2. The Brownes arrived in London before Sept. 19, in the Talbot or Lion's Whelp. They probably left Salem soon after the installation of the ministers, which took place August 6. Of course they remained in New-England only five or six weeks, having landed at Salem June 30. See pages 89, 90, 235.

3 The case of the Brownes has already been frequently mentioned and referred to. See pages 89, 91, 94, 123, 168. We are fortunate in having a statement of the affair from one who was a contemporary and probably an eye-witness.

Gov. Bradford, who was at Salem on the day that Higginson and Skelton were ordained, Aug. 6, tells us, (for, as Prince says, p. xx. 11 Morton's History, down to 1646, is chiefly Gov. Bradford's manuscript abbreviated,") that "some of the passengers that came over at the same time, observing that the ministers did not at all use the Book of Common Prayer, and that they did administer baptism and the Lord's supper without the ceremonies, and that they professed also to use discipline in the congregation against scandalous persons, by a personal application of the word of God, as the case might require, and that some that were scandalous were denied admission into the church, they began to raise some trouble.

Of these, Mr. Samuel Browne and his brother were the chief, the one being a lawyer, the other a merchant, both of them amongst the number of the first patentees, men of estates, and men of parts and port in the place. These two brothers gathered a company together, in a place distinct from the public assembly, and there, sundry times, the Book of Common Prayer was read unto such as resorted thither.

The Governor, Mr. Endicott, taking notice of the disturbance that began to grow amongst the, people by this means, he convented the two brothers before him. They accused the ministers as departing from the orders of the Church of England, that they were Separatists, and would be Anabaptists, &c. : but for themselves, they would hold to the orders of the Church of England.

The ministers answered for themselves, They were neither Separatists nor Anabaptists ; they did not separate from the Church of England, nor from the ordinances of God there, but only from the corruptions and disorders there ; and that they came away from the Common Prayer and ceremonies, and had suffered much for their non-conformity in their native land; and therefore being in a place where they might have their liberty, they neither could nor would use them, because they judged the imposition of these things to be sinful corruptions in the worship of God.

The Governor and Council, and the generality of the people, did well approve of the ministers' answer; and therefore, finding those two brothers to be of high spirits, and their speeches and plactices tending to mutiny and faction, the Governor told them that NewEngland was no place for such as they, and therefore he sent them both back for England at the return of the ships the same year ; and though they breathed out threatenings both against the Governor and ministers there, yet the Lord so disposed of all, that there -was no further inconvenience followed upon it." Morton's Memorial, p. 147.

It appears from page 89, that on their return to England, a committee of ten was appointed by the Company, four of whom were nominated by the Brownes themselves, to investigate the affair. To what result that committee came, we are not informed; but the fact of the appointment of such a committee shows the disposition of the Company to do ample justice to the complainants, and disproves the charges of contempt and injustice alleged against them by Chalmers, (Annals, p. 146.)

We find from page 94, that, at their request, the Brownes were furnished with a copy of Endicott's accusation against them, to enable them to prepare their defence, -and from page 123, that a statement of grievances, which they presented to the Company for loss and damage sustained in New-England, was referred to another committee, with full power to allow what indemnity they should think proper, and so end the matter. Endicott undoubtedly thought he was acting in conformity with his instructions, in sending them home. See pages 159, 160, 196. Grahame, in his History of the United States, i. 218, says, "Notwithstanding the censure with which some writers have commented on the banishment of these two individuals, the justice of the proceeding must commend itself to the sentiments of all impartial men."

Bancroft, i. 350, remarks that "faction, deprived of its leaders, died away," and adds, that "the liberal Ebeling, i. 869, defends the measure." A mural tablet has been erected to the memory of the Brownes in the Episcopal church at Salem.

The Company seem to have been very solicitous that nothing should be done in their Plantation which might furnish a pretext for the Government to revoke their Charter. Such prudential considerations, however, weighed but little with Endicott, as we may infer from the daring and reckless spirit with which he afterwards cut the red cross out of the King's colors, not being able to brook what appeared to him a Popish and idolatrous emblem.

2 See note I on page 179.

********
Chap. 3 - page89
footnotes are in reference to the Brownes being able to choose three or four of the Company to speak on their behalf: chosen were Samuel and William Vassell, Mr. Symon Whetcombe and William Pynchon. Both Williams' had trouble with the governer and assistants later on down the road. They both seem to have been of the moderate variety of puritan. The company chose, Mr. John Whyte, Mr. John Davenport, Mr. Isaac Johnson, and Mr. John Wynthropp. DJ

I These letters are unfortunately missing.

2 This certainly seems to be a very fair course of proceeding towards the Brownes, Whose case will be more circumstantially stated hereafter. And yet Chalmers says, "When the persons who had been thus expelled, arrived in England, they naturally applied to the Govenor and Company for reparation of their wrongs; but it appears not from their records that they ever received any redress. The insolence of contempt was superadded to the injustice of power. - The General Court was at that time too much occupied in preparing for an important change, to attend to the first duty of all rulers, to give protection to the injured." Chalmers's Political Annals, p. 146.