THE REVOLUTION IN NEW-ENGLAND JUSTIFIED.

THE doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance, which a sort of men did of late, when they thought the world would never change, cry up as divine truth, is by means of the happy revolution in these nations, exploded, and the assertors of it become ridiculous.

No man does really approve of the revolution in England, but must justify that in New-England also; for the latter was effected in compliance with the former, neither was there any design among the people in New-England to reassume their an­cient charter-government, until his present majesty's intend­ed descent into England, to rescue the nation from slavery as well as popery, was known to them (for indeed to have at­tempted it before that would have been madness.) They [Page 8] considered that the men then usurping government in New-England were king James's creatures, who had invaded both the liberty and property of English protestants after such a manner as perhaps the like was never known in any part of the world where the English nation has any government; and the com­mission which they had obtained from the late king James was more illegal and arbitrary, than that granted to Dudley and Empson by king Henry 7th. Or than it may be was ever be­fore given to any by king James himself, or by any one that ever swayed the English scepter, which was a grievance into­lerable; and yet they desired not to make themselves judges in a case which so nearly concerned them, but instead of harsher treatment of those who had tyrannized over them, they only secured them that they might not betray that country into the hands of the late king, or of king Lewis, which they had reason enough to believe (considering their characters and dispositions) they were inclined to do. They designed not to revenge themselves on their enemies, which they could as easily have done as a thousand men are able to kill one, and therefore when they secured their persons, they declared (as in their declaration printed at Boston in New-Eng­land is to be seen) that they would leave it to the king and parliament of England, to inflict what punishment they should think meet for such criminals. Their seizing and securing the governor, was no more than was done in England, at Hull, Dover, Plymouth, &c. that such a man as Mr. John Palmer should exclaim against it, is not to be wondered at, seeing he was one of the governor's tools, being of his council, made a judge by him, and too much concerned in some illegal and arbitrary proceedings; but his confidence is wonderful, that he should publish in print that neither himself nor sir Ed­mund Androsse, nor others of them who had been secured by the people in New-England, had any crimes laid to their charge, whereas the foresaid declaration emitted the very day they were secured, doth plainly set forth their crimes. And in the preface of his book he hath these words; viz.

‘We appeared at the council-board where the worst of our enemies, even the very men who had so unjustly imprisoned and detained us, had nothing to say or object against us.’—

By these enemies he speaks of, we suppose he means those who were lately sent as agents from Boston in New-England; he hath therefore necessitated us to inform the world, that the following objections (though not by his enemies, yet) by those agents presented at the council-board.

[Page 10]These particulars were not only presented at the council-board, but there read before the right honorable the lords of the committee of foreign plantations on April 17, 1690. when Sir Edmund Androsse, Mr. Palmer, and the rest concer­ned were present, and owned that they had received copies thereof from Mr. Blaithwaite. It is true that the paper then read was not signed by the agents aforesaid, for which reason (as we understand, nor could it rationally be otherwise expected) the matter was dismissed without an hearing; ne­vertheless the gentlemen who appeared as council for the New-England agents, declared, that they were ready to prove every article of the objections; which shall now be done.

1. That Sir Edmund Androsse, with others whom the people in New-England seized, and secured did, after notice of his pre­sent majesty's intended descent into England to deliver the na­tion from popery and arbitrary power, to their utmost oppose that glorious design, is manifest by the proclamation printed and published in New-England, Jan. 10, 1688, signed by Sir Edmund Androsse and his deputy secretary John West, in which King James's proclamation of October 16, 1688, is recited and referred unto. Sir Edmund's proclamation begins thus; ‘Whereas his majesty has been graciously pleased by his royal letter bearing date the 16th of October last past, to signify that he hath undoubted advice that a great and sudden invasion from Holland, with an armed force of fo­reigners and strangers will be speedily made in an hostile manner upon his majesty's kingdom of England, and that although some false pretences relating to liberty, property, and religion,' &c. And then he concludes thus— 'All which it is his majesty's pleasure should be made known in the most public manner to his loving subjects within this his territory and dominion of New-England, that they may be the better prepared to resist any attempts that may be made by his majesty's enemies in these parts, I do therefore hereby charge and command all officers civil and military, and all other his majesty's loving subjects within this his territory and dominion aforesaid, to be vigilant and careful in their respective places and stations, and that upon the approach of any fleet or foreign force, they be in readiness, and use their utmost endeavours to hinder any landing or invasion that may be intended to be made within the same.’

2. And that they used all imaginable endeavours to stifle the news of the prince's landing in England, appears not only from the testimony of the people there, and from the letters of those now in government at Boston, but from the deposition [Page 11] of Mr. John Winslow, who affirms that being in Nevis in February 1688, a ship arrived there from England with the prince of Orange's declaration, and intelligence of the happy change of affairs in England, which he knew would be wel­come news in New-England, and therefore was at the charge to procure a written copy of that princely declaration with which he arrived at Boston about a fortnight before the revo­lution there. He concealed the declaration, from Sir Edmund, because he believed if it came into his possession, he would keep the people in ignorance concerning it; but intimation being given that Mr. Winslow had brought with him the declaration, he was therefore committed to prison (though he offered two thousand pounds bail) for bringing into the country a treasonable paper. For the satisfaction of such as are willing to be informed in this matter, Mr. Winslow's testimony as it was given upon oath before a magistrate in New-England shall be here inserted. It is as follows, viz.

By these things it appears that it was absolutely necessary for the people in New-England to seize Sir Edmund Androsse and his accomplices, that so they might secure that territory for their present majesties king William and queen Mary.

3. That Sir Edmund Androsse, &c. did make laws destructive to the liberty of the subjects, is notoriously known, for they made what laws they pleased without any consent of the people, either by themselves or representatives, which is indeed to destroy the fundamentals of the English and to erect a French government. We cannot learn that the like was ever practised in any place where the English are planters, but only where Sir Edmund An­drosse hath been governor: For whereas in New-England by con­stant usage under their charter government, the inhabitants of each town did assemble as occasion offered to consider of what might conduce to the welfare of their respective towns, the relief of the poor, or the like, Sir Edmund Androsse, with a few of his council, made a law prohibiting any town-meeting except once a year, viz. on the third Monday in May. The inhabitants of the country were startled at this law, as being apprehensive the design of it was to prevent the people in every town from meeting to make complaints of their grie­vances. And whereas by constant usage any person might remove out of the country at his pleasure, a law was made that no man should do so without the governor's leave. And all fishing boats, coasters, &c. were to enter into a thousand pounds bond, whereby fees were raised for himself and crea­tures. This law could not pass at Boston, because many of Sir Edmund's council there opposed it; but then a juncto of them meeting at New-York, passed it; and after that law was made, how should any dissatisfied persons ever obtain [Page 13] liberty to go for England to complain of their being oppres­sed by arbitrary governors?

4. But besides all this, they made laws for the levying monies without the consent of the people either by themselves or by an assembly; for in order to the supporting their own go­vernment, they did by an act bearing date March 3, 1686, raise considerable sums of money on the king's subjects in that part of his dominions, viz. a penny in the pound on all estates personal or real, twenty pence per head as poll mo­ney, a penny in the pound for goods imported, besides an ex­cise on wine, rum and other liquors.

It hath indeed been pleaded that all this was but what the laws of the country before the change of the government did allow. But this is vainly pretended, for there was no such law in force at the time when these sums were levied, the former laws which did authorize it, were repealed October 10, 1683, some years before Sir Edmund Androsse and his accomplices had invaded the rights and liberties of the people there. More­over, in those parts of the country where there were never any such laws in force, particularly in Plymouth colony, this money was levied, which they heavily complained of. Yet further, in another act dated Feb. 15, 1687, they did without any colour of ancient law make an additional du­ty of impost and excise, which raised the duty, some ten shillings, some twenty shillings per pipe on wines, and so on other things. Nay they levied monies on Connecticut colo­ny contrary to their charter, which was never vacated, than which nothing more illegal and arbitrary could have been perpetrated by them.

5. They did not only act according to these illegal taxes, but they did inflict severe punishment on those true English men who did oppose their arbitrary proceedings, as shall be made to appear in many instances. When the inhabitants of Ipswich in New-England were required to choose a com­missioner to tax that town, some principal persons there that could not comply with what was demanded of them, did modestly give their reasons, for which they were committed to goal, as guilty of high misdemeanours, and denied an ha­beus corpus, and were obliged to answer it at a court of oyer and terminer at Boston. And that they might be sure to be found guilty, jurors were picked of such as were no freehol­ders, nay of strangers; the prisoners pleading the privilege of Englishmen not to be taxed without their own consent, they were told that the laws of England would not follow them to the end of the earth, they meant the privileges of the English law, for the penalties they resolved should follow [Page 14] them quo jure quâque injuriâ. And why should they insist on, and talk of the privileges of Englishmen, when it had been declared in the governor's council, that the king's subjects in New-England did not differ much from slaves, and that the only difference was, that they were not bought and sold? But to go on with the matter before us; in as much as the prisoners mentioned had asserted their English liberties, they were severely handled, not only imprisoned for several weeks, but fined and bound to their good behaviour; Mr. John Wise was fined fifty pounds besides costs of court, deprived of the means of his subsistance, and gave a thousand pounds bond for good behavior. And Mr. John Appleton was fined fifty pounds and to give a thousand pounds bond for good behavior, and moreover declared incapable to bear office, besides unreasonable fees. After the same manner did they proceed with several others belonging to Ipswich. Like­wise the towns men of Rowley, Salisbury, Andover, &c. had the same measure. And the king's subjects were not only oppressed thus in the Massachusetts colony, but in Plymouth. For when Shadrach Wild boar the town-clerk of Taunton in New-England did, with the consent of the town, sign a modest paper signifying their not being free to raise money on the inhabitants without their own consent by an assembly, the honest man was for this committed close prisoner, and after that punished with a fine of twenty marks and three months imprisonment, and bound to find sureties by recognizance to appear the next court, and to be of the good behaviour. As to the matter of fact, the persons concerned in these ille­gal and arbitrary judgments will not have the face to deny them; if they do, there are affidavits now in London which will evince what hath been related when ever there shall be occasion for it.

It is a vanity in Mr. Palmer, to think that he hath answe­red this by affirming, but not proving, that the Ipswich men assembled themselves in a riotous manner; for that saying of his is very false. The world knows that New-England is not the only place where honest men have in these late days been proceeded against as guilty of riots, when they never deserved such a censure any more than these accused by Mr. Palmer. But the truth of what hath been thus far related is confirmed by the following affidavits.

6. That those who were in confederacy with Sir Edmund Androsse for the enriching themselves on the ruins of New-England, did invade the property as well as liberty of the sub­ject, is in the next place to be cleared, and we trust will be made out beyond dispute. When they little imagined that there should ever be such a revolution in England as that which by means of his present majesty this nation is blest with, they feared not to declare their sentiments to the inexpressible exasperation of the people whom they were then domineer­ing over. They gave out, that now their charter was gone, all their lands were the king's, that themselves did represent the king, and that therefore men that would have any legal title to their lands must take patents of them, on such terms as they should see meet to impose. What people that had the spirits of Englishmen, could endure this? That when they had at vast charges of their own conquered a wilderness, and [Page 18] been in possession of their estates forty, nay sixty years, that now a parcel of strangers, some of them indigent enough, must come and inherit all that the people now in New-Eng­land and their fathers before them, had laboured for! Let the whole nation judge, whether these men were not driving on a French design, and had not fairly erected a French go­vernment. And that our adversaries may not insult and say, these are words without proof, we shall here subjoin the tes­timonies of the reverend Mr. Higginson, and several other worthy persons, given in upon oath, concerning this matter.

And that the practices of these men have been according to their principles, destructive to the property of the subject, is now to be declared. It is a thing too well known to be de­nied, that some of Sir Edmund's council begged (if they had not had secret encouragement no man believes they would have done so) those lands which are called the commons be­longing to several townships, whereby Plymouth, Lynn, Cam­bridge, Rhode-Island, &c. would have been ruinated, had these men's projects taken effect. And not only the commons belonging to towns, but those lands which were the proper­ty of several particular persons in Charlestown, were granted from them. And writs of intrusion were issued out against Col. Shrimpton, Mr. Samuel Seawall, and we know not how many more besides, that their lands might be taken from them under pretence of belonging to king James. An island in the possession of John Pittome antiently appropriated to the maintenance of a free-school, was in this way seized. How such men can clear themselves from the guilt of sacrilegious Oppression, they had best consider. Mr. Palmer swaggers and hectors at a strange rate; for he hath these words, ( p. 29.) ‘I should be glad to see that man who would bare-faced in­stance in no particular grant of any man's right or possession passed by Sir Edmund Androsse during his government’ — And what if we will shew him the men, that dare affirm as much or more than that? what will he do?

We will produce those that have said (and sworn) as much as all this comes to. For John Pittome hath upon oath de­clared, that James Sherlock, Sir Edmund's Sheriff, came on Dear Island on the 28th of January 1688, and turned him and [Page 23] his family afloat on the water when it was a snowy day, al­though he was tenant there to Col. Shrimpton and that the said Sherlock put two men (whom he brought with him) into possession of the said Island (as he said) on behalf of King James the second. Let him also know, that Mr. Shepard and Mr. Burrill of Lynn, and James Russell, Esq of Charlestown in New-England have declared upon oath as followeth.

Had not an happy revolution happened in England, and so in New-England, in all probability those few ill men would have squeezed more out of the poorer sort of people there, than half their estates are worth, by forcing them to take pa­tents. Major Smith can tell them, that an estate not worth 200 l. had more than 50 l. demanded for a patent for it. And if their boldness and madness would carry them out to op­press the rich after such a manner as hath been shewed, what might the poor look for? Nevertheless, their tyranny was beyond any thing that hath been as yet expressed: [...] [Page 26] men were willing to bring their titles to their possessions to a legal trial, they were not only threatened, but fined and pro­secuted, and used with barbarous cruelty. When some gen­tlemen in Boston resolved in a legal way to defend their title to an island there, Sir Edmund's Attorney threatened that it might cost them all that they are worth, and something besides, as appears by the following affidavit, viz.

One of Sir Edmund's council and creatures, petitioned for an island belonging to the town of Plymouth, and because the agents of the said town obtained a voluntary subscription from the persons concerned to bear the charge of the suit; they were treated as criminals, and against all law, illegally com­pelled to answer in another county, and not that where the pretended misdemeanours were committed. And Mr. Wiswall [Page 27] the minister of Duxbury having at the desire of some concerned transcribed a writing which tended to clear the right they had to the island in controversy, and also concerning the a­bovesaid voluntary subscription, both transcribed in the win­ter 1687. A messenger was sent, to bring him to Boston on the 21st June, 1688; he was then lame in both feet with the gout, fitter for a bed than a journey, therefore wrote to the governor, praying that he might be excused until he should be able to travel, and engaged that then he would attend any court, but the next week the cruel officer by an express order from Sir Edmund Androsse, forced him to ride in that condition, being shod with clouts instead of shoes; and when he came before the council he was there made to stand till the anguish of his feet and shoulders had almost overcome him; after he was dismissed from the council, the messenger came and told him, he must go to goal, or enter into bonds for his appearance at the next superior court held in Boston, and pay down 4 l. 2 s. in silver. His sickness forced him to decline a prison, and to pay the money. At the next supe­rior court he appeared in the same lame and sick condition, and the extremity of the weather cast him into such a vio­lent fit of sickness, that he was in the judgment of others nigh unto death, and he himself thought that he should soon be out of their bonds, and at liberty to lay his information a­gainst his oppressors before the righteous Judge of the whole world. After all this having been forced a third time out of his own county and colony, near forty miles, he was deliver­ed from the hands and humours of his tyrannical oppressors, who had exposed him to great difficulties, charges, and to 228 miles travel in journeying to and from Boston, directly opposite to the place where he ought to have been tried, had he been guilty of any of the pretended misdemeanors, none of which his worst enemies ever had the face to read in open court, or openly to charge him with to this day. Now shall such men as these talk of barbarous usage who have themselves been so inhumane?

7. As for Sir Edmund Androsse his supplying the Indians with amunition in the time of actual war with them, the fol­lowing testimonies confirmed the people of New-England in the belief of it.

8. That the Indians declared they were encouraged by Sir Edmund Androsse to make war upon the English, is most cer­tainly true, although the lying author of that scandalous pamphlet, called New-England's faction discovered, has the impudence to say, that it is certainly false. Two Indians, Waterman and David, testify that the Maquas Indians sent a messenger to Pennicock, to inform that Sir Edmund Androsse had been tampering to engage them to fight against the Eng­lish. Another Indian called Solomon Thomas, affirmed, that Sir Edmund gave him a book, and that he said that book was better than the Bible, that it had in it the picture of the virgin Mary, and that when they should fight at the eastward, Sir Edmund would sit in his Wigwam, and say, O brave Indians! Another Indian named Joseph (who was in hostility against the English) bragged that the governor had more love for them than for the English. Another Indian named John James, did of his own voluntary mind declare to several in Sudbury, that Sir Edmund Androsse had hired the Indians to kill the English: The men to whom he thus expressed him­self, reproved him, and told him that they believed he belied Sir Edmund Androsse and therefore they secured him, and com­plained to a justice of peace, by which means he was brought to Boston, but Sir Edmund instead of punishing was kind to the Indian, when as both the justice and the Sudbury man had (to use Mr. Palmer's phrase) horrible usage, by means whereof an alarm and terror run through the country, fear­ing some mischievous design against them. That this re­lation is not a feigned story, the ensuing testimonies make to appear.

That when the English secured some of the Indians men­tioned, and brought them before Sir Edmund Androsse's justi­ces, they were basely and barbarously used for their pains, the following affidavits shew.

Although no man does accuse Sir Edmund meerly upon Indian testimony, yet let it be duly weighed (the premises considered) whether it might not create suspicion and an as­tonishment in the people of New-England, in that he did not punish the Indians who thus charged him, but the English who complained of them for it. And it is certain, that some very good and wise men in New-England do verily believe that he was deeply guilty in this matter, especially consider­ing what might pass between him and Hope Hood an Indian, concerning which Mr. Thomas Danforth the present deputy-governor at Boston in New-England, in a letter bearing date April 1, 1690, writeth thus:—

‘The commander in chief of those that made this spoil, (i. e.) the spoil which was made in the province of Maine on the 18th of March last, is Hope Hood an Indian, one that was with sundry other Indians in the summer 1688 seized by some of Sir Edmund's justices and comman­ders in the province of Maine, and sent prisoners to Boston, Sir Edmund being then at the westward, where he con­tinued absent many weeks; upon his return finding the Indians in prison, fell into a great rage against those gen­tlemen that had acted therein, declared his resolution to set them at liberty and calling his council together, was by some opposed therein, and among others, one gentleman of the council accused this Hope Hood to be a bloody rogue, and added, that he, the said Hope Hood, had threatened his life, and therefore prayed Sir Edmund that he might not be enlarged, but Sir Edmund made a flout and scorn of all that could be said. At the same time some of the coun­cil [Page 35] desired Sir Edmund that this Hope Hood might be sent for before the council, to which he replied, that he never had had a quarter of an hour's conference with any of them, and that he scorned to discourse with any heathen of them all, yet all this notwithstanding, at the same time whilst the council was thus met, did Sir Edmund privately withdraw himself, and repair to the prison where this Hope Hood was prisoner, and did there continue with him two or three hours in private, the truth of what is above related is at­tested by sundry gentlemen that were of Edmund's council, and were then ear witnesses, and likewise by others that saw Sir Edmund at the prison; and as it is now verily be­lieved that at that very time he consulted the mischief that is now acted by the said Hope Hood and company.’ Thus Mr. Danforth.

9. That Sir Edmund Androsse discountenanced making de­fence against the Indians, is complained of by five gentlemen who were of his council, and much concerned at his strange actings in that matter as in the account annexed to this apo­logy is to be seen. It is also confirmed by the Affidavits of two honest men, viz.

That Sir Edmund's high sheriff was a stranger in the country, and one that had no estate there needs no proof, and that strangers who had no freehold, were impannelled for Jurors is notoriously known. So it was in the case of the Ipswich­men as hath been noted, and when that reverend person Mr. Charles Morton, was causelesly and maliciously prosecuted, he was not only compelled to answer (contrary to law) in another county, and not in that wherein the good sermon they found fault with, was preached, but that if possible, they might give him a blow, there was summoned to serve as a jury man, one John Gibson no housholder nor of any estate or credit, and one John Levingsworth a brick-layer, who lived in another colony two hundred miles distance. When those in government will use such base artifices as these to accomplish their pernicious designs, how should any man's estate or life be secure under him?

11. That the persons objected against, were some of them guilty of great extortion is manifest from what has been rela­ted, and may yet be further proved, for (as by some instances we have already seen, and shall now hear more) they com­pelled men to take patents for their own lands, which they and their fathers before them, had quietly possessed till these co­vetous creatures became a nusance to the country, and it may be, none more criminal, as to this particular, than Mr. Palmer and Mr. West. A friend of their own, viz. Mr. Randolph, does in several of his Letters bitterly complain of them upon this account. In a letter of his of August the 25th, 1687, he writeth thus:

‘I believe all the inhabitants in Boston will be forced to take grants and conformations of their lands, as now intend­ed, the inhabitants of the province of Maine which will bring in vast profits to Mr. West, he taking what fees he pleases to demand. I shall always have a due honour and respect for his excellency, but I must buy his favour at three or four hundred pounds a year loss.’ And in another to [Page 37] the same, June, 21, 1688, he hath these words. ‘I went to one Shurte town-clerk of Pemyquid, to know what leases were made lately, and by whom, and for what quit rent, he told me that above a year ago Captain Palmer, and Mr. West produced to them a commission from Colonel Dungan, to dispose of all their lands to whoever would take leases at five shillings the hundred acres quit rent. They let there and at a place called Dartmouth twelve or sixteen miles distant from Pemyquid about one hundred and forty leases, some had eight hundred or ten hundred acres, few less than a hundred, some but three or four acres and all paid 2 l. 10 s. for passing their grants of 100 acres of wood­land, with twenty acres of marsh where-ever it could be found, but this bred a great mischief among the people; few or none have their lands measured or marked, they were in haste, and got what they could, they had their emis­saries among the poor people, and frighted them to take grants, some come and complained to the governor, and prayed him to confirm their rights which he refused to do, the com­mission and whole proceeding being illegal, having notice they were to be under his government, they resented it, but served their turn. The poor have been very much oppressed here, the fort run all to ruin, and wants a great deal to repair it. Captain Palmer and Mr. West laid out for themselves such large lots, and Mr. Graham though not there, had a child's portion, I think some have eight thousand or ten thousand acres. I hear not of one penny rent comming in to the king, from them who have their grants confirmed at York. and the five shillings an hundred acres was only a sham upon the people: at our return we saw very good land at Winter Harbour, enough to make large settlements for many people. The governor will have it first measured, and then surveyed, and then will dispose of it for settlements, Mr. Graham and his family are settled at Boston, he is made Attorney general, and now the governer is safe in his New-York Confidents, all others being strangers, to his council. 'Twas not well done of Palmer and West to tear all in peices that was settled and granted at Pemyquid by Sir Edmund, that was the seene where they placed and dis­placed at pleasure and were as arbitary as the great Turk. Some of the first settlers of that eastern country were denied grants of their own lands, whilst those men have given the improved lands amongst themselves, of which I suppose Mr. Hutchinson hath complained.’ In another, May the 10th 1689, he says; ‘I must confess there have been ill men from [Page 38] New-York, who have too much studied the disease of this people, and both in courts and councils, they have not been treated well.’ Thus does Edward Randolph, a bird of the same feather with themselves confess the truth, as to this matter, concerning his brother Palmer and West.

And that oppressive fees have been extorted by indigent and exacting officers is declared by Mr. Hinckley the present gover­nor of New-Plymouth in his narrative of the grievances and oppressions of their majesties good subjects in the colony of New-Plymouth in New-England, by the illegal and arbitrary act­ings in the late Government under Sir Edmund Androsse, which narrative is too large to be here inserted, but it is possible it may be published by itself, whereby it will ap­pear that every corner in the country did ring with com­plaints of the oppressions, and (to speak in Mr. Palmer's phrase) horrible usages of these ill men. Some passages out of Mr. Hinckley's narrative respecting this matter, we shall here transcribe, whose words are these which follow.

‘The bill of cost taxed by judge Palmer seems also to be the greatest extortion ever heard of before, as thrice twen­ty shillings for three motions for judgment at the same term, (and was it not their courtesy they did not move ten times one after another at the same rate) and taxed also, five pound for the king's attorney, and one and twenty shillings for the judges, and ten shillings for the sheriff, and other par­ticulars as by the said bill appeareth, and that which makes it the greater extortion is, that the whole bill of cost was exacted of every one of them, which each of them must pay down, or be kept prisoners till they did, though all seven of them were jointly informed against in one infor­mation.’ Thus Mr. Hinckley.

The cry of poor widows and fatherless is gone up to hea­ven against them on this account; for the probate of a will and letter of administration above fifty shillings hath been extorted out of the hands of the poor, nay they have been sometimes forced to pay more than four pounds, when not much above a crown had been due. Let Andrew Sergeant and Joseph Quilter among many others speak if this be not true, who were compelled to travel two hundred miles for the probate of a will, and to pay the unreasonable and op­pressive fees complained of.

Besides these things, under Sir Edmund's government they had wicked ways to extort money when they pleased. Mr. Wil­liam Coleman complains (and hath given his oath according­ly) that upon the supposed hired evidence of one man he sus­tained [Page 39] forty pounds damage in his estate. And there were complaints all over the country that Sir Edmund's excise men would pretend sickness on the road, and get a cup of drink of the hospitable people, but privately drop a piece of mo­ney, and afterwards make oath that they bought drink at those houses, for which the innocent persons were fined most unreasonably, and which was extorted from them, though these villanies were declared and made known to those then in power. William Goodhue, and Mary Dennis might be produced as witness hereof, with many more. Some of Sir Edmund's creatures have said, that such things as these made his government to stink. Also John Hovey and others com­plain of sustaining ten pounds damages by the extortion of officers, though never any thing (they could hear of) was charged upon them to this day, John and Christoper Osgood complain of their being sent to prison nine or ten days, with­out a mittimus, or any thing laid to their charge, and that af­terwards they were forced to pay excessive charges—It would fill a volume, if we should produce and insert all the affida­vits which do confirm the truth of these complaints.

In the time of that unhappy government, if the officers wanted money, it was but seizing and imprisoning the best men in the country for no fault in the world, and the greedy officers would hereby have grist to their mill. Thus was Major Appleton dealt with. Thus Captain Bradstreet. Thus that worthy and worshipful gentleman Nathaniel Salstoristal, Es­quire, was served by them and barbarously prosecuted, with­out any information or crime laid to his charge; for he had done nothing worthy of bonds, but it was the pleasure of Sir Edmund and some others, thus to abuse a gentleman far more honourably descended than himself, and one concerned in the government of New-England before him, but (to his eternal renown) one who refused to accept of an illegal and arbitrary commission, when in the reign of the late king James it was offered to him.

We have now seen a whole jury of complaints which con­cur in their verdict against Sir Edmund Androsse and his con­federates. Were these things to be heard upon the place, where the witnesses who gave in their affidavits are resident, they would amount to legal proof, as to every particular which was by the agents of the Massachusetts colony in New-England objected against Sir Edmund Androsse, and others seized and secured by the people there.

Moreover there are other matters referring to Sir Edmund Androsse which caused great, and almost universal jealousy of [Page 40] him. For first, His commission was such as would make any one believe that a courtier in the time of the late king James spoke true, who said Sir Edmund Androsse was sent to New-England on purpose to be a plague to the people there. For he with three or four more, none of them chosen by the people, but rather by that implacable enemy who prosceuted the quo warranto's against their charters, had power given them to make laws, and raise what monies they should think meet for the support of their own government, and he had power himself alone to send the best and most useful men a thousand miles, (and further if he would) out of the country, and to build cities and castles (in the air if he could) and demolish them again, and make the purses of the poor people pay for it all. Such a commission was an unsufferable grievance, and no honest Englishman would ever have accepted of it, or acted by it.

Secondly, Jealousies were augumented by his involving the country in a war with the Indians, by means whereof he hath occasioned the ruin of many families and plantations; yea the death or captivity of we know not how many souls. For he went (with the Rose frigate, and violently seized, and took and carried away, in a time of peace all the houshold goods and merchandises of monsieur Cakeen a Frenchman at Penobscot who was allied to the Indians having married the daughter of one of their princes whom they call Sagamores or Sachems; and when this was done, it was easy to foresee, and was generally concluded that the French and Indians would soon be upon the English, as it quickly came to pass. After the flame was kindled, and barbarous outrages commited by the Indians, Sir Edmund's managery was such as filled the coun­try with greater fears of an horrid design. For bloody Indians whom the English had secured, were not only dismissed, but rather courted than punished by him.

Thirdly, It cannot be exprest what just and amazing fears sur­prized the people of New-England when they had notice of the late king James being in France, lest Sir Edmund Androsse whose governor and confident he was, should betray them into the power of the French king, other circumstances con­curring to strenghen these fears. The Mohawks and other Indians were in hostility against the French and it was very advantagious to the English interest to have it so, but Sir Edmund caused them to make a peace with the French, where­by the French interest in those parts was strengthened, and the English weakened. Mr. Peter Reverdy (a French pro­testant) in his memoirs concerning Sir Edmund Androsse com­plains of this.

[Page 41]After that Sir Edmund Androsse and his accomplices were secured, such reports and informations came to hand, as made New-England admire the divine providence in accomplish­ing what was done against the late oppressors. They then saw the persons from whom they suspected the greatest dan­ger, were now incapable of betraying them.

If an unaccountable instinct and resolution had not an­imated the inhabitants in and about Boston, to seize on those few men, the people there believe New-England would have been in the hands not of king William but king Lewis e'er this day: For in Sept. 1689, several vessels belonging to New-Eng­land were taken near Cansoe in America by some French men of war. The prisoners since at liberty, inform, that the French told them, that there was a fleet of ships bound from France directly for Boston in New-England, but some of them were taken by the English ships of war, and three or four of them lost at Newfoundland, and that Sir Edmund Androsse had sent to the French king for them to come over, and the country should be delivered up. And the Lieutenant of a French man of war professed, that if Sir Edmund Androsse had not been imprisoned, they would then have gone to Boston. This shews what a good opinion the French had of him, and such reports so testified made a strange impression on the spirits of the people throughout the country: And that the world may see we do not write fictions of our own, the subsequent Af­fidavits are produced and here inserted.

[Page 44]But as to one of the crimes objected against Sir Edmund Androsse and his accomplices, Habemus confitentem reum. Mr. Palmer cannot deny but that they levied monies on the king's subjects in New-England, contrary to the fundamentals of the English government, which doth not allow the imposition of taxes without a parliament. The New-Englanders supposed that their late oppressors had been guilty of no less than a capital crime by their raising money in such a way as they did; and we are assured that one of them after he received, and before he acted by virtue of his illegal commission from the late king, professed, that if ever he had an hand in rais­ing a penny of money without an assembly, his neck should go for it; and yet no man that we know of had a deeper hand in it than this person had. But Mr. Palmer, for the justifi­cation of this so foul a business, lays down several positions which he would have no man deny; one of his positions is. That it is a fundamental point consented to by all christian na­tions, That the first discoverer of a country inhabited by in­fidels, gives a right and dominion of that country to the prince in whose service and employment the discoverers were sent. These are his words, p. 17. We affirm, that this fundamen­tal point (as he calls it) is not a christian, but an unchristian principle. It is controverted among the School-men, an domi­nium fundatur in gratiâ. Papists are (as Mr. Palmer is) for the affirmative, but the scripture teaches us to believe that the hea­then nations, and the sons of Adam, and not the children of Israel only, have a right to the earth, and to the inheritance which God hath given them therein, Deut. 32.8. When Mr. Palmer hath proved that infidels are not the sons of Adam, we shall consent to his notion, that christians may invade their rights, and take their lands from them, and give them to whom they please, and that the pope may give all America to the king of Spain. But let him know, that the first plan­ters in New-England, had more of conscience and the fear of God in them, than it seems Mr. Palmer hath. For they were not willing to wrong the Indians in their properties; for which cause it was that they purchased from the natives their right to the soil in that part of the world, notwith­standing what right they had by virtue of their charters from the kings of England. Mr. Palmer's position is clearly a­gainst Jus Gentium & Jus Naturale, which instructs every man, Nemini injuriam facers. He that shall violently, and without any just cause take from infidels their lands, where they plant, and by which they subsist does them manifest in­jury. And let us know of Mr. Palmer, if christian princes [Page 45] have power to dispose of the lands belonging to infidels in the West-Indies, whether they have the like dominion over the lands belonging to the infidels in the East-Indies, and if these infidels shall refuse to consent that such christians shall possess their lands, that then they may lawfully vi & armis expel or destroy them, as the Spaniards did! We may send Mr. Palmer for further instruction in this point to Balaam's ass, which ingenuously acknowledged that her master (though an infidel) had a property in, and right of dominion over her, Numb. 22.30. But this gentleman hath some other assertions which he would have us take for postulata, and then we shall be his slaves without all peradventures. He tells us in page 17, 18, 19, that the English plantations (in parti­ticulur New-England) are no parts of the empire of England, but like Wales and Ireland, which were conquered, and be­long to the dominion of the crown of England, and that there­fore he that wears the crown, may set up governments over them, which are despotick and absolute, without any regard to Magna Charta, and that whereas in Barbadoes, Jamaica, Virginia, &c. they have their assemblies, that is only from the favor of the prince, and not that they could pretend right to such privileges of Englishmen.

And now we need no further discovery of the man. Could the people of New-England who are zealous for English li­berties ever endure it long, that such a person as this should be made one of their judges, that by squeezing of them, he might be able to pay his debts? And can any rational man believe, that persons of such principles did not tyrannize over that people when once they had them in their cruel clutches, and could pretend the authority of the late king James for for what they did? in our opinion Mr. Palmer hath not done like a wise man thus to expose himself to the just resent­ments and indignation of all the English plantations. If ever it should be his chance to be amongst them again, what could he expect but to be looked on as communis hostis, when he thus openly declares that they have no English liberties belong­ing to them? — That worthy gentleman Sir William Jones (who was Attorney General in the reign of king Charles the second) had certainly more understanding in the law than Captain Palmer, and yet Captain Palmer (we suppose) is not ignorant that when some proposed, that Jamaica (and so the other plantations) might be governed without any assembly, that excellency Attorney (not like Captain Palmer but like an Englishman) told the then king, that he could no more grant a commission to levy money [...] subjects [...] without their [Page 46] consent by an assembly, than they could discharge themselves from their allegiance to the English crown; and what Englishmen in their right wits will venture their lives over the seas to en­large the king's dominions, and to enrich and greaten the English nation, if all the reward they shall have for their cost and adventures shall be their being deprived of English liberties, and in the same condition with the slaves in France or in Turky! And if the colonies of New-England are not to be esteemed as parts of England, why then were the quo warran­to's issued out against the government in Boston as belong­ing to Westminster in Middlesex! Are the English there, like the Welsh and Irish a conquered people? When Mr. Palmer hath proved that he hath said something. They have (through the mercy of God) obtained conquests over many of their enemies, both Indians and French, to the enlargement of the English dominions. But except Mr. Palmer and the rest of that crew will say, that his and their domineering a while was a conquest, they were never yet a conquered people. So that his alledging the case of Wales and Ireland before Eng­lish liberties were granted to them, is an impertinent story. Besides, he forgets that there was an original contract between the king and the first planters in New-England, the king promising them, if they at their own cost and charge would subdue a wilderness, and enlarge his dominions, they and their posterity after them should enjoy such privileges as are in their charters expressed, of which that of not having taxes imposed on them without their own consent was one. Mr. Palmer and his brethren oppressors will readily reply, their charter was condemned. But he cannot think, that the judgment against their charter made them cease to be Eng­lishmen. And only the colony of the Massachusetts had their charter condemned. And yet these men ventured to levy monies on the king's subjects in Connecticut colony. For the which invasion of liberty and property they can never answer. Indeed they say the corporation of Connecticut surrendered their charter. But who told them so? It is certain, that no one belonging to the government there, knoweth of any such thing; and how their oppressors should know that Conne­cticut made a surrender of their charter when the persons con­cerned know nothing of it, is very strange. We can produce that written by the secretary of that colony with his own hand, and also signed by the present governor there, which declares the contary to what these men (as untruly as boldly) affirm. Witness the words following.

Thus did Sir Edmund Androsse and his creatures, who were deeply concerned in the illegal actions of the late un­happy reigns, contrary to the laws of God and men, com­mit a rape on a whole colony; for which violence it is hoped they may account, and make reparation (if possible) to those many whose properties as well as liberties have been inva­ded by them.

Captain Palmer in the close of his partial account of New-England entertains his readers with an harangue about the sin of rebellion, and misapplies several scriptures that so he might make the world believe that the people of New-Eng­land have been guilty of wicked rebellion by their casting off the arbitrary power of those ill men who invaded liberty and property to such an intolerable degree as hath been proved against them. But does he in sober sadness think, that if when wolves are got among sheep in a wilderness, the shepherds and principal men there shall keep them from ra­vening, that this is the sin of rebellion condemned in the scrip­ture? How or by whose authority our lawyer comes to play the divine we know not. But since he hath thought meet to take a spiritual weapon into his hand, let him know that the scripture speaks of a lawful and good rebellion, as well as of that which is unlawful. It is said of good Hezekiah that he re­belled against the king of Assyria and served him not, 2 Kings 18.7. Indeed reviling Rabshakeh upbraided him, and said as in verse 20, thou rebellest (not unlike to Captain Palmer) say­ing to New-England, thou rebellest. Hezekiab's predecessors had basely given away the liberties of the people, and submit­ted to the arbitrary power of the Assyrians, and therefore Hezekiah did like a worthy prince in casting off a tyrannical government, and asserting the liberty of them that were the Lord's people, and God did signally own and prosper him in what he did, and would never permit the Assyrian to regain his tyrannical power over Jerusalem or the land of Judah, though for their trial he permitted their enemies to make some devastations among them. The like (we hope) may be the happy case of New-England. Mr. Palmer tells us, that New-England [...] valued itself for the true profession [Page 49] pure exercise of the protestant religion, but he intimates that they will be termed a land full of hypocrisy and rebellion, ir­religion, and a degenerate wicked people, p. 39. And is this the sincerity and christian moderation which he boasts himself of in his preface? Surely these are the hissings of the old serpent, and do sufficiently indicate whose children the men are that use them. Since he will be at divinity, let him (if he can) read the apologies written by Justin Martyr and Tertullian, and there see if Pagans did not accuse Christians of old, just after the same manner, and with the same crimes that he wickedly upbraids that good and loyal people with. Who are they that use to call the holiest and most conscientious men in the world hypocrites, liars, rebels, and what not? but they that are themselves the greatest hypocrites, liars, and rebels against heaven that the earth does bear? It is hard to believe that Captain Palmer does not rebel against the light of his own conscience, when he affirms as in page 38, that in New-England, every thing that hath any relation to their majesties is neglected and unregarded, without any recognition of their authority over those dominions. He cannot be igno­rant of the humble addresses which the people in New-Eng­land have from time to time made to their present majesties, acknowledging their authority. He knows that on the first notice of their majesties being proclaimed king and queen in England, both those now in government in New-England, and the body of the people with them, did (without any command) of their own accord, with the greatest joy proclaim their majesties in New-England. He knows that their ma­jesties have no subjects more cordialy and zealously devoted to them than those in New-England are, or that do with greater fervor pray for their long and happy reigns, or that are more willing to expose themselves to the utmost hazards in their service, and yet this man that knoweth all this, to cast an odium on that loyal and good people, insinuates as if they were rebels, and disaffected to the present government, and designed to set up an independent common wealth, and had no regard to the laws of God or men. After this lying and malicious rate hath he expressed himself. What rational charity can be extended so far as to believe that it is possible for him to think that what himself hath written is true? When Sanballat wrote that Nehemiah and the Jews with him intended to rebel, did he believe what he had written? no, he did not, but feigned those things out of his own heart. The like is to be said of those Sanballats that accuse the people [Page 50] of New-England with thoughts of rebellion. And so we have done with Mr. Palmer. What hath been said is suffi­cient to justify the revolution in New-England, and to vindi­cate the people there from the aspersions cast upon them by their enemies. Several worthy gentlemen have under their hands given an account concerning some of Sir Edmund's arbitrary proceedings, which is subscribed by five (and more would have concurred with them had there been time to have communicated it) of those who were of Sir Edmund's coun­cil during his government there, and for that cause their complaints carry more weight with them, which shall there­fore as a conclusion be here subjoined.