We find but two records of Launcelot at Newbury; one the lease of Kent's Island in 1654, and the other his signature and "remarks" on an undated protest. This last I will give at length. One John Emery of Newbury seems to have prepared and presented to the General Court a petition to which he obtained some signatures by false representations, and without authority himself affixed some others. It raised a great commotion in the town. A counter petition was drafted and signed. It read as follows:

"May it please the Hon'd court to understand, that theise persons named underwritten, which are mentioned in John Emeryes petition are sons and servants under their parents and masters, of which some have not taken the oath of fidelity, and some do flatly deny that ever they gave power or liberty to put to their names, and some profess thet never saw the petition or heard it read."

Then follows the names of such as have not taken the oath; men who were town charges; men who never paid rates; men who were sons, etc. Finally we find the following:

"And Launcelot Granger saith he was deluded by it, for he knew nothing of it, to have the leiftenant have the full power, he desires that it may abide as it is rather.

"Witness, Robert Brown."

It is to be hoped that Launcelot's daily conversation was in language more easily to be understood than the above.

At the end of the counter petition it says:

"So that of 68 petitioners (to Emery's petition) there is but 42 that pay rates."

Launcelot was not a land-owner at Newbury; all that we find is the record of his leasing land. There were ninety-one grantees of land in Newbury prior to the time when Launcelot removed from the town, but his name does not appear among them

Having given all that appears at Newbury of record about Launcelot, it might be well, before passing on, to refer to the condition of the town in which he lived, that we may judge of the surroundings of the family. Unless one is familiar with the history of the Puritans, there is much to interest and amuse the reader.

Newbury was a veritable hotbed of Puritanical bigotry and fanaticism; more so, perhaps, than any other town. The brethren did not dwell in that peace and harmony which is directed by Holy Writ, but fought among themselves in a manner which is too often seen in the churches of to-day. For this the Rev. Mr. Parker, the minister, was largely to blame, and he was well supported in the contest by his assistant, the Rev. Mr. Noyes. If one would know the theology which the poor inhabitants had to believe, under pain of the displeasure of these reverend gentlemen, let him read the catechism prepared by Mr. Noyes and found in Coffin's history of Newbury.

The great ruction in the Newbury church, one which shook its members, other churches, and even the General Court, to their foundation, was over a question of church government. The minister claimed that he was the sole source of discipline and government, outside the church as well as in it; that the people were as sheep, to follow implicitly the will and orders of the appointed shepherd, who could consider their wishes or not as he saw fit. But the greater number of the members declined to become sheep. They declared that in matters of government the majority should rule. Bitterly the contest raged for years; it permeated all classes of society, and tore the little community into factions. A century afterwards its effects were plainly seen in the town. It brought trouble even into the military company, when a man who was elected sergeant, was objected to by Mr. Parker as unfit to hold the petty office, because he was "corrupt as to the Lord's Supper.' And from it naturally grew dissensions between the people and the pastor over matters of faith, for we find that a company of soldiers from Newbury in the Indian war halted on their march to the front to discuss the question, "Whether we are under a covenant of grace or works." At first the majority suspended their pastor, but with a wonderful Christian spirit allowed him still to minister to them "as a gifted brother, to preach for the edification of the church, if he pleased."

The controversy extended beyond the bounds of Newbury, and sister churches were called in to settle the matter. In this they failed. Then appeal after appeal was had to the General Court, which repeatedly decided the matter, generally in favor of the minister. As far as the court was concerned, it last and finally decided it in 1671; the opponents of Mr. Parker, numbering forty-two, were each and all fined. But the fight went on, and not until the pugnacious minister was safely buried in the graveyard at the "Green" did the Church have peace.

Naturally, the bitterness of the fight tinctured every-day life, and family relations were subjected strictly to the Puritanical law. One tything man was appointed to each ten families, and their duty was to see that their charges violated no law, spiritual or civil. There were fourteen of these officers at Newbury, which would give a population of about seven hundred souls. Women were arrested for wearing silk bonnets, and heavily fined unless they proved that their husbands were worth at least two hundred pounds. Men were fined for wearing their hair below their ears. Some parties were having a "merrie discourse," when a health being drunk to all friends, William Snelling repeated the following "proverb:"

"I'll pledge my friend,
And for my foes,
A plague to their heels
And a poxe to their toes."

Poor William was reported to the Court at Salem, and, though he expressed in writing his regret that he was "so weak as to use a foolish proverb," yet he was fined ten shillings for "cussing."

Can my readers wonder that Launcelot and his pretty daughters may have been inclined to remove into the wilderness, where Parson Parker had no jurisdiction, and where the young men could repeat proverbs and the young women wear silk bonnets if they wished?

A complete list exists of the members of the church at Newbury, between 1654 and 1700. The name of Launcelot Granger does not appear in it. We may safely assume that he was not a church member or a freeman while living at Newbury.