incur the expense of
bringing them to England. The Privy Council therefore deferred further
inquiry into these matters, and in the meantime gave the accused the
benefit of the doubt and postponement. 2. The nominal Governor of the
Company in England, Mr. Cradock, Sir R. Saltonstall, &c., "appeared
before the Committee of Council on the Company's behalf, and _had the
address or good fortune_ to vindicate their clients," &c. This they did
so effectually as to prejudice the King and Council against the
complainants, and excite their sympathies in favour of the Company, the
King saying "he would have them severely punished who did abuse his
Governor and Plantations." But the question arises, And by what sort of
"address or good fortune" were Messrs. Cradock and Company able to
vindicate their clients "to the King's satisfaction and their complete
triumph?" Must it not have been by denying the charges which all the
world now knows to have been true? Must it not have been by appealing to
the address of Mr. Winthrop and Company to their "Fathers and Brethren
of the Church of England," declaring their undying attachment to their
"dear Mother?" and also by appealing to the letter of Deputy Governor
Dudley to the Countess of Lincoln, declaring in 1630 that no such Church
innovations as had been alleged had taken place at Massachusetts Bay?
Must it not have been by their assuring the King's Council that the
worship of the Church of England had not been abolished in
Massachusetts, much less had anyone been banished thence for continuing
to worship according to the Prayer Book of that Church? Must it not have
been by their declaring that they were faithfully and loyally carrying
out the intentions and provisions of the Charter, according to the
statutes and laws of England? 3. Let it be further observed that the
King, according to the statements of the very party who was imposing
upon his confidence in their sincerity, that throughout this proceeding
he evinced the same good-will to the Massachusetts Bay colony that he
had done from the granting of the Charter, and which they had repeatedly
acknowledged in their communications with each other, as quoted above.
Yet the Puritan historians ascribe to Charles jealous hostility to their
colony from the commencement, and on that ground endeavour to justify
the deceptive conduct of the Company, both in England and at
Massachusetts Bay. Had Charles or his advisers cherished any hostile
feel