New England -- History -- Colonial period, ca. 1600-1775
Another incident, of less importance, but interesting as showing the
feeling abroad and the means by which it might, for a time, be
suppressed, occurred at a meeting of the inhabitants of Boston later in
the year, to choose some men to divide additional town-land. The voting
was by secret ballot, for the first time, and Winthrop, Coddington, and
the other leaders failed of election. The first stated in his account of
the affair, that the electors chose mostly men of “the inferior sort,”
fearing that the richer men would give the poor an unfairly small
proportion of land, the policy, he added, having been to leave a large
amount undivided for newcomers and commons.[385] The argument, which was
sound, might perhaps have been considered sounder by the discontented,
had the governor himself, for example, not acquired by that time above
eighteen hundred acres, Saltonstall sixteen hundred, and Dudley
seventeen hundred.[386] After Winthrop had made a speech, and the
Reverend Mr. Cotton had “showed them that it was the Lord's order among
the Israelites to have all such businesses committed to the elders,” a
new vote was ordered and the magistrates were elected.[387]
Footnote 385:
J. Winthrop, _History_, vol. I, p. 181.
Footnote 386:
Adams, _Three Episodes_, vol. I, p. 365.
Footnote 387:
J. Winthrop, _History_, vol. I, p. 181.
It was evident that, if the little group of leaders, lay and
ecclesiastic, were to retain power permanently, in view of the spirit
evinced by the people, and the extremely rapid growth of the population,
it could be only by securing a firmer hold upon the body of magistrates
and the election of freemen. A few months previously, Cotton had
preached a sermon arguing that the magistrates, who were annually
elected under the charter, were entitled to be perpetually reëlected,
except for “just cause”; and he compared their rights to office with
those of a man in his freehold estate.[388] This suggestion seems to
have borne fruit something more than a year afterward, when, it having
been shown “from the word of God, etc., that the principal magistrates
ought to be for life,” it was voted that a council should be created, to
have such powers as the General Court should grant them, and not to be
subject to removal except for crimes or “other weighty cause.” This, of
course, was again a violation of the charter, and, like so much of the
reactionary legislation, was due to the direct influence of the
clergy.[389] Though Winthrop, Dudley, and Endicott were elected to the
new offices, the council was never granted any powers, and the plan
failed.[390]
Footnote 388:
_Ibid._, vol. I, p. 157.
Footnote 389:
R. C. Winthrop, _J. Winthrop_, vol. II, p. 271.
Footnote 390:
J. Winthrop, _History_, vol. I, p. 220; _Massachusetts Records_, vol.
I, pp. 167, 174, 195, 264.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account