USA > Massachusetts > Commonwealth history of Massachusetts, colony, province and state, volume 1 > Part 53
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54
The "Grandees" as Randolph called them, had further cause for disliking Andros, for when the Lords of Trade asked him to investigate several large land speculation schemes he reported adversely. It was his opinion that the Rhode Islanders and not the Atherton Company had the better claim to the Narragansett country; and as for the "Million Purchase," he considered the titles for the most part worthless. Furthermore he expressed himself as strongly opposed to the "engrossing" of large tracts of land because it hindered settlement.
QUIT RENTS (1687-1689)
Andros' instructions were to dispose of all lands not yet granted. A large amount of land in Massachusetts was still ungranted. No man questioned the rights of the Crown in disposing of it. On this general issue there was no serious quarrel. Upon lands for which royal confirma- tion was wanting, a reasonable quit rent of not less than two shillings and sixpence for the hundred acres was to
588
REVOLUTION OF 1689
be paid. These instructions also stipulated that no man's "Freehold or Goods" were to be taken away or harmed except by process of laws agreeable to those of England. The mass of land was held by innocent holders who be- lieved that the government had not only a right to grant an estate in perpetuity but had known how to do it in a way that safeguarded the grantee. They had tilled the soil and by all fair reasoning had made it their own. If the rule of adverse possession could have been applied the titles of most holders would have been absolutely secure.
Emigrant after emigrant had come to America because of the opportunity to secure land in fee simple: let a concrete example show the methods adopted. James Russell, a joint owner with others of land in Charlestown, had not had his title confirmed by payment of quit rent. The Governor gave it to Colonel Lydgate, a member of the council. Russell's protestations were answered by a Writ of Intrusion, brought to eject him from a farm of which he was sole owner, and he was obliged to petition for a patent to stop the prosecution. This same Russell seems to have been very much in the Governor's bad graces. He owned an island in Casco Bay and a surveyor representing the Governor showed him a plan of it, in- forming him that if he wanted his patent he must satisfy the Governor with ready money. Failure so to do was to eventuate in the property going to Usher, the treasurer.
The significant basic political importance of the secur- ity of land titles is apparent. Statute after statute of historic moment in the English common law has testified to this through centuries. True the very small quit-rent, a third of a penny for the acre, seemed to the government only a small tax upon the land holders, a small price to pay for the legal confirmation of titles. Also it is true that not many titles were attacked, but the attack upon one man was an attack upon the security of all. It is tolerably certain that this moderate quit rent was manipu- lated to reach a much larger sum. The petty officers were poorly paid and they were obliged to make fees mount up into large amounts.
589
PROTEST AGAINST QUIT RENTS
PROTEST AGAINST QUIT RENTS (1687-1689)
The policy against which all classes made such protest was not in any way intended by the Lords of Trade as a measure of tyranny. It was to them merely the introduction of a system which was the only thing to which Englishmen in England were accustomed. They and not Andros were resposible for it. But as for Andros, one must not forget that he himself was accustomed to a system much more feudal in character than had survived in England; that he himself was seigneur of the fief of Sausmarez and had been landgrave in Carolina under that most feudal of all colonial projects, the Fundamental Constitutions.
As for the colonists it is easy to see how those who had battled with frontier conditions for possesion of a soil none too productive at best, without any outside aid, should feel now at the extension of the arm of English land law over their little properties, making them share the profits with a king who had not shared in the labor. Added to what seemed the general injustice and the danger of losing their property, was the economic hardship involved in paying quit-rents in money which was almost non-existent outside of the few commercial centers; and, of more imme- diate concern, the paying of fees involved in suing for new patents.
It was this economic obstacle which so alarmed the large landowners, who were required to take out a sparate patent for each county in which land was held. For this new land policy the great majority of people blamed Andros. It was doubtless the greatest factor in driving them ultimately to revolution. In the controversial The Revolution Justified it is stated: "Major Smith can tell them that an estate not worth two hundred pounds had more than fifty pounds demanded for a patent for it." Beyond question the demand for quit-rent passed into ex- tortion in many quarters. Even in the matter of crown lands there was injustice. Most of the towns had com- mons for pasturage. The administration granted much of this land to private individuals.
Nothing in Andros' administration of much harshness
590
REVOLUTION OF 1689
was so intolerable as its attitude on freehold of land. If the purpose had been to make the tenure unquestioned and not to put ownership in jeopardy, much could have been said in praise of the movement. This object was over-ridden by the occasional cases, not a great number, it is true, wherein holdings were unrighteously alienated and the fee-simple given to favorites. Andros was given to doing things in a harsh and blundering way; but in this instance the thing itself was a bitter blunder, made pri- marily by the Crown and so administered as to make things worse perhaps than was intended. Certainly An- dros and his masters were equally blind to the security of the state and the citizen in this ill-considered action.
FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE (1687-1689)
England had no desire to uproot Puritanism, as the theocrats feared, but wished to establish liberty of con- science. Dissenters from the Congregational Church were no longer required to go to meeting, nor were they forced to contribute to the maintenance of the minister. Since the Congregational Church had been everywhere main- tained by a compulsory rate on the inhabitants of the towns, its support was now generally undermined. The school system had been previously provided for in the same way, and that also for the time fell to pieces. The schools and Harvard College besides being educational institutions were the means of training men for the min- istry, so that it was a great blow to the church to have the law supporting them abolished.
Probably for the theocrats the most bitter experience in the whole of Andros' administration came when he gave the Anglicans permission under the ministry of Rev. Mr. Ratcliffe, to occupy the South Meeting House for services at hours when the Congregationalists were not using it. Andros found the church services going on in the Town House. An immediate demand was made on him and then by him to give up certain hours for Episcopal services in the Old South Meeting House. Meanwhile the Governor maintained his purpose. Punctiliously he attended serv- ice on St. Paul's day. On the anniversary of the death
591
FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE
of King Charles, the Governor and his party solemnly took part in services instituted to lament what these rigid Bostonians had considered a great, a necessary, and a glorious act. No outward manifestation could have been more galling to the Puritan citizenship, no act more sig- nificant. March 25, 1688, he decided that he no longer would tolerate the contumacy of the Congregational church members. A second time refused accommodations, he summons the sexton of the South Church to deliver the keys and finds him fearful to withstand the executive au- thority. Without violence he makes what is constructively a forcible entry.
In his report of his administration Andros refers to the fact he "borrowed the new meeting house in Boston at such times as the same was unused until the churchmen could provide otherwise." It was not easy to regulate the length of the services, so that often the Congregation- alists were put to the inconvenience of waiting outside their own meeting house until the Anglicans should come out. Sewall remarked on one occasion that one-thirty services were delayed until past two and "twas a sad Sight to see how full the street was with people gazing and moving to and fro because they had not entrance into the House." Andros in his report says that "understanding it [the occupation of the South meeting-house] gave of- fense they hastened the building of a church w'ch was affected at the charge of those of the Church of England."
Andros' wife, a gentle and charming lady died after only a few months' sickness. She was buried in one of the town burying grounds. And owing no doubt to this fact, when efforts were under way to build a church, it was the ground adjoining this burial place that was secured for the chapel of Establishment; and so the cemetery in which Lady Andros lies became King's Chapel Burying Ground. The first modest wooden edifice was not finished in time for Andros to worship there.
Andros was ready to maintain his fellow-churchmen at all times. He established kissing the Bible as the form of oath in the courts. He believed it the only binding form; but it affronted the great bulk of the citizenship and made
592
REVOLUTION OF 1689
a valuable element of the community refuse jury service. He permitted festivities on Saturday night, a time rever- enced by the Puritans as a part of their Sabbath. He abrogated their old law which forbade any celebration of Christmas, one of the great abominations of the Puritan.
THE TAX CONTROVERSY (1688)
The new administration's first care was the revision and codification of laws. Andros' carefully worked out instruc- tions directed him to proclaim the old acts in operation until new ones could be passed, and particularly to enact no new revenue measure until further instructions were given him. By a trick aimed to embarrass the royal gov- ernment, the General Court, previous to its surrender of control, repealed all the revenue acts on the statute books. Andros' Council was therefore placed in the position of having to pass a revenue bill at once.
The new measure which combined two former Massa- chusetts acts entitled "Charges Publick" and "Imposts," provided for the raising of funds by an impost, excise, tonnage and an annual "country rate" on polls, and on real and personal property. As was customary under the char- ter, more rates could be voted if needed. The regular one fell due in July, at which time the Dominion treasurer, John Usher, sent warrants to the constables, but unfor- tunately used the old writs wherein was no mention of the King, or Governor and Council.
Essex County, with the exception of Salem, Marblehead and Newbury made immediate resistance. A few of the towns protested the legality of the form of the writs, but for the most part, the objection was made on the ground that a tax levied without an assembly was contrary to Magna Carta. There is much to be said on the side of the "insurrectioners" in their attack on the legality of this levy. First the English attorney general had in 1681 given his opinion that it would be illegal to govern New Eng- land without a representative assembly. In the second place, Andros' instructions bade him pass no new revenue law, but levy taxes according to the old laws. Unfortu- nately no such law was in existence. In passing the Do-
593
ESSEX RESULT
minion revenue bill based on the old Massachusetts act, Andros technically speaking violated his instructions. In the third place, using the old writ was contrary to instruc- tions wherein it was stated that all writs must run in the king's name.
THE ESSEX RESULT (1688)
According to the mandate of the government, each town was to appoint an agent to apportion and collect the tax. A town meeting was called in Ipswich to consider this particular business. On the night before, representative citizens of the town met to consider what action they should take on the morrow. Here enters into Massachu- setts history one of the sturdiest and most remarkable of her sons.
John Wise was settled over the church in Chebaco, that part of Ipswich which has since become the town of Es- sex. He was absolutely a man of the people. He had been born in Roxbury and was the son of a serving man. He had graduated from Harvard, receiving his Master's degree in 1676, and was soon called to the pastorate he was destined to hold all his life. He was a sturdy, vigorous and kindly man, of great physical and intellectual strength, of whom his son-in-law said, in preaching his funeral ser- mon, that in his contentions he was actuated equally by charity to persons and severity toward policies.
The meeting decided if possible to influence the town meeting to resist the levy. On the next day Wise bore the brunt of the speaking and by a unanimous vote the town refused to choose a tax commissioner or to lay a rate until a general assembly should take action, "considering that said act doth infringe their liberty as free-born English subjects of his Majesty." Such was the purport of the so called "Essex Result."
Andros expected trouble on the issue of taxation and was prepared to meet it with severity, knowing that con- cession on this point would doubtless undermine his whole authority. He ordered arrested all who had been concerned in opposing the tax. Wise and five colleagues, John Appleton, John Andrews, Robert Kinsman, William
594
REVOLUTION OF 1689
Goodhue and Thomas French, were carried under arrest to Boston and lodged in the common jail. It appears that in these instances prosecution and persecution were united. There was delay before they were brought before the Governor and Council for preliminary hearing; they were held for trial and remanded to jail, after the Governor had commented on the absurdity of expecting that "every Jack and Tom should tell the King what moneys he should have for the use of his government." There was a still longer delay before the trial. These men were citizens of repute and could have furnished satisfactory bail, but this opportunity was denied them.
The Ipswich meeting had been held on August 23; the trial was held on October 3. The judges were Dudley, Chief Justice; Stoughton, Usher the treasurer, and Ran- dolph. At the head of the court sat Dudley the Roxbury autocrat, whose father had moved hither from Ipswich. At the head of the culprits stood Wise, the yeoman pastor. The jury-as Wise subsequently claimed,-was largely made up of non-freeholders and non-residents. The Ips- wich worthies plead Magna Carta and the repeal of the law of Assessment.
In reply to this plea one of the judges declared : "You must not think the laws of England follow you to the end of the earth or whither you go." Again this judge said to the chief defendant: "Mr. Wise, you have no more privileges left you than not to be sold for slaves." The six from Ipswich who had been committed until their trial were convicted. Wise was suspended from the ministry and fined fifty pounds. His companions were fined vari- ous amounts from fifty pounds to fifteen pounds. Exces- sive costs were levied and they were all put under five hundred pound bonds for good behavior for a year. There was no further opposition to paying the rates.
THE LEGAL SYSTEM (1687-1689)
The most deplorable result of the Essex Result was the passing of the Local Government Act. Next to the rev- enue law it was the most objectionable in the eyes of the people because it abolished town meetings except for an-
595
REGULATION OF TRADE
nual election of officers. Since the Essex trouble was hatched in town meeting, Andros did not wish to tempt Providence by offering a second opportunity to the leaders to stir the people against the government. With no as- semblies and no town meetings the rule of the theocracy was at an end.
The legal system of Massachusetts was based partly on English statute law and legal tradition and partly on the law of Moses. The colony had taken what it liked from both. One cannot therefore expect consistency from them in their protests against the new English rule. On the one hand they violently opposed being taxed without a representative assembly because they considered it con- trary to Magna Carta; they charged Andros with denying an Ipswich "insurrectioner" the privilege of habeas corpus; and they declared the appointment of James Sherlock as sheriff contrary to a statute of the reign of Elizabeth.
On the other hand they protested at being made to conform to English law and practice in such matters as oath-taking and the marriage ceremony. Andros, not fully appreciating that the objection to swearing on the Bible was a matter of religious principle with the theocrats, had very little sympathy with their insistence on their own custom of holding up the hand. As for the marriage cere- mony, both Dudley and Andros were instructed to confirm all marriages performed under Massachusetts law; but for the future to require that the ceremony be performed either by clergymen or by justices of the peace. It would seem then, that the theocrats considered arbitrary any disturbance of the legal system which they had developed, whether it brought change toward or away from English law.
REGULATION OF TRADE (1687-1689)
It was not the intention of the Lords of Trade that the new Dominion government should cripple or destroy the prosperous trade which New England had by her industry developed, but that it should so regulate it as to bring reciprocal benefits to the Dominion and to the whole economic empire. Such a policy required great skill in
596
REVOLUTION OF 1689
handling, for the encouragement of new and acceptable products and trade routes was as necessary a part of re- adjustment as restriction or elimination of the objection- able features of Massachusetts commerce.
Andros, a soldier and not a business man, better under- stood how to demand obedience to the Navigation Acts than he did how to quicken business. The President and Council had given it a great stimulus in the months just preceding his arrival, and the moderates on whom Andros relied for support expected that the good work would con- tinue. Wharton in the interests of the merchants almost immediately presented a scheme for providing a medium of currency by regulating the value of foreign and domes- tic coins in such a way that money would be drawn into the colony. Andros after a thorough examination de- clared against the scheme and blocked all further progress along that line. Cutting off some of the most profitable currents of trade particularly with the continent and the foreign Indies and practically eliminating piracy not only hurt business but removed much needed sources of obtain- ing currency. At the same time Andros had nothing con- structive to offer in the way of encouraging new products and industries. Hence there was much depression of busi- ness in this unavoidable period of readjustment. Many shops were closed and their owners bankrupt, for which Andros was blamed. Ten years before, a Massachusetts merchant had said that the Navigation Acts would have the effect on New England trade of cutting off its hands and feet. Now that those acts were enforced the truth of his prophecy was proven, for the province was soon drained of its money and its products, and its economic life was checked. The merchants who had at the outset sup- ported the Dominion, realized their mistake too late.
DEFENSE CONTROVERSY (1687-1688)
A tremendous advantage was gained by combining the resources and unifying the command of the militia of the New England colonies. Andros found much to be done, however, in putting the Dominion into a state of defense. The existing forts, insufficient in number to give adequate
597
UNPOPULARITY OF ANDROS
protection on the frontier, were in a bad state of repair, and nowhere, not even in Castle William was there a suf- ficient supply of arms and munitions of war. Andros built many forts and placed in them and in the old ones, gar- risons of men pressed from the militia, but usually officered by professional soldiers, the "redcoats" as they were called by the New Englanders. Under these officers strict mili- tary discipline such as they were accustomed to in Eng- land was introduced. Against this innovation the amateur militiamen made bitter complaint, but to no avail. Andros realized that without severity he would never be able to hold these men to the service necessary if there was to be stability in defense of the frontier.
The great danger was of course from the French and their Indian allies, and the New York frontier was most exposed to their attack. During the sixteen eighties the Five Nations had become restless because of the encroach- ments the French were making on their territory. As Governor Dongan complained, their confidence in the English was being shaken because they feared the English would not or could not give them adequate aid against their enemies. It was a most critical time, because as he pointed out, the control of the fur trade of North America was really at stake. If the French won over the Five Nations and pushed into the Ohio valley New York would be lost. Seeing what consolidation had done for New England he petitioned for the enlargement of New York by adding the Jerseys and Connecticut and possibly Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. Instead of following his sug- gestions, the Lords of Trade added New York and the Jerseys to the Dominion of New England in 1688. Except for defense, this enlargement was unwise, for it made an administrative unit too large and unwieldy for one gov- ernor to manage. Moreover, having men who seemed as foreign as did the New Yorkers, sit in the Council and vote on New England affairs added to the growing discontent.
UNPOPULARITY OF THE ADMINISTRATION (1688-1689)
Although Andros was successful in quieting and secur- ing the frontiers, he was failing in practically every other
598
REVOLUTION OF 1689
policy of his administration. Instead of reconciling the theocrats he was alienating even the moderates who had at first supported him. It must be remembered that the theocrats, the moderates and England all had a totally different conception of the nature and purpose of the Do- minion, and it was impossible to please all three. To the theocrats it was a sort of "captivity" which God inflicted upon them because the colony had grown lax and had lost its pristine piety. Much as they hated the Dominion they must endure it for a while, but in time God would restore their theocracy when he thought they had been sufficiently punished.
With this conception it is difficuit to see how they ever could have been reconciled. To the moderates the ad- ministration was to be a means of their getting into power, in order that they might govern the colony in the interests of their class. To England the Dominion was an experi- ment designed to correct previous defects in the manage- ment of defense and commerce and to break the political power of a faction which was monopolizing religion and government. At the outset the Dominion had the support of the moderates, but in the course of time Andros' too vigorous enforcement of the Navigation Acts, his opposi- tion to their schemes for land speculation and his intro- duction of English land law gradually alienated most of them.
Because they neither found Andros a benevolent despot nor were satisfied with their own share in government, they came in time to regard the absence of a representa- tive assembly as seriously as the theocrats did. The grad- ual drawing together of the theocrats and moderates was a necessary prelude to action for a change of government. As for England, the Lords of Trade viewed with satisfac- tion the formidable frontier defense and the reports on the decrease of illegal trade and piracy; but they failed to appreciate the full significance of the frequent complaints concerning the great falling off of trade, a condition the moderates could not remedy because they had too little voice in government.
599
MATHER IN ENGLAND
MATHER IN ENGLAND (1688-1689)
It was only a question of time until some modification would have to take place or trouble ensue. Government was becoming intolerable to all parties and factions. Signs of general dissatisfaction in the summer of 1688 made many of the theocracy believe that the old charter would soon be restored by divine intervention. Increase Mather expressed these hopes to his congregation and in order to "discern the Mind of God" left to its members the de- cision as to whether or not he should go to England on a mission for relief. They voted favorably and he took his departure.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.