Gambar halaman
PDF

session of Court”; and it was declared to “be in the liberty of any of the reverend Elders, or other of the freemen, or other the inhabitants, to send in their apprehensions relating thereunto, with such arguments as were prevalent to their own understandings, in writing unto the committees, or any of them, to be communicated unto the whole Committee at their meetings for that service; so that, after serious consideration and conferences had, something might be deduced and agreed upon, if it were the will of God, that might be satisfactory and safe, as best conducing to His glory and this people's felicity.” Orders were made for putting the militia in more efficient condition. A constable and a selectman of Woburn were presented for having refused to “publish the King's Majesty's letter,” and “spoken of said letter to be Popery, &c.” But the Court did not find sufficient evidence for their conviction."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

THE course of proceedings in Massachusetts, immediately consequent upon the reinstitution of the British monarchy, has been related. When nearly a year had elapsed after that event was known in New England, Acknowledg- the government of Plymouth Colony passed a ment of the vote, that, being “certainly informed that it had :" pleased God to establish their Sovereign Lord, ... King Charles the Second, in the enjoyment of his undoubted right to the crowns of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland,” and that he had been “so declared and owned by his good subjects of those kingdoms,” they, on their part, did “declare and own their free and ready concurrence, . . . . . and to his said Majesty, his heirs and successors, did most humbly

and faithfully submit and oblige themselves for ever.””

* Brigham, Charter, &c., 134. Brigham copies from the Plymouth book of “Laws.” In the “Court Orders” nothing appears respecting this transaction, except an order (June 10) to the Colony Treasurer to “repay a barrel of powder to the town of Plymouth, to make good that which was spent at the Proclamation and at other times.” (Plym. Rec., III. 219.)

The internal politics of Plymouth had been more disturbed than those of any other Colony by the irruption of the Quakers. Scituate, at this time the richest town of the Colony (Plym. Rec., III. 150), was a favorite resort of the intruders, on account of its being upon the border of Massachusetts. Its three principal

citizens were Hatherly, Cudworth, and the ex-President of Harvard College, Dunster. In 1668, James Cudworth had been thirty-four years a freeman

of the Colony (Plym. Rec., I. 32), six

years Captain of the Scituate trainband (Ibid., III. 14), and two years an Assistant (Ibid., 99); and had served in the high office of Federal Commissioner. (Ibid., 115; comp. 77, 115.) In March of that year the General Court “received a petition from sundry persons of the town of Scituate, both of the military company and others, therein expressing sundry grievances relating to some late carriages” of his, “in reference to entertaining of such persons as are commonly called Quakers, to meet in his house, and

New Haven took no action upon the matter till quickened by a letter from Rawson, the Secretary of

Massachusetts, in which Governor Leete was in

[ocr errors]

formed of facts making a longer delay inexpedient. Leverett, the agent of Massachusetts at the British court, had

other with them.” The Court found the charge proved, and cashiered him as Captain (Plym. Rec., III. 130); and, the next spring, as has been mentioned above (page 484, note 2), he was dropped by the electors from the roll of Assistants, while his neighbor, Timothy Hatherly, a staff of the Colony from very early times (See Vol. I. p. 230), though chosen, was not admitted by the Magistrates to take the oath, having incurred displeasure on the same account. (Plym. Rec., III. 134.) The next year Cudworth's townsmen elected him to be their Deputy; but he “was not approved by the Court” (Ibid. 162), and consequently was not admitted to a seat. “Divers of the town” petitioned for his restoration to his military rank; but the Court denied their request, at the same time expressing the hope that they “would not account it any disrespect unto themselves.” (Ibid., 167, 168; comp. IV. 126.) The Court obtained a copy of a letter, which contained expressions of “great disaffection to the government, and manifest abetting and encouragement of those called Quakers,” and which they “strongly conjectured and suspected to be by him sent into England;” and they took a heavy bond of him to appear three months after, and answer for that offence. (Ibid. 183.) He appeared accordingly, and “being found a manifest opposer of the laws and of the government,” was “sentenced, according to the law, to be disfranchised of his freedom of the corporation” (Ibid. 189; comp. 198, 199); a sentence which remained in force for no less than thirteen years. (Ibid.,

W. 124.) The letter (which see in Bishop, 168 – 176; comp. Deane, “History of Scituate,” pp. 245–248) was written by Cudworth to James Brown, formerly his fellow-Assistant, and at that time in England. In respect to ability and to temper it commands the reader's high respect. In this letter, Cudworth says: “Through mercy, we have yet among us the worthy Mr. Dunster, whom the Lord hath made boldly to bear testimony against the spirit of persecution.” It has been said (Baylies, Historical Memoir, &c., II. 50) that Dunster's “dislike and hatred of the Quakers was unrelenting and vindictive;” but Cudworth's testimony is express, and it is impossible that he should have been in error. Nathaniel Morton (Memorial, 283) says nothing more of Dunster's opposition to the Quakers than that he “was useful in helping to oppose their abominable opinions, and in defending the truth against them;” — a statement which is perfectly consistent with Cudworth's. After Dunster had been driven from Cambridge (see above, 398) and was established at Scituate as minister of the congregation which Chauncy, his successor in the College, had left, he received (July 10, 1650) a letter from Ireland, informing him that some persons there, who entertained his opinions, and felt for his misfortune, had “made their request to the truly virtu

ous Lord Deputy [Henry Cromwell] to provide for him in that land,” and

that the Lord Deputy had “readily embraced the same, and ordered fifty pound for the bringing over himself and family.” (Mass. Hist. Col., XXXII.

April 12.

written that “his Majesty's Committee
took notice from inquiry, that it was only from

one Colony, namely Massachusetts,” that any Address

had been received."

196.) Dunster however ended his life at Scituate, Feb. 27, 1659. “He died in such harmony of affection with the good men who had been the authors of his removal from Cambridge, that he, by his will, ordered his body to be carried unto Cambridge for its burial, and bequeathed legacies to those very persons.” (Mather, Magnalia, Book III. p. 100.) His grave, in the old “God's Acre” near the halls of Harvard College, was opened July 1, 1846, when the President and Fellows renewed the tablet over it. The remains were found lying, six feet below the surface, in a brick vault which was covered with irregularly-shaped flag-stones of slate about three inches thick. The coarse cotton or linen shroud which enveloped them had apparently been saturated with some substance, probably resinous, which prevented it from closely fitting the body. Between it and the remains of the coffin was found a large quantity of common tansy, in seed, a portion of which had evidently been pulled up by the roots. The skeleton appeared to be that of a person of middle size; but it was not measured, as the extremities of the bones of the arms and thighs had perished, as well as portions of the cancellated structure of these and of some other bones. The configuration of the skull, which was in good preservation, was such as to the phrenologists indicates qualities, both moral and intellectual, of a superior order. The hair, which appeared to have retained its proper place, was long behind, covering thickly the whole head, and coming down upon

“The Governor convened the Gen

the forehead. This, as well as the beard, which upon the upper lip and chin was about half an inch long, was of a light brown color. The eyebrows were thick, and nearly met each other.

A work, by which Dunster long held a place in the frequent remembrance of men, was an improved edition of the “Bay Psalm-Book,” (see above, p. 41.) prepared by him with the assistance of Mr. Richard Lyon, who came from England to reside at Cambridge as private tutor to the son of Sir Henry Mildmay. (See Preface to Prince's edition of the book, in 1758.) When it had been in use half a century, Cotton Mather (who himself tried his hand at sacred verse) had “never yet seen a translation nearer to the Hebrew original,” though he wished that the poetry were mended. (Magnalia, III.100.)— In the library of the American Antiquarian Society, bound with a Bible printed in 12mo, at Cambridge in England, in 1648, is a copy of Dunster's improved version of the Psalms, in new nonpareil type, and bearing the imprint “Cambridge, printed for Hezekiah Usher of Boston,” without a date. And Mr. George Livermore has a copy of Dunster's Psalm-Book, also printed at Cambridge for Usher, and without a date, in the same type, but of a different edition, and bound with a Bible of the year 1682. No other book is known to have been printed in this country in nonpareil type earlier than the last quarter of the eighteenth century. (Thomas, History of Printing, &c., L 258.)

* IIutch. Coll., 338.

eral Court, and informed them of the occasion of calling them together at this time; and, among Aare-loss. the rest, the main thing insisted on was to con- ;. sider what application to make to the King in Haven. the case they now stood, being like to be ren- ** dered worse to the King than the other Colonies.” “The Court, taking the matter into serious consideration,” sent to Massachusetts a vindication of themselves from the imputation of “any mind to slight or disown his Majesty's authority,” and desired that they might be considered as “owning and complying with ” the Address presented before by Massachusetts, “as if it had been done and said by their very selves,” and that they might be allowed “to join in the proportionate share of charge for a common agent to solicit New England's affairs in England.” As to more formal and definitive action, they preferred not to be precipitate, and accordingly adjourned for three weeks." When they came together again, the Governor recommended that they should proclaim the King, and “further said, he looked that they had done more already, and that this was only a formality.” “Being debated and considered, it was voted and concluded as an act of the General Court that it should be done. And, for the time of doing it, it was concluded to be done the next morning at nine of the clock; and the military company was desired to come to the solemnizing of it. And the form of the proclamation is as followeth:“Although we have not received any form of proclamation by order from his Majesty or Council of State, for the proclaiming his Majesty in this Colony, yet the Court, taking encouragement from what hath been in the rest of the United Colonies, hath thought fit to declare publicly and proclaim that we do acknowledge his royal Highness, Charles the Second, King of Eng

* N. H. Rec., II. 418-422.

Aug. 21.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »