Discord between the Governor

and the General

Court.

1703. Sept. 1.

April 8.

CHAPTER IX.

THE renewal of the Indian war at the beginning of Dudley's administration, while it invited harmonious action between him and the General Court, did not suspend their jealousy of one another. He called the Court together to consult on the state of affairs, informing them that he had already sent succors into Maine, in sufficient force, as he still hoped, to restore tranquillity. It was not unnatural that he should regard a moment when he felt his importance to the people to be great, as being a favorable one for the enforcement of measures which he knew to be disrelished by them; and he read a letter from the Queen urging anew the matter of stated salaries for the high officials. The House replied that, in the absence of many of its members, kept at home by the existing alarm, they could not prudently proceed to consider a subject of such moment. The importance of a stated and permanent salary for the Governors had been as clearly seen by themselves as by their masters from the institution of the provincial government, - by the Ministry, because it so materially affected the power of their representatives to serve them; by the Governors, both for that reason and for their private comfort and ease. Sir William Phips was not long in seeing the expediency of praying November. the King to " nominate to said Assembly a salary

1693.

1 Nor did the Governor find the Council pliant. "Till the Queen appoints the Council, the best men can have no share in the govern

ment." (Dudley to the Board of Trade, in September, 1703, in British Colonial Papers.)

1

sufficient for his support." Lord Bellomont, before he left England, applied to have " such a salary fixed on him as might be suitable to the government; an application of which the unsatisfactory result has been seen in the reply of the agent of Massachusetts to the July 4. message of the Lords of Trade.2

1695.

1703.

At the Governor's next opportunity for communication with the Court, his urgency for action in respect to established salaries and the restoration of the eastern fort was such as to bring the House to a formal Nov. 16. defence of that policy, which it had adopted at the beginning of the provincial history, and in which it persisted to the end.3 There was now discord between the two branches of the Legislature, the Council siding with the Governor on questions of form and of his prerogative. The Representatives had sent an Address to the Queen, without consultation with the Council. The Council desired to see it. The Representatives replied that their Journal, in which it was recorded, was open to the Council's inspection, but they refused to send their clerk up with the Journal, or to furnish a copy of the paper. Dudley summoned the House to come to the Council Chamber with their Journal. They came, but did not bring it. At length they were prevailed upon to furnish a copy of the Address, and the altercation came to nothing except as manifesting the jealous temper which prevailed.*

1 See above, p. 142. 2 Ibid., p. 177.

"It hath been the privilege from Henry the Third, and confirmed by Edward the First, and in all reigns unto this day granted, and is now allowed to be the first and unquestionable right of the subject, to raise when and dispose of how they see cause, any sums of money by consent of Parliament, the which privilege we, her Majesty's loyal and

VOL. IV.

19

dutiful subjects, have lived in the enjoyment of, and do hope always to enjoy the same, under our most gracious Queen Anne and successors." (Mass. Prov. Rec., Nov. 16, 1703.) Before the Governor obtained this answer, he had to send twice to remind the House of the application he had made. (Comp. Ibid., for Nov. 4 and 15.)

Ibid., for November 15, 16, 17,

and 18.

Nov. 23.

Nov. 26.

The House made a grant to Constantine Phipps, as agent for the Colony. Dudley held that, with his becoming Governor, Phipps's agency, being unauthorized by him, had ceased. The House voted that the Governor's appropriation to other uses of moneys granted by them for the fortification of Boston Harbor was a "grievance." They presented a list of other complaints relating to his military administration, and were about to extend it still further when he prorogued them, after a rebuke accompanied with lofty assertions of his prerogative as "her Majesty's commander-in-chief in Massachusetts." They parted in

Dec. 2.

mutual ill-humor, and Dudley wrote to Lord NotDec. 19. tingham that he had communicated the Queen's requisitions to the Assembly, but though he had "for a month's time used all possible methods with them," he found it "impossible to move that sort of men, who love not the crown and government of England, to any manner of obedience." They meant, he said, to "put a slight upon her Majesty's government, of whose just rights I will not abate the least point to save my life, it being so very necessary to watch to support it amongst a people that would destroy it, if possible."1

The Governor's first speech to the General Court after the sack of Deerfield was occupied with that subject to the exclusion of the commonplaces of the salaries and of the eastern fort. The Court called

Provisions for the war. 1704.

March 8. for six hundred volunteers, offered a premium of a hundred pounds for scalps, and sent to solicit military aid from Rhode Island and Connecticut. A large supply of money was wanted. Bills of credit were issued to the amount of ten thousand pounds, and a tax was laid for their redemption.

The Representatives never overlooked the importance

1 Letter of Dudley, in British Colonial Papers.

March 25.

April 18-27.

of the pending question of provision for the Governor's support. They made him a grant of two hundred pounds. The Council sent down a message, recommending an increase of the allowance and a grant besides to the Lieutenant-Governor. The House replied that they had "resolved not to raise any further money this session," and were presently prorogued. They came together again for a few days in the following month, but attended to nothing beyond some arrangements for the prosecution of the war. At the annual meeting for the election of Counsellors, the Governor again refrained from pressing the measures which were most upon his mind. But, on the other hand, he again resorted to an offensive exercise of his prerogative by setting aside the choice of the popular favorites, Elisha Cooke and Peter Sargent, to be Counsellors.2 The Speaker" addressed his Excellency in the name of the House for his favor Rejection to accept the two gentlemen to be of the Council, of Counsel whom he had disallowed of." The House had com- Governor. promised its dignity in vain. "His Excellency returned answer to that motion, and dismissed the House to their business." After a fortnight's delay, and not without being prompted by a message from the Council, the House consented to go into an election to supply the vacancies; and Simeon Stoddard and Samuel Hayman, who were now chosen Counsellors, were admitted

1 "I am sorry nothing that could be said would move them from a stubborn resolved temper, which has possessed the Assembly, that they will agree to nothing wherein they may show their obedience to her Majesty." (Letter of Dudley to Lord Nottingham, April 21, 1704, in British Colonial Papers.)

2 Sir Henry Ashurst took umbrage at a repetition of this strong measure, and, July 3, 1705, presented to the Board of Trade "a memorial that

lors by the

May 31.

June 14.

Colonel Dudley had refused to admit his cousin, Peter Sargent, into the Council of the Massachusetts Bay, though annually chosen for that place, and desiring the Board to write to Colonel Dudley to admit him. Letter ordered to be written to know the reason of his constant refusal." (Journal of the Board of Trade.) Dudley probably gave heed to this, for he admitted Sargent to the Council in 1707.

by the Governor.

July 13.

"The election of Counsellors," wrote

Dudley to the Lords of Trade, "is scandalously used . . to affront every loyal and good man that loves the Church of England and dependence on her Majesty's government."1

question of

June 30.

Nov. 10.

The disagreement with him on the essential points of policy went on for the present without check, notwithstanding the general good understanding which united the two parties in the conduct of the war. The House granted forty pounds to each Judge of the Superior Court Disputed for his service for the year, and the same sum to salaries. the lieutenant of the castle. To Povey, LieutenantGovernor, as captain of the castle, to which place Dudley had advanced him over Hutchinson, they voted a hundred and twenty pounds as a year's pay; but it was on onerous conditions, one of which was that, except for special reasons, he should not fail to be at the castle three days in every week. The Council gave him fifty pounds more for the first half of the year, at which proceeding the House took high offence, and voted that it was arbitrary and illegal, and a violation of our English and charter privileges and rights." The Council sent down a message asking for "a grant for the support of the Governor and the Secretary, and to know what consideration they had had of the memorial presented by the Judges," complaining of the insufficient provision for them. A list of grants was laid before the Council, in which they in vain informed the House that they found none for the Governor. "I humbly ask,” he wrote to the Secretary of State, "your Honor's Nov. 27. favor and patronage for me in my difficult part with an angry people that can hardly bear the government nor Church of England amongst them, and, while my care is to keep them steady to Acts of Parliament, will make me as uneasy as they can.'

Nov. 18.

66