Massachusetts could not suffer the fabric which they had built up so laboriously and cautiously, to be imperilled by the indiscretion of a headstrong enthusiast.

in Eng

land.

The circumstances too of the time gave special importance to the danger. The severity of the MassachuAttacks on setts government, sometimes it may be needthe colony ful, often probably excessive, had raised up enemies who were making their voices heard in England. Gardiner, Morton, and Ratcliffe had, it was said, stirred up Gorges, ever jealous of Puritan colonization, and his partner Mason to lodge a petition against Massachusetts before the Privy Council. The form of the attack gave peculiar significance to Williams' conduct, since it was based on intercepted letters in which some of the colonists had denounced the church government of the mother country. In January 1633 the chief members of the Company then in England, Cradock, Humphrey, and Saltonstall, were summoned before a committee of the Privy Council. The report of the committee was that no such offence had been proved as would justify any present interference with the colony; that further inquiry should be made, and that if it should be found that the colony was administered as was professed when the patent was granted, the settlers should enjoy a continuance of the royal favour. This judgment is important, since it shows that the advisers of the King recognized the existence of Massachusetts as a Nonconformist colony. Moreover, the silence of the committee as to the transfer of the government, which must by this time have been matter of notoriety, is a further argument, if such argument were needed, against those who would represent that transaction as fraudulent or surreptitious.

The settlers did not leave the refutation of the

1 Winthrop, vol. i. p. 100. This is confirmed by a letter from Captain Thomas Wiggin to Secretary Coke (Col. Papers, 1632, Nov. 19).

2

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 103.

There is a copy of the order in Prince, p. 90.

1633-4

with

Dudley.1

DISPUTE WITH DUDLEY.

159

charges against them to their friends in England. They drew up an answer to Gardiner, and strengthened Dispute their case by a manifesto from the old planters testifying to the good conduct of affairs. The circumstances under which this answer was framed, showed how much reason Winthrop and men of his stamp had to fear the uncompromising policy of the more bigoted Puritans. Dudley took exception to three points in the answer. Gardiner had used the words ' reverend bishops.' Those who drafted the answer repeated the expression, it is needless to say without adopting or approving it. Furthermore they professed their acceptance of the Christian creed as received by the churches of England. Dudley found fault with this expression, on the ground that the churches of England and that of Massachusetts attached different meanings to the article in the creed stating the descent of Christ into hell. Finally he took exception to the title 'sacred majesty,' albeit John Knox had applied it to the Queen of Scotland. The opinion of some of the leading men of Plymouth was obtained; but though it was in favour of the three expressions questioned, the impracticable and impenetrable mind of the Deputy-Governor re

mained unconvinced.

ment of Commis

Though the danger of an attack from England was over for the present, it was not at an end. Next year Appoint- Laud and other members of the Privy Council began to see that Massachusetts was becoming a sioners for dangerous outpost of disaffection. In February 1634 ten ships bound for New England were stopped, and only suffered to proceed after the emigrants had taken the oath of allegiance and promised conformity with the Prayer Book.2 Two months later

Planta

tions.

1 The whole of this is told in Winthrop, vol. i. pp. 103-7.

2 Mr. Sainsbury states this on the authority of the Council Register. See his epitome of a letter from Dod, a commissioner for Suffolk, to Laud, 1634, Feb. 3.

a royal commission was issued entrusting the administration of the colonies to twelve persons nominated by the Crown.1 Their powers took in the whole body of colonies, and were in no way specially designed for New England. But the composition of the board made it certain that Laud would be, not merely the titular head, but the moving spirit. The powers of the commission included the right to punish ecclesiastical offences, to remove and appoint magistrates, to establish courts, and to revoke charters unduly obtained. Without stretching these powers beyond their legitimate interpretation, the Archbishop might by a stroke of his pen undo all that Winthrop and his associates had accomplished.

The colo

pare to

resist.

In England it was believed, not unreasonably, that this measure was specially directed against Massachusetts, and this was confirmed by a summons to Cranists pre- dock ordering him to hand in the patent. The order was sent on to the Massachusetts government. They at first temporized by withholding their answer. Soon after a copy of the commission reached the colony. With it came letters warning the colonists that a governor was about to be sent out, and that the discipline of the Church of England would be enforced. It became known that the arch-enemy of New England Puritanism, Morton, had written an exultant letter, in which he foretold with triumph the impending overthrow of King Winthrop' and his associates. measures adopted showed how real the settlers thought the danger. Three ports, Dorchester, Charlestown, and Castle Island, on the bay, were to be fortified. A military commission was appointed, with power to imprison and put to death, to appoint and remove military

1 Colonial Papers, 1634, April 28. Cf. Virginia, &c., p. 264.

2 Winthrop, vol. i. pp. 135-137.

3 Morton's letter is published in Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 190.

The

1634-5

WINSLOW IN ENGLAND.

161

officers and to make either offensive or defensive war.1

mission to

At the same time the rulers of Massachusetts did not neglect more conciliatory measures. The governWinslow's ment of Plymouth was at this time sending England. Winslow to England on commercial business, and also to make peace with Lord Say and his partners, with whom the settlers had quarrelled. It was arranged that Winslow should at the same time be entrusted with discretionary powers to advocate the cause of Massachusetts, and to explain to the Commissioners for Plantations the matters wherewith the settlers were charged. Winslow appeared before the Commissioners to answer the charges against Massachusetts, and was heard favourably. Emboldened, it would seem, by this, he addressed a petition to the Commissioners, setting forth the danger to which the New England settlements were exposed from the French to the north and the Dutch to the south, and asking, on behalf of the colonies, for authority to defend themselves against these foreign enemies. This application was condemned by Winthrop, as being an admission that the settlers needed special permission to act in selfdefence.4

Winslow's case seemed going favourably. Gorges however saw in the success of Winslow's mission the overthrow of his own hopes. Laud too knew that his own designs for bringing the colonies under ecclesiastical control could only be carried out in conjunction with the schemes of Gorges. Winslow, accordingly, was imprisoned on the charge of having broken the ecclesiastical law by celebrating marriages. A petition is extant,

1 Records, vol. i. pp. 117, 125, 146.

2 The mission of Winslow to England is fully recorded in Bradford (pp 204-206). Winthrop makes more than one reference to it.

3 For this quarrel see below, ch. viii.

4 Winthrop, vol. i. p. 172.

written by him from his prison. In it he admits the charge brought against him of having celebrated marriages in New England, but pleads the exceptional nature of the circumstances. He sets forth in general terms the utility of the New England colonies, and dwells on the bad character of their enemies, such as Morton and Gardiner. He also renews his petition for a commission against the Dutch and French. Finally he dwells on the pecuniary damage which was being done to his own colony by his detention.

His petition was so far successful that he was set free after an imprisonment of four months. There is no definite evidence to show that his representations produced any effect. But it is not unlikely that they may have had weight with fair-minded men, and done something to neutralize the attacks which were being made on the New England colonies.

Dangerous

A community which is brought face to face with an armed foe may be forgiven if it resorts to extreme measures to suppress disunion and disaffection attitude of within. The attitude of Roger Williams was Williams. doubly dangerous. It weakened the authority of the government, and at the same tended to discredit that government with the supreme authority in England. He was fighting as a free lance at a time when discipline was all important. Nor was the conduct of Williams in other matters such as to conciliate wise men or to inspire them with any confidence in his judgment. True to his principle of carrying out every theory which he accepted with logical consistency in all its details, he

1 The petition is in the Colonial Papers. Mr. Sainsbury places it conjecturally in November 1632, but there cannot, I think, be any doubt as to the date. In it Winslow speaks of himself as writing from prison. Moreover Winslow landed in America in June 1632 (Winthrop, vol. i. p. 78). There is nothing to show whether the petition was addressed to the Privy Council or to the Commissioners for Plantations, nor does Bradford tell us which of these two bodies gave the order for Winslow's imprisonment.