66

and Syria; fir and oak plank, masts and yards, furs, train oil, and peltry, to England. The Acts of Navigation were disregarded, "all nations having free liberty to come into their ports, and vend their commodities, without any restraint." This freedom of commerce, while it enriched the country, provoked the envy of the merchants and manufacturers of the parent state; and in the beginning of the year 1675 they laid their complaints before the Sovereign, representing that the widely-extended traffic of New England "would not only ruin the trade of this kingdom, but would leave no sort of dependence from that country to this." Complaints from such a quarter are seldom without effect. They were solemnly heard by the Committee of Foreign Plantations, and it was resolved that proper persons ought to be appointed to administer the oaths to the Colonial Governors, obliging them to see that the laws of trade were executed, to receive the duties, &c. &c.' The scheme for the sale of Maine and New Hampshire having been laid aside not from any disinclination on the part of the Monarch, but from his poverty-Gorges and Mason again petitioned for the restoration of their property. Governor Leverett received information that many complaints were made against the Colony; that it was proposed to send "a Commissioner thither, and it was determined to do it with some force;" and that though, by reason of "more weighty affairs and want of money," this project might be delayed, yet that the Colony would certainly receive "a letter from his Majesty, to order some acconnt of these things to be given him; and I fear," writes Collins, "that which is aimed at is to call your Patent to a strict account, upon what terms you hold it. You would do well," he proceeds, "to be in a preparation for it, especially to make good your title to that part of your Government. Here is none able to speak for you; we want instructions; papers that we had formerly, the late dreadful fire either consumed, or removes have quite lost. My Loid Privy seal, Lord Anglesey, takes it ill that he hath not been addressed to. I think, if you wrote an obliging letter to him, and transmit your pleas to him, as well as others that may wait upon him, you will do well." In accordance, probably, with this suggestion, Leverett subsequently wrote to the Earl of Anglesey, telling him "that the Colony was too poor to employ agents, and had no meet instruments." 3

On the 24th of November a Proclamation was issued, prohibiting the importation of any of the commodities of Europe into the Plantations, which were not laden in England; and for putting the laws relating to the Plantation trade in execution. In 1676 letters were written to the Colonial Governors, commanding them to enforce strict obedience to the Acts of Trade, and commissions were sent, empowering proper persons to administer the requisite oaths. To New England-"the most prejudicial Plantation to the Kingdom of England"-it was determined to send a special messenger. The complaints of Gorges and Mason had been examined, and the King wrote to Massachusetts to send over agents, who should appear before him in six months after the receipt of his letter, fully empowered to defend her proceedings; declaring, at the same time, that unless agents were sent, as ordered, he was resolved to give judgment against the General Court, even in its absence," that he may be no longer tired with the complaints of his

1 See Sir Josiah Child's "New Discourse of Trade," (5th ed., 16mo. Glasgow, 1751,) pp. 160-3; the Relation of Capt. Cleyborne, of the Garland Frigate, in Chalmers's Political Annals, pp. 433-4; Randolph's Narrative, in Hutch. Coll. Papers, pp. 494-6; Chalmers's Political Annals, p. 401, and History of the Revolt, i. 128-9.

2 Collins's letter of March 19, 1674-5, Hutch. Coll pp. 472-3; Chalmers, Annals, p. 486, History of the Revolt, i. 139; Farmer's Belknap, pp. 85-6.

3 Chalmers's Political Annals, p. 395.

4 Wade's British History, p. 233; Mass. Hist. Coll. xxvII. 136-7. This Proclamation was not received in Massachusetts until October, 1680. Randolph's "Articles," in Hutch. Coll. p. 526.

In the opinion of Sir Josiah Child, New Discourse of Trade, p. 135.

subjects, but may do them justice." Even the distresses of the Colony during the Indian War were made the subject of complaint in England. It was reported that divisions existed; that there had been a lack of prudence and foresight; that they were 66 poor and yet proud "-too proud to apply to the King for aid-and thus, it was said, by the obstinacy and penuriousness of those who were at the head of affairs, was a fine country in danger of being lost to the Crown.1

The person selected to bear the King's commands to Massachusetts was Edward Randolph, a kinsman of Mason, "a man of great address and penetration." Furnished with the King's letter of March, 1675-6, and copies of the petitions of Mason and Gorges, and with instructions from the Lords of Trade to enquire minutely into the state of the country, of its government and laws, Randolph sailed from the Downs on the 30th of March, 1675-6, and arrived at Boston on the 10th of June. He immediately waited upon Governor Leverett, who informed him that the Council was to meet in the afternoon, and that he should be sent for, as he was at the appointed time. His Majesty's letters, with the petitions, were read in the messenger's hearing, and he was dismissed with the answer" that they should consider of those things." On the 15th he was again sent for, and was informed by the Governor that an answer had been prepared to his Majesty's letter, which was 66 to accompany his own particular answer to a letter he had received from Mr. Secretary Williamson by the same vessel in which Randolph had arrived. He was asked if he had anything further to communicate, and upon his replying in the negative, he was told that he was regarded as Mason's agent, and might withdraw. On the 23d inst., Randolph presented a memorial to the Governor and Council, reminding them of the King's commands, that agents should be sent to England, and desiring that a General Court might be convened, as "much more proper for dispatch of matters of so great and weighty concern," in order that he might receive "their deliberate and solemn answer" to his Majesty's letters. But he received no other answer than that, when he was ready to sail for England, he should have a copy of the letter which had been sent to the Sovereign.3

Randolph now (about the beginning of July ") visited New Hampshire. Returning, after a short absence, to Massachusetts, he next waited upon Josiah Winslow, the Governor of Plymouth Colony, whom he speaks of as "a gentleman of loyal principles," one who "hath showed himself a person of great courage and conduct in the management of the Indian war, which makes him to be feared and not loved by his neighbors the Bostoners," and says that, "in his discourse he expressed his great dislike of the carriage of the magistrates of Boston to his Majesty's royal person and his subjects under their government.'

During my stay at Boston," says Randolph, "I found the generality of the people complaining of the arbitrary government and oppression of their magistrates, and do hope your Majesty will be pleased to free them from this bondage by establishing your own royal authority among them, and govern them according to your Majesty's laws; and many of the better sort did entreat me to represent this their condition to your Majesty, not daring publickly to express their desires or complaint by petition, because of the severity and arbitrary proceeding of their rulers."

On the 20th of July Randolph went to the Governor, and informed him that he was ready to return to England, whereupon the Governor gave him a duplicate of the letter which the Council had sent to the King, and he

1 Chalmers, Revolt, i. 129, Annals, pp. 395, 402, 446; Hutchinson, i. 279, 280-1; the Earl of Anglesey's letter to Leverett, May 16, 1676, ibid. 279-80.

2 See the " Enquiries" of the Lords of Trade and Plantations, with Randolph's answers thereto, in Hutch. Coll. Papers, pp. 477-503.

3 Chalmers, pp. 395, 403; Farmer's Belknap, p. 86; Hutchinson, i. 280; Randolph's Narrative, in Hutch. Coll. pp. 503-7.

4 Ibid., 507, 508-10.

took his departure, evidently somewhat nettled that the magistrates had not thought fit to acquaint him with the contents of their answer.1

On the 9th of August a special Court convened, when the Elders were desired to attend, and to consider of "the most expedient manner of making answer to the complaints of Mr. Gorges and Mr. Mason." It was determined to send agents to appear and make answer to the complaints, and William Stoughton and Peter Bulkley were selected for the purpose. Furnished with the General Court's Answer to the petitions of Mason and Gorges, and "qualified as to their instructions with utmost care and caution," the agents sailed from Boston on the 30th of October, 1676. Soon after their arrival in England, all parties appeared before the Lords of Trade and Plantations and the Lords Chief Justices, subsequently before the Chief Justices alone, and, lastly, before the Privy Council, on the 20th of July, when a final judgment was given, against the claims of Massachusetts."

But the agents were not yet to be dismissed. Many and great complaints were brought against the administration of the government of the Colony. Being examined with regard to the extent of their authority as respected these allegations, the agents said that they had no other power than to defend the Colony against the complaints of Mason and Gorges, and were not authorized to answer any other question than as private men. To this it was replied, "that his Majesty did not think of treating with his own subjects as with strangers, aud to expect the formality of powers; but, being determined to do what was right, they might inform their employers that, though he will not destroy their Charter, he had resolved to reduce them to a more palpable dependence on his Crown, in order that they might be of use to him in times of necessity;" and they were ordered to procure an extension of their authority from their Government; but no ampler powers were granted to their request. They were obliged to appear, several times, both before the King in Council, and the Lords of the Committee of Trade and Foreign Plantations, when it appeared, says the King, in his letter of October 21, 1681, "by the petition of divers considerable merchants, by the reports of the Commissioners of Customs, and by other undeniable testimony, that an unlawful course of trade had, for many years past, been encouraged, and was yet countenanced by the laws and practice of the Government, to the great diminution of our customs in England, violation of divers Acts of Parliament, and great prejudice of our subjects, who, with unequal advantages, contained themselves within the rules which the law directs for the management of trade." Mr. Stoughton, one of the agents, writes to Massachusetts, Dec. 1, 1677, that "the country's not taking notice of these Acts of Navigation, to observe them, hath been the most unhappy neglect that we could have fallen into; for more and more, every day, we find it most certain that, without a fair compliance in that matter, there can be nothing expected but a total breach, and all the storms of displeasure that may be." To the Lords of Trade the agents "professed their willingness to pay his Majesty's duties within the Plantation, provided they might be allowed to import the necessary commodities of Europe, without entering first in England." One of the complaints brought against Massachusetts was, that they, as a mark of sovereignty, coin money.' The agents being questioned on this point, “were made sensible," says the King, “of the great crime the Colony was answerable for, in coining money, for which they therefore besought our royal pardon.”

66

1 Narrative, Coll. pp. 510-11.

978

Hutchinson, i. 281; Farmer's Belknap, i. 87. For the particulars of the adjudication on the claims of Mason and Gorges, see pages 612 and 613, note a.

3 King's letter of Oct. 21, 1681, in Chalmers, p. 446.

Chalmers, pp. 403-4.

5 Hutchinson, i. 288.

6 Chalmers, History of the Revolt, &c., i. 130.

7 Randolph, in Hutch. Coll. p. 480.

8 King's letter of Oct. 21, 1681; Randolph's "Articles," Hutch. Coll. p. 528.

The Committee of Plantations, having received all possible information, both from the agents,' and from Randolph, and having entered into a serious consideration of the affairs of New England, in April, 1678, proposed the following queries to the Crown-Lawyers, Jones and Winnington.2

1. Whether the people of the Massachusetts Colony have any legal Charter at all?

2. Whether the Quo Warranto brought against the Colony in 1635 had not worked the dissolution of such Charter as they had?

3. And, supposing the Charter were originally good, whether the Corporation had not, by maladministration of its powers, forfeited the same, so as to be now at his Majesty's mercy and disposal?

On the first query Jones and Winnington declined giving an opinion, inasmuch as it had already been decided in the affirmative by the two Chief Justices. To the second they replied in the negative. To the third they answer, that, if the alleged misdemeanors can be proved to be true, and to have been committed since the Act of Oblivion, they do contain sufficient matter to avoid the Patent, but that cannot be otherwise done than by a Quo Warranto.5

The Statute Book of the Colony was also submitted to the examination of the Crown-Lawyers, who "marked out" many of its enactments, "as repugnant to the laws of England, and contrary to the power of the Charter," of which the agents promised an amendment.

The Lords of the Committee at length delivered to the agents, to be by them transmitted to the General Court, a list of "those various evils which now produced so much disorder and vexation," for which they demanded an immediate remedy, with the result of their deliberations on the affairs of New England, concluding thus: "Upon the whole matter their Lordships seem very much to resent that no more notice is taken, in New England, of what was so freely and with so much softness intimated to the agents; and they are so far from advising his Majesty immediately to grant the Colony a pardon, much less the accession of government of the country claimed by Mr. Mason, which the agents had petitioned for, that they are of opinion that this whole matter ought severely to be considered from the very root. For, if fair persuasions will not take place, neither will they take notice of commands that are sent, if nobody be there on the place to give countenance to his Majesty's orders, and truly to represent from that country what obedience is given to them. Agreed that it must be by a Governor, wholly to be supported by his Majesty; and that such a Governor many of the people there did languish after. But referred to Mr. Attorney and Solicitor, to consider whether his Majesty is at liberty to do herein as may be required." 7

The Lords soon after recommended Randolph to Lord Treasurer Danby, as the most proper person for Collector of the Port of Boston. Their choice being approved, a Commission was issued, in May, 1678, constituting him "Collector, Surveyor, and Searcher of his Majesty's Customs, in his Majesty's Colony of New England, (that is to say) Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, Rhode Island, the Province of Maine, and New Hampshire, and all other his Majesty's Colonies and Islands in New England"; and on the 9th of July following he received his Instructions from the Commissioners of Customs. But the High Treasurer desiring to know

1 See in Chalmers, pp. 436-8, extracts from the answers of Stoughton and Bulkley to the questions proposed to them by the Lords of the Committee, delivered in April, 2 To assist the Crown Lawyers in forming their opinion, the Lords of Trade sent Randolph "to attend them with several matters of fact."

1678.

3 See page 707.

4 When the claims of Mason and Gorges were submited to their examination. See pages 612 and 613, note a.

5 Chalmers, pp. 405, 438-40.

6 Ibid., p. 447.

7 Ibid., pp. 405, 440-1.

8 See these Instructions in Mass. Hist. Coll. xxvII. 129-38.

how the expenses of the office were to be defrayed, unless from the Exchequer, the Lords replied, March 10, 1678-9, "We have, upon this occasion, reflected what hath happened in New England since his Majesty's restoration, and do find, not only by the affronts and rejections of those Commissioners which his Majesty sent out in 1665, but by the whole current of their behavior since, that, until his Majesty shall give those his subjects to understand that he is absolutely bent upon a general reformation of the abuses in that government, we cannot hope for any good from the single endeavor of any officer that may be sent, but rather contradiction and disrespect in all that shall be endeavored for his Majesty's service, if they will but call it an infringement of their Charter. Nor can we think how any the charges incident to those employments, could they have any execution, can be otherwise supported than from his Majesty's Exchequer. Wherefore, seeing there is now in preparation such a general state of that Colony, and such expedients to be offered his Majesty, as may bring it to a dependence on his Majesty's authority, equal to that of any other Colony, which we think his Majesty's steady resolution may effect; we, therefore, leave it to your Lordship's consideration, whether it be not best to suspend the departure of any such officer until there be a final resolution taken in this matter." 1

2

Meantime complaints continued to be made against the Massachusetts Colony. The toleration shewn to Quakers was thought to be one of the sins which had brought upon the country the Indian War, and a law was accordingly passed "that every person found at a Quaker's meeting should be apprehended, and committed to the House of Correction, or else pay £5 in money, as a fine to the country." The agents wrote to the General Court that this law had lost them many friends. The King's letter of April 27, 1678, having been received, reproving them for a law, passed in the month of October previous," for the reviving and administring a certain oath of fidelity to the country," the General Court repealed the obnoxious ordinance, and passed an Act requiring all persons above the age of sixteen years to take the oath of allegiance, on pain of fine and imprisonment, "the Governor, Deputy-Governor, and magistrates having first taken the same, without any reservation, in the words sent to them by his Majesty's order." Several other laws were also made, to remove the grounds of complaint against the Colony. High Treason was made punishable by death; and the King's arms were put up in the Court-house. But the Acts of Trade were not so readily complied with. They were declared to be an invasion of the rights, liberties, and properties of the subjects of his Majesty in the Colony, they not being represented in Parliament;" it was contended that “the laws of England were bounded within the four seas, and did not reach America; however, as his Majesty had signified his pleasure that those Acts should be observed in the Massachusetts, they had made provision, by a law of the Colony, that they should be strictly attended from time to time, although it greatly discouraged trade and was a great damage to his Majesty's Plantation."6

While their agents were in England several Addresses were sent to the King by the General Court. In one of them, dated Oct. 16, 1678, they say, "let your Majesty be pleased to accept from our messengers an account of our ready obedience to your Majesty's command for taking the oath of allegiance in the form prescribed, and our repealing that law, referring to the oath, so ill resented by your Majesty, with some orders Mr. Attorney and Mr. Solicitor excepted against, as our messengers have intimated. What shall be incumbent on us we shall, with all dutifulness, attend, as becomes good Christians and loyal English subjects, and shall glory in giving your Majesty all just satisfaction." And "we humbly supplicate your Majesty

'Chalmers, Political Annals, pp. 405-6, 441-2, History of the Revolt, i. 131-2. 2 Hutchinson, i. 288-9.

3 Chalmers, Political Annals, p. 406, and History of the Revolt, i. 130.

4 See it in Hutchinson's Collection of Papers, pp. 515-16.

5 Massachusetts Records, cited by Hutchinson, i. 289-90.

6 General Court's letter to the agents, in Hutchinson, i. 290.