accusations of Randolph were soon dropped, but the people could never forget that Dudley had been the royal instrument for the overthrow of the charter. No matter how fair an administration he had given, he was hated as a tool of the king and a betrayer of the charter.

It is interesting to compare the attitude of the people toward Dudley with their feeling toward Stoughton. Stoughton had been an agent in England, and like Dudley had sought some office from Randolph when the government should be overthrown; but he had returned before the final assault upon the charter, had, in a measure, lived down his unpopularity, and now, though deputy-president, chief justice, and Dudley's confidant, he was thought by the people to be acting in their interests to keep out worse tyrants. Dudley, on the other hand, who was not more unsuccessful in England than Stoughton, but who had profited immediately by the change in government, was universally detested. As a matter of fact, it was Dudley's alliance with Randolph that had done much to save the colony from a man like Kirke and to put it under the rule of a native; and his administration proved that such a government was easier to bear than one under a royal governor, even of the Andros type.

1 Randolph to Stoughton, July 18, 1678: "... I feare therefore that I shall not gett a positive direction from the King as you intended, but feare not but I will gett you into some place of profitt & advantage. . . Wt money

I lay out in y' busines shall account at our next meeting." Toppan, Edward Randolph, iii. 31.

CHAPTER III

NEW ENGLAND REGULATED

JOSEPH DUDLEY AND THE RULE OF ANDROS

1686-1689

THE annulment of the Massachusetts charter was necessary because the colony was unwilling to submit to English legislation and control. The old government of Massachusetts, with its ideas of particularism and independence, could not be allowed to thwart the designs of the king and the Lords of Trade. The presidency of Joseph Dudley was also but a step in making those ideals effective in New England, and was but a temporary expedient. Dudley was chosen partly through the influence which he was able to exert upon the committee, and partly because, in the disordered condition of England, he seemed an easily available man It was not the least point in his favor that he was a native of New England, for it was believed that under such a one the people of Massachusetts would be more content to accept English control and dictation; but neither the form of government nor the territory over which he ruled was considered, by the Lords of Trade, as permanently settled.

Dudley's commission was dated September 27, 1685, but his government was not inaugurated till May 17, 1686; and in June of that year a more comprehensive commission was issued to Sir Edmund Andros.1 Dudley's commission, as has

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 3d Series, vii. 139-149.

been seen, established a council which was an executive and judicial body, but possessed no power to levy taxes or to make laws; the system instituted by the commission granted to Andros perpetuated the idea of government by an appointed council, but with greatly enlarged powers. The new council was allowed to make laws, which must, however, be sent to England for approval; and with the consent of the council the governor was instructed to "continue to Raise and Levy such Rates Taxes and Impositions, as are now or have lately been Laid," while new and additional ones were to be levied only after the consent of the king had been obtained.1 The other powers granted in this commission were not unlike those given to Dudley. Such a government might enable the king and the Lords of Trade to make their commands effective; it would make possible many of the needed reforms; it would make Massachusetts truly a part of the dominions of the crown; but it was entirely contrary to the political experience and habits of thought of the New Englanders. To ask a people accustomed to annually elected magistrates and an assembly, to surrender these privileges, was to doom such an experiment to failure. The powers granted to Dudley had seemed too great and too dangerous, and even some of his Council had desired an assembly; but the powers given to Andros seemed nothing less than tyrannical.

In the two commissions granted to Andros in 1686 and 1688,2 the territorial adjustment of the northern English colonies was completed. For ten years the question of their consolidation had been under discussion. Randolph's reports had shown the evils of having so many divided jurisdictions

1 Andros's instructions of 1686, Laws of New Hampshire (ed. Batchellor), i. 155-168.

2 Commissions and instructions, New York Colonial Documents, iii. 537–550.

and had advised their union under a governor appointed by the king. In the commission granted to Dudley a decided advance was made, for Maine and New Hampshire were united with Massachusetts. Even wider plans, however, were under discussion by the Lords of Trade; and before the commission to Dudley was issued Randolph was ordered to prepare charges against both Connecticut and Rhode Island, with the purpose of vacating their charters by quo warranto proceedings and uniting them to Massachusetts. A copy of the writ against Rhode Island was received by Randolph in 1686, and upon its service Rhode Island submitted to the crown.2 Connecticut was able to take advantage of technicalities and so to postpone her submission. Owing to various delays two writs issued against her were outlawed before they could be served, but a third one, prepared October 23, 1686, was served in December of that year. Just before this, Andros arrived with instructions to assume the government of Connecticut in case that colony should submit to the king. In 1687, after considerable correspondence, Andros and several of his Council went to Hartford, where on October 31 he took control of the government and the colony was annexed to his jurisdiction. governor, Treat, and the secretary, Allyn, were added to the Council to represent Connecticut. But though all New England was brought under one jurisdiction, the Lords of Trade were not yet satisfied: their attention was turned to New York and the Jerseys. In 1688 the proprietors of the Jerseys surrendered their charters, and Dongan, governor of New York,

1 July, 1685, Toppan, Edward Randolph, iv. 24.

The

Rhode Island Colony Records, iii. 190. On June 27, 1686, Randolph wrote to Povey, "I left with the Gon of R: Island a Superannuated Summons of the Quo Warrto They are a sad sort of Mortalls as you euer heard of."

was superseded. A new commission was issued to Andros whereby he was made governor of practically the whole region north of the Delaware River, representatives from New York and New Jersey were added to his Council, and a single government was established for the whole region.2 The plans of the Lords of Trade were now complete, and they were ready to enjoy the advantages of their policy.

From the English point of view, this policy was statesmanlike and had many obvious advantages. To England the territory of the several colonies seemed small and their conflicting claims and jurisdictions petty. The Committee was weary of listening to disputes over boundaries and titles that were comparatively unimportant. It was difficult to deal with nine separate governments and to enforce a harmonious policy in five separate assemblies. A consolidation of these territories and the establishment of a government easily controlled by the crown seemed desirable. Not only would the petty disputes cease, but the administration of the law of England and her colonial policy would be effective. In addition, the military advantages were obvious. Already the crown had experienced difficulties in directing the military strength of the several colonies which augured ill for the future. Under this plan no such difficulties were anticipated, and it was expected that the government could direct the military resources of the united colonies as its policy might demand.

These very advantages, however, made the execution of the plan impossible in America. In all the New England colonies the governments were intensely democratic and dependent on the frequently expressed will of the people. In all there was a dread of executive usurpation. Each colony 1 New York Colonial Documents, iii. 550. 2 Ibid. 537-542.