|
This small settlement persevered and survived. Yet the much larger and, historically, more significant settlement was that of the Puritans at Massachusetts Bay. Their views differed from those of the Plymouth group largely in the fact that the Plymouth Pilgrims were Separatists whereas the Massachusetts Bay Puritans were non-separatists.
The Puritans differed widely among themselves from reforming Anglicans to Presbyterians who sought a national establishment of religion like that of Scotland or of the City of Geneva in Switzerland to the Independents who, accepting the idea of an establishment of religion, nonetheless sought to rest juridical authority in the local congregation. The Massachusetts Bay Puritans looked with horror at the separatism of the Pilgrims. While deploring the religious conditions in England, they deplored and feared even more the idea of religious schism within the national church. Some of these non-separating Puritans, probably the vast majority of them, were Presbyterians. Those who came to America were Independents or Congregationalists, but congregationalists with a difference; non-separating Congregationalists.
In this group were many urban people, particularly of the rising middle class. Economically many of them were men of substance. Some had served in the House of Commons, and a very few were even among the nobility. They had all sorts of vested interests in England and no desire to leave home, its comforts, and its privileges. Yet with the accession of Charles I in 1625 and his dissolution of Parliament in 1629, it seemed that nothing less than civil war would possibly accomplish their program at home. Thus many began to look with favor on the possibility of settlement in the New World.
In 1628 the Massachusetts Bay Company received a grant of territory from the New England Council which was subsequently approved by the crown. This approval was technically the royal approval of the Charter, one of the most interesting documents of English settlement in America. All other charters specified the headquarters of the company, normally London but occasionally Bristol or another English city, where the stockholders would meet to conduct their business. Through design or oversight the Massachusetts Bay charter failed to specify a headquarters. The English joint stock companies previously formed were resident in England. They might, and usually did, send colonial governors as their representatives to manage the settlements, but such officers were delegates of and responsible to the officers of the company in England. The English government was thereby able to monitor the activities of the companies and keep them in check. Few stockholders actually migrated to the colonies.
But in the Massachusetts Bay charter there was no stipulation with respect to where the Company should have its headquarters and hold its business meetings. Such an omission may have been an oversight, but it was likely planned either with the ignorance or the connivance of the government. By 1629 the Company was making arrangements for a large permanent settlement, and those stockholders who desired to remain in England were prevailed upon to dispose of their stock to others who would settle. Clearly the design of those who migrated to Massachusetts in
1630 was to take the charter to Massachusetts and there to carry on government and trade and all company business safely removed from the coercive force of the King and the Kings Council.
|
