CONTEST BETWEEN POLITICAL PARTIES.

435

X.

power was feared as a bulwark of authority, a limita- CHAP tion of the power of the popular will.1

Such had been the progress of public opinion, when 1045 the popular party felt a consciousness of so great strength, as to desire a struggle with its opponents. The opportunity could not long be wanting. The executive magistrates, accustomed to tutelary vigilance over the welfare of the towns, had set aside a military election in Hingham. There had been, perhaps, in the proceedings, sufficient irregularity to warrant the interference. The affair came before the general court. "Two of the magistrates and a small majority of the deputies were of opinion that the magistrates exercised too much power, and that the people's liberty was thereby in danger; while nearly half the deputies, and all the rest of the magistrates, judged that authority was overmuch slighted, which, if not remedied, would endanger the commonwealth, and introduce a mere democracy." The two branches being thus at variance, a reference to the arbitration of the elders was proposed. But "to this the deputies would by no means consent; for they knew that many of the elders were more careful to uphold the honor and power of the magistrates, than themselves well liked of." The angry conferences of a long session followed. But the magistrates, sustained by the ministers, excelled the popular party in firmness and in self-possession. The latter lost ground by joining issue on a question where its own interest eventually required its defeat.

For the root of the disturbance at Hingham existed in "a presbyterial spirit," which opposed the government of the colonial commonwealth. Some of those

1 Winthrop, i. 82, 83. 151, 152 299, 300, 301, 302; ii. 167. 169. 172. 204. 210. 307. 343.

X.

CHAP. Who pleaded the laws of England against the charter and the administration in Massachusetts, had been com1645. mitted by Winthrop for contempt of the established authority. It was now proposed to procure their release by his impeachment. Hitherto the enemies of the state had united with the popular party, and both had assailed the charter as the basis of magisterial power, the former with the view of invoking the interposition of England, the latter in the hope of increasing popular liberty. But the citizens could not be induced, even in the excitement of political divisions, to wrong the purest of their leaders, and the factious elements were rendered harmless by decomposition. Winthrop appeared at the bar only to triumph in his integrity. "Civil liberty," said the noble-minded man, in a little speech' on the occasion, "is the proper end and object of authority, and cannot subsist without it. It is a liberty to that only which is good, just, and honest. This liberty you are to stand for with the hazard not only of your goods, but, if need be, of your lives. Whatsoever crosseth this is not authority, but a distemper thereof."

It now became possible to adjust the long-continued difference by a compromise. The power of the magistrates over the militia was diminished by law; but though the magistrates themselves were by some declared to be but public servants, holding "a ministerial office," and though it became a favorite idea that all authority resides essentially with the people in their body representative, yet the Hingham disturbers were punished by heavy fines, while Winthrop and his friends retained (what they deserved) the affectionate

1 Winthrop, ii. 246.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY THE TOPIC OF PARTY.

437

X.

confidence of the colony. The opposition of Belling- CHAP. ham was due to his jealousy of Winthrop and Dudley, the chief officers of the state, whom he would willingly have supplanted.

The court of Massachusetts was ready to concede the enjoyment of religious worship under the Presby- 1645 terian forms; yet its enemies, defeated in their hope of a union with the popular party, were resolutely discontented, and now determined to rally on the question of liberty of conscience. The attempt was artful, for the doctrine had been rapidly making progress. Many books had come from England in defence of toleration. Many of the court were well inclined to suspend the laws against Anabaptists, and the order subjecting strangers to the supervision of the magistrates; and Winthrop thought that "the rule of hospitality required more moderation and indulgence." In Boston a powerful liberal party already openly existed. But now the apparent purpose of advancing religious freedom was made to disguise measures of the deadliest hostility to the frame of civil government. The nationality of New England was in danger. The existence of Poland was sacrificed, in the last century, by means of the Polish Dissidents, who, appealing to the Russian cabinet to interfere in behalf of liberty of conscience, opened the doors of their country to the enemy of its independence. The Roman Catholic bigots were there the impassioned guardians of Polish nationality. The Calvinists of New England were of a cooler temperament; but with equal inflexibility they anchored their liberties on unmixed Puritanism. "To eat out the power of godliness," became an

1 Winslow, 28.

X.

CHAP. expression nearly synonymous with an attempt to acknowledge the direct supremacy of parliament. William Vassal, of Scituate, was the chief of the

busy and factious spirits, always opposite to the civil governments of the country and the way of its churches;" and, at the same time, through his brother, a member of the Long Parliament and of the commission for the colonies, he possessed influence in England. The movement began in Plymouth, by a proposition "for a full and free tolerance of religion to all men, without exception against Turk, Jew, Papist, Arian, Socinian, Familist, or any other." The deputies, not perceiving any political purpose, were ready to adopt the motion. "You would have admired," wrote Winslow to Winthrop, "to have seen how sweet this carrion relished to the palate of most of them."1 The plan was defeated by delay; and Massachusetts became the theatre of action.

The new party desired to subvert the charter government, and introduce a general governor from England. They endeavored to acquire strength by rallying all the materials of opposition. The friends of Presbyterianism were soothed by hopes of a triumph; the democratic party was assured that the government should be more popular; while the penurious were provoked by complaints of unwise expenditures and intolerable taxations. But the people refused to be deceived; and when a petition for redress of grievances was presented to the general court, it was evidently designed for English ears. It had with difficulty obtained the signatures of seven men, and of these, some were sojourners in the colony, who

1 Hutch. Coll. 154.

2 Johnson, ii. Mass. Hist. Coll. viii. 6.

THE FACTION OF VASSAL AND CHILDE.

439

X.

desired only an excuse for appealing to England. The CHAP. document was written in a spirit of wanton insult.1 It introduced every topic that had been made the theme of party discussion, and asserted (what Lord Holt and Lord Treby would have confirmed, but what the colonists were not willing to concede) that there existed in the country no settled form of government according to the laws of England. An entire revolution was demanded; "if not," add the remonstrants, "we shall be necessitated to apply our humble desires to both houses of parliament;" and there was reason to fear that they would obtain a favorable hearing before the body whose authority they labored to enlarge.

For Gorton had carried his complaints to the mother 1646 country, and, though unaided by personal influence or by powerful friends, had succeeded in all his wishes. At this very juncture, an order respecting his claims arrived in Boston, and was couched in terms which involved an assertion of the right of parliament to reverse the decisions and control the government of Massachusetts. The danger was imminent. It struck at the very life and foundation of the rising commonwealth. Had the Long Parliament succeeded in revoking the patent of Massachusetts, the Stuarts, on their restoration, would have found not one chartered government in the colonies, and the tenor of American history would have been changed. The people rallied with great unanimity in support of their magistrates. A law had been drawn up, and was ready to pass, conferring on all residents equal power in town affairs, and enlarging the constituency of the state. It was deemed safe to defer the important enactment till the present contro

1 Compare Hutch. Coll. 189, 212, 213.