THE OLD ENGLISH COLONIES UNDER THE LATER STUARTS (1660-1689)
COLONIAL POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
The Restoration.--In 1660 Charles II was restored to the English throne
and ruled until 1685, when his brother, James, the Duke of York, became
king, ruling until deposed in 1688. In England the period was
characterized by a reaction against Puritanism and the firm
establishment of the English church. Abroad the Restoration was an era
of commercial and colonial expansion. On the coasts of Asia, Africa, and
America, the great trading companies were active, and powerful English
nobles strove for possessions beyond the seas. To this era belong the
occupation of New Netherlands, the founding of the Carolinas, the
Jerseys, and Pennsylvania, and the establishment of the Hudson's Bay Fur
Company. The activities of Englishmen led to clashes with rival
commercial peoples, especially the Dutch, with whom two naval wars were
fought in which England maintained her supremacy upon the seas. In the
handling of her colonies previous to the Restoration, her efforts had
been largely experimental. Under the later Stuarts colonial management
was molded into a system. In private life Charles II was a man of
pleasure. In his dealings with parliament he was tenacious, but when
pushed to extremities, he preferred to yield rather than to "go again on
his travels.". In matters which affected the material prosperity of his
country the king was a hard-headed man of business, warmly supporting
commercial and colonial enterprises.
The Mercantilist system.--The economic theory of the time was expressed
in the Mercantilist system. The welfare of the state was the main object
of statesmen; this they believed required a full treasury, a large
population, and extensive shipping. Specie was looked upon as the
principal form of wealth; therefore exports must exceed imports so that
coin would flow into the realm. In order that it might have a large
amount of goods to sell, the state desired to import raw materials,
which could be manufactured and exported. The ideal colony was to be a
source of supply of raw materials, and was to be a market for goods of
the mother country, but was not to be a manufacturing competitor. The
state policy was shaped to shut out the foreigner and to build up the
productivity of the colonies.
Attitude toward emigration.--The desire for a larger population in
England caused statesmen to view emigration with disfavor. During the
period the number going to the colonies was relatively small. The
government, however, encouraged the emigration of Scotch, Irish, and
Huguenots, and sent over many political prisoners, non-conformists, and
criminals. Many of those who emigrated were too poor to pay for their
passage and bound themselves for a period of years, a form of temporary
bondage known as indenture. Many servants and children were also
kidnaped and sent to the colonies. Because the colonies in the West
Indies and the South mainly produced raw materials and used slave labor,
thus drawing relatively less population from England, they were looked
upon with the greater favor by the home government. The northern
colonies produced little except fish, furs, and naval stores, which
could be of use to England. The free labor system of the North was
likely to drain the population of England. For these reasons the
northern colonies were looked upon with scant favor.
Navigation Act of 1660.--During the Cromwellian period, parliament had
asserted the right to legislate for the colonies and the restored
Stuarts accepted the principle. In 1660 a new navigation act was passed
which was intended to give English shipping an advantage over
competitors, especially the Dutch. The act provided that goods carried
to or from English possessions in America, Africa, or Asia, must be
carried in English, Irish, or colonial vessels. Under penalty of
forfeiture, cargoes of sugar, tobacco, indigo, and several other
products could not be shipped to any ports except in England, Ireland,
or some English colony.
Staple Act of 1663.--Under the navigation act of 1660 alien merchants
could send foreign goods to the colonies in English ships. To obviate
this the Staple Act was passed, which, with a few exceptions, such as
Portuguese wines, salt, and horses, prohibited the importation into the
colonies of goods which had not been loaded in England.
Plantation Duties Act of 1673.--Under the previous acts goods shipped
from colony to colony escaped paying duties. In 1673 an act was passed
which imposed duties on sugar, tobacco, and many other products of
intercolonial trade.
Imperial defence.--The burden of defence of the empire against foreign
powers fell upon England. Ships of the navy were stationed in the West
Indies, Chesapeake Bay, and at Boston to protect the colonies, and
suppress piracy and illegal trade. The buccaneers of the West Indies
were brought under control. The Barbary pirates also were frequently
attacked, and convoys for merchant vessels and fishing fleets were often
furnished. Garrisons were usually stationed in Barbados, Jamaica, and
St. Kitts, but on the mainland soldiers were not regularly maintained.
The fiscal system.--By the civil war parliament made good its contention
that it alone had the right to levy taxes. In 1660 a general taxation
act was passed by which Charles II was granted for life the income from
tonnage and poundage; the former being a duty on imported wines, the
latter a five per cent duty on imports and exports, whose valuation was
fixed in a book of rates. To compensate the colonies somewhat for the
resulting higher prices, a preferential system was introduced. By this
system the valuation of the principal products of the colonies was made
lower than on the same products coming from foreign countries.
MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT
Council for Foreign Plantations.--The work of enforcing the laws
devolved upon the crown and privy council. The accumulation of business
and the specialized knowledge required in colonial matters made it
desirable to have a body created which might handle the business in a
more efficient manner. Accordingly in December, 1660, a Council for
Foreign Plantations was commissioned. Members of the council were to
inform themselves regarding the colonies, were to introduce a more
uniform system of government, and were to see that the navigation acts
were enforced.
Council of Trade.--From the English standpoint the colonies were mainly
commercial enterprises. To foster commerce a Council of Trade was
created. The work of the two bodies was to sift the mass of business so
that matters of first importance only might come before the privy
council. Lack of authority interfered with the interest of the members
of the minor councils; the sessions became less and less frequent, and
by 1665 both had ceased.
Council for Trade and Plantations.--Supervision of the colonies again
devolved upon a committee of the privy council. In 1667 Clarendon fell
and the small group known as the Cabal came into power. The following
year the privy council was reorganized, four standing committees being
constituted, one of which had charge of trade and plantations. The need
of experts, however, continued to be felt, and in 1668 a new Council of
Trade was appointed. In 1670 the Council for Plantations was also
revived, and in 1672 the two councils were consolidated as the Council
for Trade and Plantations. The council prepared preliminary drafts of
instructions to governors, examined colonial legislation, and
investigated questions which arose.
Lords of Trade.--Executive powers remained in the privy council, and
this necessarily curbed the Council for Trade and Plantations, which was
purely an advisory body. In 1674 the latter council was abolished, and
the following year the king again committed its work to the Committee
for Trade and Plantations of the privy council. This committee, known
henceforth as the Lords of Trade, was a permanent body with its own
clerks. William Blathwayt soon became the secretary and for twenty years
he held the position. The efficiency of the body and the development of
the colonial policy was due more to him than to any other person. The
Lords of Trade prepared the instructions to governors, supervised the
development of the colonies, examined colonial questions, and enforced
the navigation laws.
The Admiralty.--After the Restoration the Duke of York was appointed
Lord High Admiral of England and in 1662 his powers were extended to the
colonies. Cases concerning vessels seized for violating some of the
clauses of the commercial laws were tried in admiralty courts which were
established in the crown colonies, deputies were appointed by the
admiral to attend to the business, and ships were stationed in the
colonies to seize illegal traders.
Governors and customs officials.--In the colony the chief executive
officer was the governor. He was expected to enforce the trade laws, but
outside of the crown colonies there was great, laxity in this regard.
The work of enforcing the navigation laws was usually entrusted by the
governor to a clerk called the naval officer but at a later period these
officials were appointed by the crown. The right of collection of the
English customs was leased to certain individuals who were known as
farmers of the customs. They frequently complained that the governors
were remiss in enforcing the navigation laws. Accordingly, the farmers
of the customs were allowed to send, at their own expense, officers who
would attend to the collection of duties. The farming system was soon
abandoned and commissioners of customs were appointed, who sent out
collectors, usually one to each colony. To examine the collector's
accounts and act as a check upon him, officials called comptrollers were
placed in most of the colonies, and in 1683 a superintendent for all the
colonies, called the surveyor-general of the customs, was appointed. The
activities of these officials led to considerable friction with colonial
governors and proprietors, who resented the interference of the customs
officials.
MISRULE AND REBELLION IN VIRGINIA
Effect of the trade laws.--In 1660 Sir William Berkeley began his second
administration, which proved to be as unsuccessful as his first
administration had been successful. Economic distress and arbitrary
misrule beset Virginia for sixteen years, culminating in a popular
outbreak known as Bacon's rebellion. The navigation acts fell heavily
upon the tobacco planters, who were deprived of the Dutch trade. The
population at the same time rapidly increased. In 1671 the inhabitants
numbered about forty thousand, and nearly doubled in the next decade.
The increasing population meant an increasing acreage of tobacco. The
price of tobacco fell, while freight rates increased and imported goods
went up in price. To alleviate the situation the assembly passed several
acts to encourage new industries, but the planters held to their one
great staple. Several attempts were made to limit the production of
tobacco, a policy in which the Virginians asked the people of Maryland
and the Albemarle district to the south to cooeperate, but the efforts
failed. The act of 1673 worked an added injury, for it deprived the
planters of the New England market.
Wars and other misfortunes.--The wars with Holland increased the
economic distress. In 1667 a Dutch fleet entered the James River,
captured an English frigate, and destroyed several trading vessels. Soon
afterward a hurricane destroyed hundreds of houses and ruined the crops.
In the winter of 1672-1673 a disease carried off fifty thousand cattle,
more than half of all the stock in Virginia. A second Dutch raid in 1673
destroyed a large part of the tobacco fleet.
Governmental abuses.--Berkeley was a firm believer in the divine right
of kings, and looked with disfavor upon any interference from the
people. To him it seemed fitting that, as the king's representative, he
should control every branch of governmental activity. His council was
entirely subservient and he gained control of the house of burgesses by
controlling the county elections through dishonest officials. In 1670
the assembly limited the franchise to freeholders; thus depriving the
poor of voting. In the counties the justices of the peace were appointed
by the governor. They exercised judicial, executive, and legislative
functions. The county courts settled the more important suits and the
individual justices determined minor cases. The courts also levied the
direct taxes, which were very heavy. In addition, the local church
divisions were governed by vestries which were selected by the governor.
These bodies levied the taxes to pay the church expenses. The whole
machinery of government was thus controlled by the governor. The form of
taxation aggravated the situation. Instead of a property tax, which
would throw the burden upon the great landholders, the poll-tax was the
usual method of raising money, the poor man thus having to pay as much
as the wealthy. There was also much bad judgment displayed in the use of
public funds. In a period of low prices and overproduction, the heavy
expenditures proved a serious burden, and discontent gradually developed
into rebellion.
Proprietary grants.--The action of the English government also alarmed
the colonists. In 1660 an attempt was made to renew the old Virginia
Company. Berkeley visited England to prevent it and his mission proved
successful. In 1649 the king had granted the region between the Potomac
and the Rappahannock rivers to several of his supporters, and after the
Restoration they leased their rights to Sir Humphrey Hooke and two
others. In 1669 the grant was renewed. The Virginia assembly immediately
sent agents to England to obtain the annulment of the patent or to allow
the colony to purchase the tract. Before a settlement was made the king
in 1673 granted the whole of Virginia to the Earl of Arlington and Lord
Culpeper with full proprietory rights for thirty-one years. The assembly
was greatly alarmed and directed its agents to seek the annulment of
this patent also. The matter was finally settled by an arrangement with
the proprietors by which they agreed to relinquish the patent provided
the colony paid them the quit-rents and assured them the escheated
property. The agents then asked the government that they be assured that
no portion of the colony would be granted in future to any proprietors
and that taxation would not be imposed without the consent of the house
of burgesses. Before a settlement was reached Bacon's rebellion
occurred.
Indian war.--The spark that kindled the rebellion was an Indian war. The
Senecas, pressing upon the Susquehannas, forced them into Maryland and
Virginia, where they committed depredations in the summer of 1675. The
settlers retaliated by killing several Indians. The Susquehannas joined
with the native tribes and harried the frontiers. Berkeley sent Colonel
John Washington in command of several hundred men to join the
Marylanders against an Indian fort on the Potomac, but after several
weeks of fighting the red men escaped. This was followed by renewed
depredations. Early in 1676 the governor prepared a second expedition
but suddenly abandoned the project. In March the assembly met and
decided to wage a defensive war. Forts were to be built upon the upper
waters of the rivers and heavy taxes were demanded to pay for them.
Bacon's rebellion.--The people were greatly incensed at the policy, and
demanded that the assembly be dissolved and a free election held. The
frontiersmen also demanded that they be allowed to go against the
Indians. Both of these demands the governor stubbornly refused. A
rebellion immediately broke out in Charles City County, and Nathaniel
Bacon, of Henrico, a member of Berkeley's council, was induced to lead
it. The governor was asked to grant Bacon a commission to proceed
against the Indians. Without waiting for the governor's decision, Bacon
led his men against the Pamunkeys. Bacon's act angered Berkeley, who
refused the commission and ordered Bacon and his men to lay down their
arms. This they refused to do and retired beyond the frontier, where
they destroyed an Indian stronghold on an island in the Roanoke River.
Berkeley issued a proclamation declaring Bacon's acts disloyal and
rebellious. To obtain popular support he dismantled the forts, dissolved
the assembly, and called an election.
Bacon was elected in Henrico County and an armed guard accompanied him
to the capital. Berkeley's troops fired upon Bacon's sloop, but that
night Bacon entered the town to consult with friends. He was discovered,
and eventually captured and brought before the governor, who, in view of
the popular clamor, became lenient, granting him a pardon and promising
him a commission as general. As the commission was not forthcoming,
Bacon collected several hundred men and marched upon Jamestown, which he
entered without opposition, and forced Berkeley to sign the commission
and to write a letter to the king justifying Bacon's acts. The assembly
now passed several bills which struck at the governor's power, and
repealed the act which restricted the franchise to freeholders.
The burgesses had just completed their work when news came that the
Indians were again on the warpath, and Bacon hastened with his
volunteers to the frontier. No sooner was he gone than the governor
began to enlist troops to proceed against the popular leader. Hearing of
this Bacon returned and Berkeley fled to the eastern shore of Chesapeake
Bay. Bacon was now in full control of the larger part of the colony. To
justify his acts he took the oath of allegiance, imposed it upon his
followers, and called an election. He then organized two expeditions,
one against the governor, the other against the Indians. An English ship
was seized and two hundred men were sent to capture Berkeley, but the
governor's followers surprised the crew and captured the leaders.
Berkeley then returned to Jamestown. While these events were occurring,
Bacon marched against the Indians and captured a stronghold of the
Pamunkeys. He then captured Jamestown and burned it, soon afterward
retiring into Gloucester County, where he was taken sick and died. In a
few months the people wearied of anarchy, many of the leaders
surrendered, and Berkeley was again in control.
Berkeley's revenge.--In June, 1676, Berkeley had tendered his
resignation to the king. Charles decided to allow him to retain the
title of governor, but to have him return to England, leaving the
government to a lieutenant-governor, Colonel Jeffreys being appointed.
He was assisted by two commissioners, Berry and Moryson. A general
pardon for the rebels was also drawn up. Berry and Moryson arrived in
the colony and found the governor intractable. Jeffreys, with about a
thousand troops, arrived soon afterward, but instead of asserting his
authority, he allowed Berkeley to ignore the pardon proclamation and
many were hung. Knowledge of Berkeley's disobedience reached the king,
who ordered him to return to England at once, but before the order
arrived Berkeley had embarked. He died soon after reaching England, and
Lord Culpeper was appointed governor, but he did not reach Virginia
until 1680.
Culpeper and Howard.--In the meantime the commissioners investigated the
causes of the rebellion, and in July, 1677, Berry and Moryson took their
report to England where it was laid before the privy council. Jeffreys,
who was left in control, had little authority, and the government again
fell into the hands of Berkeley's friends. Culpeper arrived in 1680, but
he proved to be a weak individual who spent most of his time in England
and did little when in the colony. In 1684 a new governor, Lord Howard
of Effingham, proceeded at once to curb the powers of the house of
burgesses. The right of appealing cases from the lower courts to the
assembly was denied, henceforth the governor and council being the final
court of appeal. The right of the king to annul laws passed by the
assembly was also asserted in spite of violent opposition. The session
of 1685 proved a stormy one. An attempt was made to take the power of
taxation away from the assembly. The king, who had taken over the
proprietory rights of Arlington and Culpeper, demanded that the
quit-rents be paid in specie instead of tobacco. This the burgesses
violently opposed, but they finally compromised by agreeing to pay
somewhat less than the governor had demanded. A "bill of ports" was
introduced which was intended to fix the points at which ships might
load and unload. Another violent struggle occurred. Finally, on
recommendation of the governor, the king dissolved the assembly. Lord
Howard unseated several members and appointed the clerk of the assembly.
The governor also collected certain fees, an act which the burgesses
claimed was an encroachment upon the power of taxation. The colony was
nearing another rebellion. In 1688 the assembly drew up a statement of
grievances, which they sent to the king, but by the time it reached
England James II had been driven from the throne and Effingham was soon
recalled.
DISCONTENT IN MARYLAND
Conditions in Maryland.--Economic conditions in Maryland were similar to
those in Virginia, the navigation laws affecting the colony in a similar
manner, the price of tobacco falling continually after 1660 for many
years. Political discontent also manifested itself, but the religious
element played a larger part in Maryland than in Virginia. No widespread
rebellion occurred, however, for Baltimore's government was more
temperate than that of Berkeley, the settlements were more compact,
frontier dangers were less acute, and no popular leader of great ability
arose to lead the malcontents.
Charles Calvert's administration.--After the turmoil of the Cromwellian
period, the Restoration brought comparative security to the proprietor
of Maryland, who succeeded in ingratiating himself with Charles II. In
1675 Charles Calvert succeeded to the proprietorship. Previously for
several years he had personally directed the governorship and had worked
conscientiously to bring about prosperity in the colony. He was less
tactful than his father and was exceedingly strong-willed. He placed his
relatives in the important positions, restricted the suffrage, and
frequently summoned to the assembly only half of the elected delegates,
thus keeping out influential opponents. In 1676, while Baltimore was in
England, a few malcontents attempted an uprising, but Notley, the acting
governor, overthrew and hanged two of the leaders, nipping the rebellion
in the bud. The proprietor and assembly continued to have difficulties,
but in the main Baltimore succeeded in maintaining his power. He also
had trouble with William Penn over the northern boundary, and with the
Lords of Trade over the right of collecting the customs. Baltimore's
Catholic leanings naturally made him support James II. When that monarch
was driven from the throne, a miniature bloodless revolution occurred in
Maryland. An Association for the Defense of the Protestant Religion was
formed. In July, 1689, the leaders seized St. Mary's and held a
representative assembly. But to their chagrin, William and Mary restored
the old colonial system, and Baltimore was soon back in power.
ROYAL INTERFERENCE IN NEW ENGLAND
Massachusetts and the king.--During the Cromwellian period the New
England colonies had followed their own devices, but when Charles II
came to the throne, they could not expect to pursue their independent
course. To forestall trouble, Massachusetts hastened to acknowledge the
king's authority, and none too soon, for numerous complaints had been
lodged against her. The most forceful of these came from the Quakers. In
1655 Mary Fisher and Ann Austin, two Quaker missionaries, had landed in
Barbados, the first of that sect to come to the colonies. The following
year they went to Boston from which they were promptly expelled. Rhode
Island proved hospitable. Those who had believed in Anne Hutchinson's
"covenant of grace" found the Quaker idea of the "inner fight" an
acceptable doctrine. From Rhode Island Quakers frequently penetrated the
neighboring colonies which took violent means to expel them. The
Massachusetts persecution reached its height in 1660 when three Quakers
were hanged, one of them being Mary Dyer, a former friend of Anne
Hutchinson. This high-handed proceeding reached the ear of the king, who
was in no amiable frame of mind toward the Puritan colonists, who were
believed to be sheltering two of the regicides. He accordingly ordered
the Boston authorities to send Quakers to England for trial, but
Massachusetts sent representatives to England, who succeeded in getting
the king to grant the colony free hand in dealing with Quakers. Charles
also confirmed the Massachusetts charter, but changed the basis of
voting from church membership to a property qualification.
The Connecticut charter.--Connecticut fared well with Charles II. When
the king's messengers visited the colony in search of the regicides,
they were given assistance, while New Haven aided the fugitives in
escaping. The results of this were soon apparent. In 1661 when
Connecticut sent Governor John Winthrop to England to obtain a charter,
he was graciously received and the following year the document was
issued. It provided for a popularly elected governor, a deputy-governor,
council, and assembly. The boundaries were described as "All that part
of our Dominions ... bounded on the East by the Narrogancett River,
commonly called Narrogancett Bay..., and on the North by the lyne of the
Massachusetts Plantation, and on the South by the Sea, and ... from the
said Narrogancett Bay on the East to the South Sea on the West parte,
with the Islands thereunto adjoyneinge." The boundaries included a part
of the territory of Rhode Island and the whole of New Haven, and
entirely ignored the Dutch possessions in the Hudson Valley. New Haven
protested violently, but in 1664, when the king granted the lands
between the Connecticut and Delaware rivers to the Duke of York, the New
Haven towns submitted to Connecticut rather than be annexed to New York.
The Rhode Island charter.--Fearful that Charles II might divide her
territory among her neighbors, Rhode Island hastened to proclaim the
king and petitioned that she be granted a charter. The Rhode Island
representative protested against the inclusion of Narragansett Bay
territory in Connecticut and the difficulty was adjusted by fixing the
boundary at the Pawtucket River, which was renamed the Narragansett. The
form of government was similar to that of Connecticut, but in Rhode
Island religious freedom was established.
The royal commissioners.--In 1664, when the English government had
determined upon the seizure of New Netherlands, commissioners were sent
to America. Respecting New England, their duties were to settle boundary
questions, to consider local disputes, and to see how the colonies
might be made more profitable. The commissioners visited Boston in July,
1664, where they obtained troops and demanded the repeal of the law
which restricted the franchise to church membership. After the conquest
of New Netherlands, three of them returned to New England. They were
well received in Connecticut and Rhode Island. Plymouth at this time was
attempting to obtain a charter, and the commissioners suggested that the
colony might have its lands confirmed without cost if it would receive a
royal governor, an offer which was declined? In Boston their reception
was stormy, the Massachusetts authorities denying that the commission
had any right of jurisdiction. Nicolls, the fourth commissioner, soon
arrived and the debates continued, but without result. The king rebuked
Massachusetts for its lack of respect, but took no immediate steps to
coerce the colony.
The frontier on the eve of King Philip's War.--In 1675 the Penobscot
marked the most northern settlement. Along the coasts and in the lower
valleys of the short New England streams settlements had been planted.
Eastern Massachusetts and Plymouth contained numerous towns. In Rhode
Island the island was fairly well-settled, but with the exception of
Providence and Warwick, the mainland had attracted few. Other
settlements were located near the mouth of the Thames, and in the valley
of the Connecticut as far up as Northfield. The coast lands of western
Connecticut had also been occupied. The total population of New England
did not exceed fifty thousand. The lands beyond the fringe of settlement
were occupied by powerful Indian tribes, which could muster about
thirty-five hundred fighting men.
Causes of the war.--The encroachment of the frontiers on the Indian
hunting ground was the primary cause of the war, but other events were
contributory. By 1660 the fur trade had declined, fish and lumber having
become the important exports. This trade brought in silver, and wampum
ceased to be the medium of exchange. With the passing of furs and
wampum, the Indian became less and less useful to the white man, who
looked upon him with contempt. The christianizing of the Cape Cod
Indians by the Reverend John Eliot and other missionaries was viewed
sullenly by the Wampanoags, who saw in it an attempt to weaken their
power. Massasoit, Sachem of the Wampanoags, died in 1662, leaving two
sons, called by the whites Alexander and Philip. The sudden death of
Alexander gave rise to a belief among the Indians that he had been
poisoned.
The war.--In the summer of 1675, outbreaks occurred in Rhode Island, and
a settler was killed. An expedition was immediately sent against the
Wampanoags, but Philip succeeded in escaping with his followers. The
Nipmucks attacked Deerfield, Northfield. Springfield, and Hatfield,
spreading terror in the Connecticut Valley. Believing that the
Narragansetts were about to enter the war, Massachusetts, Plymouth, and
Connecticut joined forces, and in December attacked their stronghold.
After a bloody battle they captured it and dispersed the tribe. The
survivors joined the other hostiles and harried the frontiers as far
north as the Maine settlements. In April, 1676, Chief Canonchet, of the
Narragansetts, was captured and shot, and the following month the
Indians were decisively defeated near the falls of the Connecticut.
After that the Indian confederation broke up and effective resistance
came to an end in August with the death of Philip. The power of the
tribes was broken and the way cleared for the advancement of the
frontier.
Complaints against Massachusetts.--The independent course which
Massachusetts had followed in her dealings with the home government had
irritated Charles and the privy council, but the fall of Clarendon and
the Dutch war of 1673 had kept the king from taking action against the
headstrong colony. Complaints continued to be made. The heirs of Mason
and Gorges claimed that Massachusetts had usurped their rights; London
merchants complained that the colony was evading the navigation acts by
carrying tobacco and sugar directly to Europe from other colonies; lack
of respect for the king's authority, the exercising of powers not
warranted by her charter, and numerous other complaints were lodged
against her.
Edward Randolph.--In 1676 the king sent Edward Randolph to Massachusetts
with an order that the colony send agents to England within six months
to answer the Mason and Gorges claims an order which was tardily
fulfilled. He was also empowered to collect information which might be
useful to the Lords of Trade. Randolph was not well received, being
looked upon as an agent of the Mason and Gorges heirs. When he
complained to Governor Leverett of the violation of the navigation laws,
the governor boldly asserted that parliament had no power to legislate
for Massachusetts, and denied that appeals might be made to the king.
Randolph returned to England convinced that a change of government was
necessary.
In 1678 Randolph was appointed collector of the customs, but he did not
arrive in Boston until the following year. In the meantime the
Massachusetts title to New Hampshire had been examined. Randolph bore a
letter from the king which commanded the colony to give up its
jurisdiction over both New Hampshire and Maine. The former command
Massachusetts immediately obeyed, but the latter was ignored as the
agents of Massachusetts had recently purchased the Gorges title.
Annulment of the charter.--As collector of the customs Randolph's course
was beset with difficulties, and his reports were filled with complaints
of frequent violations of the navigation acts. In 1681 he returned to
England and advised that the charter of Massachusetts be abrogated and
that all the New England colonies be united under one administrative
head. Randolph soon returned to the colony, but the friction continued
and his complaints became more and more violent. The king and the Lords
of Trade finally wearied of the strong-willed colony, legal action was
taken, and in 1684 the charter was annulled.
Temporary government.--The annulment of the charter did not bring about
an insurrection in Massachusetts, for the colonial leaders realized that
the protection of the mother country was necessary to preserve them from
being conquered by the French. While the Lords of Trade were considering
a form of government, a temporary plan was put in operation. Joseph
Dudley was made president, Randolph secretary, and a council was
appointed, but no provision was made for a legislative assembly. To
enforce the laws of trade, in 1686 an admiralty court was established.
Affairs in New Hampshire.--Since New Hampshire was separated from
Massachusetts, affairs in the northern colony had been going badly. A
president and council had been established, but when Randolph attempted
to enforce the trade laws, he had met with difficulties. The colonists
also objected to paying quit-rents to the Mason heirs. In 1682 Edward
Cranfield was appointed governor and was soon at loggerheads with the
people over the Mason right, and in 1685 he left the colony in disgust.
Dominion of New England.--The Lords of Trade for some time had been
considering the advisability of consolidating the New England colonies
in order to cut down expense, to make the enforcement of the navigation
acts more effective, and to bring the colonies into a closer dependence
on the crown. When James became king, the plan was put into operation.
In the new form of government the central figure was a governor-general
who was to be assisted by a council, but no provision was made for a
popular assembly.
Edmund Andros.--Andros, the former governor of New York, was appointed
governor-general and arrived at Boston in December. 1686. In a
businesslike manner he organized his government. Boston was made the
seat of power. Andros acted as commander of the army and Vice-admiral,
and exercised the pardoning power. With the advice and consent of the
council he made laws, levied taxes, and administered justice. He also
made land grants and collected quit-rents. He demanded that Plymouth,
Rhode Island, and Connecticut surrender their charters. Plymouth and
Rhode Island complied and their representatives were admitted to the
council, but Connecticut temporized. Finally Andros visited the obdurate
colony, dissolved the government, and admitted representatives to his
council. The charter, however, according to Connecticut tradition, was
hidden in an oak tree and never left the colony. In 1688 the Lords of
Trade determined to bring all the territory from the St. Croix and the
St. Lawrence to the Delaware under the supervision of Andros.
Overthrow of Andros.--The system aroused the anger of the colonists, who
looked upon the governor-general as a tyrant. Mutterings of discontent
grew louder and louder, and when news reached Massachusetts that James
II had fled from England, the people of Boston rose in revolt, seized
the fortifications and royal frigate, and imprisoned Andros and
Randolph. A council was established, a convention was summoned, and the
old charter government was reestablished. Connecticut and Rhode Island
also restored the charter governments.
READINGS
COLONIAL POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
Andrews, C.M., _Colonial Self-Government_, 1-40; Beer, G.L., _The Old
Colonial System_, I, 1-315; "The Commercial Policy of England toward the
American Colonies," in Columbia University, _Studies in History,
Economics, and Public Law_, III, Pt. 2, pp. 29-54; Channing, Edward,
_History of the United States_, II, 1-13; Egerton, H.E., _A Short
History of British Colonial Policy_, 66-80; MacDonald, William, _Select
Charters_, 106-115, 119-120, 133-136; Osgood, H.L., _The American
Colonies in the Seventeenth Century_, III, 143-241.
VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND
Andrews, C.M., _Colonial Self-Government_, 202-251; Andrews, C.M., ed.,
_Narratives of the Insurrections_, 11-141, 299-314; Channing, Edward,
_History of the United States_, II, 80-91, 209-213; Fiske, John, _Old
Virginia and her Neighbors_, II, 45-107, 131-173; Osgood, H.L., _The
American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century_, III, 242-308;
Wertenbaker, T.J., _Virginia under the Stuarts_, 115-259.
NEW ENGLAND
Andrews, C.M., _Colonial Self-Government_, 41-73, 252-287; Andrews,
C.M., ed., _Narratives of the Insurrections_, 165-297; Andrews, C.M.,
_The Fathers of New England_; Channing, Edward, _History of the United
States_, II, 65-79, 155-203; Doyle, J.A., _The Puritan Colonies_, II,
190-276; Ellis, G.W., and Morris, J.E., _King Philip's War_; Fiske,
John, _The Beginnings of New England_, 199-278; James, B.B., _The
Colonization of New England_, 213-295; Osgood, H.L., _The English
Colonies in the Seventeenth Century_, III, 309-335, 378-443; Palfrey,
J.G., _Compendious History of New England_, II, 1-20; _History of New
England_, III, chs. 3, 7-9, 12-14.