of their proceedings against the Quakers, they said: “Had they not been restrained, so far as appeared, there was too much cause to fear that we ourselves must quickly have died, or worse, and such was their insolency that they would not be restrained, but by death; nay, had they at last but promised to depart the jurisdiction, and not to return without leave from authority, we should have been glad of such an opportunity to have said they should not die.” And they expressed their conviction, that, if their petition should prevail, “the blessing of the poor, afflicted, and yet, they hoped, a people trusting in God, would come upon the head and heart of that great King, who was sometimes an exile as they were.” In the more brief Address to Parliament, the memorialists represented that, “under the security of his late Majesty's letters patent,” the people of Massa- ...... chusetts had, at their own charge, transplanted the Parliathemselves, and for thirty years had continued " undisturbed, and enjoyed the rights and privileges granted by patent.” “We are not unwilling,” they said, “and hope we need not be ashamed, to give an account with what integrity and simplicity of heart we have managed the trust committed to us, or exercised any power, though perhaps to the dissatisfaction of some nocent.” For a vindication of their treatment of the Quakers, they referred to their Address to the King. Their “late claiming and exercising jurisdiction over some plantations to the eastward of them, supposed to be without the limits of their patent,” they affirmed, “was upon the petition of sundry the inhabitants there, and after an exact survey of the bounds granted them, not out of desire to extend a dominion, much less to prejudice any man's right.” And they concluded by “promising themselves, and humbly begging, the Parliament's favor and encouragement in the premises.” These Addresses, transmitted to Leverett, “ or, in his absence, Richard Saltonstall and Henry Ashurst, Esqs.” 1... were accompanied by instructions relating to £o." their presentation and to further proceedings. The agents were directed,— 1. to deliver the Addresses without delay, and in “the best and most acceptable manner;” 2. to engage the favor and good opinion of “gentlemen of worth in Parliament, or that were near unto his Majesty;” 3. to obtain “speedy and true information” of the way in which King and Parliament stood affected to the memorialists; 4. to explain that what they desired was a continuance of the privileges which they had received by their patent, and had hitherto enjoyed, including freedom from appeals to England “in any case, civil or criminal,” — to which benefits, if the agents should find “the King and Parliament propitious,” it was desirable to have added “the renewing the Act that freed from customs.” Any measures tending to the immunity of Quakers on Massachusetts soil were to be strenuously opposed, “as no less oppression of us,” wrote
* Hutchinson says (Hist., I. 194) that, at this session, “a motion was made for an address to the King, but it did not succeed; Mr. Norton, one of the ministers of Boston, was very earnest for it,” &c. Hutchinson's statement is circumstantial, and I presume it to be correct; but I know not his authority for it.
* Hutch. Coll., 322–324. — Still another party, mentioned by Leverett, of “complainants to the King's Majesty” consisted of “Mr Reckes [Becks]
and Sefford [Gifford], and company of iron-works.” Their complaint related to a long litigation, in which certain parties in England considered themselves to have been wronged by the government of Massachusetts. The curious reader may trace the progress of it in Mass. Rec., IV. (i.) 155, 188, 194, 195, 217 – 220, 228, 237, 241– 244, 251, 252, 311. Hutchinson's copyist misread the names.
* Hutch. Coll., 324; comp. Mass. Rec., IV. (i.) 449.