Major John Mason, conqueror of the Pequods, had, in behalf of the colony, bought of 1659.

the Sachem Uncas certain lands, which

the colony, in its turn, had conveyed to English proprietors. His grandson, of the same name, associating with himself some other disaffected persons, pretended that both the Mohegans and Major Mason's heirs had been overreached and wronged by the colonial authorities, who, as they alleged, had occupied more land of the former than they had bought, and had taken to themselves the benefit of a purchase made by Major Mason on his private account.

For the sake of peace and the credit of magnanimity, the government offered to the chief Owaneco, who represented the Indians, to pay them again for the land. But Mason and his friends interfered, resolved to obstruct any accommodation.

One of them went to England, with a 1704. complaint against the colony for extortion July 19. from the natives, and the Queen appointed a commission of twelve persons, two of whom were the governor and lieutenant-governor of Massachusetts, to investigate the affair. Messengers from the governor of Connecticut 1705. appeared before this court, and ques- Aug. 24. tioned its jurisdiction. They were ready, they said, to show the injustice of the complaints against their colony, if the object of the commissioners was only to obtain a knowledge of the facts, with a view to a report to the Queen; but

if the commissioners claimed power to decide the question judicially, they had no duty except to protest against that pretension. The commissioners assumed the right to decide as to the property of the territory in dispute, and adjudged it to the Mohegans and their friends, at the same time mulcting the colony in costs to the amount of nearly six hundred pounds. Dudley repre

sented to the Lords of Trade that he and Nov. 1. his associates were treated on this occasion with rudeness and insult. Sir Henry Ashurst, by a petition to the Queen in Council, succeeded in arresting further proceedings; but it was 1743. not till forty years later that the question was put to rest, when it was decided in favor of the colony.

The

The representations made by Dudley upon this subject refreshed and strengthened the unfavorable impression made upon the royal Privy Council by his hostile statements relating to a variety of other matters. Never without some disturbing ambition, he was now haunted by the dream of a promotion to the extensive government which had been enjoyed by Andros. colonial charters stood in his way. If they could be cancelled, the sovereign might appoint a governor or governors at pleasure. Though not overlooked in his plan of revolution, the charter of Massachusetts, as the most recent, offered the least encouragement to an assault. Those of Rhode Island and Connecticut belonged to a

former reign, which was now in no good credit; and no living English statesman could be supposed to have an interest in them, or any objection to their being overthrown in law. Lord Cornbury, besides his despotic impulses, had plans of his own, which disposed him to be Dudley's ally; and his private influence, which was great, especially from his near relationship to the Queen, was given to the governor of Massachusetts. Like Rhode Island, Connecticut was charged with a maladministration in various. particulars justly punishable by a loss of the charter; with violations of the Acts of Trade and Navigation; with encouraging mari- 1705. time disorders, liable to be qualified as Nov. 26. piracy; with refusing or neglecting, when lawfully summoned, to furnish military levies; with executing capital punishment without authority from the charter; with denying justice in its courts to the Queen's subjects, not inhabitants; with disallowing appeals to the Queen in Council; with refusing to commit its militia to governors of neighboring colonies, holding the Queen's commission for that command; and with obstructing members of the Church of England as to their freedom of worship: to all which charges was now added that of contumacy in the recent denial of the authority of the royal com- 1706. missioners to pass upon the complaint of Jan. 10. the Mohegan Indians.

This last proceeding occurred at a time which

1704.

made it especially serviceable for the purposes of the plotters against the colonial governments. Their unfriendly representations had already so far prevailed that a bill was brought into Parliament, declaring the charters of various colonies in America, and among them all the charters for New England, to "be utterly void and of none effect," and vesting all their powers 1705. and privileges in the crown. At a hearing Feb. 12. before the Privy Council, Sir Henry Ashurst, appearing with legal counsel for Connecticut, argued in respect to some of the proceedings complained of, that they had not in fact taken place; in respect to others, that they were justified by the charter. And he obtained leave for copies of the charges to be sent to the governor of Connecticut, and for time to be allowed him for further reply. At this critical moment the transactions with the commissioners on the claim of

the Mohegan Indians intervened. The Privy

December. Council directed the Board of Trade "to

1706.

Jan. 10. lay before the Queen the misfeasances of the proprieties, and the advantages that may arise by reducing them," which was accordingly done. There is extent a draft, belonging to this period, of an Act of Parliament declaring that "the sole power and authority of governing the said [the American] plantations and colonies, and every of them," and "of appointing governors and all other officers," is "forever united to the imperial crown of Great Britain." A bill passed

February.

through the House of Commons "for the better regulation of the charter governments, and for the encouragement of the trade of the plantations." But it failed of obtaining the concurrence of the Lords. There were legal embarrassments, opinions differed as to the relative expediency of different methods of restraining the colonies, and the war raging upon the continent of Europe demanded the attention of English statesmen; so that again, for the present, the question went by.

An important change was made in the ecclesiastical constitutions of Connecticut. Throughout the settlements and the history of New England there had been a succession of departures from the original theory of the mutual independence of the churches. In Connecticut the opinion now prevailed that a more energetic system of church government had become necessary than at present existed, or was consistent with the theoretical independence of the several congregations. The Legislature convoked a synod of ministers and lay delegates to deliberate upon the May 13. subject. Twelve ministers and four delegates, deputed by ministers and messengers of the churches in the several counties, came together at the town of Saybrook, from which the result of their deliberations derived the name of the Saybrook Platform. Having adopted for their constitution the Confession of Faith of the Reforming Synod held at Boston twenty-eight

1708.

Sept. 9.