[302]. In his “George Fox digged out of his Burrowes,” (p. 20,) Mr. Williams says of Mr. Harris, his “facts and courses others (of no small authority and prudence among us, with whom I advised) saw to be desperate high treason against the laws of our mother England, and of the colony also.” He then inquires, “was it my fury (as you call it) or was it not honesty and duty to God and the colony, and the higher powers then in England, to act faithfully and impartially in the place wherein I then stood sentinel?”
[303]. The origin of this unhappy quarrel is unknown. There were, probably, faults on both sides. They both used very angry and unjustifiable language towards each other. It appears that Mr. Williams so disliked Mr. Harris, that he would not write his name at length, but abbreviated it thus, “W. Har:” This mode of writing is seen in the fac simile prefixed to this volume. It seems evident, that Mr. Harris had, for some cause, a remarkable aptitude to get into difficulties. A letter of the town of Providence, to the “Honored Governor and Council at Newport on Rhode-Island,” dated August 31, 1668, and signed “Shadrach Manton, town clerk,” accuses him of turbulent conduct. In 1667, there was a great disturbance at Providence, excited, as it appears, by him. Two town meetings were held, and two sets of deputies chosen to the General Assembly, among whom was Mr. Harris. He was, however, expelled from the General Assembly, and fined fifty pounds, which fine was remitted the next year.—Backus, vol. i. p. 457. We may hope, that Mr. Harris, though he doubtless had faults, was less culpable, than his contemporaries thought him. It was an unquiet time, and few public men escaped censure.
[304]. In the records of the town of Providence, is the following act: “June 2, 1657. Ordered, that Mr. Roger Williams be accommodated with two acres and a half of land amongst the rest of the neighbors, at the further Bailey’s Cove, he laying down land equivalent to it, in the judgment of the town deputies.”
[305]. Pope (Essay on Man, Ep. iv. l. 284,) has aided in confirming the prejudice against Cromwell, by his famous line:
“See Cromwell damned to everlasting fame.”
Pope sometimes sacrificed truth to a brilliant couplet. The two lines which immediately precede the one just quoted are a specimen:
“If parts allure thee, think how Bacon shined,
The wisest, brightest, meanest of mankind.”
Public opinion now does not sustain the poet, in stigmatizing the great Bacon as the “meanest of mankind,” but views him as more sinned against than sinning. We may learn from these examples, how great is the responsibleness of popular authors. By a single line they may perpetuate calumny. They may poison the wells of knowledge.
[306]. Examples might be cited, of language like this, in American authors. They show the effect of a discreditable deference to foreign writers. But all American authors are not disposed to echo the infidel and tory opinions of England. Dr. Stiles, in his History of the Judges, defended Cromwell; and a writer in the Christian Spectator, for September, 1829, has vindicated the character of the Protector, with ability and eloquence.