CHAPTER VII

NEW ENGLAND VERSUS ENGLAND,

1660-1689

In spite of the substantial contributions Charles II made to the cause of American growth, it is plain that the English government did not intend to found real colonies in America. The king merely gave legal sanction to private enterprises; and in giving this approval he had not the remotest intention of starting, or of allowing others to start, independent political units. From the royal, and legal point of view, the government would have been distinctly foolish to let its territory in the new world slip out of reach once it was inhabited, and valuable. From the beginning the colonies were "plantations,' to be controlled by the home government, and regulated in its own interest. So the Privy Council looked after constitutional questions in the colonies while various committees were concerned with the economic problems in America. The colonies were an entirely new thing in English experience, and the system of control was even newer. In the beginning, therefore, the efforts at regulation were generally experimental and tentative in nature.

Before 1660, there was little opportunity for the working out of a consistent colonial policy. After the Restoration, however, the English government devoted a good deal of thoughtful planning to the problem in both its constitutional and its economic aspects. The "plantations," which had been almost insignificant at first, were growing into a veritable empire, and as they grew, the problems of trade and defense grew proportionately. It is not surprising that in the various plans of control, the English officials charged with the responsibility should have placed the general welfare ahead of the local interests and prejudices of the colonists. Nor is it to be wondered at that the general welfare was frequently interpreted in terms of English advantage. These men of the seventeenth century were not the first nor the last human beings to identify their own desires with the welfare of the universe. They believed specifically that the government of the colonies needed to be supervised more

ENGLISH INVESTIGATIONS

73

carefully than before, and that the trade needed more careful attention.

That part of the new policy dealing with problems of government was tried out first-unsatisfactorily-in New England. Its failure entirely to please any one probably prevented its being permanent. The system of commercial supervision however, was gradually developed and extended, until it reached its climax shortly before the Revolution.

While the English officials were discussing possible plans for keeping the colonies in a state of dependence, a very different policy was being worked out in New England, or more especially, in the colony of Massachusetts Bay. The average Puritan who had come to Massachusetts had come to stay. He was consequently occupied with his own affairs, and generally indifferent to the purposes of the Council for Foreign Plantations. In pursuing his own designs, he was perfectly willing to hold himself apart from all connection with the British government; all he wanted was to be let alone.

From the time of its foundation the Puritan commonwealth in Massachusetts had carried itself with an air of independence, that could not fail to attract attention in England. As early as 1634, Charles I had appointed a commission to investigate reports from that colony, and only the growing difficulties in England saved Massachusetts from a thorough overhauling. During the Protectorate, the Bay Colony had been notoriously independent in manner and bearing. And, besides, the New England Confederation had a suspicious appearance. Suppose it were, as rumor said, an offensive alliance against English authority? When the officials realized that in 1670 New England contained about one third of all the English in North America, they felt called upon to act.

ENGLISH INVESTIGATIONS

In 1661, Charles II appointed a committee of the Privy Council to investigate the situation in New England, and especially to consider the case of Massachusetts. As a result of this investigation, the king made certain demands upon the colony. He ordered the officials, first of all, to broaden the franchise, by giving the right to vote to all respectable land owners, even though they were not members of the Puritan Church. Next, he ordered them to permit the Church of England to hold services in Massachusetts. These two demands

were strictly in harmony with the policy of Charles II in other colonies, and they were designed to undermine the political and religious absolutism of the Bay Colony. The king then ordered that the colony administer justice in his name, and compel all the inhabitants to swear allegiance to him. These demands were the logical result of the rumors coming from Massachusetts.

But the General Court used its own discretion in carrying out the king's orders. The demand for an extension of the suffrage rights was evaded. The legislature passed a law, ostensibly to grant the right of voting to all orthodox property owners; but it provided that the Puritan ministers must certify to the prospective voter's orthodoxy. The ministers interpreted these duties very strictly. Furthermore, although the General Court decreed that all legal papers should run in the king's name, it referred the other demands to a committee which never reported.

In 1664, the king appointed a special committee of investigation, to canvass the whole subject of conditions in Massachusetts. The commission was ordered to look into the Indian problem, to capture the regicides, to enforce obedience to the Navigation Act, and to secure the establishment of liberty of conscience for all. These were the avowed aims. In addition, the committee received some secret instructions, with orders to secure from the General Court a law or laws empowering the king to nominate the governor of Massachusetts, to control the militia, and to pass upon the laws enacted in the province. In general the committee was expected "to dispose the people to an entire submission and obedience to the king's government."

When the commissioners arrived, the authorities in Massachusetts would permit no interference of any sort with the government or with the courts, and they denied the validity of the royal commission. They garrisoned the fort in the harbor, and made general plans for defense. When the king's representatives tried to hold a public inquiry, the people were officially warned to ignore them.

In openly refusing to respond to the advances of the commissioners, the colony of Massachusetts did something more than assert its right to govern itself. It raised the whole question of allegiance to England. Was Massachusetts a part of the empire, or not? If not, when had the king granted away his sovereignty over the region? He had not done so. And if the government of Massachusetts claimed independ

ENGLISH INVESTIGATIONS

75

ence, they could hardly blame the king if he tried to assert his authority over what was still, legally, a part of his dominion.

The report of the committee was not favorable to Massachusetts, and one of its recommendations was that the king strengthen his hold, by force if necessary. The proposed solution was the abrogation of the charter. At the time, however, the king took no action.

In 1674, the king put the Lords of Trade, a standing committee of the Privy Council, in charge of colonial affairs and colonial business. This committee was inclined to favor a firmer hold on the colonies, and to bring them more closely under royal control. Under the auspices of this new system of supervision, in 1676, Edward Randolph was sent over to investigate conditions in Massachusetts. He was instructed especially to find out what laws in the colony were at variance with the laws of England, and to see how the Navigation Acts [See Ch. VIII] were being observed. In 1681, Randolph received a commission as collector of customs in New England. The government of Massachusetts placed every possible obstacle in his way. He himself was not allowed to work, while his deputies were fined and imprisoned. Recalcitrant merchants, smarting under penalties imposed for violating the laws of trade, sued the collector's agents for damages in the local courts.

It is not strange that Randolph developed a feeling of hostility to Massachusetts. After a few years of ill-treatment there, he went back to England and urged the king to annul the Massachusetts charter. In support of this demand he found it necessary merely to summarize the policy of the Bay Colony after 1660. He reported that the authorities there had made no attempt to capture the regicides, and that the merchants were regularly evading the Navigation Acts, and that the right of appeal to English courts had been denied. Then he went back to the treatment accorded the investigating committee of 1664, and emphasized the evasion of the king's order to broaden the suffrage. All through his report he made plain the attitude of Massachusetts: an attitude of indifference to royal authority, and of independence.

Randolph was not obliged to resort to exaggeration or invention to make out a strong case against Massachusetts; the record itself was unmistakably plain. And that very fact revealed the real point at issue. The English government was trying to work out a system of colonial regulation and control, while Massachusetts persisted in con

sidering herself exempt from any such system. Leaving the legal aspects of the question out of account, it may be that the inhabitants of Massachusetts were entitled to all the independence they could get. But the king was not ready to concede their right to deprive him of control over territory which belonged to the English domain. If they wanted independence, there were other parts of the world which were outside that domain.

Upon the strength of Randolph's representations, the Crown ordered the issue of a writ of quo warranto, as the first step in annulling the charter, but legal technicalities prevented the completion of the process. Finally, in 1684, under a writ of scire facias, the charter was revoked, and Joseph Dudley was named the first royal governor. If this action seems inconsistent with the liberal policy which Charles II had pursued elsewhere, the fact remains that he waited over twenty years before bringing action, and during that time he received two full reports, showing that the authorities in Massachusetts had violated their own charter, besides ignoring some of the reasonable orders of the king. It is also clear that if the king's orders had been carried out, the Bay Colony would have been a far more liberal and democratic place.

SIR EDMUND ANDROS

During the first part of the reign of Charles II the Council for Foreign Plantations had advised the fusion of all the northern colonies into a single dominion. Then, beginning in 1675, the body known as the Lords of Trade had aimed at the union of all the proprietary and charter colonies, under careful royal supervision. This course seemed necessary because of the commercial problems. It was the duty of the Lords of Trade to oversee the enforcement of the various laws designed to regulate commerce, and in doing this work they were hampered and blocked by the consistent evasion of duties and by the widespread smuggling which was prevalent in America. The existence of several independent governments was proving to be a source of loss and weakness. Furthermore, some sort of centralized authority was needed to make possible the development of an ambitious fur trade. This plan had for its object the transfer of the greater part of that trade from the French centers at Montreal and Quebec to the English center at Albany. In order to do this, the New Engand colonies would have to work with New York. Had the experi