Those whom the Puritans denounced as persecutors said clearly and plainly, 'You shall not teach certain doctrines, you shall not practise certain acts of worship.' The rulers of Massachusetts extracted, confessedly with difficulty and after much inquiry, a certain meaning from obscure and vague propositions, and then declared that meaning to be heretical, and therefore criminal. In this case they could not even gloss over their proceedings by the pretence that the so-called heresy was dangerous to civil order. Roger Williams was undoubtedly a political agitator. Mrs. Hutchinson and Wheelwright were at least influential teachers, though it was a mere matter of inference that their doctrines were subversive of civil order. But there was not even that meagre pretext for punishing the Gortonists. All that they asked was to remain peaceably outside the community. Here there could be no pretext of purging the state from a disturbing element, and the whole proceeding only shows how shallow and hypocritical a pretence that had been in the case of the Antinomians. In truth, the New England Puritan had indulged his desire to force his own profession of faith on his fellowmen till it had become a morbid and overwhelming passion.

Looking at the question from the secular side, the conduct of the Massachusetts government deserves the same condemnation. Even if the claim to territorial jurisdiction were a valid one, there could be no justification for the manner in which it was enforced. Arnold and his companions at Patuxet had, it is true, invoked the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. But what would the men of Massachusetts have said if the English government had treated Morton and Radcliffe as competent to surrender the political rights of the colony? Gorton and his companions had offered to submit their

1643

PUNISHMENT OF THE GORTONISTS.

329

The rulers of Massachu

alleged rights to arbitration. setts refused that arbitration; they invaded these rights by force, and they then treated resistance as a crime.

All attempts to extort any concession, either on the doctrinal points or the question of jurisdiction, failed. Before proceeding to judgment the Court consulted the Elders. Their voice was for sentence of death. That opinion was accepted by all the Assistants save three. Happily the colony was saved from this atrocity by the comparative moderation of the elected representatives of the people. One would fain believe that this was the first symptom of a revolt against the ascendency of an unjust and merciless priesthood.

Even the tender mercies of the Deputies were cruel, and the heretics suffered punishments which, if inflicted by a bishop, would have given the victim a high place among Puritan martyrs. They were to be dispersed as prisoners each in a different township, and there kept at work in irons during the pleasure of the Court. Their stubborn obstinacy, however, prevailed over their opponents. Although the order of the Court strictly forbade their holding any conference except with the Elders or Assistants, yet they contrived to propagate their heresies, more especially among the women. Accordingly, at the next Court they were banished on pain of death. Their arms were taken from them and given to Saconoco and Pomham, and a levy made on their cattle to defray the cost of the expedition against them. The fugitives sought refuge in Aquednek. Gorton's previous dealings with the settlers there had been unfriendly, but this was now forgotten. To be a fugitive from Massachusetts for conscience' sake was in itself a claim to the sympathy of the Rhode Islanders, and Gorton with his

1 The sentence is given in the Mass. Records (vol. ii. p. 52).

company were suffered to sojourn in peace among the island settlers.

Dispute in

France be

tween

D'Aulney

Tour.

This dispute with Gorton was not the only one in which Massachusetts had contrived to entangle itself. In 1635 Razilly had died. His province was New now partitioned between his two lieutenants.2 Disputes soon arose between the limits of their and De la jurisdiction. Each claimed to be governor over the whole province of Acadia, and the French colony was thrown into a state of civil war. The whole attitude of affairs is a striking illustration of a peculiarity which distinguished French from English colonization. The English colonies often suffered from the ignorance, the folly, and the thriftlessness of those who undertook them, and from the neglect of those at home who should have befriended or controlled them. They never suffered from the personal ambition of their rulers. The satrap who would fain become an independent prince is a figure that meets us at every turn of French and Spanish colonial history.

Neither of the claimants had dealt with the New England settlers in such a fashion as to have established

Negotiations between De la Tour and the English.

much claim on their good-will. De la Tour seems to have made his first overtures to Shurd, an influential settler at Pemaquid. In November 1641 he sent a messenger, Rochet, described as a Rocheller and a Protestant, to Boston with a letter of recommendation from Shurd. The envoy asked for free trade with Massachusetts and for help against D'Aulney.

1 I can find no authority for the exact date of Razilly's death. But it is clear from the consensus of New England writers that it preceded and caused the dispute between D'Aulney and De la Tour.

2 The partition apparently was made by the authority of the Company of New France. Chalmers (Political Annals of the United Colonies, pp. 186, 198) mentions it, and refers to documents at Paris in the Depôt de la Marine. Charlevoix (vol. i. p. 411) professes ignorance of the exact cause of quarrel. He suggests that 'les deux gouverneurs fussent trop voisins pour demeurer lontems amis.'

1641-3

D'AULNEY AND DE LA TOUR.

331

The former part of the application was granted; the latter was refused on the ground that Rochet had no formal commission.1

In the following autumn De la Tour renewed his application, sending his lieutenant and thirteen men in a shallop. The French understood how to win the hearts of their Puritan neighbours. Papists though they were, they attended the church meeting, and accepted from one of the Elders a copy of the New Testament, with notes by a Huguenot divine. This friendly intercourse resulted in the despatch of a pinnace by certain Boston merchants to trade with De la Tour. On their return they met D'Aulney, who sent to Boston a copy of an order by the government in France for De la Tour's arrest, and a notice that any vessel trading with him would be liable to seizure.2 Next year D'Aulney took vigorous measures against his rival. De la Tour's wife was on her way from Europe in a ship from Rochelle. On her arrival at De la Tour's station at St. John's Isle she found her husband blockaded by his rival with three ships. De la Tour himself however contrived to escape in a shallop and join his wife. They then sailed to Boston to ask for help. If their visit had no other good effect, it disclosed to the government of Massachusetts the undefended condition of their chief town, since De la Tour might, if so minded, have sailed in unhindered and seized the person of the Governor.3

De la Tour now made a formal application for help, and produced his commission as Lieutenant-General of Discussions Acadia. Winthrop, who was now Governor, chusetts.4 called what was by his own admission an informal and incomplete meeting, consisting of such

in Massa

1

Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 42.

2 lb. pp. 88, 91.

p.

3 Ib. 107. The whole of this debate is very fully given by Winthrop (vol. ii.

pp. 107-115).

Magistrates as were at hand, and some of the Deputies. With their authority he told De la Tour that since the existence of the Confederation a single colony could not act independently in such a matter, but that they would not hinder him from hiring any ships by private agreement. This decision was not suffered to pass unchallenged. Endicott wrote to Winthrop pointing out the danger of having anything to do with these idolatrous French.' Saltonstall, Bradstreet, and Simonds, with four influential Elders, addressed a remonstrance to the Governor, contending that the justice of De la Tour's cause was far from clear, and that interference might expose the colony to the hostility of France.1 They also argued, reasonably enough, that by permitting men to volunteer in the service of De la Tour, the government was either approving of his cause or else admitting that it was not strong enough to control its own subjects. Accordingly a second meeting was called. No respect for Winthrop can make us doubt that he was wrong and his opponents right, and that his mistake was no small one. But the error of the statesman is more than redeemed by the integrity of the historian. Not only is the whole debate set forth by Winthrop without a shade of partiality, but he frankly acknowledges that here as at other times he was over-sudden in his resolutions.' The discussion fell under two heads: firstly, the propriety of giving aid to a Papist; secondly, the expediency of so doing in this particular case. On the first issue De la Tour's opponents relied mainly on scriptural precedents. In Jewish history an alliance with idolaters was invariably treated as a crime. The other side pointed out, not unfairly, that when the Kings of Judah were denounced

Endicott's letter is in Hutchinson's Collection of papers (p. 113). The remonstrance of Saltonstall, Bradstreet, and Simonds is in the same Collection (pp. 115-119).