USA > Massachusetts > Commonwealth history of Massachusetts, colony, province and state, volume 2 > Part 3
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
The charter also contained the important clause that natives and inhabitants should have "all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects ... as if they were born within the realm of England." The popular assembly controlled the purse, and hence had control over the salaries of royal officials. It was certain to continue that ascendancy, for the Governor was left practically alone, without a permanent Council of his own appointment on which he might have depended in his effort to maintain the prerogative.
The charter was not wholly the work of Mather nor wholly the result of the liberality "of England and a Dutch King."
15
WORKINGS OF THE NEW GOVERNMENT
Indeed, certain features which made Massachusetts more de- pendent on the Crown were bitterly opposed by Mather. On the other hand there is good evidence that the liberal minded King and a group of English statesmen favored religious toleration and a property franchise, points which Mather also specifically supported on two occasions, in spite of his attempt to revive the old charter. In a large sense the English Revolution, with its fundamental ideas of tolerance, of the importance of the legislative assembly, and of a government based on civil law, was the foundation of the popular element of the charter.
WORKINGS OF THE NEW GOVERNMENT (1692-1697)
May 14, 1692, the new government was inaugurated : writs were issued for the election of officers, and Massachusetts for the first time became a real dependency of the British Crown.
With the organization of the new government, under Sir William Phips, various important problems arose. An early question was what effect the new charter had on the old codes of law. One of the first acts passed by the General Court confirmed the former laws of Massachusetts and Plymouth until the following November ; at that date they were renewed without limitation. Then, instead of framing a new general code of laws, detached acts were passed. The reenactment of the old codes tended to nullify the new charter in part; there- fore this act was disallowed (1695) by the Privy Council, which held that laws to be continued must be "particularly specified." This was a warning from England that the internal legislation of the General Court would be carefully scruti- nized.
Another important act was a sort of bill of rights, which breathed a spirit of independency, in spite of the limitations of the new charter. It provided that no tax, custom, or imposi- tion should be levied on their estates "on any pretence whatso- ever, but by the act and consent of the governor, council and representatives of the people in general court." This act was in effect a denial of the right of Parliament to tax the colony for any purpose. Hence, it was duly disallowed.
In the next few years four different acts were passed for the establishment of courts of justice. The first three were dis-
16
THE PROVINCE CHARTER
allowed because the provision concerning appeals to England did not conform to the charter. Many of the laws enacted by the General Court breathed the spirit of the old charter. A law for punishing capital offenders, including idolators, blas- phemers, etc., based on the law of Moses, was also vetoed in England. In fact, of 45 acts passed in the first few sessions, 15 were subsequently disallowed. One for erecting a naval office was vetoed, because naval offices and their incumbents were under royal jurisdiction.
A second illustration of the difficult workings of the government under the new charter is the struggle for control between the assembly and the royal governor. Sir William Phips was born in Massachusetts, a careless, not to say ignorant, sea captain. In fact it was not until the arrival of Dudley in 1702 that Massachusetts was brought under the rule of a governor whose spirit and policy fully represented the British government. Nevertheless friction arose. The governor rejected the name of Elisha Cooke, nominated by the assembly for councillor, because he was an irreconcilable opponent of the new charter. Governor Phips rapidly lost popularity and before the close of 1693 had lost control of the House. He offended the representatives by ordering pay- ment of money for purposes not designated in the appropria- tion acts. Protests followed on the part of the House; and in 1695 an act was passed to secure its rights in such matters.
Another act growing out of the friction between the lower house and the governor rather favored the governor. Up to this time, towns might elect as deputy a man who was not an inhabitant of the town he represented. Now by this new act he must be a resident and freeholder of the town represented. While this reduced the standard of ability in the house, it brought the deputies nearer the people of a town, and got rid of excess of representatives from Boston or vicinity. Most of these were friends of the old order and opponents of Phips.
Though Phips was friendly to the colony and not inclined to push the prerogative, he was arbitrary, undignified and easily lost his temper. He interfered with the King's collector of customs and even offered him personal violence. He was finally recalled to England and left the colony in November 1694. Until the appointment of the Earl of Bellomont as
17
SAFEGUARDS OF ENGLISH AUTHORITY
Governor in 1697, Lieutenant-Governor Stoughton acted as Governor. Stoughton was mainly occupied with the war and with efforts to ward off Indian attacks. He was an orthodox, educated, typical New Englander, and his administration was on the whole quiet and peaceful.
SAFEGUARDS OF ENGLISH AUTHORITY (1696-1699)
It was in the midst of Stoughton's administration that Eng- land decided not only to supervise more carefully the internal affairs of Massachusetts but also her external affairs. Eng- land now commenced to revamp her commercial legislation with a view to exercising greater control over commerce. Since the middle of the reign of Charles II, the committee of the Privy Council had exercised authority in trade matters. It was superseded, on May 15, 1696, by a special board with the title "The Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plan- tation." The object was to institute a more rigorous policy for regulation of colonial governments. The main problem was the enforcement of the Navigation Laws, notoriously evaded in New England and particularly in Massachusetts.
The ideas underlying the formation of the Board of Trade were mercantilist. " Trades and industries were classified as beneficial and hurtful; the former were to be improved and the latter discouraged. To protect and extend the useful trade of the kingdom, and to foster the introduction of profitable manufactures were important ends to be attained. In the case of the colonies, the board was instructed to inquire into the production of staples such as naval stores. Various indus- tries which enabled the colonists to supply themselves with commodities usually obtained from England, such as woolen cloth, were deemed hurtful. They should therefore be diverted from producing whatever might be disadvantageous to Eng- land.
The Act of Trade of 1696 was important in its relation to the trade of Massachusetts. Numerous complaints had been received of smuggling and violation of the Navigation Laws in New England. The purpose of the act was to prevent frauds and regulate abuses in the plantation trade. This, with the creation of the Board of Trade, greatly affected the
18
THE PROVINCE CHARTER
nature of the control exercised by England over the trade of Massachusetts. It reenacted in substance the old Navigation Laws. Governors of the colonies were to be sworn to enforce the act. Customs officers could board ships and seize pro- hibited goods. Persons authorized could, by writs of assist- ance, and a constable or other public officer, enter houses, shops and warehouses, seize prohibited goods, and put them "in his Majesty's storehouse." The Treasury Board and the Com- missioner of Customs were authorized to appoint customs officers in any town or port. It is clear that this act together with the setting up a vice-admiralty court in 1698 were designed to enable England to control the trade of Massachusetts more effectually. The first admiralty judge, Wait Winthrop, took office May 22, 1699.
Still another act, largely aimed at New England, was the Woolen Act of 1699. It forbade not only the exportation into foreign parts, but the conveying to any other plantation, of "wool or manufactures made or mixed with wool, being the produce or manufacture of any English plantations in Amer- ica." "A Windsor good-wife, crossing the line for a visit to her gossip at Springfield, could not lawfully take a ball of yarn for her afternoon's knitting."
POLITICAL PROGRESS (1698-1702)
A new governor, the Earl of Bellomont, arrived in New York, April 2, 1698, but did not come to Boston until May 26, 1699. The King had two reasons for this appointment. He wished somehow to overcome the disadvantages and check the disasters of the war in America, by providing for a more concentrated military control, through consolidation of colonial strength. So Bellomont was made Governor and commander of the military forces of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and New Jersey, in aid of defence and trade. This was in part a return to the Dominion of New England ideal and a step towards colonial union. He was also made Captain General of Rhode Island and Connecticut so as to bring their militia under the control of nearby royal governors. He also attempted to legislate their charters out of existence.
Due to the early death of the Governor and because of
From the portrait in the Maine Historical Society, Portland
SIR WILLIAM PHIPS
19
GOVERNOR JOSEPH DUDLEY
internal peace the plan had little effect. Though Bellomont was in Boston only during fourteen months, several disputes arose particularly over the question of appeals. The conten- tion of the deputies was that appeals should take place only in specific cases. Another problem was their refusal to grant permanent salaries to royal officials. The General Court de- clared that Bellomont "should be their pensioner as long as they pleased." Bellomont made considerable efforts to put down pirates who infested the coast. In fact, he seized the notorious pirate, Captain Kidd, and sent him to England, June, 1699, for trial; where he was (justly or unjustly) duly executed. Bellomont died in New York, March 5, 1701.
Stoughton, Lieutenant-Governor, now again became Gover- nor (1701). The Board of Trade was not satisfied with con- ditions in Massachusetts. That province had failed to under- take the expense of rebuilding a fort at Pemaquid, Maine. It also refused to pass acts desired in England for the better en- forcement of the Navigation Laws. A letter to Bellomont from the Board of Trade, March 1, 1701, complained that "the independency they thirst after is now so notorious, that it has been thought fit those considerations and other objections should be laid before Parliament."
The report to Parliament complained that the chartered colonies "had not only assumed the power of making by-laws repugnant to the laws of England and destructive to trade, but they refuse to transmit their Acts, or to allow appeals, and continue to be the retreat of pirates and illegal traders, and the receptacle of contraband merchandise." Therefore "it might be expedient to resume their charters and reduce them to the same dependency as other colonies, which would be best effected by the legislative power of the Kingdom." A bill was introduced into Parliament for that purpose, but the King's death postponed the plan to revoke the charters.
GOVERNOR JOSEPH DUDLEY (1702-1715)
During the ten years of the workings of the new charter the policy of England towards Massachusetts and New England generally may be summarized as follows. The main purpose was to bring the colony under more complete control. This
20
THE PROVINCE CHARTER
had been accomplished in part by the disallowance of numerous laws, and in part through plans for a more strict enforcement of the Navigation Acts, particularly that for a vice-admiralty court. The second great purpose was to bring about a more effective defense of the frontiers; to hold France in check and, if possible, to conquer her chief colony, Canada. As a means to this end, the commission given Sir William Phips had made him General and Admiral of the King's land and sea forces in the northeastern provinces. The regulation of colonial trade and frontier defense was accentuated by the outbreak of Queen Anne's War in 1702, coinciding with the appointment of Joseph Dudley as governor.
This dignity had been in Dudley's mind ever since his return to England in September, 1692. He had occupied himself with intrigues, and was greatly disappointed not to receive the ap- pointment as governor on the death of Sir William Phips. As Lieutenant-Governor of the Isle of Wight and as a member of Parliament in 1701, he became thoroughly saturated with the English notion of a colonial executive; and with Dudley's arrival royal administration really began in Massachusetts. Because of his unpopularity the King hesitated; but when presented with a letter from Cotton Mather authorizing Dudley to affirm that "there was not one minister nor one of the Assembly but were impatient for his coming," the King finally appointed him Governor.
Convoyed by two armed vessels, he arrived in Boston, June 11, 1702. His commission made him governor of both Massa- chusetts and New Hampshire, and commander of the militia of Rhode Island and Connecticut in time of war. His instruc- tions emphasized several matters of importance : first, a per- manent fort was to be built at Pemaquid, Maine; second, a fixed and adequate salary must be granted to the governor ; third, all public money should be paid out from the treasury only by warrant under the governor's hand and with the advice of the Council; fourth, he was enjoined to prevent illegal trade.
Neither Phips nor Bellomont were governors satisfactory to England. In Dudley the King appointed a man of ability, a genuine royal executive, with a desire to work for England's interests. Dudley still smarted under his treatment seventeen
21
DUDLEY'S DISPUTES
years earlier, when he left Boston, after five months in prison. He could be depended on to uphold the prerogative of the King to the utmost of his ability. His policy was in part dictated by these considerations, and in part influenced by the outbreak of Queen Anne's War with France.
News of this important event arrived in Boston, June 20, 1702. In his speech to the General Court he suggested that this body keep "within the strictest bounds of all Acts of Parlia- ment;" advised the establishment of a regular and sufficient salary for the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and Judges; and called attention to the necessity of checking the "exorbi- tant growing power of France." The General Court was also told that New England was not a very profitable region to the Crown, but should be made more profitable. Hence the production of naval stores should be promoted. Also, supplies of men and money should be forthcoming for defense against the French.
DUDLEY'S DISPUTES WITH THE ASSEMBLY (1702-1708)
A series of disputes between the Governor and the House illustrate the difficulties of bringing Massachusetts under effec- tive administrative control, and show the nature of the strug- gle for the balance of power between the Governor and the House. One dispute concerned the Governor's efforts to induce the House to make appropriations for the fort at Pemaquid, Maine, in accordance with his general instructions. Objection was made by the House that it was so remote from the settle- ments that it would give little security.
Another more important dispute arose over the small salary which the House granted the Governor; namely, six hundred pounds "for the present year." This was in harmony with the custom of Massachusetts. Phips had received an annual grant of £500 annually, and Bellomont had received £1,000, though it was not expressly stated that this was his annual salary. A letter from Queen Anne was received in 1703, suggesting that a suitable allowance should be settled on the governor without limitation of time. The reply of the Assem- bly was a temporary grant of £500 with the remark that the settling of permanent salaries on royal officers was not agree-
22
THE PROVINCE CHARTER
able to the constitution of the province. In June, 1705, Dudley sent a message "To move the new House for a suitable and honorable allowance for the support of the governor." The House replied that it was the "native privilege and right of English subjects to raise and dispose of money according to the present exigency of affairs." This defiance of royal in- structions, if allowed, obviously would seriously hamper the executive, and in the end would concentrate power in the legislative assembly. Royal instructions could have little bind- ing power on the Assembly and hence could not be regarded as law for the colonists, if this theory continued.
Another dispute arose in May, 1703, over Dudley's refusal to confirm several councillors nominated by the House. In particular he refused to accept five candidates, among whom were Elisha Cooke and Thomas Oakes, former agents of the colony-the latter, Speaker of the House and one of the most influential political leaders in the colony. These two men were determined supporters of the ideals of the old charter. Five others were chosen in their place. Elisha Cooke was nomi- nated again the next May and still again in 1706; but both times the Governor vetoed the selection. Dudley seems to have been within his legal right in this controversy.
A somewhat similar difficulty was caused by the contention of the Governor that he had by the charter a right to negative the election of the Speaker of the House. The House pre- sented the Speaker to the Governor for confirmation, but he refused to give his consent. In this case (May, 1705) Thomas Oakes, rejected by Dudley as councillor, was presented. He was rejected and the House was ordered to proceed to a new election. The House voted that it was "not in the governor's power to refuse the election of a speaker." Dudley's argument was that, if he had the right to negative acts of the assembly, he was within his constitutional right to refuse to ratify the election of the presiding officer. He also wrote the Lords of Trade that Oakes was "a known commonwealth's man, never quiet, nor satisfied with the government, but particularly very poor." Nevertheless, as war and public business were pressing, Dudley finally accepted Oakes. The Board of Trade later wrote Dudley that he was right in his assertion and that he ought not to give up his claim.
23
HARVARD COLLEGE CONTROVERSY
Another controversy was connected with the management of the war and by virtue of the authority conferred on the Gover- nor to issue money from the treasury under his warrant. Dudley authorized expenditures not specifically provided for by act of the Assembly. Thus in November, 1704, he paid out £50 to the Lieutenant-Governor for services as commander of the Castle. The House at once declared that this was an arbitrary act, and a violation of English liberties. The Coun- cil, as on some other occasions, supported the Governor and called attention to the fact that the charter gave him this power; and declared the resolve of the House unjust and of no force.
The perennial question of rebuilding the fort at Pemaquid again came up in 1704, as an element in the pressing question of frontier defence. A letter was sent to the Crown by the House requesting that supplies and munitions of war be sent for the defense of the frontier. The war up to this time had cost Massachusetts some £80,000; and every tenth man was under arms. Nevertheless the Board of Trade wrote Dudley that it was unreasonable that the Assembly should expect to be furnished with stores of war at the expense of the Crown, while they refused to provide a salary for the Governor, and refused to pay for rebuilding the fort. Nevertheless, in September, 1704, the Assembly rejected all the proposals of the Crown and also refused to provide for a fixed salary for the Governor. One reason for hostility towards this plan was personal resentment towards Dudley, who was accused from 1706-1708 of working for the recall of the New England charters. The Mathers alleged that Dudley had a corrupt connection with one Vetch and others, for the purpose of illegally trading with the French in Acadia. In fact, Dudley was charged with bribery and with plotting to ruin the country. The House, however, voted that the charges against the Gover- nor were "a scandalous and wicked accusation."
HARVARD COLLEGE CONTROVERSY (1686-1708)
A problem which caused Dudley much trouble was that of the charter of Harvard College. It was understood to have been abrogated at the same time as the Colony charter
24
THE PROVINCE CHARTER
(1686) ; and hence the college was technically for some time defunct in law. Increase Mather wrote Governor Dudley in 1686, "When you accepted of an illegal arbitrary commission from the late King James, you said, that the cow was dead, and therefore the calf in her belly; meaning the charter of the college and colony." On his return from England he resumed his former position as president of the college. In 1692 the General Court granted a new charter which varied considerably from the old. In particular there was no Board of Overseers, and the new colonial governor was left without influence, inasmuch as there was no "provision for a visitation of the King by his Governor." The act was disallowed in 1695 because of this omission. Governor Stoughton, October 12, 1696, reinstated the administration which had existed under the old charter "until his Majesty's further pleasure shall be known." Another act was passed (June 2, 1697), creating a new Harvard Corporation with the Gover- nor and Council as visitors. When Lord Bellomont arrived as Governor, he stated that such an act would never receive the royal approbation.
A Provincial Statute of July 13, 1699, gave the power of visitation "to his Majesty and his Governor and Commander- in-chief for the time being of this Province." According to the Charter, five Fellows of the Corporation must always be Fellows elected from the Council. This also failed of the Governor's approval, for a provision had been inserted, at the insistance of Mather and other ministers, providing that the officers chosen must adhere to "the principles of reformation which were espoused and intended by those who first settled this country and founded the college and have hitherto been the profession and practice of the generality of the churches of Christ in New England." The Governor objected to the exclusion of members of the Anglican Church. Finally, in 1700 a new charter was agreed upon "to be humbly solicited" from his Majesty ; but this failed because of the death of Lord Bellomont who was to gain the royal assent.
A controversy had arisen between President Mather and the General Court regarding his residence. The Assembly con- tended that he should reside at Cambridge, while the parson wished to reside in Boston where he held his pastorate.
RESULTS OF DUDLEY'S ADMINISTRATION 25
Finally, Mather resigned (September 6, 1701) because the General Court declared : "That no man should act as president of the college who did not reside at Cambridge." Rev. Samuel Willard was made vice-president of the college, with the pro- viso that he reside in Cambridge "one or two days and nights a week."
Another effort was made to reconcile the old religious party headed by the Mathers with the new party holding more liberal views. After the death of Willard (September, 1707), the corporation elected John Leverett president (January 14, 1708) ; and, in opposition to the Mathers, the Representatives granted him a salary. December 6, 1707, a bill was passed reviving the ancient charter, thus making the Governor a member of the Board of Overseers. It was signed by Dudley, nor did the Privy Council interfere. Friends of President Leverett were established in the Corporation, and thus ended the struggle. Nevertheless, Increase Mather wrote Dudley a letter (January 20, 1708) charging him with "hypocracy and falseness in the affairs of the college." The Governor replied to a similar letter of Cotton Mather: "The college must be disposed of against the opinion of all the ministers in New England except yourselves, or the governor torn in pieces. This is the view I have of your inclination."
RESULTS OF DUDLEY'S ADMINISTRATION (1702-1715)
In the last half of Dudley's administration disputes were less frequent. From the standpoint of England he acted in a statesmanlike manner. He was energetic in the prosecution of the war with France and made great efforts to secure the co- operation of other colonies. The later failures in the war were due more to the British Government than to Dudley. The problem of protecting the frontier was so pressing that little friction arose in securing from the General Court the necessary appropriations. In the latter part of the period Massachusetts was expending £30,000 a year for the war. Dudley had no complaint to make of such support and his administration was, from this standpoint, reasonably successful.
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.