Church of
England" on their departure for America, as to their undying love and
oneness with the Church of England, and their taking Church of England
chaplains with them; they could appeal to the letter of Deputy Governor
Dudley to Lady Lincoln, denying that any innovations or changes whatever
had been introduced; they could appeal to the positive statements of the
Rev. John White, "the Patriarch of Dorchester," a Conformist clergyman,
and the first projector of the colony, declaring that the charges of
innovations, etc., were calumnies. Doubtless all these parties believed
what they said; they believed the denials and professions made to them;
and they repeated them to the King's Privy Council with such earnestness
as to have quite captivated the Judges, to have secured even the
sympathies of the King, who was far from being the enemy of the colony
represented by his enemies. Accordingly, an order was made in Council,
January 19, 1632, "declaring the fair appearances and great hopes which
there then were, that the country would prove beneficial to the kingdom,
as profitable to the particular persons concerned, and that the
_adventurers might be assured_ that if things should be carried as was
pretended when the patents were granted, and according as by the patent
is appointed, his Majesty would not only maintain the liberties and
privileges heretofore granted, but supply anything further which might
tend to the good government, prosperity, and comfort of the people
there." According to the statement of some of the Privy Council, the
King himself said "he would have severely punished who did abuse his
Governor and Plantation."

Mr. Palfrey well observes: "Saltonstall, Humphrey, and Cradock appeared
before a Committee of the Council on the Company's behalf, and had the
_address or good fortune_ to vindicate their clients."[104] It was
certainly owing to their "address or good fortune," and not to the
justice of their case, that they succeeded in deceiving the King and
Council. The complainants had unwisely mixed the charge of disloyal
speeches, etc., with Church innovations. It was to parry the former, by
assuming the statements to be _ex parte_, and at any rate uttered by
private individuals, who should be called to account for their conduct,
and for whose words the Company could not be justly held responsible. On
the main charge of Church innovations, or Church revolution, and
proscription of the worship of the Churc