and his friends, who opportunely arrived in the autumn of 1635 and the following spring and summer.

The reasons assigned for this removal seem insufficient to justify it; or, at the least, insufficient to require it. As to their inability to maintain their ministers, it should be observed that at the same session when this reason was alleged, New Town was rated as high as any other town in the colony.1 The real want of accommodation for cattle and for an additional population may be estimated from the facts that, at this time there were probably less than one hundred families here, containing from five hundred to six hundred persons; and, supposing them to have sold one half of their cattle to their successors, their herd may have consisted of about three hundred. Including the land then offered by others and accepted by them, their territory embraced Cambridge, Arlington, Brookline, Brighton, and Newton. After making all needful allowance for improvements in agriculture, one might suppose here was sufficient room for somewhat more than a hundred families, with their flocks and herds.

Another reason is mentioned by Winthrop, namely, "the strong bent of their spirits to remove." The particular pressure which occasioned this "strong bent" he does not describe. But Hubbard, writing before 1682, when many were living who heard the discussion, intimates what that pressure was: "The impulsive cause, as wise men deemed and themselves did not altogether conceal, was the strong bent of their spirits to remove out of the place where they were. Two such eminent stars, such as were Mr. Cotton and Mr. Hooker, both of the first magnitude, though of different influence, could not well continue in one and the same orb." 2 Again he says: "A great number of the planters of the old towns, viz., Dorchester, Roxbury, Watertown, and Cambridge, were easily induced to attempt a removal of themselves and families upon the first opportunity offered; which was not a little advanced by the fame and interest of Mr. Hooker, whose worth and abilities had no small influence upon the people of the towns forementioned."3 The opinion thus expressed by Hubbard, was adopted by Hutchinson, nearly a hundred years later: "Mr. Hooker and Mr. Cotton were deservedly in high esteem; some of the principal persons were strongly attached to the one of them, and some to the other. The great influence which Mr. Cotton had in the colony inclined Mr. Hooker and his 1 Mass. Col. Rec., i. 129. 8 Ibid., xvi. 305, 306.

2 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., xv. 173.

friends to remove to some place more remote from Boston than New Town. Besides, they alleged, as a reason for their removal, that they were straitened for room, and thereupon viewed divers places on the sea-coast, but were not satisfied with them." 1 Trumbull suggests that political rivalry was mingled with clerical jealousy. Of John Haynes he says: "In 1635 he was chosen Governor of Massachusetts. He was not considered in any respect inferior to Governor Winthrop. His growing popularity, and the fame of Mr. Hooker, who, as to strength of genius and his lively and powerful manner of preaching, rivalled Mr. Cotton, were supposed to have had no small influence upon the General Court in their granting liberty to Mr. Hooker and his company to remove to Connecticut. There it was judged they would not so much eclipse the fame, nor stand in the way of the promotion and honor of themselves or their friends." 2

Very probably such jealousies and rivalries had some influence upon the removal of Mr. Hooker and his friends. It is known that Winthrop and Haynes differed in judgment upon public policy, the former advocating a mild administration of justice, and the latter insisting on "more strictness in civil government and military discipline," as Winthrop relates at large, i. 177–179. The Antinomian controversy, which did not indeed culminate until a year or two later, had commenced as early as 1635; in which Hooker and Cotton espoused opposite sides, and were among the most prominent clerical antagonists. Up to the period of the removal, it seemed doubtful which party would prevail. Both parties were zealous; both lauded their own clergymen, and spoke harshly of their opponents. It is not surprising, therefore, that Cotton and Hooker should feel that their close proximity was irritating rather than refreshing. On the whole, I think, "the strong bent of their spirits to remove" was not altogether caused by lack of sufficient land or by straitness of accommodations.

However doubtful the cause, the fact is certain, that the greater part of the First Church and Congregation removed from New Town; more than fifty families went to Hartford, and others elsewhere. Of the families residing here before January, 1635, not more than eleven are known to have remained. The following list of inhabitants is compiled from the Records of the Town, under the dates when they first appear. It should be observed, however, that perhaps many of them were here earlier than the 1 Hist. Mass., i. 43.

2 Hist. Conn., i. 224.

dates would indicate. For example, Dudley and Bradstreet, and probably others, under date of 1632, were here in 1631; many of those who are entered under date of 1633 were certainly here in 1632; and some of those whose names first. appear in 1634 had perhaps been residents one or two years previously. It may also be observed, that of those who removed, many did not permanently remain in the town first selected, but subsequently went elsewhere; yet it does not properly fall within my province to trace their various emigrations.

CHAPTER V.

CIVIL HISTORY.

IT has already been mentioned in the preceding chapter, that Mr. Hooker and a large proportion of his church removed from New Town in 1635 and 1636; and that Mr. Shepard with another company purchased their houses and lands. Among "the reasons which swayed him to come to New England," Mr. Shepard says in his Autobiography, "Divers people in Old England of my dear friends desired me to go to New England there to live together, and some went before and writ to me of providing a place for a company of us, one of which was John Bridge, and I saw divers families of my Christian friends, who were resolved thither to go with me." Accordingly "in the year 1634, about the beginning of the winter," he embarked at Harwich, having with him "brother Champney, Frost, Goffe, and divers others, most dear saints," who afterwards were inhabitants of Cambridge. They were driven back by stress of weather, and the voyage was abandoned. But "about the 10th of August, 1635," he again embarked; "and so the Lord, after many sad storms and wearisome days and many longings to see the shore, brought us to the sight of it upon Oct. 2, 1635, and upon Oct. the 3d, we arrived with my wife, child, brother Samuel, Mr. Harlakenden, Mr. Cooke, &c., at Boston. When we had been here two days, upon Monday Oct. 5, we came (being sent for by friends at Newtown) to them, to my brother Mr. Stone's house; and that congregation being upon their removal to Hartford at Connecticut, myself and those that came with me found many houses empty and many persons willing to sell, and here our company bought off their houses to dwell in until we should see another place fit to remove into; but having been here some time, divers of our brethren did desire to sit still and not to remove farther, partly because of the fellowship of the churches, partly because they thought their lives were short and removals to near plantations full of troubles, partly because they found