XXV.
The New Haven colony. During the period of the greatest excitement over the Hutchinson case John Davenport, a noted Puritan minister of London, had been in Massachusetts. Like many other emigrant divines of the time he brought a migrant parish with him seeking a place to settle. Davenport arrived in June, 1637, and took part against the Antinomians in the synod. After examining every place offered them in Massachusetts, he and his friends refused all and resolved to plant a new colony. The people were Londoners and bent on trade, and Massachusetts had no suitable place for their settlement left. The bitterness of the Hutchinson controversy may have had influence in bringing them to this decision, and the preparations of Laud to subject and control Massachusetts perhaps had weight in driving them to seek a remoter settlement. Davenport had ideals of his own, and the earthly paradise he sought to found was not quite Cotton's nor was it Hooker's. He and his followers planted the New Haven colony in 1638. In this little colony church and state were more completely blended than in Massachusetts. The government was by church members only, to the discontent of other residents, and in 1644 New Haven adopted the laws of Moses in all their rigor. The colony was united with Connecticut by royal charter at the Restoration, after which the saints no longer sat upon thrones judging the tribes of Israel.
CONCLUSION.
Later English emigrations to New England. The emigration to New England from the mother country was quickened by the troubles that preceded the civil war. In 1638 it reached its greatest height, having been augmented perhaps by agricultural distress. Fourteen ships bound for New England lay in the Thames at one time in the spring of that year. There was alarm at the great quantity of corn required for the emigrants, lest there should not be enough left in London to last till harvest. "Divers clothiers of great trading" resolved to "go suddenly," in which we may see, perhaps, evidence of bad times in the commercial world. Some parishes it was thought would be impoverished. Lord Maynard to Laud, 17 March, 1638, in Sainsbury. Laud was asked to put a stop to the migration; but the archbishop was busy trying to compel the Scots to use the prayer book. Savage's Winthrop's Journal, i, 319, 320, 322. Most of the lords of the Council were favorable to New England; the customs officers purposely neglected to search for contraband goods, and the ships, twenty in all, got away with or without license, and brought three thousand passengers to Boston. Rushworth, i, Part II, 409, 718. But the tide spent itself about this time, and by 1640 emigration to the New England colonies had entirely ceased. Josselyn's Rarities, 108. About twenty-one thousand two hundred people had been landed in all.
Cavalier emigration to Virginia. The swing of the political pendulum in England that served to check the Puritan exodus gave impetus to a new emigration to Virginia and Maryland. During the ten years and more before 1640 few had gone to that region but bond servants. There were in that year not quite eight thousand people in Virginia. It is the point of time at which the native Virginians began to rear a second generation born on the soil. Petition to House of Lords, 15 Aug., 1648. Royal Hist. MS., Com. Rept., vii, 45. The waning fortunes of the king sent to the colony in the following years a large cavalier emigration, and the average character of the colonists was raised. Better ministers held the Virginia parishes and better order was observed in the courts. Sainsbury, 360. In 1648 four hundred emigrants lay aboard ships bound for Virginia at one time, and in 1651 sixteen hundred royalist prisoners seem to have been sent in one detachment.
Prospective ascendency of the English colonies. By the middle of the seventeenth century the English on the North American continent were in a fair way to predominate all other Europeans. From the rather lawless little fishing villages on the coast of Maine to the rigorous Puritan communes of the New Haven colony that stretched westward to pre-empt, in advance of the Dutch, land on the shores of Long Island Sound, the English held New England. English settlers "seeking larger accommodations" had crossed to Long Island and were even pushing into the Dutch colony. The whole Chesapeake region was securely English. Already there were Virginians about to break into the Carolina country lying wild between Virginia and the Spanish colony in Florida. The French and the Dutch and the Spaniards excelled the English in far-reaching explorations and adventurous fur-trading. But the English had proved their superior aptitude for planting compact agricultural communities. A sedentary and farming population where the supply of land is not limited reaches the highest rate of natural increase. At a later time, Franklin estimated that the population of the colonies doubled every twenty-five years without including immigrants. The compactness of English settlement and the prolific increase of English people decided the fate of North America. The rather thin shell of Dutch occupation was already, by the middle of the seventeenth century, feeling the pressure under stress of which it was soon to give way. A century later collision with the populous and ever-multiplying English settlements brought about the collapse of the expanded bubble of New France.
Elucidations.
[Note 1, page 321.] There is a paper on this debate in the British Record Office indorsed by Archbishop Laud, "Rec: Octob: 7. 1637," "Propositions wch have devided Mr. Hooker & Mr. Cotton in Newe England. 1. That a man may prove his justification by his works of sanctification, as the first, best, and only cheife evidence of his salvation. 2. Whither fayth be active or passive in justification. 3. Whither there be any saving preparation in a Christian soule before his unyon with Christ. This latter is only Hooker's opinion, the rest of the ministers do not concurr with him: Cotton and the rest of the contrary opinion are against him and his party in all." Colonial Papers, ix, 71. In the next paper in the same volume, also indorsed by Laud, the controversy is more fully set forth. Copies of both are in the Bancroft collection of the New York Public Library. Laud indorsed these papers respectively October 7 and 15, 1637. The Cambridge Synod, which met August 30th, had adjourned late in September, and the debates which divided the two divines must have preceded it, and perhaps preceded the migration of Hooker to Connecticut in 1636. When Haynes was Governor of Massachusetts he had pronounced the sentence of banishment against Williams. But some years later, while Governor of Connecticut, he relented a little and wrote to Williams: "I think, Mr. Williams, I must now confesse to you, that the most wise God hath provided and cut out this part of his world for a refuge and receptacle for all sorts of consciences. I am now under a cloud, and my brother Hooker, with the bay, as you have been, we have removed from them thus far, and yet they are not satisfied." Quoted by Williams in a letter to Mason, 1st Massachusetts Historical Collections, i, 280.