A letter from London, from Edward Howes to his relative, J. Winthrop, jun., dated April 3, 1632, says, "I have heard divers complaints against the severity of your government, especially Mr. Endicott's, and that he shall be sent for over, about cutting off the lunatick man's ears and other grievances" (Savage's Winthrop, p. 56, vol. 1). In respect to the levying of fines, Gov. Winthrop, who was accused of not demanding their payment in some cases, remarked, "that in his judgment, it were not fit in the infancy of a Commonwealth to be too strict in levying fines, though severe in other punishments." It has been well said that "religion and laws were closely intertwined in the Puritan community; the government felt itself bound to expatriate every disorderly person, as much as the church was bound to excommunicate him. They were like a household. They had purchased their territory for a home; it was no _El Dorado_; it was their Mount of Sion. With immense toil and unspeakable denials, they had rescued it from the wild woods for the simple purpose that they might have a place for themselves and their children to worship God undisturbed. They knew nothing of toleration. Their right to shut the door against intruders seemed to them as undoubted and absolute as their right to breathe the air around them."[2] This is the sum and substance of the Puritan government as long as it lasted. Under the charter, or without the charter, they made such laws as they pleased, before or after the occasion. They punished every thing which they thought to be wrong, or which did not conform to their notions of propriety or their practice, and this, too, without consistency or discrimination. In 1639, Winthrop says, "The people had long desired a body of laws, and thought their condition very unsafe, while so much power rested in the discretion of the magistrates. Divers attempts had been made at former courts, and the matter referred to some of the magistrates and some of the elders, [the church and state, in such cases, were invariably united,] but still it came to no effect, for being committed to the care of so many, whatsoever was done by some, was still disliked or neglected by others." So that it is doubtful if they ever really had a set of laws that were relied upon; that limited the discretion of the magistrates, or was ever reasonably and impartially enforced. If the law failed to be adequate, it seemed to be proper for the magistrate to make it so; and he not only supplied the deficiency, but occasionally coined or misconstrued a law for his purpose. Such a government might well be considered "unsafe." V. THE NARRAGANSETT INDIANS. VISIT TO BOSTON.