CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN Royal Governors and their Assemblies in THE NORTHERN AMERICAN COLONIES A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of Philosophy of the Catholic University of America in Partied Fulfillment of its Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Rey. JOHN F. BURNS, O. S. A. Op the Province of St. Thomas of Villanova Villanova, Pa. 1923 .. ... - ■ • S; ' :• , 4 A Be. vj,. 'v':: v. .;v , ■ a; % CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN Royal Governors and their Assemblies IN THE NORTHERN AMERICAN COLONIES A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of Philosophy of the Catholic University of America in Partial Fulfillment of its Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy y Rev. JOHN F. BURNS, O. S. A. Of the Province of St. Thomas of Villanova Villanova, Pa. 1923 Printed in the United States of America By the WRIGHT AND POTTER PRINTING COMPANY BOSTON, MASS. / PREFACE This venture into the “forgotten half century” of our history has been undertaken in the hope of bringing into more distinct relief the origins of the gradually increasing political divergence between England and British North America, through investigation of the relations between colonial royal Governors and representative Assemblies. Adequate treatment in the space of one volume is impossible. This study therefore confines its investigations to the north- i ern royal colonies; that is, to Massachusetts, New Hamp¬ shire, New York, and New Jersey. The fact of disturbed relations with the King’s representa¬ tives is already well known. The present writer’s purpose has therefore been to show in some detail the content, progress, and solution of the more important disputes, in order to determine therefrom the extent of their influence on the final conflict for complete independence of English political control. The period covered may be described in general as that between the English Revolution of 1688 and the American Revolution of 1775-1783. In particular the treatment of each colony commences with the earliest provisions for a representative Assembly and royal Governor. The chief sources have been the Assembly Journals, the correspondence between Governors and the home authorities, local histories, and biographies. In the case of New Jersey, 4 PREFACE where earlier investigators have written admirable and de¬ tailed histories based wholly upon primary sources, and covering in large measure the scope of this work, reliance has been placed on these accepted secondary authorities. To Professors Charles H. McCarthy, Ph.D., and Richard J. Purcell, Ph.D., of the Catholic University of America, to Mr. John H. Edmonds, State Archivist of Massachusetts, to Mr. Albert Matthews, A.B., editor of the Colonial Society, as well as to courteous officials in the libraries of the Massa¬ chusetts Historical Society, of Harvard College, and of Congress, the author wishes to express his sincere apprecia¬ tion for scholarly direction and kindly encouragement. Nor can he close without an expression of gratitude for the train¬ ing in method, acquired in the classes of the Reverend Doctors Patrick McCormick, Peter Guilday, and Patrick Healy, in the history of education and in church history. JOHN F. BURNS, O. S. A. Villanova, Penna., June, 1923. CONTENTS PAGE Introduction . 7 Part I. — Massachusetts CHAPTER I. Early Democratic Opposition, 1644-1730 ... 33 II. Enlarging Interpretation of Constitutional Rights, 1730-1760 . 94 III. Definite Repudiation of English Control, 1760-1776 148 « Part II. — New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey IV. New Hampshire . V. New York . VI. New Jersey . Conclusion . Bibliography . Index . 244 286 374 415 423 429 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/controversiesbetOOburn INTRODUCTION Conventional history explains the causes of the American Revolution as due chiefly to the short-sighted British policy that characterized the score of years preceding 1775. The origins, however, of that important event may be traced to a period much more remote. In fact, there are authorities who perceive a notable divergence between English and colonial institutions even as far back as the period of the Reformation. With regard to the North American colonies, it is acknowledged that fully half a century before 1776 they had outgrown their government.1 Hence the oppo¬ sition of colonial Assemblies — the popular and progressive branch of colonial government — to stereotyped English control. The process of this outgrowing naturally carries these opposing tendencies at least as far back as the be¬ ginnings of representative government in America. It seems, therefore, that the full significance of the troubles between Assemblies and royal Governors cannot properly be appreciated unless viewed with some preparatory reference to early independent tendencies as a setting. As early as 1692 England had disallowed a Massachusetts law against taxation without representation.2 Evidences of independent tendencies during the successive years from 1701 to 1706 are easily available. A report to the Board of Trade in 1716 reads: 1 Edward Channing, History of the United States, II, 282. 2 J. S. Barry, History of Massachusetts II, 4G; see, George Bancroft, History of the United States, 1891 ed., II, 72, 85. 8 ROYAL GOVERNORS . . . that the officers of the revenue meet with many discourage¬ ments in these proprietary plantations, where all persons ap¬ pointed by the crown are looked upon as an imposition.3 Another statement in the same year, noting the economic prosperity implied in the fact that the “lower orders ” were provided with native-worked wool and cotton, declared: They will be able in a little while to live without Great Britain, and their ability, joined to their inclination , will be of very ill consequence. The following was sent two years later: ... all belonging to the crown are so obnoxious to the people in New England, since their minds have been poisoned with repub¬ lican notions , that it is very dangerous to travel alone. In 1723, after Governor Shute of Massachusetts had been practically driven from the colony, and had laid before the Board of Trade his grievances against the General Court, the Board concluded, among other things, that the inhab¬ itants were “endeavoring ... to become independent of the mother country.” 4 A few years later, upon the refusal of the same Court to grant to Governor Burnet a fixed salary, the Board reported: ... on the repeated attempts the Assemblies of this province have made towards the shaking off their dependence to the Crown and their dependence to the mother country.5 Then, in 1735, came “the morning star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America,” — the Zenger trial 3 Report of Cummings, Surveyor of the Customs, to the Board of Trade, quoted by George Chalmers, Introduction to the Revolt of the American Colonies, II, 9. 4 Report of Cummings, Surveyor of the Customs, to the Board of Trade, quoted by George Chalmers, Introduction to the Revolt of the American Colonies, II, 10, 12, 25/. 5 Acts of the Privy Council of England, Colonial Series, VI, “The Unbound Papers,” entry for April 19, 1729. INTRODUCTION 9 in New York.6 Five years afterward, when Samuel Adams was being graduated from Harvard, he took as his Com¬ mencement oration, 44 Whether it be lawful to resist the superior magistrates if the Commonwealth cannot be other¬ wise preserved? ” 7 In the same year, also, Governor Belcher wrote : The Massachusetts have certainly been infatuated for 20 odd years past, & have seem’d to study how they could provoke the King and his Ministers.8 In 1730, the same Governor, embroiled in continual wrangle consequent upon the King’s instructions regarding support and salary, addressed the Assembly as follows, quoting an interesting report from the Board of Trade: Why will you not accept His Royal Word, as a warning to avoid the Mischiefs he is unwilling you should bring upon your selves? Every Gentleman that will allow himself to think, must be sensible that the Broils you have been in with your Governours for more than Ten Years past, have turned out to the great Loss and Disadvantage of the good People of this Province. I would refer you to the Dispute you had with your Governour in the Year 1723. upon which you will find the Right Honourable the Lords of Trade Reporting to the Lords Justices of the Kingdom thus; 44 Upon this Occasion, we think it our Duty to inform your Excel¬ lencies, That the Inhabitants of the Massachusetts-Bay, which contains much the greatest part of New-England, are incorpo¬ rated by the Royal Charter of their late Majesties King William and Queen Mary, and are possess’d of a vast Tract of Land: Their Government consists of a Governour, Council and Assembly; but the Governour only is appointed by His Majesty, without any 6 Channing, op. cit., II, 489. For excellent account of Zenger trial, cf. ibid., pp. 483jf. 7 Justin Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, V, 139. 8 Belcher to Richard Waldron, May 15, 1740, Belcher Papers, in Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Series C, VII, 298. 10 ROYAL GOVERNORS Salary but such as the People are pleased to give him, and that from Year to Year. The Assembly, consisting of Ninety eight, are chosen by the People; and the Council, consisting of Twenty eight, are chosen by the Assembly. From so unequal a Balance in their Constitution, daily Inconveniencies occur: And your Excel¬ lencies may perceive by the many Facts mentioned in this Re¬ port, that the Inhabitants far from making suitable Returns to His Majesty for the extraordinary Privileges they enjoy, are daily endeavoring to wrest the small Remains of Power out of the Hands of the Crown, and to become independent of their Mother Kingdom. The Nature of their Soil and Products are much the same with those of Great Britain: The Inhabitants are numerous, upwards of Ninety-Four Thousand. Their Militia consists of Sixteen Regiments of Foot, and Fifteen Troops of Horse, making in the Year 1718. Fifteen Thousand Men. And by a Medium taken from the Naval-Officer’s Account for three Years, from the 24th of June 1714. to the 24th of June 1717. for the Ports of Boston and Salem only, it appears that the Trade of this Province Annually employs no less than 3493 Sailors, and 492 Ships, making 25406 Tons. Hence your Excellencies will be apprized of what Importance it is to His Majesty’s Service, that so powerful a Colony should be restrained within the due Bounds of Obedience to the Crown, and be more firmly attached to the Interest of Great Britain than they at present seem to be; which we conceive cannot effectually be done, without the Interposition of the British Legislature, wherein in our humble Opinion no Time should be lost.” 9 Inferences of a similar nature can be seen in the following excerpt from a letter written in 1756 by a “true British subject,” of unknown identity, who had apparently been requested to prepare an account of conditions in the colonies from 1753 to 1756: I am prompted by an unfeigned desire of serving my country, . . . Candour and integrity shall therefore guide my pen. . . . 9 Journal of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts Bay, 1730, p. 68. INTRODUCTION 11 The American colonies, I speak it with submission, my Lord, were too long neglected by their mother country; though loudly de¬ manding her patronage and assistance. . . . Our assemblies are diffident of their Governours; Governours despise their Assemblies.10 * These early attitudes of independence find an even more important place in this study when it is remembered that the Assemblies, in their conflicts with royal Governors, constituted the organized expression of public opinion, and were identified with the struggle of the people for enlarging their governmental privileges. On the other hand, the Governor, as agent of the Crown and representing British interests, stood identified with the restraining and often * mistaken policy of the parent state.11 As such, he could not well avoid conflict with the embodiment of local and provincial, and sometimes of even broader, American interests. There are grounds, also, for reading into the hostile atti¬ tude of Assemblies toward their Governors a concomitant hostility toward the power that appointed them. The pre¬ rogative was considered as an interest separate and distinct from the interests of the colony. The attempt, therefore, to enforce it was regarded as an encroachment upon colonial liberties. Forty years before the Revolution, a Governor of Massachusetts wrote: [The representatives] endeavor to treat me with all possible injustice, and to distress me all the wayes they can, and for no other reason but for my fidelity to his Majesty.12 10 The title of this letter is A Review of the Military Operations in North America, from the Commencement of the French Hostilities on the Frontiers of Virginia in 1753, to the Surrender of Oswego on the lJph of August, 1756; in a Letter to a Nobleman. Cf. Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Series I, VII, G7, 161. It is said to have been written by Governor Livingston and two lawyers, Scot and Smith of New York. 11 Greene, op. cit., pp. 204, 205. 12 Jonathan Belcher to Newcastle, Oct. 4, 1733. Belcher Papers in Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Series 6, VI, 386. n ROYAL GOVERNORS On the other hand, it should be noted that the King was very often appealed to as guardian of liberty and safe re¬ source from the oppression of Governors. In time, there¬ fore, allegiance to Great Britain became synonymous with loyalty to the King, or, more accurately, to the Crown rather than to Parliament. The latter was to the colonials an English legislature rather than an imperial parliament. Petitions to the King were being read in England almost simultaneously with the firing of the first shot that heralded independence in America. The significance of the conflicts and controversies between royal Governors and their Assemblies is further emphasized in view of the historical background of American coloniza¬ tion. The English colonists could hardly forget the seven¬ teenth century struggles in which the wheel of power was forced around until Parliament beheld its power dominant. During Tudor times, royalty wielded the supreme au¬ thority, and the powers of Parliament were largely in abey¬ ance; then came the change, and Parliament, for a variety of reasons well known, grasped the authority.13 It was just at this period, with the balance of power swinging from the Crown to Parliament, — even to the Commons, one might safely add, — that emigration to America began. Nor was it the higher classes, — those imbued with royalist sentiments, — who emigrated, unless it was as seekers of patronage to float upon the colonial system as Governors, or placemen filling offices of honor and advantage. The colonists, who were later to speak through the colonial Assemblies and to leave their impress upon colonial thought, came rather from the lower and middle classes. They were the persecuted, the dissatisfied, and the restless men of the nation, the natural sympathizers with the Parliamentarians. Nor was the respect or the 13 E. P. Cheyney, European Background of American History , pp. 256^. INTRODUCTION 13 loyalty of these classes increased by the attitude manifested toward them by the ruling classes. It was not pleasant for emigrants to America to be regarded as the “scum of the people,” who “leapt thither from the gallows . . . spat out of England’s mouth.” And when in the process of time the colonies flourished, and therefore became immediately the “hunting ground of rival cliques,” tendencies toward inde¬ pendence can still better be understood.14 The European background throughout the seventeenth century, also, when the struggle against the royal claims became even more intense, could not but affect the colonies. Parliament now spoke not so much of privileges , but seemed to hark back to ancient rights. Then, as an index to the progress of the political philosophy of civil liberty against the arbitrariness of the Crown, came the Petition of Rights of 1629; the Grand Remonstrance following the crisis in December, 1641; the Civil War; the Republican experi¬ ment; the written Cromwellian Instrument of Government, and ultimately the Bill of Rights of 1689. This period was therefore one of intensive, even poignant, political experi¬ ence. And the lesson taught and retained was the conscious¬ ness of the heritage of civil freedom. It was largely this consciousness that encouraged, if it did not inspire, the hostility of so many colonial Assemblies to the direct and irritatingly detailed control through Governors armed with royal instructions. In comparative proximity to the culmination of these movements toward popular liberty, the Assemblies came into existence. These institutions served as the answer to a seventeenth century demand. It was natural, therefore, that the colonists should look upon themselves as possessing the rights of Englishmen, and upon their legislative bodies 14 Lord Bacon, Writings, quoted by E. D. Sanborn, History of New Hamp¬ shire, p. 409; and Fuller, quoted ibidem; also James Truslow Adams, The Found¬ ing of New England, p. 295. 14 ROYAL GOVERNORS as having attributes similar to those enjoyed by the English Parliament, the lower House possessing powers akin to those won and exercised by the House of Commons. And with the executive in England so dominated by the legis¬ lative branch, it was hardly reasonable to expect that colonial Assemblies would submit to domination by a King’s man in the person of the Governor. The very nature of the political background and the practical application of its theories of sovereignty gave promise of conflict between the representatives of the people and the agent of the Crown. Furthermore, the Assemblies, especially those of the colonies under consideration, were imbued with the political theories of seventeenth century and Puritan radicalism, while the royal Governors were of the reactionary eighteenth century toryism. Colonials of the pre-revolutionary period were descendants of the English fugitives of the seventeenth century, — largely Puritans, with some royalists of moderate tone. Later immigrants came, but the controlling group during the whole pre-revolutionary era was chiefly recruited from the older immigration. Sons of the seventeenth century liberals, they belonged, in language, culture, and political thought, to the period of the Civil Wars. And their environ¬ ment abroad, with its frontier life of independent outlook, accentuated their liberalism as well as their self-sufficiency, while the eighteenth century developed still further the germinating liberal philosophy. In England the contrary was true: Toryism was then in power; George III would rule; and for the time the results of the glorious revolt of 1688 were set aside. The Crown was attempting to regain lost prerogatives, and a subservient Parliament forgot their heritage. Reaction was in control. Affrighted, Englishmen stood still or drew backward. They failed to develop the doctrinaire political theories of the Parliamentarians or of those who formulated the Bill of Rights as a written safe¬ guard against possible usurpations by the Parliament’s INTRODUCTION 15 virtual nominees, William and Mary. Englishmen in America and at home were drawing apart. Politically they were soon speaking different languages rather than different dialects. The gulf was destined still further to widen. English¬ men in America were unconsciously developing into a new people. Civil war was still afar off, but colonials were groping ahead, far ahead of an England controlled by a Parliament which was in turn dominated by conservative landed and church interest, and by financial and commercial groups busied in the exploitation of the nation and especially of the colonies, as sources of raw materials and markets for manufactured goods. Americans were coming to the time when they would be willing to follow the Bill of Rights with a Declaration of Independence. This spirit, as well as the consequent trouble it made for the Governors through the Assemblies, was due partly to the traditional and now increasingly conscious heritage of freedom, and partly to the influence of the frontier, for the colonies were the frontier fringe of England, and the frontier has ever been democratic, a very laboratory of democracy whether in the colonies, the trans-Allegheny West, or in England’s last outposts, — her self-governing dependencies. To this frontier influence may be traced the origins of new, and for England, disastrous theories concerning parlia¬ mentary representation, the royal prerogative in its strict limitation, the powers of Parliament as related to England in contrast to the empire, the rights of an established church, constitutional powers of popularly chosen provincial legis¬ latures, the duties of Governors, and the inherent right of local autonomy, — in a word, the whole question of sov¬ ereignty. In respect to these questions Englishmen and Americans were widely divergent in their interpretation of the English constitution and its guarantees. Moreover, an unwritten constitution is liable to varied 16 ROYAL GOVERNORS interpretation in the light of different experiences. As¬ suredly experiences in America were new and were far different. The colonials might actually be called “states rights” men. Therefore they interpreted narrowly the powers of the royal Governor. To them he was no viceroy. They refused him loyalty, even honor. He was a placeman; he was a Tory in politics, while they, without party affilia¬ tions, were really Whigs. He was an Anglican in creed, while they were dissenters in religion. They were, in addition, democrats. His instructions, therefore, they questioned; his veto they assailed, for they noted no vetoes of Parlia¬ mentary acts by the Crown since Anne’s reign. A stipulated, definite salary they refused to grant, for in their vote of a salary they recognized a check, a popular control. Judges and local officials must be their servants, not his, and depend upon their appropriation list, not his civil list. A military, unless it was rigidly restrained, they feared even more than Englishmen did, for they were nearer in spirit to the Crom¬ wellian usurpation and military rule. Again, as frontiersmen, as debtors of England, they insisted, as the frontier ever has insisted in American history, upon bills of credit, paper money, as an easier means of governmental support than taxation. And to this, as an Englishman with the pound sterling as his measure — too often also morally — the Governor disagreed. In the face of such differences the existence of pliant, peaceful Assemblies would have been a political miracle. Another incentive to aggression lay in the fact that the Assemblies really constituted the only effective shield for popular liberties. Legal safeguards were merely nominal. At once subordinate to and an integral part of the British Empire, the colonies could take refuge against oppression in an appeal to the sovereign, petition to Parliament, in nego¬ tiations through the colonial agents, and lastly, in the local representative body of self-government. Because the first INTRODUCTION 17 three were least convenient and certain, it was natural to focus attention and dependence upon the fourth, and the Assembly everywhere accepted the role of protector and even enlarger of liberties. That it should do so was partly natural, due to the general influences mentioned above; but the role was also forced upon it by England’s misunder¬ standing of colonial problems and her consequent errors in policy, not that she did not act on a basis of strict legality. It was legal for parliament to legislate in any way it saw fit; it was legal for the crown to exercise its prerogative in the veto of laws; it was legal for the royal governors to interfere in many ways with the growth of colonial self-government; and finally it was legal for England to impose the navigation laws on the colo¬ nies and exploit the children’s labor for maternal prosperity. • These things had been done until they had all the sanction of precedent. Moreover, the Englishman thought them reasonable. Of all moderns, he is the least liable to take others into considera¬ tion. . . . Those who directed English colonial affairs in 1763 knew little of that better art of government by which the mind of the governed is as much respected as the interests of the gov¬ erning class.15 The same can be said of earlier periods, as in the time of the “Dominion of New England” when all colonial interests, religious, commercial, industrial, governmental, were inter¬ preted through the perspective of England’s advantage. Hence the imposition of regulations that were lawful indeed but ill suited to the changed conditions could not but make trouble for the officials intrusted with the duty of enforcing them, namely, the royal Governors. It was a goad to the Assembly to feel that although a self-governing body, it could make no laws repugnant to the law of England. There were important and often impassable limitations to the applicability of the law of old England to the changed and 15 J. S. Bassett, A Short History of the United States, p. 161. 18 ROYAL GOVERNORS constantly changing conditions in the New World. Witness the insistence of colonial legislatures upon exercising their own law-making powers; also the immediate preparation in some instances of an entirely new code of law, the pro¬ visions of which are not traceable to any source. Hence the need of particular legislation, and the determined struggles of Assemblies to obtain it. Difficulties in this regard were increased by the wide divergence in the views of the colonists and those of the controlling powers in both church and state in England.16 Again, in reckoning the various influences that made for trouble in the colonial legislatures, the local feeling of loyalty in each colony must be considered. Its importance can be estimated by comparison with conditions in our small towns of the present day. This factor alone would have aroused no small opposition to ‘ 4 outsiders” who were forced upon the colonies as Governors. Difficulties were further increased owing to the sort of men sent to fill the office — men lacking in tact and adminis¬ trative ability, in sympathy for existing conditions, and even in integrity as well as decency of character. Undoubt¬ edly the characters of royal Governors count for much in any study of pre-Revolutionary history. The Acts of the Privy Council of England , Colonial Series, show that com¬ plaints were pouring into the home office, not only from America, but from every English outpost. “The voluminous complaints against Governors reveal an astonishingly wide range of delinquency.” 17 This fact, however, is not sur¬ prising in an age in which political preferment was based upon grounds ranging from friendship to bribery or even 16 Laws of New Hampshire, I, Introd., XIII, XLVII. Edited by Albert Stillman Batchellor. 17 Acts of the Privy Council, Col. Ser., “The Unbound Papers,” Preface, VIII— XVIII. Bermuda, Jamaica, Antigua, Leeward Islands, the Barbadoes, Prince Edward Island, the Colonies of North America, — all were complaining of Gov¬ ernors. INTRODUCTION 19 treason. Many Governors looked forward to sojourning in the colonies after the manner of the nabobs in India. There was little or nothing to attract a man of first rate abil¬ ity, of high integrity, or of statesman-like quality, in the post of royal governor in the seventeenth century. Owing to the re¬ moteness of the colonies, their lack of culture and social life, the pettiness of their problems, and the proneness of their inhabitants to quarrel with any royal official simply as such, the office of governor could mean only exile without prestige or adequate pay, for any man to whom ... a public career was open in England. As for the hungry schools of smaller fish who swam in their wake, eager to pick up a living in minor officialdom, it may be said that they were wont to apply all too thoroughly our later American maxim, “to the victor belong the spoils.” They were of the uni¬ versal type, transcending time or party, place or race.18 Governments have bin sometimes given as a reward for Serv¬ ices done to the Crown, and with design that such persons should thereby make their fortunes. But they are generally obtained by the favour of great Men to some of their dependents or relations, and they have bin sometimes given to persons who have been obliged to divide the profit of them with those by whose means they were procured. The qualifications of such persons for Gov¬ ernment being seldom considered.19 Benjamin Franklin described them as “sometimes men of vicious character and broken fortunes, sent by a Minister, to get them out of the way.20 The same astute politician, in commentary on England’s administration of the colonies, printed in pamphleteer fashion a Receipt for Diminishing a Great Empire, of which the following is an excerpt: Remote provinces must have Governors and Judges , to repre¬ sent the Royal Person, and execute everywhere the delegated 18 J. T. Adams, The Founding of New England, p. 406. 19 North Carolina Records, II, 154 et seq., especially 158. Quoted by Greene, op. cit., p. 47. 20 Franklin, Works, Smyth, V, 83. 20 ROYAL GOVERNORS parts of his office and authority. Your ministers know that much of the strength of government depends on the opinion of the people; and much of that opinion on the choice of rulers placed immediately over them. If you send them wise and good men for governors, who study the interest of the Colonists, and ad¬ vance their prosperity, they will think their King wise and good, and that he wishes the welfare of his subjects. If you send them learned and upright men for Judges, they will think him a lover of justice. This may attach your provinces more to his govern¬ ment. You are, therefore, to be careful whom you recommend for those offices. If you can find prodigals, who have ruined their fortunes, broken gamesters or stockjobbers, these may do well for Governors ; for they will probably be rapacious, and provoke the people by their extortions. Wrangling proctors and petti¬ fogging lawyers, too, are not amiss; for they will be forever dis¬ puting and quarrelling with their little parliaments. If withal they should be ignorant, wrongheaded, and insolent, so much the better. Attornies’ clerks and Newgate Solicitors will do for Chief Justices , especially if they hold their places during your pleasure; and all will contradict to impress those ideas of your gov¬ ernment, that are proper for a people you would wish to renounce it. To confirm these impressions, and strike them deeper, when¬ ever the injured come to the Capital with complaints of mal¬ administration, oppression, or injustice, punish such suitors with long delay, enormous expense, and a final judgment in favor of the oppressor. This will have an admirable effect every way. The trouble of future complaints will be prevented, and Gov¬ ernors and Judges will be encouraged to farther acts of oppres¬ sion and injustice; and thence the people may become more dis¬ affected and at length desperate. When such Governors have crammed their coffers, and made themselves so odious to the people that they can no longer remain among them with safety to their persons, recall and reward them with pensions. You may make them baronets too, if that respecta¬ ble order should not think fit to resent it. All will contribute to encourage new governors in the same practice, and make the Supreme Government detestable.21 21 Benjamin Franklin, Works, Smyth, VI, 128Jf. INTRODUCTION 21 In the following quotation the colonists may be regarded as speaking for themselves on this subject. It is taken from an address prepared by the New York Assembly, in which Governors are described as: . . . generally entire Strangers to the People they are sent to govern; they seldom have any Estates . . . where they are ap¬ pointed Governors, and consequently their Interest is entirely distinct . . . they seldom regard the Welfare of the People, otherwise than as they can make it subservient to their own par¬ ticular interest; and as they know the Time of the Continuance in their Governments to be uncertain, all Methods are used, and all Engines set to work to raise Estates to themselves and there¬ fore should the public Monies be left to their Disposition, what can be expected but the grossest mis-application. . . . ?22 Some justification for these sentiments may be inferred from the strain in which Governor Bernard of Massachusetts hastened to write, on the death of De Lancey, Governor of New York, to his patron Lord Barrington: ... if your Lordship should have any Friend apply for it, I would acquaint him that I believe that Government is fully rated 22 Journal of the Assembly of New York, II, 267. July 13, 1749. The following statement is also apropos of this subject: “We have a parliament and a ministry, some of whom, I am apt to believe, know that there are plantations and governors — but not quite so well as we do; like the frogs in the fable, the mad pranks of a ♦plantation — governor is sport to them though death to us, and seem less concerned in our contests than we are between crows and kingbirds. Governors are called the King’s representatives, and when by repeated instances of avarice, cruelty, and injustice, they extort com¬ plaints from the injured in terms truly expressive of the violence committed and injuries suffered, it must be termed a flying in the face of government; the King’s representative must be treated with softness and decency — etc.” Colonel Morris, later first separate Governor of New Jersey, to James Alexander, Feb. 24, 1734. Morris Payers, Memoir, p. 25. Note. — Morris was a bitter enemy of Governor Cosby, of whom this was written. The Governor had just ousted him from the Supreme Court of New York. On this general subject, cf. also Channing, op. cit., II, 245jf. ROYAL GOVERNORS at £1800 sterling and £1000 of which must be expended even with economy.23 The fact, also, that the only legal method of obtaining redress against irresponsible Governors was attended with greatest difficulty, inconvenience, expense, and uncertainty would naturally lead the Assemblies, not only to take into their own hands the method of restraint, but also to see to it that Governors were rendered so dependent upon the legislature that oppression would be unlikely, if not altogether impossible. This single legal method was provided by act of Parliament in 1700, determining that in cases of criminal misconduct on the part of Governors the court of first instance was the King’s bench.24 The difficulties attendant upon this method are obvious. Practically there was no means of redress. Andrew Hamilton, in his famous speech at the Zenger trial, pleading for free speech as the only effective check on the maladministration of Governors, declared : ... it is true they are obliged to answer a suit in the King’s courts at Westminster, for a wrong done to any person here: But do we not know how impracticable this is to most men among us, to leave their families, and carry evidences to Great Britain and at a great, nay, a far greater expense than almost any of us are able to bear . . .? But when the oppression is general , there is no remedy even that way.25 In fact, in all colonial history there are only two instances of prosecution of Governors by this method; namely, that against Bellomont of New Y7ork for false imprisonment, 23 Bernard to Barrington, Aug. 9, 1760, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, p. 18. 24 Greene, op. cit., pp. 196jf. 26 Howell, State Trials, XVII, 707. Cited by Greene, op. cit., p. 198. (Italics are mine.) INTRODUCTION 23 and against Phips of Massachusetts for illegal interference with the collector of customs.26 Aggression from the Assemblies might also be expected because of the fact that many oppressions were “not done in a Judicial way,” there being no records of proceedings, and hence they “could not be proved so fully before the King.” Thus injured parties “meet with insupportable difficulties, and have seldom been relieved in their com¬ plaints.” 27 Moreover, the Governors’ instructions, by which England gave orders to insist on specified regulations or concessions, thereby practically imposing law on a self-governing body, caused considerable opposition from Assemblies. Their attitude is seen in the following statement from Governor Belcher of Massachusetts to the Lords of Trade: If I may say to your Lordships my own sentiments the House of Representatives here seem to have an aversion even to a men¬ tion of the King’s instructions.28 The colonial attitude toward these instructions was an index fairly accurate of the feeling toward the individuals and the system that imposed them. This is further verified in one of the suggestions made by Lexington to a representa¬ tive in 1772: Our Charter knows no such thing as Instructions to Governors; and yet, what have not Instructions done to vex this people ! 29 In addition to these causes of discord between royal Governors and their Assemblies was the fact that Governors everywhere were overstepping the limits of their authority 26 Greene, op. oil., p. 197. 27 North Carolina Records, II, 161jf. Cited by Greene, op. cit., p. 197. 28 Belcher Papers, Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Series C, VI, 287. 29 Revolutionary Correspondence, Bancroft Collection, I, 497. 24 ROYAL GOVERNORS and were exercising functions not usually considered to be within the sphere of the executive department.30 It would be incorrect, however, to infer that among the royal Governors there could be found no honorable or able men. Professor E. B. Greene, in his exhaustive study The Provincial Governor , makes in this regard a summary, which in its inferences is especially significant: . . . the names of Spotswood of Virginia, Sharpe of Maryland, Morris of New Jersey, and Hutchinson of Massachusetts suffice to show that some provincial governors were neither unscrupu¬ lous nor inefficient. There were others, too, like Burnet of New York and Massachusetts, who showed an honorable willingness to make sacrifices for what they conceived to be for the public interest.31 The names of Hunter and Colden of New York, of the Wentworths of New Hampshire, might also be added to this list. On this topic even Professor Channing says: “Of course, once in a while a man of ability was appointed;” but “in a few instances where this wTas the case, there was always some peculiar circumstance which made it impossible for him to accomplish much in the way of upbuilding the royal power.” 32 Governors Hutchinson and John Went¬ worth are illustrations. The House Journals for the colonies under discussion in this work abound with protestations of profoundest loyalty to the King and to the mother country. Nevertheless the loyalty of the colonists was early tried and in many ways found wanting. For instance, in the French and Indian wars the patriotic colonists were not above sending to the enemy information, ammunition, and general supplies. Evi- 30 Greene, op. cit., p. 36. 31 The Provincial Governor , p. 49. 32 Channing, op. cit., II, 245. INTRODUCTION 25 dence of this nature must form a part of any setting in which struggles against the home government are to have the place of prominence. Nor was the delinquency confined to an isolated case or to an individual. Had it been so, we should hardly have from the King repeated instructions to Governors to use every effort to prevent this traitorous communication and trade.33 It is but just also that the investigator of this field should divest himself of present day political concepts or aftermaths, and take his stand in the actual period under discussion; that is, in the case of New Hampshire, for instance, going back to 1679 and working forward, following events as they happened rather than looking backward from 1923 and making comparisons from twentieth century standards. There exists a conviction, non-conscious, perhaps, but quite universal, that the colonists were at all times justified in striving to throw off England’s control. This is not so. There was no more reason for the colonist of Massachusetts or of New York to consider himself entirely independent of English control than there was for the ‘‘forty-niners” to set up an independent state in California. It is inconsistent to claim that the authority of Congress in the twentieth century should extend to the territories, but that the authority of Parliament in the seventeenth should not have crossed the Channel or spanned the Atlantic. Administrative regula¬ tions made by England in that day and for the colonies as such should not be compared with those suited to the inde¬ pendent states into which the revolting colonies suddenly changed. If we must judge the provisions for colonial gov¬ ernments by later American models, then we should base our comparison upon regulations made by us as a “mother country” for our own territories and dependencies. These 33 Instructions to Governor Burnet of Massachusetts, March 28, 1728, Article G5, Transcripts, Col. Soe., pp. 1127Jf. P. R. O., Colonial Office, Class 5, Vol. 910, pp. G7-109; cf. also instructions, ibid., pp. 1197/f., 1529jf. 26 ROYAL GOVERNORS reproduce in striking degree the royal governments of the period we are about to consider.34 In fact, the governmental idea of the colonial period had actually reached the status of the second stage provided in our own Ordinance of 1787 for the government of the territory northwest of the River Ohio. If England, and not America, had contributed to political science the third stage therein provided, by ad¬ mitting on certain condition to the colony or territory equal rights with the mother state, then the Ordinance as such might never have been framed, and the Declaration of Independence never have been written. A reference to the more important questions dividing Governors and their Assemblies may aid in better under¬ standing the detailed discussion that is to follow concerning the causes and progress of those disputes. Foremost, most frequent, and in its effect most important, was the attempt of Assemblies to gain complete control of provincial funds. This control, first desired as protection against fraudulent practices, later became the principal means to obtain nearly all political desiderata. By specific appropriations, and later by exercising the right to verify alleged expenditures, the Assembly was enabled effectually to hamper the Governor, and even to venture far into the executive field by encroachments on his military and ap¬ pointive powers. When money was appropriated for the support of a given number of men to be employed at specified points, and when salaries were granted, not to offices, but to 34 Note that the Governor of our territories is appointed by the President, and removable by him, just as in the Massachusetts charter of 1691, in which the Governor was appointed by and subject to removal by the Crown. In our terri¬ tories the laws are subject to the double veto so strongly objected to in the colonies; namely, that of the Governor and of the “home government.” In some cases all these laws were made under conditions of approval by Congress. And the great Nemesis, taxation without representation, the shibboleth of the Revolution, exists in practically the same degree in our dependencies as it did in the colonies. In fact, to Alaska, in 1884, the Assembly, the great “ life-saver ” to the colonies, was specifically prohibited. Cf. J. T. Adams, op. cit., pp. 448jf. INTRODUCTION 27 individuals designated for them, then the Assembly was surely making good use of its system. It is evident, too, that no little pressure could be brought to bear by decreasing or by withholding the Governor’s salary. In this respect the home government usually attempted to come to the Governor’s rescue by issuing, together with his commission, instructions requiring a fixed and permanent grant for his support, sometimes stipulating the amount of salary to be paid. The opposition to these instructions forms in large part the story of the controversies and conflicts with the Governors, and should have a place in any narrative dealing with the remote causes of the American Revolution. In Massachusetts there came a peculiar turn to this salary controversy. After years of fruitless pleading, the home government finally decided to relieve the embarrassment of the Governor and to make him independent of the lower House by assuming the payment of his salary. Thereupon the General Court raised a storm of protest, and, so far from refusing to grant to the Governor his salary, insisted that he should accept it, claiming that he had not the right to accept support from any other source. Another cause of conflict arose in the Assembly’s struggle for a share in the establishment of equity courts. The Gov¬ ernor himself was the court — sometimes alone, sometimes with the Council. His right to erect such courts by ordinance was universally contested. The reasons can be seen in the following excerpt from Douglas : It is said that a Governor, and such of the Council as he sees fit to consult with, dispense with such Provincial Laws as are troublesome, or stand in their Way in Procedures of the Court of Equity, so called.35 36 Summary of the First Planting of the British Settlement in North America, II, 33, 49. Quoted by Greene, op. cit., p. 141. 28 ROYAL GOVERNORS A further cause of controversy, the only one expressly mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, was the practice of frequent prorogations at the will or the whim of the Governor. We sit upon our own adjournments, when we please, and as long as we think necessary; and we are not apt to be sent a pack¬ ing, in the middle of a debate, and disabled from representing our just grievances . . . which has often been the fate of As¬ semblies in other places.36 Frequent dissolutions for the purpose of getting rid of aggressive Assemblies, and on the other hand the practice of keeping pliant Assemblies in existence for long terms, led to serious trouble. Practically every Assembly attempted to pass laws fixing the time of new elections. There were conflicts also over the Governor’s attempt to limit paper money issues; over his corrupt practices in elec¬ tions to the House, his interference with House membership and procedure, refusal to approve choice of speaker, etc. In a word, there were struggles over some of the very powers that were then being slowly wrested by Parliament from the King. Perhaps dimly the Assemblies began to realize that the King was no longer to exercise the right of veto or of proroguing Parliament. It may be, too, that they divined the transfer of exercise of the executive authority from the King to the Cabinet. The above reference to the outstanding subjects of dis¬ pute is necessary in order properly to complete this general introduction, because the various struggles against Gov¬ ernors were by no means isolated facts in colonial history. Politically speaking there were set in motion by these dis¬ cords sympathetic vibrations, strong ones, through which the intensity of feeling in one colony was affected by that 36 Speech of Andrew Hamilton, Proud, History of Pennsylvania, II, 237. Cited by Greene, ibid., p. 153. INTRODUCTION 29 of its neighbor. In time all became tuned to the common note that eventually resounded in the Declaration of In¬ dependence. As one evidence of this non-isolation, we have the testimony of two of the royal Governors. Lewis Morris of New Jersey wrote: [The representatives] are gen’lly so fond of the example of the parliament of 1641, & that of their neighbours in Pensilvania and New England, that until some measures are taken in England to reduce them to Propper limits, I suspect they will not mend much.37 Belcher of Massachusetts also complained that: The forts in all the plantations do at this day lye in a sad ruin¬ ous condition, especially in all the West India Islands, & this is no fault of the Governours, but of the Assemblies who will raise no money to repair & support ’em.38 These conflicts between Assemblies and Governors usually resulted in encroachments on the Governor’s powers. In theory the proper term, as far as the legal constitution of the colony was concerned, would be encroachments. But in fact , the political systems in the colonies were following the course of an evolution toward democracy , and away from the monarchical idea. This was due to many causes, — the historical background; the enjoyment of civil freedom; frontier influences and consequent philosophy of initiative and independence; peculiar environment and special needs and exceptions in regard to law; the Assemblies’ assumed role as champion protector of liberty; England’s misunder¬ standing of colonial problems; distance in time, space, sympathies, religion, even in politics, from the parent state; 37 Morris Papers, 1743, p. 162. 38 Belcher to Richard Partridge, Oct. 22, 1739. Belcher Papers, Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Series 6, VI, 218; cf. also Greene, op. cit., pp. 178jf. George Chal¬ mers, Introduction to the History of the Revolt of the American Colonies, II, 16. 30 ROYAL GOVERNORS the strong feeling of local and provincial loyalty; the sort of men sent to govern; and more important than any was perhaps the consequences of commercial monopoly. This, however, is not the present theme. Add to these things the significant fact that England had herself sown the germ of this democratic spirit by estab¬ lishing the representative Assembly. When even a slight pulse of life is once felt, democracy tends to make desperate efforts for existence and perfection. Even Chalmers, as early as the end of Queen Anne’s reign, bears witness to this, saying of the New York Government that it “was really changed; from being monarchical, it had become demo- cratical;” and he might have added that it became so through a natural, necessary evolution. It is unnatural for the progenitor to produce an offspring essentially unlike itself. England, the mother country, had attained to the rights expressed in Magna Charta and in the unwritten constitution of democracy. She conceived, and after much labor another embryonic democracy, weak and at first al¬ most helpless, appeared. But it survived. All the parent’s mistaken efforts to impede its growth and development were unavailing. Perhaps, had the efforts been more decisive and strong, the trend toward independence would have been checked, but probably only for a time. It should be noted, too, that the struggle for freedom to develop was in progress long before the War of Independ¬ ence. Theories and forces of opposition gained strength gradually. And nowhere can the origins and progress of these theories and forces be examined to better advantage than in the relations in colonial legislatures between the agents of the restraining parent and the representatives of the refractory child. “Rightly then to understand the deeper forces which pro¬ duced the war of independence, one must understand the gradual growth of that sense of divergent interests without INTRODUCTION 31 which all the political agitation of Samuel Adams, the elo¬ quence of Patrick Henry, and even a few injudicious meas¬ ures of British statesmen from 1760 to 1774 could hardly have led to revolution. Nowhere can this gradually awaken¬ ing consciousness of divergences, so far as it reveals itself prior to what is commonly called the revolutionary era, be better studied than in the conflicts between the provincial governor and the provincial assembly.”39 39 Greene, oy. tit., concluding paragraph. Part I MASSACHUSETTS CHAPTER I EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION, 1644-1730 The representatives in Massachusetts Bay met for the first time as a separate body in 1644.1 The increasing desire for independence in the colony eventually led to the policy under James II of more effectual control. Hence the in¬ structions for stricter enforcement of the Acts of Trade and Navigation, also, in 1686, the abolition of the lower House and the appointment of Joseph Dudley as President of New England.2 Dudley was succeeded in the same year by Sir Edmund Andros as Governor of the Dominion of New Eng¬ land, with semi-royal powers that were later extended over practically the whole northern part of British America.3 1 Prior to 1634, laws were made by Governor and “Council.” Protests, even at that early date, against taxation without representation resulted in the sending of three deputies from each of the eight towns in the colony. It was not, however, until 1644 that these sat as a separate House. Winthrop, History of New Eng¬ land, I, 1 52/f. 2 Transcripts of Royal Instructions to Governors of Massachusetts (including also many letters from the Lords of Trade and the Board of Trade), Colonial Society of Massachusetts, now deposited in the Library of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, Mass. Cf. documents dated April 10, June 26 and Aug. 10, 1685, pp. 158, 150, 153. Copied from P. R. 0., C. O., 5, Vol. 904, pp. 152, 153, 145-148, 151-156; cf. also ibid., pp. 166-170, 171, 172. These will hereafter be cited as Transcripts, Col. Soc., with reference also to the location in the British Museum. 3 Cf. Commission of Andros, Sept. 12, 1686, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 178-191. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 904, pp. 306-308; also ibid., p. 239. P. R. O., C. O., 389, Vol. 9, p. 467. 34 ROYAL GOVERNORS The commission of Andros was, from the colonial point of view, an arbitrary and far-reaching encroachment on the rights of local self-government. In him, with the advice and consent of his Council, of whom seven ordinarily constituted a quorum, was vested the power to make laws, levy taxes, appoint judges, justices, and sheriffs, to establish military service and so on. The only positive limitation on his powers was the prohibition against levying war.4 Under this sys¬ tem the administration is considered by some to have been an “illegal Despotism.”5 According to Thomas Hutchin¬ son, the early loyalist historian of Massachusetts, “Nero concealed his tyrannical disposition more years, than Sir Edmund and creatures did months.”6 But Andros has not always received justice from Massachusetts historians. By many he is now regarded as of sterling personal qualities, loyal and sincere, though not always acting with discretion.7 The reputed odium is a little subdued when it is remembered that the very party that opposed him “fought to the end to perpetuate religious intolerance, and the entrenched privi¬ lege of a minority to tax an unenfranchised majority four times as numerous, and for the right to concentrate all political power in the hands of one religious sect.”8 4 Cf. instructions to Andros, April 16, 1688, Transcripts, Col. Soc. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 855, p. 90; and 389, Vol. 9, p. 468. 5 Edward Channing, History of the United States, II, 180. 6 History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, I, 355. 7 Laws of New Hampshire, I, Introd., XCIII. Prince Society, Publications, V, Andros Tracts, I, XXCII. N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., I, 599. Of recent historians. Professor Edward Channing is among those most opposed to Andros. Cf. History of the United States, II, 180/f.; also Osgood, American Colonies, III, 394ff. The feeling against Andros in Boston went even so far as the sending to the hostile Indians in Maine of a forty-two ton vessel, with powder, shot and food, in order to undo Andros’ work. These Indian troubles were also made the basis of a rumor that Andros intended to turn over the colonies to France and to intro¬ duce detested Popery. James Truslow Adams, The Founding of New England, p. 427. 8 J. T. Adams, op. cit., p. 395. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 35 When Andros, after an imprisonment of ten months in Boston, was finally, through the King’s order, liberated and returned to England, Increase Mather and two others, alleging that they were appointed to act for the people of Massachusetts against the rejected Governor-General, ap¬ peared in a hearing before the Lords of the Committee for Trade and Plantations. But the charges, which failed of proof, were accordingly dismissed by the Lords with the report: ‘‘No Person could be then found or was named unto us upon our Inquiry, to signe or owne the same.” 9 By the fall of Andros, however, James the Second’s Dominion of New England was shattered. Thereafter Massachusetts set out to govern itself and miserably failed. “Every man is a governor,” wrote some one from Boston. There was military, financial, economic, and administrative wreck,10 and this in the face of a tradition that endows the Anglo-Saxon with an “innate” aptitude and expertness in political affairs. Of this period, a recent author has written: In the blue haze of that incense in honor of the colonial New Englanders, lighted by themselves and tended by their descend¬ ants, we are apt, a little absurdly sometimes, to lose sight of coarse fundamentals. The average man or boy in the New England of this period probably looked upon the theory that the main end of the colony’s existence was to make the world safe for the Con¬ gregational church, in very much the same way in which those of us who happened to be in France lately found that the average “doughboy” regarded his main end there to be making the world safe for democracy; . . . and so long as the average man could catch cod, sell whiskey to the Indians, raise crops on land he felt was his own, or stand at his little shop counter, he did not much care — much as, by way of conversation, he might talk — about the governor in Boston, or the king in England, but let him be- 9 Report of the Lords, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 282, 283. P. R. O., C. 0., 5, Vol. 905, pp. 188, 189. 10 Ibid., pp. 443/f. 36 ROYAL GOVERNORS lieve that either was threatening his God-given right to accumulate pine-tree shillings, and there would be trouble.11 In October, 1691, in spite of the vehement protests, efforts, intrigues, false representations, bribes, and even threats of revolt from the Reverend Mather and his theocratic oligarchy, a new charter placed the colony abreast of what was con¬ sidered to be the most liberal thought of the day. Theoc¬ racy was legally destroyed; toleration, except to Catholics, was established; every resident with the moderate property requirement had a voice in the government; and Massa¬ chusetts became a royal province, with a Governor appointed by the King, a House of Representatives chosen by the people, and, as a novel feature, a Council nominated by the House and confirmed by the Governor.12 The position of a Crown appointee as Governor of a people who preferred to elect their own executive gave little prospect of harmonious relations with the people’s repre¬ sentatives. As a matter of fact, for seventy years conflicts were almost incessant, down to the final break in 1776. Sir William Phips, the first royal Governor of Massachu¬ setts, was a compromise appointee.13 To Increase Mather, 11 J. T. Adams, op. cit., p. 436. 12 J. T. Adams, op. cit., pp. 445-447; also Chaining, op. cit., II, 284 ff. Charter is in Publications of Col. Soc., Mass., II, Iff. 13 William Phips, one of 26 children, was a shepherd until eighteen years of age; then a ship-carpenter, seaman, commander of a frigate in search of Spanish treas¬ ure ships; successful on second expedition, bringing home some £300,000, of which his share was £16,000. For this exploit he was knighted. “His education was very low,” — also his fortune. He was “of a hasty temper and being a stout man, he would use his cane and fist after he was governor.” He was “ much better fitted to manage the crew of a man-of-war than to sit at the helm of the ship of state.” Cf. Hutchinson, op. cit., pp. 396/., notes; cf. also the Life of Phips, pp. 4 ff., cited in footnote 15, following. His actual administration began May 16, 1692. Cf. List of Commissions, In¬ structions and Additional Instructions to the Royal Governor and Others in America, compiled by C. M. Andrews, and printed in Annual Report of the American His¬ torical Association, 1911, I, 393 ff. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 37 leader of the Puritan oligarchy that was overthrown by the new charter, was left, as a measure of conciliation, the nomi¬ nation. And Mather aided in procuring the appointment for his recent neophyte, Sir William. We have not now our former Charter, but we have a better in the Room of it. One which much better suits our Circumstances. And instead of my being made a sacrifice to wicked Rulers , all the Councellors of the Province are of my own Father’s Nomina¬ tion; and my Father-in-law , with several related unto mee, and several Brethren of my own Church are among them. The Gov¬ ernor of the Province is not my Enemy, but one whom I baptized, namely Sir William Phips, and one of my own Flock, and one of my dearest Friends.14 On the other hand, as a native, a conspicuous local leader during the Indian troubles, and one but lately knighted for daring achievements, Phips would probably be more accept¬ able than a stranger, and more likely to assuage the dis¬ satisfaction consequent upon the imposition of the new charter. His administration, however, due partly to his own deficiencies and partly to the unavoidable embarrassments of the political situation, was rife in conflict, ending in his recall to England to answer charges against him.15 At the first session, June 8, 1692, the Governor’s opening address was at once conciliatory and liberal. But peace ended when the pressure of his arbitrary measures began to be felt. Then the political leaders, in order to protect their rights and to prevent further encroachment, determined that the Governor, as well as other royal officials, must be made dependent in some manner upon the General Court. The pressure was brought to bear through the salaries, which, in spite of Sir William’s repeated requests for a settled 14 Diary of Cotton Mather, Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Series 7, VII, 148; cf. also Mather’s Magnolia, I, Book II, Appendix, p. 201. 15 Life of His Excellency, Sir William Phips, by Cotton Mather, p. 101, and passim. 38 ROYAL GOVERNORS support, were made indefinite in amount and in time of pay¬ ment, — though in practice payments became annual. Phips added to his difficulties by refusing to confirm to the Couneillorship Elijah Cooke, the leader of the popular party, who when in England had opposed his appointment as Governor. It was largely Cooke’s instigations that stirred up this salary controversy, destined to continue for nearly half a century.16 Tactless measures, such as his command to the Assembly to “Go chuse a new Speaker,” because that official had ordered, without consulting the Governor, an adjournment over a week end, soon started an agitation for the removal of Phips. He was accused also before the Privy Council of securing for his own use quantities of forfeited illegal imports ; of hindering the Collector by forbidding captains to clear with him, and appointing a naval officer of his own choosing for the purpose; of preventing complaint to the King from a frigate captain by imprisoning the same and by forcibly appropriating his money and clothes; of condemning a captured French ship as prize to the King, yet sending no report thereon; of impressing from private owners guns and stores for other captured ships, without compensation, and without reserving any portion to the King. As a result of these and of other complaints, in large part expressed in private letters to England, Phips was finally ordered home to answer the charges.17 The fact that the House drew up a petition to the King “humbly praying . . . that the Governor might not be moved,” is not nearly so significant as it may appear. The 16 J. S. Barry, History of Massachusetts, II, 57. Channing, op. cit., II, 287. 17 Letter from the King to Sir William Phips, Feb. 15, 1693-1694, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 318-322. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 858, No. 16. Phips laid hands on one collector; and meeting a certain “Captain Short in the street, warm words passed, and at length the governor made use of his cane and broke Short’s head; not content with this, he committed him to prison.” Hutchinson, Massachusetts, II, 77. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 39 vote of fifty members on the subject showed a bare majority of one in favor of the petition. In order to offset the influence of the members from Boston, most of whom were against the petition, the Phips party inserted in a bill then pending a clause preventing any town from being represented other than by resident freeholders. This was designed to rule out all votes of town representatives who resided in Boston. Nevertheless, by one vote, the bill was lost. Sir William thereupon “ rushed into the house of commons and drove out the non-residents.”18 In obedience to the King’s summons, Governor Phips sailed for England in November, 1694. During the next five years, under the rule of the Lieutenant-Governor, William Stoughton, there were no conflicts, although the Assembly could not have been placed in amiable mood at receiving, in August, 1695, intelligence of the disallowance of fifteen acts passed shortly after the first functioning of the new charter. These measures purported to set forth “General Privileges,” providing for continuation of local laws, erection of naval office, courts of justice, etc.19 The fact of the existence of harmonious relations with Stoughton also seems evident in the Assembly’s repeated passage of laws almost similar to the above, which were likewise dis¬ allowed. Practically the only trouble arose in the Assembly’s objection to building a fort at Pemaquid.20 The next Governor was Lord Bellomont, whose commis¬ sion included also New York and New Hampshire.21 A 18 Sewall’s Diary, Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Ser. 5, V, 387. Hutchinson, Massachu¬ setts, II, 78-80. 19 Life of Phips, sup . cit., p. 4, footnote 2. Hutchinson, Massachusetts, II, 81, 108. Order Repealing divers Laws past in ye Massachusetts Bay, Aug. 22, 1695. Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 340—342. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 906, pp. 190—199. 20 Board of Trade to Stoughton, Jan. 20, 1697 and Nov. 24, 1698. Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 359-367, 436-438. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 907, pp. 103-112, Vol. 860, No. 45. 21 Bellomont began his administration May 26, 1699. C. M. Andrews, op. cit., p. 469. 40 ROYAL GOVERNORS nobleman in the executive office was a novelty, and all ranks vied in paying to Lord Bellomont their respect. His con¬ ciliation with Elisha Cooke, who in the absence of Phips had been returned to the Council, his opposition to Mather’s party, and his veto of the latter’s Harvard College charter, his policy of ingratiation, his playing in his addresses on the colonial prejudices against Popery and the Stuarts, — all helped to secure harmony during his short term.22 Against the latter practice the Lords Justices dissuaded him, expressing, in comment on his praises of King William to the Assembly, the wish 44 that it had been done without any reflection on his Majesty’s Royal Progenitors,” and desir¬ ing him “for the future to avoid any such disadvan¬ tageous mention of them, least among other reasons it should alienate the mindes of that people from Monarchy itself.”23 Much as the fortification of Pemaquid was desired by the home government, Bellomont was unable to secure legisla¬ tion for this purpose.24 It was felt that the Assembly’s failure to co-operate was responsible for the French advances and for the building of a French church on the Kennebec.25 Early in 1701 the Governor was ordered by the King to signify to the General Court that His Majesty was “sensible of their Neglect,” and “to require them without Delay, to provide for the building and maintaining of such Forts” as the Governor and Court could agree upon.26 With his salary grants also, Bellomont experienced diffi¬ culty, the Assembly refusing to provide a stipulated amount on a permanent basis, and granting only a 44 present” of 22 Hutchinson, Massachusetts, II, 112-121. 23 Board of Trade to Bellomont, April 10, 1700, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 493. 24 Ibid., p. 494. 25 Board of Trade to Bellomont, Oct. 30, 1700, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 524. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 1118, pp. 4-12. 26 Instructions to Bellomont, Jan. 19, 1701, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 541. P. R. O., C. O., 324, Vol. 27, pp. 208, 209. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 41 £1,000, which the King later permitted him to accept. The Assembly’s attitude was particularly dissatisfying to the Board of Trade because Massachusetts was “the only Colony depending immediately on the King where there is not a fixed Revenue for that purpose;” and they advised that “they may the better be pressed to that, as also to the building of a convenient House for the Governor’s Resi¬ dence, and providing for the necessary and incidental charges of the Government.” 27 One of the difficulties in the way of a permanent grant to Bellomont was the fact that he had to spend most of his time in his other government of New York. This was necessary to prevent outcry, especially from the merchant class in New York, to the effect that the administration of two governments of the size and importance of Massachusetts and New York wTas beyond the ability of one executive; hence the agitation for a separate Governor for New York. Significantly the Lords remarked that his absences would not, in like manner, be a grievance to Massachusetts: “If they [Massachusetts] can manage their own affairs without Controul, and make use of your absence as a reason to with¬ hold the Present which they could not otherwise well refuse to make, they will be very easy.” 28 If Bellomont went to New York, he ran the risk of losing the tendered “present;” and when with this in mind he returned to Massachusetts, the New York people clamored because of his absence. This condition led the ministry to take measures “that salaries to Governors may be fixed, to prevent the inconvenience and Clamour of Presents.” 29 A further present to Bellomont of £1,000 was approved 27 Board of Trade to Bellomont, April 10, 1097, Transcripts , Col. Soc., pp. 494, 522. 28 Board of Trade to Bellomont, April 29, 1701, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 555ff., P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 1118, pp. 252-256. 29 Ibid., p. 556. 42 ROYAL GOVERNORS by the King in Council, June 12, 1701, but too late to bene¬ fit the Governor, who had died at New York during the previous March.30 In the estimation of the Board of Trade, one of the chief deficiencies of the Assembly lay in its failure to provide for the defense of the province. Pending the arrival of a new Governor, Lieutenant-Governor Stoughton was “to use his utmost Endeavors . . . that they exert themselves vigor¬ ously in providing for their Own Defense. Their neglect in that, as in some other things, has been very great.” 31 The next Governor, Joseph Dudley, 1702-1715, was to many the most odious of all official New Englanders. In the “revolution” against Andros, he had been imprisoned and was later driven from the colony, a recusant. Now, in triumph, he returned as Governor. But an absence of ten years had not effaced bitter memories. At the time of the “revolution,” it was chiefly against Dudley that popular resentment had been vented, because he was a native, and from him oppression was therefore more grievous than from a stranger.32 These experiences pointed to a future stormy career. Even as his ship approached the harbor, the first mutterings were heard in discussion as to the advisability of forcibly preventing his landing.33 Dudley’s ruling passion was ambition. Its object was the governorship of Massachusetts. To this end he sacrificed friendships, policies, and even principles of allegiance.34 “Perhaps like Caesar,” said Hutchinson, “he had rather be 30 Instructions to Bellomont, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 565, 567. P. R. 0., C. O., 5, Vol. 862, Nos. 58, 59. C. M. Andrews, op. cit., p. 469. 31 Board of Trade to Stoughton, Aug. 20, 1701, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 572. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 909, pp. 461-463. 32 Hutchinson, Massachusetts, I, 391. Dudley had also rendered himself obnoxious when President of the Bay colony in 1686, but was acceptable enough in place of the tyrant, Kirke, whose appointment had been feared. Cf. ibid., p. 341, notes; also Justin Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, V, 103. 33 Everett Kimball, The Public Life of Joseph Dudley, p. 82. 34 Kimball, op. cit., p. 207. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 43 the first man in New England, than the second in Old.”35 His aims were essentially selfish; his policy, essentially pro- Britain, because therein lav his own best interests; and those interests he pursued with the ability of a clever and and unscrupulous politician.36 Even in the time of Phips, Dudley had been intriguing for the governorship. This was continued after the death of Lord Bellomont, when, in spite of the opposition of Elisha Cooke, he was successful.37 In fact, in ideals as well as their accomplishment, even in avowed statement, Dudley stood for English against colonial interests. In many respects he was really an Englishman; for nearly twenty-five years he had held posts as an English official of one sort or another; for thirteen years he had lived in England; he had governed the Isle of Wight almost as long as he was to govern Massachusetts; had served in Parliament, and even socially had identified himself with English culture. As a result Dudley had lost in great measure the viewpoint of a colonial leader. This, together with his conduct of the administration and his unfortunate facility in arousing antagonism, placed him among the most hated of men in all the colonies. From England’s point of view, however, Dudley might well stand as an admirable administrator, a shrewd statesman, and a loyal and efficient servant of the Crown. To uncover all possible accusations against this Governor would be at once unseemly and unnecessary. That has been done — and even overdone — by the early historians of Massachusetts. This narrative, however, requires brief mention of certain outstanding facts, because Joseph Dudley ruled considerably longer than any other early governor, and in a period of transition, when political impressions and political philosophy were in process of formation. He had 36 Hutchinson, op. cit., II, 194. 36 Kimball, op. cit., p. 208. 37 Kimball, op. cit,., pp. 81jf.; also Chapter IV, entitled ‘'Scheming for Office.” 44 ROYAL GOVERNORS serious and practically unceasing conflict with the Assembly on questions some of which were destined to be settled only by the Declaration of Independence. The attitude of the people toward such an executive was bound to become, per¬ haps by a process not altogether conscious, their attitude toward the Crown. As a matter of fact the philosophy of opposition that was then engendered grew stronger and stronger, assuming eventually more conscious form and in¬ creasingly definite formulas, until it concluded in complete severance from the mother country.38 Dudley’s struggle with the General Court began on the day of his landing, and continued throughout his term. Of the members of the Council that had committed him to twenty weeks in prison at the time of the Andros rebellion, at least eleven were still in office.39 He opened hostilities by disapproving five Councillors, and refusing to confirm the choice for speaker. In 1704 two of the five were again chosen, and again rejected. The House then broke all precedent and especially requested a reconsideration of the negative, but was mortified by his refusal.40 38 Dudley had been practically always unpopular. In 1689 he had been mobbed; his house threatened in 1707 ; and on at least two other occasions he barely escaped personal violence. From 1682 to 1715 “ it is doubtful whether, outside of his own party and those who were bound to him by fear, interest, or gratitude, a single well-wisher could be found for him in all New England.” The petition signed against him, and the pamphlet, “The Deplorable State of New England” become especially significant when it is remembered that he stood “ as an English official, charged with the execution of the English policy.” Cf. Kimball, op. cit.. Preface, and pp. 207/f. 39 Hutchinson, op. cit., II, 134. Kimball, op. cit., pp. 82jf. 40 The Governor had fair reasons for his vetoes: in the novel Massachusetts system wherein the Councillors were nominated by the House, a hostile House such as Dudley’s would seek to seat Councillors of its own mind. Thus the veto was the Governor’s only protection. Due to his employment of the veto power, and to his skillful management also, Dudley soon had the Council manipulated into acquiescence with practically all of his suggestions. On two issues, however, it continued hostile — the salary question and the Pemaquid fortifications. In one case wherein the Council had dissented, EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 45 This rejection of the speaker, a proceeding hitherto un¬ heard of, was indignantly resented. Dudley reasoned that his power by charter to negative acts of Assembly included the right to veto the Assembly’s act in choosing a speaker; but after the House, completely ignoring his action, had proceeded to business, he yielded, with a saving clause, however, for his right in the matter, and justified by pressure of military necessity. Queen Anne’s War was about to begin, and supplies would be needed. Very fre¬ quently, even after Dudley’s time, this dispute recurred, until in 1726 the “Explanatory Charter,” occasioned by complaints of Dudley’s successor, decided in favor of the executive.41 But the chief conflict in Dudley’s administration arose over the questions of salary, and of the fortifications, es¬ pecially at Pemaquid. Owing to the failure of previous Assemblies to enact, according to the known wishes of the home government, laws making permanent provision for the support of Governors, the matter had been included in the royal instructions to Governor Dudley. These directed him “to propose to the General Assembly . . . that an act be passed for settling and establishing fixed Salaries” on himself and his successors “suitable to the dignity of [their] offices.”42 In Dudley’s opening address, and in phrase not conciliatory, the fixed salary was urged. But the House, in spite of a leaning early manifested by the Council in favor of complying with the instructions, refused to do so, de¬ claring the requirement an encroachment on the rights and Dudley falsely reported a unanimous agreement, to the great resentment of Sewall, who was one of the dissenters in the measure. Cf. SewalVs Diary for Nov. 20 to 25, 1707, in Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Ser. 5, VI, 202; also Kimball, op. cit., pp. 89-92. 41 Newcastle to Lieutenant-Governor William Dummer, Sept. 30, 1725, Tran¬ scripts, Col. Soc., p. 1081, P. R. O., C. O., 324, Vol. 35, pp. 151-153. 42 Queen Anne’s Instructions to Governor Dudley, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 577. 46 ROYAL GOVERNORS privileges of English subjects, and maintaining that the “consent of Parliament” should be left entirely free.43 Instead of the £1,000 that had been granted to Bellomont, Dudley’s “present” amounted to only £500. When the Assembly persistently refused to obey the instructions, Queen Anne, in 1703, wrote to the Governor directing him to order the General Court to “forthwith settle a constant and fixed allowance upon the Governor, suitable to the character and Dignity of that Government.” He was in the same letter forbidden, under penalty of removal from office, to assent to any act granting him a “present,” or to accept a present in any form without special leave.44 Inas¬ much as the above mentioned £500 was granted prior to the date of this letter, the ministry were of the opinion that it could be accepted.45 This letter from the Queen, and another written in 1705, 46 together with Dudley’s own insistence, were ignored by the House, which persistently refused a fixed salary.47 In a letter to Her Majesty the representatives explained their position, urging in justification the authority for control over moneys as handed down from the reign of Henry III.48 In 1707, in a memorial to the Queen, Dudley complained that during the five years of his service as Governor of Massachusetts he had received only £200 per annum , “which makes but three hundred pounds sterling to support him, having an Estate of his own to assist him, 43 Kimball, op. cit., p. 96. 44 Queen Anne to Joseph Dudley, April 20, 1703, Transcripts , Col. Soc., pp. 631, 632. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 910, pp. 467-469. 45 Board of Trade to Dudley, July 29, 1703, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 640. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 911, pp. 104-106. 46 Queen Anne to Dudley, Jan. 17, 1705, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 676. P. R. O., C. O., 324, Vol. 29, pp. 315, 316. 47 Board of Trade to Dudley, Feb. 16, 1704, May 26, 1704 and April 12, 1705, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 652, 659-661, 682. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 911, pp. 208- 214, 330-334, 458-464. 48 Petition to the Queen, Board of Trade, Colonial Entry Book, Ms. 40, E 330, cited by Kimball, op. cit., p. 96, note 5. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 47 without which he could not have supported himself and is not otherwise chargeable to Her Majesty.”49 The rebuilding of the fort at Pemaquid was desired by England in order to secure possession of disputable territory between the Kennebec and Acadia. To Dudley also were sent royal instructions to attend to this.50 Every recom¬ mendation of Phips on this measure had failed. Dudley, after boasting of undoubted success, took up the matter in his opening address. But the Assembly had neither money nor interest to expend on fortifications one hundred miles from any English plantation. To them it appeared useless as a protection and seemed suitable only as anchorage for an occasional fishing boat. Even a conference with the more favorably disposed Council was refused. Two years later Queen Anne, in a second letter on the subject, instructed Governor Dudley again to press the matter.51 Without consulting the Governor, the Assembly drew up an address to her, asking to be excused from compliance, on the ground that their war expenditures already exceeded £80,000, a sum that swelled to over £200,000 before the close of the war.52 It may be, too, that Pemaquid was a reminder of the days of Andros. The opposition was possibly not uncon¬ nected with anti-popery prejudices, for the fort had been erected when that part of Maine belonged to the Duke of York. Because its only real object was the assertion of England’s title to territory east of the Kennebec, the As¬ sembly insisted that the sacrifice required to secure this purely imperial interest should be borne by England and not 40 Governor Dudley’s Answer to a Petition presented to Queen Anne in 1707. Cf. Transcript copy of, in Library of Congress, bound with folio containing Com¬ mission of Sir Edmund Andros, Am. B., N. E. 1680, Je. 3. Cf. reference to this petition infra , p. 50 and note 60, ibidem. 50 Instructions to Governor Dudley, Dec. 11, 1701, Sept. 15, 1702, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 585, 625. 51 Queen Anne to Dudley, May 18, 1703 (first letter), and Jan. 25, 1705, Tran¬ scripts, Col. Soc., pp. 637/., 675/. P. It. O., C. O., 324, pp. 230-233, 315, 316. 62 Channing, op. cit., II, 290. 48 ROYAL GOVERNORS by Massachusetts.53 It is sufficient to state that three years of struggle failed to obtain the necessary appropriation.54 The above mentioned address of the Assembly was never received by Her Majesty. Governor Dudley’s responsibility for this fact is implied in the Assembly’s indignant address to him: “We understand we have been so unhappy, as that the said address and memorial did not reach her majesty’s hands, because proceeding from this house alone, although the addressing of her majesty is a privilege ever allowed to the meanest of her subjects.”55 The insinuation was that some one in authority had inter¬ cepted the address because it came from only one chamber. In the same instructions, aid was required for New Hamp¬ shire in the construction of a fort at the entrance to Ports¬ mouth Harbor.56 This was a particularly tender point with the Massachusetts Assembly, since to their mind New Hampshire, which was formerly a part of the Bay colony, had been unlawfully separated. Moreover, New Hampshire received the entire advantage of the fort, even laying a duty on Massachusetts trade along the Piscataqua, while itself never contributing to the support of any fort or garrison in Massachusetts. For these reasons Dudley’s three years of controversy on this subject were of no avail.57 By that time prejudice against him had increased, the people in general regarded him as their enemy, and meas¬ ures were on foot to supplant him.57a The following in- 53 Channing, op. cit., II, 289#\ Kimball, op. cit., pp. 94jf. 64 Board of Trade to Dudley, April 12, 1705, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 682. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 911, pp. 458-464; cf. also Board of Trade to Dudley, July 23, 1708, Transcripts, sup. cit., p. 751. C. O., 5, Vol. 912, pp. 481-484. 55 Hutchinson, op. cit., II, 150-152. Cf. ibid., for complete address. 56 Cf. the instructions, cited supra, p. 47, note 50; also Queen Anne to Dudley, May 18, 1703, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 637jf. P. R. 0., C. O., 324, Vol. 29, pp. 230-233. 57 Hutchinson, op. cit., II, 151. 67fl Board of Trade to Dudley, July 23, 1708, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 751. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 912, pp. 481-484. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 49 cidents, which occasioned serious charges, indicate the hostile attitude of both people and representatives. Owing to a supposed lack of orders from the Queen the greatly desired capture of Port Royal had, under most favorable auspices, unexpectedly failed. Soon, however, there were rumors in the colony of a correspondence between the Governor’s friends and the French in Acadia, according to which it appeared that Port Royal must be preserved for the sake of trade, in the profits of which Dudley was to have a share.58 On another occasion the House even contemplated a charge of high treason against him. Envoys to Nova Scotia, sent to arrange an exchange of prisoners, had tarried un¬ necessarily long, and finally after two journeys had brought back only twenty-four. As a result suspicion, which did not spare the Governor’s name, soon had it that the time had been mainly occupied in commercial dealings of advantage to certain members of the party. The Assembly showed a keen interest in the accusations. It was suggested that the Superior Court had no jurisdiction, and that parliamentary action was necessary because Nova Scotia, the scene of the offense, was not within the confines of the province. The House accordingly tried and convicted several of the accused; but an order in Council later declared the acts void, and repudiated the alleged jurisdiction of the House.59 Dudley’s leniency toward the accused was construed into a proof of his connivance. This affair and his supposed connection therewith became the talk of the colony. Accordingly an address containing serious insinuations, signed by people in Boston and even in London, was presented to the Queen. Dudley’s reply denied the truth of each charge, stating that 58 Hutchinson, Massachusetts, II, 14G. According to a letter from Cotton Mather to Dudley, Jan. 20, 1707, the commander of the expedition gave as the reason for the fatal delay, Dudley’s own order. Cf. ibid. 69 Order in Council, Sept. 24, 1707, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 731. P. It. O., C. 0., 5, Vol. 8G4. (Transcript omits page reference.) 50 ROYAL GOVERNORS many of the signatures were forged, while most of the au¬ thentic ones were from obscure and lowly persons.60 In spite of these proceedings the General Court at a later date thus completely exonerated the Governor: “We firmly believe . . . that the allegations . . . are a wicked and scan¬ dalous accusation . . . the contrary being always apparent.” 61 For the consideration of this resolution there was allowed to the House a comparatively short period. Moreover, word was carefully circulated that Queen Anne was especially desirous for such an expression of sentiment. Further¬ more, the Governor was personally present during the pro¬ ceedings.62 Three weeks after this affair Sewall who was a Councillor and had acquiesced in the exonerating vote, confided to his diary his dissatisfaction with the whole pro¬ ceeding. After suggesting sundry excuses that may have influenced the Council, he states that “the vote ought to have been debated.” And later, in comment on the phraseology of the resolution, appears, the following: “The words firmly believe , and always apparent were never pleasing to me; and now I do not firmly believe that the governor did no way allow Mr. Borland and Capt. Vetch their trad¬ ing voyage to her majesty’s enemies the French. Qui non vetat peccare, cum possit, jubet. Not that I suspect the 60 Cf. Dudley’s Answer to a Petition presented to Queen Anne in 1707, Tran¬ scripts, L. C., bound with folio containing Commission to Sir Edmund Andros, Am. B., N. E., 1686, Je. 3. The following excerpt is quoted by Hutchinson, Massachusetts, II, 159: “That many of the best and most prudent members of the lower House of the representatives being tired of his delays [in favor of the accused] and necessitated to go home and defend their plantations from the enemy, he prevailed with those that remained, who were scarce a number to make a house, that the accusation against his agents should be changed from treason to misdemeanor; and they being convicted, he laboured to mitigate their fines; all wdiich was so apparent to the people in New-England that they threatened to pull down his house.” The mutilated remains of Dudley’s Answer are referred to supra, footnote 60. 61 Hutchinson, Massachusetts, II, 160, notes; cf. also Kimball, op. cit., pp. 175-191. 62 Ibid. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 51 governor designed to hurt the province but to gratify grate¬ ful merchants.”63 Although in its worst aspect this accusation was probably without foundation, the incident throws considerable light on Dudley’s standing in the province. Trouble was occasioned also in connection with preser¬ vation and encouragement of naval supplies. Although by a clause in the charter the Assembly’s obligation in this regard was implied, the members refused to consider them¬ selves bound thereby, nor would they pass any legislation on that subject.64 The ministry therefore obtained from Parliament in 1711 an act leaving no doubt as to the As¬ sembly’s obligation.65 These difficulties, which were to great extent occasioned by the activities of the Surveyor-General of the King’s Woods, assumed larger proportions during the administration of Dudley’s successor, Samuel Shute, and in its treatment will be considered in greater detail. The following miscellaneous data likewise point to the existence of a general lack of harmony in the time of Gov¬ ernor Dudley: the ignoring by the House of the additional instructions regarding regulation of the value of foreign coins; complaints from the colony and reproofs from the ministry because of lack of justice in the courts, also because of Dudley’s practice of sending prisoners to England with¬ out proper data and proofs of their alleged crimes; his failure to comply with instructions requiring the sending to England of reports on the condition of the province, in respect to which the Board enumerated nine headings ignored by the Governor.66 63 Sewall's Diary, June 13, 1712, Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Ser. 5, VI, 351. 04 Board of Trade to Dudley, Jan. 12, 1709, Transcripts, Col. Soe., p. 756. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 913, pp. 44-46. 65 Board of Trade to Dudley, Jan. 16, 1710, Oct. 26, 1711, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 772, 782. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 913, pp. 153-160, 252. 66 Board of Trade to Dudley, Feb. 14, 1706, Oct. 27, 1711, and Aug. 27, 1712, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 697, 796, 809. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 912, pp. 114-124; Vol. 913, pp. 252, 379. 52 ROYAL GOVERNORS The failure of the Assembly to send any expression of acknowledgment after receiving as a present the portrait of the Queen may have been due, not to any feeling of dis¬ loyalty, but to mere inadvertence.67 With the death of Queen Anne, in 1714, came a longed-for opportunity to depose Governor Dudley. By a law of 1708 the commissions of Governors were to expire six months after the demise of the sovereign, unless* prolonga¬ tion were especially arranged for. The Council waited the six months, promptly informed Dudley that his rule had ended, and had devolved upon themselves, and two days later, Feb. 3, 1715, deposed him.68 In the following month, however, he was reinstated by order of King George I. He died soon after.69 The facts above enumerated point to the inevitable con¬ clusion that Governor Dudley’s administration of prac¬ tically fourteen years resulted only in an increasing con¬ viction on the part of the House of the advantages to be gained from a policy of aggression. England’s positive com¬ mands regarding salary and defense were still ignored, while the spirit of opposition had not only increased, but was far more comfortably entertained than in the time when the thought of disobedience to royal authority would un¬ doubtedly have occasioned considerable hesitation. That time was beginning imperceptibly to disappear. For about a year after Governor Dudley’s death the province was ruled by Lieutenant-Governor Tailer.70 In the mean time Colonel Elisha Burgess, who for military service under Stanhope had been rewarded by an appoint- 67 Board of Trade to Dudley, March 26, 1707, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 712. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 912, pp. 322-329. 68 SewalVs Diary, Mass. Hist. Soc., Ser. 5, VII, 58, 59, 62; cf. also Worth¬ ington Chauncey Ford, Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings, December, 1901, p. 327. 69 Kimball, op. cit., pp. 193-197. Winsor, op. cit., V, 11 5Jf. 70 Tailer administered the government from Nov. 9, 1715, to Oct. 5, 1716. C. M. Andrews, op. cit., p. 469. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 53 ment to the governorship of Massachusetts, sold his patron’s favor for £1,000. This sum was paid by the Massachusetts agents, Jeremiah Dummer and Jonathan Belcher, who be¬ lieved Burgess hostile to their policies, and who therefore manipulated the commission into the hands of Colonel Samuel Shute.71 But they bargained unskillfully. Chalmers credits Governor Shute with no tact, no ad¬ ministrative ability, nor in fact with the possession of any quality befitting his station. Commenting on a conference held under him with the Indians of the Kennebec and of the Penobscot regions, Chalmers makes the Governor inferior “to those who were denominated savages.”72 The new Governor received elaborate instructions, espe¬ cially regarding the public acts and laws, which were to be regularly forwarded, annotated by the Governor, with date of passage and approval, telling whether new or merely repetitions, etc.73 The new King, George I, was apparently determined to strengthen the prerogative. The instruc¬ tions, in addition to opening up a new controversy over press censorship, revived the two old disputes regarding salary and the Pemaquid fortifications.74 Continual oppo¬ sition from the House, as well as constant aggression, occa¬ sioned a series of controversies, often petty, which dragged on for six years, when the Governor suddenly left for Eng¬ land to lay his grievances before the King. 71 Governor Shute began his duties Oct. 5, 1716. C. M. ‘Andrews, op. cit., p.469. On Colonel Burgess compare paper read by Albert Matthews and printed in Publi¬ cations of Col. Soc. of Mass., Vol. XIV, pp. 363-372. 72 Chalmers, Revolt, II, 14, 2 6jf. 73 Instructions to Samuel Shute, July 18, 1716, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 888- 930. P. It. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 914, pp. 467-498. 74 Cf. instructions cited above, p. 906; also Journal, Nov. 7, 1716, April 11, 1717, Dec. 17, 1720, I, 130ff., 171; II, 353. This citation is to Journal of the House of Representatives of Mass. Bay, first printed in 1715. Reprints of the entire series, 1715-1750, under the editorship of Dr. Worthington Chauncey Ford, are now in progress, and have been completed to 1723. Citations to Journals of later date are to the originals. 54 ROYAL GOVERNORS Hostilities commenced when Elisha Cooke, son of the veteran popular agitator, espoused the cause of the Maine people against the supposedly unjust proceedings of the Surveyor-General of the King’s Woods. The long-standing complaints from this official concerning illegal appropria¬ tion and use by the people of the “King’s Trees”75 resulted in very definite instructions to Shute to prevent private use and strictly to enforce the acts for preservation of naval stores, etc.76 Cooke charged that the Surveyor, who was preventing people from cutting trees even on their own property, would, if paid, wink at cuts even in the King’s domains. Chalmers justifies the Maine people for destroy¬ ing timber reserved for the King’s navy, because of the need to make “room for the operations of tillage.”77 The Gov¬ ernor, by defending the Surveyor, at once antagonized Cooke, the people, and the Assembly. In the following year, 1718, Shute rejected Cooke as Councillor.78 From this episode, together with the con¬ troversy over the King’s Woods, came the practical estab¬ lishment in Massachusetts of freedom of the press. In Boston especially, the people were indignant and declared the representatives delinquent for not more directly arraign¬ ing the Governor. At the first new election, this town re¬ turned only one of the old members and three new ones, all unfavorable to Shute.79 Other towns also made changes that would insure opposition.80 Words were not minced in the messages exchanged, and the Governor therefore threatened to prevent, because of its marked disrespect, 75 Sec. Popple to Shute, May 2, 1710, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 770. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 913, p. 243. 76 Instructions to Shute, July 18, 1716, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 896. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 914, pp. 374-418. 77 Chalmers, Revolt, II, \5f. Journal, Feb. 14, 1717, I, 272. 78 Journal, May 29, 1718. 79 Ibid., May 25, 1715, and June 20, 1716, I, 1, 111. 80 Hutchinson, Massachusetts, II, 201-203. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 55 the printing of the Assembly’s reply to one of his speeches.81 This was in connection with the preservation of the King’s Woods. The General Court had been censured for dis¬ couraging the work of the Surveyor and for conniving at the unauthorized use of trees. Admitting a waste of the King’s timber, the representatives declared that the Sur¬ veyor-General was himself responsible, because, as they could prove, he had accepted from private persons large sums of money in return for the privilege of cutting down for private use the King’s trees. The same Surveyor had also extorted money from people for the privilege of cutting trees even on their own property.82 It was this part of the Assembly’s reply that the Governor thought would “not be for the Honour and Service of this Government to have it made Public,” and therefore objected to its appearance in print. Immediately the representatives requested him to “be pleased not to insist on the not Printing.” Messages twice went back and forth, the Governor refusing permis¬ sion to print and the House insisting on their privilege. Finally Shute agreed to yield, provided the objectionable passage concerning the Surveyor-General be expunged. The House refused,83 however, and the Governor therefore commanded the public printers not to publish the address. As a result the House changed printers and the remon¬ strance appeared.84 Controversy continued when the House refused to approve a bill for stricter press control by the Governor, fearing “the innumerable inconveniences and dangerous Circumstances this People might Labour under in a little time.” 85 The angry Governor then pro- 81 Journal, Dec. 10, 1719. 82 Journal, Dec. 9, 1719. 83 Ibid., Dec. 10, 1719. 84 C. A. Duniway, Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts, pp. 86jf. 86 News-Letter, No. 890, April 3, 1721. Cf. Duniway, op. cit., p. 95, and note 1, p. 90. 56 ROYAL GOVERNORS rogued and soon after dissolved the unruly Assembly, when the question was taken up by the news sheets.86 In 1721 the succeeding Assembly decided to publish a memorial upon the address of the Governor at the previous dissolution. Again highly incensed, Shute summoned the members, who, after a second call, finally appeared and were again dissolved.87 According to Chalmers, it is really from the year 1719 that freedom of the press ought to be dated. Thenceforth, free from former restraint, it “poured forth its libels, numerous and virulent,” against government and officials.88 No longer did Governors endeavor to exercise a right of censorship. After 1720 the formerly required notice, “pub¬ lished by authority,” no longer appeared on the News- Letter; in 1725 came explicit repudiation by the Council of official responsibility for press content, and in 1729 the posi¬ tive prohibition to printers against inserting “in any part of their prints that the same is published by authority.” 89 At the new election in 1719, the House showed positive defiance by choosing as speaker the Governor’s old enemy and leader of the opposition, the rejected Councillor Elisha Cooke.90 Shute, who had really given informal approval to the choice, suddenly repudiated even the knowledge that a speaker had been selected, and refused to permit the de¬ sired election of Councillors until he should be informed of 86 Journal, 1719, p. 226 (Ford’s edition), News-Letter, April 10, and Gazette, April 3, 1721. Cf. Duniway, op. cit., p. 96, note 1. 87 E. B. Greene, The Provincial Governor, p. 128. Note. — The last attempt against freedom of the press in Massachusetts was made in 1723 by the Council and the Assembly and also failed. This was against audacious writings in James Franklin’s C our ant, for which the owner was impris¬ oned. It was on this occasion that Benjamin Franklin’s name was substituted for his brother’s as publisher of the paper, a subterfuge to offset the order forbidding James to continue publishing the Courant; cf. also Journal, Jan. 16, 1723. 88 Revolt, II, 20. 89 Duniway, op. cit., p. 107. 90 Journal, May 25, 1720. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 57 the choice of speaker. When Cooke was again announced, Shute negatived the choice on the ground that “the Gentle¬ man . . . had formerly affronted him . . . the King’s Gov¬ ernor.” 91 Vehement dispute ensued, in which the House unanimously refused to take another vote, and was there¬ fore, after a session of only four days, dissolved. When the next House, with practically the same membership, as¬ sembled in July, a new speaker was chosen, but with a formal protest justifying the action of the preceding House. The members refused to acknowledge the Governor’s claim that the right of negative over the choice of speaker was his by the charter provision, and they maintained that the “Elec¬ tion and Constitution of speaker” was “the undoubted Right of the Representatives only.” 92 Then came the counter manoeuvre of the House, when the Governor’s semi-annual salary was first delayed, then decreased from £600 to £500 ;93 while along with other embarrassments, his negotiations with the Penobscot Indians were negatived. That session had not lasted two weeks when it also was dissolved.94 This controversy over the right to negative the choice of speaker was later decided by the home government in favor of the Governor.95 In spite, however, of positive pronounce¬ ment by England, the Assembly refused to accept the deci¬ sion, esteeming it their duty “to maintain and enjoy all the Rights and Liberties which we claim or ought to claim by the Royal Charter; or what is the Right of this people, 91 Journal, May 25, 1720, pp. 228jf., May 30, 1720. Session had opened on May 25. 92 Journal , compare data in entries for May 25 and July 13, 1720; cf. also II, 235, 146. 93 Journal, Nov. 5, 1719, received £600; July 23, 1720, received only £500. 94 Convened July 13; dissolved July 23, 1720. Cf. Journal, II, at these dates, also pp. 248, 251. 95 Board of Trade to Shute, March 17, 1721, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 1001. P. R. O., C. ()., 5, Vol. 915, pp. 320-322; cf. also Journal, Aug. 24, 1721. 58 ROYAL GOVERNORS either as English men, or by force and virtue of any Laws made by this Government.” And disavowing any inten¬ tion of offending the King or of slighting the royal instruc¬ tions or prerogative, they still claimed “the sole Election and constituting of a Speaker.” A statement of their case was sent to England, although there was some trouble with the Council as to appropriating funds for the purpose.96 Sentiments of the above nature appear rather openly to assert conviction of the supremacy of plantation laws and interpretation of rights over those of England. They were a natural and necessary prelude to any declaration of in¬ dependence. In comment on the proceedings the ministry expressed themselves as “surprised at the extraordinary proceedings of the lower House of the late Assembly . . . in assuming to themselves an executive power, and showing so great a disregard to his Majesty’s instructions.” 97 In fact, according to Hutchinson, this period rivaled in its contests and political dissentions even the disturbed con¬ ditions during the feuds over religion in 1636 and 1637. 98 The general state of affairs in the colony was discouraging. Indian depredations were on the increase,99 trade and cur¬ rency problems were causing distress.100 Pamphlets ap¬ peared attributing the troubles to divers causes, but the voice of the people in general was against the Governor.101 In 1721, when a new speaker was chosen, the House thought to forestall a veto by informing Governor Shute that “John Clark, Esq., is chosen speaker . . . and is now sitting in the chair ” 101° Again the exasperated Governor 96 Journal, Sept. 1, 5, 7, and 9, 1721. 97 Board of Trade to Shute, Aug. 23, 1721, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 1008. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 915, pp. 329, 330. 98 Hutchinson, Massachusetts, II, 209. 99 Journal, Nov. 3, 1720, II, 268 and passim. 100 Journal, I, 182, 262, passim-, II, 236, 252jf., 368 and passim. 101 Hutchinson, Massachusetts, II, 209. 1010 Journal, May 31, 1721. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 59 would have dissolved them had not the alternative been suspension of business for another year. Fruitlessly the session dragged on for about a month. Finally the House sent up a message that it had nothing under consideration and desired to adjourn. Shute replied that “if they had nothing, he had something that might prevent their Rising.” 102 Although they had asked for fourteen days, Shute was willing to give no more than four until the treasury supply had been arranged.103 After two more re¬ quests, and a message as to whether he had accepted the choice of excise commissioners, Shute’s reply was thus re¬ ported : “That he had sent down Ten times, That he had the List under consideration. And, That he might as well send down to the House to know what they had done about his Salary. And that the House knew what they had before them.” 104 The correctness of this alleged reply was later disputed by both Governor and Council, the latter insisting that “the Votes and Messages from his Excellency and the Board be either fairly and truly stated, or else not printed at all.”105 Shute was withholding his signature from bills that had been passed until the matter of allowances should also be decided. The House, on the other hand, was waiting until the Governor’s decision on the measures passed should be made known. They objected also to his practice of sign¬ ing acts and resolves after the General Court had risen. His determination to sign nothing until the House had finished matters then in hand was regarded as a threat and an undue use of the Governor’s power for the purpose of forcing the salary grant. His message above quoted they declared to be “the first ... of its Kind from the Chair to the House of Representatives since our Happy Con¬ stitution;” and they reminded him that he could not but 104 Ibid., July 7, 1721. 105 Ibid., Sept. 9, 1721. 102 Journal, June 28, 1721. loa Ibid., June 28, 1721. 60 ROYAL GOVERNORS know that it was “the undoubted Right of this House to fix all public Allowances, the quantity, time and manner of their Payments.” The Governor thereupon announced that when “the Affairs now depending in the House were concluded” he would sign “everything before the Court rises.” But refusing to consider the allowances, the House proceeded to adjourn itself. When in a few days they again convened, Shute refused to receive any messages, declar¬ ing the adjournment an “Extraordinary proceeding,” un¬ warranted by the Charter, and a breach of the King’s prerogative.106 The House at once capitulated, admitting that they ought to have informed the Governor and Council of the adjourn¬ ment. This, however, was not sufficient, for as Shute re¬ minded him, they seemed “industriously to avoid confess¬ ing, That the Sole Power of Adjourning, as well as Pro¬ roguing and Dissolving the General Assembly, is Vested in His Majesty’s Governor, . . . and therefore [that they] did wrong in attempting the adjournment” without his knowl¬ edge and allowance. “This,” he said, “is what your prede¬ cessors acknowledged, in the Government of Sir William Phips, and I expect no less from you.” The acknowledg¬ ment was then made as demanded, with the explanation that it had “been so designed but Causually omitted.” After an address of censure, in which Shute referred to the disloyalty implied in their undertaking to answer an address made to a previous Assembly, and in publishing in the news¬ papers their memorial on the same without the Governor’s knowledge, the General Court was dissolved.107 At the opening of the same session, the House had desired, because of smallpox in Boston, to hold meetings at Cam¬ bridge. Pending the Governor’s reply to this request, the list of proposed Councillors was sent, but unaccompanied 106 Journal, July 7, 8, 12, and 19, 1721. 107 Journal, July 19 and 20, 1721. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 61 by any vote or formal message. Shute refused to take action unless the prescribed usage was followed. The House, “considering the Distemper in the Town, and being desir¬ ous the Court should be forthwith removed to Cambridge, [was] willing to send up the List after the Usual Form; Saving their Right to Assert their Privileges at a more convenient time.” The choice of all but one Councillor was then approved, and the General Court was adjourned to meet at Cambridge.108 The session was not long in progress when strained rela¬ tions were aggravated through consideration by the House of the Governor’s speech at the close of the previous session. Because of its alleged reflections upon the loyalty of the members, they determined to send to the King a memorial “to Vindicate the Proceedings of that House, & manifest the Duty and Loyalty they always bore to his Majesty . . . notwithstanding the Insinuations in that Speech, as if their behaviour in that Session had discovered the con¬ trary!” 109 The memorial explained their refusal to pass two bills, — one to prevent riots, and the other regarding libellous pamphlets. Although the first was modeled on a previous Act of Parliament, the representatives maintained that in Massachusetts it was unnecessary because the people were “not disposed to Rebellion, or in the least inclined to the Pretender.” 110 And the second might give to the judges too wide power, owing to the proposed use of their own dis¬ cretion in determining offenses against the bill as it then stood. This memorial, which without the Governor’s knowledge was inserted in the newspapers, was “an Ex¬ ceeding Satisfaction to almost all the Inhabitants.” 111 Harmony was not increased when a day or so later, in reply to the Assembly’s question to Shute as to whether he 108 Journal, May 31 and June 1, 1721. 109 Journal, June 19, 1721. 110 Ibid., June 22, 1721. 111 Ibid., Aug. 30, 1721. 62 ROYAL GOVERNORS had accepted the civil list, the Governor informed them that “he would take his own time for it.” Then came the controversy over self -adjournment and the dissolution of the General Court, both referred to above.112 When a new Court convened a few weeks later, in August, 1721, the House passed a resolve to remove to Cambridge because of the smallpox in Boston. This was the first message sent up, but Governor Shute would consider noth¬ ing until he had first passed upon the choice of speaker. The House then reported “John Clarke, Esq., for their Speaker, and that he was sitting in the Chair.” But to Shute’s message of approval the House announced that their ac¬ quainting him with the choice was “for Information only, and not Approbation.” The Governor then refused to permit the removal to Cambridge, deeming it “a giving up the King’s Prerogative to consent to the Adjournment in the Form as it was sent up Yesterday;” that is, as a re¬ solve of the House. When a committee thereupon informed him that the resolve was not meant to provide an adjourn¬ ment, but simply removal, Shute would “not concern himself to make an answer.” 113 At this time, also, came his announce¬ ment that his claim to the right of negative over the choice of speaker had been upheld in England, where the King’s attorney-general had decided it to be by charter vested in the Governor. Scarcely had this become known when the House informed him that if he would not consent to the removal to Cambridge the members would return to their homes, not wishing to risk the infection. Shute again refused to consider the request in the form submitted and the session continued.114 In strongest terms the House then proceeded to uphold 112 Journal, June 24, 1721; supra, p. 238. 113 Journal, Aug. 23 and 24, 1721. (Italics inserted.) 114 Lords of Trade to Shute, March 17, 1721, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 1001. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 915, pp. 320-323; also Journal, Aug. 23, 24, and 25, 1721. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 63 the action of the late Assembly in the latter’s reply to the Governor’s objectionable address at its dissolution, declar¬ ing they had but ‘‘justly defended the Rights and Privileges of this House. . . . And . . . had the last Assembly been silent on that head, they had basely betrayed, or miserably neg¬ lected the Service of their Country.” The argument went on to state that the House in its function of representing the people was a continuous institution; hence, both the right and the duty, when the Governor made accusations against them as a body, and prevented a reply by dissolution, to make reply in the name of both Assembly and people. They intimated, too, that if they were prevented from making “just Remarks and Replies to Governour’s Speeches, it might soon be out of their reach, though not inclination, to show much Loyalty or respect either to His Majesty’s Person or Government in their Publick Capacity.” And though most willingly would they lay down “their Lives and little Fortunes” in the King’s service, yet proceedings such as the above would soon bring the colony “into miser¬ able streights and difficulties,” furnishing every one “with subject matter to write the deplorable State of New-Eng- land.” 115 The same address from the House upheld also the previous Assembly’s action on the affair of the memorial, of the Governor’s speech, and of the self-adjournment. In reply, Governor Shute simply expressed regret that they should be “so distant” in their respective opinions, assured them that his rule of action would always be the charter and the royal instructions. On the recent proceedings, he left judgment between them to the King.116 Respecting removal of the General Court from one town to another, the Assembly now determined to defend in England the claim that this could be done only by an “Act 115 Journal, Aug. 30, 1721; cf. also ibid., Vol. Ill, pp. 99jf. 110 Journal, Sept. 6, 1721. 64 ROYAL GOVERNORS of the Government.” Consequently, after a prorogation in the fall of 1721, when the Court was reconvened at Cam¬ bridge instead of at Boston, the House passed a formal resolve allowing the removal, because of the smallpox epidemic in Boston.117 Of this proceeding Shute took no apparent notice. The attitude of the House was also mani¬ fested in its choice, as speaker pro tempore , of the old objec¬ tionable Elisha Cooke.118 Although the sessions of the following year, 1722, were characterized by no disputes on important issues, there was an endless bickering that deserves notice. When the speaker was chosen, the House maintained its old position by an¬ nouncing him as “now sitting in the Chair.” Shute seems to have passed over the incident, perhaps in expectation of orders on the subject from England. Two of the Council¬ lors were negatived. There was again agitation for removal from Boston, owing to the smallpox, but the suggestion was voted down.119 Early in the session the printer of the Gazette was cited before the House and asked by the speaker “why he Printed the Choice of Councellors as he had done by mentioning but Twenty-Six Councellors, when Twenty- Eight were Chosen. And by intimating that the Speaker of the House, and the Clerk were chosen by the General Court , when they were chosen by the House ?” 120 Similarly the printer of the News-Letter was cited, and both were ordered to print nothing in future except from attested copy. The House then voted not to fill the two vacancies in the Council; and again, in the absence of the speaker, who was ill, Elisha Cooke was chosen substitute.121 During the summer of 1722 troubles with the Eastern 117 Journal, Sept. 6 and Nov. 7, 1721. Prorogued from Sept. 9 to Nov. 1, 1721, III, 133, 136. 118 Journal, Nov. 7, 1721. 119 Ibid., May 30 and 31 and June 1, 1722. 120 Ibid., June 6, 1722. (Italics inserted.) 121 Ibid., June 7 and 14, 1722. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 65 Indians were on the increase; therefore it was decided to take measures to win over the Iroquois for use against them. When, as a member of the commission to carry to the Iroquois the Assembly’s message and bribe, Elisha Cooke was selected, the Governor immediately vetoed the choice. During this session, May 31 to July 7, 1722, Shute was only once, aside from his opening address on general topics, in direct communication with the House. This was in con¬ nection with his refusal to acquiesce in measures regard¬ ing enlargement of “ the corporation of Harvard College.” Prorogation soon followed, and the next meeting was convened on Aug. 8, 1722. 122 Meanwhile the Indian question had become a menace requiring prompt action. Shute had declared war upon them, and now urged vigorous prosecution, hinting also at the tendency of the House to encroach upon his powers as military commander. “One thing I must Particularly Remark to You, which is, that if my Hands and the Coun¬ cils be not left at a much greater Liberty than of late they have been, I fear our Affairs will be carried on with little or no Spirit.”123 On previous occasions the House had encroached greatly on the Governor’s military powers by determining the place and period of military service, as well as assigning the num¬ ber of men to be employed. Nor was it considered too much to send to the Governor a message asking why he did not, “pursuant to a Resolve of the General Assembly,” make certain assignments as therein directed.124 At this time, however, except on the method of bringing to condign punishment certain officers who were defrauding soldiers of pay, the House, the Council, and the Governor worked with no great friction in the prosecution of the war.125 122 Journal, June 13, 1722, 'passim to Aug. 8, 1722. 123 Ibid., Aug. 8, 1722. 124 Ibid., Sept. 8, 1722, Nov. 9, 1721, and July 2, 1722. 126 Ibid., June 2, Aug. 17 and 18, and Nov. 17, 1722, and passim. 66 ROYAL GOVERNORS Toward the end of the year 1722, when the Governor had failed to give immediate attention to a request of the House desiring him to send down his orders and instructions to the commanding officer, as well as general data on the conduct of the war, the request was repeated, with a declaration that was perhaps a veiled threat, that the House was “very Solicitous, That the Affairs of the War be carried on with great dispatch, but . . . wholly at a loss what may be requisite to effect the same, till the Papers sent for ... be laid before them.5' The request was immediately complied with.126 At this time also, early in December, 1722 , the Governor was inclined to refuse to receive any messages whatsoever. Again, owing to the speaker’s illness, the chair was filled by Elisha Cooke. To one message requesting him to delay the express about to go to the Eastern regions, Shute wTas reported to have answered that he “would stop the Express sometime.” Thus the petty warfare went on. He had occa¬ sion also to remind the House that all messages of a public nature should be sent first to the Council for concurrence, and not immediately to himself.127 Further disturbance occurred when Shute asked for a return of the original order that he had sent down concerning directions for the com¬ missioners to the Eastward. In spite of the Governor's insistence to the contrary, the House maintained that only a copy had been received. Some three weeks after this, the Assembly was startled by announcement from the Council that the Governor had taken ship for England, and might be expected to return in the fall of 1723. During recent months Shute had been practically silent, nor had he given an intimation of his pur¬ pose or of his reason for going to England. The representa¬ tives, however, immediately concluded that he had gone 126 Journal, Nov. 24 and 28, 1722. 127 Ibid., Dec. 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7, 1722. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 67 over in order 4 4 to Charge this House in attempting to en¬ croach upon the Royal Prerogative, or coming into some things they had not a Right to, by their present happy Constitution.” Straightway, measures were adopted for their Just and Necessary Vindication.” In Shute’s ab¬ sence the administration of government fell to the Lieuten¬ ant-Governor William Dummer, who held office during the next five years.128 Questions of paper money and of methods of meeting the resulting public debt occasioned constant friction. In periods of economic stress, the House was always for issuing more paper, while the Council objected, and the Governor called attention to debts already outstanding, suggesting legislation that would introduce a gold and silver basis. Despite all objections, paper money, in amounts somewhat lower than originally planned, was always issued. The trouble came from the clause in Shute’s instructions requiring a suspending clause in all bills for issuing paper money, except when designed for support of the Govern¬ ment.129 Very noticeable during Governor Shute’s term was the tendency of the House to acquire control over public ex¬ penditures. By the charter, full and exclusive power to issue the public moneys in payment of public debts was vested in the Governor and Council. This fact was later repeatedly stressed in royal instructions to succeeding Governors. On one occasion during Shute’s regime, when certain sums had been paid out by the Governor and Coun¬ cil, the House remonstrated, declaring the procedure “in¬ consistent with the Grant for the supply of the Treasury, and therefore deemed a Grievance.” The House also opposed 128 Journal , Dec. 28, 1722. 129 Ibid., I, 182, 262, II, 236, 252, 254, and passim; also June 5, 13, and 14, 1721. The Governor’s instructions are in Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 993. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 915, pp. 320-322. 68 ROYAL GOVERNORS the Council's suggestion to provide a supply for contingent expenses. At one time when the Council was giving con¬ siderable trouble through its opposition to the form of a supply bill, the House took up the question as to the num¬ ber of Councillors necessary to constitute a quorum. It was decided that the charter provision on the matter meant that outside of regular sessions, eight would make a quorum; during sessions, a majority of the whole twenty-eight would be required.130 The inferences are obvious. In the supply bill for 1721 the House refused concurrence with a Council amendment to strike out the words, “And for no other Ends and Uses whatsoever,” — a clause never before inserted.131 By the upper Chamber this was regarded as a mark of distrust in itself, and the supply bill was accord¬ ingly so long delayed in that body that consideration was postponed to the next session, which opened March 6, 1722. Practically the same situation recurred.132 The salary question in Shute’s time was peremptorily decided by the House. Although the royal instructions ordered a settled amount, and called attention to the fact that Massachusetts was the only British province that refused it,133 the grants were nevertheless decided upon semi-annually. Except in the years 1718 and 1719, when the sum granted was £600, the amount each half year from December, 1716, to July, 1722, was £500. 134 After the reduc¬ tion from the £1,200 granted in 1719 to the £1,000 granted in 1720, the Council suggested an increase, which was im¬ mediately voted down by the House.135 Shute himself later 130 Journal, June 18 and 30 and July 4, 1722. 131 Journal, Nov. 11, 1721, pp. 145, 147 ff., especially 149. 132 Journal, Nov. 16, 1721, March 6, 8, and 20, 1722, and passim . 133 Cf. instructions in Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 893#\ P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 914, pp. 374-418; also Journal, Nov. 7, 1716, April 11, 1717, I, 130, 171, passim. 134 Journal, Dec. 4, 1716; June 21, Nov. 19, 1717; July 3, Dec. 3, 1718; June 30, Nov. 5, 1719; July 23 (p. 263) and Dec. 15 (p. 347), 1720; Sept. 8 and Nov. 17, 1721; July 6, 1722. 135 Journal, Dec. 16, 1720, pp. 11, 350. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 69 complained of the hardship resulting from the decrease in his salary, especially in consideration of the constant de¬ preciation in value of the province bills of credit; and to strengthen his case he cited the royal instructions, with their requirement of a fixed and adequate support. Of this com¬ plaint, however, as well as of a later one in which the Gov¬ ernor declared himself the most poorly supported executive in America, the House took no notice.136 For the years of Governor Shute’s absence in England the Journal shows no salary grants at all, although the charter required that in such cases one half the usual sum was to be given. With the Assembly thus stubbornly set against establishing by law a fixed and dependable grant, Shute wrote to the home government in 1723, asking that in future his salary be paid directly by the Crown, thus mak¬ ing him independent of the Assembly in this respect. The request was not then granted; but half a century later, in the administration of Thomas Hutchinson, this policy was adopted, though too late. In the same letter Shute com¬ plained that if he attempted to uphold against the popular will the royal prerogative, immediately the “mean Allow¬ ance” of salary was even more curtailed.137 Four years later, on the eve of the Governor’s intended return to the colony, the King ordered Newcastle to write him, saying that the ministry had noted the continual ignoring by Massachusetts and New Hampshire of the instructions requiring a fixed and honorable salary, and this while all other plantations, though less able, had given obedience. The Assembly was therefore directed to give “immediate Complyance to what has been so often recommended to them.” And the present requirement was somewhat changed, so that the demand now was not for a fixed and permanent grant, but for a 136 Journal, pp. 11, 352, 353, 370, 389. 137 Shute’s Memorial to the Privy Council, 1723, British Transcripts, L. C., 339. From British Museum, Additional Mss. 33057, fo. 435. 70 ROYAL GOVERNORS “fixed and honourable Salary . . .for the time being .” For the first time, moreover, an estimate was given of the amount believed to be suitable, which was placed at £1,000 per annum for Massachusetts and £200 for New Hampshire. In the event of the Assembly’s continued refusal, the affair was then to be laid before Parliament for proper legisla¬ tion.138 Governor Shute was not free from censure during his administration even by the home authorities, chiefly on matters in which he had too widely interpreted his powers, and for neglecting to carry out certain instructions. For assuming authority to try certain pirates139 and for taking from a sea captain two vessels condemned as lawful prizes, he was called to task, and told to be ready to account for all admiralty perquisites, and to return the vessels.140 The Lords also told him that they could read accounts of Massa¬ chusetts affairs in the English newspapers without receiving word of the same from the Governor.141 His interference in Admiralty Court proceedings was also noticed.142 Governor Shute’s whole term was filled with controver¬ sies, some petty, some of critical importance. Preservation of the King’s Woods, censorship of press, adjournment, removal of the General Court from Boston, support of the government, choice of speaker, military powers, points of procedure in sessions, salary, — all were questions hotly 138 Newcastle to Shute, April 10, 1727, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 1093. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 870 (page not given in Transcript). 139 Board of Trade to Shute, March 6, 1718, ibid., p. 851. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 915, pp. 99-102. 140 Board of Trade to Shute, Jan. 3, 1719, ibid., p. 967. P. R. O., Admiralty, class 2, Vol. 452, p. 212. Board of Trade to Shute, May 9, 1719, ibid., pp. 969jf. Privy Council Registers, Vol. 86, pp. 257, 258. 141 Board of Trade to Shute, June 3, 1719, ibid., p. 972. P. R. O., C. O., 5, pp. 272-278. 142 Board of Trade to Shute, Sept. 2, 1719, ibid., p. 988. Admiralty, class 2, Vol. 1052, pp. 152, 153. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 71 contested, and usually resulting in embarrassment for the executive. The aggressive House also adopted the practice of voting down practically every measure initiated by the ‘ Council. And in order to evade the law requiring approval by England for all acts, they passed resolves instead. Shute finally became so unpopular that it is said his departure for England was hastened by the passage of a bullet close by him as he sat in his room.143 An index to the condition of affairs is seen in the clause of his memorial to the Privy Council in which he requested two independent companies of soldiers, one to be stationed in Fort William, the other in the town of Boston itself. Shute was convinced of the necessity of an armed force to support the royal prerogative and to keep the people “in a just dependence on their Mother Country,” as well as to quell “the many Riots and Dis¬ orders” prevalent in Boston.144 Governor Shute’s memorial to the King resulted in the drawing up of a series of decisions on those clauses in the charter wherein the powers conferred were made the subject of dispute by the Assembly. This was called the Explana¬ tory Charter, sent over in 1725 for the guidance of future executives. In the letter announcing this document, New¬ castle wrote: “His Majesty was very much concerned to find that the charge against the House of Representatives was so well founded as it appears to be, and therefore I must earnestly recommend it to you to use your endeavors, that a due Obedience be paid to His Majesty’s Prerogative and Authority in all respects for the future.” 145 After some debate the Explanatory Charter was ac- 143 Governor Francis Bernard to Lord Barrington, May 20, 1767, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, Edward Channing, p. 126. Hutchinson, Massachusetts, II, 260. 144 Memorial to the Privy Council, 1723, British Transcripts, L. C., 339. British Museum, Additional Mss., 33057, fo. 435. 145 Newcastle to Lieutenant Governor Dummer, Sept. 30, 1725, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 1081. P. R. O., C. O., 324, Vol. 35, pp. 151-153; cf. also ibid., p. 1087. 72 ROYAL GOVERNORS cep ted, with expressions of profoundest loyalty, on Jan. 15, 1726. 146 The two points formerly obscure in the charter were now decided, namely, the Governor’s power to nega¬ tive the choice of speaker, and his sole authority regarding adjournments. Shute had all but embarked to return to the colony when the King died, thus eventually causing his commission to be suspended. George II appointed in his stead William Burnet, formerly Governor of New York, godson of William of Orange and son of the historian Bishop Burnet. This appointment to the refractory government of Massachusetts was designed, not as a favor, but as a punishment, — in¬ dicating the lengths to which that colony had gone in the way of disobedience and aggression.147 In fact, the As¬ sembly’s virtual triumphs over Governor Shute had disastrous and long-enduring effect upon their subsequent respect for royal authority. Even a quarter of a century later, one of Shute’s successors wrote: “This Government feels to this Day the ill Effects of Gov’r Shutes not being sent back with an Increase of Salary and Authority.” 148 In the interim William Dummer, the Lieutenant-Gov¬ ernor, took over the administration of the Government under difficult circumstances, with Shute’s problems still un¬ solved, and himself at odds with many of the representatives because of his previous attachment to the cause of the Gov¬ ernor. The aged Sewall, the only Councillor yet alive who had held office under the old charter, spoke in the Assembly a few words of counsel and of warning to Dummer, which he summed up in the significant phrase: “Difficilia quae pulchra.”149 146 Journal, Dec. 14 and 21, 1725; Jan. 6, 14, and 15, 1726. 147 Chalmers, Revolt, II, 124. Burnet had offended the Lords of Trade by print¬ ing their proceedings, and Horatio Walpole by unsuccessful support. 148 Governor Francis Bernard to Lord Barrington, May 20, 1767, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, Edward Channing, p. 126. 149 Hutchinson, Massachusetts, II, 264. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 73 Since 1719 Dummer had received no salary, and the House up to the time of the Governor’s departure refused to make him any grant.150 Thereafter the semi-annual allow¬ ance was passed upon usually only after the Lieutenant- Governor had given a favorable decision on all measures placed before him. The amount fluctuated between £250 and £400. 151 Not many days after the departure of Governor Shute, the House may have been “trying out” the Lieutenant- Governor as to his stand concerning his authority as Com- mander-in-Chief, when they requested the dismissal of two officers in the Eastern regions, adding that “otherwise they shall be necessitated to draw off part of the forces.” This barefaced encroachment upon his powers as Commander- in-Chief Dummer immediately rebuked, reminding the representatives that this authority was vested by the charter not in the House but in the executive. He demanded, more¬ over, that messages to him be “properly addressed,” which caused an immediate change in the wording of the message referred to.152 Instances of tendencies of a similar nature occurred also at other times in Dummer’s administration.153 Difficulties arose also with both executive and Council in connection with the supply of the treasury. The point in this dispute was that the House in making appropriations was claiming a power that by charter was vested in the Governor and Council, namely, exclusive right to issue moneys after appropriation had been made. This clause the House sought to offset by determining in its grants the specific application of the moneys, and by demanding the 150 Journal , March 24, July 6, 1722. 151 Journal, Jan. 18, 1723, £250; Dec. 20, 1723, £300; June 20, 1724, £300; Dec. 23, 1724, £350; June 24, 1725, £350; Jan. 5, 1726, £350; June 25, 1726, £400; Dec. 31, 1726, £400; July 7, 1727, £400; Feb. 21, 1728, £400; June 17, 1728, £400. 162 Journal, Jan. 8, 1723. 133 Journal, Jan. 10, Aug. 28 and 29, and Nov. 5, 1723. 74 ROYAL GOVERNORS right to oversee and to audit all expenditures according to the terms of the various grants. In reply to a remonstrance from the Council against such claims, the House stated its position by declaring that if to the Governor and Council were to be given an ad libitum power over the treasury, then these branches of the Government might as well take over the full power of supplying the treasury, and therefore also of initiating revenue measures, taxation bills, etc. In the midst of the conflict the General Court was dissolved.154 The paper money problem, too, caused friction. Re¬ peated issues had flooded the colony, aggravating instead of alleviating the currency situation.155 An issue of £100,000 was due in 1727, and Dummer received orders to see that the full amount was drawn in by that date, and forbidding his assent to further issues except with the King’s leave, and also when made for the necessary support of the govern¬ ment, for which purpose sums not in excess of £30,000 were permitted.156 Hardly had the Lieutenant-Governor announced the receipt of these orders, when the House attempted to pass an issue of £50,000, to which Dummer refused to give consent except with a suspending clause. The difficulty was compromised for a time by his assenting to those provisions of the proposed bill that regarded sup¬ port of the government.157 Toward the end of the same year, 1727, because of the scarcity of silver and of old bills, and due to the needs of the government, another issue was proposed. Cautiously the Council suggested delay, but the House demanded immedi¬ ate action.158 Finally, when the proposed bill for £50,000 154 Journal, June 25, 27, and 29, Sept. 17, Oct. 23, Dec. 17, 19, 20, 23, and 24, 1723; April 22, 1723; cf. also Dec. 27, 1723. 16S Journal, May 29 and Dec. 5, 1724, and passim. 156 Board of Trade to Dummer, Feb. 8, 1727, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 1092. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 915, pp. 282, 283. 157 Jo7irnal, June 1 and 22 and July 5 and 7, 1727. 158 Journal, Dec. 15 and 19, 1727. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 75 seemed hopeless in the debating Council, the House de¬ sired to end the session, because to sit longer was useless. This, Dummer was unwilling to do before the necessary support was provided. He refused also three more requests to rise, reminding the members that he had given approval to all their measures, and that they ought now to provide for the government and for the salaries in a manner that would permit his assent.159 But the House was anxious to pass the paper money bill as it stood, and seemed to feel that Dummer could be forced, in order not to lose the sup¬ port, finally to sign. Again, therefore, they asked to rise, and would have put off consideration of support until the next session. Dummer thereupon exposed their motives, declaring that they were refusing support because he would not assent to the bills of credit. In reply the House main¬ tained that it had already provided support — by offering the bills of credit. As to instructions in this regard, they declared these had reference only to issues of an extraordi¬ nary nature; and they recurred to their old resource, namely, the charter provision giving to them power to legislate for the “general welfare.” These reasons were considered a sufficient justification for the proposed issues of £64,000 and £50,000. Admitting, then, that he had asked provision for certain fortifications, but not for the £40,000 extra that was immediately voted, Dummer showed that the instructions permitted issues only for necessary support of the government. He noted also their contradic¬ tory statements: first, they urged paper money issues as necessary to meet the charges of the government; then, on the question of salaries, they maintained that the province was not in a position to stand a further issue for that purpose.160 There followed an adjournment of two weeks, after which iso Journal, Dec. 19, 1727, and Jan. 10, 19, 24, and 27, 1728. 160 Journal , Jan. 29 and 30, 1727. 76 ROYAL GOVERNORS the House still maintained the old stand, the chief argu¬ ment being anxiety lest the people be over-burdened. Con¬ troversy finally ended when the Lieutenant-Governor as¬ sented to the £60,000 issue, after which the House immedi¬ ately proceeded to the salary grants.161 Dummer kept still more to the background after this, apparently awaiting the arrival of the new Governor. No further disputes arose. William Dummer’s term is significant, not so much for the presence of critically important controversies, as for the gradual strengthening of the Assembly’s insistence on its claimed powers, which during these five years became so natural in exercise, and so unaccustomed to check, that dis¬ illusionment could hardly be attempted without opposition at once seriously vehement and sincerely righteous. Some indication of the spread of this spirit in the colony as well as in the House is afforded in the incident of the expulsion of one of the members because of frank expression of his views on the subject. This was a judge of the Vice-Admiralty, who, after Dummer had received orders to prevent further inter¬ ference by the Assembly in affairs of the Admiralty Courts and the Customs officers, wrote as follows to the Lords of Trade: “It is a thing impossible to get a jury in the Country that will do the King Justice upon these Tryals.”162 Governor Burnet took over the administration of the colony on July 19, 1728. 163 During the five years intervening since the departure of his predecessor, Samuel Shute, the Assembly had constituted a quasi-oligarchy, and there was no obstructing its will, — a fact very significant for a new Governor oppressed with objectionable instructions. These, on the matter of support of the government, trade and navigation regulations, preservation of naval stores, and / 161 Journal, Feb. 17 and 21, 1727. 162 Newcastle to Dummer, April 11, 1727, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 1096. P. R. 0., C. O., 324, Vol. 35, pp. 317-319. Journal, Dec. 17, 1726; cf. also ibid., Dec. 27, 1726. 193 C. M. Andrews, op. cit., p. 469. EARLY DEMOCRATIC ‘ OPPOSITION 77 other questions, were most elaborate.164 In Lieutenant- Governor Dummer’s term the Assembly, aiming to offset the difficulty implied in the requirement to have the King’s leave for certain laws, had adopted the expedient of enacting laws for periods so short that the King’s disallowance could not reach the colony in time to interfere. Burnet’s instruc¬ tions noticed this stratagem and stipulated that the limited period for ordinary laws, with a few stated exceptions, should be not less than two years.165 The arrival of the new Governor was heralded by pulpit, press, and people; but the joy was short lived. The very cavalcades and parades were to Burnet the best argument of the colony’s ability to pay, as his instructions demanded, a liberal, fixed, and permanent salary.166 In the instructions in this regard, the more than ordinary stringency was occa¬ sioned by the Assembly’s refusal to grant a salary to the absentee Governor Shute — a fact that must have brought the salary question prominently to the attention of the home authorities.167 The text of the instructions took cognizance of past persistent disregard, noting also that Massachusetts was the only colony that refused a settled salary, despite the fact that it was in a better position finan¬ cially than many others. Immediate compliance was there¬ fore demanded; and the grant was to extend at least to the period of the Governor’s term of office, the sum being stipu¬ lated at £1,000 sterling. Further refusal would be deemed a “manifest Mark of their Undutiful Behaviour to Us; and such as may require the Consideration of the Legisla¬ ture, in what Manner the Honour and Dignity of Our 164 Instructions to Governor Burnet, March 28, 1728, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 1107/. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 916, pp. 67, 109. 165 Instructions, ibid.. Art. 13. 366 Hutchinson, Massachusetts, II, 301/. 167 Journal, Oct. 7, 1730, gives letters from the colony agents mentioning pro¬ ceedings of the ministers about this time. 78 ROYAL GOVERNORS Government ought to be supported in our Province for the Future.” 168 Burnet made his “ keynote speech” on July 24, 1728. After referring to the honor implied in his appointment to the Bay colony, he proceeded to laud the King and Parlia¬ ment, and the ‘‘excellency of the British Constitution,” i.e., “the three distinct Branches of the Legislature pre¬ served in a due Balance .” He was leading up to his point, the respect due from the House, as one branch, to the Gov¬ ernor as another. Then came the warning: “His Majesty is the Head of the Legislature here; the Governor is but his officer, to act by his Instructions, and to have no Inclina¬ tions, no Temptations, no Byass, that may divert him from obeying his Royal Master’s Commands.” Citing Parliament’s example of granting the civil list for life, Burnet then laid before the House the royal instructions requiring a fixed salary of £1,000 sterling during the period of his administration.169 Before replying to this challenge the Assembly drew up an address to the Governor, ostensibly for the purpose of congratulating him upon his appointment and safe arrival, but at the same time significantly dwelling on the colony’s privileges and its loyalty. The tone may be gathered from the following declarations: Ever since the happy Revolution in which your Excellent Father bore so great a part, and the Accession of Our Glorious Deliverer King William ... we have sat secure in the Enjoy¬ ment of Our invaluable Privileges Civil and Religious, and have had great Assurance and Pledges of their being transmitted to our Posterity . . . They went on to say that Burnet’s appointment was a — 168 Instructions, Art. 23, Transcripts, sup. cit., note 188. 169 Journal , July 24, 1728. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 79 Continuance of the Constant Course of His Majesty’s Paternal Care for the Good of His People. What could have been so ac¬ ceptable? or under whose immediate conduct could we have been so easy and joyful? or the Priviledges granted in our Charter so safe as under the Son of a Father who was so much the glorious Instrument of obtaining it? Especially when we consider your own personal merit, the great Wisdom and Mildness of your Excellency’s Government in a neighboring Colony [New Jersey] and your great Moderation, Charity, and condescending Good¬ ness since your happy Arrival here.170 Burnet tersely responded, after which the House, by a resolve, granted him £1,700 for his support and toward defrayal of the expenses of his journey to the province. With this grant, the largest in the history of the colony, was promised that ‘ 4 ample and honourable allowance would be made from time to time;” and it was hoped that he would accept it, even though “the House have not fixed a Stated Sailary.” The faithful Governor, however, pointed to his instructions and refused. Then, drawing up separate re¬ solves that gave £1,400 for salary and £300 for the expenses, the House sent a message explaining that by the charter they were vested with the right of seeing to the defense and sup¬ port of the government, and that their present methods of support were considered the best and the only possible ones, and necessary for the preservation of their rights as English subjects.171 “The Right of Englishmen,” replied Burnet, “can never entitle them to act in a wrong manner.” According to the charter, he argued, the privilege of the House to raise money was to be exercised “by wholesome and reasonable Laws and Directions,” therefore not in a manner “hurtful to the British Constitution itself, and the Ends of Government.” But present methods of support made the Executive “de- 170 Journal , July 27, 1728. 171 Journal , July 27 and 30 and Aug. 7, 1728. 80 ROYAL GOVERNORS pend visibly on the entire compliance with everything demanded by the other Branches of the legislature; by this means the Governour must either be deprived of the un¬ doubted Right of an English Man, which is to act according to his Judgment, or the Government must remain without Support.” He then appealed to the consciences of the mem¬ bers “whether the Allowance for the Governour’s Salary has not been kept back until other Bills of Moment have been consented to, and whether it has not depended upon the obtaining such consent.” Once more he declared that never would he accept of any grant except in accordance with the royal instructions.172 On his interpretation of the charter the Assembly’s reply agreed with the Governor, but urged that decision as to the feasibility of laws lay wholly with the General Court, and that therefore in their conception it would be a positive violation of the charter “to pass any Acts pursuant to the Instruction Your Excellency has laid before us,” because it would be “giving away the greatest and almost only Priviledge that gives Weight to this House.” They argued, too, that by not failing in making annual grants, their obligation to support the government was fulfilled; and they objected also to a settled salary because the Governor’s interest in the pros¬ perity or adversity of the province would naturally last only as long as he was in office. As to the “past Conduct of Assemblies in making the Support . . . conditional, ... to have done so, as they might have been circumstanced, would not have been unreasonable in itself, nor without precedent from the Parliament of England.” Conse¬ quently, for the “Preservation and Protection of the In¬ habitants, the two great Ends proposed in the Charter,” they were constrained to refuse to pass a salary act in ac¬ cordance with the present royal instructions.173 In general the Council concurred with these sentiments, / 172 Journal, Aug. 9, 1728. 173 Journal, Aug. 15, 1728. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 81 but was of the opinion that a salary at least for the time being could without disadvantage to the province be granted. The question was argued between the two Houses for some days, chiefly on the duration of the grant, the Council maintaining that a grant “for the time being’5 would not be “injurious to the Inhabitants.” 174 As a result of this disagreement, the above mentioned answer did not reach Burnet because the House voted “that it is not ex¬ pedient to proceed separately on the Subject.” An ad¬ journment was therefore requested, but the Governor reminded them that the King had ordered “an immediate Regard” for the instructions. The House simply reiterated the chief point in their argument against compliance, namely, that the settlement of a fixed salary for the time being would be “in Prejudice to the Rights and Liberties of the Inhabitants” — which fact made impossible any “Re¬ gard” for the instruction; and the request for adjournment was repeated.175 In this manner, with messages going back and forth on the same subject, the session wore on.176 Burnet replied in detail to the Assembly’s elaborate arguments, declaring them “much better adapted to amuse than to prove,” and giving his conception of the situation as follows: “You seem to allow the Governour’s Powers only so far as he uses them to your Pleasure; But in using your own powers, you take it very ill to be directed by any body.” 177 This was followed in the House by another resolve against obeying the instructions, and another fruitless request for adjournment. Shortly afterward a resolution from the Council suggesting compliance was non-concurred, and a report drawn up advising the various towns as to the As- 174 Journal, Aug. 19 and 28, 1728. 175 Journal, Aug. 27, 28, and 29, 1728. 176 Journal, Aug. 29 and 31, Sept. 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 17, 19, and 24, and Oct. 2 and 24, 1728. 177 Journal, Sept. 3, 1728. 82 ROYAL GOVERNORS sembly’s course of action in the controversy.178 Herein, under four heads, were stated their reasons for refusing a fixed grant in accordance with the royal wish: 1. Because it is an untrodden path . . . and we cannot cer¬ tainly foresee the many Dangers there may be in it . . . 2. Because it is the undoubted Right of all Englishmen by Magna Charta to raise and dispose of Moneys for the public Service of their own free accord, and without any Compulsion. 3. Because this must necessarily lesson the Dignity and Free¬ dom of the House ... in making Acts and raising and applying taxes, etc., and consequently cannot be thought a proper method to preserve that Balance in the three Branches of Legislature, which seems necessary to form, maintain, and uphold our Constitution. 4. Because the Charter fully impowers the General Assembly to make such Laws and Orders as they judge for the good and welfare of the Inhabitants, and if they or any part of them judge this to be not for their good, they neither ought nor can come into it, for, as to act beyond, or without the Powers granted in the Charter, might justly incur the King’s Displeasure, so not to act up and agreeable to those Powers might justly be deemed a betraying the Rights and Privileges therein granted: Moreover, if we shall now give up this right, we shall open a Door to many other Inconveniences.179 These four headings indicate the foundation of the As¬ sembly’s stand on the salary controversy. The concluding opinion is most significant of tendencies toward a philoso¬ phy of political independence. Burnet then called to their attention the probability that continued resistance to the King’s commands would result in loss of the cherished charter, reading an account of Lord Carteret’s opinion on the danger of maintaining their present position. He pointed out also that the memorial to be sent to the various towns included only a partial presentation of 178 Journal , Sept. 4, 9, and 11, 1728. 179 Journal, Sept. 11, 1728. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 83 the case; and he then proceeded to give a detailed and full account, filling in from the Journal those points which had been omitted, and showing the illegality and the danger in continued resistance. A reply, almost as long, came from the House in further justification.180 Then was revived the previously rejected grant of £1,400, to which was added for his future use a sum of £1,600. But in another long address, purporting to demonstrate the lack of foundation in the Assembly’s justification, Burnet re¬ fused this offer also, seeing “no difference between this and the sums before refused, except in the amount ,” which he construed as intended for a “still higher Reward” to per¬ suade his yielding.181 Refusing another request for adjournment, and in order to avoid what he considered to be the undue influence of the Boston people, expressed through the medium of a town meeting that declared against the settlement of a fixed salary, Burnet removed the General Court to Salem. Im¬ mediately the constitutionality of the removal and of the proceedings thereafter were contested, and messages on this subject also became frequent. The House then voted a memorial to the King, stating its reasons for not settling upon the Governor a fixed salary for the time being.182 Again, adjournment was requested, but in vain; whereupon, in spite of the Council’s opinion in favor of the legality of the removal, the House refused to proceed to any business, simply meeting and adjourning from day to day. After two weeks, the House still maintaining its point, business was resumed.183 Jocosely Burnet wondered whether Salem or Concord would have been the better place for the meet¬ ings.184 The House then refused to show to the Governor a 180 Journal , Sept. 12, 17, and 19, 1728. 181 Journal, Sept. 27, 1728. 182 Journal, Sept. 25, Oct. 31, and Nov. 1, 13, 14, 16, and 20, 1728. 183 Journal, Nov. 22 and 23 and Dec. 18, 1728. 184 Hutchinson, Massachusetts, II, 316. 84 ROYAL GOVERNORS copy of the memorial against him to the King, and pro¬ rogation soon followed.185 In the interim preceding the next meeting, Burnet in his letters stated to the ministry the condition of affairs, and after the manner of his prede¬ cessor he asked for two independent companies of troops. For this, however, the Board of Trade was not yet prepared, and gave no definite encouragement to expect the regulars.186 When the General Court again convened in April, 1729, Burnet’s opening address once more urged compliance, giving the last opportunity of retracting and of demon¬ strating alleged loyalty by respect for the sovereign’s com¬ mands. But in vain. The House refused even to come into a consideration of the salary question, and soon after voted £300 sterling to defray expenses of forwarding the memorial, and for best serving the interests of the House in subsequent proceedings thereon.187 One of the two agents intrusted with this important mission was Jonathan Belcher, destined to be the next Governor, and therefore to be obli¬ gated by his office to withstand the very demands which he now proceeded with great alacrity and apparent vigor to advocate. The House endeavored to efface all evidences of friction with the Council. It was necessary to make every preparation for the issue of the salary controversy. The Council, it seems, had been refusing to sanction the As¬ sembly’s attitude toward the question at issue, and toward the person of the Governor. According to the House, the policy of the Board, even in other instances also, had been “plainly to hinder and weaken, in preserving the Rights and Privileges granted to the people.” The Council also refused to concur in the vote of £300 to the two agents intrusted with the memorial, because the choice had been 185 Journal, Dec. 20, 1728. Prorogation Dec. 20, 1728, to April 2, 1729. 186 Board of Trade in reply to Burnet, Feb. 11 and 28, 1729, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 1171, 1172. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 916, pp. 181, 182, 203, 204. 187 Journal, April 2, 4, and 10, 1729. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 85 made by the House alone; nor had the Council been per¬ mitted, until months after it had reached the King, a sight of the document, which contained several items not sponsored by the Councillors. The sum required was then made up by subscription among the members.188 So important had the salary controversy become, that the House ordered a compilation from the records of what was practically a history of the dispute from the time of the first loyal Governor, Sir William Phips.189 Diplomatic rela¬ tions with the Council mav now be said to have been broken, judging from the tenor of two long messages from that body, vindicating its stand especially upon the matter of the removal from Boston, in which the Governor’s right was vigorously upheld. Directly after this came the Governor’s message of dissolution, in which he announced that he had been confirmed and encouraged in his position by letters from the ministry. This message raised the head of new troubles when he informed the members that, because of their passing fruitlessly nearly a third of the session, he had declined to sign warrants for their salaries, thus in a measure turning the tables. The annual election for 1729 was soon to take place, and from it Burnet hoped for more loyal and obedient members.190 The new General Court met at Salem, May 28, 1729. Jonathan Belcher, above referred to as one of the agents chosen to obstruct the salary instructions, and who was to succeed Burnet in the governorship, was this year selected for the Council, probably because of his activity in favor of the measures sponsored by the House. For the same 188 Journal , April 10, 12, and 16, 1729. 189 Journal, April 17, 1729. This compilation was printed by T. Fleet, Pudding- Lane, Boston. There is a copy in the Library of Congress. It contains the salary instructions to each Governor, the speeches to and from the House on the subject, and the measures adopted in successive administrations. 190 Journal, April 18, 1729. On controversy over pay of members see Journal, July 3 and 4, 1729, and Oct. 7, 1730. 86 ROYAL GOVERNORS reason also, perhaps, Burnet negatived the choice. The dispute over the salary question was postponed by a pro¬ rogation of nearly a month.191 Shortly after the reconvening, letters from the two agents reported favorable progress with the salary affair, urging the members to stand firm in their claims. Almost on the same day there was being drafted in England the reply to the memorial previously sent in remonstrance to the salary instruction, and to the Governor’s alleged power of re¬ moval. As a result of the hearing of the case before the Privy Council, Burnet’s conduct was highly approved; and again it was decided that his salary should be £1,000 sterling, granted during the period of his administration.192 The comment of the Board of Trade to Burnet was in part as follows: There is much reason to think that the main drift of the Assembly, in refusing to comply with what has been so frequently and so strongly recommended to them, is to throw off their depend¬ ence on the Crown, which proceeding can in no wise be justified by their Charter, and never will be allowed by His Majesty.193 A secret letter to the Governor, written on the same day by order of the King, urged him to do his best to prevent any test of the Assembly’s obedience through the proposed reference to Parliament. Burnet was to leave nothing in the way of persuasion untried. The King’s letter dwelt on the fact that in view of the Assembly’s insistent refusals regarding a permanent salary for the incumbent and for his successors, “the Crown has thought fit to recede in this particular.” Burnet was permitted to accept a grant for himself only, provided it was settled for the whole of his administration. The letter concludes: 191 Journal, May 29, 1729. 192 Journal, June 27, 1729; see also note 193. 193 Board of Trade reply to Burnet, June 26, 1729, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 1176. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 871, pp. 15, 16. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 87 His Majesty depends upon your Skill and prudence in making a proper use of these Hints, in order to dispose the Assembly to pay a due Obedience to His Majesty’s Commands; but what¬ ever you do of that kind, is to come as from yourself in your private Capacity, and not to let it look like any new Overture to them on the part of the Crown, as if it were not really intended to lay the matter before the Parliament.194 As stated above, coincident with the writing of this letter the communication from the agents on the progress of the Assembly’s case was being read in the House. From the latter it is evident that the representatives were using the salary as a whip to force consent to desired legislation. These letters from the agents are of added interest because one of them, Belcher, who was to be the next Governor, ex¬ presses himself as absolutely opposed to any sacrifice of liberty by fixing a permanent salary.195 His sentiments, as will be seen, underwent a surprising change when the ques¬ tion became his own to solve. The advice of the agents was literally followed; and during the summer of 1729 the House registered no change in sentiment. At a meeting in August, Burnet read the judgment of the Crown, received in the interim, on the controversy. In part this declared: “The Point contended for was to bring the Governour into a dependence upon their Good-will for his Subsistence, which would manifestly tend to the lessening of his authority, and consequently, of that Dependence which this Colony ought to have upon the Crown of Great Britain, by bringing the whole Legislative Power into the Hands of the People.” 196 194 Unsigned letter to Governor Burnet, marked Private, June 26, 1729, Tran¬ scripts, Col. Soc., pp. 1179/f. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 10, pp. 42, 43. 195 Journal, June 27, 1729, Wilks and Belcher to speaker, April 25, 1729. Letter is quoted. 196 Journal, Report of Board of Trade to Queen, May 22, 1729. Cf. entry for Aug. 20, 1729. 88 ROYAL GOVERNORS After hearing this, the House went into a committee of the whole and by a vote of fifty -four to eighteen refused to heed the instruction. Then, by resolve, they revived the two grants of the previous year, which had totaled £3,000, and to this they added an additional £3,000. Accompanying this grant of £6,000 was an address stating their perfect willing¬ ness to support the Governor, but that compliance with the royal instructions could not but “very apparently weaken, if not destroy a very valuable Priviledge belonging to the House . . . and every free-born Subject of His Majesty.” 197 At this juncture proceedings were again interrupted in a way not designed to please the House, that is, by an adjourn¬ ment to Cambridge.198 At the meeting there Burnet’s com¬ ments bore hard on their alleged loyalty to the charter by showing, first, how they were constituting themselves as judges, not inferior even to Parliament, on the interpretation of Magna Charta, to which they had affectionately referred ; second, on their positively deliberate attempt to evade the charter provisions, by passing resolves instead of acts, e.g ., for supply of the treasury, the aim being to escape action by the Governor and disallowance by the King; third, the claim that in the House was vested the right to pass on all expenditures before payment, whereas the charter placed the full power of issuance in the Governor and Coun¬ cil, the instructions deciding any possible doubt by permit¬ ting to the Assembly only the right of review after actual payment. On these grounds Burnet maintained that the representatives were defying the charter, instead of mani¬ festing attachment and loyalty, and he concluded : I have shown with how little Regard you treat the Royal Charter; I leave you to consider of the decency of your last offer to me, after that Her Majesty in Council has signified, Her appre- 197 Journal, Aug. 21 and 23, 1729. 198 Journal, Aug. 23, 1729; adjourned from that date until Aug. 27, 1729. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 89 hension that your former Offer was only made to tempt me to give up His Majesty's Instructions. This apprehension will plainly appear to be founded on the justest Suspicion to any that have seen the message of a former House of Representatives to Gov¬ ernor Shute, in July 1721, wherein they acquaint him, that it has been the constant and well approved practise of the House of Repre- sentativeSy to have all Acts , Reserves , Elections and Determinations of the Court fidly Compleat and issued before they enter upon Allow¬ ances and Gratuities , and that it is no little Concern to the House to see his Excellency press the matter of his Allowance as far as he has done. This is so unparliamentary a Method, and so visibly designed to compel a Governour to pass upon everything that is brought before him, how contrary soever to his Instructions, that it can deserve no better a name than that of a Temptation to him to break them. And now, ( Gentlemen ) I must conclude with observing, that after such a Declaration from the Crown, if you will not comply with His Majesty’s Instruction, you might at least forbear to repeat your Endeavors to seduce one of His Servants from his declared Duty. Whatever may be your senti¬ ments, I assure you that I am firmly determined to accept of nothing but what is exactly conformable to the Orders of the Crown.199 On the heels of this speech came a reproof to the House occa¬ sioned by the practice of adjourning themselves from Satur¬ days to Tuesdays. Their right in this regard extended to periods of two days only; wherefore Burnet objected to the additional expense imposed upon the province, since in this practice no business was done on Saturdays, Mondays, and Tuesdays. Again the charter was called upon for justification, the House referring to the clause empowering them to act as they judged fit for the good and welfare of the province, “and not in consequence of an Instruction.” They com¬ plained, too: “How insignificant the other Branches of this Legislature must be, if an Instruction to the Governor must 199 Journal , Aug. 27, 1729. 90 ROYAL GOVERNORS be a Rule to the General Court, or your Excellency be at Liberty to raise Money as you please for your own private Life.” Then, disclaiming any sinister motives in the matter of the extraordinarily large salary grants, they declared that these simply served to show the good will of the members. They greatly feared, too, lest he should doubt their loyalty and their anxiety for the Governor’s “Ease in the Admin¬ istration,” and for his “Ample and Honourable Support.” 200 There followed another long address from Burnet, “ not with the vain Hope” of convincing the representatives, “but, if possible, to open the eyes of [the] deluded People.” He now declared that the published statement of the agents Wilks and Belcher, to the effect that affairs would prob¬ ably never at all be laid before Parliament, was an out-and- out libel. Sentence by sentence he analyzed the preceding speech of the Assembly, showing the intentional evasions and reservations. The following statements, selected at random, will indicate the tenor of the wdiole: It is not I that demand a Salary, but His Majesty himself. You complain of Hardships brought or threatened from to Compel you to a Compliance , but you carefully avoid taking any notice of the Hardships brought and threatened by you to Governor Shute to compel him to a compliance. It is not because that it is an Instruction that it must be a Rule, but because it is Just and Right. You are very fond of comparing yourselves with that August Body [Parliament] when you speak of your own Powers, [yet[ I must remind you that you are subordinate to them, and Account¬ able to them for your Actions. It would be well for you to remember who made this Province that was once flourishing to decline so much; Even they who have ruined the Credit of it by making a Deluge of Paper Money, which your very Petitioners among the Merchants will maintain.201 200 Journal, Aug. 29 and 30, 1729. 201 Journal, Sept. 3, 1729. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 91 Thus, point by point, he exposed the false foundations of the contentions of the House wherever based upon appeal to Magna Charta and to the royal charter. And in order to impress the seriousness of the intentions of the home government, he quoted recent legislation of Parliament in connection with settlement of the disputed authority re¬ garding Ireland. Four days later, after a sudden short illness, Governor Burnet died.202 After arranging for his “Decent and Honorable Inter¬ ment/’ the House entered upon their reply to the above mentioned address, declaring the censures to be groundless, protesting their loyalty, and avoiding the issue in the salary controversy by asking whether “the Assembly have not shown as great an Inclination for your Support, as your Excellency has for the Good of this Province.” Nor could they perceive how the ordinances of New York regarding fees, a subject to be treated presently, could justify the Governor of Massachusetts in enlarging them. “And there are many other Particulars, which the House think very Exception¬ able, all which to Remark, would be very tedious.”203 The bitterness of constant controversy did not prevent the Assembly from voting for Governor Burnet’s funeral more than £1,1 00. 20 4 During the whole of his administra¬ tion the Governor had steadily refused the most tempting offers to ignore his instructions, his loyalty entailing the sacrifice of all support. According to a later calculation of the Council, there was due to him the sum of £3,400 sterl¬ ing.205 Although the Assembly in subsequent times was by no means willing to make up to his heirs the full amount, the King ordered a settlement, and the Assembly finally voted £2,500. The Council, however, insisted on the full 202 Journal, Sept. 7, 1729. 204 Journal, Sept. 26, 1729. 203 Journal, Sept. 8, 1729. 205 Journal, Jan. 2, 1731. 92 ROYAL GOVERNORS amount, and years later the Assembly compromised by granting to the heirs £3, 000. 206 In Governor Burnet’s administration there was consider¬ able trouble also because of his alleged extortion of high fees on the clearance of shipping.207 Although by no law of the province were fees allowed to the Governor for enforce¬ ment of the Acts of Trade, it had been the custom to re¬ ceive them; and in doing so, Burnet simply followed this custom as well as the legal practice in New York. He there¬ fore denied the Assembly’s charge that he was “taking what he pleased,” declaring that he had raised the custom¬ ary fee only to approximate its value in present depreciated money. The complaint of the Assembly to the King that the fees were too large resulted in later instructions pro¬ hibiting all except legal and customary fees.208 The salary controversy was by far the chief and the most absorbing incident of Burnet’s administration. Other affairs that caused conflict, but which by comparison deserve no more than the mere mention, were the disagreements over the treasury supply 209 and bills of credit,210 as well as the efforts of the House to obtain control of public expendi¬ tures 211 and attempting to take part, as usual, in the nomi¬ nation of the attorney-general.212 For another short period the Lieutenant-Governor William Dummer, followed by William Tailer, adminis¬ tered the government.213 Dummer followed the example of Burnet by immediately insisting on compliance with the 206 Cf. Journal , Jan. 2, 1731, for King’s order, dated May 8, 1730; also ibid., March 23, April 8, Nov. 2, 1731. 207 Journal, Oct. 7 and 29, 1730. 208 Ibid., Sept. 3 and 20, 1729, and May 28, 1730. 209 Ibid., July 3 and 9, 1729. 210 Ibid., Aug. 19 and Oct. 1, 24, and 31, 1728. 211 Ibid., Oct. 7, 1730. 2,2 Ibid., June 25, 1729. 213 Ibid., Sept. 8, 1729. Dummer took charge on this date; Tailer met his first Assembly June 30, 1730. EARLY DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION 93 salary instructions. Still avowing their willingness to sup¬ port the executive, the House maintained that the instruc¬ tions did not intend the salary grant to be fixed during the term of office. But the Lieutenant-Governor insisted on the plain wording of the instruction, which left no doubt. Again, in “Faithfulness to [their] Country” the House refused to comply with the requirement “as it now’ stands, for the Reasons heretofore given.” 214 Meantime, the Council was refusing concurrence in a proposed appropriation of £500 for the agents who were fighting the Assembly’s case in England.215 The only re¬ source remaining wras general subscription for funds, which was later adopted. After a prorogation to the fall the dis¬ pute continued, Dummer and the Assembly each main¬ taining their position on the salary question, and the Council declaring in the above connection that it could not support a project that aimed at overthrowing the King’s instruc¬ tions.216 Appealing to the right of petition, the House intimated that in the event of further obstruction from the Council, other means for supplying the funds would be found. A resolve then granted £5,000 to the speaker “to be used and employed according to the Direction of the House.” A subscription, which aimed at collecting £1,000 sterling, or £4,000 in bills of credit, was also taken up through the province, but with poor success.217 Shortly afterward the grant of £5,000 w as consented to by the Council, with amend¬ ments providing that £3,000 go to Burnet’s heirs, and the remainder to the agents. Long messages were exchanged, the House finally summing up its arguments in the appeal : “Self-Preservation — Salus Populi est Suprema Lex.” 218 Prorogation to the following May ended the dispute.219 214 Journal Sept. 10, 18, and 20, 1729. 215 Ibid., Sept. 4, 1729. 216 Prorogation to Nov. 19, 1729; cf. also Journal, Nov. 19 and 20 and Dec. 3, 1729. 217 Ibid., Dec. 9, 12, and 19, 1729. 218 Ibid., Dec. 19, 1729. 219 Prorogation from Dec. 20, 1729, to May 27, 1730. Cf. Journal at these dates. CHAPTER II ENLARGING INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, 1730-1760. The new Governor, Jonathan Belcher, a native, began his stormy administration of ten years on Aug. 10, 1730. 1 It should be noted that his term occurred midway between the New England Revolution of 1689 and the American Revolution of 1775-1776. During the preceding period the balance of colonial political sentiment tipped slowly over, showing definite hostility to political and economic direc¬ tion by the parent state. In spite of instructions most ex¬ plicit, and even of threats of loss of the cherished charter, the Massachusetts government, encouraged by the vacillat¬ ing and unstable policy of the ministry, henceforth brazenly resisted wherever resistance seemed expedient and to its purpose, which latter was to secure a widening of constitu¬ tional powers. At this period in its history, such phrases as “his Majesty’s displeasure,” “the royal censure,” and the like were losing, in fact had actually lost, most of their wonted awe-inspiring qualities. Governor Belcher’s principles of allegiance were most pliant — always leaning to the side that promised present advantage in the way of prestige. With change in the direction of political lights, new colors appeared in his policies. As a consequence, it was easy for Belcher to swing promiscuously in the balance. From being a staunch de¬ fender of prerogative, he had already shifted sufficiently to be elected chairman of the above mentioned Boston towTn meeting that had so strongly opposed a settled salary for Governor Burnet, and that had set up a “pattern of opposi- 1 C. M. Andrews, op. cit., p. 469. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 95 tion to the province.” 2 Perhaps it was knowledge of this instability in Belcher’s character that prompted Governor Burnet in 1729 to disapprove his election to the Council.3 Belcher, as we have seen, had also been the colony’s agent in England, sent over especially to oppose the salary in¬ structions; and it was in this capacity that he had written to the House for further information calculated to prove “how little a Governor is to be trusted with the Liberties of a People.”4 But when the news came of Burnet’s death, his passion for authority was warmed by visions of his own appointment to the chief position in the colony. Immedi¬ ately, therefore, he swung back to the side of prerogative, with most flattering promises to the Board of Trade that if appointed he would find means of enforcing tbe very instruc¬ tions that he had crossed the ocean to oppose.5 Persuaded that a popular citizen of Boston, which Belcher then was, might be better able than a stranger to secure compliance with instructions, the ministry arranged the appointment.6 In spite of these agile allegiances, however, Belcher created in England and in each of his two American provinces the same uncomplimentary impression. The fact becomes more significant when it is recalled that New Hampshire and Massachusetts were then at dagger’s points. Ordinarily, one or the other would have courted the Gov¬ ernor’s good graces, but he himself wrote: “As you observe, I am ingaged in a triple confederacy, every one contradict¬ ing the other, tho’ they agree in the main point, Delenda est Carthago, the Governour must be (if possible) unhorst.” 7 2 Chalmers, Revolt, II, 132. 3 Journal, May 29, 1729. 4 Journal, Aug. 23, 1729, Belcher and Wilks to speaker, June 7, 1729; also June 25, 1729, and Oct. 7, 1731, pp. 74/. 6 Belcher Papers, Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Series 6, VI, 18/, 2G. 8 Wilks (agent with Belcher) to House of Representatives, Journal, Oct. 7, 1730. 7 Belcher to Richard Waldron, Secretary of New Hampshire, the correspondent to whom he wrote with least reserve. Cf. Belcher Papers in Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Series G, VII, 222. 96 ROYAL GOVERNORS Governor Belcher’s arrival in the province was greeted by the usual demonstrations of welcome, after which his opening address to the General Court was eagerly awaited. He had gone to England for the express purpose of opposing the salary instructions, returning himself as Governor, and therefore with the obligation of enforcing them. His atti¬ tude on the delicate question was naturally a subject of widespread interest. The opening address, however, was for Belcher the first step in a career of endless controversy. In it he repudiated all of his recent anti-prerogative senti¬ ments by a determined insistence on compliance with the instructions that demanded a settled salary of £1,000, to be conferred by law upon himself and his successors. Thinking better to enforce the point, he made use of a simile designed to flatter and to win, but which through an unexpected in¬ terpretation was retorted against him. He compared Mas¬ sachusetts, under restraint of the royal instructions, to Cato the Younger imprisoned in Utica. Cato’s courageous stand there for the liberties of his country was certainly commendable; but not so the self-destruction that he sought in preference to submission to irresistible force. Similarly, the House ought not to resist the boundless power of the Crown. This simile was immediately carried to its logical con¬ clusion: if Caesar, whom Cato had defied, was a tyrant, then Belcher had to admit that the King also was a tyrant, and that the Assembly had therefore done well in defend¬ ing their liberties; otherwise, that the argument had no meaning.8 On the salary question Belcher received the longest in¬ structions yet issued. The ministry, although they noted the failure to obey in Burnet’s regard, nevertheless sug¬ gested that the King “Suspend his just Resentments,” and that the colony be given another opportunity of providing 8 Journal, Sept. 9, 1730. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 97 its salary of £1,000, clear of all deductions, to be paid for the time being. This was declared to be “the last Signification of [the] Royal Pleasure . . . upon that Subject/’ Then the Board of Trade in comment upon foregoing procedure declared : Their Lordships are sorry to observe, that the Assembly have not only hitherto refused to comply in any sort with the Tenor of that Instruction, but they seem likewise in some of their Answers . . . to have forgot that Decency and Respect which is always due to their Governor, who has the honor to Represent His Majesty’s Person. . . . The Consequence of which proceedings . . . must naturally be that His Majesty will find himself under a necessity of laying the Undutiful behaviour of the Province before the Legislature of Great Britain, not only in this single Instance, but in many others of the same Nature and Tendency, whereby it manifestly appears that this Assembly for some years past, have attempted by Unwarrantable Practices to weaken if not cast off the . . . Dependence which all Colonies ought to have on the Mother Country.9 The Assembly, however, would grant no more than a temporary salary, placing the first amount at £3,000. In consideration of the fact that former Governors were con¬ tent with £1,200, this sum may be regarded as a bribe to induce Belcher to accept, thus violating his instructions which required him to accept only a permanent grant of £1,000 for himself and his successors. But Belcher steadily refused, while the House rejected Council amendments pro¬ posing permanent annual grants, or at least grants made permanent during the Governor’s continuance in office. The members were careful to explain that their refusal to comply with the instructions was founded, not on disloy¬ alty to the King, but on a solicitude for the good of the province.10 9 Journal, Sept. 9, 1730. 10 Journal, Sept. 17, Oct. 1, 2, and 27, and Dec. 31, 1730. 98 ROYAL GOVERNORS . In vain Belcher repeatedly insisted on obedience to the royal wishes; similarly fruitless were his threats regarding danger to charter, and of dissolution. The Assembly, “after the most serious consideration of His Majesty’s Royal In¬ structions for fixing a Salary on his Excellency and his Successors,” together with “consideration of the Rights and Priviledges of the People,” refused to comply. They were willing honorably to support the King’s Governor, but not in the manner directed by the instructions. Never¬ theless, in the several bills that were attempted, Governor Belcher seemed to read a sort of triumph, for toward the close of the session he wrote: “The Assembly had passed an act, which, tho’ it did not come up to the full terms of the instructions, yet it is going a great way further than they have ever yet done.” 11 The Lords of Trade, however, after reading the Assembly Journal did not see much reason for this optimism; and Belcher, finally declaring that he had no faith in “all the pretences” to loyalty which they had “been able to dress up,” and in hopes of a more compliant membership, dis¬ solved the General Court on Jan. 2, 1731. 12 Thus ended the first session. Harmony was not to return during the whole ten years of his administration. Controversy continued throughout the next session, be¬ ginning with Belcher’s opening address, in which he urged obedience to the instruction on the grounds that a grant of £1,000 per annum was more economical than temporary higher grants. It should be noted that the Governor’s salary had by this time been increased from £500 to £3,000. After the failure of several drafts, and with conferences with 11 Belcher to Newcastle, Dec. 30, 1770. Cf. John Gorham Palfrey, History of New England, II, 538; also Journal, Oct. 2, 3, 16, and 28, Dec. 16 and 29, 1730, and Jan. 1, 1731. 12 Journal, Sept. 17, Oct. 2, 8, and 17, 1730, and Jan. 2, 1731. Board of Trade to Belcher, Dec. 1, 1730, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 1258. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 916, pp. 398, 399. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 99 the Council coming to naught, the House proposed sending to the King an address explaining the reasons for objection to a permanent grant. The Council was willing to join in this, provided the Assembly first passed a bill granting sup¬ port for a limited period, suggesting a ten year duration. The Governor’s patience exhausted, Belcher again dissolved the General Court in the hope of a better spirit in a new membership. According to the instructions, the Governor should at this juncture have gone to England, or have sent a substitute to report to the ministry on the salary con¬ troversy. Possibly through desire to hold his office he did neither, and the affair was placed before the King by the Lords of Trade.13 Likewise unheeded were the Governor’s urgings in his opening address to the new Assembly. A bill was finally passed, granting £5,400 for past services and for support of one year, which latter the King was requested to permit Belcher to accept. The acceptance was allowed, but an additional instruction expressly stated that it was for one year only, and that future payments were to be settled by a fixed grant to the Governor and to his successors. When the time, however, came for making the future payments, the Assembly chose to regard the King’s concession as an indorsement of their stand, and refused to deprive the peo¬ ple of their “just, rights and privileges” by complying with the instruction.14 The new Assembly also, in spite of Belcher’s exhortation, would consent to no more than a temporary grant for one year amounting to £3,000, though with a promise of similar 13 Board of Trade to Belcher, July 6, 1731, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 1266. I3. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 916, pp. 419-421. Journal, Feb. 10 and 17, March 3, 12, 27, and 31, and April 6 and 25, 1731. 14 Journal, May 27 and 28, June 4, 8, 12, and 18, and Dec. 1 and 29, 1731. For portion of text of address to King see Journal, June 29, 1737. Additional in¬ structions to Governor Belcher were issued Aug. 13, 1731. See Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 1269/. P. R. O., C. O., 324, Vol. 36, pp. 282-284. 100 ROYAL GOVERNORS grants yearly. This also Belcher received permission to accept. Later on, in support of their position, the members quoted his own words written to the speaker while Belcher was agent of the province: From the advice of the best Friends of New England, ... [I] by no means think it prudent, just or reasonable but an infringe¬ ment of the Rights vested in the People by the Royal Charter to fix a Salary on a Governor by virtue of an Instruction: Of what value is the Charter if an Instruction shall at pleasure take away every valuable part of it? 15 After considerable further dispute Belcher finally obtained leave from year to year to accept sums of £3,000 annually presented as salary. This concession, which involved a virtual defeat of England’s policy, was granted at first for one year only, and in 1735 was made general. Thus was allayed one of the causes of dispute, but difficulties con¬ tinued through Belcher’s endeavors to have the salary grants, which were paid in bills of credit, approximate the value of £1,000 sterling. Belcher’s efforts to obtain this general leave are clearly evident in the following excerpt from one of his letters : I thank you for the King’s leave for taking my money, which is in very handsome terms. Yet if it was possible & Will. Sharp, Etc., to obtain a general leave I wou’d be engag’d alwayes to allow him the yearly fees. Pray, sound him for then I shou’d not run the risq. of my life, not be kept out of my money a whole year, as now I am.16 When, however, his request that the deficits be made good proved in vain, a complaint to the King brought the order that the Governor’s salary must henceforth be £1,000 15 Journal, November 17, in a letter dated London, April 25, 1729. Journal, May 26 and June 1, 2, and 30, 1732. 16 Belcher to Richard Partridge, April 20, 1734, Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Series 6, VII, 734. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 101 sterling and not paper money.17 This order, as well as Belcher’s own repeated urgings, was consistently ignored,18 and he was forced to accept successive grants of £3,000 in paper money,19 and later, grants of £1,000 and £1,200 in new tenor bills.20 The Assembly informed the Governor that although they had, after receiving the King’s instruc¬ tions to pay Governor Burnet a sum equal to £1,000 sterling, raised the salary grant to £3,000, there had been no intention in this grant of formally complying with the instruction; and that because the amount of the salary had always been determined by the Assembly and had moreover always been paid, there could therefore be no justice in his claim for £8,000 in arrears.21 They requested also that he make no further mention of a subject tending “to revive that ancient Debate, so injurious to his Majesty’s Subjects here, and their known Rights, which they have always been advised never to give up.” 22 Attempts were also made, but without success, to pass the salary appropriation as a rider in bills for payment of the members and for supply of the treasury. The last grant, made in 1740 shortly before Belcher went out of office, was £3, 600. 23 The Assembly’s claim to the right of auditing public expenditures also caused considerable dispute. According to the instructions, the House was to raise moneys, and the 17 Journal, April 26, May 31, and June 6, 1733; April 19, 1734; April 18 and May 30, 1735. See also additional instructions to Governor Belcher Dec 11, 1733, Jan. 11 and Nov. 8, 1734, and Nov. 7, 1735, in Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 13, 18, 1322, 1336, 1385. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 917, p. 93; class 324, Vol. 36, pp. 431, 432, 487, 488; class 5, Vol. 917, pp. 149, 150. 18 Journal, June 7 and Dec. 31, 1735; May 28, June 3, Nov. 25 and 26, 1736; Feb. 1, May 27, June 20, and Oct. 14, 1737; June 14 and 15, 1738; Jan. 26 and June 14, 1739. 18 Journal, March 27 and July 6, 1736; June 28, 1737. 20 Journal, June 14 and 23, 1737; June 24, 1738. 21 Journal, June 19 and 20 and Oct. 14, and 19, 1737; Jan. 26, 1739. 22 Journal, Jan. 26, 1739. 23 Journal, June 9, 1738; June 4, 1740; June 19, 1741. 102 ROYAL GOVERNORS Governor, with the advice and consent of the Council, was to see to their issuance. To the Assembly was permitted simply investigation as to the purposes for which public funds had been utilized.24 This regulation was occasioned by a complaint from the representatives in 1729 to the effect that Governor Burnet was refusing approval of their method of providing supply for the treasury for the current year, i.e., by resolve instead of by act. The terms of this resolve reserved to the Assembly full right to decide on the payment of accounts even after service had been performed, which amounted to a limitation of the power vested by charter in the Governor, as above described, for issuance of public funds. Hence the royal instruction prohibiting, in acts for raising money, any clauses of specific determination, and limiting the Assembly’s powTer to investigation of expendi¬ tures post factum only. In 1731 a petition on this subject from the Assembly was rejected by the King on the ground that the representatives were reaching out for powers not wielded by even the House of Commons.25 Again in 1733, as will be mentioned later, a second petition for withdrawal of the instruction was even more emphatically refused.26 This controversy in detail will be described in the following paragraphs. From the very first, the Assembly insisted upon the right to inspect and to pass upon intended expenditures before payment was made, proposing also an address to the King on the subject. Matters were not smoothed over when Governor Belcher bluntly informed them that in future the accounts of the province would be passed upon and paid by action of the Governor and Council only. The House, how¬ ever, by way of protection, persisted in inserting in appro- 24 Journal, March 10, 1731. See Instructions to Governor Belcher, Art. 31, Transcripts, sup. cit., Art. 31. 26 Report of Committee of Privy Council, May 10, 1733, Journal, Aug. 25, 1733. 26 See infra, pp. 291, 293. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 103 priation bills provision for specific application; and as a result, dispute arose with the Council also when its con¬ currence was refused. In order not to leave the essential needs of Government unprovided for, the Assembly finally passed a bill in accordance with the instructions and was immediately dissolved.27 When the new Assembly convened on May 26, 1731, the struggle was renewed. Supply bills were again rejected on the ground that they violated the instruction by giving to the Assembly the right of auditing. Belcher refused a re¬ quest for a recess because there was still owing to the people of the province £10,000 and the treasury was yet empty. He was therefore constrained to continue the session until proper provision should be made.28 Weeks of fruitless con¬ troversy ensued, with the Assembly still refusing to yield its position, the members citing the example of the British House of Commons in referring to the electors ‘‘matters of a new and unusual nature . . . that affect the Nation.” They decided, therefore, to follow this precedent by referring the question to the people in town meetings. To Governor Belcher they declared that “Restrictions and Limitations as to the issuing of Publick Money” were “just and reasonable, as well as necessary for the public Welfare and Safety . . . and whatever Mischiefs and Inconveniences may happen to the Province by the Treasury’s remaining empty must be attributed to the Instructions as understood and improved by the Governor.” Pending the verdict of the constituents a recess was again requested.29 This imputation that Belcher had interpreted the instruc¬ tions to fit his own case apparently irritated him, for he at once read to the House the express order that declared against 27 Journal, March 10, April 2, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, and 25, 1731. The amount of support was £6,000. For instructions on this question, see Tran¬ scripts, sup. cit.. Art. 31. 28 Journal , June 5, 11, 12, 20, 28, and 30 and July 7, 9, 20, and 28, 1731. 29 Journal, Aug. 21, 1731; see also ibid., Aug. 18, 1731. 104 ROYAL GOVERNORS the “unwarrantable Practice ... of reserving to the . . . Assembly, a power of determining what accounts shall or shall not be paid, even after Service performed” . . . , and requiring that the Governor “take care for the future, that the passing all Accounts for Payment, and the issuing all Monies so raised, or Bills of Credit, be left to Our Governour . . . with the Advice and Consent of Our Council, according to their Charter.” 30 Belcher added also the warning that the present dispute was in effect a quarrel with the King himself. In the next session, which opened Dec. 1, 1731, the controversy continued. Belcher still refused to violate his instruction by approving the supply bills in the manner in which they were formulated; the House on its part re¬ fused to pass them in accordance with the instruction, laying the responsibility for the consequent empty treasury on the Council and the Governor, who had rejected every bill that was offered. In the “Referendum” only two towns had advised compliance with the instruction, and the repre¬ sentatives wrere therefore more determined than ever not to obey, in spite of the fact that their address to the King requesting withdrawal of the instruction was not being favorably considered.31 Consent, in their estimation, was “much the same as to agree that the Governor and Council should tax the people.” They were therefore unwilling to “prostitute the Money in the Treasury to the unaccountable and uncontrollable Will and Pleasure of the Governor and Four of his Council to be pick'd out of Twenty -Eight.” We shall act neither like Englishmen nor Rational Creatures, to comply with the Instruction, and put our Money into the Treas¬ ury, to be drawn out for we know not what, when it is drawn out tho’ never so unreasonably, we can have no Restitution or Relief.32 30 Journal , Aug. 25, 1731. 31 Journal, Dec. 14, 15, 16, 24, and 29, 1731; cf. also letter from province agent, quoted by Belcher, ibid., Feb. 2, 1732. 32 Journal, Jan. 20, 1732; see also Feb. 2, 1732. Seven Councillors constituted a quorum, of whom four made a majority. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 105 The Governor, with a repeated warning that such pro¬ ceedings were tantamount to positive defiance of the King, observed that it would “look mean and dishonourable in the Eye of the whole World that [they] had taken effectual care for the Payment of [their own] daily service, . . . but have for near Twelve Months past entirely neglected the Payment of all the Garrisons,” from which complaints were coming that the men wTere freezing, and their wives and children on the verge of starvation. Certainly it cannot be thought Reasonable that they and all others must be kept out of their just Dues till you can perswade his Majesty to say . . . That what he has directed to in supply of the Treasury, Is inconsistent with the Charter . . . when he has already said that what you desire is expressly contrary to it.33 Belcher then declared his belief that the purpose of the Assembly m raising these difficulties was simply to gain control of powers that by charter were expressly reserved to the Governor and Council. A series of prorogations followed, and the session came to an end by dissolution on March 31, 1732. 34 Meanwhile, Governor Belcher had received additional in¬ structions in confirmation of the previous ones concerning the treasury supply, and setting aside the petition in the Assembly’s recent address. These he announced in his open¬ ing address to the new Assembly on June 1, 1732, again urging compliance. A bill for £50,000 was soon passed, but in the old manner, and Belcher therefore refused consent. The House, after examining the treasurer’s accounts and remonstrating that many payments were being made on the warrant of Governor and Council only, complained that compliance with the instructions meant loss of rightful powers. From the fact that the Council, which by charter was the official adviser of the Governor, had concurred in the 33 Journal , Feb. 2, 1732. 34 Journal , Feb. 2, 1732. 106 ROYAL GOVERNORS disputed supply bill, the House argued that Belcher ought not to reject the implied advice to give his consent. The power granted by charter to the Assembly to concur in the making of all laws was construed to include also the power to make laws regulating the method of meeting public ex¬ penditures; while the power of disposal of public moneys, which the charter conferred upon the Governor and Council, was interpreted by the Assembly as having effect only after the Assembly had passed upon all expenditures. With these arguments the representatives also stated that their purpose in insisting upon the auditing privilege was to prevent further misapplication of public funds. Precedent was also appealed to; and as to relief for unpaid servants of the government, this, they said, would come when the King withdrew the objectionable instructions.35 After an adjournment of several months 36 Belcher again reminded the members of the empty treasury, of the conse¬ quent injustice to public creditors, and of his determination to carry out the royal instructions. With but one dissenting vote, the Assembly refused to comply and thereby to de¬ stroy the “Powers and Privileges granted ... in the Royal Charter.” There had been ample opportunity during the recess for the representatives to determine the mind of their constituents, and the members in consequence became even more determined to insist upon their alleged right. On the Governor himself, by reason of his rejection of frequent supply bills, was laid the responsibility for the empty treas¬ ury. They noted also, and complained, that in his censures Belcher addressed the House only; whereas the Council also had concurred in the rejected bills. And they quoted from his own letters, written while he was yet agent for the province, in which he advised “in the strongest and plainest terms . . . the vast hazards, damages, and inconveniences 36 Journal, June 1, 9, 15, 27, and 30, 1732. 36 From July 7 to Nov. 1, 1732. See Journal at these dates. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 107 to which the Governor had exposed the King’s Province and all the good People therein, by not giving his Assent to the Bill for Supply of the Treasury.” 37 This was compared with the words of his last address, in which he was determined to refuse assent “to any other supply of the Treasury than what his Majesty has directed to and said is agreeable to the Charter,” and which he had “always truly and uprightly thought to be so.” 38 Once more it was decided to send to the King an address setting forth, in connection with the royal instructions, the rights granted by the charter; and in the event of failure of this address, still another to the House of Commons, pe¬ titioning action by that body in favor of withdrawal of the instructions.39 Shortly afterward an additional supply bill was drafted, but “for certain Ends and Purposes.” Belcher therefore again urged compliance, reminding the House of yet another portion of his letters written while agent, in which he had advised against insisting on the right now in dispute. He also intimated that the support denied by the Assembly might yet be granted by the King himself; and that the contemplated address to the House of Commons would be highly offensive, inasmuch as it practically constituted the Commons as judges of the actions of the Crown.40 A further adjournment followed, after which Governor Belcher again tried to secure obedience to the instructions; but the Assembly replied by expressing resentment at the insinuations of discord and strife contained in a previous ad¬ dress. They repudiated these charges by reminding Belcher that in all proceedings of the House on the supply question, the votes in opposition to the instructions had been almost unanimous; hence that there was not “the least lisp of Strife 37 Journal, Nov. 18, 1732; see also ibid., Nov. 2, 8, and 17, 1732. 38 Journal, Nov. 18, 1732. 39 Journal, Dec. 15, 1732. 40 Journal, Dec. 16, 1732, and Jan. 4, 1733. 108 ROYAL GOVERNORS or Contention, for a wonderful Harmony and a good Agree¬ ment among the members of the House appeared from first to last.” 41 Still maintaining that the charter had precedence of authority over the royal instructions, the representatives reasoned that the Governor should not permit his instruc¬ tions to interfere with assent to bills for supply of the treas¬ ury. They determined also to send no more petitions asking leave for the Governor to give assent, arguing that such petitions implied subordination of the charter, and were therefore 44 destructive of the Liberties of the People.” And to pass bills in accordance with the instructions would be 44 To basely betray their Trust, recede from the Sentiments given them by their Principals, act against the Conscience of Light and Reason; and bring upon themselves the scorn, hatred and infamy of all Men that are Lovers of Virtue; and in so doing we should give a wound incurable to our Constitution.42 Nor in this attitude could they see any implications of disloyalty; they felt, on the contrary, that true loyalty demanded opposition to, rather than compliance with royal instructions that would 44 destroy their Liberty, which is the Gift of God and Nature.” Referring then to agent Belcher’s zeal in opposition to the prerogative, they reminded him that “the Cause and Interest of the People is the same now as then, tho’ your Excellency’s State and Con¬ dition is much altered;” also that he did not then “deem the Noncompliance of the House with His Majesty’s Royal Instructions, Disloyal, Undutiful, or Disrespectful to His Majesty;” and openly they accused him of betraying his trust for a price : When your Excellency (acting as agent) at the Committee of Council (at Whitehall) gave in as you did on the Article of the Treasury, the Death of Governour Burnet had reached you, and 41 Journal, Jan. 4 to April 4, 1733 (adjournment), and April 10, 1733. 42 Journal, April 11, 1733. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 109 it’s very probable at that very juncture, Your Excellency had some expectation of His Majesty’s Royal Commission for this Government.43 After which came the Assembly’s statement of its claims in the dispute: All that this or former Assemblies have endeavored is, to pre¬ serve the Powers granted by Charter to the General Court, in making Laws as well for the Support of the Government, as any other Affair; that when their Constituents’ Money is brought into the Treasury, good and wholesome Laws might be enacted, con¬ taining Restrictions, Limitations and Rules, in observance of which, the Money would be issued and disposed of by your Excellency with the advice and consent of His Majesty’s Council, for the Ends and Purposes for which the People were taxed. This is a Liberty His Majesty’s Colonies and Plantations are in the Use and En¬ joyment of, notwithstanding the strong and repeated Efforts some of them have of late met with, to perswade and induce them to give it up.44 In spite of concerted opposition, Governor Belcher de¬ feated a further attempt to pass a bill in violation of the in¬ structions. The last petition of the House to the King was also soon afterward set aside, “in such strong terms” said the Governor, “as leaves no colour for suspending the supply of the treasury.” The proceedings in general met with strong censure from the Privy Council, which declared that the Assembly’s attitude: Evidently shows that design is to assume to themselves the Executive Power of the Government . . . , and has a direct tendency to throw off their dependence on Great Britain. . . . And ... if the said Assembly shall still persist in their Refusal to supply the Treasury of the Province, so that neither the Soldiers can be paid, the Fortifications be kept up, the Dignity of your Majesty’s Government supported, nor the Security of the Province 43 Journal, April 10, 1733. 44 Journal, April 10, 1733. 110 ROYAL GOVERNORS provided for, they will be answerable for all the Consequences of their own ill-Conduct.45 The adverse decision above referred to was regarded by the House as a divine visitation, and Belcher was requested, though in vain, to appoint a day of “publick prayer and humiliation.” By this defeat was greatly aggravated the obstinacy of the House; and the Governor’s difficulty in handling simultaneously the controversies in progress over salary and paper money questions was considerably in¬ creased. After months of further delay and dispute, a supply bill was finally agreed upon toward the end of 1733. 46 Incidental to this struggle over supply of the treasury there existed difficulties concerning provision for upkeep and improvement of the defenses of the province. Except in rare cases the House refused to provide even for necessities, such as repairs for fortifications, salaries for the soldiers, etc. Some action was finally taken, however, when various towns sent in petitions on this head, and it was then determined to ask the King to assist by granting military supplies. Until the very end of Belcher’s term disputes upon this subject were in progress. His repeated appeals fell on deaf ears until almost the close of his administration when the war against Spain forced the Assembly to co-operation.47 Noteworthy controversy on the subject occurred early in 1741, when the Governor rejected a bill providing military repairs on Castle William. This measure reserved to the Assembly the right to determine the person or persons who would purchase supplies and hire the workmen — details which Belcher de- 45 Report of Committee of Privy Council to King, May 10, 1733. See Journal, Aug. 25, 1733. 46 Journal, Aug. 16 and 25, Oct. 9 to 26, and Nov. 2, 1733. 47 Journal, Nov. 1 and 6, 1733; Jan. 29, Feb. 6, 23, 27, and 28, April 10, 11, 16, and 17, May 31 and June 14, 1734; May 28, 1735; Feb. 3 and Nov. 25, 1736; Feb. 3, 1737; Nov. 29, 1738; May 31 and Sept. 19, 1739; May 29, June 23 and 30, July 3, 9 and 11, Aug. 22 and 29, and Sept. 6, 1740. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 111 dared were vested in the Governor. In vain the Assembly requested him to deliver them from the dilemma of either “parting with their ancient Liberty and Usage in this Affair,” or of leaving the province defenseless, which latter they con¬ sidered a “truly shocking” state of affairs. But pending sanction of the King, Belcher refused to yield. An adjourn¬ ment intervened, after which the representatives intimated that if the King refused to approve, the Assembly would refuse to raise money for defense. To Belcher’s further recommendation for provisioning Castle William they re¬ plied that nothing would be done except in their own manner. The General Court was dissolved soon after, and the matter did not come up again until the arrival of Governor Belcher’s successor, William Shirley.48 Meanwhile, trouble over the general supply of the treasury had continued. As has been noted, the custom had become practically established of granting the supply by issuing bills of credit to be drawn in at a future date. By the royal in¬ structions, however, was forbidden the issue of any bills to be current after 1741. Hence, with the various sums already due in that year, the Assembly hesitated to burden the province by further issues with the same date for redemption. The only expedient was to extend the issue beyond 1741; and it was this that Belcher, in obedience to his instructions, opposed, and which therefore aggravated the already dis¬ turbed situation. After the Council had failed to concur in one supply bill, the House attempted to force its position by including in the supply bill certain other indispensably neces¬ sary items. This method of procedure was in itself contrary to the instructions, and Belcher again issued a veto. But the Assembly maintained its stand, refusing to yield even after Belcher had cited, by way of reminder, the strongly phrased refusal of their petition in this matter to the House of Commons: 48 Journal, Jan. 8 and April 2, 6, 7, and 25, 1741. 112 ROYAL GOVERNORS Resolved, That the Complaint contained in this Memorial and Petition, is frivolous and groundless, an high Insult upon His Majesty’s Government, and tending to shake off the Dependence of the said Colony upon this Kingdom to which by Law and Right they are and ought to be subject. Ordered , That the said Memorial and Petition be rejected.49 In rejoinder appeared the following entry in the Journal , praying that: “God would be pleased to give such Direction to the General Court, that they may be the happy Instru¬ ments under God of delivering this People in some Measure from their great Distress and Danger.” 50 For the same reason, supply bills that were passed by the new Assembly of 1741 also failed; and when Belcher re¬ linquished the government to William Shirley the problem was still unsolved.51 On the question of bills of credit also, there was con¬ siderable disturbance. Owing to the scarcity as well as the variety of currency, paper money was regarded as a necessary recourse. Soon, however, in order to meet the public debts, issues had increased to such an extent that paper money became practically the only method of payment. Hence the instructions to Governor Shute in 1720 requiring in all paper money bills, with the exception of those for raising revenue to support the Government, a suspending clause. This ex¬ ception was utilized by the representatives as an excuse for further issues, with consequent increase in the amount of paper money in the province, and a drop of one third in its value. As a result, Governor Burnet was instructed in 1727 not to assent to any issue, except with a suspending clause. When Governor Belcher encountered the consequent diffi¬ culty of obtaining supply for the treasury, he requested as 49 Journal, Oct. 9, 1739. 50 Journal, June 4, 1741; see also ibid., June 1-14, and Dec. 28, 1738; Jan. 3-6, June 28, and July 6 and 11, 1739; March 14, 1740. 51 Journal, June 14 and 23, July 3, and Nov. 22, 1740; Jan. 9, 1741. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 113 the only means of securing the annual supply, permission to assent to further issues. This was granted for amounts not exceeding £30,000 and intended solely for support of the Government. The instructions required also that he take care that bills then outstanding be punctually redeemed.52 Belcher therefore refused to approve any new issues until the old ones had been redeemed. The Council also made trouble by non-concurring a bill for £50,000 and by a pro¬ posed address to the King petitioning withdrawal of the instructions. Despite the instructions, attempts were twice made to pass the £50,000 issue, but Belcher firmly refused on the grounds that the bills were intended for supply of the treasury, and in a manner prohibited by the instructions. The Assembly remained obdurate, however, refusing to grant supply in any form that would deprive the members of power to audit expenditures.53 In May, 1732, Belcher announced the King’s rejection of the Assembly’s petition for withdrawal of the instruction limiting paper money issues to £30,000. But the repre¬ sentatives were set upon a bill for issuing £50,000 and after further discussion decided to address the King, again setting forth as in the case of the treasury supply the rights granted in the charter, and explaining the implied interference with these rights as enjoined by the royal instructions. In the event of failure of this address, the Commons were then to be petitioned to act in behalf of withdrawal of the instruc¬ tions. When this petition also had been refused, so keen was the disappointment of the House that the affair was re¬ garded as a mark of divine displeasure and the Governor 62 Instructions to Governor Belcher, May 8, 1730. Articles 16, 18, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 1198, 1199. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 916, pp. 276, 327; see also Report of Committee of Privy Council to the King, May 10, 1733, in Journal, Aug. 25, 1733. Copy of the instructions is also contained ibid., Dec. 16, 1730. 63 Journal , April 2 and 6, June 25 and 29, July 2, 6, 7, 9, 13 and 16, and Dec. 24, 1731. Attempts to pass 50,000 issues were made on July 2 and Dec. 24, 1731; see also ibid., Jan. 7 and 20, 1732. 114 ROYAL GOVERNORS was requested, as above described, to appoint a day of public prayer and humiliation.54 After months of resistance, and the failure of an attempt to pass an issue exceeding £75,000, the House finally drafted a bill in accordance with the instruc¬ tions.55 Trouble continued, however, when the Assembly paid no heed to Governor Belcher’s reminder of the constant depreciation in the value of bills of credit and his repeated suggestions for measures of stabilization.56 From this time the Governor’s greatest difficulties lay in his efforts to secure standardization of value,57 to prevent issues in excess of £30,000, the amount permitted by his instructions,58 and to persuade redemption of outstanding bills.59 In his efforts to secure redemption of outstanding bills, as required by instructions, Belcher had considerable difficulty and received in 1737 an additional instruction reminding him that in the space of only seven months there had been three issues of more than £106,000 in bills of credit which ought already to have been redeemed. He was therefore strictly enjoined to consent to no further issues except for the annual support of the Government, and then not in excess of £30,000.60 In 1740 came still further instructions canceling the usual exception regarding issues not exceeding £30,000, and forbidding his assent to any issues without a suspending clause. Immediately the House requested a day of prayer, 54 Journal , May 26, June 9, July 5, Nov. 2 and 17, and Dec. 15, 1732; Aug. 16, 1733. 55 Journal , Oct. 3, 25, and 30, and Nov. 7, 1733; May 31, June 27, and July 4, 1734. 56 Journal, Nov. 22 and Dec. 23, 1734; May 30, July 5, and Dec. 27, 1735; March 19, 1736. 57 Journal, Nov. 25, 1736; June 1, 1738; May 31, 1739. 58 Journal, July 5, 1736; Jan. 5, 1737; Jan. 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13, June 28, and July 5 and 11, 1739; March 14, 19, and 25, and Dec. 19, 1740. 69 Journal, Jan. 13, July 5, and Dec. 5, 18, 20, and 26, 1739; March 14, 1740. 60 Additional instructions to Governor Belcher, April 30, 1737, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 1409, 1410. P. R. O., C. O., 324, Vol. 37, pp. 56-58. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 115 following the request by an attempt to pass an issue of £110, 000. 61 On the last day of the session that ended Jan. 8, 1741, Belcher, in rejecting this £110,000 bill declared that the representatives “very well knew it could not pass into a Law; it being made in the Face of several of His Majesty’s Royal Orders.” And he continued: “How vainly are you now struggling to avoid His Majesty’s Directions as to the Supply of the Treasury, which you will doubtless find, must finally take place.” These orders from the King prohibited, except with a sus¬ pending clause, even the emission of the previously allowed sum of £30,000. Perhaps owing to the consequent difficulties of securing paper money issues, the House began to look with more favor on what was known as the Land Bank scheme, to which formerly the members had been greatly opposed. At any rate, about this time Belcher was censuring them for not joining the Council in measures to suppress the project, but seeming rather “to Countenance this iniquitous Contrivance and Combination.” 62 This Land Bank affair resulted from the co-operation of certain merchants of Boston, who in order to provide a medium of trade formed a banking corporation and issued bills. Later, for the same purpose, and during the period now under discussion, the so-called Land Bank Company of 800 members was formed with plans of issuing £600,000. The opposition of Governor Belcher and of many others provoked all but a revolu¬ tion in the colony. This period was one of crisis in the history of Massachusetts, furnishing to the leaders no inconsiderable part of their training in revolutionary policies.63 In reply to Belcher’s reminder that the King himself, in 01 Board of Trade to Belcher, Aug. 5, 1740, Transcripts , Col. Soc., pp. 15, 1 6/f. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 900, fos. 19, 20; see also Journal, Nov. 26 and 29, and Dec. 19, 1740. 62 Journal, Jan. 9, 1741. 63 Belcher Papers, Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Series 6, VII, 369. 116 ROYAL GOVERNORS the person of the royal Governor, was virtually present in the General Court, and to his suggestion of consequent obedience to the royal instructions, the representatives ob¬ served that “for that very Reason no doubt it is, that the royal Charter gives full Power to the Governor and to other Branches of the Court to render effectual their Laws without Suspension .” 64 Meanwhile the hostile party was endeavoring to affect Belcher’s removal.65 Partly through the intense opposition resulting from his active disapprobation of the Land Bank scheme these intrigues were successful. As the Governor himself wrote, “ the Land Bank does . . . affect every affair in the Assembly, and throughout the province.” Its sup¬ porters were apparently prepared to defy even Parliamentary procedure against it: I assure you the concerned openly declare they defye any act of Parliament to be able to do it. They are grown so brassy & hardy as to be now combining in a body to raise a rebellion, and the day set for their coming to this town is at the Election (27th instant), and their Treasurer, I am told, is in the bottom of the design, and I doubt it not. I have this day sent the Sherriffe and his officers to apprehend some of the heads of the conspirators, so you see we are becoming ripe for a smarter sort of government. What the act of Parliament will be, respecting this vile, wicked projection, I can’t tell, but if it be no better than the bill I have seen, it will by no means answer the end. The common people here are taught by their advisers to believe they are pretty much out of the reach of the government at home; nay, our Assembly are sometimes made to think by their leaders that they are as big as the Parliament of Great Britain, but surely as occasions require, I can’t help thinking we shall alwayes to our loss and cost find otherwise.66 64 Journal, April 2, 1741. (Italics inserted.) 66 Belcher Papers, Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Series 6, VII, pp. 222^/f., 263, 297, 351, 402, and passim. 66 Ibid., p. 388. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 117 At the same time Belcher thus wrote: “I expect no supply of the treasury this year, no debts to be paid, no government to be supported or defended.” The “honour” of the Massa¬ chusetts Government he declared he “wouldn’t trust for an old pair of shoes.”67 Two weeks later the Assembly newly elected for 1741 convened.68 At one stroke Belcher negatived thirteen of the twenty-eight Councillors because of their connection with the Land Bank venture; and on the same day, before the Assembly had begun to function, he dissolved the General Court. His address was, in part, as follows: Gentlemen of the House of Representatives , The management of the elections made yesterday, discover to me so much of the inclination of your house to support the fraudu¬ lent, pernicious scheme commonly called the Land Bank, con¬ demned at home by his Majesty and both Houses of Parliament of Great Britain; that I judge it derogatory to the King’s honor and service, and consistent with the peace and welfare of this people, that you sit any longer in General Assembly, . . ,69 Before the meeting of the next Assembly, July 8, 1741, news arrived of the appointment in Governor Belcher’s stead of William Shirley.70 Keenly disappointed at what he termed the “melancholy tydings,” Belcher wrote: I must needs own, it gives me a terrible shock, and the more so, when I consider how faithfull I have been to the King; and after all to be turn’d out without fault or complaint I think must be a great discouragement to all faithfull servants; but I plainly see truth and justice must never stand in the way of the ease & con- veniency of great men.71 67 Belcher Papers, Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Series 6, VII, p. 388. 68 Journal, May 27, 1741. 69 Journal, May 27 and 28, 1741. 70 Ibid., July 8, 1741. Belcher Papers, Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Series 6, VII, 402. At this time New Hampshire was separated from joint government with Massa¬ chusetts, and Benning Wentworth appointed as Independent Governor. 71 Belcher Papers, Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Series G, VII, 402. 118 ROYAL GOVERNORS Belcher’s last important act in this controversy was the rejection on July 31, 1741, of a bill for issuing £200,000. Soon afterward the new Governor, William Shirlev, met the General Court; 72 thereafter Belcher’s term became in the minds of the colonists only another addition to an increasingly long list of disagreeable mem¬ ories. The chief points of controversy under Governor Belcher have now been described, and in general regarded the supply of the treasury, paper money issues, and payment of salary. Other disputes of minor importance were occasioned by the Assembly’s effort to increase membership through erection of new towns;73 in an attempt at self-adjournment,74 and to elect in seven successive years the attorney -general, an officer appointed by the King.75 Considerable trouble was caused also by the Land Bank affair,76 by the Assembly’s control of the province agent;77 the attempt to enlarge the salaries of members,78 the Governor’s disapproval of the speaker,79 the appointment of committees of the house to function outside of sessions,80 the question of military re¬ pairs and especially defense of Fort Pemaquid and of Castle 72 See Journal , entries for July 31 and Aug. 17, 1741. 73 Journal, May 28, June 3, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, and 29, July 14 and 15 and Dec. 18 and 23, 1731; Jan. 13 and June 14, 15, and 20, 1732; Feb. 11 and 25, March 4, and June 21, 1734; Dec. 25, 1737; Jan. 5 and June 15, 1738; June 7, 1740, and passim. 74 Journal, July 13 and 16, 1731. 75 Ibid., July 4, 1732; June 22, 1733; June 16, 1734; June 28, 1735; June 22, 1736; June 29, 1738; July 9, 1740. 76 See supra, pp. 29 )$.; also Journal, March 18, 1730; June 9 and 10, 1731; Jan. 14 and Dec. 29, 1732; Nov. 6 and 7, 1733; July 4, 1734; April 11, May 30, and June 3 and 5, 1735; March 24, 1736; Nov. 22, 1740. 77 Journal, Dec. 4, 1731; July 16, 1741. 78 Journal, Dec. 21 and 30, 1736. 79 Journal, May 30, 1739. After Paul Dudley was disapproved for speaker, the House elected him to the Council, and Belcher again negatived the choice; see ibid.. May 31, 1739. 80 Journal, Jan. 4, 1732; Aug. 25, 1733; July 4, 1734; June 28, 1739. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 119 William,81 the disallowance of an act to determine the number and regulation of the House of Representatives, and the in¬ structions prohibiting Acts in repeal of laws already in existence.82 Early in these fruitless contests, Governor Belcher, adopt¬ ing an adroit spoils policy, had begun to fill the public offices with political friends. This method of procedure, aside from the rather ominous precedents under the Andros administra¬ tion, was an innovation, which was rendered even more ob¬ noxious by Belcher’s claim that all appointees to office under the Governor were subject to removal by each new executive. Even the younger Cooke, through acceptance of a judgeship, fell greatly in the public esteem.83 Ultimately this policy served only to increase the Governor’s difficulties. The policies of Governor Belcher and nearly all of his failings were a consequence of his passion for prestige.84 Prestige w^as his ambition — for the attainment of which no price was too great. To this end were sacrificed friends, fortune, peace of mind, and even principle. He sought and clung to the governorship, not merely for its own sake, for it brought neither pay nor peace and only strife, but chiefly for the prestige it implied. Hence his bemoaning the threat¬ ened loss of little New Hampshire, and his struggle, even to the extent of employing questionable tactics, to prevent it.85 He courted the prerogative for the same reason that he had previously courted the place of colonial agent, when that office implied a protest against prerogative, but gave him 81 Journal, Aug. 25 and Nov. 1, 1733, and passim; see also Board of Trade to Belcher, July 9, 1740, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 1502/f. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 917, pp. 325Jf.; also letter from the King to Belcher, Nov. 12, 1730, ibid., p. 1257. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 871 (page reference is omitted from Transcripts) . 82 Journal, Nov. 30, 1732; Jan. 14, 1738. 83 Chalmers, Revolt, II, 133; Windsor, op. cit., V, 133. 84 This statement is based upon examination of Belcher’s printed correspondence, as contained in the Belcher Papers, Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Series G, VI, VII. 86 Cf. supra, pp. 23 ff. Belcher Papers , Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Series 0, VII, 402. 120 ROYAL GOVERNORS some prominence over his fellows. To “swing around the circle” in pursuit of his ambition was easy to him, even when the shifting required unscrupulous manipulation. His other faults, — obsequiousness, hypercritical adulation of superiors,86 petty officiousness, want of tact and of consider¬ ation,87 duplicity,88 inordinate love of wealth, fondness for display,89 readiness to take offence, harshness toward debtors, ostentatious piety,90 — these and the rest that are charged against him were simply handmaids to his ruling ambition for prestige. With a character so doubtfully dependable, Belcher’s occasional strong opposition to the Assembly may seem sur¬ prising. But his strength lay in his ambition. It should be noted that at the time of his firmest stand in the conflict over auditing the treasury accounts, his influence with the ministry was very uncertain; both Bladen and Newcastle were withdrawing their patronage.91 It therefore behooved Belcher, if he was to prop up his threatened prestige, to build himself a platform by showing vigorous effort in behalf of the prerogative. His vehemently loyal attitude on other occasions also is similarly explained. Excerpts from his letters, of which the following is typical, corroborate this: I had almost forgot to say that I believe my message to the Representatives of this Province in their last session, where I so much asserted the King’s honour & stuck so close to his instruc¬ tions will be of good service to me among the King’s ministers.92 It may be noted also that Belcher’s ardor in enforcing the salary instructions died out as soon as the Assembly’s refusal 86 Belcher Papers, Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., VI, 31, 49, 52, 65, 125, 127, 211, 86, 138, and passim. 87 Belcher Papers, Mass. Hist. Soc., Coll., VII, 307, and passim. 88 Ibid., VI, 322, 336, 338/. 89 Ibid., VI, 371, 211, 307. 90 Ibid., Series 6, VI, 341, 357; VII, 193, 336. 91 George Arthur Wood, op. cit., p. 49. 92 Belcher Papers, Mass. Hist. Soc., Coll., Series 6, VII, 238. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 121 became absolute — the refusal might for him entail a financial loss. Therefore he was soon writing for a relaxation of the instructions even at the expense of the prerogative. Where he himself was not to be the loser, he seemed perfectly willing that the Assembly should gain its point. Belcher was a loyal advocate of whatever interests coincided with his own. That Governor Belcher’s administration resulted in weakening England’s hold upon the colonies is beyond ques¬ tion. In the matter of salary still another victory had been practically won. Complete triumph in this conflict was to come under the next Governor. Moreover, in increasing disregard of royal instructions the aggressive House had pro¬ ceeded with impunity. To strengthen the consequent weakening hold, to restrain the ever-growing tendencies toward independence, to transform into filial dependence a waning allegiance was the gigantic task that confronted the new Governor, William Shirlev. George Washington had a high opinion of Shirley: “I think his every word and action discover him a gentleman and politician.”93 On the other hand, John Adams thus de¬ scribed him: “A crafty, busy, ambitious, intriguing, enter¬ prising man; and having mounted to the chair in this province, he saw in a young, growing country vast prospects opening before his eyes, and conceived great designs of aggrandizing himself, his family, and his friends.”94 By birth as well as sympathy an Englishman, by profession a lawyer, and in early life blessed with neither fortune nor opportunity, Shirley passed many years as an office-seeker and finally secured the position of Governor of Massachu¬ setts. His appointment was received with general satisfac¬ tion, and the early years of his administration won the 93 Washington to Fairfax, April 20, 1755, Works, II, 74. Quoted by Barry, op. cit., II, 183. 94 John Adams, Novanglus, in Works, IV, 18/f. 122 ROYAL GOVERNORS confidence of both provincial and Crown interests.95 This striking contrast with the experiences of his predecessor was due in part to two very favorable circumstances, — the cessation of struggle over the salary question, and the satis¬ faction and good will that followed the Louisburg victory, which latter was due in large measure to Shirley’s own per¬ sistent labors. Governor Shirley entered upon his duties with full appre¬ ciation of the difficulties involved : I am sensible, My Lord Duke, that I am now entring upon the Governmt of a province, where Col. Shute quitted the Chair, & Mr. Burnet broke his heart thro the Temper and Opposition of the people; & Mr. Belcher in the midst of his Countrymen fail’d of carrying any one of those points for the Crown, which might have been expected from him; and that I enter upon it at a time, when an empty Treasury, an Aversion in the House of Repre¬ sentatives to supply it conformably to his Majy’s last Instruction; a weak and Ruinous Condition of their Fortifications, a bad Spirit rais’d throughout the Country by the Land Bank Scheme, by means of it’s being conniv’d at here in it’s first rise, remaining un¬ check’d so long, that the imprudt manner of endeavouring to check it here afterwards by those who were at the same time en¬ deavouring to support & countenance it at home . . . , only in¬ flamed it; & Mr. Belcher’s constant acceptance from year to year of a Diminished Salary, after he had obtain’d leave to take it without insisting upon his Majesty’s Instruction on that head, the value of which is by that means sunk from about 10001. Sterl. which had been allow’d by the Genl Court to Governr Burnett and himself with a promise to the former of ’em to continue as ample an Allowance, down to the Value of 6501. Sterl. which seems to have been done by him with some particular View of his own, to secure his station by the smallness of his Salary; are what make up the present Scene of Affairs in the province, whereupon the House of Representatives tell me in their Address, that they 95 George Arthur Wood, The Public Life of William Shirley, pp. 14, 34-100. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 123 are concern’d my Accession to the Chair should be attended with such Difficulties.” 96 During the first few sessions, except for a disagreement on the salary question, there was general tranquillity. Shirley was determined not to follow the example of his predecessor in accepting, for the sake of more easily securing his office, whatever sums the Assembly might offer. He therefore anticipated considerable difficulty in obtaining a grant in accordance with his instructions.97 These required a fixed sum equivalent to £1,000 sterling “ clear of all deductions,” to be conferred upon himself and his successors, or at least upon himself during continuance in office. In the event of refusal he was empowered to accept temporary sums.97 Prolonged discussion, however, showed no evidence of the Assembly’s willingness to comply.98 Although the amount was raised from £900 to £1,000, it was in paper money and not sterling. The next Assembly granted £1,300, which was equivalent to £1,000 sterling in Boston, but not in England. This House refused, however, to obey the instructions as to the period of the grant. Shirley nevertheless accepted it, hoping later on to overcome the extremely unpopular atti¬ tude toward fixed grants.99 The dispute after this time arose over the Governor’s attempts to persuade the House to take into consideration the depreciation in the value of paper money, and to increase its grants in order to approxi¬ mate the prescribed £1,000 sterling. In the very next year, 1743, Shirley brought to their attention the fact of depreciation, and he received £1,350. 100 56 Charles Henry Lincoln, Correspondence of William Shirley, I, 40. 97 Correspondence of William Shirley, I, 40jf., 54. 98 Journal, Jan. 21 and 22, 1742; March 27, 30 (grant of £900), and 31, and April 3 (£l,000), 9, 14, 15, 16, and 23, 1742. Shirley to Newcastle, April 30, 1742, ibid., p. 85. 99 Journal, May 28 and June 2, 1742. Shirley to Lords of Trade, June 23, 1742, Correspondence of William Shirley, I, 87$\ 100 Journal, June 2 and 4 (grant £1,350), 1743. 124 ROYAL GOVERNORS In 1747, after he had rejected a grant of £1,440, the House, careful first to state that it would never feel bound to give a fixed sum, raised his salary to £1,500. 101 Complaining a year later that the value had sunk far below that of £1,500 of the previous year, the House added another hundred pounds, with a reminder, again, that it was “not bound by any Instruction from His Majesty relating thereto.” 102 A month later the grant was put back to £1,500, which brought a further complaint regarding depreciation, the latter resulting in a raise to £1,900. 103 When again in 1747 and 1748 after much debate, the sum of £1,900 was voted, Shirley again objected, refusing to accept the last grant on the grounds that its present value was not equal even to three fourths of the stipulated £1,000 sterling.104 The House, after pleading inability owing to war burdens to raise the amount, finally voted £2,000. 105 Even this was declared by Shirley to be insufficient to meet their expressed intention of granting support to the Governor “suitable to the dignity of his Station and the abilities of the People.” This he proved by comparing the value of the £3,000 granted to Governor Burnet in 1728 with the present depreciated value of £1,900, placing emphasis on the higher cost of living in his own day. By computation he showed that it would take £3,100 in money of 1748 to equal £3,000 in 1728. On the ability of the people to pay a higher salary, he also adduced figures. Since 1728 the polls had brought in enlarged revenue to the amount of £14,750; at that time only 128 towns were returning representatives, as against 153 in 1748; t?he public debt was only one sixth of what it had been in 1744; and in consideration of Parliament’s recent reimbursement for war expense, it had become, in 1748, 101 Journal, June 12, 20, and 21, 1745. 102 Journal, June 19 and 20, 1746. 103 Journal, July 18, 1746; Jan. 14 and 15, 1747. 104 Journal, June 19 and 24, 1747; June 10, 14, and 22, 1748. 105 Journal, June 15 and 18, 1748; Nov. 9 and 10, 1748. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 125 even less. He noted also that in consideration of increased cost of living, the pay of the members themselves had been raised. This brought a raise to £2, 400. 106 To the grant of £2,000 that was made in the following year Shirley waived his objections, owing to the expectation of a severe drought. During his absence of four years in England from Sept. 11, 1749, to Sept. 5, 1753, no salary was granted. In December, 1753, the House voted £1,400, not in bills of credit, but in ‘Tawful money.”107 The Governor, after enumerating his past services to the province, complained of the inadequacy of this grant also, even though in value it exceeded by fifty pounds the £1,000 sterling. By three votes he lost a further increase, the House declaring that his reward was already made in his commis¬ sion for Colonel and in various gratuities from themselves. They hoped he would not further press the justice of his claim “at the expense of [their] Reason and Understanding.” Shirley disregarded this, however, and distinguishing be¬ tween “gratuity” and “recompense” gave a more detailed account of his service, showing that he was short of his just due by “several Hundred pounds sterling.” Twice the House refused to consider his repeated request.108 In the following years, 1754 and 1755, the grant was £1,300. The only remonstrance from the Governor had reference to lack of any recompense for recent services in the Kennebec region, and to the deferred payment promised in 1745, of £300 for his services at Louisburg. He received £250 for the first and £200 for the Louisburg affair.109 When in 1756 no salary was granted at the usual time, that is, at the first assembling of the newly elected General 106 Journal, Nov. 15 and 16, 1748. 107 Journal, June 8, 14, and 24, 1749. Shirley to Newcastle, Jan. 23 and April 10, 1750, Correspondence of William Shirley, I, 504>ff. Journal, Dec. 20, 1753. 108 Journal, Jan. 2, 9, 11, 16, and 17, 1754. 109 Journal, June 6, 1754 (grant £l,300); Dec. 20, 1754; June 5, 1755 (grant £1,300). 126 ROYAL GOVERNORS Court, Governor Shirley, about to leave the province in answer to the King’s summons, called the matter to the attention of the House. He presented also that part of the royal instructions prescribing that in the absence of the Governor there should be paid to him one half of his usual salary and emolument, the other half going to his substitute. He expressed also the hope that with this instruction in mind they would consider the years 1750, 1751, and 1752, in which he had been absent, and for which the House had as yet made no provision. This occasioned a “present” of £400, granted “in consideration of his service hitherto, and for furnishing his Table with such things as will be for his better accommodation, on his intended voyage to Great Britain.” In view of the heavy burden of war expenses the House declared the province too poor to give more. Anxiety at this juncture over the fall of Oswego termi¬ nated discussion.110 Thus was ended, and for a considerable period, the long- drawn-out struggle of successive Governors regarding salary. The whole controversy may be summed up as follows : Previous to Governor Belcher’s time, the royal instructions had required a fixed and permanent grant, narrowing down the latter to at least the period of the individual Governor’s administration. Governor Belcher received, when the ministry capitulated, simply an exception to the instructions. Governor Shirley’s instructions themselves made provision for acceptance of temporary grants. The chief difficulty in Shirley’s administration lay in persuading the House, when making the annual grant, to take into consideration the con¬ tinued depreciation of paper money, and to increase the grant in order to bring it up to the value of £1,000 sterling. After Shirley’s recall the salary dispute died down, not to recur until long after in 1771, when the question took a most unexpected turn. 110 Journal, Aug. 25 and 30, Sept. 7, and passim, 1756. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 127 Governor Shirley, like his predecessor though to a con¬ siderably less extent, had trouble in securing legislation for supply of the treasury. The difficulty was caused by re¬ strictions in the royal instructions regarding bills of credit. In his first address Shirley cautiously reminded members of the evils consequent upon over-issues, referring also to Parliament’s intention to consider the paper money situa¬ tion. Noting that bills rated at £1,000 in 1731 were now worth only £650 sterling, he took care to placate possible antagonism by suggesting as the probable cause of the decrease the influx of bills from other colonies. Shirley’s problem was to supply the treasury in accordance with the instructions. The House, however, would insist upon supplying it by new issues of paper money; but by the royal instructions no issues in excess of £30,000 were permitted, and these only with a suspending clause, and when designed exclusively for the support of government.111 After rejecting one bill, Shirley was later enabled to assent to another for £36,000 when intelligence was received of the withdrawal of the requirement of a suspending clause. Although the Board of Trade expressed disapproval of this method of providing supply by new emissions, Shirley justified his assent by the necessities of the province.112 Thus was Governor Shirley able to evade what might otherwise have proved a serious difficulty, and might have given a completely different complexion to a career that was destined, because of his consistent avoidance of oppo¬ sition to the House, to be comparatively peaceful, if not altogether successful. Later difficulties implied in supplying the treasury by new issues of bills of credit were allayed by requesting leave to consent to issues in excess of the stipulated 111 Journal, Aug. 17, 1741. For Instructions to Governor Shirley see Corre¬ spondence of William Shirley, I, 47/f. 112 Shirley to Newcastle, Oct. 17, 1741, Jan. 23, 1742; and to Board of Trade, April 30, 1742, Correspondence of William Shirley, I, 70, 79jf., 83 f.; cf. also Journal, Sept. 25, Oct. 14, 15, and 16, and Dec. 3 and 19, 1741; Jan. 3 and 15, 1742. 128 ROYAL GOVERNORS £30,000 on the grounds of military pressure and prosecution of the war against France, and by declaring that under the circumstances there was no other practical method of supply. This brought an additional instruction allowing him “in case of Emergencys to give . . . consent to such Acts as may be necessary for the Supply of the Treasury . . . with Bills of publick Credit during the Continuance of the present War.” 113 This concession was a solvent for all subsequent difficulties. Although Shirley subsequently objected to supply -grants made contrary to the original instructions and to the desires of the home government, especially because of the enormous accumulations due to repeated issues and the consequent sinking in values, in which respect the ministers, the orphans, and the widows were the chief sufferers,114 he nevertheless always had the above additional instruction, together with resort to the pressure of military necessity, to fall back upon ; and on these grounds gave his approval to issue after issue, thus evading still another subject of contention.115 Thereafter on the paper money question Shirley’s chief difficulties came in his attempts to secure redemption of out¬ standing issues 116 and standardization of value.117 In the latter particular the situation was greatly alleviated by Parliament’s grant of over £180,000 sterling in reimburse¬ ment of Massachusetts for the recent war expenses.118 113 Shirley to Board of Trade, Aug. 10, 1744, Correspondence of William Shirley, I, 140/F. Additional instructions to Governor Shirley, ibid., I, 144^.; see also Journal, Sept. 12, 1743. 114 Journal, Feb. 9 and March 1, 1744; June 25, July 2, and Aug. 1, 1745; Jan. 3 and June 5 and 19, 1746; Nov. 4, 1747; Feb. 3, May 26, and June 23, 1748. 115 Journal, June 28, 1746; June 23, 1748, and passim. 116 Journal, Nov. 19, 1742; May 27 and 30, 1743; June 25, July 2, Aug. 1, and Dec. 24, 1745; Jan. 3, 1746; June 14 and Dec. 22, 1748; Dec. 23, 1754. 117 Journal, Jan. 9, 1746; June 27, Sept. 5, and Oct. 27, 1747; Nov. 21, 1748; Jan. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 24, and 25, April 8 and 21, and June 24 and 29, 1749. 118 Journal , Jan. 6, 1749. The reimbursement amounted to £183,649, 2s, 7p, ha’penny, sterling. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 129 As a result of the capture of Louisburg and of the subse¬ quent era of peace, the need for military appropriations temporarily ceased. Thus another frequent cause of con¬ flict with the House was removed in Governor Shirley’s time. The House in fact co-operated with Shirley on military matters to a most extraordinary degree, never failing his re¬ peated applications for men and supplies for the expeditions against Louisburg, Canada, and the West Indies.119 So long as the result of campaigns appeared favorable the repre¬ sentatives seemed always willing to aid. Toward the end of Shirley’s term, however, and especially after reverses such as the defeat of Braddock in Pennsylvania, and also when the members could not foresee a possible advantage accruing directly to Massachusetts, or when they believed greater ad¬ vantages destined to accrue to other colonies, e.g., to New York by the defense of Crown Point, there was usually evinced some unwillingness to co-operate in military meas¬ ures.120 Other affairs also, which in Belcher’s administration had been the source of so great disturbance, were successfully managed by Shirley — among others, the regulation of paper money, with the sinking by 1750 of the whole paper currency of the province,121 the Land Bank excitement, and even the formerly impossible task of obtaining grants for Fort Pema- quid.122 The impressment riots that occurred in Boston, 119 Journal, Dec. 31, 1741; June 9 and 25, Sept. 2, and Nov. 19, 1742; Dec. 21, 23, and 28, 1743 (war declared March 15, 1744); June 24, Sept. 9, and Oct. 20, 24, and 27, 1744. Shirley to Newcastle, July 7, 1744, Jan. 4, 1745, Correspondence of William Shirley, I, 132#., 157#.; see also passim in Journal. 120 Journal, Aug. 18, 19, 20, 24, and 30, Sept. 7, and Oct. 23, 1756; see also Representation of the Case of His Majesty’s Province of Massachusetts Bay, Corre¬ spondence of William Shirley, I, 28Sjf. 121 Shirley to Bedford, Jan. 31, 1748, Correspondence of William Shirley, I, 462. 122 Shirley to Newcastle, Oct. 17, 1741, Jan. 23, 1742, Nov. 7, 1743, Corre¬ spondence of William Shirley, I, 76, 79#., 107 jf. Journal, Jan. 15, June 8, 10, and 25, Sept. 9 and Oct. 20, 1743; Nov. 17, 1748. George Arthur Wood, op. cit., pp. 104-108, 122, 160#. 130 ROYAL GOVERNORS though serious in themselves, were never countenanced by the Assembly and are therefore somewhat beyond the scope of this study. These violent demonstrations, however, in opposition to the King’s orders and troops and in defiance of the King’s Governor and the Government of Massachusetts, are an unmistakable indication of the long strides, uncon¬ scious perhaps, made in the direction of political independ¬ ence. Some description of the situation is given below in a paragraph from Governor Shirley’s correspondence con¬ cerning the affair: After suffering the Insults of an Outrageous Mob at Boston on Tuesday forenoon by having my House beset, and one of the under Sheriffs, who was plac’d at my Door, dragg’d away from thence, beat, plundered, and put in the Stocks; and great outrages com¬ mitted at night in a Rebellious manner upon myself and his Majesty’s Council, by being surrounded in the Council Chamber by an Arm’d Mob, and assaulted there with Brickbats; and by their forcibly entering the lower floor of the Townhouse, and after¬ wards by the same Mob’s Assembling at night before my House in a Tumultuous Manner, and threatning to burn a Barge, which they thought belong’d to His Majesty, in my Court yard; pos¬ sessing themselves of the Gates of the Town, and threatning to seize all the Officers of his Majesty’s Navy then in Town and detain ’em as Hostages, and Subject ’em to the Violence of their Lawless, Arbitrary Will in Defiance, and to the overthrow of his Majesty’s Government: And finding myself without a proper force for suppressing this Insurrection, and maintaining the King’s Authority in the Town; the soldiers of the Militia there having refus’d and neglected to obey my Orders given ’em by their Officers to appear in Arms for quelling the Tumult, and to keep a Military watch at night, and there being reason to apprehend, the Insurrec¬ tion was secretly Countenanc’d and encourag’d by some ill minded Inhabitants and Persons of Influence in the Town; and that the same rebellious rout would be repeated the night following; I did not think it consistent with the Honour of his Majesty’s Govern¬ ment to remain longer in the midst of it, destitute of all proper CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 1S1 means for suppressing it, preserving the Peace, and protecting his Majesty’s Subjects committed to my Care, But I have re¬ tir’d to his Majesty’s Castle William, ’till I can assemble a sufficient force of the Province Militia from the Neighbouring regiments in the Country, to quell the Rebellious Tumult.123 The Assembly’s disapproval of these anti-impressment demonstrations did not imply indorsement of the system of impressment itself. Open disapproval, even in the face of Shirley’s recommendation of the practice in order to facilitate transportation of troops to Canada, was consistently mani¬ fested, with final recourse to a petition to the King himself, and with preparations in case of necessity to approach Parliament also.124 Although the principle of Shirley’s policy was apparently to avoid conflict whenever possible, even at the expense of yielding some little of the prerogative and of granting oc¬ casional unprecedented demands, there was one question upon which for a time he withstood the Assembly. To him it fell to face the first real test of the theory of representation. This theory, held and practiced for nearly half a century, maintained that every new township had the right to send members to the General Court. There was much to make this important: the size and concomitantly the power of the lower House had been increasing, to the consequent detriment of the influence of both Governor and Council. In 1742 Governor Shirley refused to approve a bill creating three new townships, bluntly declaring that his purpose was “to put an end to this way of increasing the number of representatives.” This proceeding was deemed an encroach¬ ment on. ancient traditional rights, an attempt against one 123 Correspondence of William Shirley, I, 406/f. 124 Journal, July 15, 16, and 17 and Aug. 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 14, 1746; April 23, June 2, Nov. 7, 19, and 20, and Dec. 1, 2 (petition to King), 10 (agent authorized in case of necessity to appeal to Parliament), 1747. Shirley to Board of Trade, Dec. 1, 1747, Correspondence of William Shirley, I, 419. 132 ROYAL GOVERNORS of the most essential safeguards of liberty, with implications for the future of a dictatorship by Crown appointees and of complete dependence upon the detested instructions. Shirley had adopted his policy through conviction that the Massachusetts politicians, under pretext for providing for local self-government, intended gradually to overthrow the King’s authority as embodied in the Governor. In England this view was approved and instructions issued forbidding his consent in the future to the erection of new towns. When the people of Lincoln in 1744 requested town¬ ship privileges they were granted, all except that of returning representatives. This position of the Governor and Council was again accepted by the House in 1746, when Natick became a town, but without representation. In 1753, how¬ ever, Shirley abandoned this policy and violated his instruc¬ tions by signing a bill erecting three new towns. Herein was another victory for the House.125 In 1754 there was a disagreement between Shirley and the House on a question of greater interest than importance. The representatives, desiring to avoid the burden of an additional poll and land tax, passed a bill laying an excise on domestic liquors. Although twice non-concurring, the Council, on the request of the House, reconsidered and ap¬ proved; but Shirley refused to sign the bill. In the light of our own recent 18th amendment complications, the content of this bill is interesting. It provided that all persons except the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, the President, Pro¬ fessors, Fellows and students of Harvard College, and all settled ministers, should be required to give an account to collectors, on oath if desired, concerning the amount of “all the Wine, Rum, Brandy or other distilled Spirits expended by them.” Shirley declared the enactment “inconsistent with the Natural Rights of every private Family in the 125 Harry A. Cushing, History of the Transition from Provincial to Common¬ wealth Government in Massachusetts, pp. 17-27, 36, notes. Wood, op. cit., pp. 138/F. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 133 Community . . . altogether unprecedented in the English Government.”126 During a recess that soon followed, the proposed bill was sent throughout the colony; but after re¬ consideration in the next session the votes of the towns con¬ cerning it were refused attention, and after many debates, with two non-concurrences in the Council and two new drafts of the bill, it was finally enacted.127 About the same time also, the matter of quartering the troops caused trouble. Early in the war Shirley had desired, notwithstanding the objection of the farmers, to quarter the levies on them over the winter of 1746, or else to raise the allotted subsistence money. In preference to the quartering the subsistence was raised, but only to one fourth of the amount suggested by Shirley. There was further difficulty in 1754, arising from the Parliamentary act for providing quarters. Shirley realized the force of this objection, and suggested as a means of evading it that the troops be quartered in Castle William. This was accordingly done, but the smallness of the place left 1,100 men still unprovided for. The House, however, refused to make additional neces¬ sary appropriations.128 In general Governor Shirley managed by his tactfulness, combined with eminent military services, to hold the people’s esteem — even when after an absence of four years he re¬ turned from Paris in 1753 with a Catholic wife.129 In 1750, when hostile influences were at work, Shirley was able to write to Newcastle; 126 Journal , 1754, p. 46. 127 Journal , 1754, pp. 48, 51, 60, 94, 96, 98/., 100/., 126/., 130, 140, 142, 144, 147, 160, 166/. 128 Journal, Aug. 7, 1746; Jan. 1 and Feb. 26, 1755. 129 Shirley left the colony in September, 1749, on a fruitless mission regarding the French boundaries, returning in September, 1753. His wife could hardly have been made happy by her husband’s part in furthering the outrage on Acadia. See Journal, September, 1749, and Sept. 5, 1753. During Shirley’s absence the government was conducted by the Lieutenant-Governor, Spencer Phips. 134 ROYAL GOVERNORS When I reflect, my Lord, that for several years before I was appointed to my Government, the people of it had been remarkable for quarrelling with their former Governours, and disputing his Majesty’s Instructions, and that I found ’em upon my coming into the Chair embroil’d in factions among themselves, that throughout my whole Administration a perfect Harmony has ever subsisted between me and the Assembly; that thro’ the Influence I had gain’d over ’em, I have been able to promote some publick Services, the happy Effects of which I hope the Nation may long feel; that there are late Instances of my still preserving this Influence; that there never happen’d the least Quarrell, Ill Will, or Misunderstanding between me and the Assembly; that upon my leaving Boston they publickly express’d their Satisfaction in my Administration, and that I left ’em in perfect tranquility and well affected to his Majesty’s Government; whilst some of the Neighbouring Colonies are involv’d in Factions and the utmost Confusion; I say, my Lord, when I reflect on these things and that they are not altogether unknown to Your Grace, I can’t but be jealous that your Grace’s Inquiry proceeded from some Insinua¬ tions, which may have been made to Your Grace, that I have gone into some imprudent Measures, which have begot a Dis¬ affection in the People to me; — if so, I beg leave to assure Your Grace that such Insinuations are false and groundless.130 * Relations in the closing years of Shirley’s administration be¬ tween himself and the Assembly and between the Assembly and the home government appeared to be remarkably harmonious. His career of fifteen years was not, therefore, as in the case of so many royal Governors, provocative of discontent. When he was recalled from office in 1756, the Assembly upon his departure sent a message of commenda¬ tion.131 There are evidences, however, to indicate that Governor Shirley’s relations with the Assembly were not as peaceful as the records seem to imply. This may be inferred from certain changes in the administration of civil govern- 130 Correspondence of William Shirley , I, 493jf. 131 Journal, Aug. 17, 1756, Correspondence of William Shirley, II, 44 ff. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 135 ment recommended by himself in his proposed plan for the government of Nova Scotia. Shirley would have provided for an Assembly with triennial instead of annual meetings, “it being a general Observation that the Assembly at the latter end of the Year endeavour to distinguish themselves by their Opposition, and moving some popular Points in order to recommend themselves to their Constituents, and secure their Elections for the ensuing Year, which (among other Inconveniences) is wholly owing to the frequency of their Elections.” 132 His plan also vested in the Governor the power to suspend the Lieutenant-Governor and a limited number of the Councillors; and in order to avoid over¬ balancing the power of the Council he suggested that the number of representatives should be limited, also that the incorporation of towns should pertain entirely to the King. Experience of the bad Influence, which the mobbish factious Spirit of the Town of Boston occasion’d by all points being carried by the Populace at their Town meetings, have ever had upon the other Towns in the government and upon their own Members which are generally leading men in the Assembly, is the reason of this Alteration being propos’d.133 These changes were probably suggested to Shirley by diffi¬ culties occurring in his own experience. The existence of disturbed relations may be further inferred from his desire to be transferred to the Governorship of New York, and later, for the sake of pecuniary advantage, to that of the Leeward Islands.134 The merit of Governor Shirley’s success in keeping pace with the Assembly may well be questioned. He had done 132 General Heads of a Plan of a Civil Government propos’d for His Majesty's Province of Nova Scotia in Correspondence of William Shirley, I, 473. 133 Ibid. 134 Shirley to Newcastle, Sept. 1, 1750, Nov. 23, 1752, Correspondence of William Shirley, I, 508; II, 1 jf. 136 ROYAL GOVERNORS so chiefly by avoiding encounter. The representatives had therefore become even more unaccustomed to restraint and to control from without; and while the Governor was en¬ joying peace, they were strengthening their independent principles and practices. Shirley’s “successful” administra¬ tion left still weaker the bonds that united the colony to England. It has been said, in fact, that the American Revolution “brewed” during Governor Shirley’s term, a statement probably based on that other charge that Shirley was the originator of the idea of Parliamentary taxation.135 That he favored Parliamentary taxation is certain; and he did so chiefly because the colonies, by reason of the continual controversies between Assemblies and Governors, were not sufficiently responsive in rallying to the support of English arms in the colonial wars.136 The general colonial sentiment on this and on connected points of grievance may be inferred from a letter to Governor Shirley written by Benjamin Franklin in comment on the proposed plan of government for the colonies as drawn up in 1754. Franklin, who was perhaps the best qualified person in all the colonies to give expression to the common state of mind, maintained that in matters of general concern, and especially wherein addi¬ tional burdens were to be imposed, attention should be given as well to what the people “will be apt to think and say, as what they ought to think.” And according to him the people would no doubt say that the colonists were as loyal to the Crown and to the Constitution as were any subjects in the King’s dominion, hence that there was no reason to doubt their willingness to provide for military ex¬ pense according to their ability; but it was felt that they themselves, who would suffer the consequences of military invasions, were better judges of the requisites for defense, 135 John Adams, History of the Dispute with America, p. 4. 136 Shirley to Thomas Robinson, Feb. 5, 1755, Correspondence of William Shirley, II, 123/. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 137 and of their own ability to provide for the same, than was the distant English Parliament. They would say also that Governors often came to the colonies merely to make their fortunes and were not always men of the best ability or integrity, having no estates in the colonies nor any natural connections that would insure their interests in the colonial welfare; that they might possibly be sometimes desirous of raising and maintaining more forces than necessary, with an expectation that the profits would accrue to themselves and to their friends; and that the Councillors in many of the colonies, being appointed by the Crown on the recommenda¬ tion of Governors, were often of small estate, dependent on the Governor for offices, and therefore too greatly under their influence; that consequently there was considerable founda¬ tion for being jealous of a power vested in such Governors and Councillors to raise moneys as they should judge neces¬ sary, by drafts on England, to be afterward laid on the colonies by act of Parliament and paid by the people; that Governors might abuse such power by planning useless ex¬ peditions, harassing the people, and taking them from their labor in order to execute such projects merely for the purpose of creating offices to gratify dependents and to divide profits ; moreover, that the Parliament of England was subject to be misinformed by such Governors and Councils; that it was an undoubted right of Englishmen not to be taxed except by their own consent given through their representatives, and that the colonies had no representatives in Parliament; again, that these policies in general evidenced a suspicion of the colonists’ loyalty to the Crown and even of their common sense and understanding; that compelling the payment of taxes without consent would be “rather like raising contribu¬ tions in an enemy’s country than taxing of Englishmen for their own public benefit; that it would be treating them as a conquered people and not as true British subjects.” There was mentioned also the influence liable to be wielded by the 138 ROYAL GOVERNORS Governors on regulations to be made under such a system “for the benefit of Governors, to the grievous burthen and discouragement of the colonies ;” the hardships perceived in the extent of power to be vested in the Governors to “march the inhabitants from one end of the British and French colonies to the other,” a territory covering at least 1,500 square miles, and this without the consent of their representatives; and that if the colonies on the whole were to be ruled by Governors and Councils appointed by the Crown, the separate colonies might as well dismiss their Assemblies. The letter went on to justify the Albany plan of Union, setting forth the conventional objections to Parliamentary taxation without representation, and referring to consequent political and economic disadvantage to the colonies.137 During the four years of Shirley’s absence in England, the conduct of affairs fell to the Lieutenant-Governor, Spencer Phips.138 His administration appears to have been in general uneventful judging from his reply to a communication from the Board of Trade in which he explained that his reason for not forwarding reports concerning the province was that “nothing material had occurred.”139 There were, however, troubles of various kinds, of importance chiefly in their indication of the existence of strong tendencies toward greater independence. The chief difficulty regarded supply of the treasury, 137 Benjamin Franklin to William Shirley, Dec. 4, 1754, Correspondence of William Shirley, II, lOSff. 138 Phips met the General Court for the first time on Nov. 23, 1749. Shirley next presided on Sept. 5, 1753. Thereafter Phips administered the province during later absences also, from June 24, 1755, to Feb. 3, 1756; from May 27 to Aug. 13, 1756; and from Oct. 15, 1756, to April 4, 1757, when he died, after which the Council ruled until Aug. 3, 1757, when the new Governor, Thomas Pownal, took over the administration. See Journal, entries for dates mentioned in this foot¬ note; and C. M. Andrews, op. cit., p. 469. 139 Phips to Board of Trade, Oct. 9, 1751, Ms. letter in Archives Division, State House, Boston, Mass., volume marked Letters, 1750-1755, Vol. 54, p. 62. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 139 arising in the attempt to secure both prompt and adequate provision. The difficulty was partly due to the gradual dis¬ continuance of paper money m the province. The Assembly no longer possessed this resource; the question, therefore, really resolved itself into one of method of supply. Borrowing, emitting bills of credit, sale of public land, and proceeds of a lottery were suggested.140 The Assembly, after much bicker¬ ing with both Governor and Council, usually ended either by borrowing or by passing bills for raising lawful money.141 Attempts to issue bills of credit failed in the House itself; nor would the Lieutenant-Governor hear of postponing taxes for the current year, thus doubly burdening the suc¬ ceeding one. Phips constantly urged attention to the treas¬ ury supply, refusing in 1751 to permit a recess because of the still empty treasury.142 In the same year he was reminded by the Board of Trade that they had received since 1743 no report of the treasurer’s account.143 Apparently, Governor Shirley had been pursuing his policy of evading difficulties. Finally, the House aggravated the situation by proposing that the treasurer be required to give bond, — a measure promptly negatived by Phips. As a result, public funds were left in the custody of the farmers of the excise, and were not deposited in the treasury, on the claim that there was no dependable treasurer, and with the result that the creditors of the Government were left unpaid. Phips indignantly de¬ clared : If you intend by this ... to show your Resentment at my not immediately agreeing to the Bill you had prepared to oblige the 140 Borrowing: Journal, June 20 and 23, and Oct. 6 and 9, 1750; Jan. 16, 1751; May 28, 1752. Bills of Credit: Journal, Jan. 11, 1750; Nov. 22, 1752. Sale of Public Lands: Journal, Jan. 5, 1753. Lottery: Journal, Jan. 29, 1751; March 31, 1753. 141 Journal, Jan. 3 and 20, 1750; Peb. 5, 1751; Jan. 17 and June 5, 1752; June 12, 1753. 142 Journal, Jan. 3, 4, 11, and 14, Sept. 26, and Oct. 5, 1750. 143 Phips to Board of Trade, Oct. 9, 1751, Ms. letter in Archives Division, State House, Boston, Mass., in volume marked Letters, 1750-1755, Vol. 54, pp. 62/f. 140 ROYAL GOVERNORS Treasurer to give Security; I must ask you, Gentlemen, Whether you imagine, the power of a Negative ... is never to be made use of? Is he [the Governor] never, in any case to exercise his own Judgment? And when a Bill is laid before me, which introduces a new practise, etc., . . . Have I no Liberty to dissent from it? Must the Consequence of every such Difference in Judgment be an immediate proposal to rise, leaving the most necessary affairs, the Supply of the Treasury, and the Means of Supporting His Majesty’s Government, not entered upon? 144 Endeavors to secure an adequate salary also disturbed the administration of Spencer Phips. When a grant of £200 was made in April, 1750, Phips reminded the representatives that he had been in office for six months, and asked for support sufficient to maintain his family and to uphold the dignity of his station.145 During the remainder of his term, except on two occasions,146 and despite all his appeals for an increase, the semi-annual grant was only £300. 147 There were difficulties also in connection with attempts to erect new townships: the Lieutenant-Governor’s refusal to declare war against the Penobscot Indians, his veto of a Councillor, and concerning the legislation for new compila¬ tion of laws as directed by the royal instructions.148 Pending the arrival in August, 1757, of Shirley’s successor, Governor Thomas Pownal, affairs were conducted as de¬ scribed by the Lieutenant-Governor Spencer Phips, and, 144 Journal, June 19, 1753. 145 Ibid., April 5 and 6, 1750. 146 Ibid., Feb. 8, 1751 (£380) and June 8, 1753 (£340). 147 Ibid., June 9, 1750; June 20, 1751; Jan. 24 and May 30, 1752; June 8, 1753; Jan. 16 and June 4, 1756; Feb. 18, 1757. On these dates the grant was £300. For details concerning Phips’ urgings for a raise, see entries for April 6, 1750; Feb. 7, 1751; Jan. 25 and 30, April 2, June 2 and Dec. 29, 1752; Feb. 18, 1757. 148 Journal, Dec. 22, 1759; Jan. 4, 1750; May 30, 1751; Dec. 6, 1752; Jan. 3 and 18, 1753 and Oct. 3, 1755. Ms. copy of instruction may be found in Archives Division, State House, Boston, Mass., in volume entitled Legislature, 49, p. 373. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 141 after his death, by the Council.149 The new Governor faced no inconsiderable difficulties, not only from the fact that by Shirley’s non-aggressive policies the House had become more entrenched in its position regarding controverted rights and privileges, but also because of the antagonism of many of Shirley’s friends who were of the opinion that Pownal had played no small part in effecting the removal of his prede¬ cessor.150 Moreover, the fact that Governor Shirley had been so long and so frequently absent from his Government, and that for years no official accounts of the state of the province had reached the Board of Trade, gave opportunity for the Assembly to strengthen its claims by their uninter¬ rupted exercise. Pownal was therefore probably justified in writing that since the death of the Lieutenant-Governor, and during the period in which the Council held sway, there had really been “no Government at all for sometime, but everything in Confusion and all Business in arrears.”151 He appeared also to foresee the difficulties and dangers implied in any attempt at unreserved enforcement of the royal pre¬ rogative. Writing at a later period, he declared that “the bringing any of the Crown’s rights into dispute with the People is the sure way to lose them.”152 High hopes, how¬ ever, were entertained as to his success: “Massachusetts will go on well,” wrote Loudoun, “as Mr. Pownal is Gov¬ ernor.”153 His years of residence in America had afforded unusual opportunity of learning conditions in most of the colonies, and, in addition to making him a source of informa¬ tion for Pitt,154 increased his fitness to fill the office of chief 149 C. M, Andrews, op. cit., p. 469. 150 The Life of Thomas Pownal , by Charles A. Pownal, pp. 72/f. 151 Pownal to his brother. Secretary of Board of Trade, Aug. 16, 1751, Life of Thomas Pownal, sup. cit., p. 80. 162 Pownal to his brother, Sept. 3, 1757, written during a visit to New Jersey in his capacity of Lieutenant-Governor of that Colony, ibid., p. 84. 153 Loudoun in a dispatch quoted ibid., p. 84. 164 Ibid., pp. 67 ff. 142 ROYAL GOVERNORS executive in what was perhaps the most powerful province in America. The extremities of the military situation in Pownal’s time, especially after the loss of Oswego and Fort William Henry, gave prominence to only questions concerned with war measures. The salary grants, which annually amounted to £1,300, caused no conflicts.155 Early in Governor Pownal’s administration there was trouble over quartering some of General Loudoun’s troops. The latter had proposed the measure, and Pownal urged respect for the King’s known wishes in the matter by pro¬ viding for the troops and thus avoiding the difficulties attend¬ ing enforced quartering. The House acknowledged the duty of co-operating in such matters, making provision for 1,000 men with their officers, but was “far from apprehending that the Expense of Quartering the King’s troops . . . may be of right Insisted upon, or demanded from the inhabitants of this Province.”156 Already the war taxes were so heavy that people were actually leaving the overburdened colony; it was therefore decided to request aid from the King. Shortly afterward, during the winter session of 1757, Boston refused to quarter certain recruiting parties; therefore Governor Pownal referred the matter to the Assembly.157 After some debate provision was made, but for the recruiting parties only. The Commander-in-Chief was by no means satisfied. Parliament had already legislated on the matter of quartering, and the question now turned on whether a further provincial quartering law was necessary or even per¬ missible. On considering Loudoun’s objection, both Houses declared that the Parliamentary Act could not be considered as referring to the colonies in this respect, although they were at the same time willing to admit that “wheresoever 155 Journal , Aug. 24, 1757; June 7, 1758; June 7, 1759. 156 Ibid., Aug. 25, 1757. 157 Journal, Aug. 27 and 31, and Nov. 26, 1757, especially pages 118, 132^/f., 148Jf. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 143 His Majesty’s troops shall be sent for the Protection and Defense of his dominions, Quarters and Billeting must be provided as often as they are necessary.”158 As to Loudoun’s contention that further provincial action was rendered un¬ necessary by the Parliamentary regulations, the General Court argued that “when in ordinary cases His Majesty’s forces are to be quartered ... an act of the legislature is requisite to impower the civil magistrate to do it.” They declared also that they had no objection to providing for the troops sent over for their protection and defense, but begged “leave further to observe . . . That the inhabitants of this province are entitled to the natural rights of English-born subjects; . . . This will animate and encourage them to re¬ sist to the last breath a cruel, invading enemy. The loss or hazard of these enjoyments, from any other cause naturally tends to deject and dispirit.”159 These rights they were de¬ termined to uphold, though the maintenance were to inter¬ rupt their friendly relations with the Governor.160 Loudoun, who on the same question had caused considerable trouble in New York, issued from that place what was virtually an ultimatum demanding that the provisions of the Mutiny Act, which bound householders in England to quarter troops, should be observed in Massachusetts. The alternative was provision, under duress, for five additional regiments. Quarters were granted, but the General Court passed a special law for the purpose, — a proceeding which assumed that the laws of England had no force unless confirmed by colonial representative bodies.161 In February of the following year, 1758, after a meeting of four colonies at Hartford, during which the Commander- 158 Journal, Dec. 16, 1757, p. 208. For data preceding, see ibid., Nov. 29 and 30, and Dec. 14, 1757. 169 Ibid., Dec. 16, 1757, p. 209. 160 Journal, Dec. 16, 1757, p. 209. 161 Life of Thomas Pownal, sup. cit., pp. 85/.; Hutchinson-, Massachusetts, HI, 63/. 144 ROYAL GOVERNORS in-Chief proposed his plans for the coming year, the Assembly adopted a similar attitude. Pownal himself conceded that the quartering Acts implied “Suspension of the Bill of Rights/' but requested the Assembly to do what it could to provide for troops that were to pass through the province.162 Later in the same year Boston caused a renewal of difficulties by refusing to provide quarters, but once more, after con¬ siderable debate, Pownal secured provision from the As¬ sembly.163 Early in 1759, also, there was further objection on the part of the House to quartering troops passing through the colony, but provision was finally made.164 Troubles of a different nature arose over Pownal’s protest against the Assembly's encroachment upon his powers as Commander-in-Chief. As in similar cases in Massachusetts as well as in other colonies, this was done by the practice of prescribing the application of funds granted for military purposes, and by determining in such bills the purpose of the appropriation, and even the number of men to be em¬ ployed, together with the place and the nature of their service.165 One example is seen in the attempt of the As¬ sembly to reduce expenses by reducing the number of men employed, and by determining in a vote providing scouts for the frontier, their station and destination.166 Governor Shirley’s conciliatory policy had permitted bills in this form; now, under pressure of military necessity, Governor Pownal also was constrained to yield to what he deemed a viola¬ tion of the charter and an infringement of the prerogative: I protest against the breach you have made upon the Constitu¬ tion of your Charter, and the Infringement upon the Rights of the Crown ... I have told you . . . that I should employ the 162 Journal, March 24, 1758; Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, 67/. 163 Journal, Oct. 6, 10, 11, and 12, 1758, pp. 80, 89, 90, 92, 94. 164 Ibid., Jan. 11, 13, and 16, 1759, especially pp. 168, 180, 188, 189. 165 Journal, Oct. 4, 1758, pp. 73/.; Jan. 23 and 24, 1759, pp. 297, 301, 303. 166 See footnote 158. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 145 Forces in the same Manner that you determined by your Vote. . . . The only question is who shall direct and limit this service, the House of Representatives or the King’s Governor: But this your Charter leaves no room to make a question of.167 Later in the session opening October 4, 1758, the Assembly somewhat abated its insistence upon the privileges men¬ tioned.168 With the practice in general, the home Govern¬ ment was exceedingly displeased, perceiving tendencies only too pronounced toward expansion of the Assembly’s powers at the expense of those of the Governor: But the facts . . . are such as convince us that the dependence which by the constitution the Colony ought to have upon the executive part of the Government of the mother country and the Sovereigncy of the Crown stand upon a very precarious foot , and that unless some effectual remedy is at a proper time applied it will be in great danger of being totally set aside. From these facts it appears that almost every act of executive and legislative power whether it be political, judicial, or military, is ordered and directed by votes of the General Court, in most cases originating in the House of Representatives.169 Insistence by the House on policies of this nature again made trouble for Pownal when, in the spring of 1758, he re¬ quested the Assembly’s co-operation with the campaign plans, as outlined for the coming year by Loudoun. Then it was that questions like the following were asked by the representatives: “How long are the men to continue in service? What officers are they to be under? Where is the command to be? How are they to be paid, armed, and victualled? What is their destination? What will be the whole force, when they shall have joined it?”170 Loudoun’s 167 Journal, Jan. 25, 1758. 168 Life of Thomas Pownal, sujp. cit., p. 116. 169 Board of Trade to Pownal, Nov. 22, 1758, ibid., p. 131. 170 Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, 68/f. Journal, March 2 to 11, 1758. 146 ROYAL GOVERNORS sudden recall, however, and the accession to power of William Pitt, together with a knowledge of the latter’s plans for the subjugation of Canada, brought co-operation surpassing all expectation. On the day after Pitt’s plans became known, there were voted 7,000 men, of which number 6,925 were act¬ ually raised. In the following year there were provided 5,000 in addition.171 Pitt, however, then expected at least as many as had been raised in the year preceding, but Pownal’s efforts brought only a statement from the representatives of the enormous expenses borne by the province in the past year, amounting to £190,000 sterling, and a complaint that after the supreme effort that had been made to raise the 7,000 men, it was not fair to expect as many more at so early a date. In order to make up the additional 2,000 that were requested, the House raised the bounty on enlistments, but would pass no legislation for impressment.172 The great danger from the French, the unprecedented military success, and the consequent prominence of war meas¬ ures, had kept in the background the old disputes regarding prerogative. Moreover, when controversy had threatened, because of the Assembly’s insistence upon specifying the manner of application for military appropriations, Governor Pownal had followed Shirley’s policy of avoiding dispute. As a result, conflicts during Pownal’s administration were in¬ frequent and of comparatively trifling importance. On the whole, his official conduct was acceptable to the colony, and the era may be regarded in general as one of good feeling. After the fall of Quebec, Pownal requested leave to return to England, but early in 1760 received word of his transfer to South Carolina, chiefly, it is said, because of his sympathy with the colonial view of sovereignty. Both Houses were present at his embarkation, and the representatives, who 171 Journal, March 11, 1758 (7,000 voted); Jan. 11, 1759 (6,925 raised); March 11, 1759. 172 Journal, March 11 and April 17, 1759, pp. 273, 336 f. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 147 had made an address of regret at his departure, offered him passage in the provincial frigate.173 The following quotation from this address is interesting chiefly because of its indica¬ tion of those qualities that were regarded as essential in a good Governor: ‘Tis your knowledge of the country, the mildness and probity of your administration; attention to public economy, spirited efforts in every measure for his Majesty’s service; care of our civil and religious liberties, and tender concern for the distresses of this barrier colony, that have endeared you to the good people of this province.174 173 Journal, June 15, 1758; Jan. 6, 1759, pp. 64$\, 141Jf., March 24, and June 3, 1760; Life of Thomas Pownal, sup. cit., pp. 144, 152, I55ff. 174 Journal, March 24, 1760. CHAPTER III DEFINITE REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL, 1760-1776 During all these years, aroused by the aggression of Belcher, encouraged by the yielding of Shirley, unchecked during the administrations of the Lieutenant-Governor Spencer Phips, as well as of the Council and even of Gov¬ ernor Pownal, the Assembly had become more and more strongly convinced of its powers. Victory in the late war, which left to Massachusetts the leadership among the colonies, strengthened this conviction. As a result, the restraints imposed by royal instructions had become in¬ creasingly obnoxious. A storm was beginning to gather chiefly around the requirement of a “saving clause” which made all unusual legislation depend upon the King’s pleas¬ ure. To the next Governor, Francis Bernard, was left the unpleasant and difficult task of checking encroachments and of re-establishing many of the vanished elements of the King’s prerogative. The new Governor exchanged his comparatively peaceful Government of New Jersey for that of Massachusetts at a time when the materials of rebellion were about to be ignited. Quite sanguine, however, of a peaceful adminis¬ tration, he thus wrote concerning his appointment: “As for the people, I am assured I may depend upon a quiet and easy administration. I shall have no points of government to dispute about, no schemes of self-interest to pursue.”1 His expectations were disappointed. The elation and the consciousness of provincial strength that resulted from 1 Bernard to Barrington, April 19, 1760, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence , p. 11. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 149 perfect military success, as well as the consequent cessation of anxieties inseparable from the preparation of war meas¬ ures, had been the chief concern. With the close of the con¬ flict there was leisure to note every restraint, and every policy that might even tend to develop into a check upon the growing sense of independence. Thenceforth, political discussion turned chiefly on the question of prerogative. With each day the strength of the anti-prerogative party grew more formidable. And the Governor, with prosperity on the increase, and no war worries to obscure the issue, was compelled soon to manifest his sentiments on the all-important topic. When he took his stand on the side of prerogative, trouble immediately began. The anti¬ prerogative party was further irritated by the appointment, as Lieutenant-Governor, of Thomas Hutchinson, a leader of the conservatives, and an official strongly opposed to the growing independence of the House.2 Governor Bernard’s entry into Boston took place, according to his own descrip¬ tion, “in a very magnificent manner.” Because, since Burnet’s time, he was the first Governor to arrive by land, “the ceremony was in a manner new.”3 Trouble commenced when customs officials began rigidly to enforce the provisions of the Sugar Act, which in other colonies was being violated with impunity. People were provoked not only by the enforcement, but by the fact that owing to graft, a very small portion of the fees and forfeit¬ ures were going to the royal exchequer.4 Soon, therefore, 2 George Richards Minot, History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay , II, 78/. 3 Bernard to Barrington, Aug. 7, 1760, ibid., p. 15. Bernard took over the actual administration of the colony on Aug. 2, 1760. Cf. C. M. Andrews, List of Commissions , Instructions, and Additional Instructions issued to the Royal Gov¬ ernors and Others in America, in Annual Report of the American Historical Associa¬ tion for 1911 (pp. 393-598), p. 401. 4 Bernard to - , Jan. 19, 1761. Bernard Letters, Sparks, IV, Harvard College Library, I, 296. 150 ROYAL GOVERNORS a case protesting illegal collection of fees and forfeitures was brought into the General Court. When a committee reported that the province had been defrauded of nearly £500, and authorized the treasurer, if not paid within one month after demand, to sue for the amount, both Houses approved. Governor Bernard, contending that suit should be brought only by the King’s attorney -general, negatived this resolution. The House, however, refused either to trust a Crown official with the case or to reconsider the resolution. After protest, Bernard yielded the point; but as judge in the subsequent trial, he appointed Chief Justice Hutchinson. When Hutchinson decided against the province, it was sus¬ pected that the appointment had been arranged especially to secure this defeat for the anti-prerogative party.5 Toward the middle of 1762, after a final altercation over the Gov¬ ernor’s veto of a bill intended to substitute a new and less obnoxious kind of writ in place of the old writs of assistance granted by Parliament to customs officials, the dispute subsided. It was about this time that Bernard formed the determination to interfere as little as possible in public affairs, declaring that he had “long thought that in general Governors impaired their own authority by interfering too much in Provincial Councils,” and lamenting that he was a “man more Sinned against than sinning.” Otis Junior, who had been advocate for those accused in the admiralty and customs disturbances, was at this time keeping up the opposition in the Assembly.6 During the summer of 1762 trouble of a different nature occurred. With the concurrence of the Council only, Gov¬ ernor Bernard appropriated money for military purposes. 5 Journal, Jan. 31, 1760, pp. 241jf.; Minot, op. cit., II, 82-87; Winsor, op. tit., V, 155. 6 Bernard to Barrington, May 1, 1762, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, pp. 51, 52; Bernard to J. Pownal, March 30, 1761, Bernard Letters , Sparks, IV, Harvard College Library, I, 304; Bernard to - , July 6, 1761, ibidem , I, 322. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 151 In the fall session, therefore, when he requested still further supplies for the same object, the House remonstrated against his usurpation of “their most darling Privilege; the Right of Originating all Taxes,” and against his thus “annihilating one Branch of the Legislature.” The address proceeded: “It would be of little Consequence to the People, whether they were subject to George or Louis, the King of Great Britain or the French King, if both were as arbitrary as both would be, if both could levy taxes without Parliament.” 7 Privately, Governor Bernard advised erasion of this flippant reference to the King — which was done just previous to the order for prorogation. In his address on this occasion, Governor Bernard demonstrated the absurdity of the As¬ sembly’s charges of an arbitrary use of power and of en¬ croachment on their taxation privileges, emphasizing the fact that during a recess of the General Court certain crises might arise in which immediate action would be required. The prorogation prevented a reply at that time, but in the next session consideration of the remonstrance was resumed, “lest our Constituents and the whole World might infer from our Silence, that we had tacitly conceded that the Governor, with the Advice of the Council, in a Recess of the General Court,” really possessed the powers at issue. Acknowledging the necessity of some discretionary power of disbursement, the Assembly cited the example and the regulations of Parliament, which always made specific application of ap¬ propriations, and which permitted “unlimited, absolute Power” only “upon Occasions of evident Necessity, when the very Being of a Government is in imminent Danger.8 Any departure from this principle would tend to: 7 Journal, Sept. 14 and 15, 1762, pp. 101, 104. After the capture of St. Johns, Newfoundland, the French were threatening the safety of fishing towns in the vicinity. The Assembly not sitting, Bernard expended about £500 in equipping the provincial sloop; cf. also Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, 98. 8 Journal, Sept. 18, 1762, pp. 121, 143. Prorogued Sept. 18, 1762, convened Jan. 17, 1763. Cf. ibid., pp. 122, 137, 144. 152 ROYAL GOVERNORS Render Parliament altogether useless, and Princes arbitrary, by lodging in the Crown, and in the Ministers, an absolute and un¬ controllable Power of raising Money upon the People, which by the wise Constitution of Great Britain is and can be only lodged with safety in the Legislature.9 Bernard, however, avoided controversy by reminding the House that this message, coming as it did in continuation of proceedings that were closed by prorogation, was out of order.10 This was the first real controversy in his adminis¬ tration. The well-known disputes over the legality of writs of assistance need in this connection only passing mention. Through them opposition to the prerogative grew stronger and more vindictive. At the trial in this connection Hutch¬ inson again presided; after a deferred judgment the writs were finally, through advices from England, sustained. It was largely from proceedings of this nature that there grew up the feeling against England that finally resulted in the American Revolution. By the “vindication” speech of James Otis against the writs a spirit of rebellion was fostered. He played upon the people’s sorest grievances, reminding them that the colonists and the colonies were not solely for the advantage of the King. “Kings were made for the good of the people, not the people for them.” The writs themselves he denounced as: “Instruments of slavery on the one hand, and villany on the other, . . . the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty, and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law-book.” He also warned “all plantation governors” not to labor, “as most of them did, ... in extending the prerogative beyond all bounds.”11 9 Journal , Jan. 18, 1763, p. 145. 10 Journal , Jan. 26, 1763. 11 Bancroft, History of the United States, 1891 ed., II, 553; Minot, ibid., p. 92. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 153 The pulpit also made the King’s Governor a target: I do not say that our invaluable rights have been struck at; but if they have, they are not wrested from us; and may Heaven blast the designs, if not the soul, of that man, whoever he be among us that shall have hardiness to attack them.12 Shortly after these events, Governor Bernard warned the Assembly against being influenced by declamations regarding danger to the people’s liberties, denouncing them as insinua¬ tions which might easily have been true under Charles or James, but never under the Georges.13 In this situation came the welcome news of the approach¬ ing treaty of 1763, and with it, peace in the province and harmony in the legislature. The Assembly even at that time expressed the hope that Bernard might be ‘Tong con¬ tinued at the Head of the Government.” James Otis took occasion to rejoice in the glory of Great Britain, and in the union of Massachusetts with that country: “The true inter¬ ests of Great Britain and her plantations are mutual, and what God in his Providence has united, let no man dare to pull asunder.” 13“ But England’s war debt of one hundred forty million pounds had to be met, and the method of discharging it soon caused clouds to gather. Toward the end of the year 1763, the Governor received orders to report on the popula¬ tion “with all the proper distinctions thereof.” Very re¬ luctantly, and not without strong suspicion of the motives behind the measure, the Assembly passed the necessary law. A great part of the province, however, disregarded the enact¬ ment. What returns were made were of little use. Bernard afterward complained that he was nearly three years carrying into execution a work performed by Connecticut in less than 12 Bancroft, ibid., p. 5G1, Mayliew’s Thanksgiving Sermon in 1762. 13 Minot, op. cit., II, 99ff. 13“ Journal, Feb. 15, 1763, p. 245. Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, 102. 154 ROYAL GOVERNORS three months. To facilitate immediate enforcement a new bill was soon passed.13^ In vain the Assembly endeavored about the same time to prevent renewal of the expired Sugar Act. A statement was drawn up of the Rights of the British Colonies in general , and of the Province of Massachusetts Bay in particular , with some Observations on the Act of the sixth of George the Second , commonly called the Sugar Act ,14 The renewal came, how¬ ever, and even though not strictly enforced engendered further opposition from the anti-prerogative element. Rumors of the detested Stamp Act added to the flame; and now for the first time in its history, the House acted inde¬ pendently of the Governor and Council by sending to the provincial agent in England instructions prepared by James Otis upon the rights of British colonies. Then also there appears for the first time, contained in these instructions, definite expression in the Journal of the objection to taxation without representation. The Journal for the preceding four years of Governor Bernard’s administration reads rather smoothly. Suddenly, in the letter to the colonial agent, Mauduit, is heard an ominous note. Its very definiteness proves that it was the expression of mature sentiments long pent up, and now flung forth almost as a challenge to the home government. For an executive who was bound to oppose such sentiments and to enforce the obnoxious meas¬ ures, the forecast was of necessity far from encouraging. The news contained in letters from Mauduit, concerning the Sugar Act, the “obliging of the Colonies to maintain an army,” and taxation of the colonies by parliamentary act, was, in the opinion of the House, “to the last degree alarm- mg. 136 Journal , 1763-1764, pp. 44, 48, 72, 99, 103jf., 251, 255, 260, law proposed June 2, 1763, adopted Feb. 2, 1764; cf. also entries for Feb. 16 and 26, 1765, pp. 246, 274. 14 Journal, June 8, 1764, pp. 54, 66; cf. also pp. 72, 77. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 155 The Silence of the Province [in delaying reply to the agent’s letters on these matters] should have been imputed to any Cause, even Dispair, rather than be construed into tacit Cession of their rights, or an Acknowledgment of a Right in the Parliament of Great-Britain to impose Duties and Taxes upon a People, who are not represented in the House of Commons. As to “so burthensome a scheme as that of obliging the colonies to maintain an Army . . . What Merit could there be in a Sub¬ mission to such an unconstitutional Measure?” [The agent had given reason to believe that the colonies would submit.] The members could not “conceive it to be exactly agreeable to Equity and Justice, that America (in the words of Grenville) should be at the whole charge of its own Government and Defence.” This Province in particular had in one Campaigne on Foot seven Thousand Troops. This was a greater Levy for a single Province, than the three Kingdoms have made collectively in any one Year since the Revolution. It should be remembered that these colonies subsisted for more than a century, and defended themselves against the French and the Indians with very little Assistance from England. Can it be possible that the Duties to be imposed and the Taxes to be levied, shall be assessed without the Voice of Consent of one American in Parliament? ... If we are not represented, we are Slaves. The actual laying of the Stamp Duty, you say, is deferred ’till next year, Mr. Grenville being willing to give the Provinces their Option to raise that, or some other equivalent tax, desirous, as he was pleased to express himself, “to consult the Ease, the Quiet and the Good-will of the Colonies.” ... no measures could be hit upon that have a more natural and direct Tendency to enervate those Principles than [these very resolutions]. The kind offer of suspending this Stamp Duty . . . upon the Condition you mention amounts to no more than this, that if the Colonies will not tax themselves as they may be directed, the Parliament will tax them. Ireland is a conquered Country, which is not the case with the 156 ROYAL GOVERNORS Northern Colonies, except Canada: Yet no Duties have been Levied by the British Parliament on Ireland. No internal or external Taxes have been assessed on them but by their own Parliament. Notice of this letter, together with an exhortation to join in similar measures and sentiments, was ordered to be sent to all the other colonies. This instance is the first in the history of the House wherein it acted independently of the other two branches of the government.15 After considerable discussion with the Council as to content of a petition later sent to the King, Lords, and Commons, the General Court was prorogued until the following Decern- ber.16 The altercations in this session were mostly with the Council, relating chiefly to excise measures and to fees in the Admiralty Court and Customs House.17 It should also be noted that the Assembly adopted the significant method of making grants to the person appointed as the province secretary rather than to the office itself. The “one de¬ fault” of the session, in Bernard’s estimation, was the refusal of the Assembly to make proposed enlistment of 900 men for use against the increasingly aggressive Indians. The explanation offered was the heavy burden that already oppressed the province.18 The next session opened on Jan. 10, 1765, with a con¬ gratulatory address from Bernard on the Assembly’s “Una¬ nimity, Prudence and Moderation in Times of difficulty and distrust,” and with assurance that the recent petitions, which he had himself recommended to the favour of the King’s ministers, “must receive great Weight from the dutiful 15 Journal, June 13, 1764, pp. 72/ (the quotation). Sources for preceding data are in Journal, 1764-1765, pp. 77, 109, 111, 114, 126, 129, 133. 16 Journal, 1764-1765, pp. 109, 111, 114, 126, 129, 133, entry for Nov. 3, 1764, p. 134; convened Jan. 10, 1765. Cf. p. 141. 17 Ibid., 1764-1765, pp. 51, 253, 257/., 263/., 282, 284, 294, 295, and passim. 18 Ibid., 1764-1765, pp. 119, 151, 245, 249, 262, 275, especially entry for March 6, 1765. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 157 manner in which they are formed.” 18& The reply, however, gave evidence of the rising storm: We flatter ourselves the Representations made therein will have success not only from the dutiful manner in which they are formed, but from the necessary Connection there is between the Interests of the Nation and the success of that Petition.19 And they declared that the “difficulties of the Times” to which the Governor referred were due “to the Embarass- ments upon our Trade,” which, it was hoped, would soon be removed. In a word, the great topic of dispute was Parliament’s right to tax an unrepresented people. Governor Bernard upheld the right. Thereafter, even though he added the condition that moneys so raised should be expended ex¬ clusively within and on the colonies, the feeling of agitation and opposition fast increased.20 The next session opened on May 29, 1765, — the same month in which news was received of the passage of the Stamp Act. Making no direct reference to that act in his opening address, Governor Bernard simply observed that the long delayed “Settlement of the American Provinces . . . must necessarily produce some Regulations, which from their Novelty only, will appear disagreeable. But . . . they will operate . . . for the Benefit and Advantage of the Colonies.” He urged therefore “a respectful Submission to the Decrees of Parliament . . . the Sanctuary of Liberty and Justice.” The House soon after busied itself with plans for the first convention of delegates from all the colonies to meet at New York in the following October, in order to con¬ sult on the “Difficulties to which they are and must be re- 18a Journal, Jan. 10, 1765, p. 143. 19 Ibid., 1764-1765, p. 148. 20 For quotations and data in this paragraph cf. Journal, 1764-1765, pp. 143, 148, 149. Minot, op. cit., II, 159jf. Journal, 1765-1766, pp. 1, 11; ibid.. May 30, 1765, p. 11. 158 ROYAL GOVERNORS duced by the Operation of the Acts of Parliament for levy¬ ing Duties and Taxates on the Colonies, and to consider of a general and united, dutiful, loyal and humble Repre¬ sentation of their Condition to his Majesty and the Parlia¬ ment, to implore Relief.” 21 The session was short, peaceful, and fruitful; it lasted scarcely one week, during which twenty-three bills were passed.22 This harmony, however, did not extend to the province. During the summer of 1765 occurred the well-known public manifestations against the Stamp Act, — the hanging in effigy of the stamp distributor, the attack upon his house, and the destruction, with many valuable records, of the home of the Lieutenant-Governor, Thomas Hutchinson. About the Governor himself ominous rumors began to be circulated. Windows in his house were broken at night, and* placards were placed on the gates. He therefore retired with his family to Castle William. “The Mobs are bad,” he wrote, “but the Politicians are Worse.” “A single regiment,” he declared, “would have prevented this insurrection.”23 Bernard’s opening address in the fall session that followed these events admitted his powerlessness to cope with the disordered conditions and asked aid from the Assembly. As to the Stamp Act, he had “only to say that it is an Act of the Parliament of Great-Britain, and as such ought to be obeyed by the subjects of Great-Britain.” 24 He also empha¬ sized the consequences of resistance, and the difficulties in judicial procedure, in trade, and in business activities that 21 Journal, June 25, 1765, p. 109. The petition had been drafted by Hutchinson himself. The House changed the word 'privileges to right. There was conflict then over the words until the Council proposed liberties, which was accepted by all. 22 Met May 29, 1765; prorogued June 6, 1765. Cf. Journal, 1765-1766, pp. 1, 11, 109, 111. 23 Journal, Sept. 25, 1765, p. 122. Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, 120jf. Bernard to Thomas Pownal, Aug. 18 and 19, 1765, Bernard Letters, Sparks, IV, Harvard College Library, IV, 10, 11; also Bernard to R. Jackson, Aug. 24, 1765, ibid., IV, 18. 24 Journal, Sept. 25, 1765, p. 119. Session began on this date. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 159 would result from rejection of the stamps. Recompense also was urged for the losers in the Stamp Act riots, with par¬ ticular reference to the Lieutenant-Governor. On the follow¬ ing day, after reminding the Assembly of the shipload of recently arrived stamped papers, and of the resignation of the distributor, Oliver, Governor Bernard requested advice and assistance from the House on the preservation of the stamps. No action resulted. Then, in order to give oppor¬ tunity for fuller attendance and for mature consideration, he ordered an adjournment of four weeks.25 So violent became the demonstrations during this interval, that the authority of the Governor and of all civil govern¬ ment was practically at an end. In the streets, walking about with impunity, appeared even ringleaders in the recent riots. Endeavors to suppress pageants of protest booked for November first were unsuccessful. “All real power/’ wrote Bernard, three weeks after the Stamp Act went into effect, “ is now in the hands of the people, out of which are formed two companies of men under Captains, etc,, publicly coun¬ tenanced and supported by some Gentlemen of the first fortunes.” 26 When the General Court reconvened, the day on which the Stamp Act was to become effective was scarcely one week distant — Nov. 1, 1765. The members immediately objected to the previous sudden adjournment, took ex¬ ception to every proposition in the Govenor’s address, considered that part of it which referred to the disorders in Boston as an insinuation of their implication, and therefore “unkind” and a “reflection on the province,” and refused to make the suggested compensation. After professions of profoundest loyalty to Great Britain, they declared: 25 Journal, Sept. 25 and 26, 1765, pp. 118/., 124/., 129. 26 Bernard to Lords of Trade, Oct. 12, 1765, Bernard Letters, Sparks, IV, Harvard College Library, IV, 169. Bernard to H. S. Conway, Nov. 25, 1765, ibid., p. 170. 160 ROYAL GOVERNORS It by no means appertains to us to presume to adjust the boundaries of the power of Parliament; but boundaries there un¬ doubtedly are. We hope we may without offence, put your Excel¬ lency in mind of that most grievous sentence of excommunication solemnly denounced by the church in the name of the sacred Trinity, in the presence of King Henry the Third, and the estates of the realm, against all those who should make statutes, or ob¬ serve them being made contrary to the liberties of Magna Charta.27 There are certain original inherent rights belonging to the people which the parliament itself cannot divest them of consistent with their own constitution; among these is the right of representation in the same body which exercises the power of taxation.28 We deeply regret it that the Parliament has seen fit to pass such an act as the Stamp Act; ... we must beg your Excellency to excuse us from doing anything to assist in the execution of it. . . . Such a conduct in us would be to oppose the sentiments of the people whom we represent, and the declared instruction of most of them.29 Then follows a long list of objections, concluding: And what is the worst of all evils, if his Majesty’s American subjects are not to be govern’d, according to the known stated rules of the constitution, as those in Britain are, it is greatly to be feared that their minds may in time become disaffected; which we cannot even entertain the most distant thought of without the greatest abhorrence.30 And to the Governor himself was imputed partial responsi¬ bility for the Act: 27 The appeal in this case is strange. So thoroughly detested by the Puritans was the Papacy and all connected with the Roman Catholic Church, that it seldom received even respectful mention. This citation, therefore, in support of the As¬ sembly’s point, of an essentially papal and Catholic institution, is rather surprising. 28 Journal, Oct. 24, 1765, pp. 133/f. 29 Ibid., Oct. 24, 1765, p. 135. 30 Ibid., p. 136. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 161 We are truly sorry that your Excellency has never made it a part of your business to form any judgment of this act; especially as you have long known what uneasiness the most distant prospect of it gave to his Majesty’s good subjects in America, and of this province of which you are substituted to be the head and father; had your Excellency thought it proper to have seasonably entered into a disquisition of the policy of it you would, we doubt not, have seen that the people’s fears were not without good founda¬ tion; and the love and concern which you profess to have for them, as well as your duty to his Majesty, whose faithful subjects they are, might have been the most powerful motives to your Excellency to have expressed your sentiments of it early enough to those whose influence brought it into being.31 Two days before the Stamp Act was to become effective the House adopted a set of defiant resolves, among which, by way of summary, was the following: Resolved , as a just Conclusion from some of the foregoing Re¬ solves, That all Acts made, by any Power whatever, other than the General Assembly of this Province, imposing Taxes on the Inhabitants are Infringements of our inherent and unalienable Rights, as Men and British Subjects; and render void the most valuable Declarations of our Charter ,32 The Governor was at that time suffering considerable trepidation lest the resolves, which in his estimation amounted to a suspension of an Act of Parliament, should be submitted to him. If so, he intended to quit the govern¬ ment because he could not consent, and he dared not refuse.33 It was immediately afterward that James Otis, who had been with the committee sent to New York to confer with the other colonies on concerted action, returned and pre- 31 Journal, Oct. 24, 1765, pp. 133/., 135, 136. 32 Ibid., Oct. 29, 1765, p. 153. 33 Bernard to - , Oct. 30, 1765, Bernard Letters, Sparks, IV, Harvard College Library, IV, 78. 162 ROYAL GOVERNORS sented the “ Proceedings of the Commissioners of the Con¬ gress at New York.34 About the same time it was discovered that Governor Bernard had paid for certain military expenses without the knowledge or approval of the Assembly. A remonstrance was immediately voted, in which the procedure was declared to be “an High infraction of the Rights of this House,” an implication of “very injurious distrust of the independent Companies” already assigned to the work which the Gover¬ nor had undertaken to provide for, that is, the defense of Castle William.35 This was followed by an address from the Governor in which there are indications that he had been deeply affected and keenly hurt by the tone and con¬ tent of the above mentioned message from the House. He declared himself “much injured” by sentiments “conceived in terms so different” from the usual respectful address, and containing “unfair arguments” and “groundless insinua¬ tions” designed “to misrepresent.” Then, as follows, he stated the position of many a royal Governor: What have I done to deserve this? I have happen’d to be the Governor of this province at a Time when the Parliament has thought proper to enact a Taxation of the Colonies: It is not pretended that I have promoted this Tax; nor can it with any Truth be pretended that I have had it in my Power to have opposed it by any Means whatsoever. However when the Act was pass’d it brought upon me a necessary Duty which, it seems, did not coincide with the Opinions of the People. This is my Offence; but it is really the Offence of my Office; and against that you should have expressed your Resentment and not against my Person. If I could have dispensed with my Duty perhaps I might have pleased you; but then I must have condemned myself and been 34 Journal, Nov. 1, 1765, p. 163. One of the three commissioners refused to sign the proceedings of the Congress and left before business was completed. Cf. Journal, 1765-1766, p. 254. 36 Journal, Nov. 4 and 5, 1765, pp. 166, 170. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 163 condemned by my Royal Master. I cannot purchase your Favour at so dear a Rate. To justify your unkind Treatment of me you charge me with Unkindness towards the Province. ... You intimate that if I had had the Love and Concern for the People which I profess, I should have expressed my Sentiments of the Act early enough to those whose Influence brought it into Being. But from whence do you learn that I have had any opportunity to express such Sentiments? Do you imagine that I take the Liberty of obtruding my Advice to His Majesty’s Ministers unasked and unexpected, and in a Business belonging to a Department with which I have not the honor to correspond? If I wanted to apologize for my general Conduct in this Govern¬ ment, I need only apply to your Registers, where I shall find frequent Instances of the Approbation of my Administration. And, so far as an upright Intention and a diligent Exercise of my Abilities will go, I have deserved them. It is not much above a Year since you thought proper by a special Request to desire me to be your Advocate for particular Purposes: If I was at Liberty to make public my Execution of that Commission, I should make those blush who would persuade you that I am not a real Friend to the Interests and especially to the Trade of this People.36 After the Stamp Act had been in force for exactly one week, Governor Bernard ordered a further prorogation until Jan. 15, 1766. During the ensuing interval business was practically at a standstill; judicial process, for lack of properly stamped documents, ceased; town meetings in Boston fostered the growing defection, with the slogan “all power is from the people;’5 the people were without means of redress, and the possible consequences of the universal discontent became really alarming.37 Governor Bernard’s experiences can be inferred from his own words: 36 Journal , November, 1765, pp. 187, 188, 189. 37 Bernard to Lords of Trade, Dec. 19, 1765, Bernard Letters , Sparks, IV, Harvard College Library, IV, 180. Journal, ibid., p. 190. Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, pp. 142^. 164 ROYAL GOVERNORS For near 3 months I have been under great difficulties and not without danger; Once my house was invested (The same night the Lieut. Governor’s house was destroyed) but preserved by the remonstrances of the Neighbors, Ourselves being at the Castle; twice have I sent away any paper, plate etc. Once I expected to be obliged to quit the Province for several days together; but the peremptoriness of my instructions made me desirous of trying every experiment first, & I got over that difficulty. Even now I am in continual expectation of fresh disturbances arising of which I may partake more or less, But I have done my duty tho’ it has been a severe one this time I have waged a most unequal war, & can hardly now procure the liberty of remaining Neutral without pre¬ tending to exercise any real Authority.38 At the meeting in January, 1766, the Governor’s short opening address reminded the members that his office would prevent approval of any unlawful bill. This was a warning against the adoption of measures aimed at the Stamp Act. With far more aggressiveness than ever was manifested by preceding Assemblies, the House took up the Governor’s address on the occasion of the prorogation, declaring it an “undue Exercise of the Prerogative” to say things “which bear hard” and then to prevent a reply by discontinuing the session. The insinuations in their previous message were reiterated, and they were determined openly to oppose the late Act of Parliament “because they plainly saw that their essential unalienable Right of Representation, and of Trials by Juries, the very Foundation of the British Constitution was infringed and even annihilated by it.” 39 The Governor was again censured for taking no measures to prevent the execution act, and was even indirectly accused of participa¬ tion in its promotion. Pointblank, the announcement was made: 38 Bernard to Barrington, Nov. 23, 1765, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, p. 102. 39 Journal, Jan. 17, 1766, pp. 198, 200; cf. also Jan. 15 and 16, 1766, pp. 191, 193. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 165 The Courts of Justice must be open, open immediately, and the Law the great Rule of Right in every county . . . executed. Stopping the course of justice is a grievance which this House must inquire into, . . . Justice must be fully administered through the province, by which the shocking Effects, which your excellency apprehended from the People’s non-compliance with the Stamp Act, will be prevented.40 Not long afterward a committee reported as serious grievances the fact that the Governor and the Council, contrary to the desire of the House, had printed the Stamp Act and the Mutiny Act; also that they had held weekly a “Privy Council.” Their defiance was further indicated in a resolve that, “The Judges, and justices, and all other pub lick officers in this province, ought to proceed in the discharge of their several functions as usual.” 41 Governor Bernard would have negatived this resolve, but was saved the consequent embarrassing situation when the Council re¬ fused concurrence.42 The remaining month of the session was wdthout dispute; business regarded chiefly domestic concerns. Before the new election of 1766, news had come of the repeal of the Stamp Act, and of Governor Bernard’s letter to the ministry urging the same. The feeling against him was nevertheless maintained, for it was learned that he had urged the repeal, not as a right, but as a concession. The session opened rather inauspiciously when Bernard vetoed the choice of James Otis as speaker. Otis was then elected to the Council, when the choice, together with that of five other anti-prerogative men, was also negatived. Hutchinson, 40 Journal, pp. 200jf. Posted in the Town House, under the Council Chamber appeared the following notice: “Open your Courts and let Justice prevail, Open your Offices and let not Trade fail. For if those Men in Power will not act. We’ll get some that will in actual fact.” Cf. Bernard to Lords of Trade, Dec. 19, 1765, Postscript, Bernard Letters, Sparks, IV, Harvard College Library, IV, 184. 41 Journal, Jan. 23, 1766, p. 214. 42 Ibid., 1765-1766, pp. 255, 257. 166 ROYAL GOVERNORS the staunch supporter of the prerogative in the Council, was on this occasion dropped from that body. To the Governor’s opening address the House, in a long reply that bordered upon extreme disrespect, objected to his references to the late disturbances, declaring that they were themselves far from holding, as he had intimated, any “Private Resent¬ ments” or “ill Purposes” under “the borrowed Mask of Patriotic Zeal,” and regarding it an injustice to impute to the whole province the outrages committed against Hutch¬ inson by a “few Villians under cover of the Night.” 43 As to his attitude concerning the recent election results they de¬ clared : The manner in which you are pleased to explain the grounds of your Testimony against the Election of the present year, seems to imply that it is your opinion that the two Houses have been so far influenced by an inflammatory Spirit in particular Persons, as even to make an Attack upon the government in Form! The two Houses proceeded in these Elections with perfect good Humor and good Understanding; and as no other Business had been transacted when we were favored with your speech, it is astonishing to us that you should think this a time to “interrupt the general Harmony”. . . . We are wholly at loss to conceive how a full, free and fair Election can be called, “an Attack upon the government in Form,” “a professed Intention to deprive it of its best and most able Servants,” “an ill-judged and ill-timed oppugnation of the King’s Authority,” — These, may it please your Excellency, are high and grievous charges against the two Houses and such as we humbly conceive, no crowned Head since the revolution has thought fit to bring against two Houses of Parliament. It seems to us to be little short, if anything, of a direct Impeachment of the two Houses of High Treason. Oppugnation of the King’s Authority is but a learned Mode of expression which reduced to plain English is fighting against the King’s most excellent majesty.44 43 Journal, 1766-1767, pp. 23/.; cf. also ibid., 1765-1766, pp. 255, 257; 1766- 1767, pp. 5, 8, 10, 11; Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, 147. 44 Journal, June 3, 1766, pp. 25/. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 167 And they explained their procedure as a blow at nothing but the “dangerous union of legislative and executive powers in the same persons,” — in reference chiefly to Hutchinson. “Some of his high offices,” they later declared, “are so in¬ compatible with others of them, that in all probability they never will hereafter be, as they never were heretofore thus accumulated by any man. This gentleman was for years together Lieutenant Governor, Councellor, Chief Justice of the province, and a Judge of the Probate. Three of these lucrative as well as honorary places he now enjoys, and yet is not content.”45 Other addresses also passed back and forth, each containing defiant and sarcastic comment. After another prolonged and fruitless discussion regarding com¬ pensation for the riot victims, that matter was referred to the next session.46 There was a controversy also when the Governor objected to reduction at the royal fortresses, Castle William and Fort Pownal. No amount of urging would in¬ duce the representatives to make more than the one slight increase that was granted.47 The session had lasted scarcely a month when it was prorogued, with Bernard highly dis¬ pleased at proceedings : I have just gotten through a very troublesome session in which the House of Representatives with great imprudence as well as ingratitude have treated the King’s authority with fresh indignity. I have not been wanting in showing a proper resentment of it. I am now preparing exact accounts of these transactions for the Secretary of State and the Board of Trade, and flatter myself that the spirit I have shown upon the occasion will meet with appro¬ bation.48 45 Journal , March 16, 1767, p. 404; cf. also p. 27. 46 Journal, June 10, 1766, pp. 29, 42, 66, 78, 124, 135, 137, 142. 47 Ibid., 1766-1767, pp. 112, 118, 124, 126. 48 Bernard to Barrington, July 6, 1766, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, p. 110; cf. also Journal, 1766-1767; met May 28, prorogued June 28, 1766. Cf. p. 146. 168 ROYAL GOVERNORS As the summer months of 1766 wore away, his apprehensions increased. He recognized the instability of the ministerial policy toward America, and lamented that the colonies also noted it and were in consequence forming “pretentions” which otherwise “they would not have dared.” The consequence is that it is high time for every Crown Officer in America who has distinguished himself by his fidelity to the King to get away before his retreat is cut off. If the Administra¬ tion of Great Britain is not able to take necessary measures to support its authority over the Colonies it cannot be expected that they should be able to protect the King’s officers against the popular power of the Colonists, which must be every day increasing at the expense of Great Britain. M. Pownall has long ago expressed great concern at the danger I am in at this place and with reason, for many people here have wondered at my having hitherto escaped; perhaps my firmness has contributed to it. But that won’t do at all times. I think the trial is still to come, especially as I have of late found myself obliged to strike some bold strokes on the behalf of the King, which, though they have been generally approved of, will excite some of the wickedest people who are hurt by them, to do me some singular mischief.49 What Bernard most feared was the trouble that would result from the introduction of British regulars into Boston. Rumor had it that the troops would not be permitted to enter either by land or sea. While Bernard believed that such opposition could hardly be successful he feared never¬ theless that the popular wrath might turn from the soldiers to himself, as to a victim upon whom to be avenged. There¬ fore his increased anxiety to return to England. He knew that “improvement” was necessary in the Massachusetts Government, but declared : 49 Bernard to Barrington, Sept. 1, 1766, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, p. 113. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 169 No improvement can be made in this Government but with the high hand of Parliament; So that it will be a vain attempt to get my salary augmented with but the good will of the present rulers of the People. And now it seems to me that there must be, sooner or later, effectual measures taken for reforming this Government, which will be unpleasing to the People in their present Plentitude of Power. In such a case the old Gov’r will be made obnoxious whether he is or not advising or privy to such measures, and it may be advisable on that account only, to appoint a new Gov’r. This consideration has induced me to think of looking out for another establishment: and I have been more encouraged in it by the many letters received here, advising that it was intended to remove me to a better Government, one of which from a Gent’n who has admission to some great people, expressly named Jamaica. There are now vacant 4 Governments, Jamaica, Leeward Islands, Barbadoes and Nova Scotia.50 Because of reports then current in the press, that the for¬ feitures on certain vessels were largely going to the benefit of the Governor, Bernard’s position became even more difficult. The House, moreover, had attained increased power through additional representatives from new towns. Alone, it had appointed an agent, sent delegates to other Assemblies, au¬ thorized standing committees to function outside regular sessions, and — significant in its implications — had pro¬ vided for the first time a gallery in which the people could attend sessions. Bernard’s patience was by this time exhausted and he was hoping soon to return to England.51 Although in the next session the House was unusually aggressive, Governor Bernard seemed purposely to avoid open rupture. He had called the session for the sole purpose 60 Bernard to Barrington, Sept. 1, 1766, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, pp. 113, 115. 51 Journal, Nov. 2, 1765, pp. 162, 172, 175, and passim; also ibid., Feb. 20 and June 28, 1766, pp. 300, 142jf., and Bernard to Barrington, July 5, 1766, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, p. 110. 170 ROYAL GOVERNORS of giving opportunity to carry out the express wishes of the King and Parliament regarding compensation for the sufferers in the Stamp Act riots. After another rejection of this, and a sharp altercation because of the manner in which Bernard phrased the request, the compensation was finally granted, on condition, however, of “Pardon, Indemnity and Oblivion to the Offenders.” Bernard approved, but the bill was later disallowed by the King.52 This session really opened with orders from the House to determine whether any Acts of Parliament had been, by direction of the Governor and Council, inserted in the province Law Book; also to inquire into the practice adopted by Governor and Council of issuing proclamations contain¬ ing promise of a reward from the province treasury in return for enforcement of the Acts. In regard to the former, it was found that Acts had been thus inserted, and the Council in reply to the Assembly’s demand to know the reason referred the question to Bernard. The provision of support for the newly arrived British regulars, which had been made by Bernard upon advice of the Council alone, also caused protest. A committee was appointed to take under con¬ sideration during the recess, this and other controverted matters.53 In this session also the Assembly determined, contrary to the Governor’s sentiments, to dismiss the province agent. Upon this, as well as upon the other matters, Bernard refrained from active opposition; and as soon as the object of the session, — compensation for the sufferers in the riots, — had been attained, he avoided conflict by prorogation. This conciliatory attitude may perhaps be accounted for by the fact that at this time Bernard felt that efforts to oppose 62 Journal, Oct. 30, 1766, p. 148; also ibid., 1766, pp. 155, 159, 168, 170, 182, 191 (speech of Assembly insinuating that the Governor was himself accountable for delay of compensation owing to his unconstitutional manner of requesting it), 198, 203, 206#’., 209 (bill passed). For disallowance, cf. Hutchinson, Massachu¬ setts, III, p. 160. Compensation was made before news of disallowance arrived. 63 Journal, 1766-1767, pp. 151, 152, 216, 218, 220. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 171 the Assembly would have been fruitless because he was not receiving sufficient support from Great Britain. He was also exceedingly anxious about an increase in salary, and for this reason also may have avoided antagonizing the House.54 A similar spirit of discord characterized the succeeding session. Whenever possible there was read into the Gov¬ ernor’s expressions either affronts to the province or en¬ croachments upon the constitutional rights of the lower chamber. Practically every communication that then passed between Bernard and the Assembly contained charges, re¬ criminations, defenses and counter-charges.55 Influences hostile to him were at work but did not receive universal sanction, for the members branded as a “high insult” and “breach of their Privileges” an anonymous letter which read in part: “If your Assembly will suffer themselves to be led by that absur’d ignorant Firebrand, he may bring them into a worse scrape than they can imagine.” 56 The Governor was also asked by what authority he had made, on the advice of the Council alone, provision for a company in Castle William. This was shortly after the New York Assembly had been suspended for its refusal to quarter regulars. Perhaps through fear of another suspension the subject was dropped after a strong remonstrance.57 More serious altercation arose when Hutchinson, no longer a member of the Council, accompanied the Governor to the Council chamber, remaining while both Houses proceeded with business. Notwithstanding all of Bernard’s insistence and his appeal to precedent, the House persistently objected 64 Journal, 1766-1767, pp. 208, 221. Prorogued Dec. 9, 1766; convened Jan. 28, 1767; Bernard to Barrington, Jan. 20, 1767, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, pp. 121, 122. 65 Journal, 1766-1767, pp. 221, 231, 257, 294, 307, and passim. “ Journal, Feb. 27, 1767, p. 341. 67 Journal, Jan. 30 and 31, 1767, pp. 229, 234, and passim. Hutchinson, III, Massachusetts, pp. 168 ff.; cf. also Journal, Jan. 4, 1767, pp. 243, 299, 312, 315, 124. 172 ROYAL GOVERNORS to Hutchinson’s presence. For months the dispute went on over the question of the right involved.58 Trouble also ensued after the House had again resolved upon dismissing the province agent. Bernard suggested that they first pay the agent’s salary, and their “surprise” at this was “inexpressible.” Twice had unanimous votes been passed by both Houses in favor of the dismissal; and the “unanimous Advice of Parliament” they declared had never been opposed by any “wise and virtuous Prince.” Therefore from Governor Bernard they expected a “pro¬ portionate degree of attention to the principles ... of the constitution.” After a long delay, Bernard approved the dismissal.59 Further discontent was aroused by his authorization of the publication of certain proclamations from the Governor of Newfoundland, which contained “heinous charges . . . of robbery, piracy, murder, and in effect of treason and rebellion.” If your Excellency and the Council were to proclaim the in¬ habitants of any neighboring colony robbers and pirates, and the Governor and Council of such colony were to re-publish your proclamation without expressing the least doubt of the fact, all mankind might justly infer that the charge was admitted as well founded, and that the plea of guilty was given in, and such colony put only on the mercy of the King.60 None of Bernard’s explanations were acceptable. On March 20, 1767, the General Court was prorogued.61 Of the new election to be held in May, 1767, the Governor had no favorable hopes: 58 Journal , Feb. 7 and 17, 1767, pp. 260, 294/., 349, 350, 368, (Council considers it unconstitutional) 383, 393. 59 Ibid., 1766-1767, pp. 250, 280, 308, 420. 60 Journal, Feb. 6, 1767, pp. 257, 258. 61 Ibid., 1766-1767, pp. 340, 361, 422. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 173 Next week the new Assembly meets and the election of new Councellors takes place. Many people think that the change will be for the better. I doubt it, for the distemper contracted by the Stamp Act seems to be too deeply rooted to be cured without physick, none of which has been applied as yet unless what has increased the desease may be called so.62 Due perhaps to the influence of past events that were trailing their shadows, Governor Bernard expected, in spite of opinions to the contrary, a continuation of troubles during this session. It may have been this consideration that led him to prorogue the session before a full month had passed.63 Proceedings, however, were fairly harmonious, although they opened with a rather ominous comment by the Assembly on the Governor’s opening address. While entertaining hopes for a return of the harmony that had characterized sessions prior to the Stamp Act era, Bernard made it clear that he would not for the sake of that tranquillity sacrifice his constitutional powers. But the House could not “ during the whole Period of that general Calamity and Distress . . . recollect a single Act . . . which could have the least Tendency to interrupt a general Harmony.” And acknowl¬ edging the executive’s constitutional powers, the members reminded him 4 ‘of such a thing as indiscreet use of Legal Power.” 64 It may here be mentioned that in connection with this election Bernard had proposed a bargain: if the House would replace in the Council Hutchinson and certain other pro-prerogative Councillors, he himself would approve the same number among those whom he had formerly rejected. Ignoring the proposal, the House re-elected the same six 62 Bernard to Barrington, May 20, 1767, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence , pp. 126/. 63 Ibid. Journal , June 15, 1767, p. 86. 64 Ibid., June 18, 1767, pp. 18/., and May 28, 1767, p. 8. 174 ROYAL GOVERNORS who had been previously negatived, five of whom were again ruled out by the Governor.65 The one thing worthy of mention during this session was the Governor’s objection to the novelty of combining in one appropriation bill two distinct items, — somewhat after the manner of the more modern “rider.” In a bill providing support for Castle William and Fort Pownal, Governor Bernard disapproved the latter on grounds of insufficiency; and the House immediately objected to the separation of parts of the same bill.66 The period now under discussion found British colonial policy most unstable. The illness of Chatham caused his own disability, while his friends in the administration feared to proceed upon their own initiative. The general policy of the ministry aimed at appeasing the aroused colonies even at the partial sacrifice of England’s authority. In comment upon the opinions of the ministry. Lord Barrington actually advised Bernard against too strong insistence upon the prerogative: “I plainly perceiv’d the strongest desire that America should grow quiet; that no disputes should arise between the mother country & its Colonies, or between Gov¬ ernors and their Assemblies.”67 Bernard in acknowledgment said that he had been giving every possible leeway, but felt that the only effective pre¬ vention of disputes “must be the work of Great Britain: No Man in the Colonies, not all the Governors in America” could of themselves bring about the desired harmony.68 It was perhaps partly owing to these facts that proceedings in 65 Journal, 1767-1768, May 27 and 28; 1767, pp. 1, 7; Bernard to R. Jackson, June 6, 1768, Bernard Letters, Spark's Collection, IV, Harvard College Library, VI, 119. 66 Journal, June 17 and 24, 1767, pp. 59, 78. 67 Barrington to Bernard, Oct. 6, 1767, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, p. 129; also letter written July 8, 1767, ibid., p. 127. 68 Bernard to Barrington, Jan. 26, 1768, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, p. 131; cf. also Bernard to J. Pownal, Nov. 7, 1768, Bernard Letters, Sparks, IV, Harvard College Library, VI, 164. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 175 the winter session of 1767-1768 were for some weeks without dispute. Bernard then felt that victory was on his side, especially when James Otis seemed to relinquish activities and several of his colleagues made peace; but he knew also that “wounds may be skinned over without healing; and a Calm may be more dangerous than a Storm.” 69 It was during this lull between storms that he wrote urging the necessity of giving to America a voice in Parliament as the only solution of the taxation problem. But he was informed that “no Influence could make ten Members of either House of Parliament agree to such a Remedy.” Bernard’s reas¬ surance during this silence was strengthened by the knowl¬ edge that Parliament had decided to make Governors inde¬ pendent of Assemblies in regard to salary.70 During the first month of this session beginning Dec. 30, 1767, the “factious Party” had been able to do no more than send letters to the province agent and to the Secretary of State, together with an address to the King regarding the old grievance of Parliamentary taxation.71 One attempt to issue on the subject a circular letter to all the colonies failed. But the leaders managed to secure a vote to erase these pro¬ ceedings, and later to send the letter.72 With this trans¬ action ended the calm before the storm. In the fall of 1767, Shelburne had written in confirmation of Bernard’s negative on the Councillors and in censure of the Assembly, with personal mention of several members. Expecting good results from the communication of this letter to the House, yet wishing to avoid publication, Bernard 69 Journal, Dec. 30, 1767, p. 87; Bernard to Barrington, Jan. 26, 1768, Bar¬ rington- Bernard Correspondence, p. 132. 70 Bernard to Barrington, Jan. 28, March 12, and Feb. 7, 1768, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, pp. 133/, 140, 143. 71 Bernard to Barrington, Feb. 7 and 20, 1768, ibid., p. 146; Journal, 1767- 1768, pp. 107/., 187, and Appendix, ibid., pp. Iff. (address to King), 23/. (letter to Shelburne), 2 5ff. (letter to agent). 72 Bernard to Barrington, Feb. 20, 1768, ibid., p. 146; Journal, 1767-1768, pp. 148, 157, 161, 164, and Appendix, p. 20/., where letter is printed. 176 ROYAL GOVERNORS caused it to be read by the secretary. When a copy was requested he gave it on condition that no further copy be taken.73 The Governor was then charged with misrepre¬ sentation of the members’ characters, and of having been, by reason of disclosures made in his letters, the occasion of bringing upon the colony the displeasure of the ministry. To aid in the Assembly’s vindication, a copy of Bernard’s other letters on the subject was requested; and, upon refusal, the request was directed, together with an explanation of the Assembly’s position, to Shelburne himself ; and, contrary to promises, the House the while disclaiming responsibility, the Shelburne letter was published.74 Later on when other letters written by Governor Bernard and General Gage, which the Massachusetts agent in England had secured, were about to be printed and scattered broadcast in the colony, Bernard thus expressed his views: “This puts an End to all my Hopes of doing any Good here ... it is impossible for a Governor who has been engaged in such contests as I have been . . . to think of staying in the Province.” 75 Regarding a vilification of the Governor that soon after appeared in the Gazette , the General Court refused to take any action. Bernard at this time wrote to Shelburne as follows: “Two of the Chief Leaders of the Faction in the House (Otis & Adams) are the principal Managers of the Boston Gazette.”76 With a strong address of censure for the Assembly and of commendation for the Council Bernard closed the session. He felt that the Assembly had taken opportunity, while 73 Shelburne’s letter is printed in Appendix to Journal, 1767-1768, pp. 34#'.; cf. also ibid., pp. 176/.; ibid., Feb. 3, 13, and 16, 1768, pp. 147, 163, 171. 74 Journal, Feb. 18, 22, and 24, 1768, pp. 176/., 187, 190, 192; cf. letter, ibid., Appendix, pp. 25/. 75 Bernard to Barrington, April 12, 1769, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, p. 200. These letters were replied to in an Appeal to the World, which can be seen in Vol. 108 of Miscellaneous Pamphlets. 76 Bernard to Shelburne, March 5, 1768, Bernard Letters, Sparks, IV, Harvard College Library, VI, 272; cf. also Journal, March 2, 1768. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 177 parts of the province were aroused to all but violent demon¬ strations, to “pick” this quarrel with the Governor.77 By this time the Farmers' Letters had become the American political creed. Affairs were coming to a serious pass, and the Governor was prepared to see the “crisis” of which he was constantly warning the ministry.78 In this year there was a “great Celebration of the Repeal of the Stamp Act, by drums and guns at Break of Day, and the whole Town adorned with Ships Colours and to add to the Celebration, the Feast of St. Patrick was post-poned to this Day.”79 Dangerous as were these quasi insurrections to some of the Crown officials, neither the Governor nor the Council dared take measures to secure British troops. Bernard was still anxious to receive discretionary leave to quit the colony ; feeling “that so serious was the situation becoming that soon he was not like to have any choice in it.”80 Writing May 9, 1768, to Lord Barrington, Governor Bernard informed his Lordship that: In the winter of 65-6, I was several times drove to the very brink of deserting my post, and in the Spring following, the Lieu¬ tenant-Governor told me that nothing surprised him more than to see me in this town at that time. And if we are to believe the Heads of the Faction here, if concessions from Great Britain are not soon made, the next winter will be as dangerous.81 The Governor’s fears were increased by secret informa¬ tion of a concerted uprising among the colonies against the 77 Journal, March 4, 1768; prorogued to April 13, 1768. Cf. ibid., Bernard to Barrington, March 4, 1768, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, p. 149. 78 Bernard to T. Pownal, April 20, 1768; Bernard to Barrington, June 18, 1768, Bernard Letters, Sparks, IV, Harvard College Library, VI, 107, 123; also to T. Pownal, July 11, 1768, ibid., p. 130. 79 Bernard to Shelburne, March 19, 1768, ibid., p. 280. 80 Bernard to Barrington, April 20, 1768, ibid., p. 153. For data preceding, cf. Bernard to Barrington, March 4, Feb. 7, April 20, and May 9, 1768, ibid., pp. 148, 144, 153, 156. 81 Bernard to Barrington, May 9, 1768, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, pp. 156/. 178 ROYAL GOVERNORS Customs House officials, and by rumors of violence, at least in Massachusetts, to the Governor himself. It was hardly a month after he had thus written when the Customs officers in Boston were driven, in danger of their lives, out of the town.82 Meanwhile, in the newly opened session of the General Court, trouble had begun; and before its close the commis¬ sioners of the customs had fled to the British warships in Boston harbor. In the recent elections Bernard again failed to strengthen the prerogative party in the Council, losing by a very narrow margin the Lieutenant-Governor, Thomas Hutchinson. Again he negatived the election to the Council of James Otis and of five other leaders of the “Faction.” The House refused to elect substitutes.83 Difficulties commenced when Bernard, explaining that he was “merely ministerial in this Business,” announced the King’s instructions requiring the members to rescind the former Assembly’s resolution regarding a circular letter. This created a deep impression, and he was asked for a copy of the instructions, together with Lord Hillsborough’s letter and all his own correspondence on the subject. Giving the Secretary’s letter, which he said contained all the instructions that he had, Bernard refused to make public his own corre¬ spondence.84 After vainly requesting a recess, the House refused to obey the King’s command, denying that in securing the vote for the circular letter, illegal measures had been resorted to, and declaring “incomprehensible” this require¬ ment to rescind on peril of dissolution a resolution of a former House, which was no longer “executory,” but “executed,” and therefore with “no existence, but as a mere historical fact.” With strenuous objection to the dissolution, 82 Bernard to Barrington, May 9 and June 18, 1768, Barrington- Bernard Corre¬ spondence , pp. 159, 160. 83 Journal, June 21, 1768, and data on pp. 4, 7, 16, 68; Bernard to T. Pownal, May 30, 1768, Bernard Letters, Sparks, IV, Harvard College Library, VI, 115. 84 Journal, June 21, 1768, pp. 72, 75. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 179 as well as with a purpose to petition the King for removal of the Governor, they declared: We take this opportunity faithfully and firmly to represent to your Excellency that new Revenue Acts and Measures are not only disagreeable to, but in every view are deemed an insupportable burden and grievance, with a very few exceptions, by all the free¬ holders and other inhabitants of the jurisdiction; and we beg leave, once and for all, to assure your Excellency, that those of this opinion are of no “party or expiring faction.” They have at all times been ready to devote their lives and fortunes to his Majesty’s service. Of loyalty, this majority could as reasonably boast as any who may happen to enjoy your Excellency’s smiles. Their reputation, rank and fortune are at least equal to those who may have been sometimes considered as the only friends to good government, while some of the best blood of the Colony, even in the two Houses of Assembly lawfully convened, and duly acting, have been openly charged with the unpardonable crime of “Op- pugnation against the Royal Authority.” We have now only to inform you, your Excellency, that this House has voted not to rescind, as required, the resolution of the last House; and that on a division on the question, there were 92 Nays and 17 Yeas. In all this we have been actuated by a conscientious, and finally, a clear and determined sense of duty to God, to our King, our Country and to our latest posterity; and we must ardently wish and humbly pray that in your future conduct, your Excellency may be influenced by the same principles.85 In the petition for Governor Bernard’s removal were in¬ cluded the following articles of complaint: He early attached himself to a part, whose principles and views, we apprehend, have ever been repugnant to your Majesty’s real service. He has both in his speeches and other public acts, treated the Representative Body with contempt. He has in an unwarrantable manner, taken upon himself, the 85 Journal, 1768, p. 94. 180 ROYAL GOVERNORS exercise of your Majesty’s Royal Prerogative, in granting a charter for a college, without even the advice of your Majesty's Council. He has openly attempted to make himself sole and absolute Judge of the Qualification of Members, returned to serve in the House of Representative. We have also, reason to apprehend that he has endeavored to persuade your Majesty’s Ministers to believe that an Intention was formed, and a plan fettled in this and the rest of your Colonies treasonably to withdraw themselves from all connection with and dependence upon Great Britain, and from their natural allegiance to your Majesty’s sacred person and government. He has in his public speeches charged both Houses of Assembly with oppugnation against the Royal authority, and with leaving gentlemen out of the Council only for their Fidelity to the Crown. He has indiscretely, not to say wantonly, exercised the Pre¬ rogative of the Crown, in the repeated negatives of Councellors of an unblemished reputation and duly elected by a great majority of both Houses of Assembly. He has declared that certain seats of the Council Board, shall be kept vacant ’till certain gentlemen, his favorites, shall be re¬ elected. He has unconstitutionally interferred with and unduly influenced elections, particularly in the choice of an Agent for the Province. He has very abruptly displaced divers gentlemen of worth, for no apparent reason but their voting in the Assembly against his measures. He has practised the sending over depositions to the Ministry against gentlemen of character here, without giving the accused the least notice of his purposes and proceedings. He has created divers, new and unconstitutional offices. He has drawn divers warrants on the Treasury for the payment of monies against the express appropriations of the Assembly. He has at the Session, presumed to threaten the General As¬ sembly, upon the non-compliance of the House of Representative with a certain requisition, not only to dissolve them, but to delay to call a new assembly which is beyond your Majesty’s orders. By the means aforesaid, and many others that might be enumer¬ ated, he has not only rendered his administration disagreeable to REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 181 the whole Body of the People but entirely alienated their affections from him and thereby wholly destroyed that confidence in a Gov¬ ernor, which your Majesty’s Service indispensably required. Wherefore, we most humbly intreat your Majesty that his Ex¬ cellency Francis Bernard, Esq., may be removed from the Govern¬ ment of this Province. And that your Majesty would be graciously pleased to place one in his stead, worthy to represent the greatest and best Monarch on earth.86 On the same day on which these proceedings occurred, the General Court was prorogued, and a day later dissolved by proclamation.87 Through this indirect method Bernard hoped to avoid much of the trouble that he had anticipated upon declaration of dissolution. His troubles, however, were by no means ended. So great had been the impression caused by the disturbances in the colony, that regiments from Ireland and from Halifax were held in readiness to proceed thither. Meantime, against any who should be instrumental in bringing troops, death had been threatened. Bernard therefore feared, in spite of the evident need of military support of his authority, to requisition aid from General Gage, who had orders to keep the troops at Halifax in readiness to respond to the Governor’s request. His own opinion was that the British regulars should long ago by Act of Parliament have been quartered in Boston. Dis¬ turbances could then quickly and easily have been quelled, and the odium of introducing the military would not have been left to him. Since the late session, too, the Council had gone to the side of the popular party, and therefore unanimously refused to advise the calling of troops. Bernard was in a dilemma. To call them in on his own initiative alone would too greatly offend the popular party; not to call them 86 Journal, 1768, p. 95. 87 Ibid., June 30, 1768. Bernard to Barrington, June 29, 1768, Barrington - Bernard Correspondence, p. 163. For proclamation cf. Massachusetts Broadsides, Massachusetts Hist. Soc. Coll., 75, 1922, p. 195. 182 ROYAL GOVERNORS in would bring the censure of the home government. He cited, therefore, as the excuse for his inaction the refusal of the Council so to advise, and, shirking altogether the re¬ sponsibilities of his office, again requested removal to another post.88 He later suggested that the Council be appointed by the King.89 When news came of the appointment of Lord Boutetort to the place that he himself expected in Virginia, Bernard thus lamented: “If Punishments and Rewards are the two Hinges of Government, as Politicians say, this Gov¬ ernment is off of its Hinges, for it can neither punish nor reward.”90 And when at last troops were safely landed in Boston and the persons of the Crown officials were made secure, Bernard was not yet free from anxiety, as may be perceived in his correspondence: Security alone will not restore the authority of Government; especially as the Council has now gone over to the people, thinking, as I suppose, the cause of the Crown to be desperate. And, indeed, the long delay of parliamentary resentment and of military pro¬ tection together with the non-execution of the Salary Act has caused a general despondency. And this will be complete if it is confirmed as I have just now heard that the Charter of this Gov¬ ernment is still considered as sacred. For most assuredly if the charter is not so far altered as to put the appointment of the Council in the King, this Government will never recover itself. When order is restored it will be at best but a Republic of which the Governor will be no more than President.91 In the mean time Governor Bernard had carried out his determination not to summon the General Court except by express order of the King, and when constrained to do so by 88 Journal , June 30, 1768. Bernard to Barrington, July 30, July 11, Aug. 17, and July 20, 1768, Bernard- Barrington Correspondence, pp. 164/f., 167, 169jf. 89 Bernard to Hillsborough, Feb. 4, 1769, Bernard Letters, Sparks, IV, Harvard College Library, VI, 132. 90 Bernard to Barrington, Oct. 20, 1768, ibid., VI, 156. 91 Bernard to Barrington, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, p. 179. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 183 the requirement of annual election of Councillors. As a re¬ sult informal assemblies were soon meeting in the towns. Bernard was requested to issue writs for an election, in order that the grievances of the people might be adjusted, — a proceeding practically verifying the Governor’s prediction as to the evolution of the colony into a republic, and tanta¬ mount to establishing representative government independ¬ ent of both Crown and executive. This request, issued by the convention of ninety delegates at Boston, was refused, Bernard declaring the meeting illegal and ordering dispersion. Upon the arrival of the troops this “ Assembly ” disappeared, but the discontent and the disaffection toward England remained. The presence of the military acted as a goad rather than as a quietus. Quartering was opposed by every¬ one. In this matter even the justices found means of evading parliamentary law, and the Gazette and other periodicals, especially one published in New York and London, added fuel to the flame. The latter paper was under the super¬ vision of Adams and of his assistants, one or more of whom must have been members of the Council, for information of much of that body’s deliberations was leaking out.92 “But if the Devil himself was of the Party,” wrote Bernard, “as he virtually is, there could not have been got together a greater Collection of impudent and Seditious Lies, Per¬ versions of Truth & Misrepresentations than are to be found in this Publication.” 93 Before the time for the annual election of 1769, the reaction against the taxation and navigation laws had resulted in a practical disappearance of respect for the Parliament in England and the Governor in the colony, and even of the wonted professions of reverence for the King himself. 92 Bernard to Barrington, Feb. 20, 1769, and March 21, 1769, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, pp. 169, 196. Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, 204, 208jf. 93 Bernard to Hillsborough, Feb. 21, 1769, Bernard Letters, Sparks IV, Harvard College Library, VII, 141. 184 ROYAL GOVERNORS It signifies little who is Governor. Whoever he is, he must either live in perpetual Contention in vainly endeavoring to sup¬ port the royal Rights, or he must purchase Peace by a prudential Sacrifice of them. If anyone by a Comparison of former Times should doubt of this being a true State of the present, let him con¬ sider that until the 4 or 5 years last past, the Power of Parliament was thought omnipotent, the Authority of the King was revered, the Governor and the Council his Assistants were respected, and the People, in whom, by the Constitution, the chief Weight of Power was lodged, were kept in awe by the Consideration that the Abuse of their Charter priviledges might occasion the Forfeiture of them. But for these 4 years past so uniform a System of bring¬ ing all Powers into the hands of the Assembly has been prosecuted without interruption and with such Success, that all that Fear, Reverence, Respect & Awe which before formed a tolerable Ballance against the real Power of the People, are annihilated, and the artificial Weights being removed, the royal Scale mounts up and kicks the Beam.94 So completely over to the popular side had the Council by this time turned that Governor Bernard wrote that if the King did not take over the appointment of the members, it would be useless for His Majesty to keep that of the Gov¬ ernor; for “it would be better that Mass Bay should be a complete Republic like Connecticut, than to remain with so few ingredients of royalty in it as shall be insufficient to maintain the real royal Character.” 95 There had actually been made in Boston conventions, proposals to depose the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor, and to assume charge of the government.96 During this period, also, copies of several of Bernard’s 94 Bernard to Barrington, Bernard Letters, Sparks IV, Harvard College Library, VII, 264/. 95 Bernard to Barrington, March 18, 1769, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, p. 169. 96 Bernard to Hillsborough, Jan. 24, 1769, Bernard Letters, Sparks IV, Harvard College Library, VI, 123. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 185 letters to the ministry were published in the colony, with intention of inflaming the voters and thus affecting the May election of 1769. The incident apparently meant much to the Governor, causing him to reiterate what he had formerly declared : This puts an end to all my hopes of doing any good here and necessarily turns all my future views out of this Province. For it is impossible for a Governor who has been engaged in such con¬ tests as I have been and has as well by special orders as by his own sense of his duty given free and full information of the pro¬ ceedings of the factious party, to think of staying in the Province after his most confidential letters are put in the hands of the Faction and printed and dispersed among the people.97 On the eve of the first meeting of the new General Court, Bernard and the prerogative party were more dispirited than ever, while the elation of the “Sons of Liberty” had corre¬ spondingly increased. The Governor was convinced that unless Parliament took speedy action, “this Government will soon become an anarchical Democracy; a strange Com¬ pound of Policy! ” 98 Asa result of the election the Assembly was composed chiefly of members of the “faction,” who, while many of the prerogative men had been turned out, declined to serve, or remained away from the Court House during the session. Almost on the instant of meeting, and before speaker, clerk, or Councillors had been chosen, there was a re¬ monstrance against the presence in Boston Harbor of armed ships, as well as of troops in the city, with a military guard and cannon pointed at the very door of the Court House, where the session was in progress. Claiming that such an “Armament by Sea and Land was destructive of their constitutional right of parliamentary freedom of debate in 97 Bernard to Barrington, April 12, 1769, Barrington-Bernard Correspondence, pp. 199/. 98 Bernard to Barrington, May 30, 1769, ibid., p. 203. 186 ROYAL GOVERNORS the Assembly,” they requested that Bernard issue orders for immediate removal of both land and water forces. Then, under formal resolve of protest against this grievance, and for no other reason than to conform with the charter require¬ ment of annual election of Councillors, the members pro¬ ceeded to the business of the session. The preceding speaker had been re-elected, and Samuel Adams again made clerk. The choice of Councillors was still pending when Bernard announced that his authority did not extend to the King’s ships and troops. Perhaps consequent upon this, perhaps by mere coincidence, the four remaining loyal Councillors failed of re-election; and thus in that body also men of anti¬ prerogative views predominated — so much so that the al¬ most unprecedented number of eleven were immediately negatived, among whom were Otis and Hancock. “All things are going to Confusion,” wrote the Governor, “& it will grow worse & worse untill the Parliament interpose to Purpose.” 99 Governor Bernard’s opening address recommended atten¬ tion to the regular business of the province, again reminding the General Court that much as he desired harmony, he would not for this end sacrifice the principle of loyalty to his sovereign. As long as the troops stood guard over the Court House, however, the members refused to proceed to business. Finally, after two weeks of what Bernard described as wasted time and expense, and because he possessed no authority to remove the troops from the General Court, he decided to remove the Court from the troops, ordering an adjournment to Harvard College in Cambridge.100 On the same night, according to the Assembly Journal , the cannon was removed from the Court House in Boston. In a letter to Hillsborough, however, Bernard wrote that the cannon remained until 99 Bernard to Barrington, May 30 and July 8, 1769, ibid., pp. 203, 204, 207. Journal, May 31, 1769, pp. 7, 8. 100 Journal, June 1 and 15, 1769, pp. 11, 206. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 187 three days after the adjournment, and was then removed by orders from General Gage. The Governor felt that in this incident the House was simply looking for grievances, in order to give color to its pretensions. In the matter of the troops and ships, he said that the request for removal pur¬ posely omitted any mention of the main guard, which must have been stationed near the Court House. “They knew that if they had applied for the removing the Main Guard it would have been done, & therefore they would not ask for it & declared that they would not . . . These are trifling matters; but serve to show the Falsehood & Prevarication of these People.5’ 101 Until the troops were actually removed from the province, it was rumored that the members would refuse to proceed to business. In fact, had a session at that time not been so anxiously desired, they would have objected to the removal more strongly than they did; and had not certain important tax questions remained yet unsettled, the Governor would have ordered a prorogation. On the alleged waste of time and money, the Assembly indignantly declared: “No Time can be better employed than in the Preservation of the Rights derived from the British Constitution, ... No Treasure can be better expended than in securing that true old English Liberty, which gives a Relish to every other Enjoyment.55 Soon afterward there was read a unanimously accepted resolve against the quartering of troops, which was declared to be an infringement of liberty, to which only through inevitable necessity were they yielding.102 The session had continued for three weeks, producing nothing but disputation, when Governor Bernard, in order 101 Bernard to Hillsborough, July 1, 1769, Bernard Letters, Sparks IV, Harvard College Library, VII, 178. 102 Journal, June 21, 1769; cf. also June 19, 1769. Bernard to Barrington, May 30, 1769, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, p. 205. Hutchinson, Massa¬ chusetts, III, 237-240. 188 ROYAL GOVERNORS to leave no foundation for excuse, itemized the neglected details of public business, mentioning support of the govern¬ ment, treasury supply, the public debt, taxation measures, establishment for the forts and garrisons, and two other items.103 Meantime, the House had been considering certain letters written to Hillsborough by the Governor and General Gage, and on the day following this address was ready to accept a report thereon. It was declared that in these letters the King’s subjects in the colony, and in particular the mem¬ bers of the Council, had been traduced, and placed in a light most odious and unjustly represented to His Majesty.104 Then occurred an incident that well shows the disregard in which Bernard was held by the House. The Governor of New Hampshire, John Wentworth, who had come on busi¬ ness to the Admiralty Court, was waited upon by a House committee headed by James Otis, and was informed that the House would be glad of an opportunity of manifesting to him its respect; and the members severally paid their compliments to him. The comment of contemporary news¬ papers interprets this proceeding. One journal, after styling the New Hampshire Governor a “worthy representative of his majesty, and a favourite of the people,” continued: However the people of this province may have been represented as inimical to any who may chance to wear his majesty’s commis¬ sion, the world, in this instance, may be clearly convinced, that the spirit of disgust arises not from the commission with which our 103 Journal, June 21, 1769. Session had now been in progress since May 31. 104 Journal, June 22, 1769. In this connection Bernard wrote the follow¬ ing: “We have just now learned that anyone who will pay for them may have copies of the Letters and Papers laid before the Parliament. There are just now arrived six of my letters and one of General Gage’s attested by the Clerk of the Papers. Mr. Bollan who has sent them hither promises the rest as soon as they can be copied. The Councellors to whom they were sent immediately met and ordered these papers to be printed; but the publication of them is deferred until observa¬ tions can be finished to accompany them, which a gentleman has been hired to work upon and will have completed in a day or two.” Bernard to Barrington, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence, p. 200. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 189 most gracious sovereign thinks it fit to honour any of his subjects, but from the dislike to those whose deportment is unworthy the royal favour.105 It was not many days later when the House unanimously resolved upon a petition for removal of the Governor from office. The people had long been desirous of his departure. Consequently when in April, 1769, his orders to return to England became generally known, they greatly rejoiced, believing the recall a result of their remonstrances, and therefore a victory for their cause. But the petition was scarcely determined upon when Bernard delivered to the Assembly a severe blow, in the announcement of instructions from England to the effect that he was, even though absent, to continue in office and to receive one half the usual salary. He made this the occasion also of urging provision for the salary already due for the current year. The House, wholly unprepared for this intelligence, unanimously refused any salary at all, later declaring that the King’s instructions, while constituting law for the Governor, in no way referred to the Assembly.106 In connection with the above mentioned address that itemized the ordinary needs of government, it may be noted here that Bernard had not been in the habit of thus making specific recommendation on ordinary affairs, leaving these to occur naturally to the members. The present year had been made an exception, however, in order to give no founda¬ tion to the House for claiming that specific requests had not been sent down. Despite his precaution, the House on July 4, 1769, expressed a wish that the Governor had pointed out just what was expected in the way of legislation, which brought from Bernard the following comment: 105 Hutchinson, Massachusetts , III, 243. 106 Journal, June 27, 28, and 30 and July 14, 1769. Bernard to Barrington, April 5, 1769, ibid., p. 191, and note, p. 192. 190 ROYAL GOVERNORS The barefaced Chicanery & Falsity of this Writing, as well as the Stile, which is well known, make it evident that it was wrote by Adams; and yet it was sent to the Council to originate with them . . . [for obvious reasons.]107 Meanwhile, Bernard had requested the Assembly to make provision, according to the parliamentary law, for the troops then quartered in the province, and also to continue a temporary provision which he had himself, on the advice of the Council, arranged. Pending reply, the House adopted a series of nineteen resolves touching taxation, the quartering of troops, intermeddling by General Gage in civil affairs, interference with judicial process, and the following: Resolved , That Governor Bernard by a wanton and precipitate Dissolution of the last years Assembly, and refusing to call another, tho’ repeatedly requested by the People, acted against the Spirit of a free Constitution; and if such proceedure be law¬ ful it may be in his power whenever he pleases to render himself Absolute. Resolved , That a general Discontent, on Account of the Revenue Acts, an Expectation of the sudden Arrival of a Military Power to enforce the Execution of those Acts, an Apprehension of the Troops being upon the Inhabitants, when our Petitions were not permitted to reach the Royal Ear, the General Court at such a juncture dis¬ solved. The Governor, refusing to call a new one and the People reduced almost to a State of Despair, rendered it highly expedient and necessary for the People to convene by their committees, asso¬ ciate, consult and advise the best means to promote Peace and good Order; to present their united Complaints to the Throne and jointly to pray for the Royal Interposition in Favour of their Violated Rights. Nor can this Proceedure possibly be illegal, as they expressly disclaimed all Governmental Acts. Resolved , As the opinion of this House, that Governor Bernard in his Letters to Lord Hillsborough, his Majesty’s Secretary of 107 Bernard to Hillsborough, July 11, 1769, Bernard Letters , Sparks, IV, Harvard College Library, VII, 180. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 191 State, has given a false and highly injurious Representation of the Conduct of his Majesty’s truly loyal and faithful Council of this Colony, and of the Magistrates, Overseers of the Poor and Inhabitants of the Town of Boston, tending to bring on those respectable Bodies of Men, particularly on some Individuals, the unmerited displeasure of our gracious Sovereign; to introduce a Military Government and to mislead both Houses of Parliament into such severe Resolutions as a true, just and candid State of Facts must have prevented. Resolved , That Governor Bernard in the Letters before men¬ tioned, by falsely representing that it was become “necessary the King should have the Council Chamber in his own hands” and “should be enabled by Parliament to supercede by order in his Privy Council” Commissions granted in his Name and under his Seal “throughout the Colonies” has discovered his enmity to the true Spirit of the British Constitution, to the Liberties of the Colonies; and has struck at the Root of some of the most invaluable Constitutional and Charter Rights of this Province; the Perfidy of which, at the very time he professed himself a warm Friend to the Charter, is altogether unparallelled by any in his Station, and ought never to be forgotten.108 Shortly afterward there appeared in several news sheets what purported to be the substance of the above; and so alarmed were the Governor and certain of the military officers that the 64th regiment, which Gage had recently ordered to embark, was retained. To Bernard’s formal pro¬ test regarding the reported resolves, the House replied that the printed copies were not authentic. Upon learning of this, the Lieutenant-Governor, Thomas Hutchinson, upon whom the responsibility of the government in Bernard’s absence was about to fall, expressed his willingness to permit departure of the regiment. The chief difference between the reported and the authentic set of resolves, the latter in the form above quoted, lay in the fact that the first declared 108 Journal , July 6, 7 (the resolves), and 12, 1769, pp. 52, 57, 68. 192 ROYAL GOVERNORS that laws emanating from any source whatsoever in which the subjects were unrepresented had no binding force upon them. The second form revised this so as to refer only to laws imposing taxes.109 The Governor’s recommendation of provision for the troops provoked another remonstrance from the Assembly against their presence in the colony, especially in time of peace, and the repeated insinuation of Bernard’s responsi¬ bility for them. The King himself in such cases, declared the representatives, made only requisitions; the barracks master made demands. “The very Nature of a Free Consti¬ tution” required that the support be given only “by the Aids voluntarily granted by the Commons.” By the very terms of the Mutiny Act, the Governor and Council were denied any right to make the appropriation desired; the Act itself, moreover, was destructive of the privileges of the Assembly. As to the old grievance concerning taxation, the members now took “Leave to observe, that in strictness all those Acts may be rather called Acts for raising a tribute in America for the further Purposes of Dissi¬ pation among Placemen and Pensioners.” And the require¬ ment to provision the troops was deemed a grievance more intolerable even than the tyranny of the Stamp Act, for which reasons came the declaration that the representatives would “never make provision” for this purpose.110 The above was the last address from a colonial Assembly to Governor Francis Bernard. On the same day, July 15, 1769, he prorogued the General Court until the following January 10, and soon after embarked for England. In his final message to the House was contained the following warning : 109 Bernard to Hillsborough, July 7, 1769, Bernard Letters, Sparks IV, Harvard College Library, VII, 180-182. Bernard to Hillsborough, July, 1769, ibid., pp. 182/. 110 Journal, July 15, 1769, pp. 82/. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 193 To his Majesty therefore, and if he pleases, to his Parliament must be referred your invasion of the rights of the Imperial Sover¬ eignty. By your own acts you will be judged. You need not be apprehensive of any misrepresentations; as it is not in the power of your enemies, if you have any, to add to your publications. They are plain and explicit, and need no comment.111 Thus closed the last session under Governor Bernard, lasting forty-six days, and therefore the longest ever held during the summer season session. Nevertheless, according to the Governor, there never was so little real business done as at this session. The chief part of the time had been em¬ ployed in denying the Power of the Parliament, arraigning and condemning its Acts, abusing the King’s ministers at home and his principal officers in America, “ reproaching the whole British Nation, & declaring in plain, if not direct Terms their right and Intention of separating themselves from its government. Everything bad was expected from them; But their Acts have exceeded all expectation & have been carried to a greater length than ever have been known before.” 112 His failure to end, by dissolution or prorogation, a session so extraordinarily defiant and obviously disloyal, Bernard explained on the ground that the House was en¬ deavoring to provoke this very thing, thus preventing com¬ pletion of the public business. As a consequence through¬ out the province would have arisen the cry of persecution, and of interference by the Governor in the necessary progress and maintenance of self-government.113 Before proceeding to the consideration of the critical events about to transpire in the colony of Massachusetts Bay, it may be of interest to recall that the subject upper- 111 Journal, July 15, 1769; cf. also Barrington to Bernard, Sept. 7, 1769, Bar¬ rington- Bernard Correspondence, p. 208. 112 Bernard to Hillsborough, July 17, 1769, Bernard Letters, Sparks, IV, Harvard College Library, VII, 186. 113 Ibid., p. 187. 194 ROYAL GOVERNORS most in many minds during this period was liberty — chiefly in its relations to the restrictions imposed by the exercise of the prerogative. Before the close of Governor Bernard’s administration, the people had come to regard him as an enemy of these cherished principles of English freedom. He had spent eleven years in America — two harmonious years as Governor of New Jersey, and nine in Massachusetts. During the first five years in the Bay Colony, he had been at least acceptable; the last four, however, saw continual conflict. For some reason the people were convinced that he was mainly responsible for the presence of the troops; and troops meant force, and a consequent menace to liberty. They were a symbol of and a constant reminder of sovereignty superimposed and of Cromwellian military rule. Moreover, as opposition to full control by Parliament grew stronger, the Governor, by supporting, as his office demanded, that control, became even more decidedly, in the eyes of the people, an enemy to the cherished liberty. If after the first five years Governor Bernard had left the province, he would have been rated as one of the best of royal representatives. But in the circumstances toward the end of his administra¬ tion it was impossible for him to preserve at once the favor of the people, loyalty to his office, and the approbation of his superiors. By that time also, it may be said that the old subjects of controversy — the salary question, the extent of executive veto power, the Assembly’s control of treasury accounts, emission of paper money and the rest — had fused into the one great fundamental problem, namely, the determina¬ tion of the limits of colonial dependence and independence in relation to control by the parent state. When, toward the end of July, 1769, Governor Bernard sailed for England, Boston rejoiced, guns were fired, and the Liberty Tree was bedecked. His substitute, the Lieutenant- Governor, Thomas Hutchinson, was well known in the REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 195 province. Ten years of experience as representative, three as speaker, seventeen as Councillor, ten as Lieutenant- Governor, and eight in the office of chief justice had afforded him rare opportunity of becoming thoroughly conversant with both the temper of the people and the nature of the political situation. In the House, however, because of Hutchinson's pronounced views in favor of the prerogative as against the growing spirit of independence, he was already in ill repute. No sooner had his expected accession to the chair become known in the colony than hostile reports con¬ cerning him began to circulate. In fact, the previous pro¬ rogation from July 15, 1769, to the following January 10 had been ordered by Bernard expressly 4 4 to postpone the Days of his Trouble,” as well as to allow time for the arrival from England of definite instructions concerning the dis¬ turbed situation.114 Hutchinson’s oath to support the pre¬ rogative inaugurated the long career of conflict that ensued. Although it had been his early preference to steer a middle course, and to appear equally solicitous for the interests of England and of the colony, he was before very long, owing to riotous conditions, driven to an attempted rescue of the prerogative. Prorogations beyond the date above mentioned delayed Hutchinson’s meeting with the General Court until March 15, 1770. Before that time, however, arose circumstances that would have ruined, for any loyal Crown appointee, all hope of harmony. These were the uprisings of the populace because of the restrictive and taxation measures ; the indict¬ ment by the Superior Court of Suffolk County of Governor Bernard, General Gage, and of other Crown officials; the multitudes of seditious pamphlets and newspaper articles; positive insults to the detested British troops; illegal as¬ semblages in Boston, and, in spite of Hutchinson’s order, the 114 Bernard to Hillsborough, July 17, 17G9, Bernard Letters , Sparks, IV, Harvard College Library, VII, 190; cf. also Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, 254/f. 196 ROYAL GOVERNORS refusal of the justices to interfere, also of the gatherings themselves, to disperse upon reading of the order by the sheriff. Finally, in March, 1770, less than a fortnight before the General Court was to convene, occurred the Boston Massacre.115 The very fact of an unusually long prorogation itself caused considerable disaffection in the province. For long the people had been accustomed to a winter session. But royal instructions had caused the extension of Bernard’s prorogation to the above mentioned date, a policy adopted in order to give time for consideration of measures to be pursued in consequence of the Associations to prevent the importation of British goods. But prorogation merely by reason of a royal instruction, declared the House, was an infraction of their “essential rights” as men and citizens, and contrary to both the charter and the British Constitu¬ tion. They protested also the removal of the General Court to Cambridge, requesting that it be returned to Boston. Hutchinson, however, refused to violate his instructions, or on their request to submit a copy of them. The House re¬ peated the request, citing the law that required meetings of the Assembly to be held in the Town House in Boston, and reminding the Lieutenant-Governor of the fate of a bill in Parliament that had been designed to give to the royal in¬ structions the force of law, and which the Commons “with Disdain” had rejected. But to no avail. Then was inserted in the Journal a copy of the writ directing the holding of meetings in Boston; and accompanying this a set of resolves pronouncing the removal to be a grievance, and illegal, and that the House would consent to proceed to business at Cambridge only under protest.116 115 Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, 262, 240Jf., 267jf., 271Jf. Journal, March 15, 1770, and ibid., p. 89. 116 Hillsborough to Hutchinson, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 2447. P. R. O., C. O., 5, pp. 394-400. Journal, March 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, and 24, 1770. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 197 In this first session the chief occasion of controversy was Hutchinson’s suggestion of measures to suppress disorders and riots, in which he instanced the fate of a customs house official twice tarred and feathered.117 In reply the House expatiated on the ordinarily peaceful and law-abiding con¬ dition of the province, in turn suggesting that the origin of any new-fashioned disorders should be laid to oppression of the people, and that the remedy lay in removal of the op¬ pression, and in punishment of the responsible parties. Nor could they understand why Hutchinson placed upon this single instance so much stress, passing silently over others “more Heinous . . . and dangerous, . . . those Enormities notoriously committed by the Soldiery, . . . which in many instances had strangely escaped punishment.” Again the presence of the troops was referred to as an intolerable grievance, a violation of the Bill of Rights of 1689, and in such terms as the following: Such a Standing Army must be designed to subjugate the People to arbitrary Measures. It is a most violent Infraction of their natural and constitutional Rights. It is an unlawful Assem¬ bly of all others, the most dangerous and alarming, and every instance of its actually restraining the Liberty of any Individual is a Crime which infinitely exceeds what the Law intends by a Riot. We shall not enlarge on the multiplied Outrages committed by this unlawful Assembly. In frequently assaulting his Majesty’s peaceable and loyal Subjects; in beating and wounding the Magistrate when in the Execution of his Office; in refusing Prisoners out of the Hand of Justice; and finally, in perpetuating the most horrid Slaughter of a number of Inhabitants but a few days before the Sitting of this Assembly, which your Honor must undoubtedly have heard of. But, not the least notice of these outrageous Offences have been taken; nor can we find the most distant Hint of the late inhuman and barbarous Action, either in 117 Journal, April 7, 1770, p. 139. Hutchinson, Massachusetts , III, 283. 198 ROYAL GOVERNORS your speech at the opening of the present session, or even in this Message to both Houses.118 Complaints were also made concerning seizures by customs house officials, prosecution in Admiralty Courts only, and removal of the General Court to Cambridge. The military, however, constituted the greatest grievance; and until the troops were removed, the Assembly could hope for nothing but “Tyranny and Confusion/’ Into this controversy Hutchinson refused to be drawn. In silence he passed over everything except the insinuation of his efforts to secure by force the quartering of the troops. On this subject his answering address was a complete exoneration. With a declaration that the above remon¬ strances should be submitted to the King, he dissolved the General Court on April 23, 1770. The annual election was approaching, and soon a new Assembly would convene. In the same session there was some slight difficulty over the matter of Hutchinson’s delayed salary of £550, and his refusal to approve the choice of John Hancock as speaker pro tempore .119 Already, after only a few months of an increasingly stormy administration, Hutchinson’s health was affected. And al¬ though rumor was making him the successor to Governor Bernard, he wrote to decline the honor, requesting also to be removed from his present office, not relishing the prospect of enforcing, practically single handed, the King’s preroga¬ tive.120 At the new election in May, 1770, the Boston representa¬ tives received from their constituents special and significant instructions; i.e., regarding the removal to Harvard College; on the arbitrary determination of the people’s rights; on the 118 Journal, April 23, 1770, pp. 178, 180. 119 Journal, April 11, 13, 17, and 20, 1770, pp. 149, 155, 167/., 175. 120 Hillsborough to Hutchinson, April 14, 1770, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 2456. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 765, pp. 91, 92. Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, 290. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 199 extent of the King’s prerogative, i.e., its limitation by exist¬ ing law; on the state of the militia, the question of the betterment and increase of population, and of home manu¬ factures — a measure described as “a very pacifick device for the defeat of our malicious foes;” on the union of the colonies, and “the unwarrantable practice of ministerial in¬ structions to the commanders-in-chief of this province.” 121 At the new session, which was also held at Cambridge, the Assembly again contested the removal, reminding Hutchinson that “the Prerogative is a discretionary Power in some Instances vested in the King, only for the Good of the subject.” But Hutchinson replied that he could not violate his instructions, which had directed the removal. The ill feeling increased when he disapproved the choice for the Council of John Hancock and another anti-prerogative member.122 The opening address mentioned only the usual topics, sup¬ port of the government, taxation, the public debt, and closed with hopes of a “happy Harmony.” But the House, insist¬ ing on the old grievance, requested a copy of the instructions enjoining the meeting at Harvard College. Hutchinson then stated that the instructions made no reference to Harvard College, but simply to Cambridge, and he was willing to adjourn them to any house in that place, though not willing, because of the same instructions, to submit the requested copy. After some debate, by a vote of ninety to six, the House determined in spite of the instructions to make then and there a “constitutional Stand” against the removal from Boston, and until return was effected resolved to proceed to no legislative business. To find himself thus disagreed with by so considerable a majority was considered a great misfortune by the Lieutenant-Governor, yet he still refused to act against his instructions. Thinking to induce harmony, 121 For complete text see Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, Appendix R. 122 Journal, May 30 and 31, 1770. 200 ROYAL GOVERNORS he reminded the members of the proposition favored by a good majority in the House some twenty years previous, after a fire had destroyed the Court House, to rebuild outside of Boston, preferably in some country place. The final vote on this occasion had been a tie; and the casting vote, which kept the Court House in Boston, had been made by Hutch¬ inson himself, who was speaker at the time. No effect, how¬ ever, was perceived in the Assembly; sharp messages con¬ tinued to be exchanged, all in discussion of the power of royal instructions to control the Governor in his dealings with the General Court; and the purpose to suspend busi¬ ness was repeated.123 Hutchinson would have discontinued the session at this juncture had not important messages requiring the considera¬ tion of the legislature been expected from England. Still maintaining that the instructions were in violation of the charter, the House would not recede from its position, and business amounted simply to a roll call twice daily. At last, after the members had again requested leave to return, and the expected papers failing to arrive, Hutchinson prorogued the Court for a month. During this dispute the Council supported the House.124 At the reconvening on July 25, 1770, no change on either side appeared, lengthy messages continued, and Hutchinson finally ordered a further prorogation until the fall. Mean¬ time from the ministry came the following observation: “The Doctrines set up by the House of Assembly & the Council tend to destroy every power reserved to the Crown by the Charter, & therefore it is absolutely necessary to show that His Majesty will not suffer them to have any effect.” 125 123 Journal , 1770-1771, pp. 10, 15/., 23/., 36/. 124 Journal , June 16, 1770, p. 38; cf. also pp. 42/., 49/ 125 Hillsborough to Hutchinson, August, 1770, Transcripts , Col. Soc., p. 2469. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 765, pp. 181, 182. Journal , 1770-1771, pp. 57, 58, passim. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 201 In the mean time the charter provision that conferred on the Governor the powers of commander-in-chief had been changed to the extent that Hutchinson had received orders to hand over to the King’s troops the fort and Castle. After some hesitation he obeyed. This occasioned, when the Assembly met the following Sept. 26, 1770, a resolution for a day of prayer and humiliation. The implications in this order of disloyalty in the province were keenly re¬ sented, and the Assembly desired to know who was respon¬ sible for the extraordinary measure, also the charges against them and by whom preferred, and especially whether Hutchinson still held jurisdiction over these places. Can¬ didly the Lieutenant-Governor informed them that he beT eved the explanation lay in their own remonstrance of the preceding April 7, and in the instructions given by their constituents, both of which he had sent to the King.126 His military powers, he assured them, were in no degree lessened, which assurance the House verified in various ways. As a result of their interview with the commander himself, it appeared that Hutchinson had really relinquished his au¬ thority. This was declared to be a most serious grievance, and he was requested to secure the lost rights. The chief issue in this controversy was whether the charter provision had been or could be superseded by the royal instructions.127 At the opening of this session the House had again referred to the grievance of removal from Boston, inquiring whether anv late instructions on the matter had been received. t / They were informed that the King had indorsed Hutchinson’s policy of holding sessions at Cambridge, and had permitted him to convene the General Court at any place except Boston. This time, however, the House did not refuse as 126 Hillsborough to Hutchinson, July 6, 1770, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 2462. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 765, pp. 167-171; cf. also Journal, Sept. 29, 1770, p. 83; October 13 and 16, pp. 94^., 100. Cf. supra, pp. 38 3Jf. for remonstrance. ™ Journal, Nov. 20 and Oct. 23, 1770, pp. 171, 83. 202 ROYAL GOVERNORS formerly to proceed to business, probably through anxiety for the fort and Castle, which were in the hands of the regulars. With a resolve that the province was laboring under “new, additional, and insupportable Grievances, ” business was resumed, but “only from absolute Necessity,” and in order “radically to redress Grievances.” 128 Progress, however, was slight. After seven weeks, when Hutchinson complained that the session was bringing practically no re¬ sults, the members replied that the paralysis of legislative business during the preceding two years was occasioned by the frequent interruptions made by the chair itself through dissolutions and prorogations; and they also reminded him that the time spent by the House in its deliberations was a subject in which the chair had no concern. With this the request to be returned to Boston was again, but without result, repeated.129 Early in these deliberations a petty dispute, important only in its probable consequences, arose because of a change introduced by the Assembly in the form of expressing Jaws. The approved form described laws as enacted “by the Governor, Council, and House of Representatives,” to which the Assembly now added “in General Court assembled.” To Hutchinson’s protests, and to his citation of the royal instructions requiring the first form, the House finally yielded, not, however, without demanding the reason for the instructions; and asking, when he had none to offer: “Where then is the Freedom of the Governor of the Province if he is to govern Twenty-Eight years together by positive Instructions from other Persons at three thousand miles distance, without being able, in all that Time, to discover any Reasons for them.” 130 But the Lieutenant-Governor only pointedly observed 128 Journal , Oct. 4, 1770, pp. 90/., 187. 129 Journal, Nov. 16, 1770, p. 163. 130 Journal, Nov. 2, 5, and 16, 1770, pp. 128, 134, 162. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 203 that their constituents would no doubt be surprised at their passing so many laws, and declaring immediately afterward that they judged them of no validity without the clause in question. Eighteen acts had been passed. Hutchinson also remarked that in spite of the alleged inconvenience of sitting at Cambridge, they had in six weeks done more business than had ever, within his recollection, been accomplished in a similar period. But by this apparent effort at conciliation he was not to be affected: Upon the whole, Gentlemen, I should do myself injustice if I did not observe that it gives me great satisfaction to reflect that when you are, by every way in your power seeking to impeach my conduct since I have been in the chair, you have been unsuc¬ cessful in every attempt. You will always endeavor, in vain, to move me to give up to you any part of the Prerogative of the Crown; I will never make any encroachment upon the Rights of the People.131 It may also be noted that in this session the House was significantly solicitous regarding the state of the militia of the province, insisting that the Lieutenant-Governor should fill all vacancies, and alleging as the reason the imminence of war with Spain. In the following are seen evidences of still further difficulties: the creation of a committee of correspondence and the choice as agent of the colony of Benjamin Franklin. As a result of general manifestations in the province, there were now being considered in England measures for the ‘‘Explanation & Reform of the Constitu¬ tion of Massachusetts Bay.” 132 In this year, also, no winter session was called, the next meeting of the General Court occurring in the spring of 131 Journal, Nov. 20, 1770, pp. 179, 182; Oct. 31 and Nov. 7 and 20, 1770, pp. 124, 139, 175. 132 Hillsborough to Hutchinson, Oct. 3, 1770, Transcripts, p. 2471. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 705, pp. 184-186. 204 ROYAL GOVERNORS 1771. Meanwhile, Hutchinson’s commission as Governor, which under pressure he had accepted, arrived. According to his own testimony the mass of the people was friendly to him, while opposition came chiefly from a few leaders. Therefore from all sides poured in congratulations, but not from the House or from the Congregational ministers.133 The fact that the long-established custom of holding a winter session was again ignored must have placed the Assembly in no pleasant mood for the meeting that opened on April 3, 1771. 134 Hardly had the members come to order when the old protest against meeting outside of Boston was renewed. A motion not to proceed to business, however, was negatived. Chiefly because of the Assembly’s denial of the constitutional right of the Crown in reference to the removals, Hutchinson refused even to request the King’s leave to effect the much desired return to Boston.135 At this point the salary question, after long slumber, again caused conflict, this time taking a strange turn. After some preliminary skirmishing, in which the Governor dis¬ approved the choice of John Hancock for commissary- general and the Assembly again refused to heed the former’s request for repairs to the Governor’s residence in Boston, the old controversy, in a new and strange guise, arose. In times past the trouble had been occasioned by the refusal of the Assembly to pay adequate salaries. Now it was due to the Governor’s refusal to accept the salaries when offered, for the appeals of previous Governors had finally been heeded in England and the executive’s salary was being pro¬ vided by the Crown. Therefore, when Hutchinson refused to accept not only the salary grant but also the provision for payment of arrears that was then made, immediately, 133 Journal , April 3 and 4, 1771, pp. 187, 188. Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, 333/. 134 Previous prorogations: Nov. 20, 1770, to Jan. 10, 1771, and further to April 3. Journal, pp. 187/. 136 Journal, April 3 and 4, 1771, pp. 188, 190. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 20 5 on the motion of Adams, the House inquired concerning the source of his support, asking if it came 4 ‘independently of His Majesty’s Commons.” 136 Then appeared in print a formal protest from the House, declaring in effect that royal instructions had not the force of law either with the Governor or with his subjects; moreover, that continual dissolutions, either of Parliament by the King or of the General Court by the Governor, constituted a ‘‘Dissolution of the Social Compact;” and that the removal of the Court from Boston, “merely in Obedience to an Instruction” and with no exercise of the Governor’s own right of “Judgment and Discretion,” was in violation of the charter. There were insinuations also that Hutchinson’s purpose in upholding the prerogative was “Preservation of Place,” which the Governor emphatically denied, again explaining that loyalty to his trust connoted obedience to the royal instructions. This declaration, together with the repetition of the negative on the choice of John Hancock and the other Councillor- elect of the previous year, as well as certain elements in Hutchinson’s opening address to the Court and the develop¬ ments concerning the salary question, the supply and tax bills, agents and other minor matters, left the Assembly in no amiable mood.137 Among other things mentioned by Hutchinson in his opening address was his praise to the King of the Assembly in its last prolific session. This, however, only provoked the rejoinder that there had never been any period during which the same praise had not been equally well merited. True, there had existed, owing to various Acts of Parliament, a certain amount of discontent; but to have interpreted this uneasiness as a “mark of Disaffection toward His Majesty’s Government” was considered a gross misrepresentation. 136 Journal, April 10, 17, 24, and 25, 1771, pp. 200, 242, 246, 252. Salary offered was £1,300; arrears, £506. 137 Journal, May 30, June 19, and July 5, 1771, pp. 8, 62 ff., 116. 206 ROYAL GOVERNORS The Governor had requested also that means be taken for prevention of destruction of the King’s woods by settlers in doubtfully valid land grants on the western border; but he was informed that full responsibility in this matter rested with the Surveyor-General, and that in consequence there was “no Necessity ... of the Interposition of this, or of any other Legislature .” 138 The above mentioned sentiments, which even in the House had met considerable opposition, hinted of the indefinite continuation of strained relations. In England, where they were severely criticized, the remark is said to have been made that “the same men who denied the right of the King to instruct his governor, would soon deny the right of appointing him.” In this session also the renewed dispute concerning the salary occurred in connection with the removal of the Gen¬ eral Court from Boston. Hutchinson was receiving from the Crown £1,500 annually, and he refused the usual grant from the Assembly of £1,300. The members thereupon insisted that his support should come from the representa¬ tives, and not from any other source. A second grant was accordingly voted, and in a later protest regarding the re¬ moval from Boston, the Assembly declared that because by the charter the Governor and other civil officers were to receive support from the “free Gift of the General Assembly,” it would therefore be “dangerous for so important a Trust as that of convening, adjourning or dissolving the General Assembly to be placed in any one, who is not thus sup¬ ported.” Hutchinson’s reply to the protest purposely avoided mention of the oblique reference to the salary ques¬ tion, lest further controversy be thereby provoked on the subject of the King’s right to support the civil officers, nor could he see justifiable foundation to the Assembly’s strong objection to the principle of regulation by royal instructions. 138 Journal , May 30 and June 14, 1771, pp. 9 ff., 49 ff. (Italics inserted.) REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 207 To him the instructions simply served to forestall a later dis¬ allowance, thus incidentally saving much confusion by at once removing all doubt as to debatable public transactions.139 Toward the close of the session two other controversies arose, but were cut short by prorogation. The Governor had refused to approve bills for the treasury supply, militia, and taxation, the latter by reason of recently received instruc¬ tions. A clause in the tax laws placed a sort of income tax on the salaries of commissioners of the customs, and the consequent complaint to the King occasioned the instruction prohibiting the Governor’s assent to any bills containing clauses authorizing taxation of salaries of any of the Crown officers. The rejection of the bill caused uncommon stir in the House. Hutchinson’s reason for non-approval, that is, obedience to royal instructions, was considered “surprising and alarming.” Only too vividly did this incident bring up the question of the King’s right to collect revenue through the commissioners of the customs; and the House declared they knew of “no Commissioners of His Majesty’s Customs, nor of any Revenue his Majesty has a Right to Establish in North-America.” By charter provision the General As¬ sembly had been vested with sole authority to levy upon the persons and estates “of every and all the Proprietors and Inhabitants ” of the province. “Therefore, ... to with¬ hold assent to this Bill, merely by Force of Instruction, is effectually vacating the Charter and giving Instructions the Force of Laws . , . and such a Doctrine . . . would render the Reps, of a free People mere machines; and they would be reduced to this fatal alternative either to have no Taxes ... at all, or to have them raised and levied in such Way and Manner, and upon those only, whom his Majesty pleases.” 140 139 Journal, June 19, 1771, pp. 63jf. Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, pp. 343, 345. 140 Journal, July 5, 1771, pp. 109jf.; cf. also Hutchinson, Massachusetts , III, 344. 208 ROYAL GOVERNORS Simultaneously with the above objection came another protest against Hutchinson’s disapproval — - also the result of royal instructions — to bills passed for payment of separately appointed agents of the two Houses. Knowing that prorogation was imminent, the Assembly requested Hutchinson to convoke the General Court in the following October. He replied that he would do so whenever he thought it good for His Majesty’s service. The order for prorogation came the same day, and a recess of nine months put a temporary end to public controversies. These were continued, however, in the news sheets, with special reference to the Governor and to the commissioners of customs.141 The “doctrines and principles” manifested in the pre¬ ceding address and proceedings of the House were considered by the ministry to be of “So dangerous a tendency, and strike so deep at the just dependance of the Colonies upon the Crown and Parliament, that His Majesty is unwilling to believe that they can possibly be avowed by any real friends to the Constitution, or that the sentiments and opinions of his faithful subjects in the Massachusetts Bay do in any degree correspond therewith.” 142 At that time, at the head of the popular party, Samuel Adams stood alone. Of his co-workers, Hancock had become temporarily estranged, and showed a marked tendency to swing over to the side of the Governor. Otis, in another fit of insanity, was confined to Nantasket.143 Adams, however, was in every way equal to the task of fanning the flame of opposition : 141 Instructions to Governor Hutchinson, April 13, 1771, Art. 16, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 2501. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 203, pp. 481-514. Journal, June 8, 12, and 19 and July 5, 1771, pp. 32, 42, 64, 111, 113. Prorogation: Sept. 4 to April 4, 1772. Cf. Journal, pp. 118, 119; Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, 345. 142 Hillsborough to Hutchinson, Dec. 4, 1771, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 2548. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 765, pp. 215-220. 143 Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, 347. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 209 The tragedy of American freedom is nearly completed. A tyranny seems to be at the very door. Yet the liberties of our country are worth defending at all hazards. If we should suffer them to be wrested from us, millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers in the event. Every step has been taken but one; and the last appeal would require prudence, unanimity, and fortitude. America must herself, under God, finally work out her own salvation.144 The next session was held in the spring of 1772. In the mean time Governor Hutchinson had become still more un¬ popular. In the previous fall, when he had issued a thanks¬ giving proclamation, many of the ministers refused to read it from their pulpits; instead, they “implored of Almighty God the restoration of lost liberties.” 145 At this session Hancock was chosen speaker pro tempore. Although his election to the Council had been twice negatived, Hutchinson approved him for the speakership because of his changed relations with the anti-prerogative party. Again the very first business was a protest against the removal from Boston, and Hancock motioned for a message requesting, because of the inconvenience of sitting at Cambridge, to be returned to Boston. This motion was lost in a storm of protest from Adams and others, who declared that a request based only upon inconvenience waived the old claim of sitting at Boston by right . On the same day Hutchinson informed the mem¬ bers that he was now permitted to convene the General Court at Boston, provided the Assembly would recognize the right of the Crown to instruct the Governor to hold the Court at such places as the Crown might designate, and provided also that their request to be returned to Boston were based merely upon the greater convenience of meeting 144 Quoted by Barry, op. cit., II, 443. 145 Journal, 1771-1772, session opened April 8, 1772. Hutchinson, Massachu¬ setts, III, 345. Barry, op. cit., II, 444. 210 ROYAL GOVERNORS in that place. The session ended, however, with the con¬ troversy still in progress.146 Regarding the ordinary public business, proceedings were unusually harmonious. After a long address in which the Governor carefully traced the various charter grants, showing that the issuance of royal instructions was supported by that document, and that the King had undoubted right thus to control the Governor, he dissolved the General Court. And to inspire greater respect for the King, he quoted the following expression of sentiment from the Assembly of 1728: It is not reasonable we should confide in any Governor what¬ soever so much as in our Gracious King, the Common father of all his people who is known to delight in nothing so much as in their happiness. And whose interest and glory, and that of his Royal Progeny, are inseparable from the prosperity and welfare of his people. Whereas, neither the prosperity nor adversity of a people affect a Governor’s interest when he has once left them.147 After the election in 1772, the first proceeding was again a protest against the removal from Boston. This time, how¬ ever, the message simply declared it an “undue Exercise” of the Governor’s power, and declared that the members “could not, without the greatest Inconvenience,” proceed to business in Cambridge. In the light of the above this seemed like a surrender to Hutchinson on his own terms. In a very few days he adjourned the General Court to Boston, upon which the contest ended.148 For the future the Governor looked for co-operation and harmony, but the salary affair wrecked his hopes. Reversing the tactics of former years, the House, instead of refusing the salary, insisted upon its acceptance. No other body, they maintained, possessed the right of payment; and settle- 146 Journal , April 8, 1772, p. 121. Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, pp. 345jf., 348. 147 Journal, April 25, 1772. For proceedings cf. ibid,., April 9 to 25, pp. 119-187. 148 Journal, May 29 and June 13, 1772, pp. 11, 52. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 211 ment by the Crown was considered an infraction of the charter, a dangerous innovation, which rendered the Gov¬ ernor — Not dependent on the People, as the Charter has prescribed; and consequently not, in that Respect, such a Governor as the People consented to at the granting thereof. It destroys that mutual Check and Dependence which each branch of the Legis¬ lature ought to have upon the others, and the Balance of Power which is essential to all free Government.149 And concerning whoever was responsible for advising the King in this matter — presumably Hutchinson — they ex¬ pressed particular disapproval, declaring the advice to have been founded upon false information, and the measure itself a rescinding of the Assembly’s just rights, the “highest In¬ dignity” ever inflicted. About the same time Hutchinson sent down a request for repairs to the Governor’s residence, which was reported in a “ruinous State.” He was immedi¬ ately informed that the Governor’s house was considered part of his support, and that as soon as he was willing to accept his whole support from the province, then the Province House would be made “not barely tenable but elegant.”150 A recess was then requested. Hutchinson replied in a long address outlining the constitutional errors in the Assembly’s view of the salary question, and contesting in particular their interpretation of the charter, namely, that it was a contract providing for appointment of the Governor by the Crown, and for his support by the Assembly. Hutchinson objected also to the implied assumption that the Crown’s appointing power originated in the charter. The charter, he said, was not as a treaty between independent sovereignties, but simply a number of privileges which the Crown, on very urgent request, had been pleased to grant. One of these 149 Journal, July 10, 1772, p. 106. 150 Journal , July 13 and 14, 1772, pp. 117, 123. 2U ROYAL GOVERNORS privileges conferred upon the Assembly the right to support the government — which the Assembly now interpreted as excluding the right of support by any other power. Hutchin¬ son then referred to the right, also conferred on the colonists by the charter, to defend themselves, and added: If you are in Danger of being attacked by a foreign Power, has the Crown deprived itself of the Right of ordering a Fleet for your Defence, and must the Colony be lost to this Power? And would you, in that Case refuse this Aid, because you have an exclusive right of Defending the government yourselves? Your Charter gives you equal Right to this Objection in the Case of Defence, as in the Case of Support.151 This presentation of the King’s case was later upheld by the ministry. After the address Hutchinson sent down word of his assent to twenty-six acts, and his disapproval of three. Successive prorogations followed; therefore the next session was not convened until Jan. 6, 1773. 152 Soon after this, further disturbance arose when the judges accepted their support from the Crown. As the Assembly was not sitting, a Boston town meeting, after addressing the Governor in order to verify this fact, requested him not to prorogue the General Court beyond the date then set for the next meeting. Upon his refusal to make any promises it was decided that the people, of themselves, had the right to present to the King their grievances. Therefore, at the suggestion of Samuel Adams, they drew up a declaration of rights in which many towns included special memorials.153 151 Journal, July 14, 1772, p. 129. Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, 359. 162 Dartmouth to Hutchinson, Sept. 2, 1772, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 2571. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 765, pp. 231-234. Journal, 1772-1773, pp. 133/. 163 Date of town meeting, Oct. 28, 1772. Assembly then stood prorogued to December 2. Cf. Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, 362/. Excerpts from the town memorials referred to above are given in Barry, op. cit., II, 450-458. Plymouth, Marblehead, Salem, and Roxbury are mentioned in letter from Dartmouth to Hutchinson, Feb. 3 and March 31, 1773, Transcripts, sup. cit., pp. 2583/., 2588. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 765, pp. 247-251, 254, 255. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 213 According to Hutchinson the advocates of these measures were “neither respectable from their Number or Character.” Nevertheless in the proceedings he read signs of a complete break with England; and hesitating between calling an Assembly and seeing it superseded by such meetings, he finally, earlier than he had planned, convened the members on Jan. 6, 1773. Then, for the first time, he referred to the controversy that had long been raging over the extent of the authority of Parliament, explaining that in one and the same state two supreme civil authorities could not co¬ exist, and recommending concerning this fact and its impli¬ cations serious consideration.154 This was practically a re¬ statement by Hutchinson of the principles of government and authority as expressed a short time previous in a letter to him from Dartmouth on the subject of relations between the mother country and the colonies: Nice distinctions of Civil Rights and legal Constitutions are far above the reach of the Bulk of Mankind to comprehend; but there are a few simple and fundamental principles of Govern¬ ment which carry within themselves such Evidence as cannot be resisted, and are no sooner proposed than assented to: That in every Society there must be somewhere a supreme uncontrollable Power, an absolute authority to decide and determine; That wherever such Power is found, there is, of necessity, Independent Sovereignty; That legal subjection to legal Government is essen¬ tial to legal Freedom; and that the Welfare, and happiness of all depend upon the punctual and regular Discharge of the Duties of each. . . .155 To the Governor’s embodiment of these principles in the above mentioned address, the House replied that while in the Crown was vested the sole right to make grants of 154 Journal, Jan. 6, 1773, pp. 137jf. Cf. Daniel Webster’s Reply to Hayne on Nullification. 165 Dartmouth to Hutchinson, Dec. 9, 1772, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 2579. P. R. 0., C. 0., 5, Vol. 765, pp. 237-244. 214 ROYAL GOVERNORS American territory, it was nevertheless true that by the charter there was conferred upon the settlers thereof “all these Powers necessary to constitute them free and distinct States/’ The argument then went on to prove their sub¬ jection, not to Parliament, but to the Crown, partly on the grounds that Massachusetts was not within the “Realm,” and partly through appeal to precedents in which the rights of Parliament had been denied or questioned. Mentioning also the intentions of original settlers expressly to escape the ecclesiastical laws of Parliament, they maintained that if no lines could be drawn “Between the Supreme Authority of Parliament and the total Independence of the Colonies, . . . the consequence is, either that the Colonies are Vassals of the Parliament, or they are totally independent. And as it cannot be supposed to have been the intention of the Parties in the Compact that one of them should be reduced to a State of Vassalage, the Conclusion is, that it was their Sense that we were thus Independent.” 156 This, the longest address hitherto in the history of the Assembly, ended with a declaration of loyalty to the King. The controversy re¬ garding the authority of Parliament, however, went on in long addresses throughout the session. One of the points particularly stressed was the survival of principles of feudal¬ ism as a method of land tenure and of civil administration. Hutchinson could not agree to the Assembly’s idea of loyalty to the Kings of England, in distinction to the English system, to the “person, and not to the Body Politick of the King.” 157 Simultaneously with this controversy, which continued for two months, the matter of the judges’ salaries was being contested. When Hutchinson rejected the usual appropria¬ tion for this purpose, the House became incensed, declaring that support from the Crown would place the judiciary under an undue bias, and adding: “We are more and more con- 156 Journal, Jan. 26, 1773, p. 224. 167 Journal, March, 1773, p. 298; cf. also pp. 178jf., 229jf., 268Jf., and passim. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 215 vinced that it has been the Design of Administration totally to subvert the Constitution, and introduce an arbitrary Government into this Province: And we cannot wonder that the Apprehensions of this People are thoroughly awakened/’ 158 Then, in order to influence the judges into refusing support from the King, their salaries were raised, and, instead of being, as formerly, payable only after services rendered, were payable quarterly. But the Governor nega¬ tived what he considered to be resolves unwarranted by any precedent. After another address of vindication, the House was driven to the expedient of drawing up an intimidating resolution declaring that any judge who accepted salary from the King “Will discover to the World that he has not a due Sense of the Importance of an Impartial Administration of Justice, that he is an Enemy to the Constitution, and has it in his Heart to promote the Establishment of an arbitrary Government in the Province.” 159 The next session was preceded by rumors concerning dis¬ closure of letters written by the Governor, in which would be divulged secret conspirings against the liberty of the people. The letters were in large part Hutchinson’s com¬ munications concerning the “Boston Massacre,” which through the agency of Benjamin Franklin had for several months been known to a few in the colony, and which were produced with a view of affecting the expected election of May, 1773. In this session, in spite of the fact that the struggle regarding the conflicting rights of Parliament and of the Assembly was becoming more acute, there were thirty towns that returned no representatives.160 This points prob¬ ably to the existence of a strong feeling in opposition to the agitators. It may, however, be otherwise explained. Of the 168 Journal, Feb. 12, 1773, p. 224. 169 Journal, March 3, 1773, p. 282; cf. also ibid., Feb. 19 and 23, pp. 196, 202, 206, 208, 242/., 248, 255, 261, 268-279. 160 Journal, May 29, 1773, p. 18. Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, 394/ 216 ROYAL GOVERNORS eight new Councillors, all of whom were members of the opposition, Hutchinson negatived three, including John Adams, and would have refused assent to the choice of the remaining five, had he not feared by such action to prevent the possibility of a quorum.161 The first public business, resultant upon a motion by Samuel Adams, was the almost unanimous adoption of a set of resolutions providing for a plan of union among the colonies, and for the distribution to all speakers of a circular letter urging adoption of the Virginia resolves, and the creation of a standing committee of correspondence. To say the least, these proceedings were daring, especially the last one, which was unprecedented, and which implied both delegation of powers from one chamber only and the au¬ thority to function even after lapse of the delegating power. Moreover, Hutchinson’s presentation of the royal instruc¬ tions prohibiting committees of correspondence were refused consideration until he could present together with them sufficient reason for their issuance. He was also informed that the Assembly, when not in session, must have some means of protecting the people’s rights, and of correctly in¬ forming a sovereign who was receiving distorted and false reports.162 It was about this time that the above mentioned exposure of the Hutchinson letters was made in the House. These, which were chiefly his reports on the “ Boston Massacre” and on the state of feeling among the people, were soon printed, in spite of promises to the contrary. Nor was the Assembly appeased when Hutchinson reminded them that he had written the letters long before he was made Governor, and that they were of a purely private and strictly confi¬ dential nature, though written to one who happened to be a member of Parliament; and furthermore, that he enter- 161 Journal, May 27, 1773, p. 7. Hutchinson, ibid., p. 396. 162 Journal, May 28, 1773, pp. 11/.; Feb. 5, 1774, p. 138. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 217 tained no thoughts of 4 ‘overthrowing the Constitution or of introducing arbitrary Power.” 163 The House in a series of resolves declared that he had no right thus to express himself even in private correspondence; that this “confidential” method was resorted to in order to prevent knowledge in the colony of the transactions; also that: The Letters signed Tho. Hutchinson, considering the Person by whom they were wrote, the Matters they expressly contain, the express Reference in some of them for “full Inteligence” to Mr. Hallowel, a Person deeply interested in the Measures so much complained of, and recommendatory Notices of divers other Per¬ sons whose Emoluments arising from our public Burdens might excite them to unfavourable Representations of us, the Measures they suggest. The Temper in which they were wrote, the Manner in which they were sent, and the Person to whom they were addressed; had a Natural and efficacious Tendency to interupt and alienate the affections of our Most Gracious Sovereign King George the Third, from this his loyal and affectionate Province; to destroy that Harmony and Good-Will between Great-Britain and this Colony, which every Friend to either would wish to establish to excite the Resentment of the British Administration against this Province; to defeat the Endeavors of our Agents and Friends to serve us by a fair Representation of our State of Grievances; to prevent our humble and repeated Petitions from reaching the Royal Ear of our Common Sovereign; and to produce the severe and destructive Measures which have been taken against this Province, and others still more so which have been threatened.164 In the same resolves also the Governor and Lieutenant- Governor were accused of having favored the detested revenue measures for the reason that their salaries were being paid therefrom; similarly that the same officials had supported the introduction of the military in order to pro- 163 Journal , June 9, 1773, p. 41; cf. also p. 27. 164 Journal, June 16, 1773, p. 58. 218 ROYAL GOVERNORS tect and enforce the revenue, thereby further insuring the salary grants. As a consequence Hutchinson and the rest were judged “justly chargeable,” not only with the recent violent demonstrations in the colony, but also with “the great Corruption of Morals and all that Confusion, Misery and Bloodshed, which have been the Natural Effect of the Introduction of the troops.” Then followed a resolve to petition the King for the removal of both the Governor and the Lieutenant-Governor, which was later dismissed by the ministry as groundless.165 By co-relating letters on the Boston Massacre written by Hutchinson and others, although each was written at different times, and without the knowledge of any of the other au¬ thors, the Assembly was able to make it appear that a “conspiracy” had been deliberately formed against the province by the writers mentioned.166 The fact, too, that upon advice of the prudent Franklin there were first circu¬ lated rumors of very terrible things done by those in au¬ thority, soon to be disclosed in letters that had been mys¬ teriously procured, served greatly to heighten the popular alarm, as well as the effect of the letters when finally pub¬ lished.167 Although the Governor could have prevented all this by ending the session, he hesitated to do so, fearing the measure might be construed into an admission of the charges preferred.168 Therefore, notwithstanding the petition for his removal, he ignored the whole affair. Later, however, when resolutions had been passed for impeachment of the judges by the “Commons” of the province because of their accept- 165 Journal, June 9, 1773, p. 61. The Lieutenant-Governor was Andrew Oliver, some of whose letters were also divulged. Dartmouth to Hutchinson, March 9, 1774, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 2620. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 765, pp. 285, 286. 166 Journal, June 15, 1773, p. 56, gives list of six authors. 167 Letter from Franklin, dated London, July 7, 1773. Hutchinson, Massa¬ chusetts, III, 396. This letter does not appear in Smyth’s edition of The Writings of Benjamin Franklin. Cf. Vol. VI, pp. 80 ff. 168 Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, 406-411. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 219 ance of the King’s salary grants, he prorogued the General Court until the following September, later extending the prorogation until Jan. 26, 1774. This apparently yielding attitude was the result of orders from the ministry, who advised against giving too great prominence to the dispute concerning the authority of Parliament by continuing dis¬ cussion.169 In the mean time occurred the Boston Tea Party, with the Governor powerless to interfere; the House and Council both arraigned against him; the judges, justices, sheriffs, constables, and even the military officers fearing, through dread of public censure, to enforce or to punish misdemeanors perpetrated in the interests of the new liberty. At a Boston town meeting that decided against the landing of the tea, Hutchinson’s proclamation to disperse was hissed and went unheeded. His repeated summons to the Council brought them together only after three days, when they refused to advise any restrictive measures.170 The Governor had by that time become so weary of his disturbed administration that, like his predecessor, he re¬ quested leave to return to England, but not, however, simply for the sake of evading responsibilities. On the contrary, his uncompromising loyalty to the King and his insistence upon the prerogative and the authority of Parliament were considered by the ministry to be, in the method of expression at least, even too strenuous and therefore not expedient. As a result the Lords did not praise him for what they regarded as an indiscreet patriotism. In fact, Dartmouth informed Hutchinson that allowances would be made for him because of his well-known zeal for the interests of the Crown.171 To 169 Journal, June 28 and 29, 1773, p. 98; ibid., Jan. 26, 1774, p. 100. Dartmouth, to Hutchinson, April 10, 1773, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 2591. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 7G5, pp. 256-258. 170 Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, 432, 438. 171 Dartmouth to Hutchinson, Aug. 4, 1773, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 2604. P. R. O., C. 0., 5, Vol. 765, pp. 265-267. \ 220 ROYAL GOVERNORS the loyal old man, this treatment must have come as shock, and may have quickened his desire to appear in England to vindicate his position. When the next session opened in January, 1774, Hutchin¬ son, following probably the above mentioned advices from England, made no mention of the abuses of the preceding summer. Immediately the House proceeded to the question of the judges’ salaries. One had already accepted payment from the King; the other four were yet undecided, and were accordingly allowed six days for consideration. Finally, when all except the Chief Justice, Oliver, yielded and accepted the Assembly’s grants, Hutchinson was twice petitioned for Oliver’s removal from office, but in vain.172 Because of the uncompromising stand taken by the Chief Justice, Oliver, the House instituted impeachment proceedings to effect the removal that had been refused by the Governor. WThen Hutchinson, denying jurisdiction, had referred to the courts the question of removal, the House, on the instigation of Samuel Adams, maintained that the proper court was the Governor and Council. And when the Governor still refused to take part, or even to be present, Adams nevertheless addressed the Council with the words: “May it please Your Excellency and the honorable Council.” To the objection that the Governor was absent, Adams declared that he was “presumed” to be present, and the report was accordingly made to the House of Judge Oliver’s impeachment before the Governor and Council. When all the efforts of the mem¬ bers availed nothing they determined to continue the subject in the next session, and resolved that “it must be presumed that the Governor’s refusing to take any Measures 172 Journal, Jan. 26 and Feb. 1, 2, 7, 11, 15, 18, and 22, 1774, pp. 102jf., 113, 117, 118, (gives names of other four judges) 150, 159, 173, 182. Ibid., Feb. 7, 1774, pp. 134/f. Oliver fearlessly informed the Assembly that for seventeen years he had been awaiting an adequate salary; that by reason of his office he had lost over £3,000 sterling, and that therefore at this late date he could hardly be ex¬ pected to accept the Assembly’s offer. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 221 therein is, because he also receives his Support from the Crown.” 173 Consequent upon the antagonisms aroused by these pro¬ ceedings, the House paid no heed to Hutchinson’s recom¬ mendation to hasten the regular business of the session in view of his expected departure for England. Finally, by reason of the failure of his attempts amicably to compose difficulties, the fruitlessness of his “passing without Notice the groundless, unkind and illiberal Charges and Insinua¬ tions” against him, and because their “Votes, Resolves and other Proceedings” struck “directly at the Honour and Authority of the King and of the Parliament,” Hutchinson ordered a prorogation. The House, learning that the message was being read in the Council, barred its doors and prevented delivery until the members had arranged a bill for their pay, adopted resolves concerning Oliver’s unfitness, and author¬ ized a committee of correspondence.174 Before the time for convening the next session, Governor Hutchinson was superseded by General Gage, who took over the government on May 17, 1774, receiving upon his arrival the usual honorable reception. On the whole, Gage’s instructions were the same as those of his predecessors, pro¬ hibiting support of the government by votes or resolves instead of acts, limiting the Assembly’s long-claimed powers over expenditures, forbidding discrimination against British ships by lowering of duties for natives, also the practice of taxing the salaries of the Customs Commissioners, and so on in the usual trend.175 * 173 Journal, Feb. 24, 25, and 26 and March 9, 1774, pp. 194^., 202jf., 205, 241. Hutchinson, Massachusetts, III, 442-448. Charges against Oliver: accepting salary from Crown; complaining of inadequacy of Assembly’s former grants, which was interpreted as “ ungratefully, falsely, maliciously labouring to lay imputation and scandal upon his majesty’s government.” 174 Journal, Feb. 25 and March 8, 1774, pp. 202, 241, 243. Hutchinson, Massa¬ chusetts, III, 474. Barry, Massachusetts, II, 414, 449. 176 Instruction to Thomas Gage, April 5, 1774, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 2625- 2649. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 765, pp. 298-307. C. M. Andrews, op, cit., p. 402. ROYAL GOVERNORS cycyc) Certain additional instructions to Gage, however, imme¬ diately occasioned conflict. These directed him to close Boston Harbor, thus depriving that town of its advantage as a port; also to remove the General Court to Salem, and to take special measures to effect the apprehension and punishment of all subverters of government, with particular care to keep them out of the Council.176 The first enforcement of the Port Bill resulted ominously in a day of prayer; and Gage’s rejection, after the May election, 1774, of thirteen Councillors, together with the removal of the General Court to Salem, decided the hostile attitude of the House. His opening address made but one recommendation, urging provision for supply of the treas¬ ury. Immediately, however, the House proceeded to a con¬ sideration of the instructions directing removal of the Gen¬ eral Court to Salem, and made their protest in this regard the chief business of the short session. The removal was considered 4 4 an Act design’d to suppress the Spirit of Liberty in America,” “an unprecedented Act of the British Parlia¬ ment for shutting up the Port of Boston, and otherwise punishing the Inhabitants of said Town.” It was resolved, therefore, that removal 4 4 at any Time or Place unnecessarily, or merely in Obedience to an Instruction,” was manifestly inconsistent with both letter and spirit of the charter. Some¬ what later, in their congratulatory address to Gage upon his safe arrival, and after expressing the hope that the new Governor would make 4 4 the known Constitution and the Charter of the Province” the rule of his administration, they again objected to the removal, protesting, nevertheless, 44 their Loyalty to their Sovereign, their Affection for the parent Country, as well as their invincible Attachment to their just Rights and Liberties.” 177 176 Dartmouth to Gage, April 9, 1774, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 2652-2658. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 765, pp. 298-307. 177 Journal, May 26 and June 8 and 9, 1774. (Italics inserted.) REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 223 In the mean time a committee had been considering a report to the House on the 4 ‘State of the Province/’ After clearing the galleries and with the doors shut, the report was read, suggesting: Meeting of committees from all colonies to consult upon the present State of the Colonies and the Miseries to which they are and must be reduced by the Operation of certain Acts of Parlia¬ ment respecting America; to deliberate and determine upon wise and proper measures to be recommended to all the Colonies, for the Recovery and Establishment of their just Rights and Privi¬ leges, civil and religious, and the Restoration of Union and Har¬ mony between Great Britain and the Colonies.178 This report was adopted and the meeting arranged for Sept. 1, 1775. A list of the Massachusetts delegates is given below.179 Owing to the Boston Port Bill also, the antagonism in the Governor’s relations with the Assembly was increased. This measure was designed by England as punishment of Boston for revolutionary practices. All loading and un¬ loading of ships was 1 o cease, and the embargo was to con¬ tinue until “full and absolute Submission” should be made to the “Sovereignty of the King in His Parliament.” Pend¬ ing this submission, the General Court was to sit only at Salem. The opinion was that Gage’s dual civil and military power would afford every opportunity of enforcing the Bill. Yet through it all the ministry were apparently desirous of being as lenient as the circumstances would permit; hence, by “submission” was meant, not a positive declaration that might have implied self-humiliation of the colony, and which would therefore never have been effected, but simply payment to the East India Company of the value of the 178 Journal , June 17, 1774. 179 Hon. James Bowdoin, Esq., Hon. Thomas Cushing, Esq. (speaker), Mr. Samuel Adams, John Adams, Esq., Robert Treat Paine, Esq. 224 ROYAL GOVERNORS losses sustained in the tea riots, together with assurance from Gage that the King’s duties could with safety be col¬ lected in Boston.180 This Port Bill was regarded in the Assembly as an “At¬ tack upon this whole Province and Continent, which threatens the total Destruction of the Liberties of all British America.” In solemn exhortation the House requested the people of Boston and Charlestown “to endure this Oppression, for the Preservation of the Liberties of their Country . . . till the Sense and Advice of our Sister Colonies shall be known.” 181 Close upon this came the final outbreak of the expression of their grievances, when all reserve was discarded in a resolve that might almost be called the culmination of their com¬ plaints, — the last, desperate announcement of injuries long endured and fruitlessly opposed. This resolve seems to point bach to difficulties of long standing, thus giving to the subject matter of this study, that is, the struggles be¬ tween the Assemblies and the royal Governors, a peculiar significance : Whereas, this and his Majesty’s other Colonies in North America have long been struggling under the heavy Hand of Power; and our dutiful Petitions for the Redress of intolerable Grievances, have not only been disregarded and frown’d upon, but the Design totally to alter the free Constitutions of Civil Government in British America, and establish arbitrary Govern¬ ments, and reduce the Inhabitants to Slavery, appears more and more to be fixed and determined. . . .182 It was also on that occasion that measures were adopted to discourage the importation and use of goods that would benefit Great Britain. And the Assembly, finding General 180 Dartmouth to Gage, April 9, 1774, Transcripts , Col. Soc., pp. 2653, 2654. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 765, pp. 298-307. Dartmouth to Gage, July 6, 1774, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 2678/f. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 765, pp. 331-333. 181 Journal, June 17, 1774. 182 Journal, p. 46. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 225 Gage inexorable in his adherence to the objectionable regu¬ lations, was soon meeting in secret session, deliberating on a union of the colonies. Gage discovered the meeting and immediately ordered the General Court dissolved; but the House denied admission to the messenger, who therefore read the proclamation through closed doors, while the representatives appointed a committee to meet delegations from the other colonies.183 After the holding of a new election in September, 1774, the next General Court was called by Gage to meet at Salem on October fifth. But in view of the “extraordinary re¬ solves” adopted in many of the counties, the instructions to the representatives from Boston and other towns, and the “disordered and unhappy state of the province,” Gage decided not to meet the new Assembly on the day appointed. He therefore discharged them from attendance, postponing indefinitely the convening of the General Court.184 While many of the towns ignored the Governor’s writ by electing their representatives to a provincial congress instead of to a General Court, the most conservative estimate states that notwithstanding the above proclamation, ninety repre¬ sentatives gathered at Salem on October fifth and awaited the arrival of the Governor or of other constitutional officer. The executive failing to appear, a convention was organized on October sixth, of which John Hancock was chosen chair¬ man. A committee was then appointed to report on the proclamation and to consider measures to be adopted. This resulted in a resolve that declared the Governor’s proclamation in postponement of the meeting to be ‘‘uncon¬ stitutional, unjust, and disrespectful to the province.” In general the resolve maintained that the Governor could not legally employ his power to dissolve, prorogue, etc., until 183 Barry, Massachusetts , II, 486jf. Journal, June 17, 1774, p. 47. 184 Journals of Each Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, pp. 3jf., gives the Governor’s proclamation. 226 ROYAL GOVERNORS the General Court that had already been lawfully summoned was actually convened. His insinuations regarding dis¬ orders in the province were deemed a “reflection upon the inhabitants ;” and the proclamation was disrespectful because issued so very shortly before the expected convening of the General Court. It was declared also that the very grounds o his refusal to convene the Court constituted the most urgent reason for calling a meeting, in order that the province through its representatives might take proper remedial measures. The conclusion was an argument of the Governor's “disaffection toward the province,” and of the necessity of “most vigorous and immediate exertions for preserving the freedom and constitution thereof.” 185 Then there was formed among the delegates a “Provincial Con¬ gress, to be joined by such other persons as have been or shall be chosen for that purpose, to take into consideration the dangerous and alarming situation of public affairs in this province, and to consult and determine on such meas¬ ures as they shall judge will tend to promote the true inter¬ ests of his majesty, and the peace welfare, and prosperity of the province.” 186 There were other troubles during the administration of Governor Gage. Parliament, as a result of its deliberations on the state of the colonies, had passed an act for the better regulation of Massachusetts by which there was taken from the Assembly its ancient privilege of electing the members of the Council. This body was now placed under the ap¬ pointing power of the King. The home government was ap¬ parently carrying out its determination to crush the spirit of the rebellion. One of the secretaries of state, in reference 185 Journals of Each Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, p. 4, note. Other estimates place the number of representatives at 208 and 288; cf. also ibid,., Oct. 7, 1774, pp. 5jf. 186 Journals of Each Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, pp. 5ff. There were three such Provincial Congresses, each elected, functioning, and being dissolved as far as possible after the manner of the General Court. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 227 to the general disorders, and in particular to the “extrav¬ agant Proceeding” and “unwarrantable Assumption of Power,” wrote to Gage as follows: To what further extravagance the People may be driven it is difficult to say. Whatever Violences are committed must be resisted with firmness; the Constitutional Authority of this King¬ dom over its Colonies must be vindicated, & its Laws obeyed throughout the whole Empire. It is not only its Dignity and Reputation, but its Power nay its very Existence depends upon the present Moment; for should these Ideas of Independence, which some dangerous and ill-de¬ signing Persons here are artfully endeavoring to instill into the minds of the King’s American Subjects once take root, that rela¬ tion between this Kingdom & its Colonies, which is the Bond of Peace and Power, will soon cease to exist, and Destruction must follow Disunion.187 In accordance with the above mentioned policy and the change in the Massachusetts charter, there were sent to the Governor the names of thirty-six Councillors. The expecta¬ tions of the ministry that many of these nominees would probably decline to accept office were well founded. And twenty -four who did accept were soon compelled to resign, or to repair for protection to the regulars in Boston. Although a quorum yet remained, the “phrenzy” of the people was still so violent that even the presence of additional military power failed to instill respect for the civil government; and as a result the authority of the Council, as long as it could function only “in the midst of a camp, and under the protection of an army,” was regarded by the ministry as of no avail. These “mandamus counsellors” who had accepted office were allowed by a resolve of the Provincial Congress ten days in which publicly to acknowledge their 187 Dartmouth to Gage, June 3, 1774, Transcripts , Col. Soc., p. 2668. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 765, pp. 312-320; cf. also additional instructions to Gage, ibid., pp. 2671/. P. R. 0., C. O., 5, Vol. 765, pp. 321-326. 228 ROYAL GOVERNORS “misconduct.” In the event of refusal, their names were to be “published repeatedly” and entered upon town records as “infamous betrayers of their country” and “rebels against the state.” 188 Gage was about this time forced to write that he was un¬ able in America to collect a force sufficiently large to handle the situation. This fact was “very embarrassing” to Eng¬ land, for Dartmouth unwillingly admitted that for the present no more troops could be spared from Great Britain, while “considerations of general safety” forbade the sending of any from more distant garrisons. The 49th and 63d regiments in Ireland were the only possibilities, but even these would have to delay embarkation until the following spring, that is, the spring of 1775. Perhaps had they sooner arrived, the “eighteenth of April, ‘seventy five’,” would not now be so memorable a verse. At that time the most that could be done was to send three guard ships, the Boyne, Somerset, and Asia, with as many additional men as possible. In all these amounted to about six hundred. Disarming the people of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut was also suggested. In a circular letter to the Governors, stringent measures were urged to prevent the importation of arms and ammunition.189 In the place of their General Court, which had been dis¬ solved by the military Governor in June, 1774, the people, desiring some instrument for the expression and protection of their sentiments, had substituted a Provincial Congress, which, in spite of the Governor’s proclamation to disperse, frequently met, arranged committees of correspondence, and continued systematized preparations for resistance to 188 Barry, Massachusetts, II, 486jf. Journals of Each Provincial Congress of Massachusetts in 177 4. and 1775, pp. 24jf. Dartmouth to Gage, Oct. 17, 1774, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 2688. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 765, pp. 342-346. 189 Dartmouth to Gage, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 2689#'.; cf. also ibid., Oct. 19, 1774, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 2692. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 765, pp. 346, 347. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 229 any encroachments upon the ideal of liberty that had by this time evolved.190 After the embers of rebellion had burst into flame at tidings of Lexington and Concord, the authority of the royal Governor in Massachusetts came to an end. The story of his relations with the representatives of the people, however, is not yet concluded. In December, 1774, all the Governors received copies of the King’s declaration of his determination “to withstand every Attempt to weaken or impair the Authority of the Supreme Legislature over all His Majesty’s Dominions,” and of the resolutions of both Houses of Parliament “to support those Great Constitutional Principles by which His Majesty’s Conduct hath been governed.” 191 In the following month, January, 1775, Governor Gage was directed to prevent, if possible, any appointment from Mas¬ sachusetts of delegates to the proposed second congress to meet in Philadelphia on May 10, 1775. 192 So serious had the situation become, that General Gage suggested that the only means of restoring normal conditions would be through military conquest of the three most refractory governments, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. For this purpose he judged that 20,000 men would be required. England, however, was not in a position to send that num¬ ber, nor were the ministry as yet fully convinced of the necessity. Dartmouth in particular chose to regard the violent and armed demonstrations in Massachusetts as the “acts of a rude rabble, without plan, without concert, and without conduct.” He suggested as one means of destroy¬ ing the rebellion that a sudden secret sortie be made upon the next provincial assembly, and the leaders arrested. 190 Journals of Each Provincial Congress in Massachusetts in 177 and 1775, pp. 3/. 191 Dartmouth to Gage, Dec. 10, 1774, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 2697. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 242, pp. 23, 24. 192 Ibid., Jan. 4, 1775, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 2698. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 76, pp. 1, 2. 230 ROYAL GOVERNORS To him such meetings appeared “in every light to be acts of Treason and Rebellion,” but he had little hope of eventual judicial conviction in case the proposed arrests were accom¬ plished. Dartmouth also ordered Gage to prevent all gatherings of the town guard or of the militia, and forbade him to grant further permissions to drill and train in Faneuil Hall. While the actual employment of military force was still discountenanced, except under absolute necessity, ar¬ rangements nevertheless were then being made in Eng¬ land to reinforce the troops under Gage’s command by sending a force of about 4,000 men. In addition there were ordered from Ireland a detachment of 700 marines, three regiments of infantry, and one of light dragoons. Others also were to be raised in America, where all avail¬ able military stores and ammunition were to be secured against seizure by the colonists. Early in 1775 provision was made that in case of necessity the 22d, 40th, and 45th regiments from Ireland should also embark for Boston; and at the same time Major-Generals Howe, Clinton, and Burgoyne were ordered on service in the colonies.193 During the same period Parliament was taking steps to ameliorate the strained relations by considerations of over¬ tures that implied acceptance by England of almost any reasonable terms. The chief anxiety of the home govern¬ ment seemed to be for peaceful reconciliation rather than forceful subjection. Very reluctantly force was decided upon, but it was to be employed only as a last expedient. Gage was soon to have at his disposal six additional regi¬ ments, four from Ireland and one from Quebec, also the remnant of the tro'ops stationed at St. Augustine.194 These efforts for reconciliation were evident chiefly in a 193 Dartmouth to Gage, Jan. 24 and Feb. 22, 1775, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 2699-2706, 2709, 2711. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 765, pp. 239-365, 368-373. 194 Dartmouth to Gage, Feb. 22, as sup. cit., and March 3, 1775, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 2714-2717. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 242, pp. 64-70; also, Dartmouth to Gage, March 3, 1775, Transcripts, sup. cit., p. 2713. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 231 resolution adopted by the House of Commons and approved by the King, in which was stated that all difficulties could be cleared if the individual colonies would contribute ade¬ quately to the support of their governments, and to the common defense of the Empire. The latter exaction seemed but just in consideration of the Empire’s contributions in men, money, and ships, etc., to the defense and well being of the colonies. No definite amounts were stipulated. This, as well as the method of contributing, was left to the colonies to determine, Parliament reserving only discretionary power of approval or disapproval. This resolution was intended to come to the knowledge of the Assembly, but Gage was directed “for very obvious reasons” not to make official communication of its content. He was also informed that its success would depend in very large measure on his own prudence in properly explaining its implications; nor was any stone to be left unturned that might win compliance by the members.195 In April, 1775, word was sent to General Gage of the King’s approval of the Parliamentary limitation of New England trade to the possessions of the Empire. In the same month circular letters informed the colonial Gov¬ ernors of the transfer of their military authority to the officers recently appointed from England.196 Gage was ordered to secure all forts and garrisons that were not yet in the control of the regulars; and his suggestion of the preceding January that the best means of combating the rebellion would be by seizure of the leaders, followed by proclamation of general pardon to the other participants, was now approved. Special mention was made of the president and secretary of the Provincial Congress. And if forcible proceedings became necessary, the Governor was not to hesitate, remembering, however, “Principles of Prudence, discretion, and Hu- 195 Dartmouth to Gage, March 3, 1775, Transcripts, sup. cit., pp. 2713, 2718. ice rf. Pownal to Gage, April 5, 1775, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 2719. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 242, p. 78; cf. also ibid., p. 2721. Letter dated April 15, 1775. 232 ROYAL GOVERNORS inanity.” This advice was urged in consequence of Gage’s more recent reports of evidences of a weakening in the spirit of resistance. The Governor was also directed to effect the arrest of the prominent members who had attended the Provincial Congress of the preceding December.197 With the ignition, however, at Lexington and Concord of the embers of rebellion, there was established a virtual state of war, and henceforth in the estimation of the colonists Gov¬ ernor Gage was regarded as the commander of an invading army rather than as royal Governor of the King’s province. Through the activity of the Provincial Congress, news of the Concord episode, with colonial colorings, was popularly known in England before the ministry were officially ac¬ quainted with its details by Governor Gage. The general effect may be gathered in the following from Dartmouth: From the moment this blow was struck and the Town of Boston invested by the Rebels, there was no longer any room to doubt of the intention of the people of Massachusetts Bay, to commit themselves in open Rebellion. The other three New England Governments have taken the same part, & in fact all North America (Quebec, Nova Scotia & the Floridas excepted) is in arms against Great Britain, & the people involved in the guilt of levying war against The King in every sense of the expression.198 The same letter gave evidence, however, that even yet there was fostered hope as to good results from the remedial measures above referred to, especially in connection with the middle colonies. Nevertheless, all necessary measures in the way of force were to be looked to, and preparations were made to reinforce General Gage in the following year, when the sending of troops would be more expedient.199 Thence¬ forth the office of royal Governor in Massachusetts existed 197 Dartmouth to Gage, April 15, 1775, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 2722-2732. P. R. O., C. O., 5, Vol. 765, pp. 376-399. 198 Dartmouth to Gage, June 1, 1775, Transcripts, Col. Soc., pp. 2738, 2739. 199 Ibid., p. 2741. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 233 only in name, while the General Court with its Assembly had long since ceased to function as a branch of the English colonial administrative system. In place of the House of Representatives or popular branch of the General Court there had been substituted, as above narrated, a Provincial Congress, legally elected to sit as a lawful body, but pre¬ ferring, after the Governor’s proclamation discharging the members from attendance, to sit as a self -constituted and organized extra-legal medium for expressing and maintaining the rights of their constituents. These delegates explained in an address to Governor Gage that the distressed situation of the province, together with the “want of a General As¬ sembly,” had made it indispensably necessary 44 to collect the wisdom of the province by their delegates in this Congress to concert some adequate remedy for preventing impending ruin, and providing for the public safety.” The Governor’s 4 4 hostile preparations” were regarded as provocative of civil war, and there was ample reason for the 44 astonishment of all mankind” in beholding such measures adopted against a people 4 4 whose love of order, attachment to Britain, and loyalty to their prince ” had ever been most exemplary. In their estimation the powers of government, when employed, not for protection of the people, but to 44 harass, distress or enslave,” were a 44 curse rather than a blessing.” Then fol¬ lowed further objection to the Port Bill, to the changes in the charter and in the administration of justice, and to the daily increasing numbers of troops, with special reference to “that brand of contention, the fortress at the entrance of Boston.” 200 Gage’s reply was addressed to the gentlemen who were 44 said to be a committee to wait upon his excellency.” The fortress, 44 unless annoyed, would annoy nobody.” No one was more desirous of harmony than he himself; yet the 200 Journals of Each Provincial Congress of Massachusetts in 177 /+ and 1775 , Oct. 13, 1774, pp. 17/. 234 ROYAL GOVERNORS colonists could not deny that open disobedience implied defiance of England, thus making harmony impossible. He noted also that their very assemblages in the so-called Provincial Congresses were in subversion of the charter that they professed so greatly to revere. Issuing warning, there¬ fore, of the danger in “such illegal and unconstitutional pro¬ ceedings,” he would give no further satisfaction.201 Pending reply the Congress ordered a day of thanksgiving for the “union which so remarkably prevails, not only in this province, but throughout the continent at this alarming crisis.” And with this was entered the rather contradictory order for prayer for union of the colonies with Great Britain, after which the Congress immediately proceeded to determine the proper time for securing arms, ammunition, military stores, etc., and it was decided that “ now was the proper time.” 202 There was expediency in these proceedings, but not a great deal of logic. For the purpose of military equip¬ ment, funds were then voted amounting to over £20,000, and there was elected a commander-in-chief, a receiver-general, and a committee to act during adjournment of the Congress; provision was made for equal representation in the next Provincial Congress, to which they invited the attendance of the “constitutional members of his Majesty’s Council.” The people were directed to “perfect themselves in the mili¬ tary art,” and in methods, strangely enough, “ordered by the King in the year 1764,” these being, “in the opinion of this Congress, best calculated for appearance and de¬ fence.” 203 On the last day of this “session” appeared the answer to the above mentioned address from Governor Gage. In comment on his declaration that the fortifications, “unless annoyed, would annoy nobody,” the delegates main¬ tained that the mere presence of a standing army in time of 201 Journal of Each Provincial Congress, Oct. 17, 1774, pp. 20 Jf. 202 Ibid., Oct. 24, 1774, pp. 27jf. 203 Ibid., Oct. 25, 27, 28, and 29, 1774, pp. 30, 35, 38, 39, 41. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 23 5 peace was a “grievance” and “against law.” How much more so the fortress! We presume your excellency will not deny that you have exerted yourself to execute the acts made to subvert the constitution of the province, although your excellency’s connections with a minis¬ try inimical to the province, and your being surrounded by men of the worst political principles, preclude a prospect of your fully exercising towards this province your wonted benevolence and humanity; . . . Have not invasions of private property, by your excellency, been repeatedly made at Boston? Have not the inhabitants of Salem, whilst peaceably assembled for concerting measures to preserve their freedom, and unprepared to defend themselves, been in imminent danger from your troops? Have you not, by removing the ammunition of the province, and by all other means in your power, endeavored to put it in a state utterly defence¬ less? Have you not expressly declared that “resentment might justly be expected’’ from your troops, merely in consequence of a refusal of some inhabitants of the province to supply them with property undeniably their own? Surely these are questions founded on incontestible facts, which, we think, must prove that while the “avowed enemies’’ of Great Britain and the colonies, are protected by your excellency, the lives, liberties, and prop¬ erties of the inhabitants of the province, who are real friends to the British constitution, are greatly endangered, whilst under the control of your standing army.204 Then followed a lament that “the honor of British troops is sullied by the infamous errand on which they are sent to America.” Gage’s indictment of the violation, implied in their illegal assemblies, of the charter they professed so deeply to revere, was attributed to his “strange misconcep¬ tion of facts:” The powers placed in your excellency, for the good of the prov¬ ince, to convene, adjourn, prorogue, and dissolve the general 204 Journals of Each Provincial Congress, p. 43. 236 ROYAL GOVERNORS court, have been perverted to ruin and enslave the province, while our constituents, the loyal subjects of his majesty, have been compelled, for the laudable purposes of preserving the constitu¬ tion, and therein their freedom, to obtain the wisdom of the prov¬ ince in a way which is not only justifiable by reason, but, under the present exigencies of the state, directed by the principles of the constitution itself; warranted by the most approved pre¬ cedent and examples, and sanctioned [sanctified] by the British nation, at the revolution; upon the strength and validity of which precedent the whole British constitution now stands, his present majesty wears his crown, and all subordinate officers hold their places. And although we are willing to put the most favorable construction on the warning you have been pleased to give us of the “rock on which we are,” we beg leave to inform you that our constituents do not expect, that, in the execution of that important trust which they have reposed in us, we should be wholly guided by your advice. We trust, sir, that we shall not fail in our duty to our country and loyalty to our king, or in a proper respect to your excellency.205 The style of this reply, no less than its manly tone, shows that the colonists had for guides men in many ways superior to most of the royal favorites from whose dull communica¬ tions we have often quoted in the course of the present inquiry. This contrast in leadership will not escape the notice of an attentive reader. On this day also, the close of the first “session” of the first Provincial Congress, all public moneys accruing from taxes were taken over by the newly established government. And partly owing to Gage’s employment of the detested troops to disperse a meeting of the citizens of Salem, the Congress established a militia, ordering all towns to provide necessary equipment.206 The administration of the colony was practically in control of the independent representatives and their leaders in the 205 Journals of Each Provincial Congress, pp. 44 ff. 206 Journals of Each Provincial Congress, Oct. 29, 1774, pp. 45jf. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 237 Provincial Congress, which had met on October 7 and con¬ tinued in session until Dec. 10, 1774. On this last day also was debated the feasibility and desirability of formally “assuming civil government,” but decision was deferred. In order to avoid repetition of the old grievance of too lengthy sessions of the General Court, it was decided to dissolve the Congress at that date, and to authorize the election, in accordance with the charter provision, of a new Congress, which was to meet on Feb. 1, 1775, and to sit until the following May. Under this plan the membership would practically always be under control of the popular element. The Governor’s proclamation of the previous November, prohibiting all persons from complying with the recommendations or resolves of the Provincial Congress, was almost completely ignored.207 On the date above mentioned for the assembling of the new Congress, the members met at Cambridge, and elected John Hancock president. The chief business regarded matters of military supplies, the training of the militia, winning the friendship of the Indians, watching the move¬ ments of Gage’s troops, instituting measures to ascertain the political sentiments in Quebec, and collecting the taxes. As the time approached for the annual election of the General Court, it was resolved that if Governor Gage should issue writs of election the towns were to obey. The representa¬ tives thus chosen to the new General Court, however, were directed to refuse to act in conjunction with any Council consisting of “mandamus” members; and in the event of consequent dissolution, they were to assemble in another Provincial Congress “for the purpose of considering and transacting the affairs of this colony.” On the other hand, should the Governor refuse to issue writs, the towns were nevertheless to elect representatives as usual, who would 207 Journals of Each Provincial Congress , Dec. 10, 1774, pp. 743. Proc¬ lamation is dated Nov. 10, 1774. 238 ROYAL GOVERNORS assemble as above directed. The place of meeting of this new Provincial Congress was to be decided by the old mem¬ bers from Charlestown, Cambridge, Brookline, Roxbury, and Dorchester.208 In a few more days, owing partly to the activities and alleged brutalities of Gage’s troops, there were deliberations for “raising and establishing an army,” and Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire were taken into the proj¬ ect. At the time of the fight at Concord, the Congress was not in session, but the members met three days afterward, and on the fourth voted an army of thirty thousand.209 It was at this stage of affairs that there was manifested the first evi¬ dences of a purpose uncompromisingly and openly to re¬ pudiate the authority of the royal Governor. This appeared in the appointment of a committee to consider the propriety of ignoring General Gage’s writs of election, should any be issued.210 Moreover, the colony was at that time virtually at war with Great Britain. There were, in addition to the rebellious military actions, the usual formalities of recognized warfare, — proposals for exchange of prisoners of war, the granting of commissions, and of passes into the colonial lines, and so on.211 Early in May, 1775, because of the activities of the British troops, and especially the Concord affair, where, it was declared, numbers of the respectable inhabitants had been without provocation “illegally, wan¬ tonly and inhumanly slaughtered,” the Congress recalled its former resolve directing obedience to writs of election that might be issued by the Governor. This was the first mani¬ fest indication of open and complete repudiation of his civil authority; but it must be interpreted as being aimed, 208 Journal of Each Provincial Congress, Feb. 1, 1775, pp. 77, 84, and pp. 77-116, passim, especially entry for April 1, 1775, p. 116. 209 Ibid., April 8, 22, and 23, 1775, pp. 135, 147/. 210 Journal of Each Provincial Congress, April 28, 1775, p. 163; May 3, 1775, p. 190. 211 Ibid., April 29, 1775, p. 166; cf. also pp. 172, 184, 189. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 239 not at the authority of the office, but rather at the authority of the individual, Thomas Gage. The colony still recog¬ nized in principle the authority of a constitutional royal Governor. The formal rejection of the authority of the office was yet to come. As to Gage, the legal Governor, he was now regarded as an enemy to the province : Resolved , That the said general Gage hath, by these means, and many others, utterly disqualified himself to serve this colony as a governor, and in every other capacity, and that no obedience ought, in future, to be paid by the several towns and districts in this colony, to his writs for calling an assembly, or to his procla¬ mations, or any other of his acts or doings; but that, on the other hand, he ought to be considered and guarded against, as an unnatural and inveterate enemy to this country.212 The approaching election had been authorized by the Congress itself, and the representatives were directed to convene on the last day of May, 1775, in a session that would after six months be automatically dissolved. This regulation also was born of the old grievance against sessions of too long standing. It was by the new Provincial Congress thus assembled that application was made to the Conti¬ nental Congress for the “national” body’s approval and recommendation of complete assumption by Massachusetts of the civil government of the colony. This critical measure was urged as “absolutely necessary” for the “salvation” of the colony, chiefly on the ground that Massachusetts had been “by a corrupt administration in Great Britain and here . . . denied the exercise of civil government, according to [the] charter, or the fundamental principles of the English Constitution.” And for this very purpose, it was then de¬ clared, there had been stationed in the “metropolis” a “formidable navy and army, not only inimical to our safety, 212 Journal of Each Provincial Congress, May 5, 1775, pp. 192jf. 240 ROYAL GOVERNORS but flattered with the prospect of enjoying the fruit of our industry/’ 213 At the usual time for the election and meeting of a new General Court, in May, 1775, there appeared in its stead a third Provincial Congress. The proposal to the Continental Congress suggesting rather than seeking its advice concern¬ ing the seizure of all civil power was earnestly repeated, with emphasis, by way of justification, on the consequent further¬ ing of the cause of liberty, and of more efficient prevention of increasing disorders, especially in connection with violation of the sacredness of private property rights.214 This Congress was also embarrassed by a proclamation of the Governor which recounted the disloyalty of many leaders of the “faction,” the treachery of the attack on the King’s troops at Lexington, the destruction and looting of private prop¬ erty, and the arming of subjects against legitimate authority; and which offered, as a last effort to avoid bloodshed and to effect a harmonious solution of difficulties, complete pardon to all who would lay down their arms and return to their allegiance — John Hancock and Samuel Adams excepted. By this proclamation also was established martial law, a measure provoked by and. aimed at those persons who were termed “parricides of the constitution.” 215 The Congress in turn issued a proclamation of its own, professing also to grant complete pardon to all offenders against the rights of the people, and excepting Governor Gage and Admiral Graves, and a few others, among whom were the three re¬ maining “mandamus” Councillors who had refused to resign. The document also denied Gage’s charges of disloyalty and treachery, enumerating the justifying grievances of the late extraordinary proceedings, namely : the presence of the mili- 213 Journal of Each Provincial Congress, May 12 and 16, 1775, p. 219; cf. also p. 196. 214 Ibid., May 31 and June 10, 1775, pp. 273, 319. 215 Journal of Each Provincial Congress, June 13, 1775, pp. 330 ff., notes. Proc¬ lamation is dated June 12, 1775. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 241 tary; transformation of the ‘“metropolis’5 into a “garrison;” the Governor’s attempts and intents to seize public maga¬ zines of the colony and to place them “under the command of a foreign army;” his movement of troops, above referred to, against the inhabitants of Salem; his refusal to grant the benefit of a legislative body; the “mutilation” of the “ whole system of distributive justice;” the authorization by Parlia¬ ment of measures of force to quell disturbances, “by which our countrymen were given up as a prey to a lawless sol¬ diery.” They concluded with a declaration that the mani¬ festations at Lexington especially left to the downtrodden people no other resort, “under God, to preserve America from Slavery and Destruction but our own arms.” 216 A few days after the publication of this proclamation came news of the approval by the Continental Congress of the suggestion to take over the civil government of the colony. This measure was justified on the grounds that no obedience was due to Parliamentary Acts or to royal execu¬ tives when these worked to alter the charter. The Governor and Lieutenant-Governor were therefore to be considered absent, and their offices vacant; the towns were to choose representatives after the usual lawful procedure; and this “Assembly,” in accordance with the provisions of the charter, was to elect the Council. In the “General Court” thus organized were to be vested all civil powers “until a Governor of his Majesty’s appointment will consent to govern the colony according to its charter.” 217 From all this it seems that even yet the colony did not consider itself severed from the authority of the mother country, but simply as endowed with the right and the duty of interpreting its own political privileges, and of defending the same against supposed violations by any power, not excluding the constitu¬ tional authority of the parent state. Up to this time, what- 216 Journal of Each Provincial Congress, June 16, 1775, pp. 44/f. 217 Journal of Each Provincial Congress, June 20, 1775, p. 359. 242 ROYAL GOVERNORS ever rebellious proceedings were instituted were aimed at prevention of violations of this conception of political liberty as perpetrated by the individual, Thomas Gage, and by the members of the British Parliament, rather than at the over¬ throw of the constitutional authority of Great Britain, which was as yet not only not formally denied, but even formally recognized. In accordance with the plan for “assuming civil govern¬ ment, ” the writs of election were issued, and on July 19, 1775, a new order was instituted with the organization of an independent “General Court.” This body was to be dis¬ solved at the latest in the following May, when the annual election would come round.218 Here was a curiously strange state of affairs, — a notable insistence on loyalty to the charter and to established constitutional forms of govern¬ ment, and at the same time complete repudiation of the authority that underlay the political system thus cherished, as well as rejection of the legitimacy of any interpretation of the charter by the very authority that had conceived the charter and extended its privileges. In declaration the colony was still more loyal to England and to English political ideals and tradition than was the Parliament itself, or the royal Governor. In a word, Massachusetts had now assumed, after its generations of political experience and development, the proportions of statehood. The third Provincial Congress was by vote of its members dissolved on July 19, 1775, the day set for the inauguration of the newly assumed government.219 With that act the authority of Governor Gage was formally set aside, and therefore comes to an end this narrative of the conflicts and controversies between the representatives and the last of the royal Governors of Massachusetts Bay. To the colonists Thomas Gage was no longer Governor of His 218 Journal of Each Provincial Congress , June 20, 1775, pp. 359ff. 219 Journals of Each Provincial Congress, p. 501. REPUDIATION OF ENGLISH CONTROL 243 Majesty’s province, but General of an invading army that menaced the rights of His Majesty’s loyal subjects. On this euphemism a new light was later to be shed by the Declara¬ tion of Independence, which changed the statement of the colonial situation rather than the actual facts. Part II NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY CHAPTER IV NEW HAMPSHIRE After half a century of practically independent govern¬ ment for the four towns of Portsmouth, Hampton, Dover, and Exeter, New Hampshire became a royal province in 1679, subject directly to the King through a royal appointee called the President.1 Of the nineteen persons who repre¬ sented the Crown during the period of royal control, less than one half were born in America, and only five were natives of New Hampshire. Aversion to “foreign” rule was so strong that the first royal appointees, President Cutt and his Council, even though they were all natives, were with difficulty persuaded to accept the office, and were finally induced to do so only from a fear that others un¬ friendly to the people might be chosen.2 Cutt’s commission provided for the popular election of a house of representatives, first meeting at Portsmouth in 1680. 3 One of its first acts was to draw up a code of laws suitable to local conditions. This code, which was based upon forty years of experience in local self-government, was in part an expression of the people’s desire for liberty as implied in the power of co-operating in their government.4 1 Laws of New Hampshire, I, Introd., XL VII. 2 W. H. Fry, New Hampshire as a Royal Province, pp. 65, 85. 3 Cf. Cutt’s commission, in Laws of New Hampshire, I, 6. 4 Laws of New Hampshire, I, 9. This code is supposed to have been later dis¬ allowed. Fry, p. 437. NEW HAMPSHIRE 24 5 Although they had objected to the imposition of the new system, they became satisfied both with its working and with President Cutt and his co-partners. England, however, was not satisfied. And Captain Mason feared that with the government as it was then constituted he could not success¬ fully press his territorial claims, while the Board of Trade objected to even the “style and manner” of the laws made: Upon the whole matter, their Lo’ps agree to report to his Ma’ty that the proceedings of the Government in New Hamp¬ shire have been so irregular that it will be necessary that some person be sent by his Ma’ty to settle the Country . . .5 The person sent over to “settle” the country was Edward Cranfield, who in May, 1682, arrived with a new commission. Neither Cutts, who died in March, 1681, nor Waldron, his successor, had trouble with the representatives.6 In the un¬ settled state of the province, England was doubtless justified in appointing some one who would perhaps better represent the home interests than Cutts and his Council, who were all of the province.7 But — 5 Fry, p. 70; cf. also letter from the Board of Trade, in Laws of New Hamp¬ shire, I, 45. 6 Laws of New Hampshire, I, 46, editor’s note. 7 “ The policy of the English government toward New Hampshire during the years which followed the Revolution may be almost said to have shown an ingenu¬ ity of errors. It was neither popular nor strong. By handing over the colony to a greedy adventurer, it alienated the settlers, by the appointment of men well- chosen and arbitrarily changed, it forfeited all chance of official experience or continuous tradition in administration.” Doyle, English Colonies in America, III, 329-332. “ Cranfield’s ill conduct must be ascribed in a great measure to his disappoint¬ ment of the gains which he expected to acquire, by the establishment of Mason’s title, which could be his only inducement to accept of the government. This disappointment urged him to actions not only illegal, but cruel and unmanly.” Belknap, History of New Hampshire, p. 113. “ No amount was too small to attract him . . . [he] showed an amazing adroit¬ ness in turning every incident of his administration into money for himself.” J. T. Adams, The Founding of New England, p. 403. 246 ROYAL GOVERNORS Its choice of the individual selected was most unfortunate . . . Edward Cranfield . . . was perhaps the most sordid and reckless character who ever served the Crown as a provincial governor, and might have sat as a model to any “carpet-bagger” of our post-bellum period; and his three years in New Hampshire are but mildly characterized as an unbroken record of vulgar oppression and extortion. ... It is needless to follow Cranfield ’s disreputable course in detail. It was that of a petty but thor¬ oughly unscrupulous tyrant, who had no thought for the rights of the people whom he governed, or for the interests of the Empire, and whose whole mind was concentrated in picking pockets.8 He came for money, and money he will get, and if he gets it, you know who must lose it, and how miserable must our condi¬ tion quickly be . . .9 His government was arbitrary from the first, and when unable to use the deputies to accomplish his purpose, he resorted to a tax without their consent.10 The first session began harmoniously with a gift to Cran¬ field of £250, partly in appreciation of his restoration of two popular Councillors, and partly to wean him from the Mason interests. Soon, however, “after several warm de¬ bates . . . (probably over money matters) he adjourned that Assembly ... in the hope that they would better understand for the future.” 11 But the new session brought a deadlock that was destined never to be broken. When the Assembly refused to pass a support bill presented by the Governor and Council, Cranfield retaliated by vetoing all 8 Adams, The Founding of New England, pp. 402, 404. See Osgood, American Colonies, III, 348. 9 New Hampshire Provincial Papers, I, 526, William Vaughan’s letter to the province agent Nathaniel Weare, Feb. 4, 1684. 10 Laws of New Hampshire, Provincial Period, Introd., XXI, by the editor, A. S. Batchellor. 11 Belknap, History of New Hampshire, Farmer’s edition, 1831, p. 101. Coun¬ cillors were Waldron and Martyn, later suspended a second time. This Assembly passed a code somewhat similar to the Cutt Code, which Cranfield, apparently approving, was writing to England to have disallowed. Cf. Laws of New Hampshire, I, Introd., XLIX. See Provincial Papers, I, 491. NEW HAMPSHIRE 247 the House bills and ordering an immediate dissolution, the latter an innovation in the province, and the occasion of much resentment, causing even a miniature revolution.12 For a year Cranfield’s oppression continued and increased, with a corresponding deepening of the feeling against him.13 12 Belknap, p. 98, Jan. 20, 1683. Edward Gove, a member of the dissolved Assembly, took up arms, gathering a few people. He surrendered almost imme¬ diately, was later sentenced to death, but eventually liberated. Edward Ran¬ dolph wrote: “Many considerable persons . . . would have joined with him, had he not discovered his designs, or appeared in arms at that time.” A partial reason for Gove’s opposition was that Cranfield’s appointment came from a King “ who was a Papist, and would bring popery in amongst them.” Cf. Randolph to the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations in New Hampshire Provin¬ cial Papers, I, 494. Belknap, pp. 98 ff. 13 The four towns that constituted the province at that time raised money to send an agent, Nathaniel Weare, to England to lodge the following matters of complaint against him: “ of acting in a partial manner and contrary to his instruc¬ tions in reference to Mason’s controversy with the inhabitants, of raising greatly the charges of the various actions in court, of establishing courts of justice and imposing extraordinary fees without the consent of the assembly, of altering the value of currency contrary to the act of the legislature, of unjustly imprisoning the inhabitants, of exercising with the council the entire legislative power, and of preventing the people from laying their complaints before the King.” Fry, p. 77. Belknap, op. cit ., p. 203. William Vaughan, one of the unjustly imprisoned inhabitants, complains in a letter to Weare that he is held, on no crime, to give bond for good behavior; that justices dissenting in the condemnation of the minister Moody, an enemy of Cran- field, were “threatened and hectored” into assent, and that two who still refused were dismissed; of interested juries, with actions going on “twelve at a clap;” that Cranfield’s men themselves admit that they have been “sent for on purpose to give in his testimony against me. ... I have given you but a taste. We that see it know more than can possibly be understood by those that only hear. In a word, such is the height of their heat and rage that there is no living for us long in this condition. But we hope God will be seen in the Mount. ... I question whether any age can parallel such actions. ... It is said that our im¬ prisonment hath most alarmed the whole country, and made them more fond of their liberties . . . the governor did, in the open council yesterday, say and swear dreadfully, that he would put the province into the greatest confusion and distraction he could possibly, and then go away and leave them so, and then the devil take them all,” etc. Provincial Papers, I, 523-533. Upon learning of the complaint and petition sent to England, Cranfield vowed that he would discover the names of the subscribers, and “that it would be the best haul he ever had, for it would be worth 100 pounds to a man.” Provincial Papers, I, 563. 248 ROYAL GOVERNORS Meantime, since there had been no revenue, he was sorely disappointed in his expectation of profit. With a year’s experience to convince him that money would come only through action of the Assembly, he called a meeting on Jan. 14, 1684, and presented a bill already prepared by himself and the Council, providing for defense and other charges of government. Upon its rejection by the House, the incensed Governor declared that the members had been consulting for advice with enemies of the church and of the King of England, and another dissolution resulted. Some of the refractory members were punished by being made, through his influence, constables, — an ingenious revenge that brought money into the Governor’s pocket, since the only means of evading the distasteful office was payment of a £10 fine.14 Governor Cranfield’s ne^t step was an attempt to lay and collect taxes without the Assembly’s consent, an unprece¬ dented measure that caused disturbance so great and met with failure so complete, that no succeeding Governor imitated his example.15 The pretext for this extraordinary measure was the immediate necessity arising from the new danger of Indian incursions instigated by the French; the authority, a clause in the commission empowering Cranfield, with the Council, “to continue such taxes as had formerly been levied, until a general assembly had been called.” At first the Council demurred against a tax ordinance, but finally consented, suggesting that previous to its publication Cranfield should go to New York to ask assistance from Governor Dongan.16 Before his return, orders had come 14 Belknap, op. cit., p. 104. 15 Fry, op. cit., pp. 182, 327. Cranfield’s order and the reasons for giving it can be read in Belknap, p. 469. Taxes and methods of collection were to continue in general as previously arranged by law. 16 Laws of New Hampshire, I, 92, May 27, 1684. The Assembly afterward re¬ fused Governor Cranfield’s claim to reimbursement for the expenses of this journey, “which he successfully effected at his own great charge and expense of upwards of forty pounds.” Cf. Belknap, pp. 109^. NEW HAMPSHIRE 249 from the Lords of Trade forbidding the raising of revenue without the Assembly. He therefore called a meeting, but immediately, because some of his former constables were members, dissolved it and wrote to the secretary of state representing the members as rebellious and their meeting a danger to the government, saying that they had refused support, and that as a consequence he would be obliged to raise money without them, and adding that a ‘ 4 ship of war” would greatly simplify his difficulties. In this letter, which has been characterized as “one of the most delightfully frank * state papers on record,” — Cranfield asked for a frigate “much as a highway man might undertake to supply him¬ self with a pistol.” His purpose was not only the Crown’s interest, but the surer attainment for himself and accom¬ plices of “other advantages.” 17 Enforcement of the tax ordinance was strongly opposed; collectors were insulted and often assaulted; housewives threatened scalding; and when Mason’s troop of horse was summoned to suppress the disorder, not one soldier ap¬ peared. In the next and last session, which was called to consider measures against piracy, the question of support did not arise. This piracy act was practically the only measure successfully passed in Cranfield’s time.18 Serious controversy arose also over the Governor’s denial to the Assembly of a part in the establishment of courts. Claims both for and against this right were based on the language of his commission: We do hereby give and grant unto you full power to erect, constitute, and establish such and so many courts of judicature 17 Belknap, op. cit., p. 110. Adams, op. cit., p. 403. In spite of the Assembly’s attitude, Cranfield’s financial gains were considerable: from the Main trouble, 3,000 pounds; the Narraganset dispute, 3,000 or 4,000 pounds; at Boston, selling pardons, 10,000 pounds; and the 5,000 collected for the evangelization of the Indians could well be “inspected into and regulated.” 18 Belknap, op. cit., pp. llOjf. Provincial Papers, I, 508. Session convened July 22, 1684. 250 ROYAL GOVERNORS and public justice ... as you and they shall think fit and neces¬ sary . . .19 The words “and they” were claimed by the Assembly to include themselves as well as the Council. A recent his¬ torian 20 of New Hampshire confines the interpretation to the Council alone; but the context of the commission implies that they refer to both Council and Assembly. Previous to this clause, the commission arranged for — . . . such reasonable laws and statutes as now are or here¬ after shall be made and agreed upon by you, with the advice and consent of our Council and the Assembly of our said province . . . Here, and in the context that follows, the Assembly is made a part of the government machinery, with occasional further emphasis by a deliberate repetition, e.g.f And that you, the said Edward Cranfield, by and with the advice and consent of our said Council and Assembly , or the major part of them respectively, have full power to make, con¬ stitute, and ordain laws, statutes and ordinances for the public peace . . . etc.21 Soon after this comes the clause in question, in which it seems that the words “and they” have very evident, if not explicit, reference to both Council and Assembly. Later, Governor Cranfield himself actually maintained that these did not belong in the commission at all — “which words,” he affirmed, “were put in by mistake of the clerk.” 22 This implies his conviction that the Assembly also was in¬ cluded within the scope of the disputed clause. 19 The Commission is printed in Provincial Payers, I, 437jf. 20 Fry, op. cit., pp. 442jf. 21 Provincial Papers, I, 434, 436. 22 Cf. Articles of Complaint against Cranfield in Provincial Papers, I, 556. NEW HAMPSHIRE 251 His three sessions of the legislature had brought nothing but conflict, and his position in the colony can be estimated from the list of oppressions and extortions charged against him. It is interesting to note that the great controversy during this first experience of royal government was really on the question of taxation without representation, and that “thus early in the history of the infant province, the old- world struggle between the forces of absolutism on one hand, and the commons on the other appeared. The issue was met fairly . , . and the victory was with the people.” 23 Early in the summer of 1685 Cranfield quietly left the province; and for about a year, while a change of colonial policy was evolving in England, the deputy governor, Walter Barefoote, ruled without controversy.24 Then, as a result of the new centralizing policy, all New England was placed under one head, — President Joseph Dudley,25 who, after a year, was succeeded in December, 1686, by Sir Edmund Andros as Governor of the Dominion of New England.26 During the intervening period of six years the Assembly was abolished, to be restored in 1692 in the commission of Gov¬ ernor Samuel Allen.27 From its beginnings as a royal province, there were serious causes of disaffection, which continued down to the Revolution. William and Mary occupied the throne of the Stuarts. In this province the enquiry as to whether William and Mary, their ministers and parliaments, had fairly met the obligations 23 Maurice H. Robinson, History of Taxation in New Hampshire, p. 8, in Pub¬ lications of the American Economic Association, Series III, Vol. Ill, 1902. 24 Belknap, op. cit., p. 113. 26 Fry, op. cit., p. 523. Dudley’s commission was dated Oct. 8, 1685. He as¬ sumed office in May, 1686. 26 Andros’ commission was dated June 3, 1686. He assumed office December, 1686. He received a second commission April 7, 1688. His jurisdiction included also New York and Plymouth. Cf. Fry, op. cit., p. 523. 27 Fry, op. cit., p. 130. Andros was overthrown in Boston on April 18, 1689. In New Hampshire, from 1689 to 1690, there was purely local self-government. Cf. Laws of New Hampshire, I, Introd., LXXXII. 252 ROYAL GOVERNORS that were imposed upon them, as the responsible heads of a con¬ stitutional monarchy, in the then existing relations with their colonies, brings in issue the character and fitness of the royal governors and their deputies and lieutenants, the sufficiency of the measures employed and means provided for the protection and defense of these outposts of English enterprise and racial extension, the consideration that was accorded the province laws submitted for confirmation or rejection, the bestowal of the gov¬ ernorship upon Mr. Allen and Mr. Usher, under circumstances in which they stood as contestants of the people in respect to the ownership of the principal part of the lands lying within the boundaries of the province, and the restriction of the trade of the province to the home market in England or to designated prov¬ inces under the provisions of the navigation acts.28 Governor Allen hired his son-in-law, Lieutenant-Governor John Usher, to administer the government and did not himself assume office until within a few months of the arrival of his successor, Lord Bellomont. His attempt to interfere with the taxes was promptly resented and frustrated; but in relations with the Assembly that were never cordial, there were no serious controversies.29 Allen had purchased from the Mason heirs their title to the soil of New Hampshire, and was appointed Governor on the score of that interest. Hence the old struggle over the ownership of the land was afterward with the executive of the province, and in his absence, with his representative and son-in-law, John Usher. This official was hated almost as much as Governor Cranfield had been. He was a man of strong impulses, of little tact, and proud of parading a dignity inflated almost to a semi-royal degree.30 The great point of controversy regarded finances. Not one penny of salary was ever granted to Usher in his position 28 Cf. Laws of New Hampshire, I, Introd., XLV. 29 Provincial Papers, II, 286, 289, 291. Fry, op. cit., p. 339. Robinson, op. cit., p. 12. 30 Belknap, op. cit., p. 149. Fry, op. cit., pp. 85ff. Robinson, op. cit., p. 10. NEW HAMPSHIRE 253 of executive.31 In May, 1694, the House refused to act on his recommendation for payment of the public debts as well as provisions for defense, and was immediately dissolved. The new Assembly, which met in the fall, was more com¬ pliant;32 but its appropriations were apparently insufficient, for late in the following year Usher repeated the suggestions, urging also provision for his salary. The House replied that the resources of the province were taxed to the utmost in the sole matter of defense, and that therefore they could not support the honor of the government. They suggested, however, that he refer to the consideration of the King the poverty and danger of the province, in order to obtain added means for support and defense. Usher then proposed as a solution the laying of duties on certain articles, — which the House accepted, but with the proviso that he should join them in a petition for annexation to Massachusetts. They felt that the province was unable, alone, to support a separate government.33 Usher refused the condition, and no revenue bill was passed except one for payment of the Massachusetts men who had served in New Hampshire.34 In July, 1696, when practically the same questions came up, the wording of a certain military revenue bill implied control by the House of the application of appropriations. The number of men as well as the period and place of service 31 Fry, op. cit., pp. 96ff. 32 Ibid., pp. S34>ff. 33 New Hampshire was placed under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Governor in 1702. In 1741 their petition for separation was granted. The fol¬ lowing excerpt from a letter written by Governor Belcher throws light on the condi¬ tion of the province. Some allowance must be made for his strong bias: “The charge of a separate Governor . . . would be an insupportable burden to that poor, starving, miserable Province; indeed, its a shame it should be called a gov¬ ernment. I believe we have several single counties in this Province more than as big again as that Province in land and other estate and people; and in time of war it’s not possible for that Province to subsist without the assistance of the Mas¬ sachusetts.” Belcher to Richard Partridge, Jan. 15, 1739, in Belcher Papers, Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., 6th Series, VII, 262. 34 Fry, op. cit., pp. 33 6jf. 254 ROYAL GOVERNORS were determined. Deeming this an infringement on his prerogative as commander-in-chief of the forces of his prov¬ ince, Usher refused to approve the bill unless appropriations were made without specification. The House refused and was again dissolved, with the declaration that “they were going about to deprive him of the power of the King’s prerogative.” 35 In the new Assembly of 1696 Usher reminded the members that he had paid out of his own pocket for the provisions for the frontier garrison, and that otherwise the places would have fallen to the enemy. With provision also for the provincial debts and defenses, he recommended measures to insure wages and sustenance for soldiers during some time to come. At that time the debt was more than £700, and expenses during the winter would amount to as much more; yet the sum raised was only £600. This, they declared, with poverty, poor harvest, and worse prospects, was the best they could do. The Council then suggested recourse to the King, a petition for a General-Governor, and annexation to Massachusetts. After approving the bill for £600, Usher reminded the members that he had served the province for four years without a penny of salary. But to no purpose; the House still pleaded poverty, and suggested that the only remedy lay in his joining them in a petition for annexation.36 In this unsettled state of affairs Usher was succeeded by William Partridge in December, 1696. His removal had been effected through the opposition aroused by his conduct both in the province and at home. He wrote continually of the prevalent disobedience and disrespect, and declared that the annexation to Massachusetts was sought through “ sullen¬ ness and aversion to royal government rather than their want of ability” to provide for support of a separate govern¬ ment. The following excerpt from the Assembly’s letter to 35 Fry, op. cit., pp. 336ff. 36 Fry, op. cit., pp. S37ff. NEW HAMPSHIRE 255 the King and the Lords of Trade is an answer which at the same time indicates his position in the province: Mr. Usher has complained to your lordships of our being with¬ out a government, and in a lamentable condition; whereas the province was never in a more quiet, peaceable condition; nor has there been any disturbance in it since Mr. Partridge’s arrival; but only what Mr. Usher has endeavored to give us.37 After this, for a period of twenty years there was practically unbroken harmony between the executive and the lower House. Lieutenant-Governor William Partridge (1696-1698) was the people’s choice; 38 Lord Bellomont (1699-1702) was not exacting;39 and Joseph Dudley (1702-1715) was the same who had been, only five years before, driven from the colonies in the Massachusetts revolution against Andros, and who now returned to begin an administration of con¬ tinual strife in the very province that had expelled him. Dudley, strange to say, had no trouble in his joint New Hampshire government.40 This fact is variously explained. The unpopular Usher had been reappointed Lieutenant- Governor in 1703; and Dudley, befriending the local interests that had previously opposed Usher, thus indirectly opposed also the Allen land claims, thereby winning the popular re¬ gard. There are instances, too, of Dudley’s willingness to consider the existing poverty and really dire straits of the province, and to moderate his demands accordingly. The greatest proof of Dudley’s success is in the grant he obtained for a permanent salary of £160 per annum.41 This 37 Provincial Payers, II, 367. 38 Belknap, op. cit,, pp. 152, 154. Fry, op. cit., pp. 79, 86. 39 Governor’s commission dated June 18, 1697; took office July 31, 1699. Cf. Belknap, op. cit., p. 157. 40 Belknap, op. cit., p. 182. J. G. Palfrey, History of New England , III, 346jf. 41 Palfrey, op. cit., p. 350. Provincial Papers, III, pp. 260, 418, 433, 509. Board of Trade to Dudley, May 26, 1704, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 660. P. R. O., C. 0., 5, Vol. 911, pp. 330-334. 256 ROYAL GOVERNORS is significant when it is remembered that in New Hampshire and all the other royal colonies the question of a permanent grant was among the most frequent and most serious causes of dispute. Dudley had been variously estimated. Rich in intellectual ability, he is described as possessing “a grovelling soul,” with ambition for his god.42 And Professor Osgood has stated conservatively that New England was “on the whole fortunate” in his services. The account elsewhere given of Dudley’s controversies with the Massachusetts legislature includes a more detailed study of his character. Early in 1715 Dudley’s successor, Eliseus Burges, had been appointed, but sold his resignation for £1,000. 43 Owing to the daily expected arrival of a new Governor, Dudley took no active part in administration during his last year in office, thus leaving affairs in the hands of the new Lieu¬ tenant-Governor, George Vaughan.44 Domineering, fond of asserting his authority, and of in¬ sisting, with direful threatenings, on the King’s most sacred prerogative, Vaughan soon summoned an Assembly, which granted his salary for only one year, refused all appeals to make it permanent, and was therefore dissolved.45 In the new House, convoked about three months later, he again tried, this time practically commanding a permanent revenue. 42 Palfrey, op. cit., p. 343. Cf. Osgood, American Colonies , III, 386. 43 Commission probably dated Feb. 8, 1715. Cf. Fry, op. cit., p. 523. The Massachusetts agents, Jeremiah Dummer and Jonathan Belcher, together with Sir William Ashurst, prevailed upon Burges to accept the money. Cf. Belknap, op. cit., p. 183. 44 Son of Major William Vaughan, who had suffered so much under Governor Cranfield; appointed through influence of Burges. Cf. Provincial Papers, II, 677; Belknap, op. cit., p. 184. Ruled colony October, 1715, to October, 1716. 45 Provincial Papers, III, 601. His addresses abound in expressions such as “Duty to the Crown,” his “Majesty’s province,” “British Monarchy,” “King’s Majesty’s wise and just administration,” “Endeavors for the punishment of all guilty offenders,” — not exactly pleasing words to a people living in an unpov- erished province, constantly invaded, and constantly in arms to protect it. “I expect to be treated honorably, and according to ye commission I am intrusted with.” Provincial Papers, III, 649. The session lasted from May 9 to Aug. 21, 1716. NEW HAMPSHIRE 257 But the House again refused, declining to consider anything except the ordinary business until the arrival of the new Governor, Samuel Shute (1716-1722). 46 Like Dudley, Shute had constant strife in Massachusetts and comparative peace in New Hampshire. He did not, however, secure a permanent salary; and his immediate substitution in the Council of six new members — all from Portsmouth, and all merchants or traders — caused conflict in the Assembly because of the advantage thus given to one town, the consequent preferment of trade to land interest, the eventual accumulation of tax burdens on the husbandmen and laborers, and the impossibility of passing any revenue bill except as dictated by Portsmouth. The Council in de¬ fending the Governor’s action only aggravated conditions by its declaration that Portsmouth was the “seat of almost all the Gentlemen of the Province.” 47 On another occasion the House had rejected a proposal of the Council for increasing a paper money issue then in contemplation. Shute, disappointed, ordered both Houses to a conference; and when the Assembly inquired of the Council the subject matter of the conference, the Governor took this as an affront, and gave the order for dissolution. This was a mere pretext; the real reason was their refusal to approve the paper money increase, which in the next and more pliant Assembly was granted.48 Possibly because of this subserviency, Shute kept the 46 Cf. Provincial Payers, III, 649; Belknap, op. cit., p. 184. Vaughan subse¬ quently came into disfavor with Shute by his assumption that Shute had powers of Governor only when actually residing in province. Consequently, Vaughan disobeyed certain commands of the Governor; and when ordered to prorogue the Assembly, he dissolved it. He also suspended one of the Councillors, and was in turn, suspended by Shute. He was later removed by the home government, and in his place was appointed John Wentworth, the poet. Addison was then secretary of state, and countersigned his commission. Vaughan really held office until December, 1716, when Shute arrived. Cf. Belknap, op. cit., p. 187. 47 Provincial Papers, III, 675-678. 48 Ibid., p. 679. Belknap, op. cit., pp. 185/f. 258 ROYAL GOVERNORS new Assembly in session during the remaining five years of his administration. Complaints from the House and special requests for dissolution were finally heeded, but not until what proved to be his last year in office. The constant disputes with the Massachusetts House soon after occa¬ sioned his return to England.49 During the next six years, 1723-1729, the province was administered by the Lieutenant-Governor, John Went¬ worth.50 In general he was acceptable to both people and representatives. - One serious controversy, however, arose toward the end of his term, concerning the right of veto over the choice of speaker. He refused to approve the choice of Nathaniel Weare after the April election of 1728, — a proceeding previously unheard of in the province and the cause of much surprise and resentment in the House. A protest against his unprecedented act was entered, to¬ gether with a request to know whether the commission or instructions “particularly mention the power of Negativing a Speaker of the House.” In reply Wentworth cited the clause granting him a veto on all laws, statutes, and ordi¬ nances passed by the General Assembly. In a few days the House answered, stating first that it had no desire to in¬ fringe upon the prerogative, and declaring that by no “Rational Construction” could they interpret the clause as Wentworth did. The veto power did not imply “the Negativing Such orders and Rules of this House as only concern the Settlement and Regulating thereof.” “The Negativing Power Relates Wholly to Laws, Statutes and 49 Provincial Papers, IV, 24. Belknap, op. cit., p. 197. Palfrey, op. cit., IV, 458. 50 Appointed Lieutenant-Governor Sept. 12, 1717. Began duties Dec. 7, 1717. Took the chair in Governor Shute’s place February, 1723. Ruled as Lieutenant- Governor until Nov. 2, 1728. Continued as Lieutenant-Governor under Burnet and Belcher until 1731. His successor, David Dunbar, was appointed Feb. 27, 1731, and began duties on June 24. During John Wentworth’s time the province was continually at war, but grants of supplies were given frequently and without difficulty. Cf. Provincial Papers, IV, 81, 283, 484, passim; Fry, op. cit., p. 523; Belknap, op. cit., pp. 197, 203-221. NEW HAMPSHIRE 25 9 Ordinances to be passed by the Gov’r, Council and Assem¬ bly.” They cited also the settlement of this very point in the House of Commons in the days of Charles the Second, and reminded Wentworth that ever since that time presentation of the speaker for approval had been a mere matter of form; no King or Queen had ever since questioned this settlement; therefore they hoped that Wentworth would not do so.51 He then agreed to yield the point, provided the House did not question his theoretical right. But the House regarded this as exactly the point at issue, and insisted upon its privileges, reaffirming and indorsing the original choice. The resignation of the speaker at this juncture partially solved the difficulty; but in the notice of a new choice, which was soon made, the House included a pre¬ amble justifying its former one. Wentworth curtly rejected the preamble, but approved the new speaker.52 The same question arose in later administrations. Judging from the tenor of the Assembly’s reply to the last speech, this first difference was not emphasized because of the arrival of the new Governor, William Burnet (1728-1729): 53 The new Governor presided at only one session of less than a month. In his instructions was contained the germ of conflict, namely, orders to procure a fixed and permanent salary for himself and his successors, and, failing this, a fixed salary at least for himself during continuance in office. Evidently influenced by the evasion of these instructions in Massachusetts, Burnet requested in his opening address a fixed salary simply “for the time being,” 54 meaning, as 51 Provincial Payers, IV, 283, 485, 486, 488, and passim. 52 Provincial Papers, IV, 488. Controversy ended on April 18, 1728. New speaker was Andrew Wiggin. 53 In December, 1727, began a long drawn-out attempt by the House to prevent the Governor and Council from sitting as Court of Appeal from the Supreme Court of the province. The struggle, however, was chiefly with the Council, which non-concurred in all of the House votes on the subject. Cf. Provincial Papers, IV, 269, 272, 273, 286, 375, 476, 479 and passim. The House was not successful. 54 Burnet was appointed March 14, 1727-1728; assumed office July 19, 1728. 260 ROYAL GOVERNORS later contexts show, during continuance in office. The reply of the House is missing from the records; but later a fixed sum was granted for three years, whereupon Burnet recalled the precedent under Dudley, trusting that his own services would not be held in less esteem. After a wTeek of considera¬ tion and the rejection of one Council amendment, the sal¬ ary was finally granted during continuance in office.55 Pro¬ rogation soon followed, and the Assembly did not meet again under Burnet.56 The salary question, however, by that time a quagmire in which floundered nearly all colonial Governors, was destined again to be revived under the next Governor, Jonathan Belcher (1730-1741). Belcher’s administration began under promising auspices but ended in disaster. The Assembly immediately granted him a salary of £200 sterling, or £600 in bills of credit, making payment in the latter, which decreased in value each year. In 1741 Belcher complained of his consequent losses, showing in an itemized account a total deficit of £3,240, and requesting that it be made good. But the Col. Soc. of Mass., II, XXXIV. Met first Assembly April 22, 1729; prorogued it May 15, 1729. Provincial Payers, IV, 504, 522, 533ff., 555. His actual administra¬ tion lasted about a year, i.e., from July, 1728, to September, 1729. Cf. Provincial Payers, IV, 504. 65 This amendment probably provided the desired extension of the salary grant. The Council records on this point are missing. Cf . Provincial Payers, IV, 542, May 2. According to Belcher, quoted by Belknap, oy. cit., p. 225, this submission of the House was managed by the Lieutenant-Governor Wentworth, who had made many of them proprietors in townships lately erected, and whose persuasion there¬ fore won their consent, — with the condition that one third of the salary should go to himself; Cf. also ibid., p. 223. The amount of the salary was £200 sterling, or £600 in bills of credit. Cf. Provincial Payers, IV, 512, 543, entry for May 9, 1728. Belcher, the next Governor, early had trouble with Wentworth, indignantly refusing to pay him the one third, thus incurring the enmity of the leader of a powerful faction, and laying the foundation for much of his later trouble. Belknap, oy. cit., 225. 56 Prorogued on May 15 to second Tuesday in following August, but did not meet until December 9. Meantime, on September 7, Burnet died, probably as a result of exposure and drenching when his carriage was accidentally overturned into the water. Provincial Payers, IV, 523. NEW HAMPSHIRE 261 Assembly appealed to the terms of the salary act, which warranted payment either in pounds sterling or in bills of credit, and which made no provision for the exigency of fluctuation in value. They also took the trouble to remind him of his own words on the occasion of his acceptance of the grant: “As you have dutifully complied with his maj’- ties order in fixing my support, I am content, and I thank you, and I will at no time take any money but what is my due and that in the most laudable way and manner.” 57 Conflicts during the preceding ten years had forced the Assembly into this attitude and in part explains its reply. The chief causes of estrangement lay in the policy concern¬ ing paper money issues, and in the objection to burdening the province with more taxes than were absolutely neces¬ sary. As a result the periods for calling in the bills came and went, the time was continually extended, and for years the bills remained unredeemed.58 Belcher’s struggle was to effect redemption within a prescribed time, to pre¬ vent further issues, to persuade appropriations for general charges of government, to procure funds for an empty treasury and grants for defense, — a colossal task, under the circumstances, for even a popular Governor. For ten years Governor Belcher worked at it, chiefly by way of frequent hectorings, threatenings, and sudden dis¬ solutions, which served only to increase animosity and to provoke encounters. In five years, 1731-1736, there were seven dissolutions. Three of the Assemblies sat scarcely three weeks, and one for only fourteen days.59 With each 67 Provincial Papers, IV, 570; V, 85. 68 For details on finances in New Hampshire. Cf. Fry, op. cit., pp. 345-358. Convened Feb. 3, 1731. Aug. 29, 1732. Jan. 1, 1734. Oct. 8, 1734. April 30, 1735. April 21, 1736. Dissolved May 18, 1732. March 10, 1733 Jan. 23, 1734. Oct. 22, 1734. May 17, 1735. May 12, 1736. Provincial Papers IV, p. 623 IV, p. 644. IV, pp. 666/. IV, pp. 679/. IV, pp. 697/. IV, pp. 711/. 262 ROYAL GOVERNORS new election, however, nearly the same members were re¬ turned, a circumstance that caused the process of contro¬ versy and opposition to be renewed, with only a temporary respite in Belcher’s last year, after which the troubles were revived. As early as 1731 the Assembly opposed appropriations for the treasury and for general charges of government, because of the consequent increase of taxes on a people already too heavily burdened. Up to that time a tax had been laid each > year to redeem bills of credit due after 1742. War inroads and the resulting impoverishment, the heavy taxes of pre¬ vious years, the lack of natural resources, and the very small population all influenced the House in refusing to impose further taxes. Instead, there was proposed a new issue of paper money redeemable after 1742, and a large sum in bills of credit to be let out on loan. Belcher’s instructions forbade approval except under certain conditions; and soon after, with a sharp reprimand, the Assembly was dissolved.60 Exactly the same proceedings occurred a few months later in the new Assembly, which finally voted an appeal to the King for permission to issue the additional paper money. Belcher continued the session for six months to March 10, 1733, but without result.61 Nine months later he convoked a new Assembly, which lasted only three weeks.62 At that session a compromise was almost reached. The House had passed a bill that would have solved most of the difficulties, but included in it a provision for payment of an agent in England, whose duty was to push the set¬ tlement of the boundary dispute, and also to work for Governor Belcher’s removal. To this, as well as to a bound¬ ary line in favor of New Hampshire, Belcher was opposed. 60 Fry, op. cit., pp. 334, 345, 360/f. Provincial Papers, IV, 623. 61 Fry, op. cit., pp. 361, 523. Provincial Papers, IV, 644j ij. 62 Provincial Papers, IV, 667, Jan. 1 to Jan. 23, 1734. NEW HAMPSHIRE 263 When the Council, probably under the Governor’s influence, rejected the bill as it then stood, another deadlock was produced. The House again resolved to appeal to the King, and refused further to consider tax questions until His Majesty’s pleasure was known. With another tirade, accusing them of neglecting bills to the amount of £1,730, now twenty years overdue, of breaking faith with both King and people, of leaving the public debts unpaid and the province undefended, and of manifesting to himself nothing but “singular rudeness,” the order for dissolution was repeated.63 The fall session of the new Assembly was likewise fruit¬ less. Only a single act, regarding the recovery of private debts, was passed. Belcher’s patience with this session lasted just fourteen days.64 The Assembly would pass a bill to force others to pay their debts; how about their own public debt, and the consequent injustice to creditors? For four years nothing had been accomplished but an in¬ crease in the burden of taxes. “The good people of this Province should know who are the immediate authors (as snake in the grass) of their present troubles and difficul¬ ties;” but to save the people, he would dissolve this Assem¬ bly, and permit the election of one “free from sinister views and party designs.” In six months it convened; but the snake was apparently still in the grass, for after seven¬ teen days, another deadlock, and a still more vehement rebuke, it was dissolved.65 The new members, elected a full year later, had apparently been smarting under the Governor’s reproaches, for on the very first day of the session a committee was appointed to draft a reply; on the second day, a resolution for a vote of 63 Provincial Papers, IV, pp. 664, 667. Fry, op. cit., p. 362. Dissolved Jan. 23, 1734. 64 Provincial Papers, IV, 667, 673-680. Assembly met Oct. 8, 1734; was dis¬ solved October 22. 66 Provincial Papers, IV, 67 9Jf., 697. Convened April 30, 1735. 264 ROYAL GOVERNORS thanks to the provincial agent was passed; and later, the treasury supply bill, with the old rider granting the agent’s salary, was sent up, only to be again rejected by the Coun¬ cil.66 The committee’s draft in reply to Belcher’s speech declared that failure to answer would imply a want in “the first Principles of Nature,” a “neglect culpable in the sight of God and man;” also that every act of the House had been the best possible under the circumstances; and that payment of the agent’s salary was a matter of public faith. It read in part as follows: As to your Excell’ys solemn expostulation how we shall be able to hold up our heads before God and the people, we shall only say, that as to the people, we shall always be able to hold up our heads before them, as long as we never betray their Trust, and very well know that it is the opinion of the generality of them, as well as of our own, that we are pursuing their true Interest. And as to your Excell’ys knowing how we shall hold up our heads before God, we must pray your Excell’ys to waite till that time, when you and we shall appear before him without distinction, and when our talking never so much of God and religion without something answerable to it will turn to no account to us. Belcher, taking this “indecent answer” for an insult, replied in kind, and ordered another dissolution.67 Financial problems were by this time six years old and were no nearer adjudication; still another year passed before there was even a semblance of agreement. In the new House, which met about ten months later, proceedings were surprisingly harmonious.68 The bill to pay the charges of the province, with its rider for the agent’s salary, was approved by the Governor on condition that the desig¬ nated £500 should go solely to his reimbursement for time and money expended in the affair of the colony’s boundary 66 Provincial Payers, IV, 697, 701, 705, 706, 710, 711. 67 Provincial Payers, IV, 707jf. May 12, 1736. 68 Convened March 8, 1737; dissolved Nov. 17, 1738. Fry, oy. cit., p. 523. NEW HAMPSHIRE 265 lines. Other bills also became law; but the annual supply bill was prevented by dissolution, becoming the occasion of renewed hostilities in the next Assembly. e/ To the new House,69 because news had come of war against Spain, Belcher recommended filling the treasury, in view of possible invasion. But’ the House, occupied with the annual support bill deferred since 1737, deemed it alone a sufficient burden for the people, and granted only a trifling sum for the other purpose. With the same old matters of controversy still in abeyance, with defense appropriations not yet made, with the public debt unfunded, and future support of the government unprovided, the Assembly was again dissolved.70 In the next session of only three weeks, a reluctant emission of bills of credit for the expedition against the Spaniards in the West Indies was obtained. The last session under Governor Belcher, which came in the following year, left the public debts and future needs of the government still unsettled.71 By these frequent dissolutions was aroused the keenest resentment. The House regarded them as attempts to force acquiescence, declaring them “very unhappy presi¬ dents,” a grievance to the representatives in New Hamp¬ shire, and even to the Assemblies of neighboring provinces. Belcher, however, could not perceive “any great incon- veniency in the dissolution of an Assembly,” — with but twelve towns that sent representatives, and the farthest one less than a day’s journey away. He therefore thought that there had been no overstepping of authority.72 There was controversy also over the Governor’s right to judge of the validity of elections to the House. In April, 1735, he had prohibited the administering of the custom- 69 Convened Oct. 24, 1739; dissolved Feb. 2G, 1740. Fry, op. cit., p. 523. 70 Provincial Papers, V, 67. Fry, op. cit., pp. 365jf. 71 Ibid., pp. 18, 54-85. Fry, op. cit., pp. 366/f. Convened July 12, 1740; dis¬ solved Aug. 7, 1740. Convened, February 12; dissolved March 18, 1741. 72 Provincial Papers, IV, 688, 698. 266 ROYAL GOVERNORS ary oath to one of the newly elected members, upon which the House refused, in spite of his repeated order, to “go upon any Business” until the member was duly qualified. Belcher disclaimed any intention of invading their privi¬ leges, and based his authority on his commission, of which the House then requested a copy. It was the part conferring power to summon Assemblies and to administer oaths to those duly elected. It was therefore a question of who should judge the validity of elections. The House argued that “if the Gover’r for the time being hath authority upon pretense of undue Elections to prevent any member from acting in the House, it would be a power in a manner equal to that of choosing the Assembly himself.” Belcher finally yielded the point.73 In the serious boundary dispute with Massachusetts, his attitude and tactics caused much resentment. When, after years of controversy, a commission was finally to be ap¬ pointed to hear both sides and to determine the line, Belcher prevented the New Hampshire legislature from sending delegates by proroguing the Assembly to three days beyond the date set for the hearing. Informal representatives managed to get their data before the commission. After the decision, but before a copy could reach the Assembly, Belcher again prorogued it, and did not call another meeting until within four days of the time fixed for appealing. Then the Council continued his obstructive policy by imme¬ diately adjourning, and forcing the House a second time to proceed informally. The dispute was finally settled by the King in New Hampshire’s favor.74 73 Provincial Payers, IV, 681, 684. 74 Fry, op. cit., pp. 255-261. This boundary controversy was really a serious matter. As Belcher himself wrote to the Board of Trade, “the poor borderers on the lines . . . live like toads under the harrow, being run into jails on one side or the other as often as they please to quarrel. They will pull dowm one another’s houses, often wound one another and I fear it will end in bloodshed, unless his Majesty . . . give some effectual order to have the bounds fixed.” N. H. State Papers, 19, 223; cf. also Fry, op. cit., p. 249. NEW HAMPSHIRE 267 Belcher’s administration was a succession of disagree¬ ments with the Assembly, chiefly on matters of finance. He was not a tyrant, or openly oppressive like Cranfield and Usher; yet he was unpopular, received no co-operation, and was finally removed at the instance of his own subjects. His troubles were due in great measure to his smallness of character and his ill-controlled ambition, of which additional details is given in the discussion of his administration in Massachusetts.75 It can hardly be said, however, that his ten years as Governor of New Hampshire had weakened, as it had done in Massachusetts, the King’s hold on the people; they still saw in His Majesty their chief protection against the evil of tyrannical executives. Benning Wentworth, one of the sixteen children of the deceased Lieutenant-Governor, John Wentworth, adminis¬ tered affairs during the next quarter of a century, 1742- 1767. The Wentworth family was influential in the prov¬ ince; and its numerous connections, kinsfolk and friends, formed a powerful faction. Benning’s father had held office for fourteen years; his nephew and successor, John Wentworth, was Governor down to the final break with England. The “Wentworth dynasty,” therefore, was well established. Hardly a brother, a nephew, or a cousin was without a position in the administration.76 It should here be noted that New Hampshire was then 75 The following excerpt from one of Belcher’s letters shows something of his methods. Aiming at dismissal of three objectionable Councillors, he called a meeting, ostensibly for a Thanksgiving proclamation; but to Richard Waldron, he wrote that he “should really be best pleased if it should take the turn you have mentioned, and that they would do what they do in pretty bold, rampant terms, to give the better colour for a suspension of two or three, which seems (rebus sic stantibus) to be necessary. Can’t you therefore be wise and guileful enough to draw ’em forth to be warm in their expressions. . . . But don’t let ’em dream of what is to follow.” Belcher Payers, Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Series 6, VII, 33 5Jf., Oct. 17, 1740. 76 Lawrence Shaw Mayo, Life of John Wentworth, p. 5. Belknap, op. cit., pp. 203, 336. 268 ROYAL GOVERNORS separated from political union with Massachusetts. Since 1702 the two provinces had been under one Governor. William Shirley was at that time appointed for Massachu¬ setts, Benning Wentworth for the smaller province.77 A member of the Assembly and leader in the oppo¬ sition to Belcher, his appointment accompanying the vic¬ tory in the restoration of a separate Governor, and with the advantage of his family faction, Benning Wentworth began under favorable auspices and had a comparatively peaceful term. Since one purpose in his appointment was to afford him opportunity to retrieve his fortunes, lost through alleged breach of financial faith by Spanish traders, it is easy to understand, in his opening address, the careful emphasis on “his Majesties Especial commands . . . that Provision be made for the Hon’ble Support of the King's Goverm’t;” and that on himself be settled a “Salary, suitable to maintain the dignity of his office,” and guaranteed against depreciation, — a light, probably, from Belcher’s experiences. “Contrary behaviour,” he added, “will affect your present and future felicity.”78 Thus was the salary controversy renewed. When a month later the House broke the royal instructions by voting only a temporary grant and a sum in his estimation inadequate, Wentworth refused it, saying: I am very far from desiring to enter into any contest with the House of Representatives on this or any other subject, but this so nearly concerns the Honour of the Crown, the Prosperity of the Province, and the peace of its inhabitants, that I should stand highly chargeable with want of duty to my Royal master should I give up so tender a point.79 The tender point was ignored by the House, however, whereupon the Governor counselled them to “be assured 77 Fry, op. cit., p. 84. 78 Belknap, op. cit., p. 263. Provincial Papers, V, 136. 79 Provincial Papers, V, 1 45jf . NEW HAMPSHIRE 269 . . . (and dont suffer yourselves to be deluded or mis¬ guided) that you are contending with the Crown and not with the Governor.80 Shortly after, they voted two sepa¬ rate grants of £250 proclamation money, but conditioned one of them upon the King’s approval of a £2,300 loan. But it was only an “inducement” of £125 that finally silenced his complaints of the smallness of the amount, and persuaded acceptance. In spite of this supposed niggardli¬ ness, he was soon afflicted with the gout.81 In time the money bills depreciated, and Wentworth, like Belcher, requested the House to make up the deficit and to provide for like future contingencies. They refused the latter; while the deficit which they granted was con¬ sidered insufficient by the Governor, who insisted that his salary had never been adequate. Despite Wentworth’s later appeals it was five years before the House eased some of his grievances by permitting a quarterly payment and providing against depreciation. In January, 1754, new salary difficulties arose. At that time the £25,000 loan, from the interest of which half the salary was provided, expired. Thus was caused a further deficit of £250, which Wentworth requested the House to make good. They did so, but in new tenor bills, which he refused as not nearly approximating in value the £250 pro¬ clamation money. Then the House, in determining the inter¬ pretation of the original appropriation act, declared it to mean that the part of his salary accruing from the £25,000 loan was to cease when the interest on the loan ceased. In spite of his repeated appeals this deficit was never made up. He himself refused, as being too small, many later grants. In November, 1758, when the question of a deficit again arose, there was less difficulty. The last salary controversy came in January, 1762, with another fruitless insistence on 80 Provincial Papers , V, p. 148. 81 Belknap, op. cit., p. 272. 270 ROYAL GOVERNORS compliance with the provision of the instructions ordering a fixed and permanent grant.82 After Belcher’s continual difficulties over paper money, controversies on this subject were to have been expected for his successor. However, England’s negative that had so handicapped Belcher was somewhat qualified for Went¬ worth; and the leniency, judging from the new Governor’s announcement of it at the opening session, must have been deemed an inestimable privilege: “His Maj’tie has been pleased to condescend to indulge me with his Royal leave to consent to a further ommission.” Trouble was renewed in 1744, when tidings came of the war against France. Wentworth called a special session to obtain military appropriations; but when the House pro¬ posed a new paper money issue, he was forced, by reason of the royal instructions, to disapprove. Later, however, after consultation with a joint committee and under stress of military necessity, he yielded. But controversy began again when it was arranged that a part of the issue was to be redeemed out of the interest from the old £25,000 loan. Wentworth considered this as government revenue, refused to allow it to be touched, and the bill was lost. In the following year, 1745, when the Louisburg expedi¬ tion was under consideration, there was a similar experience. After considering means to meet the estimated expense of £4,000, the House voted a lump sum to defray, not only this expense, but also to provide for home defense and for the ordinary support of the Government. To this there were two objections: the emission should be made only for the expedition; redemption should commence five years sooner than arranged in the bill. What Wentworth particu¬ larly objected to was provision in this way for the support of government. But the House emphasized the futility of 82 Fry, op. tit., pp. 107-115. NEW HAMPSHIRE 271 providing for an expedition abroad, yet leaving the prov¬ ince defenseless and resourceless at home: Does your Excellency think it would be for the honour of his Majesty, and the safety of his People in this Province to leave the Province in such a naked and defenseless state as your Excel¬ lency is pleased to Represent it in and at a season when your Excellency justly observes we may expect to be attacked by sea and land, to send 250 of our best men (when we can barely spare them) on an Expedition abroad and make no manner of provi¬ sion for defense of his Majesty’s Government at Home? The House are surprised hereat and . . . therefore, inasmuch as your Excellency expresses your readiness to assent to any Bill for emitting money for the defraying the charge of Expedition again Louisburg without an Instruction to support your Excellency, we hope and trust that on further consideration, your Excellency will think it of as much importance to make ample provision for the protection of his Majesty’s Province in its naked and defenseless state.83 Wentworth, however, refused to violate his instruction, thus continuing the dispute until the following compromise was effected: provision for home defense was suffered to remain in the bill, while the House agreed to an earlier redemption, and waived its claim to include support of the government. But at this stage the Governor hesitated. He thought that the 250 men provided for the expedition were not sufficient, that the redemption period was too long, and therefore he suggested that the House find some other way of raising the money. This recommendation was ignored, and thereupon a long discussion ensued, which finally re¬ sulted in a vote for 100 more men and of £3,000 to support them, after which the controversy ended. Ten years later, when preparations were under way against 83 Provincial Papers, V, 279 'ff. Redemption was to begin after 1756. The lump sum approximated £10,000. Later Wentworth consented to £3,000 more. Cf. Fry, op. cit., pp. 374jf., 380-383. 272 ROYAL GOVERNORS the French on Lake Champlain, there was the familiar dispute, but in the end military necessity forced Went¬ worth to assent to an emission of £30,000. In the next year, however, when additional funds were needed, the House reversed its position, opposing a further issue be¬ cause of the depreciation of credit bills. Later in the same session and probably due to Shirley’s influence, it fought for a new emission. Wentworth finally assented, but not until pressure had been brought to bear. He had been negotiating with Governor Shirley for a loan of £6,000 sterling; the House refused to send up the bill until their new issue had been approved.84 During the three years between 1757-1760 there were five instances of paper money controversies. On each occa¬ sion military necessity forced the Governor to approve.85 In the last instance he thus stated his position: “When you critically consider the Bill, you will find that it repeats a Law now in being, that it militates with your Constitution, that it supercedes officers in power, that it is a great indig¬ nity to the King, that it is derogatory of the Liberty and Priviledges of his Majesty’s subjects . . .” 86 The close of the war in 1763 saw the end of such controversies. Another conflict, so serious that for three years (1749- 1752) it put a stop to all legislation, arose through Went¬ worth’s attempt to interfere with membership in the House. Simultaneously his right to veto the choice of speaker was contested. The first signs of this deadlock were noticed after the January election of 1745. Although not authorized by the Assembly, the Governor sent writs of election to six places not hitherto represented. The House, therefore, be¬ fore it would proceed to elect a speaker, requested that his “Excell’y would be pleased to inform by what means those 84 Fry, op. cit., pp. 384-394, passim, and pp. 187-189. 86 Ibid., pp. 404-414. 86 Provincial Papers , VI, 785. See Fry, op. cit., p. 416. NEW HAMPSHIRE 273 places are authorized to send a member to this Court.” Replying that they were called by the King’s writ, issued upon advice of the Council, he ordered them to choose a speaker. In the choice, however, the five contested mem¬ bers were refused a vote. This occasioned heated discus¬ sion. After some days, through stress of impending war, Wentworth decided to let the case drop until the King’s pleasure should be known.87 When the instructions arrived, the Governor was upheld, even to the extent of an additional direction to dissolve the existing Assembly.88 In calling a new one he was to reissue writs to the contested places. This he did in January, 1749, and not only to those places but to several new ones. At once, with the choice of a speaker,89 the contest reopened. As on the other occasion, the representatives refused to allow a vote to members not recognized by the House, and the Governor therefore refused to approve the choice of speaker. For a time the conflict rested on the difference in meaning between the words to and from. The instructions referred to the King’s right “of sending representatives to such towns as his majesty judged worthy thereof.” The House requested Wentworth to explain the meaning of sending representatives to towns. They could not see how this clause gave the Governor the right to call representatives from towns. “It is out of our Power to reconcile to and from to one meaning, and make them convey the same idea.” They also made a point of the fact that some representa¬ tives had been returned from places not mentioned in the instructions. The discussion ended with a vote to deny admission to the contested members until the King’s pleas¬ ure should be further known, whereupon Wentworth de- 87 Provincial Payers, V, 261, 264. 88 Provincial Payers, V, 82. 89 Speaker chosen was Wentworth’s bitterest enemy, Richard Waldron. Cf. Fry, oy. cit., p. 139. 274 ROYAL GOVERNORS dared that until they yielded, no business would be done. A deadlock followed, and continued for three years.90 In January, 1752, the triennial act forced a dissolution; the newly elected House yielded every point and offered an address of conciliation.91 The attitude of the former House is said by some to have been the result of a plot conceived by the rejected speaker and by others hostile to Wentworth, and aimed at his removal.92 The only other contest of this nature occurred in 1775. Efforts to establish court seats besides the single one at Portsmouth also caused trouble. As settlements extended farther and farther from the coast, there was considerable inconvenience attached to even the journey to and from the Portsmouth seat, the expenses often exceeding the damages claimed. A bill providing that the courts be held quarterly in the “four ancient towns” had been disallowed by the King twTenty years before.93 On this occasion discussion of the same question was caused by the resignation of the chief jus¬ tice because of his inadequate salary. In January, 1755, the House followed the Governor’s suggestion for raising the salary, but inserted in the bill a rider dividing the province into two counties, thus establishing another seat for the courts. That bill was lost. When, six months later, the assistant justices also refused to continue their services with¬ out sufficient compensation, Wentworth again, but without result, recommended an increase. The same thing occurred in the year following, but the House would consent to no allowance for the justices until justice was made more easily available. In this extremity the Governor himself 90 Provincial Papers, V, 85. Laws of New Hampshire , II, 594, editor’s note. Fry, op. cit., pp. 159/., Provincial Papers, V, 76/ 91 Provincial Papers, VI, 161. Election held September, 1752. Fry, op. cit., pp. 161/. 92 Provincial Papers , VI, 38-68, gives the private correspondence of parties engaged in the plot. Belcher was implicated. 93 Fry, op. cit., pp. 459/. NEW HAMPSHIRE 275 paid the new chief justice whom he had with difficulty per¬ suaded to accept the office. Again in 1759 he tried, but the House made the same reply.94 Early in the new year, armed with a specific instruction on the matter, Wentworth re¬ newed the question, reminding the Assembly that further neglect might bring consequences “severer than you can conceive.” After examining the instruction, the representa¬ tives answered that the King could not have been informed of all the “concurring circumstances” in the case. And they “said by yeas & nays, save three unanimously, that they would not give any salary to the chief Justices . . . but that if the Province might be divided into two Counties as seems his Excellency is not against that then they are willing to give salary to the Justices . . .” 95 Wentworth maintained, however, that the two questions were in no way related, and repeatedly urged compliance with the royal instructions. This was persistently refused, thus leaving the contest still unsettled when the Governor’s nephew, John Wentworth, succeeded his uncle in 1767. 96 Other disputes of minor importance occurred when the speaker, in the case of a vacancy, assumed authority to issue a warrant for the election of a new member, and when the Governor attempted to interfere with the membership of a House committee. By the end of Benning Wentworth’s term, the House had also made considerable encroachment upon his powers as commander-in-chief, principally through control of enlistments and supplies.97 The extraordinary number of township grants made by Wentworth — about eighty during his administration, of which sixty-eight were in contested territory — aroused much feeling against him, especially when the natives saw 94 Provincial Papers , VI, 418/., 453/., 691, 697, 720-730. Fry, op. cit., pp. 460 / Chief justice was Eilis Huske; new one, Theodore Atkinson. 96 Provincial Papers, VI, 759, 766, Feb. 13, 1761. 96 Fry, op. cit., p. 463. 97 Ibid., pp. 168, 179/., 199-208. 276 ROYAL GOVERNORS the grants go always to the highest bidder. Altogether he had distributed about two hundred large tracts, reserving in each ease a personally selected lot of 500 acres. Thus in twenty years he had acquired 100,000 valuable acres, incidentally fulfilling one purpose of his appointment, the retrieving of his lost fortune. In 1740 he was a bankrupt merchant, in 1760 a capitalist. Through his nephew’s influ¬ ence with the Marquis of Rockingham he was permitted to resign, instead of being removed.98 The new Governor came to the province at a favorable period. The four years following the peace of 1763 had brought unusual prosperity; taxes for military appropria¬ tions and the redemption of bills of credit had all but ceased; money values no longer fluctuated; commercial, industrial, agricultural, and settlement extension activities were on the increase. The people knew, too, that the Governor had used his influence with Rockingham against the “cursed” Stamp Act.99 Moreover, John Wentworth was a native, though certainly not of the natives. His very numerous connections also, by blood, by marriage, and by social ties, all served to justify a political forecast in his favor. On this topic Belknap wrote: His family, who had long complained of ingratitude and neglect, were now amply gratified, not only by the advancement of the new governor, but by his recommending several other gentlemen who were connected with it to the council board and to other offices of government.100 In 1771 the Council membership was practically a Went¬ worth family cabinet.101 Other offices also he was careful 98 Mayo, op. cit., pp. 23jf. John Wentworth’s defense of his uncle is in New Hampshire State Papers, XVIII, 560-567. 99 Fry, op. cit., p. 420. Mayo, op. cit., p. 19. 100 Belknap, op. cit., p. 339. 101 Council membership: Mark Hunting Wentworth, the Governor’s father; Daniel Rindge, the Governor’s uncle; Theodore Atkinson, uncle by marriage; NEW HAMPSHIRE m to pack. Adams, in his Annals of Portsmouth , says: “It has been objected against him that all the important offices in the government are filled by his particular friends.” 102 Wentworth in his time doubled the number of justices in the province by appointing twenty-five new ones in Ports¬ mouth alone. This policy was not altogether popular. When in 1776 the crisis was impending, the Sons of Liberty thus complained : “We cannot depend upon the countenance of many persons here [Portsmouth] of the first rank, for royal connection and family connection influence the prin¬ cipal gentlemen among us, at least to be silent during these evil times.” 103 The following statement, referring also to the eve of revolution, is significant: “The merchants and clergy had remained neutral, largely by reason of the gov¬ ernor’s popularity and the extent of his family connection and influence.’ ’104 These facts are mentioned in possible explanation of Gov¬ ernor John Wentworth’s reputed popularity in New Hamp¬ shire. There is no doubt as to his standing in Portsmouth, where the “Wentworth dynasty” was secure. Portsmouth was the home of his “set,” of which many members were created by himself. But there were two other sections in New Hampshire, each devoid of aristocratic tendencies. Settlers in the Merrimac valley were chiefly from among the “common people” of Massachusetts. They, with their republican principles and their hostility to a reproduction of England’s social distinctions, would not have great sympathy with the Portsmouth “uppers.” And in the Daniel Pierce, uncle by marriage; Daniel Rogers, uncle by marriage; Peter Livius; Jonathan Warner, cousin by marriage; Daniel Warner, Jonathan’s father; George Joffrey, the son of George Joffrey, whose second wife was the Governor’s aunt. Mayo, op. cit., p. 79. i°2 page 230. 103 Belknap, op. cit., pp. 336, 340. 104 F. B. Sanborn, History of New Hampshire, American Commonwealths Series, p. 209. 278 ROYAL GOVERNORS west, the frontiersmen, who came chiefly from Connecticut, a colony of “arch-democrats” and enjoying the most liberal charter, would have no love for the royalist and stratified tradition of the center of the province. Nevertheless, the pulse of the province would be felt at Portsmouth; and the indication there given of the Governor’s popularity would easily be accepted as an index to his standing in the other two districts, an inference not altogether warranted.105 Although Governor Wentworth was heir-apparent to the largest fortune in New England, the matter of his salary seems to have caused him concern, — much more, indeed, than is admitted by his latest biographer, who simply men¬ tions “the usual chronic bicker over salary,” and straight¬ way dismisses the subject along with “other perennial questions which bore the modern reader as much as they annoyed the provincial executive.” Aside from recommend¬ ing fitting recompense for the officers of government, which, it may be remembered, was really a “family affair,” John Wentworth’s first address was wholly taken up with the matter of his salary. He had it “in command from his Majesty to recommend . . . that you provide an adequate honorable and permanent salary for his Majesty’s Gov¬ ernor . . . etc.” 106 After voting a present of £300 for defrayal of traveling expenses, the House waited a month before granting a sal- 106 There is no iconoclastic purpose here, or desire to take from John Went¬ worth the merit of the really wonderful encomiums he has received. Cf. Mayo, op. cit ., pp. 32jf.; McClintock, History of New Hampshire, p. 3 52; F. B. Sanborn, op. cit., p. 209. It is simply a suggestion of the existence of factors that may affect present and almost universal findings of history in reference to this Governor’s reputation for popularity. Further light also is thrown by the series of accusa¬ tions brought formally against him by the one non-relative in the Council, Peter Livius. After four of the seven charges were sustained by the Board of Trade, the Privy Council, on appeal, reversed the Board’s findings. The influence of Went¬ worth’s patron, Rockingham, may have been at work. Cf. Mayo, op. cit., pp. 74 jf; also Provincial Papers, VII, 337-342. i°6 Provincial Papers, VII, 125, July 2, 1767. See Mayo, op. cit., pp. 16 and 35. NEW HAMPSHIRE 279 ary of £700 for one year only. There was an additional £67 for house rent since his arrival in the colony. The Council, however, rejected the bill because the grant was neither permanent nor certain, inasmuch as there was no guarantee as to treasury content. After weeks of discussion, the sum of £700 was granted during his continuance in office, the money to be paid out of the excise; but it was provided that the excise itself was to be farmed out to ap¬ pointees of the whole legislature. To the latter clause the Council again objected as an infringement of the preroga¬ tive. The result was failure of the salary bill in that Assembly.107 When the new Assembly, elected in May of the following year, maintained the old policy and made the permanency of the salary depend upon approval of the contested clause, Wentworth agreed to yield, provided the excise rider were worded “so as not to appear to infringe upon the Preroga¬ tive.” Compromise, however, was never effected; and the salary was ever after paid in temporary annual grants of £700. Later on, when the House granted him £60 for “Extraordinary Services and Expenses” incurred during a journey to Boston in the interest of the province, Went¬ worth handed it back with the sneer that “the small Pare- ing you have voted me is the object of my pity.” Immedi¬ ately, however, he lamented that his salary had been cut down by that much, complaining that it “hath never come near to the support of my mere family expenses.” 108 It may be of interest to see something of the “mere fam¬ ily expenses.” From his own pen we have a description of his magnificent estate at Wolf boro: I had selected the best of all my property in that country, granted in the large measure usual for such cases, 4387 acres, 107 Provincial Papers, VII, 126, 130, 132, 146. 108 Provincial Papers, VII, 177, 179, 232, 234, 245, 257. Belknap, op. cit., p. 341. 280 ROYAL GOVERNORS but amounted nearer to 6000. It was subject to no service or quit-rent . . . House, 102 feet long, etc., . . . built of the best, etc., . . . two stable and coach houses . . . glazed and painted completely; . . . one barn ... 106 feet long, etc., ... As complete as pos¬ sible; a large dairy house, smoke house and ashes house. Car¬ penter’s, blacksmith’s and cabinet-maker’s shops, with all pos¬ sible instruments, and tools; cattle, sheep, horses, small stock, boats, implements and furniture of all sorts, complete, and in super-abundance. The whole included, I think the 4387 acres undervalued at . . . £20,000. ... In 1774, the produce of that estate exceed the consumption of my whole family; and you know how we lived.109 To meet these “mere family expenses” would have con¬ sumed the combined salaries of many Governors. From the preceding administration Governor Went¬ worth had inherited the grievance concerning provincial courts, that is, that all cases in New Hampshire had to be tried at Portsmouth, the only court seat.110 The remedy previously proposed was a division of the province into counties; and pending the approval of a bill to this effect, the Assembly had withheld the salaries of the justices. This question now confronted the new administration. The first Assembly proposed a division into four counties, which number was reduced one half by a Council amend¬ ment. Progress was arrested when the upper House denied 109 John Wentworth to Edward Winslow, March, 1786, quoted by F. S. San¬ born, op. tit., p. 208. In 1772, Wentworth received £500 as a present, £100 for house rent, which he complained of as inadequate, and £700 in salary. As surveyor of the King’s Woods, he received an additional £200, making £1500 in all, which would equal a salary of perhaps $10,000 per annum in the present day, and which is $7000 more than the present governor of New Hampshire receives. Cf. Fry, op. tit., pp. 115, 118. 110 For some frontiersmen the expenses of travel to and from Portsmouth made it cost £10 to collect a debt of £5. Moreover, judicial offices, with emoluments, were monopolized by the Portsmouth “aristocracy.” Cf. Mayo, op. tit., p. 36. NEW HAMPSHIRE 281 to the representatives the right to a voice in the establish¬ ment of any new courts that should be erected. At this point Wentworth suggested a compromise, and wrote to England for permission to carry it out. His plan was to divide the province into five counties, giving to only three of them full county privileges. To the King was left the decision as to whether the manner of division should be determined by the Governor with his Council, or by the Assembly. The Assembly, however, refused to leave the latter point to the discretion of the King, and carried out its resolve to grant no supplies until the grievance was remedied according to its desires. After some further delay this point also was won, and a bill for division into counties was approved.111 The rupture with the last royal Governor in New Hamp¬ shire came simultaneously with the break with England. The exact time is doubtful. It may have been on May 28, 1774, when the House, in spite of the Governor, created a Committee of Correspondence.112 This measure passed by a majority of but one vote. As the only possible expedient for undoing this work the Assembly was immediately ad¬ journed, and a few days later dissolved, in the hope that the committee also would discontinue.113 The House, however, upon summons of the committee and in spite of the dissolution, met again in its own cham¬ ber. When the Governor appeared on the scene, accom¬ panied by the sheriff, and declared the meeting to be “illegal and dangerous,” commanding them in the King’s name to disperse, the members treated him with the usual respect by rising in their seats, and after some considera¬ tion of his order adjourned to another place to finish the 111 Provincial Payers, VII, 174, 178, 182, 184, 198, 202, 217, 228/., 274, 275 passim. Fry, op. cit., pp. 463/. 112 Provincial Papers, VII, 365, 369, 399. 113 Provincial Papers, VII, pp. 369, 399. Dissolved on June 8, 1774. 28 2 ROYAL GOVERNORS business in hand, which was the selection of delegates to the First Continental Congress.114 The new Assembly was to have been convoked on Feb. 28, 1775; but when Governor Wentworth learned that among its members were many of the participants and principals in the recent attack on the fort at Portsmouth,115 he postponed the meeting until May fourth, hoping to bring them to justice, and incidentally to keep them out of the Assembly. Portsmouth, meanwhile, had become unsafe for the conservatives. After Lexington and Concord, many fled to Boston. By that time over 1,200 New Hampshire men had taken up arms. Therefore, when the Assembly met, the proposals of the Governor regarding conciliatory measures went unheeded.116 Instead, an old controversy was renewed when attention was called to the presence of three members who had come into the House “in an illegal and unconstitutional manner.” The Governor had sent writs of election to three towns hitherto unrepresented. In order to consult with constituents, the House requested an adjournment, which after much objection from the Gov¬ ernor was granted until the twelfth of June, 1775. 117 A few days earlier two provision ships had been seized by the royal ship Scarborough. Starvation was not a 114 The Governor’s proclamation can be read in Provincial Papers, VII, 400. Arrangements made by the House in the new meeting place provided that each town and parish was to send to Exeter deputies who would choose the delegates. Colonel Nathaniel Folsom and Major John Sullivan were selected. A day of prayer and fasting was appointed, and most religiously kept. Cf. ibid., pp. 400jf. 115 Rumor had come that Boston troops were approaching to seize the muni¬ tions. To offset this, the provincials, in number about 400, attacked the Castle, captured the half dozen defenders, hauled down the King’s colors, and carried away the powder in boats. Wentworth’s call for aid brought nine men. Two armed ships responded to a later message to Boston. All this took place in Decem¬ ber, 1774. Cf. Mayo, op. cit., pp. 141-145. 116 Provincial Papers, VII, 372. Parliament’s determination to try remedial measures had become known in April. This probably prompted Wentworth’s plea for caution and moderation. 117 Plymouth, Oxford, and Lynne. Cf. Provincial Papers, VII, 373-378. NEW HAMPSHIRE 283 pleasing prospect. Wentworth himself protested against this act, which had a probable effect upon the temper of the House that soon after convened.118 Its first business was the matter of the three contested members. A committee report read in part: That from the time of the first House of Assembly being called in this Province to the year 1744 no new Towns were allowed to send Members to the General Assembly except by a vote of the House . . . [Therefore, the House has an] . . . indispensable duty to prevent any encroachments being made on their Privileges . . . and . . . the Governor sending Writs without the concurrence of the other Branches of the Legislature . . . appears to us a mani¬ fest breach thereof and directly contrary to the Spirit and de¬ sign of the English Constitution and apparently pregnant with alarming consequences.119 The House then voted to exclude the three new mem¬ bers. On the same afternoon, one of the three was taken prisoner by the populace from within the very home of the Governor. 120 Soon afterward appeared a reply to the Governor’s open¬ ing address regarding conciliation. It expressed regret that relations of so strained a nature had arisen with the mother country, and a sincere desire for restoration of peace and harmony. On the same afternoon came a second mes¬ sage from Governor Wentworth, laying before them the remedial resolutions of Parliament. 118 Mayo, op. cit., p. 150. 119 Provincial Papers , VII, 378. 120 The member was John Fenton of Plymouth, a staunch conservative and open opposer of the new hostile spirit to England. He had called on the Governor; men under arms surrounded the Governor’s house and demanded his surrender; Wentworth called for his bodyguard, but there was no response; a cannon was pointed at the door, and Fenton came out; he was taken to Exeter; the Governor and his family fled to the fort, which was protected by H. M. S. Scarborough. Cf. Mayo, op. cit., pp. I53ff. 284 ROYAL GOVERNORS There appears in this solemn Resolution so great an affection, tenderness for your liberties and Readiness to be Reconciled upon Principles, consistent with the just Rights and Dignity of the Parent State and the Privileges of the Colonies as precludes the necessity of particular observations upon it . . .m But in order to give time for “candid consideration and an opportunity to take the real . . . dispassionate sentiment of their constituents,” he adjourned the Assembly for some weeks.122 When they again met the Governor was a fugitive in the fort. As he himself wrote: This at present is our case, confined on the ocean’s edge, and experiencing the inconveniences arising from the misguided zeal of those upon whose gratitude and affection I rejoice to have the justest demand. I will not complain, because it would be a poign¬ ant censure upon a people I love and forgive. For truly, I can say with the poet in his Lear, “I am a man more sinned against than sinning.” 123 From the fort he sent his message requesting that the vote excluding the three members be rescinded. The House, however, after noting that the Council was always appointed by the Crown, declared: We think it not only a cruel but an arbitrary stretch of Pre¬ rogative for your Excellency to issue Writs to such Towns as you think proper to send Representatives, without the concurrence of the other Branches of the Legislature therein, for by that means, the Representatives as well as the Council would in effect be chosen by the Crown.124 Accordingly they unanimously refused to rescind the vote. After citing both law and precedent in his favor, 121 Provincial Payers, VII, 379, 380. 122 Until July 11, 1775. Cf. ibid., p. 380. 123 John Wentworth to Tristram Dalton, July 31, 1775. Quoted by Mayo, op. cit., p. 157. 124 Provincial Papers, VII, 384. NEW HAMPSHIRE 285 Governor Wentworth again ordered an adjournment until Sept. 28, 1775. By that time the government had passed from under British control, and the Governor was a refugee in Boston.125 On the whole. Governor John Wentworth’s relations with his various Assemblies bear out his reputation for tact as well as for a genuine appreciation of provincial difficul¬ ties. It can by no means be said that the rebellion was either occasioned or hastened by oppression or abuses on his part. In normal times no man could have anticipated a more popular or more successful administration than the last royal governor of New Hampshire. 126 The Governor, who was in Boston on September 28, disliked to undergo the humiliation of being unable to attend in person the meeting of the Assembly that was fixed for that date. Therefore he wished to further prorogue it. To do so legally, however, the proclamation had to be made on New Hampshire soil, where his person was no longer safe. He overcame that difficulty by issuing the procla¬ mation from the remote region of the Isle of Shoals. The new date was April 24, 1776. Cf. Mayo, op. tit., pp. 160jf. CHAPTER V NEW YORK The study of relations between Governors and their Assemblies in New York begins with the year 1683. At that time James, Duke of York, granted to the people the privilege of taking part in the government through a Gen¬ eral Assembly. After three years this privilege was with¬ drawn; but while it lasted there were no conflicts with the Governor, Colonel Thomas Dongan. When James became King, the Assembly was abolished, and all laws were to be made by the Governor and Council.1 The only disaffection toward Governor Dongan arose toward the end of his five years of administration, because of his toleration of Catho¬ lics.2 He has been thus described by an early historian of New York: ... a man of integrity, moderation and genteel manners, and though a professed Papist, may be classed among the best of our governours.3 In 1688 Dongan’s commission was transferred to Sir Edmond Andros,4 whereupon he retired to the Earldom of Limerick. With the appointment of Andros, New York was united to the ‘‘Dominion of New England.” This was a part of 1 J. R. Brodhead, History of New York , II, 454 ff. This has been called the establishment of tyranny; but historical candor, through impartial consideration of all circumstances, is not now so positive. New lights are playing, and even Andros is losing some of his unenviable reputation for despotic tyranny. Cf. Brodhead, op. cit., II, 499jf, 526. 2 Wm. Smith, History of the Province of New York, I, 92jf. Brodhead, op. cit., II, 515-521. 3 Smith, History of the Province of New York, I, 66. 4 Brodhead, op. cit., II, 509. Cf. Andros’ Commission in N. Y. Colonial Docu¬ ments, III, 537. NEW YORK 287 England’s recently adopted policy for securing more ef¬ fective control of the American colonies. The annexation was not favorably received. New York and Massachusetts could not be sympathetic . . . The oldest, Dutch one, was always grand, inviting, magnanimous : — the later, English one, was ever sectional, narrow, and selfish.5 The union was regarded as an “abhorred connection,” and in the northern colony Andros was detested. The newrs, uncertain at first, of the departure for France of James II, and the acceptance of the throne by William of Orange, fanned the flame of opposition among parties in both places. In New York, when the course seemed safe, the majority inclined to the side of Jacob Leisler, leader of the opposi¬ tion, seized the government, and declared in favor of Wil¬ liam. But New York, unlike Massachusetts, did not see in Andros only an odious tyrant. In the former colony there had been rejoicing when Andros succeeded the “Papist” Governor, Dongan. And when, in the Boston uprising of April 18, 1689, he was overthrown and imprisoned, the New York Council sent to Boston a request for his safe return, and a letter of condolence to Andros himself, also a message to England denouncing as libels and falsehoods all the propaganda from Boston against Sir Edmond.6 Nor was the revolution, when it extended to New York, occasioned by animosity to the General-Governor. Its chief cause was intolerance toward the few “Papists” remaining in the province, together with the intense devo¬ tion of the Dutch Colony to its old stadtholder, the Prince of Orange, who had “liberated” England from its Catholic King. The delay in the uprising wras partly due to the 5 Brodhead, op. cit., II, 515. 6 Brodhead, op. cit., II, 515-521. This message, etc., was sent by the Council. In New York, as a rule, the Council was on the side of the prerogative. 288 ROYAL GOVERNORS fact that Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson refused without official instruction to proclaim the new sovereign. This attitude was construed by the Orange faction under the German Leisler as a stand in favor of the Papist King, James. Leisler therefore seized the government in order to “pre¬ serve” it for William. His justification throughout the affair was the “Popish menace,” and all were Papists who would not recognize the German captain.7 When tidings finally arrived from England, Nicholson was confirmed in his office of Lieutenant-Governor, and on Aug. 31, 1689, Colonel Henry Sloughter was appointed Governor. His instructions permitted the establishment of Assemblies after the manner of those in other royal colonies.8 The first proceedings of the new Assembly under Gov¬ ernor Sloughter tended toward independence. All acts of Dongan’s Assemblies were declared null and void. Among these was the “Continuing Act,” which provided permanent support for the government.9 And a new act, determining “what are the Right and Privileges of the Inhabitants,” amounted almost to a declaration that representation in the government was a right.10 Circumstances at the beginning of Sloughter’s term 7 Brodhead, op. tit., pp. 515jf., 575-591. Leisler was later tried for treason and executed. The condemnation was eventually reversed by William. 8 Instructions to Nicholson, Transcripts, Col. Soc., p. 264. P. R. O., C. O., 5, class 389, Vol. 9, p. 468. Cf. Sloughter’s instructions in New York Col. Doc. Ill, 623. 9 Met in April, 1691. Cf. Journal of the General Assembly of New York. Edward Channing, History of the United, States, II, 297. Smith, op. tit., II, 299. This declaration is considered by Channing to be “one of the most important measures ever voted by a colonial Assembly.” Op. tit., p. 299. 10 Journal of the General Assembly of New York.\ May 8, 1691 (hereafter cited as Assembly Journal). This act, after six years of deliberation by the Lords of Trade, was vetoed, and in 1697 disallowed by William. The reason lay in the objection to the clause vesting joint power of government in the people, through their representatives. For the “Conquered Province” of New York the ministry had not yet decided upon the legality of this claim. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History, V, 193. Smith, op. cit., p. 117. NEW YORK 289 promised harmony. The feeling at his accession was one almost of relief, due probably to the effect of Leisler’s despotism and usurpation.11 Nevertheless, the salary ques¬ tion soon came up, and friction appeared. The Assembly then began those measures toward control of the executive that were finally to evolve into practical independence, and to render the Governor the executor of the wishes of the Assembly, rather than its master. The appropriation for the Governor’s salary was limited to two years,12 making precedent for all future controversies on this subject. A remonstrance from the Council was thus met: We are not wanting in our Duty to their Majesties, nor do we intend any abridgment of their Majesties’ revenue, but on the contrary we have Regard to the heavy Burthen and great Poverty of the People of this Province, who are ready to sink under it; you are Eye-Witnesses hereof; . . . our House is full of the daily complaints of Merchants, who are threatening to follow the Rest ... [in leaving the poverty stricken province.] 13 Relief from financial and other difficulties was necessary if the people were to be made content. But the bills for the purpose that were passed by the House were not reported back “as timely as expected.’’ As the session drew to a close the House formed itself “into a Grand Committee of 11 Assembly Journal , April 18, 1691. Excerpt from House address: The members “in all most humble manner, heartily congratulate your Excellency, that as in our Hearts, we do abhor and detest all the rebellions, arbitrary and illegal Proceed¬ ings of the Late Usurpers ... so do from the bottom of our Hearts . . . sol¬ emnly Declare, that we will, with our Lives and our Fortunes, support and main¬ tain the Administration of your Excellency’s Government”, etc. Then follow significant words expressing hope that his “Excellency may live long and rule us . . . by a General Assembly.” 12 Assembly Journal, May 15 and 16, 1691. Brodhead, op. cit., II, 646. 13 Assembly Journal , Nov. 11, 1692. The last clause refers to the fact that many were leaving the impoverished and dangerous province. The reality of the hard¬ ships is undoubted. Cf. the difficulty in collecting the taxes implied in Assembly’s address to Governor, Sept. 9, 1692. The Governor himself acknowledged same in his address to House, March 22, 1692. Cf. Council Minutes , I, 43. 290 ROYAL GOVERNORS the whole House to enquire into the Cause of such Delays and Obstructions.” This brought returns on two of the eight bills sent up. But the Governor “could not expedite all the Bills given him, having Private Business of his own.” Resenting this attitude, the House drew up a remonstrance, but to no purpose. The Governor’s neglect was further emphasized by his failure to appoint some one who could give to bills passed by the Assembly official form, thus pre¬ venting necessary legislation. When the House suggested the Attorney-General or some other fit person, Sloughter replied that his instructions did not so stipulate. There¬ upon the speaker produced an Order of Council, dated April 16, declaring it to be “the duty of the Attorney-Gen¬ eral to attend this House.” 14 Some time later, while the House was again awaiting the Governor’s action on certain bills, Sloughter informed them that “he would pass no Bills until the Money Bill (for an expedition to Albany) came up, and then he would pass them all together.”15 This is a rather early instance of the executive using the whip upon the Assembly, a coercive instrument soon to change hands. These events in themselves were not of extreme impor¬ tance, except in so far as they affected the Assembly’s regard for the royal Governor and his policy. If to lack of interest in the betterment of the province he added obstruc¬ tive tactics, then an unfavorable opinion and an unhealthy political philosophy would naturally arise. Such practices would logically result in a tradition that from the royal appointees only a minimum of good could be expected, and that the gaining of advantages by the House must largely depend upon its own efforts and aggressiveness. Judging from the action of succeeding Assemblies, this tradition seems to have been established. 14 Assembly Journal, May 5 and 9, 1691. 15 Assembly Journal, Sept. 29, 1691. NEW YORK 291 On Sloughter’s death,16 in 1692, several important bills were yet unattended to. This very first Assembly had begun to “control” the Governor by making support temporary instead of permanent. Further means of con¬ trol, applied chiefly through power over appropriations, were to be adopted in succeeding administrations. The character and conduct of the next Governor, Ben¬ jamin Fletcher, was such as to impel the Assembly to strengthen itself in every way possible. He was a man of in¬ considerable talents, avaricious, hot tempered, and bigoted.17 A Governor who would enforce upon the people a ministry of his own choosing, both as to denomination and personnel, who protected pirates and then took a share of their booty as reward, who misapplied and embezzled the royal reve¬ nues and squandered House appropriations, who manipu¬ lated to his own pecuniary advantage the distribution of the province lands, and who employed illegal measures to “pack” his later Assemblies,18 — such a one could not but engender an attitude of discontent with the Crown because of its appointments, of suspicion and opposition toward himself, and the strengthening of a distrustful and defensive tradition. Between Governor Fletcher and his Assemblies there were two outstanding points of conflict, namely, the support of the government, and the right of inducting ministers of religion. That the question of revenue should have won a promi¬ nent place was natural. In New York, after the Declara¬ tory Resolution of 1691, 19 the state of the treasury was gen- 16 He was a victim of intemperance. The stirring events of Leisler’s trial and execution have been passed over as outside the scope of this study. 17 Smith, op. cit.t I, 125. 18 Cf. infra; also Bellomont to Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, N. Y. Col. Doc., IV, 30 6jf. Most of the information concerning Fletcher comes from Lord Bellomont, his successor and rival; cf. also Winsor, op. cit., V, 194. 19 Declaring null and void all acts of Dongan’s Assemblies. Cf. supra, p. 37. 292 ROYAL GOVERNORS erally low. Soon after Fletcher’s coming the committee already appointed to inquire into the debts of the province was directed to examine also “into the amount of Revenue since his Excellencv’s arrival.” This committee was to t j work conjointly with one from the Council. Its services, however, were apparently not desired, for it was informed that “his Excellency and Council have already appointed a Committee to inquire into that Matter.” Nevertheless, the House ordered a committee to wait upon the Governor and Council, in order to request adoption of the original plan, and to effect a clearance of the “Doubts and Ques¬ tions” arising from the Act concerning the province debts and revenues. The Governor promised agreement, but the succeeding entries, until September 7, are missing from the Journal.20 Until this date, when a new session was opened, the House must have been anticipating trouble, or perhaps experiencing it. The first act directed the new speaker to “please address his Excellency and the Council, in behalf at this House, and Demand that their rights, Privileges and Customs be confirmed to them.” Liberty of speech during sessions, and adjustment of controversies by a joint com¬ mittee were requested and obtained.21 On the next day the conflict opened on the question of support for the government. Fletcher requested “their Majesty’s Revenue to be settled during life.” After a protracted series of debates, a committee consisting of one member from each county reported in favor of a permanent grant. The House, however, would consent to “no more than a five year provision.” In subsequent disputes over support, this was cited by both House and Governor in favor of opposite claims, that is, for and against fixed grants.22 20 Assembly Journal, I, March 31 and April 3, 1693. 21 Ibid., Sept. 11 and 12, 1693. 22 Ibid., Sept. 13, 14, and 16, 1693. Council Minutes in Journal, ibid. Winsor, op. cit., V, 194. NEW YORK 293 The question of support of the government became there¬ after the most important issue in Fletcher’s administration. Practically every entry of the House Journal is in some way concerned with it. The Council record is a continual exhortation for more money for protection against the French; that of the Assembly is a continual holding back and reduction in the amounts requested. The House claimed, in justification, that the five year revenue already appropriated, together with the aid sent over from England, was more than adequate if employed for the purposes designed in the grant. That all moneys were not so employed is evident from the records; that they were squandered, is asserted in Winsor’s Narrative and Critical History of America. According to this authority moneys to the amount of £40,000, constituting the revenue of three years, had been generally misapplied. When investigations were attempted, Fletcher maintained that the expenditure of the province moneys was a matter into which the House had no right to pry. That body was to raise money, the Gov¬ ernor and Council to spend it. And for its preposterous interest in the expenditure of their constituents’ money, the Assembly was prorogued.23 Now was to come from the House an attempt still fur¬ ther to increase its power over the provincial revenues, by claiming the right to audit all public expenditures. After the examination in 1694 of the financial records of the province, there had been strong grounds for suspicion of fraud in the application of appropriations. It was natural, therefore, that the House should later on request to be 23 In the Assembly Journal the only explicitly stated amount of the aggregate revenue since Sloughter’s arrival is £34,000, “ and may be more by the Revenue and Additional Duty.” Journal, Oct. 18, 1694, Vol. I, p. 44; cf. also Winsor, op. tit., V, 194. In the next session the House proved that £17,000 appropriated for military purposes had never been so applied. Journal, April 8, 1695. Full accounts of what expenditures had been made were not received until three years later. Journal, June 10, 1698, Vol. I, p. 90. 294 ROYAL GOVERNORS allowed to inspect the muster rolls. On the pretense that the rolls were not available, Fletcher refused to submit them. When at length some few rolls were produced, they were found to be not authentic. The House therefore re¬ solved to pass no support bill until the bona fide rolls were forthcoming. This resolution brought some further lists, but they also were incomplete. With its policy inflexibly determined, the Assembly requested adjournment until the complete rolls could be submitted.24 The Governor affected the greatest surprise at reading in the House Journal a record of the grievance that the receiver-general’s accounts were not open to inspection. The House, however, meant that not all the accounts had been submitted, despite the fact of Fletcher’s previous declaration regarding care of provincial funds: I have pursued an unpresidented caution, plainness and integ¬ rity not fingering any farthing myself.25 In nearly every address that Fletcher made after the sus¬ picions of the House had been aroused, there were expres¬ sions to the same effect. On the advice of the Council, the request for adjournment was refused, pending passage of the support bill. Then, lest the province be altogether un¬ supported, the House granted £1,000. 26 To this grant Fletcher objected because of the accompany¬ ing conditions. Through these, which determined the spe¬ cific application of the money, the House was reaching out for still more complete control of appropriations. Its reason for stating the conditions was to guard against mis- 24 Assembhj Journal , March 27, 1695. For a statement of the Assembly’s view¬ point on this claim to examine the accounts, see Argument before the Lords of Trade as to the Act of New York compelling the Farmers of the Excise to lay before the Representatives an Account , New York Hist. Soc. Coll., 1869, pp. 177 'jf.; cf. also Assembly Journal, March 28, 29, and 30 and April 1, 1695. 25 Assembly Journal, March 23, 1695. 26 Ibid., April 1 and 2, 1695. NEW YORK 295 application and possible fraud. The Governor’s instruc¬ tions, however, required that all appropriations be made in general “for their Majesty’s use” and with no further specification. Rut the House held its ground. Then was offered to it another account of revenues expended. This they declared to be the balances of the accounts, and not the actual record of expenditures. Deadlock continued. Finally the diligent House committee drew up a lengthy report, 'proving the existence of revenues not yet accounted for. This, of course, Fletcher denied, and charged the surplus to incidentals.27 Matters grew worse, and words sharper. At length, from the muster-master at Albany came intelligence that the prescribed quotas of men had never been completed. Yet money had been appropriated for payment of the full quotas. The House was thus convinced of the existence of a surplus still unaccounted for.28 The Governor, however, still denied, and even demanded further supplies for military purposes. At this stage of the controversy, in order to correct any spreading opinion that the House by its refusal of support was unwilling to protect the province, the members peti¬ tioned to have their minutes printed, thus making evident to all its position and the reasons therefor. Meantime, the Governor was becoming more and more incensed at their demands, as well as at their stubbornness in enforcing them. Just before ordering dissolution, he declared: There’s never a man amongst you, (except Peter De La Noy) pretends to understand an account.29 27 Assembly Journal , April 5 and 9, 1695. Channing, op. cit., II, 302. 28 Council Minutes and Assembly Journal, April 9, 10, and 11, 1695. One expla¬ nation of the fate of the surplus is implied in the following from a letter of Bello- mont to the Lords of Trade: “ Indeed, the cry of the people is so great that Coll: Fletcher hath embezzled and converted to his own use great sums of the public money . . .” N . Y. Col. Doc., IV, 304. 29 Assembly Journal, April 13 and 22, 1695. Council Minutes, April 13, 1695. For brief account of this episode cf. Channing, op. cit., II, 315. 296 ROYAL GOVERNORS With subsequent Assemblies, it appears that Governor Fletcher had little trouble — either because with the French menace impending, the House recognized the imprudence of making opposition; or because, as Bellomont declared, Fletcher had packed succeeding Assemblies with his own minions.30 Another very serious point of controversy during Fletcher’s incumbency regarded the establishment and support of min¬ isters. Every minister, according to the Governor’s instruc¬ tions, was to be certified by the Bishop of London. Such an arrangement, which implied the endowment and conse¬ quent establishment of the Anglican Church, could not but arouse strong opposition in an Assembly composed for the major part of nonconformists.31 The Governor himself, apparently anxious to secure settlement for a minister in every town, strongly recom¬ mended this measure to the House; but the latter’s dis¬ favor is shown in the long drawn-out debates on the sub¬ ject. When finally a bill was passed, the Council at once returned it with an amendment vesting in the Governor full right of inducting all ministers. This amendment was rejected.32 Fletcher’s words at the time indicate the strained relations between the various departments of government: You have shown a great deal of stiffness. You take upon you as if you were dictators. I sent down to you an amendment of three or four words in that Bill, which tho’ very immaterial, yet 30 Bellomont to the Lords of Trade, New York Col. Doc., IV, 315; cf. also .4s- sembly Journal for May 19, 1698. 31 The instructions are given in New York Col. Doc., Ill, 818. They seem to indicate that the late agitations against “ Popery ” were not without result. Accompanying this order to quasi-establish Anglicanism, there was a clause guaranteeing liberty of conscience. This did not, however, prevent hostility from the Dissenting sects. To the Roman Catholics in New York, the clause did not apply. These were deprived of both civil and religious liberty until after 1776. Cf. Winsor. op, cit., V, 191jf. Doyle, op. cit., IV, 228. 32 Assembly Journal, March 22, April 3 to Sept. 15, and Sept. 21 and 22, 1693. NEW YORK 297 was positively denyed. I must tell you it seems very unmannerly; there never was an amendment yet desired by the Council board, but what was rejected. It is the sign of a stubborn ill temper. . . ,33 Apparently the Governor made test of the importance of a measure according to the number of words it contained. In reality the House had rejected very few amendments, because very few had been submitted. Fletcher, on his part, had neglected measures that were most important. Among others, regulations for the probate of wills and ordinances for the establishment of fees had been pending since the first sessions.34 The “very immaterial” amendment referred to by Fletcher in the passage above quoted would have conferred upon him the right to enforce acceptance of any minister he chose regardless of denomination. This, with the ques¬ tion of religion in so delicate a state, would have caused untold trouble.35 It was perhaps by way of retort that the Assembly declared that in passing the bill as they had done, they were mindful of the Governor’s “pious intent of set¬ tling a Ministry for the Benefit of the People .” They may have inferred that to confer on him full right of inductance would have been to make that “pious intent” to his own exclusive benefit, and to the disadvantage of the people. Fletcher was aroused by this sally, and informed the repre¬ sentatives that they were far mistaken if they ever hoped to prevent his collating and suspending ministers. More¬ over, he intended to oversee and to censure preaching and religious teaching. Then shifting to the other great point in dispute, the support of the government, he continued : 33 Council Minutes, Sept. 22, 1693. 34 Assembly Journal, Aug. 23, 1692. 35 It was not so long since the Catholic James II had been charged with abdica¬ tion and the Protestant William of Orange had taken possession of the throne, discarding his religious beliefs to suit the official Anglican religion of which he became head. In New York the Anglicans made a very small minority. 298 ROYAL GOVERNORS It is my endeavor to lead a virtuous & pious life amongst you, & to give a good Example. I wish you all to do the same. You ought to consider that you have but a third share in the legis¬ lative power of the Government, and ought not to take all upon you, nor be so peremptory; you ought to let the Council have a share; they are in the nature of the House of Lords or Upper House; but you seem to take the whole power in your own hands & sett up for everything. You have sett a long time to little pur¬ pose & have been a great charge to the Country, ten shillings a day is a large allowance & you punctually exact it. You have always been forward enough to pull down the fees of other min¬ isters in the Government. Why do you not think it expedient to correct your own to a more moderate allowance.36 Governor Fletcher’s term is important chiefly because during it began what were probably the most important of the conflicts waged by the New York Assemblies against the royal Governors, that is, on the extent of the power of the representatives over appropriations. The House had begun in Sloughter’s time by making the Governor’s salary temporary; under Fletcher it refused permanent support for the government, limiting the appropriation to a five year period. Then, because of suspicions of misapplication and of fraud, it claimed the right to inspect the public accounts, and later on the right also to determine specific use of appropriations. This was the state of the question at the end of Governor Fletcher’s administration. The conflict was not to be settled until 1715, when Governor Robert Hunter would be forced to yield every point con¬ tended. After 1695 Fletcher had but little trouble with the As¬ sembly — possibly because of his success in “packing.” His making over to individuals of large land grants for the sake of the fees caused dissatisfaction more throughout the province than in the Assembly itself. Later there was an 36 Council Minutes , Sept. 22, 1693, Vol. I, p. 48. NEW YORK 299 outcry because of the copying of the large manors in Eng¬ land, to the detriment of small speculators.37 The circumstances of the struggle over control of the province funds, together with Governor Fletcher’s attitude on inducting of ministers and his constant neglect of im¬ portant bills, all tended to persuade the people that in the persons of the royal Governors they could expect to find, not only no friend to liberty, but among them some of its most dangerous enemies. When in 1698 the next Governor, Richard Coote, Earl of Bellomont, arrived, he found the government in so deplora¬ ble a condition, according to his own statement, that he soon dissolved the Assembly.38 The fact that Bellomont and Fletcher were rivals may partly explain the dissolution. The old House had been chiefly of Leisler’s faction; the new one under Bellomont was anti-Leislerian, and in this respect in sympathy with the new Governor. This fact may account for his more amicable relations with the Assembly. Outside the legislature, however, Bellomont’s way was not so smooth, due to disturbances raised against him by the hostile merchants.39 Bellomont died in office, March 5, 1701. 40 The next Governor was perhaps one of the very worst that ever held office in the American colonies. 37 Geo. W. Schuyler, Colonial New York, I, 199; cf. also Bellomont to Lords of Trade, N. Y. Col . Doc., IV, 320. Other interesting but uncomplimentary ref¬ erences to Fletcher can be found ibid., pp. 322, 442, 456, 479. 38 Bellomont to Lords of Trade, N. Y. Col. Doc., IV, 302/. Began his admin¬ istration April 2, 1698. Cf. List of Commissions, C. M. Andrews, op. sup. cit., p. 399. 39 For list of accusations preferred by the merchants cf. N. Y. Col. Doc., IV, 620/.; cf. also Smith, op. cit., pp. 154/. Chalmers, Revolt, I, 289/. A brief out¬ line of Bellomont’s administration is given by Professor Channing, op. cit., II, 304-307. 40 During the short interval after Bellomont’s death, the government was conducted by the senior Councillor, Rip Van Dam, and later by Lieutenant- Governor, John Nanfan. C. M. Andrews, op, cit., p. 399. 300 ROYAL GOVERNORS Of all the governors who brought English authority into con¬ tempt in the Colonies, none was more thoroughly disreputable than Edward Hyde, Lord Cornbury, grandson of the great Earl of Clarendon, Cousin-German to Queen Mary and Queen Anne, and himself later the wearer of the ancestral title. He was a spendthrift, utterly dishonest, and without morals.41 Careful inquiry into the Course of Cornbury ’s administration in New York on the whole substantiates the legend which por¬ trays him as a spendthrift, a “grafter,” a bigoted, oppressor, and a drunken, vain fool.42 History has already exhibited Lord Cornbury as a mean liar, a vulgar profligate, a frivolous spendthrift, an impudent cheat, a fraudulent bankrupt, and a detestable bigot. He is convicted of having perpetrated one of the most outrageous forgeries ever attempted by a British nobleman.43 Cornbury’s first Assembly was composed chiefly of the party opposed to Bellomont. He was therefore regarded for a time as a deliverer, and harmony prevailed.44 But this new feeling was short lived. Conflict was soon in prog¬ ress over the question of proper use of the funds of the province. In April, 1703, by anticipating a sea attack from the French, Cornbury alarmed the House into the appropria¬ tion of £1,500 for the erection of two batteries at the Nar¬ rows. This money, however, seems to have gone into Cornbury’s own pocket. Soon after this the House drew up a bill compelling keepers of the revenue accounts to submit them, if so requested, for examination.45 Later on, 41 Channing, op. tit., II, 308; cf. also Smith, op. tit., pp. 168jf. 42 C. W. Spencer, The Cornbury Legend, in New York Hist. Assoc., XIII, 309. This work is an express attempt to investigate the truth of the many charges against Cornbury. 43 J. R. Brodhead in Historical Magazine, November, 1863, quoted by Winsor, op. tit., V, 241. Cornbury is said to have paraded in female attire, in order to show people what the Queen looked like. 44 Smith, op. tit., I, 173-175. 45 Assembly Journal, April 16, and May 22, 1703. Smith, op. tit., I, 177. Chan¬ ning, op. tit., II, 308 ff. NEW YORK 301 apparently driven to it by fraudulent practices, the House petitioned the Governor to obtain from the Queen — Instructions to commissionate ... a principal Freeholder and Inhabitant here, to be Treasurer of this Colony, ... to prevent the like Embezzlement and Destruction of the public monies.46 The next year, when Cornbury requested further mili¬ tary appropriations and a renewal of the Queen’s Revenue Act, the Assembly could not understand what had become of the moneys already provided, and determined to grant no more than absolute necessities until a treasurer of their own was permitted. This struggle for their own treasurer was one of the important movements in Cornbury’s term, forming a story in itself. The Queen subsequently per¬ mitted the Assembly to name its treasurer, but only when they raised extraordinary supplies that were not part of the standing and constant revenue.47 It was not difficult there¬ after to turn ordinary grants into extraordinary ones. This permission became one of the wedges employed by the New York Assembly in forcing its way to complete control of public expenditures. Its policy in this seems amply justi¬ fied by the obvious wasting, misapplication, and even em¬ bezzlement by officials of the Crown. That Cornbury himself was guilty of embezzlement, there is no absolute proof. The chief facts in the case are these: Of three grants of extraordinary funds made before the Assembly had procured its own treasurer, the expendi¬ ture of one fourth of two of them could not be checked up in the books, except under the vague and suspicious memorandum that it had been employed at the Governor’s discretion. The third grant of £1,500 for the two batteries in the Narrows has already been mentioned. Whether it was 46 Assembly Journal, June 16, 1703. 47 Assembly Journal, April 13 and 19, 1704. Smith, op. cit., 1, 183, 185. Spencer, op. cit., 309; ef. also his Phases of Royal Government in New York, pp. 117jf. 302 ROYAL GOVERNORS pocketed by the Governor or employed to build a pleasure house at Nutton’s Island is not certain. It is, however, certain that the money was never accounted for and that the pleasure house was built under suspicious circumstances. Cornbury’s defense consisted in the assertion that all ex¬ penditures were made on warrants approved by the Coun¬ cil. This was not satisfactory to the House.48 In the administration of ordinary grants also, there was occasion for controversy, and reason for the Assembly’s caution.49 Corrupt practices were facilitated by the very method prescribed for the application of the province funds. The Governor had practically a free hand. In theory there was ample check — through the Council, the receiver-general, and the local representative of the sur¬ veyor and auditor general of plantation revenue. In prac¬ tice, however, these checks were not efficient. That Corn- bury was actually guilty of robbing the province seems evident from the special investigation cited below.490 The Governor’s letter of defense practically convicts himself. It furnishes also an indication of some of the uses made of colonial governorships. In it he declares that if the New Jersey Assembly, which had also been checking up its accounts, had only paid him his full due, he would not have run into debt in New York; and he added: If the Queen is not pleased to pay me, the having of the gov¬ ernment of New Jersey, which I am persuaded the Queen intended for my benefit, will prove my ruin.50 Another affair that provoked opposition and contributed greatly to Cornbury’s downfall was his prosecution of a 48 Smith, op. cit., I, 177. Spencer, The Cornbury Legend, pp. 31 5jf. 49 Cf. the debates over every money bill that was proposed. Assembly Journal, I, 1-200 passim. 490 Spencer, op. cit., pp. 312/f. 50 Quoted ibid., pp. 318jf. NEW YORK 303 certain Presbyterian minister.51 This served for the last tv straw. Cornbury’s adherents by this time could scarcely support themselves, much less the Governor. The proceed¬ ings, which took place in the courts, had much effect in the legislature also. To a man, the new Assembly was against the Governor. The support bill, soon to expire, was abso¬ lutely refused for the next period; and Cornbury’s request for presents to placate the Indians was met by the significant demand to see a list of the articles intended, and an estimate of their cost.52 With opposition at its height, a House committee was directed to draw up a list of grievances against the Governor, which was done under eight separate resolutions.53 The Queen listened to the cries of the people; the Governor, “peculiar, but detestable magot, ” 54 as one of the Assembly- men called him, was recalled in 1708, and Lord Lovelace appointed in his stead.55 England was unfortunate in this inefficient and disreputable representative of her authority. He held office, during a period that was of unusual impor¬ tance because of its transitional and exceedingly impression¬ able nature. In this “conquered province” especially, the first experiments at royal government ought to have received most careful consideration, with reference particularly to the character and ability of the Governors. Yet Sloughter, 51 This occurred in 1707. The affair was an event in the colony. Cf. Smith, op. cit., I, 186-190; History Magazine, November, 1863. The minister’s trial is given in Force, Tracts. 52 Smith, ibid., pp. 190jf. 53 Smith, op. cit., I, 192jf. The following were the chief points of remonstrance: levying taxes and erecting courts of equity without consent of Assembly; laying of imposts, burdens, etc., on imports and exports; excessive sums “screwed” from masters of vessels; compelling unjustly the payment of court fees; extor¬ tion of fees without warrant; interference with the rights of freemen to “perfect and entire property in their goods and estate;” appointment of coroners without reference to choice of people. 64 Lewis Morris in N. Y. Col. Doc., V. 38, quoted by Spencer, ibid., p. 310. 55 Smith, op. cit., 1, 193jf. 304 ROYAL GOVERNORS Fletcher, and Cornbury had made but a sorry showing. To gross neglect and inefficiency had been added fraud. The Assembly could not be expected to co-operate with such executives, or be justly censured for attempting to strengthen wherever possible the privileges which it believed to be threatened. Bad as these Governors were, it can hardly be said that they caused a weakening of whatever ties bound the colony to England. The period was too early for that. There seems no doubt, however, that they aroused and strengthened in the Assembly the conviction that the representatives must be very vigilant in defending their rights — even against the Crown appointees — and that in their assertion they must depend entirely upon themselves. This was the unhealthy attitude of the New York Assembly in 1708. It was to develop into a virulent disease, resulting finally in permanent lesion of the members that were once united. Cornbury’s successor, Lord Lovelace, lived only a few months. Lieutenant-Governor Ingoldsby , who followed him, in methods too closely resembled his friends Sloughter, Fletcher, and Cornbury to effect harmony. Then was ap¬ pointed Robert Hunter, one of the best royal Governors that ever held office in the colonies, and whose term, even in those troublous times, lasted ten years. Governor Hunter faced no easy task. Chiefly as the result of the maladministration of his three predecessors, the House was now claiming the right to determine, not only the size of appropriations, but also their time limit and specific application. These claims were felt to be absolutely neces¬ sary for protection against usurpation of privilege and even of liberty. Before the end of Hunter’s administration, still further powers in money matters were demanded by the House. In addition to these undoubted difficulties was the hostile attitude of the House caused by Hunter’s instructions, NEW YORK 805 which gave an unsatisfactory reply to the remonstrance of 1708, especially in regard to the claim for a share in the establishment of courts. The other great point in the remonstrance, stating the claim to full and exclusive power in levying taxes, was entirely ignored.56 As a result of these circumstances, Hunter could hardly hope to avoid trouble, especially on the old question concerning the nature and extent of the Assembly’s power over the funds of the province. Although the first session opened with appearances of harmony, these soon disappeared. When Hunter recom¬ mended a settlement for the support of the government, the House readily complied; but in the bill were laid down the specific purposes to which the money must be applied. After the Council had refused concurrence, and a probable deadlock threatened, Hunter prorogued the Assembly,57 possibly in order to avoid conflict. At the next session, however, in the following spring, he discarded this policy of conciliation, and in his opening address threw into the Assembly a bomb that played havoc with harmony during half of his administration. The address was a veritable challenge to the House — a blunt demand to know just how much the representatives intended to do or not to do in support of the government and in obedience to the instructions of the Queen. After reminding them of "‘Insinuations, much repeated of late years, . . . that however your resentment has fallen upon the Governors , it is the Government you dislike, ” Hunter then demanded : Will you support her Majesty’s Government in the manner she has been pleased to direct? or are you resolved that Burthen shall lye still upon the Governor . . . ? Will you take Care of the Debts of the Government? Or, to increase my Sufferings, must I continue under the Torture of 56 Winsor, op. cit., V, 196. 57 Assembly Journal, Nov. 25, 1710. 306 ROYAL GOVERNORS the daily Cries of such as have just Demands upon you and are in Misery . . .? Will you take more effectual Care of your own Safety, in that of your Frontiers ? 58 In reply, the Assembly proceeded to question the legality of the session, and whether they could sit as a General Assembly. They voted in the negative, and Hunter dissolved them on the next day.59 Not long after this, elated by the success of the expedition against Port Royal and the coast of Nova Scotia, the colonies had on foot a plan to proceed against Canada. The Gov¬ ernor, thinking perhaps of the supplies that would be re¬ quired, and encouraged, it may be, by the advice of Nichol¬ son, commander of the land forces who had come down from Boston in June, convoked a new Assembly. Judging from the re-election of the same members,60 the interval of rest and cessation of dispute had not changed the attitude of the people. This fact would imply further opposition to revenue bills. However, the conquest of Canada was dearly hoped for, and supplies were readily granted. Governor Hunter then recommended early attention to other pressing matters, mentioning “the support of the Government, the public Debts and the Security of . . . Frontiers.”61 The expedition failed, and the result was greater dis¬ satisfaction and an increase of the public debt. At the next session Hunter made a similar appeal. Im¬ mediately the Assembly passed several bills, which were amended by the Council. But the House rejected the changes, and declared that the Council, in the case of money bills, had not even the power of amendment. The Council, 58 Assembly Journal , I, 287^F. 59 Assembly Journal , I, 288, entries for April 13, 17, 19, and 20, 1711. 60 Smith, op. cit., I, 213#“. Assembly Journal , I, 289. Convened July 2, 1711. There was only one new member. Cf. Journal , I, 276, 289, where lists are given. 61 Assembly Journal, I, 290, 294, passim, 297. NEW YORK 307 on its part, “knew of no Power the Crown has given to the Assembly to take the Right from the Council by any Resolves of theirs.” To which the Assembly replied: 'Tis true, the share the Council have (if any) in the Legisla¬ tion [comes] only from the meer Pleasure of the Prince . . . On the contrary, the inherent Right the Assembly have to dispose of the money of the Freemen of this Colony, does not proceed from any Commission, Letters Patent or other. Grant from the Crown, but from the free Choice and Election of the People; who ought not to be divested of their Property (nor justly can) without their consent.62 This was in 1711, half a century before James Otis and Patrick Henry aroused the colonists with the self-same claims. While the bickering thus continued, the Assembly added to these difficulties another, namely, that regarding the establishment of courts of equity by the Governor and Council alone. And on the same day they returned another appropriation bill to the Council “ with the reiterated Resolve of the House not to admit of any Amendment to money bills”.63 Meanwhile, the province was in danger, the people were crying for payment of debts owed by the government, and the officers of the government were unpaid or ill paid, — all due to the stand taken by the House in its determination to secure complete control of financial measures. In a letter written about this time, Governor Hunter declared: Now the mask is thrown off; they have call’d in question the Council’s share in the legislation, trump’d up an inherent right, declared the powers granted by her Majesty’s letters patent to be against law, and have hut one short step to make what I am un¬ willing to name.Gi 62 Assembly Journal, I, 298, 299-304, 306, (the quotation) 307jf. 63 Ibid., pp. 307/f. 64 N. Y. Col. Doc., V, 296. 308 ROYAL GOVERNORS There was at that time an adjournment lasting nearly six months.65 Hunter met the Assembly again on April 30, 1712. Thus far during the two years of his administration, not one farthing had been granted for support of the government. The Governor now laid this matter before the House, quoting at the same time a decision of the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, which declared as ill founded the claim for complete control of the public funds. After considering this address for a full month, the House finally passed, on May 30, a bill “paying 8,025 Ounces of Plate to his Excellency, and are extremely pleased they have had an opportunity in this Manner to demonstrate their affections. . . . Occurring when it did, this statement is somewhat strange. Hunter had been waiting two years, during which there had surely been ample “opportunity ” for the House to “demon¬ strate its affections.” The amount provided in this bill was to cover the Governor’s salary; firewood and candles for the garrisons in New York and Albany; salary of smith resident among Indians, and of interpreter; and defrayal of “other contingent charges of the Government.” Yet Hunter thanked them heartily in an address that reads like a congratulation . 66 A few months after this, in the fall of 1712, conflict was renewed on the question of control over the public moneys. Hunter reminded the House of his instructions — . . . not to suffer any public Money whatsoever, to be issued or disposed of otherwise than by a Warrant, under (his) Hand, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Council.67 He then made a proposition designed at once to satisfy the Assembly and to win them to obedience to instructions. 65 Prorogued Nov. 24, 1711; convened April 30, 1712. Cf. Journal, I, 309. 66 Assembly Journal, I, 310-314, entries for May 17 and 31, 1712, especially pp. 312, 314. 67 Assembly Journal, I, 321. NEW YORK 309 It consisted chiefly in granting to them a rather strong check on expenditures by leaving in their hands the auditing of accounts. The only other way out of the difficulty was for himself to break the royal instructions and grant to the House the much desired control. After six weeks of con¬ sideration on this proposal, a bill was passed granting support of the government for a period of less than a year, and specifying the application of the appropriations.68 Thus, despite the royal instructions, the House was still insisting on complete control of the moneys. Events occurring after the passage of this bill are summed up a few days later in the following entry in the Assembly Journal: Resolved, That this House cannot agree to a conference with the Council, on the subject Matter of the Amendments to a Money Bill.69 The Governor’s emphasis on his instructions had been in vain ! At the next session, held about six months later,70 this story was repeated. The Governor presented his instructions; the House ignored them. To be obliged to pay, and to submit to a method of payment was not to be tolerated. The right to impose such obligation was vested solely in the people, and in no other power. Thus isolated facts of controversy on money matters were developing into a theory , or a political philosophy in which the Assembly began to make its demands not simply as a matter of expedience, i.e., for protection against misapplica¬ tion and fraud, but as founded on a right which no power could gainsay. During this session Hunter placed the whole issue neatly before the House in one sentence: 68 Ibid., II, 321-328. The bill was passed by House on Nov. 7, 1712. It pro¬ vided support until June 13, 1713. Cf. Journal, I, 330. 69 Assembly Journal, I, 330, Nov. 14, 1712. 70 Begun May 12, 1713. Cf. ibid., 332. 310 ROYAL GOVERNORS Are you resolved to submit to such Rules of Government, as are prescribed in her Majesty’s Letters Patent and Instructions? 71 The House resolved to “consider” this question. It was a month, however, before the final decision came, implied in a bill that granted £2,800 toward the support of the government for one year. The instructions required perma¬ nent support; the last appropriation had been for five years; now the grant was limited to one. The apparent purpose was to make the Governor from year to year dependent upon the will of the House. Bv the same bill was also determined t/ the specific application of the funds and the method of expenditure. Moreover, the receiver-general was to be accountable, not only to the Governor and Council, but to the House also. The Council, strange to say, made no objec¬ tion to the bill in this form.72 Thus was secured another advantage by the House. Complete victory was not far off. In the following year, 1714, after some little friction over the payment of the public debts, the necessary bills were passed.73 In that same year also, the death of Queen Anne caused disturbance in the already unstable policy of the home government regarding the colonies. As is well known, that policy was scarcely ever settled, and it almost invariably solved its problems by compromise — usually to the detri¬ ment of the authority of the ministry. Possibly Governor Hunter felt that this was the time to yield to the Assembly’s demands. At the moment, the province owed him upwards of £5,000 in salary.74 Moreover, the House was still as insistent as ever in its struggle for full and exclusive control of the public funds. Then, in the summer of the next year, 1715, came the familiar denouement of this story of the 71 Assembly Journal, I, 333. 72 Ibid., p. 339, June 26, 1713. Council Minutes (in Assembly Journal), I, 360, July 1, 1713. 73 Assembly Journal, I, 345, 366. 74 Hunter to Earl of Stair in N. Y. Col. Doc., V, 455. NEW YORK 311 New York Assembly versus the prerogative, when Governor Hunter was finally forced to yield to its demands. The fact that he was forced to yield does not appear from the records. Therein everything reads smoothly; money was appropri¬ ated, and bills drawn up and passed without apparent difficulty. That there was friction, however, is evident from the Governor’s letters to the Lords of Trade.75 Some details of this last struggle and of the victory will now be given. The session was opened by the Governor with an address urging provision for a depleted treasury, and renewal of the nearly expired bill for support of the government. The House, paying no heed, immediately turned to a resolve affecting the naturalization of all foreign Protestants. Judg¬ ing from the dispatch with which this measure was handled, success was very earnestly desired. The bill passed the Council without a break on June 18, 1715. 76 This fact is interesting, because from Hunter’s correspondence with the Lords of Trade it is clear that he was not in favor of its adoption.77 Moreover, on the very day that it passed the Council, the House considered a resolve for granting a five year support bill. Apparently the House was making this naturalization measure the price to be paid for the support bill. Although in the Journal there appears not one hint of friction, the following excerpt from Hunter’s letter tells the story of a silent, determined battle waged by the Assembly. Finding as I had the honour to inform your Lordships in my last, that the Naturalization Bill was the block laid in the way of the revenue, (and having objected to it — and suggested a recourse to the home government for authority to pass it,) I say, having strongly insisted on these methods to no purpose, I at 75 N. Y. Col. Doc., V, 416, 458, and 'passim. 76 Assembly Journal, I, 368, 369. 77 N. Y. Col. Doc., V, 416. Edict of Nantes had been revoked in 1685. These aliens were probably Huguenots and Palatines in whom Hunter had probably little interest. 312 ROYAL GOVERNORS last asked them what they would do for the Government if I should pass it in their way, since they did not like mine . . . they at last agreed that they would settle a sufficient Revenue for five years on that condition , . . . If I have done amiss, I am sorry for it but what was there left for me to do. I have been struggling hard for bread itself for five years, to no effect, and for four of them unpity'd . . .78 The House had finally won its every demand. As far as Governor Hunter was concerned, it now possessed full and exclusive power over the size, duration, application, auditing, and method of disbursement of appropriations. With this signal victory, conflict in Hunter’s time seems to have ceased. In spite of the very serious troubles during his adminis¬ tration, and of the final defeat of the prerogative to which he yielded, Governor Robert Hunter was, in all his relations with Assemblies, a character worthy of admiration. There was no suspicion of fraud or of insincerity. He was a loyal servant of the Crown, although his best efforts to uphold the royal instructions failed. Within the province he was not unliked. Toward the end of his administration when he contemplated a return to England, there was a popular demonstration in his honor, and a most adulatory address from the Assembly — the latter supposed by some to have been drawn up by his own friends. Nearly every writer, when mentioning this address, speaks of its reference to Governor Hunter as a 4 ‘prudent magistrate and affectionate father.” 79 The “spirit of the constitution” insisted upon during Robert Hunter’s administration was the same that was evident during the days of William III. Parliament had then asserted its rights by reason of its representation of the people. These rights came not from the Crown, but from the people. So, after this long-drawn-out conflict, the executive was left with no power over monies — even as to 78 N. Y. Col. Doc., V, 416; cf. also p. 459. 79 Assembly Journal, I, 437. NEW YORK 313 his discretionary disbursement of them. That power had reverted to the people. The Governor received what the Assembly granted; he administered it according to the Assembly’s instructions. Thus was established another tenet in the evolution of a philosophy of independence of the prerogative, and indirectly of the Crown. It might almost be said that during the years between 1710 and 1720, the Assembly ceased to look wholly to England for confirmation of whatever rights it might claim, and that it then began to see within itself the supreme arbiter of questions concerning those rights, and of all disputes affecting the enlarging liberties of the people. The Assembly’s victory in Hunter’s governorship may explain the period of temporary peace that followed. For more than five years the next Governor, William Burnet (1720-1728), had little difficulty. This may have decided him to delay as long as possible a new election — which might change the personnel of so peaceful an Assembly. Trouble arose, however, partly over this very policy. In 1726 the members passed measures providing for more frequent election, only to see them disallowed in England. When in the following year the people themselves began to agitate for a new election, the House proceeded to aid in the agitation by wielding the appropriations whip. Governor Burnet then had difficulty in securing a support bill for three years, whereas Hunter’s Assembly had granted it for five.80 This curtailment of support was in reality only one incident in a general reopening of hostilities with the royal Governors. After ten years of practical harmony, discord was about to begin. In addition to keeping the same Assembly in existence 80 Smith, op. cit., I, 271. Channing, op. cit., II, 298. It was not until 1743 that a law called the Septennial Act, providing for frequency of election, was passed. Even then the Governor could prolong the life of an Assembly for seven years. 314 ROYAL GOVERNORS for so many years, there were other causes of the increasing disaffection in Burnet’s time. It will be remembered that the refusal to the Assembly of a voice in the erection of a court of equity had always been a grievance. Governor Burnet increased the difficulty. He liked nothing better than to exercise the office of chancellor in this court, in spite of his lack of legal training, and of his method, on which he actually prided himself, of acting first and thinking afterward. This, with the exorbitant fees and the increasing number of injustices, was in itself more than sufficient to irritate the Assembly.81 Burnet’s attitude also in a dispute among the French Protestants of the city regarding the dismissal of one of their ministers lost him many friends in both province and Assem¬ bly.82 Naturally a son of the Bishop of London would be prone to have very pronounced views, which were almost certain to cause trouble in a non-Anglican atmosphere. All these incidents tended to increase the unpopularity of the Governor. When, toward the end of his term, an election was finally held, every new member was against him. The long continuance of the previous Assembly, the chancery question, the affair of the French church, and the prohibition of trade with Canada 83 had produced their effect. The now recalcitrant Assembly soon drew up resolutions against the court of chancery, and soon after Burnet dissolved them.84 He was later sent, in punishment for certain political offenses, to govern the refractory colony of Massachusetts.85 After his departure there was a period of peace for three years, during which John Montgomerie was Governor, 1728- 1731. Aside from an occasional minor dispute over fees and 81 Smith, op. cit., II, 248, 278jf. 82 Ibid., pp. 270-273. 83 Ibid., pp. 254-270. A measure detested by the merchants, who therefore opposed Burnet during his administration. 84 Ibid., pp. 274 jf. 85 Cf. supra, chapter on Massachusetts, footnote. NEW YORK 315 salaries of officials, Mongtomerie had little trouble. He dissolved the Assembly and kept aloof as much as possible from chancery business.86 The next incumbent, William Cosby, held office for four years, 1732-1736. By his efforts in England to prevent the passage of a sugar act disadvantageous to the province he had rendered valuable and highly appreciated service to the New York colony, and therefore had prospects of a peaceful administration. Hence his opening address expressed great confidence that the Assembly would grant ample support. The reply, profuse in declarations of gratitude for his serv¬ ices, made no mention of support. A repetition of the request brought a six year bill, due probably to the great fear of the Sugar Act with its discriminations.87 Thus the first ripple spread itself out into nothing — but it was only the first. Cosby’s feeling is shown in his sarcastic comment on the amount of compensation subsequently granted to him for his part in the sugar affair. The House had voted him £750 sterling. Damn them, why did they not add shillings and pence! Do they think I came from England for money? I’ll make them know better. This contemptuous attitude gained him £250 extra, but lost him the Assembly’s esteem and made the beginning of one of the most disturbed administrations in New York colonial historv.88 Although “no Man was ever so universally hated” as Governor Cosby, and although by his arbitrary measures and manner he so exasperated the people that his life was not safe among them, nevertheless with the Assembly he was 86 Assembly Journal, I, 448, 580, 585, 646, 700. N. Y. Col. Doc., V, 878/., 885. Smith, op. cit., I, 281-288. 87 Assembly Journal, I, 633. For Sugar Act see Channing, op. cit., II, 516/. 88 Smith, op. cit., II, 1-3. 316 ROYAL GOVERNORS for long without a breach. In fact, in the beginning there had been positive rejoicing at his coming.89 The great event that occurred during Cosby’s term — which is often said to have aroused a spirit similar to that of 1776 with Andrew Hamilton in the place of James Otis — was the Zenger trial.90 This episode, thoroughly important in other respects, comes only indirectly within the scope of this study of the relations between Governor and Assembly. The trial, with its defiant demonstrations reacting against the Governor, and its far-reaching result in the establish¬ ment of liberty of the press in New York, affected these relations in a way now to be described. The Council, which represented in everything the interests of the Governor, suggested to the Assembly the formation of a joint committee to examine into several issues of Zenger’ s paper, the New York Weekly Journal , . . . which had printed alleged libels against the Governor, and also into several other scurrilous Papers, tending to alienate the Affections of the People of this Province, from his Majesty’s Government. This was a preliminary to leading the House to take sides in the case. The Council next sent down for concurrence a measure providing for the public burning by the hangman of certain of the papers ‘ 4 reflecting on the most considerable Persons” — meaning Cosby and his supporters. The House, according to its usual wary custom, resolved to “consider” the matter, and later voted that it lay on the table, which it did, never to be disturbed.91 Thus conflict on this score was avoided, but it is evident that the House was by no means anxious to enlist openly on the Governor’s side. 89 Letter of Lewis Morris to . . . Dec. 15, 1733, N. Y. Col. Doc., V, 959. Eugene Lawrence, Wilson Memorial History of N. Y. City, II, 209 (an account completely biased in favor of the colony). 90 For good account cf. Channing, op. cit. II, 483-488; also Smith, op.cit. II, 3-8. 91 Assembly Journal, pp. 671^f. Journal makes no further reference to it. NEW YORK 317 A further indication of the trend of feeling in the Assembly was the proposal made in the third year of Cosby’s adminis¬ tration to have the colony represented in England by an agent “independent of the Governor.”92 In Governor Cosby’s administration, the old subject of dispute, support of the government, was not so much in evidence. The matter of issuing bills of credit came up once, caused some friction, but was amicably approved by the Governor, although such approval violated his instruc¬ tions.93 The three outstanding causes of trouble in Cosby’s administration had to do with the chancery court, the Governor’s sitting as a member of the Council, and prolonged sessions of the same Assembly. Opposition to the establishment, without consent of the Assembly, of a court of equity, with the Governor as chan¬ cellor, had long existed in the colony. Governor Burnet’s practice of conducting them on every possible occasion has already been noted. In Hunter’s time also the Assembly had strongly protested, claiming that the establishment of such courts without consent of the representatives was illegal.94 This opposition became even more pronounced during Cosby’s administration, with the Zenger trial no doubt lending greater weight to the Assembly’s conviction of the ill results of the system.95 The subject came up, indirectly, during the first year, through a resolution giving to the Assembly the right to regulate fees of law practitioners. This resolution was 92 Ibid., pp. G35, 646, gives entries granting five year support, with yearly salary to Governor of £1,565, and making grants also for other expressly men¬ tioned purposes. 93 Proposed issue £12,000. Cf. Journal, I, 678, 679, 680. Cosby at first objected; Council also obstructed. But on condition that House would “explain” to the ministry, Cosby approved, a usual procedure in such cases. 94 N. V. Col. Doc., V, 295, 298, 330, 339, 446, 847. 95 In presiding at this trial the Governor was trying a case in which he him¬ self was interested. See the accounts referred to supra, footnote 90. 318 ROYAL GOVERNORS subsequently indorsed by a petition to the same effect from the inhabitants of three counties. Then came the celebrated * presentation by two lawyers before the Assembly of the arguments for and against the establishment of a court of equity in the colony, and a discussion also as to wherein was vested the right of erection. Each advocate spoke for about three hours. Although on this point there was no open con¬ troversy with the Governor, nevertheless differences existed. Cosby was absolutely in favor of his chancery power, the Assembly absolutely against it.96 The same subject came up, also indirectly, in the following year, having been occasioned by the annexation of part of Connecticut. In his capacity of chancellor, a bill had come before the Governor making void a patent for some fifty thousand acres. A petition, signed by fifty of the pro¬ prietors, was therefore presented to the Assembly, praying that action be taken to prevent proceedings of this nature, so dangerous to many proprietors and to the “Liberties and Properties of the People in General.” 97 The report of the committee on the case, approved by the House, was a positive subversion of Cosby’s claim. Such a court, it read in part, . . . in the Hands, or under the Exercise of a Governor, without consent in the General Assembly, is contrary to the Law, unwarrantable, etc.98 As long as this grievance was kept in the foreground, there could hardly be harmony in the relations between Governor and Assembly. The third cause of disturbance was the prolonged session of the same Assembly. Some account of Cosby’s long 96 Assembly Journal, I, 637, 661/T., Aug. 23, 1732, and May, 1734. Advocates were Murray and Smith, for and against, respectively. 97 Assembly Journal, 683, Oct. 21, 1735. 98 Assembly Journal, p. 687, Nov. 6, 1735. NEW YORK 319 adjournments may be interesting. The first lasted a full year." The ensuing session had been in progress scarcely two weeks when he suggested a further adjournment for six months.100 About the same time was passed a bill for more frequent elections.101 The next adjournment was requested by the House itself, to last six weeks, “until after harvest time.” Cosby, however, was gracious and extended the recess for almost half a year.102 During the next meeting the Assembly unanimously agreed on a request for dissolu¬ tion. Tersely the Governor informed them that he would give the order whenever he saw fit, and found it “conducive to his Majesty’s Service, and for the Benefit of this Prov¬ ince.” 103 And he pronounced another half year of adjourn¬ ment, taking care to prolong it for twice that time.104 The people were now exasperated at being constantly foiled in their desire for an election. A petition came to the Assembly complaining of that grievance, and declaring “frequent Elections a most valuable Privilege; pray, will they endeavor to become dissolved?” Only too glad to comply, the members presented, together with this petition, their own unanimous request for dissolution. Cosby, how¬ ever, repeated almost verbatim his previous grandiose refusal. Three days later still another protest came from the people.105 The difficulty was finally settled by the death of the Governor. Cosby had kept the same Assembly in existence during the whole of his administration, without once giving to the people an opportunity of exercising a privilege most highly prized at all times, and at that time 99 Oct. 15, 1732, to Oct. 14, 1733. Cf. ibid., under dates cited. 100 Sat from Oct. 14 to Nov. 1, 1733; adjourned until April, 1734. Cf. ibid., p. 653. 101 Assembly Journal, I, 660, 668, June 21, 1734. 102 From June 22, 1734, to October. Cf. Ibid., p. 669. 103 Ibid., pp. 679/f. 104 Nov. 28, 1734, to April, 1735. Cf. ibid., p. 681. Then from April, 1735, until the following October. Cf. ibid. 105 Assembly Journal, I, 68 6jf., Nov. 4 and 7, 1735. 320 ROYAL GOVERNORS most earnestly desired and frequently requested. The resentment in this regard may have been heightened by remembrance of the popular complaints in the time of the Stuarts. Burnet and Cosby, with their long-lived Assemblies, might well have been ominous reminders of James I, and i especially of Charles I and the “Long Parliament. ” The other great cause of conflict during Cosby’s incum¬ bency came from his insistence upon sitting as a member of the Council, with a vote in its proceedings. After a protest from the House had failed to end that abuse, it was ultimately corrected by an order from the Board of Trade.106 Fully to appreciate the reasons for the protest, it is necessary to recall the constitution of the government. According to the Governor’s commission, the legislative department was to consist of three branches — the Governor, as executive, the legislative Council, and the Assembly. The difficulty and the abuses in the system arose from the fact that the Council sat in a twofold capacity — as advisory board to the Governor and as part of the legislature. The abuse came when the Governor took part in the deliberations of the Council while acting in its legislative capacity. Thus as a member of the Council he had one vote, as executive he had final veto power, and in case of tie he cast the deciding ballot. Always two, and sometimes three, votes were at his command. The opportunity for abuse is evident. In 1733 Governor Cosby was forbidden, in the order above mentioned, thus to violate the constitution of the colony.107 The following observation, taken from Wilson’s Memorial History of New York City,108 professes to give an indication of the general feeling in the colony about this period. After a summary of preceding terms, in which Sloughter is characterized as a “drunkard and rogue,” Fletcher “but 106 N. Y. Col. Doc., V, 887; VI, 39. 107 N. Y. Legislative Council Journal, Introd., XXVII, by E. B. O’Callaghan. 108 Vol. II, p. 212; cf. also N. Y. Col. Doc., V, 975/. NEW YORK 321 little better,” Cornbury a “dissolute and shameless tyrant,” Burnet “tactless, etc.,” and Montgomerie as “the only tolerable Governor in the list,” the author adds: The tyranny of the royal governors had already produced in New York a party not far removed from complete republicanism and independence. Long before the Revolution, Professor Kalm and the Rev. Mr. Burnaby assure us, the people were already looking forward to a separation from their distant parent land. Whether or no, in its strict sense, the observation is true, it is safe at least to say that after Governor Cosby’s adminis¬ tration, whatever feelings of hostility there may have been toward England, and whatever anticipations of separation may have existed, were greatly augmented. The people, aroused by the fraud and the inefficiency of representatives of superimposed sovereignty, were beginning to fret. The limits of their privileges in self-government were being minutely examined by them, and their interpretation widened as far as possible. Abuse of these privileges had provoked a theory of independence, in which theory the very word was fast coming to have the same meaning as the word “rights” — a development hardly compatible with loyalty and obedience, or with even respect toward the parent state. Governor Cosby died in 1736. By law the succession to a deceased Governor’s duties devolved upon the Lieutenant- Governor. Difficulty arose in the present instance because the Lieutenant-Governor, Rip Van Dam, had been privately suspended. But when the Council therefore chose as Presi¬ dent of the colony the senior member, Clarke, Van Dam still insisted on his own supposed right to the position. Van Dam was the favorite of the people, and until Clarke’s commission arrived to settle the dispute there were dis¬ turbances that approached to all but personal violence to Clarke. He held office from 1736 to 1743. 109 109 Smith, op. cit., II, 31-41. 322 ROYAL GOVERNORS As was to have been expected, Clarke found an ill-tempered Assembly. Conflict soon began, hinging upon the question of temporary grants for the support of the government. The first support bill was for only one year. At its expiration, when Clarke urged a more permanent grant, the conflict began. The Assembly washed to extend the time of certain expiring bills of credit issued in 1714 and 1717. After this last address of the Governor, the House attached a bill for this purpose, as a rider to the next annual support bill.110 Clarke parried with a rider of his own; he would continue the issue of credit bills, provided the Assembly would grant a more permanent support. The Assembly tried again; it wrould pass no — Bills for the Grant of Monies for the Support of the Govern¬ ment, but with the Assurance that the Bills struck and issued in the years 1714, and 1717, as also the Excise Act, should be continued . . . for a sufficient Number of Years to cancel and destroy them Bills.111 These were considered by Clarke to be “presumptuous, daring and unprecedented Steps”, and he therefore dis¬ solved the Assembly.112 At the next session, which began in March, 1739, the Assembly was still determined upon securing extension for the credit bills. Vigorously it opened the attack, and this time succeeded. The details are interesting. First the Governor’s salary, which by resolve of a committee of the whole house had been placed during the previous session at £1,565, was reduced to £1,300. 113 The following entry, made the very day after the Governor finally allowed the extension, tells the whole story: 110 Assembly Journal, I, 747. Smith, op. tit., p. 57. 111 Assembly Journal, I, 747. 112 Ibid., p. 748. 113 Ibid., pp. 744, 765. NEW YORK 323 A motion was made by the Speaker, that as Times and Things are at present circumstanced, and that since the Act which the People had so much at Heart , is already passed and published, there be allowed to his Honour the Lieut. -Governour, for ad¬ ministering the Government of this Colony from the first day of September 1737, to the first Day of September in this present year; after the rate of One Thousand, Three Hundred Pounds, per Ann.114 For two years Clarke’s salary had not been paid. In his address to the next newly elected Assembly — of which only seven members were really new — Clarke again urged provision for a more permanent support bill on the customary basis of a grant covering a period of years.114® In the mean time, there had been hints of still further cuts in his salary. This may have prompted Clarke to ask: Why would you not then tread in the Steps of a British Parlia¬ ment . . . who though they have been ever jealous of the Rights and Liberties of the People, yet have always been zealous and forward to support the Government that protects them. . . . They give a gross Sum for the Civil List; . . . hut do not touch upon the Application , or Disposition of it , etc.nb The reason for the latter references can be readily seen in the Assembly’s previous resolve, . . . not to permit any Monies to be drawn, or made payable out of the Treasury of this Colony, by Virtue of any Orders or Warrants issued by the Governor in Council.116 The House was still insisting on full control of the appli¬ cation of the public funds. Thus strained relations con¬ tinued until finally, in the following April meeting, Clarke’s 114 Assembly Journal , I, p. 768. 11401 Assembly Journal , I, 750. 115 Ibid., p. 764. 116 Ibid., pp. 772jf. 324 ROYAL GOVERNORS pent-up feelings broke forth. The Assembly, he declared, by this persistent and complete control, not only of the actual grants of money, but of its application also, was rendering the government officials completely dependent on the repre¬ sentatives. The King was practically a figurehead. Cer¬ tainly this procedure gave weight to suspicions already prevalent in England, of “thoughts of throwing off their dependence/’ He then urged that the Assembly secede from its too powerful control of moneys, and administer finances according to the King’s wishes. The idea of their own independent treasurer was especially repugnant.117 The Assembly replied in kind. Former officials had mis¬ applied and embezzled funds; therefore they would keep their control, and their treasurer, and their custom of making only annual grants for support. In fact, such grants were even better than longer ones, because the year to year consideration was less apt to leave salaries very long without the proper attention. For each of Clarke’s arguments the representatives had a reply or a justification. No cession of control, no grant for more than a year’s supply was given. In fact, there began to grow a tendency to avoid any legis¬ lation whatsoever that was not absolutely imperative.118 News of the appointment of a new Governor served only to strengthen this policy. In September, 1741, Clarke again requested “such a Revenue and for such a Term of Years without particular Application of it, as former Assemblies gave.” He urged also at this time provision for the West Indies expedition then on foot, and for forts and repairs to them; and he re¬ minded the members that to this address, at least, they could impute no interested motives, because it was to be his last. A new Governor was expected.119 117 Assembly Journal, I, 792. One of the longest speeches ever made by a New York Governor; cf. also Chalmers, Revolt, II, 229. 118 Assembly Journal, I, 797 ff., 800-807. 119 Ibid., p. 808. NEW YORK 325 The long reply gave no promise of better relations. The new Governor would be most welcome; on the revenue question he might consult their last speech; their right to manage application of funds was reasserted, with a reference to the £1,000 granted at the beginning of the last French war for batteries in the Narrows — for which purpose not a stone had been touched — and with an appeal also to the late opinion of the Boards of Trade on this subject. They then declared: As Assemblies are the Givers of Money, so they have and ought to have, an undoubted Right to fix the Disposal of it.120 To this point-blank refusal the Governor, in reply, merely bowed; after which the Assembly immediately proceeded to give added emphasis by turning to the renewal of the dis¬ tasteful one-year act.121 Then, to make matters worse, there was a resolve to postpone the consideration of the salaries of government officers — until such Bills as this House have already prepared, or shall at this Meeting further prepare, for the Benefit of the Inhabitants of this Colony, be first passed into Laws.122 This was strong action, and it drove the Governor, says Chalmers, into “a kind of despair.” 123 He then wrote to the Lords of Trade: They have unmasked, at last, and in effect declared, that if a governor will not blindly consent to their bills, however un¬ reasonable or contrary to his instructions, they will starve him into compliance.124 120 Assembly Journal, I, 811. 121 Ibid,., I, 813. They passed the yearly support bill for 1740 on Oct. 15, 1741, almost a year later. Support for the next year, September, 1741, to December, 1742, was granted a few days later, October 26. Cf. ibid., p. 818. 122 Ibid., p. 815. 123 Chalmers, Revolt, II, 228 [f. 124 N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 206. 326 ROYAL GOVERNORS About the same time Bradford, the attorney-general, re¬ marked to the Board upon the Assembly’s eagerness — To encroach on the prerogative of the crown, in order to shake off, as fast as they are able, their dependence on the nation, and set up for themselves.125 Succeeding developments show the same results — or lack of them — for the Governor. Watchful waiting, not doing, seemed to be the Assembly’s policy. There was even an “unprecedented” request for adjournment. After another urging for a more permanent support bill, made on October 13, 1742, Clarke finally gave up. Even the King’s ministers, when so requested by the Governor, had failed to vindicate His Majesty’s authority in this matter. Therefore Clarke submitted to what was practically the inevitable, relinquished his instructions, and in effect handed over the government to the aggressive Assembly.126 Some indication of the nature of the relations betwreen Governor Clarke and his Assembly can be gleaned from the following declaration from that body. Although occurring in the Governor’s second year, it points to conditions exist¬ ing throughout the administration. The passage speaks also for itself on the subject of the Assembly’s progress in its theory of independence: You are not to expect, that we either will raise Sums unfit to be raised, or put what we shall raise into the Power of a Governor to misapply if we can prevent it; nor shall we make up any other deficiencies than what we conceive are fit and just to be paid, or continue what Support or Revenue we shall raise any longer Time than one year, nor do we think it convenient to do even that, until such Laws are passed as we consider neces- 125 Chalmers, Revolt , II, 228. 126 Chalmers, Revolt, II, 228. For general account of these proceedings see Smith, op. cit., II, 76-83. NEW YORK 327 sary for the Safety of the Inhabitants of this Colony, who have reposed a Trust on us for that only Purpose . . . and by the Grace of God, we will endeavor not to deceive them.127 Governor Clarke was succeeded by Commodore George Clinton (1743 -1753). There were various causes of Clinton’s troubles with his Assemblies — causes which in the nature of things brought to this Governor one of the most disturbed administrations up to that period in the history of New York. The point to be noted is the far-reaching implication of each radical and daring step made by the Assembly in the direction of complete control of the government. When the Assembly finished clipping Clinton’s powers, he was hardly more than a figurehead. One of these contributing causes resulted from the Gov¬ ernor’s long military experience. Accustomed to command and to be instantly obeyed, there was little in his training to develop the patient sagacity and diplomatic, inoffensive, and not too obtrusive leadership of a political executive. His aggressive attitude often increased antagonism; while on the other hand his too great anxiety at times to conciliate took the meaning out of his aggression, and encouraged further liberties. The fact, too, that the chief bearing of his instructions touched upon the sorest spot in the legislative frame was not in his favor. He was directed to regain what in Clarke’s time had been quite completely taken over by the As¬ sembly, — the chief control in money matters.128 A third factor in Clinton’s troubles was the mistaken policy of conciliation adopted on the advice of Delancey, one of the cleverest politicians in the legislature. This advice led him to yield, at the beginning, to every demand of the Assembly. The purpose was to win their confidence first 127 Assembly Journal , I, 708, Sept. 7, 1737. 128 Assembly Journal, II, 259. 328 ROYAL GOVERNORS and thus to render the enforcement of his own measures less difficult. But these concessions were responsible for his later defeats.129 Clinton’s first political act was to dissolve the existing Assembly. At the new election, the same members, all but seven, were returned, — a significant fact, implying continua¬ tion of the old policy.130 Two subjects of dispute formed the basis of practically all Clinton’s trouble. The chief one was in connection with securing grants for military purposes — in the early years for defense of the province, and later for co-operation in the union of the northern colonies for an expedition against Canada. The second outstanding dispute arose over the Assembly’s assumption of the appointing power. The old questions, too, of a more permanent support bill and of issuance of paper money also recurred. The first session, which practically passed without trouble, laid the foundation of conflicts such as no Governor of New York had yet encountered. Measures for the defense of the province, for keeping loyal the Six Nations, and for pro¬ viding for the civil list were readily passed. But in defiance of Clinton’s instructions, the grants were made for only one year; and what is especially to be noted, salaries were assigned, not to offices, but to the men holding them. This was a virtual assumption of the appointing power and of its consequent influence. It gave to the Assembly complete control of the government. Once the salary was allotted to an individual, the Governor was practically forced to con¬ tinue him in office. His own appointees could not by reason of their appointment draw any salary, because this was not assigned to the office, but to the individual. The implica¬ tions of these proceedings are evident. But Clinton, follow- 129 Cf. Clinton to Board of Trade, June 22, 1747, in which he comments upon the rashness of this policy. New York Col. Doc., VI, 350-353. 130 Assembly Journal, I, Nov. 8, 1743. NEW YORK 329 ing out the conciliatory policy which he ever after regretted, made no objections. He had handed to his adversary a most powerful weapon.131 Clinton’s conciliation kept the peace until nearly the end of 1744. At that time the pressure of war by France against England had impelled the ministry to order the Governor to strengthen the English outposts in America. Therefore, when after an adjournment of some months the Assembly met in March, 1745, Clinton in a long address132 emphasized this danger from the French, citing their late advance on Annapolis, and recommending immediate and effective co¬ operation in the common effort of the northern colonies against the frontier menace. The Assembly, however, was not easily persuaded. Clinton’s words to the Lords of Trade three months later imply that conflict had begun. The Assembly “had not fully answered his expectations.” 133 And in the succeeding months the breach widened, prompting the following admission from the Governor in a letter to the Duke of Newcastle: It is with the utmost difficulty to bring them to any tolerable resolution for the service of the public, notwithstanding their safety and fortunes are concerned, being under strong appre¬ hensions daily that our Frontiers will be attacked by the French . . . etc.134 Clinton’s speech had produced little result. “They de¬ liberated long, and did little,” taking a full month to decide on the question of sending commissioners to discuss meas¬ ures with neighboring colonies. The several resolves that 131 Cf. Assembly Journal , II, 1-43, for further details; also Chalmers, Revolt, II, 229. 132 N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 225. Assembly Journal, II, 45, 46. Adjourned from Sept. 21 to Dec. 4, to Feb. 5, to March 5, 1745. 133 N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 254. Clinton to Board of Trade, June, 1744. 134 Ibid., p. 259. 330 ROYAL GOVERNORS were passed for specific military purposes were hampered by the very fact of the exact specification.135 A few days later136 Clinton thought to urge greater co¬ operation by announcing a report of the possible approach of twenty-seven hostile ships. But the following entry, as showing the trend of the Assembly’s interests, bespeaks but little effect from this address. To an act regarding fortifi¬ cations and the general security of the colony, it was pro¬ posed to add a clause providing £60 extra “for making a new Garden Fence around the Fort Garden” 137 Altogether only £3,000 had been granted for defense.138 Finally, after another month of futile waiting, Clinton, believing that it had become “absolutely needful to try all ways to bring them to a just sense of their duty to his Majesty,” 139 de¬ termined to dissolve the Assembly. In his address on that occasion,140 he referred the members to his messages, papers, and repeated urgings regarding the dangerous condition of the colony, to which the House had not even deigned to reply. He noted also their neglect of the frontiers, and of providing presents necessary to keep the Indians loyal; their downright disrespect to his own person, and the positive misrepresentations in the Journal , made for the purpose of deceiving constituents; the credit bills yet unredeemed, and of many unwarranted arbitrary encroachments on the pre¬ rogative. He accused them, moreover, — ... of assuming the Administration of the Government and wrest¬ ing his Majesty’s authority out of the Hands of his Governor. Thus from an invincible untowardness on one Hand, and an inordinate Thirst of Power on the other, you are become, as it 135 Assembly Journal , II, 54jf., April 9, 1745. Chalmers, op. cit., II, 231. 136 Ibid., p. 56. The entry is dated April 17. It occurs, however, between two other entries each dated April 11. 137 Ibid. (Italics inserted.) 138 Chalmers, op. cit., II, 231. 139 N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 282. Clinton to Board of Trade. 140 Assembly Journal, II, 62. NEW YORK 331 were a dead weight against the other Branches of the Legis¬ lature.141 Measured financially, Clinton’s progress with the next Assembly had advanced by the amount of £2,000. 142 The successes against Louisburg had put the colonists in better humor. He therefore urged the precaution necessary to maintain the advantage, and presented requests from Gov¬ ernor Shirley and from Warren regarding the “Prosecution of other Measures.” Special emphasis was laid on the doubtful loyalty of the Indians, and the necessity of making a grant sufficient to enable him to deal with them in order to offset this danger.143 At later dates 144 the same repre¬ sentations were repeated, but to no purpose, for the Assembly had apparently decided that it would do no more. Then, in confirmation of his warnings, came the massacre at Saratoga, Nov. 16, 1745. Clinton called the Assembly and adminis¬ tered another rebuke. Their neglect was inexcusable. “The like was never known, that one part of a Government should be left to be butchered by the Enemy, without assistance from the other.” This, too, with the province in far better condition to grant defense appropriations than it was in the earlier days, when proportionately much more was done in this line; and even at the time of his speaking, the money in the treasury “fell far short of answering the ordinary Services of the Government.” 145 In reply, the Assembly decided to “consider” his remarks. All this occurred on Nov. 20, 1745. A letter from Clinton written ten days later gives further insight into his relations with the Assembly: 141 Assembly Journal , II, 61, 62. 142 p,ormer grant had been £3,000 sterling. 143 Assembly Journal, II, 70, Aug. 20, 1745; cf. also Smith, op. cit., II, 91jf. Chalmers, op. cit., II, 231. 144 August 23, November 2, and November 20. Cf. Journal, II, 74-89. 145 Assembly Journal, II, 86, 87. 332 ROYAL GOVERNORS I am extremely concerned to see the dispatch of public busi¬ ness so greatly neglected by the Assembly of this Province, not¬ withstanding my frequent importunities and recommendations on that head, and I am persuaded while they are at the charge of maintaining a Governor, it never will be otherwise, tho’ I have it to say none ever gained more esteem than myself, thro’ a candid behaviour to them! They are selfish, and jealous of the power of the Crown, and of such levelling principles that they are constantly attacking its prerogative, so that nothing but Governors’ independence can bring them to a just sense of their duty to His Majesty and his service. I have taken unwearied pains with them to that end, tho’ hitherto to little purpose, and I find that neither dissolutions or fair means can produce from them such effects as will tend to the public good or their own preservation. They will neither act for themselves or assist their neighbours, although I have constantly laid before them His Majesty’s Royal orders and Instructions, transmitted to me from time to time since the Commencement of the War, as also the frequent applications made to me by Governor Shirley and Mr. Warren for assistance of men, provisions and money in maintenance of the late ex¬ pedition against Cape Breton, and for the protection of Louis- bourg, since reduced to the obedience of His Majesty. To all which they have shown no greater regard than voting £5,000 to that service (which is not likely to be paid) with¬ out any other assistance, and even that was more than I well could expect, as few but hirelings have a seat in the Assembly, who protract time for the sake of their wages, at a great expense to the Province, without contributing anything material for its welfare, credit or safety. It is now become clear to me, that unless the Legislature at home does take cognizance of their disobedience and indolence, and enjoin them to a more ready compliance to His Majesty’s Royal orders and instructions, I have but poor hopes of suc¬ ceeding in any affair, tho’ ever so well concerted for His Majesty’s service and the Security of the Province.146 From that time until the following June, conditions re- 146 N. Y. Col Doc., VI, 288/. NEW YORK 333 mained about the same. The Governor urged further supplies; the Assembly “considered” his addresses. Then came a change, which must have seemed to Clinton sur¬ prisingly pleasant. On June 6, 1746, he announced the united expedition against Canada, to which the ministry, “in an evil hour” says Chalmers, had consented. The Assembly highly approved, with promise of “Unanimity and effectual Dispatch ... in opposing the Perfidy and Cruelty of the most dangerous Enemy.” 147 During the next two months, with urgent messages of the Governor interspersing the proceedings, many bills for furthering the expedition were passed. But there was always care, in their framing, to keep the Governor’s power as limited as possible. Clinton remonstrated strongly against thus tying up their grants so that even “Provisions for the Army are not subject to the Orders of the General.” 148 But his previous yielding to what he considered to be incurable evils had destroyed hope of resistance. He himself admitted that he had been “resigning the essential powers of govern¬ ment.” 149 A letter to the Board of Trade enumerated the chief acts to which his assent had been practically forced and gave his justifications for yielding.150 Clinton was now apparently driven to the wall. He declared that in the future, cases of dispute would be laid before the King and his ministers, thereby implying that he was himself powerless: Gentlemen, I think this is an Occasion on which I may be allowed to tell you, that within these six months last past, I have gone through more difficulties, I have had less Assistance and I have done more for the Province, than I believe any Governor 147 Assembly' Journal, II, 88-112, especially entries for March 20 to April 23 and June 3. Chalmers, Revolt, II, 231. 148 Assembly Journal, II, 126. Chalmers, op. cit., II, 232. 149 Clinton to Board of Trade, quoted by Chalmers, op. cit., II, 232. 150 Cf. N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 316. 334 ROYAL GOVERNORS of New York before me; I feel in my own Breast, my zeal for my King and my Country’s service; and, therefore, I can with pleasure, lay the account of my Administration to his Majesty’s feet.151 Later on Clinton succumbed even to the extent of per¬ mitting himself to be called to account by the lower House. For a Governor his replies were far too conciliatory, too full of excuses and of justifications for various military opera¬ tions. Perhaps he thought it of no use bluntly to oppose the Assembly. The House, however, took advantage of his apparent weakness, resolving that his explanation was 4 4 in no Respect satisfactory.’7 And they absolutely refused to make any further allowance for the expedition until the 44 Notorious Abuses” perpetrated in regard to supplies previously granted were rectified. In fact, 44 until such Assurances be given, this House cannot . . . proceed upon any Business whatsoever.” 152 Clinton’s attitude, however, became more aggressive when the Assembly met again after an adjournment of several months.153 From the first meeting in March, 1747, on through the spring and summer, there was continual con¬ troversy. The Assembly Journal for that period is chiefly taken up with the Governor’s addresses of remonstrance or of reprimand, and the Assembly’s prompt replies.154 In the mean time Clinton had employed his private fortune to pay for expenses of war that the Assembly refused to meet.155 By the end of May things were come to such a pass, and his own power was so hopelessly checked, that he wrote to Newcastle declaring that the time had come for the King to do one of two things, 4 4 either to support his authority in 151 Assembly Journal, II, 135. 152 Ibid., pp. 137-139. 153 Adjourned Dec. 6, 1746; convened March 25, 1747. 154 Assembly Journal, II, 141-159, passim. 155 Clinton to Newcastle, May 11, 1747, New York Col. Doc., VI, 342. Clinton to Assembly, Assembly Journal, II, 157. NEW YORK 335 the hands of his Governor, or to give it up to a popular faction.” He thought, too, of asking leave to return to England in order to present a true statement of affairs.156 The immediate occasion of this letter was probably a remon¬ strance made by the Assembly in the form of a series of representations to the Governor, setting forth their justifi¬ cations, pointing out proofs of their loyalty, and giving a general review of their proceedings since His Excellency’s arrival. In the reply, Clinton accused them of fearing to enter their “Representations” on the minute book at the proper time, and determined that he would himself lay the matter before the King.157 About the same time, also, there was a dispute as to pay¬ ment of salaries of the troops levied for the Canada expe¬ dition. The Assembly maintained that its own duty ex¬ tended only to providing sustenance. Clinton felt that the colony should assist also in the payment. Then the Assembly laid all responsibility on the Governor, because of his refusal to approve their bills of credit for the purpose. Thus for many months the wrangling continued. Finally Clinton thought to end it all by declaring that he would receive no other business from the House except in relation to matters of defense and placation of the Indians. This statement set up a regular conflagration in the House, and the next meeting was conducted with “the Door locked, and the key laid on the Table.” No member could depart until an answer to this “extraordinary” message had been framed.158 “ Nemine contradicente ,” they resolved: That his Excellency’s declaring that he will receive nothing from the House at this time, but what relates to his message of the 6th inst., is irregular and unprecedented, and manifestly 156 Clinton to Board of Trade, May 30, 1747, New York Col. Doc., VI, 350, 351. 157 Assembly Journal, II, 149, 156, May 19 and 26, 1747. Clinton’s reply to the representations is given in New York Col. Doc., VI, 365-371. 158 Assembly Journal, II, 157ff., 160-173. Wrangling continued from July 30 to Oct. 8, 1747. 336 ROYAL GOVERNORS tends to the Subversion of the Rights, Liberties and Privileges, of this House and of the people they represent. We must also be free to disclose to your Excellency, that we are very sensible with what contempt you have treated the People of this Colony in general, and the members of this House in particular; from a very early time of your Administration in Terms so opprobrious, as are not fit to be published; and your Excellency’s Speeches and Messages to the House of late, have been so full fraught, with unjust and injurious Reproaches, in- viduous Reflections and Calumnies, that must have tried the Patience of the House, at any time than this, when we choose rather to suffer injustly, if, perchance, we could be so doing, promote his Majesty’s Service and Interest, Welfare and Security of our Country. But as your Excellency may perhaps be advised that the method to manage an Assembly is to harass them with frequent short Adjournments, by which they will soon be tired and brought to submit to any measures; we take the liberty to assure your Excellency, that such advice is vain arid fruitless: No Treatment your Excellency can use towards us; no Inconveniences how great soever, that we may suffer in our own Persons, shall ever prevail upon us to abandon (or divert us from readily pursuing) the Interest of our Country.159 After the Assembly had answered with a detailed state¬ ment of the situation and of the reasons for their disagree¬ ment with the Governor, Clinton replied in a still more detailed address, containing over three thousand words, accusing them of fostering a “firm Principle of Disloyalty — Design to overthrow the constitution of the Government . . . etc.” To add fuel to the flame, he maintained that so great had become the effrontery of the House, that a certain committee had actually intruded upon his privacy, uncere¬ moniously compelling him to listen to the reading of a 159 Assembly Journal, II, pp. 173, 177, 180. NEW YORK 337 bundle of reports, — which the alleged members of the com¬ mittee flatly denied.160 Then came the dispute over printing. When the Governor would not hear the representations of the committee the members resolved to have them printed, although they aimed directly at the executive and were, according to him, malicious falsehoods. When he therefore forbade the print¬ ing, the House immediately pronounced the prohibition a positive “Violation of the Rights and Liberties of the People,” subversive of the privileges of the House, liberty of the press, and even against the law. On another occasion, after a visit among the Indians, Clinton ordered his journal to be printed. While the public printer wTas thus engaged the Assembly ordered him to print an address of their own. Despite Clinton’s order the printer complied with the request of the members, who paid his salary, while the Governor’s article took second place.161 Meantime, throughout October and November, 1747, ad¬ dresses, replies, resolves, and recriminations flew back and forth. There was no point of agreement, although the Governor was forced to accept another paper money issue.162 The following are some of the points arraigned: action on the printing; lies in the Remonstrance; intention to assume “Superiority in the Administration;” their interference with his orders, necessarily secret, owing to the nature of the campaign against Canada, — which interference had lost over £40,000 to the province; arousing, by their insin¬ uations against the government, disobedience among the people; refusal to grant moneys to pay the men levied for the expedition. On points particularly tender, he said: 160 Assembly Journal, II, 177 ff., 18 6jf., 191 jf. 161 Cf. Clinton’s Report to the Board of Trade made in December, 1748. New York Col. Doc., VI, 461. 162 Assembly Journal, II, 189-199. Cf. entry for Nov. 13, 1747. 338 ROYAL GOVERNORS Many other Instances can be given of your grasping at Power, both Civil and Military, by your assuming to yourselves the Nomination to Offices, and the sole rewarding of all Service, as in every Money Bill you pass; to which you will allow of no Amendment by the Council, in any part of the Bill, how foreign soever to the granting Part, neither do you previously advise or consult with your Governor, either in the Nomination to Offices, or the rewarding of Services.163 Nothing daunted by this speech or by the dissolution that followed, the Assembly met unofficially, and drew up its reply in a lengthy statement of over 12,000 words.164 In 1748 a new policy toward the colonies was adopted in England owing to the accession of the aggressive Bedford in the place of Newcastle. Bedford determined to heed the remonstrances that were coming in from colonial corre¬ spondence. Newcastle had permitted affairs to shift almost for themselves. In 1748, also, a new policy was adopted by the Governors assisting at an Albany convention in reference to the rapidly increasing powers of Assemblies.165 The presence there of three prerogative men from Massa¬ chusetts — Shirley, Oliver, and Hutchinson — partly indi¬ cates the origin of this plan. Although the convention had for its ostensible object the Indian affairs, plans for checking the Assemblies were not the least important of its proceed¬ ings. After this convention Shirley and Clinton wrote a joint letter to the Lords of Trade. Clinton also took the opportunity while Shirley was in New York to ask the Massachusetts Governor to look into the affairs of the colony and to suggest some method for alleviating the dis¬ turbed political situation.166 After a minute examination, 163 Assembly Journal, II, 202-204. 164 This statement, in small print, is included in the Assembly Journal after the Governor’s dissolving speech. Cf. II, 120j$\ Dissolved Nov. 29, 1747. 166 Bancroft, History of the United States, 1891 edition, II, 327-330. 166 Cf. letter in N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 430; also Clinton to Shirley, Aug. 5, 1748, ibid., VI, 432. NEW YORK 339 even of the legislative minutes from Cornbury down, Shirley wrote : The Assembly seems to have left scarcely any part of His Majesty’s prerogative untouched, and they have gone great lengths toward getting the government, military as well as civil, into their hands.167 He enumerated also the above mentioned causes of dis¬ pute, and others besides. To grants made to Clinton the House had attached others for certain persons under pretext of “Extraordinary Services,” but in reality to meet costs of composing and publishing libellous papers against him; they had assumed complete control of the muster rolls; they had, without the Governor’s warrant, drawn money from the treasury to pay troops; and in acts respecting defenses had determined in what manner and by whom the construc¬ tion was to be conducted. As the chief remedy, Shirley suggested that Clinton regain the customary five-year support bill, and “insist in general to have his Majesty’s government restored to its former state.” This advice Clinton followed to the letter. His address in October, 1745, was a repetition in part of Shirley’s ideas.168 Enumerating the points of conflict already referred to, he informed the House of his “indispensable Duty of putting a stop to these Innovations.” But the Assembly agreed to none of his suggestions, giving reasons for maintain¬ ing the two most disputed points, — support by annual grants, and salary allotments to persons rather than to office.169 Relations became even more strained when the Assembly sent to Clinton two of its members, apparently informally, with an address. Clinton resented the procedure as a mark 167 Shirley to Clinton, Aug. 13, 1748, N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 436. 168 Cf. letters of Shirley and Clinton in N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 432, 436; and Clin¬ ton’s address to the Assembly in Assembly Journal, II, 243; also Clinton to Board of Trade, Oct. 30, 1748, p. 458. 169 Assembly Journal, II, 243; also entry for Oct. 19, 1748. 340 ROYAL GOVERNORS of disrespect. His avowal that he would not assent to any salary bill under the form lately devised made matters worse. He had requested of the two messengers a copy of the address before receiving it officially, which was indignantly resented, and the House resolved that such action was a violation of their rights and privileges, tending to overthrow even the constitution of the colony. The Assembly then printed their address and charged the Governor with a “Breach of Solemn Promise, and with a Violation of Rights and Privileges.” Again Clinton accused them of lack of respect, with a reminder that the newspapers and the popu¬ lace was not the tribunal for obtaining redress. If they must have redress, the proper resort was the King’s ministers; but they had practically arraigned the King’s Governor before his own subjects. What would the King think? And to give “Time, cooly to consider — the Consequences,” he prorogued the Assembly. It was over six months before they again met.170 In the mean time Clinton sent to the Lords of Trade an account of what he considered the encroachments of the Assembly.171 Among other things, he stated that the King’s Governor no longer controlled a farthing of the revenue, and that he could neither appoint nor remove his own officers. This, added to the fact that the Council was now also against him,172 indicates the extent of the “clipping” of power done by the Assembly. Toward the end of 1748 Clinton admitted his helplessness: Till I shall receive his Majesty’s Instructions in relation to the matter in Debates between the Assembly and me, it can be to no purpose for me to meet the Assembly of this Province.173 170 Assembly Journal , II, 247, 257jf., especially entries for Oct. 21 and 26, 1748. Prorogued from Nov. 12, 1748, to March and June, 1749. 171 The Present State of the Province of New York, in N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 461^p. 172 Ibid., p. 462. 173 Clinton to Board of Trade, Nov. 15, 1748, N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 469. NEW YORK 341 The increased activity of Delancey in rousing the people against him, his own protracted sick spells, and the dis¬ turbances due to the impending French and Indian War 174 served to augment existing difficulties. But Clinton was bent upon regaining lost powers. In the summer session of 1749 the struggle was renewed.175 Again he demanded a support bill according to the royal instruc¬ tions. The control of moneys by the House, even after grants were made, he referred to as follows: There are Laws of this Province now in force, granting to his Majesty, Funds for the support of his Government; there is money in the Treasury for this purpose and yet — he cannot make use of one farthing of it.176 Then, point-blank he demanded whether or not they in¬ tended to obey the instructions by granting a fixed support, and declared that until the answer came, no business would be done. The House, however, could not perceive wherein they had refused obedience to the instructions. The dif¬ ference of opinion in this regard was due merely to the difference in their interpretation of the same instructions. These called for a sufficient support; the Assembly was granting it by their annual support bill; therefore they were neither disabling the executive nor disobeying the King’s command. As to the public debts which Clinton had reminded them were yet unpaid, the Assembly laid the blame at his own feet. They had passed a bill for the purpose, but he himself had prevented payment and caused injury to creditors by his late prorogation. Before meeting the House to receive this address he requested a copy. This fanned higher the flame of opposition. The House immediately declared the 174 Clinton to Bedford, Feb. 24, 1749. Ibid., p. 475; also pp. 487-517, passim. 176 Session opened June 27, 1749, Assembly Journal, II, 279. 176 Assembly Journal, II, 259 ff. 342 ROYAL GOVERNORS request to be absolutely “contrary to the course of parlia¬ mentary Proceedings,” and resolved, nemine contradicente , “that his Excellency has no right to insist on any such copy.” Clinton reminded them of his right as Governor to know what passed in the House, and could not see “how his Excellency comes under the course of parliamentary Pro¬ ceedings.” His refusal to receive officially a communication of which he knew nothing might cover a “Design to make him (by surprise) receive what it is not proper to receive.” 177 Later on, however, he replied to the address, retorting with the Assembly’s favorite charge and justification, i.e., dis¬ honesty in the application of appropriations. Moreover, if they maintained that the question of support was one of interpretation only, then the interpretation was provided for in a bill just then before Parliament, which considered means of enforcing a more permanent revenue in the colonies. He demanded then a “categorical Answer” as to whether or not they would grant a more permanent revenue.178 In an indignant reply the Assembly denied all of Clinton’s allegations and presented proofs. As to his question “whether any Man could say the Governor had invaded his Liberty or Property” they enumerated: The breaking open the store House at Albany; the Letters wrote to the Judge, Clerk, and Sheriff of Dutchess County, re¬ questing them to put a stop to Proceedings in Cases of Private Property; the Attempt made to restrain the Liberty of the Press, and other things of the like kind . . .179 And how, they asked, could they be expected to relinquish control of the people’s money to the power of Governors impinged upon them from afar, strangers, men with no common interests in the province, with uncertain tenure of 177 Assembly Journal, II, pp. 259, 261^. Prorogation occurred on July 5, 1749. 178 Assembly Journal, II, 265. 179 Ibid., p. 266. NEW YORK 343 office, and therefore under the necessity of acquiring as much spoil as possible, men who in every fact had already embezzled the province moneys. Then, unequivocally, they gave their “categorical Answer”: We must declare to your Excellency that we cannot answer it to our Constituents, to pass any bill for raising money on them, and leave it to be disposed of at the will and pleasure of a Governor; and this we hope your Excellency will accept for a categorical Answer.180 They further declared that they were only too anxious to settle all disputes, and to do so were willing to grant support every year, even as they had done ever since the Governor’s arrival. In fact, the very session then in progress was a cause of great sacrifice, taking them from the harvest. For the public welfare, however, the sacrifice would be cheerfully borne. Clinton refused to receive this address, and because support according to instructions had been denied, he de¬ termined to refer the matter to the King. All he now asked was payment of the public debts. The refusal caused a profound stir, the Assembly con¬ struing it into further denial of access to the Governor, and a consequent breach of their privileges. They resolved, therefore, to pay no debts or any other public services until assurance of rectifying the matter was given. Clinton, de¬ claring that he would place this matter also before the King, again urged them not to refuse, because of animosity toward him, to pay debts justly due to others. Relief measures for the prisoners in Canada received special emphasis. The House, however, would make no advances.181 Absolute deadlock resulted. Each day the House met according to form, but immediately adjourned. For nearly 180 Assembly Journal, II, p. 267. 181 Assembly Journal, II, July 18, pp. 268, 270, 271. 344 ROYAL GOVERNORS two weeks affairs of the government were at a complete standstill. Clinton finally convened the Assembly on Aug. 4, 1749, saying, among other things: You pride yourselves on some Occasion, in following the Prece¬ dents in Parliament; I think you cannot show one Session of Parliament, in which not one Bill was read; yet this is the case of this Present session; and this makes it evident, that you met together with a view, not to heal past, but to create new Differ¬ ences . . ,182 Then followed successive prorogations until a full year had passed, with the support question still unsettled. At the next election only six new members were returned, a fact that implied further opposition. Nevertheless, the first session was surprisingly harmonious. Three months passed without an exchange of recriminations. On each side there was sufficient capitulation to avoid absolute deadlock. The Assembly waived its resolution not to pass any bills before the “Breach of Privileges” was rectified, and the Governor seemed willing to accept the revenue for one year only. Other bills also were passed.183 Clinton’s letter to the Lords of Trade, however, written shortly after the first prorogation in November, 1750, indi¬ cates that the struggle was far from ending. And the fact that during the summer of 1751 he felt it had become neces¬ sary to return to England is significant.184 At this period, also, he was anxiously awaiting additional instructions from the King before renewing the strife. In fact, he depended altogether upon these to check the Assembly. The delay in their arrival probably explains his policy of long proroga¬ tions at this time.185 182 Assembly Journal, II, p. 271. 183 Assembly Journal, II, 271, Sept. 4, 1750; also pp. 277-306. 184 Clinton to Board of Trade, Dec. 2, 1750, N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 599; cf. also pp. 717, 727. 185 Assembly Journal, II, 310. No business done from June to October, 1751. Cf. Shirley’s letter to Clinton, N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 436. NEW YORK 345 After the Assembly did meet, however, Clinton wrote to the Lords of Trade that appropriations were so made that “not one farthing” could the Governor apply for salaries of officers or for Indian affairs. It was then that he vielded and t/ accepted the annual grant. The Assembly was dissolved a few days later and did not meet for nearly a year.186 The next session was comparatively peaceful, as was also the following one, owing, perhaps, to the fact that tidings had come of the drawing up by the Privy Council of a very long and detailed report of conditions in New York.187 This fact, or the consideration of its consequences, may have induced moderation in the Assembly. Thereafter there was little conflict, although the forces of opposition had not lost their power. Needless to say, Clinton’s administration left the people even more dissatisfied with England’s method of rule, more estranged in their allegiance, and more strongly intrenched in their control of both Governor and government. The representatives were by that time practically dictating their own policies; and the “instructions” of the King, the “wishes” of the ministry, even the “duties” of the Governor had either to give way or see the government in confusion because of lack of sup¬ port. The “dependence” of the colony might almost be said to have been only nominal. At last, however, Clinton’s messages to the ministry on the need of definite instructions to curb the Assembly took effect in the commission given to the new Governor, Daniel Osborne. It is probable that the ministry was influenced also by the above mentioned report of the Privy Council.188 186 Clinton to Board of Trade, Nov. 19, 1751, N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 749. Assembly Journal , II, 327, 328. Dissolved Nov. 25, 1751; met Oct. 24, 1752. 187 This report is given in N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 614-703. It covers nearly one hundred pages, and is a careful account of all acts of Assembly and Governor bear¬ ing on the prerogative and its infringement. 188 Cf. Clinton’s letters in N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 762, 764 and passim. Instruc¬ tions are given in Assembly Journal, II, 353; cf. also Eugene F. McCokmac, Colonial Opposition to Imperial Authority during the French and Indian War, pp. 26jf. 346 ROYAL GOVERNORS These new instructions referred to the Assembly’s “sub¬ version” of the government, and ordered the Governor to insist upon complete restoration of the powers of the pre¬ rogative. In particular, he was to demand a permanent, solid support, indefinite in duration. The phrasing evidently aimed at preventing cavil regarding the interpretation, as had been previously done when simply “sufficient” support had been demanded.189 Upon Osborne’s arrival there was manifest rejoicing. As the new Governor, accompanied by Clinton, proceeded through the crowded streets, the latter was greeted with every mark of hostility. According to the story, the pros¬ pect — or lack of prospect — of attaining any agreement to his distasteful instructions so preyed upon Osborne’s already melancholy mind that on the second day after his arrival he hanged himself.190 This placed the colony under Lieutenant-Governor De- lancey, leader of the popular party and the man who had done most to have Clinton ousted from office. Even so popular a man, however, could hardly expect harmony with the Assembly when he had to enforce instructions forbidding to the Assembly two powers most jealously guarded, — sup¬ port by annual grants, and legislative application of appro¬ priations to specific purposes. There were other prohibitions also, which were designed as checks.191 Throughout his administration Delancey endeavored to maintain a position of compromise. His situation was a difficult one as leader of the popular faction, with the official 189 Assembly Journal , II, 359. 190 Smith, op. cit., II, 183. 191 Cf. Assembly Journal, II, 353. Some authors disagree as to whether the Assembly was herein denied the right even to inspect the treasury accounts. Ban¬ croft, op. cit.. Ill, 104, and Smith, op. cit., II, 193, assert the affirmative; McCor- mac, op. cit., p. 28, the negative. Examination of the instructions themselves shows that this right was expressly granted to the Assembly. Cf. Assembly Journal , II, 353. NEW YORK 347 duty of enforcing the prerogative. In his first address, after expressing hope that the members would “pay a due regard to his Majesty’s Pleasure,” Delancey announced among other prohibitions the two clauses of the instructions regarding the annual support and the control of funds after they had been granted. The Assembly repudiated the insinuations of dis¬ loyalty, which the instructions certainly strongly implied, and cited as causes for existing troubles the maladministra¬ tion of Governor Clinton. It hoped also that a method of support that had been successful for sixteen years would meet with no objection from Delancey. This was a flat dis¬ regard for the King’s command. The cautious Lieutenant- Governor replied that he would willingly assent to all acts that agreed with His Majesty’s instructions.192 It is interesting to note, however, that just one day before he made this reply, and the very day after they had virtually rejected the instructions, there had been passed an annual , not a permanent, support bill. This was rejected in the Council. An idea of the Assembly’s attitude on this article 39 of the instructions, which commanded a permanent revenue, can be had from the following fact: The New York Mercury printed article 39, whereupon the Assembly cited the respon¬ sible party, demanding by what authority the article had been printed. A severe reprimand followed.193 Later on they sent to the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Planta¬ tions a representation purporting to prove that Clinton had himself been the occasion of all disputes in the colony. His privateering for profit, his hiring out for that purpose the King’s own cannon, his causing the terrible Saratoga massacre by withdrawing troops, his embezzling moneys appropriated for Indian presents, his demanding supplies for two Indian companies, together with salaries for officers of the same, when the two companies never existed, — 192 Assembly Journal, II, 351, 353jf., Nov. 6 and 8, 1753. 193 Ibid., pp. 354, 362, 358jf., especially entry for Nov. 27, 1753. 348 ROYAL GOVERNORS these and other causes of conflict were cited. Then they approached the great matter in question. The annual support bill, they said, had been introduced as a necessary safeguard against embezzlement, by Governors, of the public moneys; and sixteen years of experience had proved this method to be more just and more efficient than any other.194 The King, by advice of the Board of Trade, rejected this memorial, and the Board wrote to Delancey that the repre¬ sentatives “flatter themselves in vain if they think to thus continue their unconstitutional encroachments.’' 195 A storm was in prospect. On the same day that the above mentioned representation was drawn up, Delancey prorogued the Assembly, with a reminder that the one-year support bill was a violation of His Majesty’s instructions.196 The next meeting was held in the spring of 1754, because of the increasing dangers from the French and Indians. Delancey’s opening address stressed the need of military supplies, and of provision to “repel Force by Force” in case of invasion. On the ground that the colony was not yet invaded, the Assembly withheld supplies. In grants for other purposes made at this time, they maintained, in spite of the new instructions, full power in the disposal of appro¬ priations. To the bill for these grants, the Council objected because by it appropriations were to be issued, not, as the instructions directed, by warrant from the Governor, but upon receipt from the province treasurer, an official responsible to the Assembly. The House, however, refused even a conference on the matter, because the dispute 194 Assembly Journal, II, 369jf. Smith, op. cit., II, 192, says that Clinton’s account of expenses amounted to £84,000, and that “it was supposed” he returned to England with most of it. 195 Memorial is given in Journal, ibid., p. 369. Chalmers, op. cit., II, 317. 196 Assembly Journal, II, 372, Dec. 12, 1753. NEW YORK 349 regarded a money bill, over which the Council had no au¬ thority of amendment.197 Delancey at this juncture announced a twenty-four hour prorogation. His situation was becoming more and more delicate. Popularity and duty were opposed, and it would be difficult to compromise longer. For a time he managed to do so by leaving to the Council the odium of restricting the House. On the day following the prorogation, he expressed regret at the difficulties with the bill, but felt certain that the Councillors “were pressed” to refusal “by sense of duty,” and he hoped that the House would now “so frame the Rill so as not to lay the Council under any Difficulty of passing it.” 198 In spite of Delancey’s assiduous compromise policy, a deadlock ensued. In three weeks he was himself in conflict with the House. His remonstrances, however, brought no change; and declaring that he would place the matter before the King, he dismissed the Assembly.199 About the same time, he wrote to the Board of Trade: After all my endeavors,200 I could not prevail upon them to give me one farthing for this service201 — or to enable me to raise men for the assistance of Virginia — the Assembly on the one hand will not recede, and the Council on the other will not give in to the Assembly’s method.202 Then for the benefit of the Assembly, which would eventually hear of his words from the agent in England, he remarked that under the pressing circumstances he would himself 197 Assembly Journal, II, 373 ff., 377/f. 198 Ibid., pp. 381 ff. Prorogation ordered on May 1, 1754. 199 Ibid., pp. 384 ff. Next meeting was arranged for August, 1754. 200 These ‘‘endeavors,” due to his compromise policy, were very cautious and very meagre. Cf. Journal, passim, in his administration. 201 Supplies for two companies to be sent to Virginia against the French and Indians. Cf. Journal, II, 384. 202 Delancey to Board of Trade, May 21, 1754, N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 868. 350 ROYAL GOVERNORS have assented to the supply bill as it stood; the Council , however, was the objector, and therefore to blame. During the same summer of 1754, the public danger had increased. Franklin’s well known plan of union for the colonies comes to mind at this point. Perhaps it was in part occasioned by the news of Washington’s defeat near the Ohio. At any rate, these general conditions and in particular the defeat of the colonial troops were made the basis of Delancey’s next appeal for supplies. The Assembly could no longer deny an actual invasion, and therefore promised aid to Virginia, later granting £5,000 for the purpose.203 Delancey’s popularity was already on the wane. His position as official advocate of the prerogative, his inability to reward all his political tools, and the hostile activities of Clinton’s friends had been undermining his hold on the popular faction. The exact turning point from favor to disfavor is not easy to determine; but by the time he had announced, in November, 1754, a report from the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations disapproving, not only the method of annual grants and control of same by provisions for their application, but also issues of paper money designed to be legal tender — by this time, it may be said that compromise was no longer possible. Each side had taken a definite stand.204 The Assembly, moreover, denied any intention of infringing upon the prerogative by refusing permanent support, and declared itself most anxious to conform to the instructions. But neighboring colonies, with similar instructions, were making only annual grants; why not New York also? Moreover, New York had a precedent going back sixteen years; therefore the Assembly bluntly declared: “In faithfulness to the people of his Majesty’s loyal colony, we can by no means recede from it.”205 203 Assembly Journal, II, 385-388. 204 Assembly Journal, II, 409, Nov. 21, 1754. 205 Ibid., p. 412. NEW YORK 351 Then, on the paper money issue, they proposed an ulti¬ matum. Since the ministry forbade its use as legal tender the money was useless. They determined, therefore, to proceed to no business regarding supplies until they knew more of the ministry’s intentions in this regard. Not to render the colony defenseless, however, they waived this resolution to the extent of providing for urgently needed fortifications on the Hudson.206 Delancey’s reply to the above was cautious. Their atti¬ tude toward the instructions requiring a permanent revenue was most tenderly passed over, with no direct remonstrance, and with only indirect reference to their duty, made in form of the question: “Will not this Method have the Effect that is apprehended — that is, of wresting from the King’s governor, his powers?” 207 From this time down to the arrival of the next Governor, the Assembly Journal shows no evidence of open conflict. Delancey was careful never to bring matters to an issue, especially on the question of permanent support. His policy is indicated in his letter to the Board of Trade, in which, after mentioning how former Governors in their attempts to enforce a more permanent support had tried the harsh measures of dissolution, etc., only to fail, he expressed his own justification in employing “the softest measures he could.” But since these also were to no purpose, why con¬ tinue difficulties, when “the principle members frankly told me, I might dissolve them as often as I please, — they would never give it up,” 208 that is, the custom of supporting the government by annual grants. This policy of compromise was probably the consideration that influenced Delancey’s subsequent assent to the paper money issue referred to above. Even his lost salary was not a sufficient incentive to 206 Assembly Journal , II, p. 412. 207 Ibid., p. 420, Nov. 28, 1754. 208 Delancey to Board of Trade, Jan. 3, 1754, N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 820. 352 ROYAL GOVERNORS make him urge upon the Assembly the passage of a perma¬ nent revenue bill.209 The Assembly’s attitude on other measures, wherein they saw no infringement of their rights, was eminently praise¬ worthy. Chalmers gives them high approbation for vigorous co-operation when the French and Indian war became a positive menace.210 Delancey’s whole policy was one of compromise, based on self-interest. Except for a more smooth veneer, he was a politician of the Belcher type, perhaps not so well meaning. Characteristics similar to Belcher’s are seen in his facility of exchanging allegiances and of adopting opposite political principles. In Governor Cosby’s time Delancey had received signal appointment, and with Cosby he was on the side of the prerogative. When Clinton came he remained a pre¬ rogative man until the office of chief justice was conferred on him during good behavior, thus making him practically secure in it. Then, apparently noting the Assembly’s grow¬ ing power, he “swung around the circle,” opposed Clinton, became leader of the opposition, and did much to drive his benefactor from office. His own term found him attempting to maintain a double allegiance. His correspondence with the home government, which was prudently meagre, was usually so worded as to lead the ministry into the supposition that he was trying with all his “endeavors” to enforce his instructions; yet there is never a direct repudiation of the Assembly’s loyalty, though he does state, without comment, the fact of disregard of the King’s orders. When the new Governor, Sir Charles Hardy, arrived, Delancey settled back into his old anti-prerogative philosophy.211 209 Cf. his justification for giving assent, ibid., p. 940. Until December, 1754, no supply bill became law. Hence Delancey was without salary. Proposed bills had been annual; therefore his rejection of them. His instruction forbade approval except to permanent support bills. Cf. Delancey to Board of Trade, N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 928. 210 Chalmers, Revolt, II, 315. 211 Cf. his letters in N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, passim. NEW YORK 353 Delancey again held office after Sir Charles had resigned to pursue a military career that was more to his liking. During this second term, which began in July, 1757, and lasted three years, there was practically no friction with the Assembly, due probably to the great pressure and really dire straits caused by the war. Two factors may have then contributed to the appoint¬ ment of a new Governor. The French and Indian war re¬ quired a leader with military experience, in which respect Sir Charles Hardy was well fitted. The ministry, moreover, had determined upon a more lenient policy regarding the support question.212 It may therefore have preferred to introduce this policy through a new Governor, rather than oblige the old one to admit practical defeat. The new in¬ structions were so altered as to permit the Governor in case of emergencies, as when the security of the province might be endangered, to accept temporary grants, even though a law for permanent revenue had not been passed. In emer¬ gencies also he was “at liberty to assent to a law for issuing a reasonable quantity of paper money bills.” 213 Although the leniency applied only to times of urgent need, it was the first step in the general capitulation that was soon to follow regarding the conflict over permanent support. Governor Hardy’s first address fired the House to increased opposition. It was a blunt, soldier-like command to obey the King’s instruction that required a “permanent Revenue” by a “ Law indefinite and without Limitation of Time.” The Assembly refused, declaring that “almost every Individual in the Colony opposed a permanent revenue.” Hardy tersely reiterated the King’s order, and later wrote to the Lords of Trade to explain the difficulty of enforcing the revenue instructions in New York, while neighboring colonies 212 Lords of Trade to Lords Justices, April 22, 1755, N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 948. In this letter the policy is outlined. 213 N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 949. 354 ROYAL GOVERNORS enjoyed at the same time a practical exemption. He added that “into every other measure the Assembly seemed very well inclined to come.” 214 Up to this time, although the House had refused to pass a permanent support bill, there had been as yet no open con¬ flict, because the instructions had not been directly violated by the attempt to pass a temporary bill. This attempt came in January, 1756, in a bill providing support for one year.215 Meantime, the need of war supplies had become in¬ creasingly urgent. The Governor asked, as the colony’s quota for the following year, 1,000 men. Pending decision on the support bill, which was yet before the Council, the Assembly delayed action. The policy was to manipulate this war bill as a lever to force through the recreant tempo¬ rary support. Their best efforts in behalf of the quota went no further than to pass favorable resolutions, thus gaining time while still awaiting the fate of the support bill. After two weeks Hardy again urged the growing need of filling the colony’s quota.216 It was three days before a bill for the purpose appeared. Meantime the Council had not spoken. Then followed a succession of adjournments, and finally a request to the Governor for an indefinite post¬ ponement of business until the quota regulations of neighbor¬ ing colonies could be ascertained. Although the delayed bill had now passed the second reading, final action was post¬ poned until the information should arrive. The lever was not unemployed. Meantime, Hardy had written to the Lords of Trade to say that further insistence on even a five- year support bill would result in loss of the quota bill.217 214 Assembly Journal , II, 461, 464, and entry for Dec. 10, 1755; cf. also Hardy to Lords of Trade, Dec. 18, 1755, N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 1023. 215 Assembly Journal, II, 479, Jan. 30, 1756. 216 Assembly Journal, II, 478, 483, Jan. 27 and Feb. 16, 1756. 217 The Assembly was not therefore lax in providing for the war. Hardy him¬ self praised their generosity in granting £40,000 in paper money. N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 37; cf. also Hardy to Lords of Trade, Feb. 23, 1756, N. Y. Col. Doc., VII, 38. NEW YORK 355 At the end of another month and after many additional adjournments, a compromise was reached. The Assembly voted 1,715 men for the war in barter for the Governor’s assent to a recent bill concerning the public debts.218 Shortly before this transaction, the status of the support question had passed through an interesting development in England. The ministry had decided virtually to yield to the Assembly and to permit acceptance by the Governors of temporary grants. The Lords of Trade wrote to Governor Hardy directing him not to 4 ‘press the Establishment of a permanent Revenue for the Present.” It is to the great satisfaction of his Majesty that the present Assembly do not appear to be desirous of reviving the unwar¬ rantable & illegal claims and pretentions of former Assemblys, and have declared that they do not mean to take upon them the executive power of the Government belonging of right to her Governor; and as you have represented, they are well inclined to concurr in every other measure, . . . his Majesty is pleased, in consideration thereof, and of the present situation of Affairs, when peace and unanimity and a good understanding between the Governor and his people are so absolutely necessary for the good of the service, to direct that you should not press the es¬ tablishment of a permanent revenue for the present, and to allow and permit you to assent to such temporary Bills as the Assembly shall, from time to time, frame and pass for the support of Govern¬ ment.219 This letter, however, could hardly have reached the Gov¬ ernor at the time of the above mentioned bargain.220 As soon as Hardy gave it out, six months later in the fall ses- 218 Assembly Journal, II, 490. Smith, op. cit., II, 280. Bill became law on April 1, 1756. 219 Lords of Trade to Governor Hardy, March 4, 1756, N. Y. Col. Doc., VII, 40. 220 The letter was written on March 4; the compromise was effected on April 1. Only by closest calculation could a packet of letters have been delivered in America in the interval. 356 ROYAL GOVERNORS sion of 1756, all friction ceased. Money and supply bills took shape and passed like magic. Salaries for the past and present years were immediately provided, with an increase for the Governor of £240. Altogether, about a dozen bills, mostly involving appropriations, were passed.221 In the other disputes that occurred in the Assembly during Governor Hardy’s time, he took no great part. They re¬ garded chiefly the New Jersey and Massachusetts boundary lines. At times the bitterness extended to actual bloodshed. On July 2, 1757, Hardy, more enamored of the art of war than of a Governor’s emoluments, left the province to Lieutenant-Governor Delancey, who remained in charge for about three years. This second administration of Delancey was practically without conflict.222 His sudden death placed the senior councillor, Cadwallader Colden, in command at the age of seventy -three. Colden’s administration, with short interruptions, lasted fifteen years, 1760-1775. His career in New York politics had been long and unsuccessful. Opposition to the pliant Delancey and zeal for the Crown interests, displayed with conscientious tactlessness for many years, had placed him among the most unpopular men in the colony. He became chief executive at the climax of a contest long waged by England, and which now, after nearly half a century, brought fruition to the hearts’ hope of the colonists, — the disappear¬ ance of New France.223 The consequent rejoicings may in part account for the tranquillity of Colden’s first few months. The succession of George III, and the feeling among bitter political enemies that an old man could be easily manipulated, 221 Assembly Journal, II, 500-522. 222 Smith, op. cit., II, 297. 223 Alice Mapelsden Keys, Cadwallader Colden, A Representative Eighteenth Century Official, p. 260. His commission as Lieutenant-Governor arrived on Aug. 7, 1761. Meantime, as senior councillor, the rule devolved upon him. Colden Letter Books, I, 103. NEW YORK 357 together with his approval of revenue and currency measures that he had once vigorously opposed, — these factors made the first session uneventful. It was noted, also, that his request for support was not accompanied by the usual insistence upon “duty to his Majesty,” an omission possibly planned by Golden as part of his policy to gain friends by courtesy and conciliation. This was almost necessary, because the election of 1759 had developed in the Assembly a division decidedly in favor of the popular party. Again at the next election, occasioned by the death of George II in 1761, the division had become even more marked. Colden’s first difficulties arose over military affairs. Pitt, in order to secure the territory recently ceded by France, desired each colony to supply at least two thirds of the quotas previously employed. It was only with great diffi¬ culty that Colden persuaded the Assembly so to provide; he was met with absolute refusal on the question of impress¬ ment as well as of lengthening the period of military service.224 In May of the following year, he reminded the Assembly that the quotas were not yet filled, imputing the delay to the recent reduction of the bounty, and suggesting in partial remedy the impressment of vagrants. The Assembly denied the influence of the bounty reduction, showing it, even though reduced, to be the highest in the colonies. It also denied the very fact of any unusual backwardness, and refused a law to impress vagrants, assuming that eventually a sufficient number would enlist. To test the assumption Colden ordered an adjournment of ten days. Although the House had just denied the existence of any unusual back¬ wardness in filling the quotas, it sent, at the next meeting, a private message to Colden explaining the delay as caused by fear of being ordered with the regulars to the West Indies. 224 Assembly Journal, II, 652, 658. Colden Letter Books, I, 75, 79, 184. These are printed in N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll, IX, X, of the Fund Publications, 1877. 358 ROYAL GOVERNORS As soon as Colden had removed this fear, the bounty was increased, and a law passed to fill the quotas.225 Trouble of a different nature arose upon discussion of the legality of acts passed after the death of George II, and before tidings had reached the colony. To remove all doubt the Assembly passed a law to legalize such acts. Colden vetoed the law on the ground that it violated his instructions, and was in itself both unnecessary and illogical. While the King’s death is absolutely unknown, it can produce no effect. ... It seems to me ... an absolute absurdity to say that a Man can be restrained in his Lawful acts by any thing . . . of which it is impossible to have any knowledge. ... It is establishing a kind of Law Popery & productive of similar consequences.226 Two later attempts to pass the bill were also defeated, and it was dropped altogether when the Assembly’s long struggle to enforce life tenure for judges likewise ended in failure.227 This latter struggle, now to be described, was among the most important of the conflicts during Colden’s administration. More than once the colony had insisted upon independence between courts and executive. For this, tenure of office during good behavior and not simply at the pleasure of the Crown or of the Governor was necessary. The only method of removal that would satisfy the Assembly was a sort of impeachment, a petition from the representatives, or the advice, with signatures, of seven Councillors. Colden, however, insisted upon removal dependent upon the royal pleasure, also upon fixed and permanent salaries for the 225 Assembly Journal, II, 700 ff. Colden Letter Books, I, 205. Keys, op. cit. p. 292. 226 Colden to Board of Trade, Letter Books, I, 89. 227 Assembly Journal, II, 665, 684, on Sept. 3, and Dec. 19, 1761. Cf. Smith, op. cit., II, 367 ff. NEW YORK 359 judges. Both points were refused by the Assembly, and he therefore vetoed the bill — a favorite one — for tenure during good behavior.228 Foreseeing that it would again be brought up, and antici¬ pating, because of its very popular nature, “great difficulties in the administration,” he wrote to Pitt hinting that he might soon be “put under a necessity to comply.” Mean¬ time, he planned a compromise, intimating that approval of the favorite bill would depend upon a grant of fixed and permanent salaries to the judges. The bill, however, as Colden again wrote, was introduced — . . . without making any provision for the Judges Salaries, tho’ they knew that the principal objection . . . was the want of such provision to have equal continuance with their Commissions.229 He therefore repeated the veto, and adjourned the Assembly after a session of only ten days. Bitterness was fast increasing, and he expected still further and much more unpleasant insistence on the popular bill. “The Assembly may insist to have this Bill pass’d and perhaps may make it a condition to the support of Government .” At that time all officers of the government were without salary. Colden accordingly requested from the King positive instructions on the matter.230 Early in this session also occurred an incident that threw considerable light on the relations between Colden and the Assembly. He had permitted certain strolling comedians to “set up a theatre,” whereupon a bill was passed forbidding any “Entertainment of the Stage in this Colony.” 231 228 Assembly Journal, II, 661. Colden Letter Books, I, 79, 88, 90, 104. Smith, op. cit., II, 3 52/f. Keys, op. cit., pp. 274j0\ Cf. Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section I. 229 Colden to Pitt, Aug. 11, 1761, Colden Letter Books, I, 105; also p. 120. 230 Colden Letter Books, I, 117. Assembly Journal, II, 663, 669. 231 Assembly Journal, II, 665. 360 ROYAL GOVERNORS Meantime, Robert Monckton, the newly appointed Gov¬ ernor, while awaiting his commission, had been living on Staten Island. There he had made many friends, had studiously avoided Colden, never once speaking in private to him, and had publicly intimated disapproval of Colden’s attitude toward the tenure of office bill. He was therefore, on the arrival of his commission shortly after this last session, greeted with much favor. In less than a month, however, he sailed away for the conquest of Martinique, when Colden again assumed command.232 Due to Monckton’s attitude the general resentment had increased. Nevertheless, the Lieutenant-Governor seemed anxious for the conflict. When the next session opened he took a pointed fling at both bench and bar. Justice, he de¬ clared, was being frustrated by delays and by the high fees; and he therefore suggested a legislative determination.233 Immediately the Assembly adverted to the amount of the fees charged by the Coldens themselves — the father, as Lieutenant-Governor, and the son, as Surveyor-General, for land grants; and they declared: We cannot help thinking a General Establishment of the Fees of all the Officers of the Government will put a stop to these, as well as to several other Complaints of the like nature.234 In reply, Colden expressed his willingness to co-operate in any beneficial legislation; but he maintained that the As¬ sembly was not the sole judge of the benefit, and declared 232 Smith, op. cit., II, 364. Keys, op. cit., pp. 278-280. Monckton’s commis¬ sion arrived Oct. 19, 1761. He sailed on November 14. He had been second in command under the brave Wolfe in Canada. No instructions accompanied his commission. Colden therefore made some demur at yielding the headship of the province. His action was greatly resented by both Monckton and the people. 233 Assembly Journal , II, 669. The same address recommended regulation of the fast increasing number of “ tippling houses.” 234 Assembly Journal, II, 672. NEW YORK 361 that he would eo-operate in nothing if the methods of obtain¬ ing benefits were — . . . inconsistent with the English Constitution; or if under Pre¬ tence of a Benefit a small dependent State may attempt to set Bounds to, and restrain the Rights and prerogative of the King of Great-Britain.235 Scarcely a week after this, the bill for tenure of office during good behavior again passed the House.236 Before the Council reported, Colden recommended for the chief justice an increase in salary, which had been unchanged since 1715. The purpose of the House in this struggle was to secure permanent tenure with temporary salary — thus at one stroke lessening the power of the Crown over the office of judges and increasing its own. To Colden the problem ap¬ peared in this wise: Inadequate salary would soon force the chief justice to resign; then, in order not to obstruct the courts of justice, he would be obliged to appoint a substi¬ tute, but on the Assembly’s condition of tenure during good behavior. Otherwise the salary would be withheld, and no one would accept the appointment.237 The struggle, however, took an unexpected turn. With the favorite bill still pending in the Council, the House with¬ held the support bill. About this time it seems that a new difficulty arose. Both House and Council were opposed to the newly appointed chief justice, Pratt. The Council was willing enough to pass the tenure of office bill, but feared that Colden would then seat the new and objectionable chief justice during good behavior, while leaving the other justices as they were. Therefore to the civil list, which pro- 235 Assembly Journal, II., p. 673. 236 Ibid., p. 679, Dec. 10, 1761. 237 Assembly Journal, II, 681, 683. Colden Letter Books , I, 149. Benjamin Pratt was the Crown appointee for chief justice. 362 ROYAL GOVERNORS vided the judges’ salaries, was attached a condition prevent¬ ing payment unless the judges should hold during good behavior. This was done on the supposition that Golden’s objection to the tenure rider would cause him to reject the whole bill. Instead, Colden actually implored the Council to give its assent to rider and all, thus obtaining for Pratt both life tenure and salary. Straightway the Assembly in its turn implored the Council not to assent. The Council rejected the bill, and “thus all parties were disgusted.” 238 This was the third and last unsuccessful attempt to secure life tenure for the judges. The situation was now disagreeable in the extreme. Pratt and all the justices were unsalaried. The former returned to Boston, and the others refused to act. Monckton publicly rebuked Colden for his stand. To heighten the dissatis¬ faction, it was known that Governor Hardy of New Jersey had yielded this very point. Colden soon after requested that the salary of the chief justice be paid from the quit- rents, and he wrote to the Board of Trade that the pressure was becoming so great as almost to justify his yielding. He was forbidden to do so, however, under pain of re¬ moval.239 Other troubles were occasioned by the inaccuracy of land grant boundaries, which had long caused disturbance in the colony, and had been an impediment to progress. Patentees and their assignees to the land were unwilling to risk im¬ provements where boundaries were uncertain. Hence, of the great tracts granted prior to 1708, much lay uncultivated. Because of the unending delay and the enormous expense of deciding boundary questions in the courts, the Assembly 238 Smith, op. cit., II, 367jf. 239 Colden Letter Books, I, 148-152. Smith, op. cit., II, 370. Keys, op. cit., pp. 285, 286. Colden could not but note that both Clinton and Delancey had broken the very article, the 39th, of the instructions, which insisted that judges hold office at the pleasure of the Crown. Clinton’s act had even received royal approval. Letter Books, I, 105. NEW YORK 363 passed a bill authorizing partition of the grants, and deter¬ mining the quit-rents. Both Houses were so determined upon this bill that Colden considered the rejection of it to be a “load too heavy for him to bear alone.” 240 Insisting, however, upon settlement in the courts, and the running of the lines by the Surveyor-General, he rejected the bill on Dec. 31, 1761. When asked for reasons, he declared his willingness to approve, provided certain amendments were made. After a four day adjournment for considera¬ tion and a continuation of altercations during four more, the House finally yielded to most of Colden’s suggestions; thereupon the bill passed. The lines were to be run by the government surveyor, though the result was not binding on any one, but intended rather to supply accurate informa¬ tion for future administrations.241 Soon after the close of this session, in January, 1762, there was received information reflecting discredit on Colden, and therefore rather pleasing to the hostile Assembly. It was learned from his own correspondence that his promotion to the lieutenant-governorship had come, not as a reward of merit, but as a result of his own intrigue. Colden’s goal in life had been a commission; but years — nearly half a century — had passed, and he was yet unhonored. Ap¬ parently in the hope of a return, he offered to John Pownal, who was clerk to the Board of Trade, and had the ear of the Earl of Halifax, the agency of the colony. The longed-for commission soon arrived. But trouble came for Colden when Pownal, in order to explain his own good intentions, forwarded to the old agent all of Colden’s letters, and the agent delivered them to the Assembly. The members gloried in his shame. It was then remembered that he had once, in private, suggested the appointment of a new agent, 240 Colden to the Board of Trade, Jan. 25, 1762, Colden Letter Books, I, 155. 241 Assembly Journal, II, 688. Colden Letter Books, pp. 155/. Smith, op. cit., pp. 368/. 364 ROYAL GOVERNORS though not by name, and had been laughed at for his te¬ merity. After much ado over the matter, the Assembly de¬ clared that no Governor would be permitted to interfere in the appointment of their agent.242 The return of General Monckton, June 12, 1762, from the conquest of Martinique, took Colden out of the public eye for about a year. After approving, without contro¬ versy, twenty-six acts in the session that opened on Nov. 16, 1762, Monckton, because of ill health, returned to England on June 28, 1763, thus leaving Colden again in charge. For nearly one and a half years there was compara¬ tive harmony. The House that met on Sept. 5, 1764, however, cherished grievances caused by the late restric¬ tions on trade and on paper money, and especially by rumors of parliamentary taxation through a system of stamps. Colden’s opening address was guardedly general, simply a congratulation on the defeat of the Indians by Sir William Johnson and a suggestion of bounty increase on hemp. The Assembly’s reply was a litany of its griev¬ ances. Although gratified by the King’s approval of their late conduct, they now dreaded — Falling into the abject state of being forever hereafter in¬ capable of doing what can merit either his Distinction or Ap¬ probation. Such must be the deplorable State of that wretched People, (being taxed by a Power subordinate to none, and in a great measure unacquainted with their Circumstances) can call Nothing their own. They hoped therefore that Colden would join them in an Endeavor to secure that great Badge of English Liberty, of being taxed only with our own consent . . . and also in pointing out to the Ministry, the many Mischiefs arising from the Act, com¬ monly called, the Sugar Act. . . . 242 Smith, op. cit., II, S70ff., 390. Colden Letter Books, I, 38, 82, 84, 107. Keys, op. cit., p. 286. NEW YORK 365 Colden replied that the material parts of this address ought properly to be made to the King, adding, however, that he would not prevent whatever representation of the state of the colony they might think best. But the three very powerful addresses which the Assembly then drew up for the King, Lords, and Commons he refused to sign, thus reviving the old bitterness.243 Soon after this came the Stamp Act, the riots, the Stamp Act Congress, the attack on the fort in New York City, the burning in effigy of the stamp collector and of Colden himself, the destruction of some of his property, and even rumors that he was to be hanged by the mob. Resentment against him still further increased when, according to the yearly requirement for all royal Governors, he renewed his oath of office. This oath, with its promise to enforce the laws, meant to the Assembly and to the people the promise to enforce the Stamp Act. Lawyers had argued that because in that year a specific law for the renewal had not been sent over, Colden was not bound by the oath. But when, after waiting in expectation of the new Governor, Sir Henry Moore, until the very last day allowed for the oath,244 Colden took it, indignation was rampant. Immediately, in the Merchant’s Coffee House and in other public places, placards appeared accusing Colden of having “bound himself by an Oath to be the chief Murderer of the Rights and Privileges of the People; . . . an Enemy of the King, his Country and Mankind.” 245 In November, 1764, Colden yielded to the mob’s demand that the stamps be transferred from royal to municipal officials. This done, there was peace, and New York then began to develop into the most loyal of all the provinces. 243 These three addresses are in Assembly Journal, II, 769-779. 244 The oath had to be taken before the end of the last day in each October. 245 Colden Letter Books, II, 460. 366 ROYAL GOVERNORS Sir Henry Moore arrived on Nov. 18, 1764, when Golden once more retired to private life.246 Moore courted the popular party, avoided Colden, wore homespun, the badge of the Sons of Liberty, and had a quiet session with the Assembly that met on Nov. 12, 1765. The troubles of the Lieutenant-Governor, however, were not yet ended. A letter signed “Freedom” and purporting to be from the Sons of Liberty, was mysteriously delivered to the Assembly. It demanded that from Colden’s salary, money should be deducted for repairing the fort and unspiking the guns that Colden, during the riots, had caused to be spiked. Although the letter was condemned by the House as “Libellous, Scandalous and Seditious,” Col¬ den received no salary at all, and hostility against him deepened.247 Further difficulty arose over the question of appealing from a verdict by jury to the Governor and Council. During the late recess Colden had offended nearly the whole prov¬ ince by insisting on the lawfulness of such appeal. So great was the opposition that the representatives subsequently embodied this grievance in their threefold remonstrance to the King, Lords, and Commons. Three days later, in a set of nine resolutions, the House declared such appeals to be illegal, a menace to the rights, lives, liberty, and property of citizens, and tending to “promote Perjury, prevent Justice, subject the People to arbitrary Power, and ruin the Colony.” Colden was then mentioned by name and accused of aiming to destroy the “Security. . . Peace. . . Repose, and even the sense of civic duty among the inhabitants! ” 248 246 Sources for this paragraph, and for preceding: Assembly Journal , II, 719, 746, 749, 752, 769-779. Colden Letter Books, I, 262-290; II, 63, 68-78. Smith, op. cit., II, 375. Keys, op. cit., pp. 296/., 316-325. Wilson, op. tit., II, 328. 247 Assembly Journal, II, 781, 787. Keys, op. tit., 327. 248 Ibid., pp. 795, 797, Dec. 11, p. 806; Dec. 14, 1765; cf. also Keys, op. tit., PP* 327/. NEW YORK 367 These proceedings brought from Colden a refutation,249 which gives an account of his position on the three most troublesome affairs of his administration, — the tenure of judges’ commissions, appeals from jury verdicts, and the Stamp Act regulations. Following the Stamp Act riots, the Crown had ordered compensation to all who had suffered damages in conse¬ quence. Governor Moore, to whom Colden, in June, 1766, had presented his bill for losses, requesting him to urge upon the House a settlement, refused even to mention the subject until some three years later. The House itself, to which Colden had also presented the bill of £400 for salary and £195 for his burned chariot, refused reimbursement on the grounds that he had brought his losses upon himself.250 Copies of Colden’s refutation, The Conduct of Cadwallader Colden , which he had published in New York, came without his knowledge to the colony, and caused considerable dis¬ turbance. Although every statement in this vindication was probable by the records, it was nevertheless pronounced by a grand jury to be a reflection upon the whole govern¬ ment and law of the province. Even the Assembly, on Dec. 22, 1767, took it under consideration, and after violent censure appointed a committee to refute the charges, to investigate the authorship, and to determine penalties cal¬ culated to deter from like offenses in the future. Unable to discover the author, the House finally arraigned the pam¬ phlet as highly reflecting 44 upon the honor, justice and dig¬ nity” of legislature and judiciary, and containing “most malignant aspersions” upon the body politic. There was even an insinuation of treason, with a request to the Gov¬ ernor to prosecute 44 so great an offender” whenever he should be discovered.261 249 The Conduct of Cadwallader Colden, Esquire, Late Lieutenant-Governor of New York, in Colden Letter Books, II, 433-467. 260 Colden Letter Books, II, 109, 110-117, 122/., 149-153. Keys, op. cit., pp. 332/. 261 Assembly Journal, 1767-1776, Book I, 91, Feb. 6, 1768. 368 ROYAL GOVERNORS When a Governor who is charged with nothing but obedience to King’s instructions and submission to an act of Parliament, cannot defend himself against the malice & resentment of Men who openly deny the authority of parliament and submission to the mother Country, and he be not effectually supported and protected, what officer of the Crown will dare to perform his duty? I am the only Governor in America who suffered from the frenzy of the deluded Mobs in 1765, and I am the only person in this Province to whom ample reparation has not been made.252 A few days previous to the close of the investigation of his Conduct , he also wrote: A modest defence of their Governor in the performance of his duty is arraigned by the Supreme Court, and by the Council & Assembly. . . . They can take no other method with any hope of success & they are incouraged in it by the Success it has formerly had even with a Ministry and a British Parliament.253 The results of these investigations, however, were eventu¬ ally in Golden’s favor, much to the chagrin and loss of popularity of the investigators. The prosecution convinced the people of the malice of the prosecutors, after the Pamphlet had freed them from prejudices which had been entertained against me by artfull misrepresenta¬ tion of my Conduct.254 By operation of the Septennial Act in 1768, a new Assem¬ bly met on October 27. The election showed at once sur¬ prising defeat for the Whigs and considerable reaction in Golden’s favor. His Conduct was now eagerly bought.255 From Westchester, his own grandson was sent to the Assem¬ bly. The session itself was peaceful enough until news 252 Golden to Board of Trade, Nov. 23, 1767, Colden Letter Books, II, 141. 253 Colden to Lord Mansfield, Jan. 22, 1768, ibid., p. 149. 254 Colden to - , June 16, 1768. 265 Keys, op. cit., pp. 33 5jf. NEW YORK 369 came of Parliament’s suspension of all legislatures that had countenanced the non-importation agreements. This order brought from the representatives the indignant resolve that they possessed “exact equality of constitutional rights” with all other subjects of Great Britain; that taxation without their own consent was “inconsistent” with those rights; and that the authority of the colony’s “internal legislature” could not “lawfully or constitutionally be suspended, abridged, abrogated, or annulled by any power, authority or prerogative whatsoever — with the one excep¬ tion of the Crown’s power to prorogue and dissolve.” Then followed a declaration of their right to “correspond and consult” with any colony or individual they chose, and “on any matter, subject or thing whatsoever” in con¬ nection with their welfare. A Committee of Correspondence was immediately constituted.256 Governor Moore thereupon summoned the members, declaring his sanguine expectations destroyed, and making particular reference to “the extraordinary nature of certain resolves . . . with an apparent tendency to give offense.” Promising in his reports to place the best possible construc¬ tion on these proceedings, he declared it his duty to dis¬ solve the Assembly.257 The new election was exciting. Only six or seven Whigs were returned. During the session Moore made the sig¬ nificant suggestion that in future the Governor and Coun¬ cil take part in appointing the colony agent. Point-blank the suggestion was refused, with a declaration that it was “replete with difficulties and dangers” hardly “proper to be enumerated in an address . . . sacrificing the rights and diminishing the liberties of our constituents.” 258 Meanwhile, fostered by the radicals, agitation against 266 Assembly Journal, 1767-1776, Book II, 70ff. 257 Ibid., p. 75f. Dissolved Jan. 2, 1769. 258 Ibid,, Book III, 20, April 8, 1769. 370 ROYAL GOVERNORS England was on the increase. The following statement, fully six years before actual revolution, appeared in a weekly organ, The American Whig: This country will shortly become a great and flourishing empire, independent of Great Britain; Enjoying its civil and religious liberty uncontaminated and deserted of all control from Bishops, the cause of curses, and from the subjection of all earthly Kings; the corner-stone of this government is already laid, the materials are preparing, and before six years roll about, the great, the noble, the stupendous future will be erected.259 On Sept. 4, 1769, Governor Moore died. Colden once more took command. The Council, all but William Smith, a bitter opponent of the Governor, was conservative. The Assembly was about evenly divided in sentiment. Meantime, the colonies had been wrought up over the various import taxes and the quartering act. In return for Colden’s approval of a paper money bill, the New York Assembly consented by a majority of one vote to provide for the regulars.260 As a result of this compliance with the quartering act, accusations of disloyalty to the colony were soon insinuated against the House.261 At that time, in order to win adherents to the conservative view, Colden was becoming more conciliatory.262 A new Governor, John, Earl of Dunmore, arrived on Oct. 8, 1770. Colden’s retirement on this occasion was ac¬ companied by a series of congratulatory addresses. Dun- more, after the unsatisfactory outcome of his contest for 259 Quoted in Keys, op. cit., p. 340. 26° Keys, op. cit., p. 343. Colden’s approval was urged by his fears, in the event of refusal, for the support bill and his salary. He knew also that in England the paper money bill would be disallowed. 261 Cf. pamphlet: To the Betrayed Inhabitants of the City and Colony of New York, supposedly betrayed by the Assembly’s compliance. Text is in Jones, History of New York during the Revolution, Appendix, pp. 420jf. 262 Keys, op. cit., pp. 342-348. NEW YORK 371 half of C olden’s salary, decided, when the opportunity offered in 1771, to exchange places with Governor William Tryon of Virginia.263 During Tryon’s two years, there were three sessions of approximately three months each, all, even in those stirring years from 1772 to 1774, passing without serious conflict.264 It is noteworthy that in the first session supplies were granted for quartering British regulars. But the Governor, not satisfied, declared them insufficient. The consequent vote for an increase resulted in a tie, which was decided by the speaker in its favor. Two years later the speaker again decided to the Governor’s advantage a tie vote on the ques¬ tion of granting him compensation for the loss of his house by fire. The Assembly refused, however, to rebuild the house, possibly in objection to reconstruction of this constant reminder of royalty.265 Governor Tryon’s experiences outside the Assembly were, owing chiefly to the tea disturbances, rather unpleasant. The Sons of Liberty had conducted public demonstrations against him. Nevertheless, his departure for England on April 7, 1774, was accompanied by favorable demonstra¬ tions by all elements. During his absence Colden once more took office, this time to complete the last term of the last royal Governor of the province of New York.266 Even at this critical period, the end of 1774, New York was among the least radical of the colonies. In the session 263 Keys, op. cit., pp. 349, 351 ff. Colden had been ordered to surrender to Dun- more one half of the salary paid him in the office of executive between the date of Dunmore’s commission and his arrival. Sentiment as well as a pronouncement of the Supreme Court was in favor of Colden, and Dunmore was glad to get away. From this time on the executive’s salary was paid by the King. Assembly Journal , 1767-1776, V, 49. 264 Sessions: Jan. 7 to March 24, 1772; Jan. 5 to March 8, 1773; Jan. 6 to March 19, 1774. Cf. Assembly Journal , 1767-1776 under these dates. 265 Assembly Journal , 1767-1776, VI, 83, 88. Wilson, op. cit., II, 423, 431. 266 Ibid., pp. 428, 431. 372 ROYAL GOVERNORS beginning Jan. 10, 1775, the Assembly, which was pre¬ dominantly conservative, made an address of loyalty to Great Britain and to the King. In spite of the favorable action taken by all the other colonies, it refused to approve the proceedings of the Congress at Philadelphia.267 The im¬ portant business of the session regarded relations with Eng¬ land. But with both Governor and House loyal in senti¬ ment, there was no occasion for conflict. The battle of Lexington took place on April 19, 1775. When the tidings reached New York, the government was seized by the committee that had been deputed, in spite of the loyalist Assembly, to attend the Second Continental Congress. Resolutions were also adopted declaring emanci¬ pation from parliamentary authority and union with the other colonies. Colden became a mere spectator. New York had ceased to be a British Colony.268 Cadwallader Colden, like so many other royal Governors, was personally a man of admirable qualities. His chief political failing was the rejection of any consistent plan of conciliation or of adaptation to changing circumstances. In his opinion diplomacy was not tact, but weakness. During the period previous to the fall of Walpole, when the policy had been, in effect, at least, to let the colonies work out their problems practically unmolested, Colden attempted, in his rigid devotion to old forms, to be almost more English than the English themselves. His career in politics had covered half a century. When, therefore, he came into power the political philosophy of his training days had considerably changed, a fact that probably explains the deep resentment consequent upon his efforts to restrain the new and more independent theories of liberty with the shackles of an obsolete tradition. In politics Colden had little ability. In that field — 267 Keys, op. cit., pp. 358jf. 268 Keys, op. cit., pp. 361jf. NEW YORK 373 His sympathy, his plasticity, his humanity even, dropped from him and he became a martinet, an intolerant theorist, an implacable stickler for the letter of the law, while tact and com¬ mon sense became qualities to him unknown. From his stand¬ point, the freeborn colonists about him, many of them of foreign blood, and many more without even a childish memory of English traditions of class and rank were to be dealt with not as thinking human beings, but rather as mere animated puppets. ... If they rebelled at the word of command, force must be applied. It was absurd that they should presume even to argue, and that they should have any consideration, was preposterous.269 Tory that Colden undoubtedly was, there can hardly be traced to his actions or to his influence any part in occasion¬ ing or in hastening the rebellion of 1775. 269 Keys, op. cit., pp. 3 65jf. CHAPTER VI NEW JERSEY In 1702, when the Quaker proprietors surrendered to the Crown their rights of government in New Jersey, the colony became a royal province under the joint rule of the Gov¬ ernor of New York. Edward Hyde, Lord Cornbury, was the first royal Governor. For both provinces the choice of such a man was unfortunate. His character has already been described in the treatment of his relations with the New York Assembly. It has been said that much of New Jersey’s hostility to royal Governors is traceable to the aversion engendered during the administration of the very first one, a “typical black-sheep of an illustrious house.” In general the extent of controversy between Governors and Assemblies in New Jersey depended upon the character and ability of the Governors themselves. Men like Hunter and Burnet could rule with a measure of smoothness, while the Cornbury and Cosby type aroused bitter antagonism. Cornbury’s career in New Jersey as well as in New York was a continual struggle.1 The support of government was the first point of conflict. Cornbury practically inaugurated the struggle himself. His opening address at Perth Amboy, in November, 1703, recom¬ mended provision for proper support. As the Assembly was chiefly proprietary in character, the members naturally turned first to the consideration of bills that confirmed their rights to lands.2 This, in the light of Cornbury’s attitude 1 Edwin P. Tanner, The Province of New Jersey, 1361^-1738, pp. 140/. 2 Confirmation of the proprietors in these rights was part of the Crown agree¬ ment at the time of their surrender of governmental powers. Cornbury’s instruc¬ tions also directed that laws required for this purpose should be sponsored by him. Sequel will show direct violation of these instructions. Cf. Tanner, op. cit., pp. 378/. NEW JERSEY 375 regarding government support, which to him implied emolu¬ ments for himself, could not but be displeasing. At length the House did turn to the support bill, but made provision for one year only, granting, in Cornbury’s estimation, the too meagre sum of £1,000, with £300 for additional expenses. Interesting developments immediately ensued. The pro¬ prietors, in order to insure the new Governor’s interest on their side, had presented to him a “gift” of two hundred pounds. But when the proprietary majority in the House would grant no more than the support just mentioned, their “gift” began to lose effect, and Cornbury’s venal allegiance swung, in hope of better advantage, to the anti-proprietary and popular party. Circumstantial evidence shows that the Governor soon had an understanding with the latter, or “English Proprietors.” The arrangement was that this party should at the next election see to it that men were chosen who would “effectually answer all the ends of Gov¬ ernment,” i.e ., increase the support bill appropriation, inci¬ dentally enlarging the Governor’s share in the spoils. The anti-proprietary party also raised, as their “gift” to Corn- bury, a subscription amounting to £1,500. This was done by what was termed a “Blind Tax,” taken chiefly from among people in East Jersey who were largely opposed to the West Jersey, and, in particular, to the Elizabethtown, Perth Amboy and Quaker group. This “Blind Tax” inci¬ dent later gave rise to serious trouble for Cornbury. The Governor’s price for all this was opposition to the enforce¬ ment of the proprietor’s rights.3 With these points in mind, proceedings between Governor and Assembly can be better understood. At the end of its first session he had refused to approve any of the bills passed in favor of the proprietors, and angrily prorogued the legis¬ lature until the following September.4 3 Tanner, op. cit., pp. 172, 379, 504. 4 Tanner, op. cit., pp. 171, 379, 380, 381, 502. 376 ROYAL GOVERNORS At the next session Cornbury again urged sufficient sup¬ port for the government, and also promised confirmation of the proprietary rights. His late rejection of these was ex¬ plained by a declaration that the bills prepared in this re¬ gard were inadequate to the purpose. The House soon drew up new bills, similar to the first, except that there were separate measures for East Jersey and West Jersey. Action on the support bill, however, was slow. Apparently the proprietors were making its fate depend upon the outcome of their own bills. Cornbury fretted under the delay; and because he had to attend, at the beginning of the following month, the opening of the New York Assembly, he became more and more incensed. Finally the new revenue bill passed, granting £1,500 for one year, and £1,000 yearly for the next two. Cornbury angrily expressed his disappoint¬ ment, dissolved the Assembly, and declared that they had failed both Queen and country. That they had failed him, however, he did not say in so many words; but he at once abandoned the proprietary party, and went over to the anti¬ proprietary, the then popular side. All this implies direct and flagrant violation of his instructions, which commanded him both to keep aloof from parties and to secure confirma¬ tion of the proprietary claims. With Cornbury, however, duty and other interests were always correlated with self- interest, usually on a pecuniary bias. His next step was sus¬ pension, removal, or enforced resignation of proprietary leaders and of their supporters who were office holders. The greatest effect of these sudden shif tings was felt in the courts of justice, of which many ceased to deserve the name. A new election, however, though it had been tampered with, gave the proprietors a majority of two in the House. Cornbury’s party immediately proceeded to remedy this difficulty and for a time succeeded, by disputing the election of three of the proprietary members. Pending a decision, the three members were excluded. Cornbury then prorogued NEW JERSEY 377 the session in time to prevent a judgment, thus giving his party a majority of one. This was a case of barefaced viola¬ tion of the rights of representation, and at a later period became a source of serious trouble.5 The prorogation lasted from Dec. 12, 1704, to May, 1705. In the House, during the intervening five months, hostility to Cornbury had apparently increased, for when the May session was to open in Burlington, the West Jersey (proprietary) members did not appear, with the exception of the residents of Burlington itself. This turn of affairs caused much uneasiness. Finally the East Jersey, or anti-proprie¬ tary members, who had already arrived, received Cornbury’s consent to their petition to return home. The next meeting was held seven months later, in Decem¬ ber, 1705. On that occasion the West Jersey members came, though very late. Immediately the question of the three virtually excluded members was introduced. Because a majority in the House was then opposed to the Governor, a vote to admit them was easily passed; therefore, after some further altercation, they were finally admitted.6 Thus the proprietary party was again in control, though not in sufficient time to prevent the support bill passed by the opposing pro-Cornbury party in the early part of the session. That measure had increased the revenue from £1,500 to £2,000, granting it for two years. The heaviest v burden in raising this money was arranged to fall upon the proprietors. Later the bill was disallowed by the home government, which determined that the previous grant of £1,500 for first year and £1,000 for succeeding ones was ample. It directed, also, that the grant be extended to a twenty-one year period. The next Assembly was informed 5 Cf. Tanner, op. cit., pp. 173-176, 381 ff, 502. 6 Tanner, op. cit., pp. 383 ff. Cornbury, in his report to the Board of Trade, Feb. 17, 1705, made no mention of this disgraceful affair. The home officials learned of it from other sources; the Governor was advised not to meddle in such matters. 378 ROYAL GOVERNORS of all this by Lord Cornbury, but refused to grant him another penny.7 This victory of the Assembly regarding the three members made Cornbury’s position even less enviable. Respect for his authority was gone. Sarcastically they replied to his opening address in the next session, October, 1705, by thanking him for “permitting them opportunity to prepare laws;” and immediately Cornbury’s Nemesis again ap¬ peared, i.e., the bills confirming proprietary rights. On the government charges incurred previous to the settlement of the revenue, and now recommended by the Governor, no action was taken, apparently pending the fate of the pro¬ prietary measures. Perceiving no hope of harmony, Corn¬ bury, with another vehement denunciation, adjourned the Assembly until the following spring. It was a year later, however, in October, 1706, at Amboy, before they convened. For nearly a month no quorum appeared. Cornbury, in disgust, adjourned the House from day to day and finally prorogued them until the following spring, dissolving them soon after. The dissolution, however, brought no remedy for the Governor’s troubles, for the new election resulted in a ma¬ jority overwhelmingly in favor of the proprietary party. Lewis Morris, leader of the proprietary interests, was a mem¬ ber; and Jennings, the West Jersey Quaker, whom Cornbury had recently forced to resign from the Council, was chosen speaker, — events which did not augur well for harmony.8 But Cornbury’s opening address was amiable enough. He recommended provision for the expired government support, and he announced also the instructions above referred to, permitting acceptance of £1,500 instead of £2,000, but by a grant covering a period of twenty-one years. He also went through the form of recommending a bill for confirmation of the proprietors’ and inhabitants’ land claims. 7 Tanner, op. cil., pp. 285, 386, 503, 504. 8 Tanner, op. cit., pp. 387 ff. NEW JERSEY 379 The House, on its part, immediately advanced to the attack by appointing a committee of grievances. They then declared their right to name their own clerk, instead of ac¬ cepting the present one, a partisan of Cornbury. The Governor met this attack by interfering with the proposed new appointment, and accusing the House of unprecedented irregularities. Thus to appoint a member to the position would be to deprive him of the privilege of debate and suffrage. Nevertheless, the House after consideration ordered the Governor’s appointee to withdraw, who, ap¬ pealing to his oath, refused. Morris then reported him as having declared that he was sworn to discover in the House debates that were dangerous to the government. This was deemed a misdemeanor and a scandalous reflection upon the House; and Cornbury was requested to remove his clerk, which he finally did, but appointed another in his stead. This strategy rather disappointed the Assembly’s desire for their own clerk, and, on the ground that every committee was entitled to its clerk, they formed a committee of the whole, and chose a clerk of the House acting in that capacity. Thus was scored another victory. Thus far troubles with Governor Cornbury had been chiefly negative, that is, by way of disagreement with his favorite measures. The House now adopted a policy of aggression. Investigation of the “Blind Tax” was begun. This inquiry amounted to a virtual arraignment of the chief executive, a step rather daring in itself, but not in the cir¬ cumstances, for Cornbury ’s power both in the colony and at home was declining. One of the most prominent of the tax collectors, who was also a member of the House, was the first attacked, and a committee appointed to examine the amount of money collected by him. The collector refused to take oath, was voted in contempt, and given in custody to the sergeant-at-arms, an official acquired just previous 380 ROYAL GOVERNORS to the investigation and by special request of the Governor. The collector was later expelled from the House.9 Other grievances against Cornbury were also considered. Altogether, the case against him was deemed sufficient to warrant an address to the Queen, in which were men¬ tioned the “ Blind Tax” episode and the exclusion of three members from the House. On May 8, 1707, the Assembly sent to the Governor himself a remonstrance, a document which historians have declared to be in many respects remarkable. The follow¬ ing grievances were mentioned: Too great attention by the executive to New York affairs, to the detriment of New Jersey interests; interference with judicial decisions; the demand of fees from innocent persons in spite of acquittal; the existence of only one office in the province for the pro¬ bate of wills; the Governor’s grant of a trade monopoly on the road from Amboy to Burlington, and the direct violation of Magna Charta by arbitrary establishment of fees; interference with the rights of proprietors and in¬ habitants; the exclusion of the three members, and the “Blind Tax.” Practically all these abuses were of the kind readily associated with receipt of “graft.” Considering Cornbury ’s greed and his need of money, a de facto association may be almost safely inferred. The Governor made a lengthy reply to the remonstrance. For justification on many of the heads, he appealed to his instructions and to the powers of his office. Complicity in the “Blind Tax” he absolutely denied; and he aimed a counter-attack against the House, by emphasizing the irregularity of their procedure, and in general their failure to serve Queen and country.10 Meanwhile, pending remedy for its own grievances, the House had continually ignored the Governor’s recommenda- 9 Tanner, op. cit., p. 390. 10 Tanner, op. cit., pp. 391jf. NEW JERSEY 381 tion for legislation. In May, 1707, support for the govern¬ ment was again refused. In fact, from the trend of proceed¬ ings the House seemed delighted with an excuse to do so. On May first there had been requested from the Council the accounts of the receiver-general covering the preceding two years. Lacking a quorum, the Council took no action. The House therefore refused to consider any measure for support. This attitude immediately brought forth the desired accounts. The Assembly then asked to inspect the vouchers of the receiver-general, which the latter, without the Governor’s consent, could not allow; and without per¬ mit Cornbury was himself unwilling to consent, declaring that in submitting the accounts he had already done more than was usual. The members then turned to a considera¬ tion of the old bills that were so obnoxious to the Governor, i.e., in connection with confirmation of the proprietors’ claims and with determining fees of the representatives and the qualifications of jurymen. Prorogation until October soon followed. When the next session opened, it must have convinced Governor Cornbury of the hopelessness of expecting any co-operation from the Assembly. The latter resolved to refuse support until grievances were redressed, making the salary grant of £1,500 for one year only, and not, as Corn- bury’s instructions directed, for twenty-one years. In the mean time the Assembly had prepared a reply to the Governor’s answer to their remonstrance. Upon being asked when he would be ready to receive it, he practically refused to receive it at all. It was entered, however, on the Journal and was a popular manifesto, rather than a docu¬ ment addressed to the Governor. Another wave of trouble came when the House, desiring to revise the laws of the province, was refused copies of the same, pending the Governor’s consent to deliver them. Then, perhaps ironically, it turned to the consideration 382 ROYAL GOVERNORS of a publication entitled Forget and Forgive. Cornbury ended the session before further action on the laws could be taken.11 Affairs had come to such a pass that during the recess both parties sent to the Queen addresses of complaint. After the next meeting, on May 5, 1708, the deadlock continued. Again the opening address urged provision for support of the government during twenty-one years, also a revival of an old unpopular militia act. The As¬ sembly’s reply was simply a reminder that their grievances were still unredressed. In the mean time, moreover, new grievances had arisen to increase the hostility and strengthen the deadlock. Judicial prosecutions and convictions were being made upon informations alone, a process which made a mockery of the old constitutional grand jury tradition, and incidentally enriched the attorney-general at the expense of the country. What juries and witnesses there were, had to be brought over great distances to Burlington and Am¬ boy. This also was a cause of inconvenience, of expense, and of dissatisfaction. Lawyers inclined to defend persons accused on information feared suspension for so doing. As a consequence, the House remained firm in its resolu¬ tion to provide no support until grievances were redressed. Again it refused to make the salary grant for a period of twenty-one years or to revive the old militia act, prom¬ ising, however, that in case of necessity defense would be arranged. In a word, the House would grant nothing except upon its own terms. Cornbury therefore prorogued them. Before the next session he had been removed from office.12 The experience of New Jersey with its first royal Governor was unfortunate. It developed an attitude of hostility to royal appointees, and laid the foundation of trouble for his 11 Tanner, op. cit., pp. 394jf. 12 Session was prorogued until September, 1708. Cf. Tanner, op. cit., p. 396/f. NEW JERSEY 383 successors. The people felt, not only that nothing was to be gained from the Governor, but that unless extreme vigilance were exercised in protecting their rights, there was much to be lost. Consequently relations in New Jersey between Governor and House came to depend largely upon the per¬ sonality and policy of that official himself. Lord Cornbury had planted deeply the seeds of distrust. When the new Governor, “the good Lord Lovelace,” arrived, the House expressed to the Queen its opinion of Cornbury, by thanking her for “putting an end to the worst administration New Jersey ever knew.” Lovelace had a short but harmonious rule of one year. Bills refused under Cornbury were quickly passed, providing* an increased appropriation for support of the government, and reviving, though with penalties less severe, the old militia act.13 The first two Governors of New Jersey were noblemen. The third was not. Perhaps in the interval preceding the third appointment, the ministry had become persuaded, through Cornbury’s reports, that the governorship was a', post not so enviable or lucrative as might have been expected. On the death of Lovelace, Lieutenant-Governor In- goldsby took command. From the very first there was evident distrust of him in the House, and he met opposition almost as violent as that against Cornbury. Even his right to govern was questioned, and a copy of his commission demanded. His own policy, also, was to frustrate the meas¬ ures favored by the House. He worked, however, chiefly through the Council, which was anti-proprietary and pro- Cornbury in tone. As a result, the continual controversy that marked his administration was usually between the Upper and the Lower House. Ingoldsby’s most important direct conflict with the repre¬ sentatives arose in connection with the colony’s quota for 13 Quoted by Tanner, op. cit., pp. 398, 399. 384 ROYAL GOVERNORS the expedition against Canada. In the circumstances, he had an advantage over the House, in that he could stigma¬ tize any opposition as lack of patriotism. The trouble began when the House, in consideration of the Quaker element in the colony, determined to raise the quota of 200 men by Voluntary enlistment. To this, Ingoldsby, who was ever hostile to the Quakers, strongly objected, later using it in his intrigues to have the Quakers removed from all offices. But the House refused to pass the bill except on its own t, conditions, and the quota was thus finally completed. Before the arrival of the next Governor, Robert Hunter, Ingoldsby had left the province. The new Governor undoubtedly ranked among the best of all royal appointees, and has been classed as the ablest statesman in the executive history of New Jersey. With the House in so hostile an attitude, the choice of Robert Hunter was fortunate. In his term of over ten years, 1709- 1721, he practically succeeded in avoiding all controversy. The distasteful role usually taken by the unpopular Gov¬ ernor was in Hunter’s time played by the Council. Between that body and the Assembly there was continual conflict.14 With the Governor, however, there was extraordinary and almost continuous harmony and even sympathy. Only once did controversy threaten, when in 1716 the opposing party managed to secure a majority in the House. Hunter’s shrewdness, however, in the end prevailed. By well-timed prorogations he prevented development of open conflict; and on May 14, 1716, the day appointed for meeting, when the opposition thought to thwart him by not appearing, he managed to gather a quorum containing a majority of his own party and caused the election of a new speaker. Thus the House was once more in harmony, and Hunter kept it 14 Tanner, op. cit., pp. 142#“., 401#“., gives character sketch and some out¬ line of important incidents in Ingoldsby’s administration. See pp. 405-409, 412. NEW JERSEY 385 in existence during the remaining five years of his admin¬ istration. In the many disputes between House and Council, the new Governor managed to keep in the background. The support bill in his time was regularly passed and with no serious delays. His work speaks for itself. Departments which he had found in bitter conflict, he left co-operating to good purpose. If his policy of conciliation was too pro¬ nounced — at the expense of some of his authority — and the means he employed against some of his opponents were not too scrupulous, nevertheless, he obtained from the House more than almost any other Governor, and did service to England and to all royal Governors by breaking down the ill repute which had begun to gather about them.15 He was succeeded by William Burnet, 1721-1728. The first year or so of Governor Burnet’s term was par¬ ticularly stormy; the remainder, comparatively calm. Con¬ flict came in his very first relations with the Assembly, when, following Hunter’s example, he desired to continue the same body still longer in existence. The prevailing opinion, however, maintained that the appointment of a new Governor connoted a new election. Burnet’s action was later approved by the Board of Trade; but the members, though they convened at Burlington, refused to regard themselves as a legal body. The Governor interpreted this attitude as a ruse to defeat his administration. Ac¬ cording to Professor Tanner, the real cause of the trouble lay in the fact that Burnet had antagonized many of the powerful proprietary interests. The Assembly had become accustomed to the careful, conciliatory policy of Hunter, while Burnet’s positive stand could not fail to arouse opposition.16 15 Tanner, op. cit., pp. 423jf., 433 ff. 16 Later on, after inspecting the letter from the Board of Trade, they did acknowl¬ edge the Governor’s right and the legality of the continued Assembly. Ibid., p. 439. 386 ROYAL GOVERNORS The Assembly met, however, in Feb. 28, 1721. Burnet in his formal opening address hoped that this final meeting denoted a change for the better in the former undutiful and hostile attitude. He made also a plea for harmony, mentioning the favorable reports of Hunter. The need of a more liberal support bill was next referred to, and for a period became the bone of contention. By his irritating procedure of adjourning the Assembly from day to day for twenty days, Burnet increased the opposition. His motive was to compel the House to reflect upon its unruly conduct. Finally, when business began, the support bill was drawn up for two years only, while an increase in the amount was refused. Burnet, however, declined to approve, because his instructions called for a grant covering an unlimited period. A five-year grant was the smallest he could accept. The Council therefore so amended the bill, but the House protested; and following the general colonial tradition, it not only rejected the amendment, but repudiated the Council’s right even to attempt an amend¬ ment on a money bill. The Governor stormed; the gov¬ ernment was left without support. There was also a controversy regarding the qualifications of members and the form of swearing in new ones. The provincial acts prescribed as a property qualification £500 proclamation money; Burnet’s instructions prescribed £500 sterling. On this ground the Governor declared the provin¬ cial acts void. The Assembly, however, maintained that only disallowance by the King could nullify the provincial acts. Burnet made a fiery speech on the subject, but the situation remained eventually unchanged. Regarding the swearing in of two members, newly elected to replace two who had lacked proper qualifications, there was also dis- The Amboy group had sought against the East Jersey group an act so incor¬ porating the latter as to place the real power in the hands of the former. Burnet refused to co-operate. Tanner, p. 435. NEW JERSEY 387 agreement. The House desired Burnet to send down the clerk with the usual oaths, so that the new members might be sworn; but the Governor believed that the original two had been dismissed chiefly because of a too favorable atti¬ tude toward himself. Therefore he insisted upon the old practice of always swearing in new members before the Governor. Although the House immediately cited numerous exceptions, Burnet held his ground. The records do not show that either side obtained any satisfaction in this controversy. Military concerns also caused difficulty. The House declined in this regard to follow the Governor’s instructions. In this first session the source of much of Burnet’s difficulty was his lack of tact. On many occasions his remarks were made personally to certain of the members. His com¬ munications were scoldings rather than addresses, while his obvious assumption of superior knowledge and experience could not but arouse antagonism. This was aggravated by his attempt to class the representatives in the category of men who meant well enough, but who were deceived by clever rascals of the type that led the opposition.17 This pseudo-charitable attitude later developed into one of positive accusation, causing deep resentment in the House. In a set of resolutions prepared early in the session, the members denied that they had been so misled, and declared that their immediate provision for support of the govern¬ ment was a vindication of Hunter’s good reports. Later on they complained directly of the Governor’s abuse of power in adjourning the House for twenty consecutive days, thus greatly increasing also the financial burden of the province. By the controversy over the qualification of members they seemed particularly aroused, and stated that even Corn- bury, bad though he was, had never attempted interference in such matters. They took occasion also to retort with the 17 Tanner, pp. 437/T. 388 ROYAL GOVERNORS Governor’s charitable excuse about their good intentions being thwarted by designing men. On May 26, 1721, this Assembly was dissolved. Strange to say, Burnet had practically no more difficulties during the remaining seven years of his administration. Apparently he had profited by the experience of the first session, and thereafter appeared less dictatorial and more concerned for the interest of the colony. The five-year support bill that had been refused in the first session was conceded in the next, and the usual amount was increased by £1,000 per annum, to be granted for a period of ten years. This unprecedented liberality is explained by the fact that according to the instruction, bills of credit could be issued only in acts for support. In May, 1725, when the original act of support was about to expire, a new five-year appropriation was made. Thus all important matters Tvent smoothly along. The occasional ripples are scarcely worth noting.18 Governor Burnet’s administration of eight years ended in 1728 by his transfer to the government of Massachusetts. By that time, except for Burnet’s first year, there had been, i^ Governor Hunter’s term be counted in, nearly twenty years of practically continuous harmony between the Gov¬ ernor and the Assembly of New Jersey. On the other hand, as in Massachusetts, the seeds of discontent had already taken root. The salary question had early been settled; other matters gave but little difficulty. Perhaps one reason for the harmony lay in the fact that the Governor had to give most of his time and attention to the larger province of New York, which he also ruled, and which, as has been seen, kept him fairly busy. The next three years also, under Governor John Mont¬ gomerie, were generally peaceful. By that time the question of separation from New York was being much agitated and 18 Tanner, pp. 439-448. NEW JERSEY 389 formed the chief matter of dispute between Montgomerie and the House. Until the will of the Crown could be known, he refused to co-operate in any way toward effecting the separation. The House in turn refused to pass the usual support bill, granting it for a period of only three years, instead of five. In other matters, especially financial, Montgomerie was , so compliant as even to risk rebuke from the ministry. By a later Assembly a five-year support bill was granted. The Governor’s scruples regarding the measure for separa¬ tion were allayed by advice from the Lords of Trade that they saw no reason binding him to interfere with properly made petitions for a separate government. Governor Mont¬ gomerie died in July, 1731, and was succeeded by William Cosby.19 The new Governor held office during five years. With his New York Assembly he experienced continual and seri¬ ous conflict. In New Jersey, however, there was no trouble, chiefly because in that province he held but one legislative session, at which he gave no occasion for conflict. It is noteworthy that ever since the troublesome ad¬ ministration of the first Governor, Lord Cornbury, there had been little friction between the New Jersey executive and the lower House. Aside from Cosby’s case, this was due in great measure to the character and abilities of the * Governors themselves. Undoubtedly, also, the extraordi¬ nary absence of friction was due to lack of contact with the House. Governors were chiefly occupied in the complex affairs of the larger province. This is particularly true of Governor Cosby, who, because of his miserable conduct of affairs in New York and of the ill feeling against him both there and in New Jersey, could scarcely have escaped trouble, had not his contact with the Assembly been confined to a single session. 19 Tanner, pp. 147, 449-451, 51 3ff. 390 ROYAL GOVERNORS With the end of Governor Cosby’s administration, there closes an era in the history of colonial New Jersey, a history interesting by reason of the successive stages through which it passed. In 1702 the proprietary interests in East and in West Jersey ceded their right to govern, and the districts were fused into one royal province under the jurisdiction of the New York Governor but distinct in all other respects. This union with New York caused much dissatisfaction. The distant Governor, occupied to his full capacity with affairs in the larger province, could not but neglect public business in New Jersey. Agitation, therefore, for a separate Governor was soon on foot and bore fruit in 1738 in the appointment of Lewis Morris. A vestige of the dual Jersey remained in the custom of convening the Assembly alter¬ nately at the old centers of government, Burlington and Perth Amboy. The two years previous to the new appointment were spent by the public men chiefly in the effort to procure a separate Governor. The latter’s commission was prac¬ tically the same as that of the New York executives. Hence, as in New York and in the other royal colonies, the Gov¬ ernor had his prerogative to maintain and his instructions to enforce; while the Assembly had its own ground to hold, and, whenever possible, to expand. Among the many disputes that occurred between Gov¬ ernor and representatives up to this period, two stand out as constituting the chief and most enduring points of con¬ troversy, namely, support of the government and con¬ firmation of the proprietors’ rights. In practically all of these contentions, victory was with the House. Already in New Jersey the trend of political development tended to make the Governor the executive of, rather than the master of, the wishes of the Assembly.20 The first session under Governor Lewis Morris holds for 20 Tanner, pp. 4 55 ff. NEW JERSEY 391 two reasons a place of unusual prominence and importance. It had been nearly five years since the last meeting under Governor Cosby in 1733, and this session was the first to be presided over by the long-sought separate Governor. Almost immediately, however, there was trouble. The new Governor had been largely instrumental in procuring the boon of a separate executive, but the Assembly resolved to grant him no reward. In the resolution to this effect, Morris saw insinuations of his venality. His address de¬ clared that he desired no pay for his services; thereupon began the long series of conflicts. Among the first difficulties was the question of support of government. Following the New York method, the House insisted, not only upon full control over actual appropria¬ tions, but also upon complete discretion as to application. Although at first both Governor and Council objected, they had finally, in order not to lose all means of support, to yield, and to permit the passage of a bill far too specific in its application, too inadequate in the amount granted, and too limited in its provision for only three years. After what proved to be the longest, the most expensive, and per¬ haps the least productive session in the history of the colony, this first Assembly under the separate Governor was dis¬ solved. It had been marked by complete failure and was fruitful chiefly in dissension. That conflict begot friction that was only too great, and that was to continue with increasing magnitude down to the death of Governor Morris seven years later.21 Subsequently in his correspondence Governor Morris thus expressed his opinion : There is so much Insincerity and Ignorance among the people, and with so rooted a Jealousy of their Governors & so strong an Inclination in the meanest of the People (who are the majority, 21 After the expiration of this period, the support grants were all made annually. Cf. Edgar Jacobs Fisher, New Jersey as a Royal Province , 1738-1776, p. 277. 392 ROYAL GOVERNORS & whose votes make the Assembly) to have the sole direction of all the affairs of the government, & to make the governors and other officers Intirely dependant upon themselves, that it re¬ quires much more temper, skill, & Constancy to overcome these difficulties than falls to every man’s share.22 And regarding the support of the government, he wrote to the Board of Trade: The Assembly have been with much ado prevailed with to support the government for three years & would have me and everybody else believe that in this case they have done wonders . . . but . . . this wonderful support is wonderfully small, and not agreeable to the addresses to his Majestie, or sufficient . . . etc. He then referred to information given him by one of the members as to the Assembly’s policy in keeping salaries low: Let us keep the dogs poore, and we’ll make them do what we please.23 Thus the first session passed without harmony, striking the dominant note that occurred with increasing discord in subsequent meetings down to the Governor’s death seven years later.24 The new Assembly, from which Morris probably hoped for a more friendly feeling, met on April 10, 1740. But the political philosophy of the few new members did not change the former hostile policy. In his opening address the Gov¬ ernor dwelt upon the delinquencies of the former body, requested the present Assembly to refrain from attempts 22 Lewis Morris to Sir Charles Wagner, May 10, 1739, Morris Papers , in New Jersey Hist. Soc. Coll., IV, 40. 23 Lewis Morris to Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantation, May 26, 1739, Morris Papers, p. 47. 24 All above, not otherwise cited, from Fisher, op. cit., pp. 105-109. NEW JERSEY 393 to exercise powers other than its own, and urged immediate aid for the expedition then planned against the Spanish West Indies. The Assembly, while it did not refuse point-blank to con¬ sider the latter, delayed action as long as possible. This seems to have been their way of expressing umbrage at the Governor’s uncomplimentary and unconciliatory address. Finally, when the bill had passed, Morris suggested cer¬ tain modifications, which the Assembly refused. The session then uselessly dragged on until the end of July, 1740. They had sat three months and accomplished nothing except to widen the breach with the Governor. During the next session, more than a year later, there were no serious controversies. Alteration according to the Governor’s wishes of the militia act above referred to was refused. The old three-year support bill of 1738 expiring at this time, a new one was passed providing for only one year. The reins were being tightened. In his letter to the Board of Trade commenting on this Assembly, Governor Morris referred to its apparently “very * good temper” as due to his employment of the “softest way of treating them.” One reason for his caution was probably the general trend of political developments, which in that letter were described as follows : The Assembly at New York had been rash enough to resolve that they would not raise any support for the Government there unless the Governor assented to all the bills they had sent or should send up to him. . . . The nature of the resolve is too obvious to your Lp’s to need any remarks upon it. This & other things shows what Assemblies in this part of the world are arriv¬ ing at, & what is not unlikely to be the success unless they meet with some more Effectual check than they have hitherto done. Some of our Assembly did not want inclination to follow the Examples, . . . etc.25 26 Morris to the Board of Trade, Dec. 16, 1741, Morris Payers, p. 139. 394 ROYAL GOVERNORS Not until October of 1742 was the next session commenced. In spite of the period of prorogation, policies had not been changed ; therefore the Governor’s hopes of a still more peace¬ ful meeting were vain. To two of the bills, one declaring how right of a feme covert could be converted or extinguished, the other concerning the acknowledgment of deeds, the Gov¬ ernor, through fear of the King’s censure, objected. The Assembly at this session had a pet measure regarding the reduction and regulation of fees of law practitioners. Ex¬ pecting opposition they tried to force it through as a rider to the annual support bill, but failed. Another favorite measure concerned the issue of £40,000 in bills of credit. So anxious were they to have this succeed that £500 was to go to the Governor, with no mention of the fact to the ministry. Morris, however, interpreted this as a direct bribe, and indignantly refused both the money and his assent. The latter amounted to a veto of the measure, which he might prudently have left to the ministry, thus diverting from himself the consequent ill will.26 At this session the Assembly also attempted to assume a sort of appellate judicial jurisdiction, by instituting measures to reverse a decision of the Supreme Court of the colony. This jurisdiction was really vested in the Governor and Council. An extreme offense was an act proposed to arrange the spe¬ cific application of the support money already appropriated. Morris thereupon dissolved the Assembly.27 In the new Assembly that met in October, 1743, negotia¬ tions were begun for a diplomatic barter. It was intimated to the Governor by the House that if he would assent to whatever bills they passed, they would make no difficulties over the support bill. The House had two favorite bills in mind, both of which had been previously disallowed by the 26 Cf. Morris Papers, pp. 154, 155; Chalmers, Revolt, II, 213. 27 Chalmers, Revolt, II, 213. Fisher, op. cit., pp. 103-115. NEW JERSEY 395 King.28 Morris straightway refused any participation, but only in words. When the bill in question actually came up, he assented, and did so, as he himself states, according to the terms of the bargain: The support of the Government still depending, & knowing how desirous the Assembly were of making any pretense to differ, the Council chose rather to pass them with a suspending clause, than to reject them at that time.29 Difficulties concerning those bills were not dispensed with. The Council had passed the fee bill with a suspending clause. This virtually meant a refusal, for the suspending clause prevented enactment into law pending the King’s decision, who had previously disallowed it, and might again do so. Knowing all this the House passed a resolution to the effect that this bill “ought to have due weight with the judges and all others concerned.” When Morris interpreted this as a practical recall of the suspending clause, the House informed him that it was simply an expression of opinion, for which they were accountable to no one. Morris there¬ upon prorogued the Assembly.30 The next session, held six months later, lasted less than two weeks. It was in June-July of 1744, after war had been declared by England against France. The subject of con¬ tention was the militia act. When the Governor urged measures for rendering it more efficient, the Assembly resolved that the old act was sufficient, and requested a recess over the harvest time. This was refused and Morris held them over until, through the Council, a new militia act was drafted and sent down for their approval. The new 28 Fisher, op. cit., p. 182. Regarding feme covert, and regulation of fees above referred to. Objection to the fee bill: it lessened salary of judges, etc., thus in¬ directly lowering the standing and the authority of even the Supreme Court. 29 Morris to Board of Trade, Morris Papers , p. 182. It is presumed that the Council acted with knowledge of and on advice from the Governor. His son was a member, and the body small; hence his great possible influence. 30 On Dec. 10, 1743. See New Jersey Archives, XV, 314. 396 ROYAL GOVERNORS part of the act referred to the Quakers, who objected to warfare and for whom the act proposed a money substitute for personal service. But it was rejected by the House, and dissolution followed. In the election of new members, the Governor was again disappointed. At their meeting on Aug. 18, 1744, he repeated his recommendation regarding both the defenses and the militia act; but the Assembly would promise no more than to grant necessary supplies as the emergency required. Meantime, letters had come from Governor Clinton of New York urging the necessity of concerted action. The Assembly asked to be adjourned. When they met again in October, their hold upon the government became even stronger.31 Sickness had prevented Morris from making the usual address, but the Assembly needed no suggestions. At this session they managed to pass their favorite measure, namely, the bill for a £40,000 issue in bills of credit, and this in spite of the knowledge that Parliament was consid¬ ering an act to prevent just such enactments. Consequently they could expect only disapproval. Their reason for passing it, according to Morris, was a play to popular favor and a pretext for alleging lack of funds in the colony. This latter would be the prelude to a reduction of the support bill and of salaries. The reduction, when it finally came, cut the Governor’s salary in half.32 The reins were still tightening. The opinion of the Assembly regarding this parliamentary act is interesting: An Encroachment upon the fundamental constitution of this colony and the Concession made to the first settlers thereof — but allso distructive of the liberties and properties of his Majesty’s subjects.33 31 Chalmers, op. cit., II, 214. Morris Papers, p. 196. 32 Morris to Board of Trade, Jan. 23, 1745, Morris Papers, pp. 215-217; cf. also p. 202. Salary was reduced from £l,000 to £500. 33 Taken from Assembly Journal, and quoted in Morris Papers, p. 221. NEW JERSEY 397 There arose also considerable controversy over the fact that the offices of Supreme Court judge and of Councillor were held by the same man, who happened to be the Gov¬ ernor’s son. They also complained that public business was hindered by the very small number of Councillors, probably on the insinuated basis that the smallness of that body made easier its manipulation by the Governor. The objection to one incumbent for the two offices was stated in part as follows : And how unhappy may be the case of those who have, or shall have, occasion to remove a cause or causes from the Supreme Court and bring it before the Governor and Council, when perhaps the same judge that gave judgment in the Court may be one of the Council to judge it again.34 At this session also they ordered that the fee bill, despite the suspending clause, be printed. This was tantamount to declaring it law over the King’s possible veto. They refused, moreover, conferences with the Council regarding amendment to the militia bill that they had passed. And finally, when the Council refused assent to such bills, they withheld support for the government. According to the Governor: Their reasons of doing so appeares by their own votes to be, because I rejected their bills, tho agreed to by the Councill . . . & because the Councill have not assented to bills which they (the Assembly) thought essentially necessary; . . . and there¬ fore the government is, and is likely to continue without support, until what they require is comply’d with; and then to have what support they please to give.35 All this was in vehement prosecution of advantages al¬ ready gained. There was another dispute in the same 34 Morris Papers, p. 203. Apparently, the Assembly had forgotten the law forbidding the chief justice to sit again in Council upon a case previously ad¬ judicated by himself. 36 Morris to Board of Trade, Jan. 23, 174.5, Morris Papers, p. 22.5. 398 ROYAL GOVERNORS session regarding the competency of justices of the peace voting on election of the loan office commissioner. In a protested election the Assembly had attempted to decide. Morris, however, maintained that the affair was not in their jurisdiction but pertained to the courts. Dissolution ended the quarrel for the time being. The session was surely not uneventful or without consequence, but it was absolutely unfruitful of present political good. As if to stamp the session as a comedy of errors, the only act passed provided for the destruction of crows, blackbirds, squirrels and woodpeckers in three counties.36 Morris himself, scanning conditions in other colonies also, made the following significant comment : The too great and unwarrantable encroachments of Assemblyes in more than one of the northern plantations, seems to make it necessary that a stop some way or other should be put to them, & they reduced to such propper and legall bounds as is consistent with his majesty’s Prerogative and their dependance, to prevent a growing evill which, if time gives more strength to may be difficult to cure: ... I intend to call a new Assembly together in the Spring timely enough to provide for the defence of the province. ... I have already try’d two Assemblies on that head without effect, & the second ended with denying a support; what the third will do, a little time will discover.37 Before considering the happenings in this Assembly, it should be noted that it was the third new one in the space of three years. This was extraordinary. New York had fought for the enactment of a bill providing a new Assembly at least once in three years, and had failed. The best it could obtain was a Septennial Act. Governors often found it very convenient to keep in existence an Assembly that 36 Allinson, Statutes of New Jersey, p. 138. Fisher, p. 122. 37 Morris to Board of Trade, Morris Payers, p. 226. NEW JERSEY 399 was pliant or non-aggressive. Yet New Jersey had three new iVssemblies in as many years. This fact alone points to strained relations with the executive. This third Assembly met on April 5, 1745. Judging from the personnel, Morris could expect no change in policy. His first address was unfortunately a tirade against the shortcomings of the former House. He told the newly elected body that they must support the government, or he would assent to none of their bills. And then, in the midst of his heated harangue, he dilated upon the advantage of coolness and deliberation in the handling of delicate affairs. The Assembly took his advice, waited three weeks, and then very coolly replied. In the first place, they did not appreciate denunciation of their predecessors. As to the support bill, they had done their full duty. The bill had passed the House, but was rejected by the Council. They also regretted that His Excellency had determined to assent to no legislation until the support bill should pass. There¬ fore no legislation was attempted. After about two weeks the Governor replied with a repetition of his tirade and an account oh other troubles not then mentioned. He main¬ tained that the Assembly’s duty was to support the govern¬ ment, and not to quarrel with the Governor.38 As a matter of fact, their quarrel was to some extent with Morris, for when requests for co-operation came from other sources, agreement was prompt. Shirley’s letter asking aid received an immediate answer in a grant of £2,000. The Governor’s personality, according to memoirs, was such as to arouse antagonism. His age too was a factor. He seemed to feel that his own solutions were always the best. Hence he could brook no opposition or even consider suggestion. On the day that the £2,000 grant was made there was another philippic from Governor Morris. Covering the 38 May 2, to May 13, 1745. It is interesting to compare with this his own tirade against Governors. Cf. supra, p. 12, notes. 400 ROYAL GOVERNORS same ground, he declared that he would assent to no issue of £40,000 in bills of credit in exchange for a government support bill. The government went unsupported. For three weeks nothing beyond a series of adjournments occurred. Dead¬ lock had made further meetings useless. The Governor therefore prorogued the Assembly until August 16, when it was to convene at Trenton, and not as usual at Bur¬ lington or Perth Amboy. Immediately upon the open¬ ing of this session, there was a dispute over the place of meeting and a demand to see the Governor’s instruc¬ tions on this matter. Morris refused; prorogation soon followed.39 In the mean time anti-proprietary manifestations had taken on the character of riots and had become a menace, so much so that the power of the legislature was invoked to interfere. Morris had urged measures designed to cope with the situation. But the Assembly, which represented about the same class among the people that was anti¬ proprietary, did nothing in response either to this or to his repeated requests for support of the government and for attention to the militia problem.40 Nor did the reply from the members lead to harmony, or offer even a promise of co-operation. If bills had failed to pass, and the government as a consequence was without proper support, it was not the fault of the House. That body had passed the necessary measures, but frustration or invalidation had been caused either through prorogation by the Governor or refusal of assent by the Council; and they drove home the shaft by a hint from the Bible: “If a 39 Sept. 24, 1745. 40 For account of the origin, progress, and results of these disturbances cf. Fisher, op. cit., Ch. VI. The problem: to get the Assembly, which was largely Quaker, to supply men for war. Supplies represented the greater portion of their aid. NEW JERSEY 401 ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked.” 41 All this was sent to the Governor, who was too sick to attend to the session. Meanwhile, the Assembly was becoming restive under the inconveniences arising from attending sessions at Trenton, an unaccustomed place, and also in sitting without the Gov¬ ernor at hand. The question of the legality of the session was again hinted at, and they began to put off all business by adjourning from day to day. Then came an inquiry into the admission that the transfer from Burlington had been made without the requisite advice from that body. Pom¬ pously, the upper House refused to discuss matters of state. Then, through a committee, they put the same question to the Governor himself. Morris refused to receive the mes¬ sage, whereupon the House drew up a formidable and formal resolve : Such action is a manifest denial of freedom of access to the Governor, and of the privileges of the House. . . . This House are determined . . . not to be deprived of their ancient and accustomed way of proceeding . . . This House will not proceed further on the public business . . . until the question of where the Governor derived his au¬ thority of transfer is answered.42 The Governor’s reply to this challenge is interesting. It was vehement, vituperative, and controvertive of all of the Assembly’s insinuations, and, by quoting from authority equally high, energetically replied to the scriptural sally. Not to the Plouse nor to any member of it had privileges been given to employ insulting expressions in order to vil- 41 Cf. Morris Papers, p. 274. Proverbs, XXIX, 12. Another version reads: ‘‘A prince that gladly heareth lying words hath all his servants wicked.” 42 On grounds that messages from House should come through the speaker. Morris Papers, p. 275. But they laudably made exception of such business as might affect his Majesty’s special service, or in a legal manner to have the griev¬ ances of this Colony redressed. Morris Papers, p. 276. 402 ROYAL GOVERNORS lify the King’s representatives or to malign the King’s Council. These Councillors are not my servants, but his Majesty’s, and is there any reason from this advice (the prorogation from Amboy to Burlington) to conclude that the advisors are Liars, and Wicked? . . . Expressions like these may gratify the wicked temper of low minds, unacquainted with common rules of decency, and incapable of anything above the scum of the people; ... In a late address from your house, they call themselves “plowmen;” to such, language of this (abusive) kind may not be disagreeable.43 On the same day, Oct. 18, 1745, he dissolved them, and soon after wrote to the Board of Trade that they had refused to employ for support of the government the moneys already in the treasury — . . . or, at most, not above halfe the sum usually given, unless the Council and myself will, Previous to what they call granting a support, assent to their bill making £40,000 current in bills of credit, in the manner they have drawn it. . . . The Government has been without support for myselfe or any of the officers from September 1744 until this time. (October, 1745.) 44 On the same occasion he also wrote that he was himself defraying expenses of expresses into and out of the colony, and that because of short pay he found difficulty in getting quorums in the Council. The Assembly’s reputed loyalty in making the £2,000 grant toward the Cape Breton affair he repudiated, alleging that they appropriated that money 43 Morris Payers, p. 276. The following is the Governor’s scriptural retort: “How can he get wisdom, that holdeth the plow, and that glorieth in the goad, that driveth oxen and is occupied in their labors, and whose talk is of bullocks? He giveth his mind to make furious; and is diligent to give the kine fodder. . . . They shall not be sought for in public council, nor sit high in the congregation . . . , etc. Eccl. XXXVIII, 25, 26, 33. 44 Morris to Board of Trade, Oct. 23, 1745, Morris Papers, p. 280. NEW JERSEY 403 from the funds already laid aside to support the government, and that it was 4 ‘not unlikely done by the Assembly, as much with a view to distress the Government as any other.” In a letter to Newcastle written during the previous day, he characterized these doings as — an open viollent and unlawful attempt to alter the Constitution here, and assume the whole power of Legislation to themselves.45 The new Assemblv, the fourth in the administration of this Governor, met on March 4, 1746. The futility of the late dissolution was shown in the return of only two new members. Morris’ first address was very unlike himself, calm, conciliatory, and tactful. The dangerous state of the province, land troubles in Newark, the advantage of agree¬ ment and harmony, attention to the proper support of the government, — these were his topics. The House replied in similar strain, and the session itself proceeded with un¬ wonted harmony. Even the £40,000 credit bill went past the Council to the Governor, as well as one regarding the militia.46 On the support bill, however, they could not strike a com¬ mon chord, and the harmony suddenly ended with haggling. On May 6 the Assembly promised a support bill, provided the Governor assented to bills already before him. Morris in turn promised his assent, provided the Assembly passed the support bill. On the next day the House drew up conditions upon which they would pass a support bill, namely, that the Governor’s salary for the past two years should be only half the usual £1,000. But as partial compensation, either to him or to his executors, they would grant £1,000 out of the first interest from the £40,000 currency issue. This was an inducement to make him assent to the cur¬ rency bill, which at that moment lay before him. But the 45 Morris to Newcastle, Oct. 22, 1745, Morris Payers, p. 284. 46 Ibid., pp. 303, 309. 404 ROYAL GOVERNORS attempt failed. Morris assented only to the militia bill.47 The other he would not approve until the support bill was passed according to his desire. And he told them: There was too much reason to believe, that from the beginning of this contest, the House never intended to join in the support of the government; but made use of several pretenses to avoid the doing of it. The House immediately voted, almost unanimously, that the government would have to go unsupported. Here was an end even to the possibility of harmony. Dissolution would probably have ensued, but the Governor’s illness suddenly prostrated him, and in a few days, on May 21, 1746, he died. Now, more clearly than ever before, it is evident that the aim of the House was to make the Governor as far as possible the servant of its will, rather than the director. This is seen during the administration just closed in the employment of the support bill as a lever to force all desirable measures. Practically every controversy had been thus settled in favor of the House. Vetoes and disallowances were beginning to mean little, because usually, through the support bill, pressure could be brought to bear that would be eventually sufficient to reverse them. Governor Morris left the As¬ sembly in the very strong and not unmenacing attitude that is begotten of actions performed with impunity, of victory continually repeated, and of the consciousness of the pos¬ session of a weapon that cannot easily be withstood. The successor to this disturbed inheritance was the former Governor of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, Jonathan Belcher. His career there, as you have seen, was one long series of conflicts, ending finally in practical expulsion. The government to which he now came was for the time 47 Morris to Newcastle, Oct. 22, 1745, Morris Payers, pp. 309jf. NEW JERSEY 405 scarcely less refractory than were the more bellicose northern colonies. In spite of all this, however, Belcher’s relations with the New Jersey Assembly bore no resemblance to his past expe¬ riences. They were practically devoid of conflict, quite cor¬ dial, and at times almost sympathetic, though for the latter fact the Governor did not escape being censured by the prerogative men. At first Governor Belcher’s reception by the House was respectful, but no more. It took time to test his declared philosophy of forbearance. But after the test, troubles were practically at an end. Not that there were no disputes and some situations even distressing, but the causes were always laid by the House to the fault, not of the Governor, but of the Council. Governor Belcher’s first address, Aug. 7, 1747, was in startling contrast to the late invective of Morris. It was optimistic, conciliatory, and flattering. From his harrowing experiences in Massachusetts, the Governor had probably learned the futility of opposition. The support bill he ap¬ proached most carefully, saying that in this regard the Assembly had a privilege and a duty; and that he had no doubt but they would willingly grant support for the gov¬ ernment, with a fixed yearly salary for the Governor, accord¬ ing to the dignity of the office. But time brought disappoint¬ ment to these sanguine hopes. Deficiency in salary forced Belcher later on to sell portions of his property in Massachu¬ setts in order to provide for himself. Hence he called the Assembly “tolerably honest, but stingy.” His policy, how¬ ever, or his lesson learned in the northern colonies, induced him to make the best of things and thus, by yielding to the inevitable, to avoid conflict.48 In the next session the Assembly brought in their favorite measures, which had been failing under Morris, and “ tried 48 Fisher, op. cit., pp. 133, 279, 280. 406 ROYAL GOVERNORS them out” on Belcher. They still held back in the matter of military supplies and co-operation in the new Canadian offensive. In the land troubles, which had developed into riots and jail breaking, they showed no inclination to concur with the Governor’s suggestion of preventive measures.49 When eventually a Riot Act was passed, only to be contin¬ ually and flagrantly violated for a period covering two years, there came some indications of friction directly with the Governor. The violent uprisings brought a series of appeals from Belcher to the Assembly during the years 1749 and 1750, urging measures to quell the disturbances. But the Assembly disclaimed jurisdiction; it was an affair for the courts, not for the legislature. Belcher then renewed his pleadings to the King, asking for special instructions to cover the difficulty. But the instructions were long in com¬ ing, and for three more years the Governor urged, while the House maintained its policy of non-interference. Thus there was continual non-agreement in this matter, but no positive controversy. In 1754 the Assembly’s attitude was 49 These anti-proprietary demonstrations continued through nearly all of Belcher’s administration and proved to be a serious menace, approaching even to subversion of legitimate political authority. There is a brief account of the origin and development of land troubles in New Jersey in Fisher, op. cit., pp. 171-209. The general attitude of the Assembly on this question can be gleaned from the fol¬ lowing facts: A joint committee of both Houses had been appointed to consider ways and means of restraining the movement. Belcher was notified, in answer to his request for legislative action on the land riots, that the committee had been arranged. But the House members were by no means keen to act. Meetings were continually deferred. Since establishment of the committee in August, 1747, the Council had been agitating for meetings; yet the first real one was not held until December. The anxiety of the Council is easily explained by its membership — chiefly of proprietors. The Assembly might almost be said to represent the general class of non or anti proprietors. The struggle really resolved itself into a contest of the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie. The violence of riots in Hunterdon County finally resulted, February, 1748, in the passage of an act that was practi¬ cally a repetition of the Riot Act of Great Britain. Yet the Assembly’s evident apathy and persistence therein made trouble for Belcher among the proprietary group. They suspected him of complicity or debility, or both. NEW JERSEY 407 indorsed when a letter to Belcher advised the settlement of the disputes through the courts. This, after nearly fifty years of disturbance, was the method of solution ultimately adopted for the cases that were decided. This land con¬ troversy even to the present time has phases that have never been legally decided. During the same session, on New Year’s Day, 1748, one of the old conflicts was revived, when the Assembly an¬ nounced the principle of its complete control of both the appropriation and application of public funds. The Gov¬ ernor was also informed that an increase in salary need not be expected. Belcher objected to the support bill then offered, but the House refused alteration. In this dilemma of taking all or none, Belcher accepted the bill. This session, compared to those under Morris, was emi¬ nently successful.50 During the three months of business, nineteen acts were passed. The Assembly was prorogued on Feb. 8, 1748. In the fall session of the same year Governor Belcher again raised the support question, but to his suggestion the Assembly paid no attention and proceeded to other business. A second message was also ignored. Nevertheless, it was during this session, one of bitter and continual conflict between the popular party in the House and the proprietary influence of the Council, that Belcher’s position with the lower House was strengthened. He man¬ aged to keep discreetly in the background of the dispute, a fact noted by the House and appreciated. And to put just the proper finish to this, an incident occurred that was most unusual and absolutely unprecedented. Belcher had interrupted the rapid exchange of very curt messages between the two chambers by prorogation. Shortly after the proc¬ lamation, the Council offered the Governor certain advice. Belcher informed them that their advice, when desired, would be asked for. The effect of this upon the Assembly 50 Fisher, op. cit., pp. 1 S5ff, 187-209. 408 ROYAL GOVERNORS is readily inferred. His Massachusetts experiences had apparently taught him some lessons in diplomacy, though somewhat at the expense of allegiance to principles. Throughout the whole of Governor Belcher’s adminis¬ tration of ten years the history of the earlier sessions may be said to have repeated themselves. There were always the same questions, the same disputes, and the same result — with Belcher neither prominent on one side or the other. His term was really filled by a series of controversies and conflicts between Assembly and Council. It is true that at each session he vainly requested measures for support and for suppression of the land troubles; but while the Assembly always refused full co-operation, it declared its quarrel to be directly with the Council. Thus throughout practically his whole term, a term in which times were strenuous, con¬ troversies violently bitter, and opposing factions rampant, Governor Belcher managed, as has been said, to maintain relations that were cordial and almost sympathetic with his impetuous Assembly.51 Whether or no this achievement was a virtue is open to question. For it he has been strongly censured. The fact, virtue or not, gave him a term in New Jersey which, while it cannot be called successful, was far more peaceful than had been his executive experience in the north. But the peace he procured was ominous. It was really won by a surrender. He simply refused, perhaps feared, to check in any way the desires of the Assembly. As a result, the trend of political development reached in 51 Fisher, op. cit., pp. 140-170. There was a slight altercation with the Assem¬ bly on the occasion of his convening the members at Elizabethtown, instead of one of the two usual places. They petitioned through two members for a removal to Amboy. Belcher may have by this time tired of his efforts at conciliation. At any rate he taxed them sharply for thus making a proposal that should really come through the Council, and he declared the action a mark of positive disre¬ spect, and absolutely unprecedented. The Assembly’s reply — a repudiation of any disrespectful intention — was far from respectful itself. But the immediate passing of a support bill shows that the squall, practically the only one, blew quickly over. NEW JERSEY 409 his time its completion: the House had become the master of the executive.52 The immediate successors of Governor Belcher had little difficulty with their Assemblies. In fact, for New Jersey the subject of this study comes really to an end after the time of Governor Morris. There were subsequent disputes and disagreements down to 1776, but these by no means assumed either the virulence or the significance of the conflicts with Governors in the more northern colonies. Governor Bernard, in his short term of one year (1758- 1759), had little trouble. The Assembly’s conduct was fore¬ shadowed by the declaration in reply to his first address, namely, that they had had “Opportunity to form Rational Prepossessions” in his favor. His departure was esteemed “a public loss.” 53 Thomas Boone ruled but a year, leaving for the governor¬ ship of South Carolina in April, 1761. He managed to secure a two-year support bill, an index to peaceful relations.54 Josiah Hardy held office for only three months, beginning in October, 1761; yet he succeeded in gaining the good will of the people, who objected to his removal, and designated his administration as “disinterested, candid, and benevolent.” 55 William Franklin was the next as well as the last royal Governor of New Jersey. He continued in office down into the heart of the rebellion in 1776. His career, unfortunate owing to the times in which he lived, is nevertheless a noble one and worthy of admiration. He was a son of Benjamin Franklin. It is said that the fact of his illegitimate birth was the occasion of much of the hostility against him. Gov¬ ernor Franklin, in spite of the influence of his father’s com¬ panionship on both continents and in England, was, as 62 Chalmers, Revolt, II, 218-221. 53 Fisher, op. cit., p. 162. See New Jersey Archives , IX, 188. 54 Ibid.., pp. 39, 165. 55 Fisher, op. cit., pp. 39, 167. Hardy was removed for alleged disobedience to his instructions, appointing Supreme Court justices during good behavior. 410 ROYAL GOVERNORS Benj amin himself wrote, ‘‘a thorough government man.” He held office during a most trying and critical period. The first part of his term was really a reconstruction era following the last Intercolonial War. Then came the Stamp Act and the subsequent pre-revolutionary developments. During all this time he was in office, and his diplomacy maintained almost cordial relations with the Assembly. The few disputes that did occur were rather disagreements of opinion than positive conflicts with the Governor. The grievance was usually, as the following account will indicate, with the English Parliament and ministry. Franklin’s devo¬ tion to a principle, his loyalty to his King, even at the risk of his life and in spite of estrangement from his father and separation from his wife, mark him as a man to be admired. His position 56 was similar to that of Hutchinson in Massa¬ chusetts. One wonders what, under the same circumstances, would have been the conduct of a wily Belcher, an impet¬ uous Morris, or a fraudulent Cornbury. Franklin’s first Assembly lasted from 1761 to 1768.57 There was consequently ample time for the formation and strengthening of definite policies in the House, and oppor¬ tunity for building up a strong resistance to the Governor. However, until the passage of the Stamp Act in 1765 there was comparative harmony. At that time, after a proposal to adopt resolutions against the Stamp Act had been voted down and the Assembly had actually adjourned, the mem¬ bers repented of their negative vote and convened in extra- official gathering. This was the occasion of bitter feeling between themselves and the loyal Governor. In the next session there was a vehement speech from him, denouncing 56 Letter to Wm. Franklin, Oct. 23, 1773. Cf. Smyth, Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin, VI, 144. For biographical sketch cf. W. A. Whitehead in N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc., Series I, III, 137; cf. also Fisher, op. cit., pp. 39-43. 67 Fisher, pp. 167, 409-411. The Massachusetts speaker in a letter urged united action against British tyranny. NEW JERSEY 411 the illegality of their procedure, declaring that the princi¬ ples of government had been violated, and that the present legal Assembly should have announced formal disapproba¬ tion of the whole affair. At the above mentioned gathering three delegates were chosen for the Stamp Act Congress in j New York City. This storm blew quickly over after the offending law was repealed in 1766. In 1766 came news that some of the King’s troops were to be quartered upon the colony. There was objection to this, and Governor Franklin could not secure full co-opera¬ tion in carrying out the instructions from England regarding the details of the arrangements for supplies and housing. The aftermath of the Stamp Act, and the subsequent Towns- hend Duty Acts were probably in part responsible for this opposition. Provisions, however, were finally granted, though not exactly in accord with directions from the ministry. In 1770 the Assembly was again in ugly mood, owing to the recent disallowance of their bill for the issue of £100,000 in paper money. Franklin again urged support for the King’s troops, but for a month no heed was given to his exhortation. The answer finally declared “that no fur¬ ther Provision be made for the supply of His Majesty’s Troops stationed in this Colony.” This resolve was later { mitigated, and £500 were granted. All of Franklin’s appeals, as well as his arguments proving the ability of the province to grant more, and showing the insufficiency of the appro¬ priated sum, were to no purpose. Three sessions passed in 1771 before the Governor could secure a grant for this purpose. There had also been disagreements regarding paper money. During ten years ending in 1765, the grand total of emis¬ sions had been £342,500. The Assembly then proposed a further issue of £100,000, to aid the distressed after- war conditions. Franklin refused his assent. In 1768 another bill for the same amount was passed. This also was rejected. 412 ROYAL GOVERNORS Finally, with certain modifications, the bill was signed by him in 1769, only to be disallowed in England. The Assem¬ bly did not try again until 1774, and then the bill went through, again modified, however, regarding the use of the paper as legal tender.58 In 1773, in connection with a robbery of the provincial treasury that had previously occurred, there came another strain in Governor Franklin’s relations with the Assembly. Conditions can be inferred from their informing him that his attitude toward the treasurer would decide the matter of support for the King’s troops. The treasurer’s resigna¬ tion, however, relieved the situation and support was granted.59 Meantime, signs of positive rebellion had arisen in all the colonies. Although New Jersey was among the most conservative in this respect, Governor Franklin still thought it prudent to refuse to convoke the Assembly in 1774. Thereupon an Assembly convened itself, in a meeting of committees chosen from each county. This gathering con¬ sidered the burning questions of the day, — the unwarranted taxation and measures for removal or for opposition, the hostile attitude toward England shown in Massachusetts, in New York, and in Virginia, the suggestions of independ¬ ence, etc. The meeting and proceedings at Carpenters’ Hall, in Philadelphia, were ominous. In the January ses¬ sion of 1775, Franklin reprimanded the Assembly for counte¬ nancing illegal meetings. In May of the same year, he again addressed to the Assembly a warning that the King would be forced to employ very harsh measures in the event of further manifestations of independence. The Assembly promised mature deliberation, and declared that nothing would be done until the Continental Congress should speak. Meanwhile tidings of the fighting at Lexington and Concord 58 Fisher, pp. 297-302, 432-436. 59 Ibid., pp. 170, 308. NEW JERSEY 413 had traveled through the South. The effect was tremend¬ ous. Alarms, arming and equipping companies, and drilling speedily followed.60 A second Provincial Congress formed of committees from each county met on May 2. This further aroused Governor Franklin. The general feeling, it should be noted, was not directed toward the Governor nor as yet against the King, judging from contemporary declarations, but rather against Parliament and the ministry. The Governor, while not interfering too much, remained loyal to the King. As late as May, 1776, he decided to summon the Assembly. The proclamation was issued, and this was the beginning of the end of royal authority in the province. The Provincial Congress resolved that Franklin’s message should not be obeyed, declaring him to be an enemy of the people’s lib¬ erties, and one whose person must be immediately secured. His salary was stopped. Franklin, in his own house, stood his ground. Even yet the Assembly felt no vindictiveness against him personally. His administration had on the whole been satisfactory. Their attitude is seen in the in¬ structions given to Colonel Nathaniel Heard, who was deputed to capture him with all the delicacy and tender¬ ness the nature of the business can possibly admit.” When Heard presented himself for this duty and offered Franklin the privilege of parole that had been ordered, the Governor contemptuously rejected the latter as an insult to the King.61 He was taken, however, and examined by the Provincial Congress as to his conduct and opinions regarding the lib¬ erties of America. Though helpless in the midst of enemies, he spurned the questions, and declared that an usurped 60 Fisher, op. cit., pp. 444-446, 458Jf. 61 In the previous session of November, 1775, Franklin had pointedly asked the Assembly if they thought that he and the other Crown officials should fly, as many other Governors and officials had already done. The Assembly professed surprise at the question, and assured him that the laws were his security. Fisher, p. 470. 414 ROYAL GOVERNORS authority had no right to ask them. “He was a worthy servant of a less worthy king.” Imprisonment followed. In 1778, in an exchange of prisoners, he was released from his confinement in Connecticut, went to New York, and became president of the Associate Board of Royalists. In 1782 he returned to England, lived on a pension of £800, and died in 1813.62 62 Fisher, p. 470. CONCLUSION The existence of strained relations between royal Gov¬ ernors and their Assemblies, as well as the general nature of those differences, is well known. The present investigation of these relations, in reference to the northern colonies, seeks justification chiefly in its purpose to afford more definite and detailed information concerning the principal controversies, in order more accurately to calculate their influence on the final concerted opposition that culminated in complete political severance from the British Empire. Whether or no the colonials, and especially their leaders, were conscious of the fact, the causes underlying this peren¬ nial dissension with the agents of the Crown were founded in the prevalent long-standing and unmistakable tendencies toward complete political freedom. Often it was the fraud, the usurpation, the tyranny, the misguided zeal, or the genuinely loyal though not exactly tactful patriotism of the Governor and of other officers of the Crown that occasioned the disagreements; but at bottom the chief incentive in these conflicts lay in the colonial conception of what con¬ stituted a “legal ” political control, and in the claim to be practically a court of final appeal on questions concerning the interpretation of their charter rights and privileges. In a word, the causes of these disturbed relations must be sought largely in the gradually but surely developing philos¬ ophy of independence, with its natural abhorrence of super¬ imposed political direction by parliamentary act, and espe¬ cially by royal instruction. In the beginning, that is, in the late seventeenth and the early eighteenth centuries, emphasis was placed upon pres¬ ervation of the “rights of Englishmen” as defined by Eng- 416 ROYAL GOVERNORS land; but at a later period, upon the same rights as defined by the colonists themselves. The story, therefore, of the conflicts and controversies with the royal Governors is a narrative of the gradual change in these political attitudes, indicating the existence, if not the distinct outlines, of the progressive steps in this political evolution toward revolution. Surprising is the unanimity, in all the colonies under dis¬ cussion, of the troubles with the royal executives. At times various and frequent, every Assembly aimed at greater restraint on the powers of the Governor and greater control over his administration. This purpose was effected largely by pressure in the matter of finances. In its complete control over means of supporting the government the House of Representatives held the key to the situation. Any unsat¬ isfactory conduct of the Governor or of the government came to be synonymous with “unconstitutional” conduct, and support would accordingly be decreased or altogether withheld — thus causing paralysis in the machinery of gov¬ ernment and no small hardship for the Governor personally — until the “unconstitutional” affairs were either raised or lowered to fit the political norm established by the popular branch of the government. The representatives further increased their powers by the practice of specifying in appro¬ priation bills the exact application of public funds; also by the later insistence upon auditing the provincial expenditures; and finally, despite the charter provision vesting in the Governor, with advice and consent of the Council, exclusive power to issue warrants on the treasury, by the appointment of their own “orthodox” treasurer, who could be trusted to ignore all warrants save those from the House. Gov¬ ernors in retaliation might veto favorite bills, prorogue, or change the place of meeting, dissolve refractory Assemblies, and lengthen out beyond all custom the existence of a com¬ pliant one. In addition to these matters was the Governor’s occasional veto of the elected speaker, and in Massachusetts CONCLUSION 417 of Councillors; refusal to approve salary grants to agents of the Assembly; failure to further legislation by the As¬ sembly for the erection of courts of equity or for the estab¬ lishment of additional seats for the courts, and periodic interference with the House membership. Then the never- ending differences concerning paper money issues furnished abundant and perennial subjects of controversy. In New York there was the additional trouble over attempted inductance by the Anglican executive of ministers of religion; while in New Hampshire and New Jersey, other special difficulties were occasioned by the conflicting claims in the Mason and Gorges land grants and disputes over proprietary rights. Of all these conflicts, those connected with finances were by far the most frequent and the most important. The manifest purpose was to gain control of the province moneys, the stays of the government, thus indirectly securing control of the government itself. With this forever in view a per¬ manent support was systematically denied: a Governor and government secure of support would be subject, in case of tyrannical developments, to very little check. The further expedient, dictated by the same policy, of determination of the specific application of appropriations, was first occa¬ sioned by the positive fraud of many early Governors. Unless carried into effect, however, such determination would have been fruitless. Hence the claim to audit public expenditures; and next, in order to prevent Governors from drawing money on warrant from the Council alone, the insistence of the House upon having its own treasurer. These practices of control, which in the beginning had been adopted chiefly as protection against fraud, were not long in establishing a theory in which such control was demanded as inherent in the constitution of a free British people. Thus was gradually evolved a philosophy of inde¬ pendence; and so strong was the insistence of Assemblies, 418 ROYAL GOVERNORS that Governors could eventually do nothing but yield. The alternative was loss of salary, lack of support, and consequent confusion in the machinery of government. In these struggles against the royal executives, the Assemblies were rarely defeated, and in many cases the representatives were actually controlling the executive. There was, more¬ over, scarcely a period in the history of the colonies under discussion when one or more controversies was not somewhere in progress. Many, indeed, were handed down from House to House and from Governor to Governor. Traditionally, therefore, the colonists had become accustomed to political encounter and to consistent constitutional victories. One after another the Assemblies witnessed the discomfiture of Governors and the ungraceful enforced yielding of the parent state. Scarce an issue was decided permanently in the colonists’ disfavor. They were, in short, being educated to work their will. As a natural result of years of successful opposition and aggression, the political conscience of the people was hard¬ ened; there no longer existed the old fear of opposing King and Parliament. Uninterrupted impunity of violation had shorn from the royal instructions their sanctity. In this sense the conflicts and controversies between Governors and Assemblies exerted considerable influence on the sub¬ sequent Revolution, in that they rendered less fearful the hazards of that venture. As a cause, however, though important, they were only indirect, serving chiefly to lessen the shock of the final impact. There were marked differences in the results of these con¬ flicts in the individual colonies. In New Hampshire and in New Jersey there was lacking the usual bitterness and vindictiveness. Moreover, despite the prominent part taken by the royal Governors, these officials were not, as in Massachusetts and to a somewhat less degree in New York, generally regarded as enemies of political liberty; nor were CONCLUSION 419 they held responsible for “encroachments” upon self-gov¬ ernment and independence in the sense that the Acts of Parliament and the instructions to Governors were later regarded. The dissatisfaction toward them that did exist was chiefly negative, — that is, after an experience in self- government long, successful, and practically uninterfered with, the people naturally preferred absolute freedom in their legislative procedures and policies; and since the Governor was the instrument of England’s restraints upon this enlarged freedom, he could not well escape some of the transferred disfavor. On the whole, however, the royal representatives in New Hampshire and in New Jersey were fairly acceptable. Both colonies, in their early experiences with executives of the Cranfield and Cornbury type, were similarly unfortunate; both, with occasional exceptions, obtained thereafter men of average ability who were not oppressors; and finally both closed their provincial careers under Governors who ranked among the best and the fair¬ est that ever held office in the British colonies. It may be concluded, therefore, that neither colony, in its determina¬ tion to rebel, drew appreciable incentive from experiences in the conflicts and controversies with their royal Governors. In Massachusetts-Bay and in New York, the story is somewhat different both as to general conditions and con¬ sequent conclusions. Up to and during the administrations of Hutchinson, Gage, and C olden, there had been continual disagreement regarding the constitutional powers of the executive, arising largely over varying interpretations of privileges granted in the charter, and of the extent of the colony’s subordination to regulation by the mandates of British colonial policy. In the train of all this came increas¬ ingly numerous and important encroachments, often termed advances, made by the representative body into grounds formerly prohibited. England, therefore, in the endeavor to recoup the losses sustained through repeated defeat or 420 ROYAL GOVERNORS enforced capitulation of royal Governors, issued laws and instructions designed to end the conflicts through what was intended as final and incontrovertible decision on the ques¬ tions involved. But these pronouncements were accepted neither as final nor incontrovertible, in manv instances meet- ing with successful opposition. Repeated attempts to impose and to enforce acceptance engendered the gradually wide- spreading and increasingly sincere conviction that colonial liberty, and with it the “ancient rights of Englishmen,” were being undermined; hence resistance, and eventually rebellion, political revolution, and permanent separation. In Massachusetts, better than in any other colony, this theory is exemplified. There, from the very beginning, trouble had existed; and as one dispute after another ended in victory for the people, through their representatives, opposition to control by Parliament or by any other power increased, while proportionately the respect for the pre¬ rogative lessened until finally it entirely disappeared. The conflicts, therefore, served as an initiation and a rather thorough training in political encounter, serving to dispel the awe usually consequent upon the mere thought of resist¬ ing royal will or power, and to engender, as generation after generation imbibed the increasingly independent principles of its forbears, a spirit that in political matters refused to brook any kind of interference with the popular will. The powerless deputies of 1634 had, by Hutchinson’s time, evolved into “his Majesty’s Commons;” under Gage, the last royal Governor, Massachusetts was in fact functioning as an independent state, though professing profoundest loyalty to the empire and the King. Before proceeding to a general conclusion from the fore¬ going investigation of conditions in only four of the royal colonies, it may not be altogether wrong to infer from the data brought to light that on the whole conditions con- CONCLUSION 421 tinentally were similar. These stormy relations between royal Governors and their Assemblies cannot be listed among the direct, immediate causes of the Revolution. Their part was rather secondary and underlying, though not without extreme, even critical, importance. While they would never of themselves have proved sufficient provoca¬ tive for the rebellion, they provided an indispensably neces¬ sary pre-requisite, that is, the training and the inuring of the colonial mind to opposition and aggression. They were also a source of experience in political encounter, an experi¬ ence which in this connection cannot well be ignored, inas¬ much as it was accompanied and encouraged by a long line of political victories stretching back through more than half a century. To oppose the laws of England, to disregard with impunity her commands, to submit, when they did submit, only on their own conditions; in a word, by some means or other to assume, to wrest, to win, even as Parlia¬ ment was assuming, wresting, winning, practically every political object, — this was one phase, the significant one, in the story of these conflicts. They gave rise really to an ominous condition: it was natural for the colonists to oppose, to make their own demands and to see them granted, to feel that England’s control was gradually being permitted, rather than imposed. In fact, it had come to be a surprise, an unwarranted grievance, when the popular will, expressed in requests founded upon the “constitutional rights of Englishmen,” was denied or opposed. As a consequence, with opposition and political skirmishes of one sort or another continually in progress, the colonists were not as greatly shocked as they might otherwise have been by the Declaration of Independence, for so gradually and so long had the clouds of rebellion been gathering, that the people hardly realized the tremendous principles involved. Even in the present day, historians speculate on the causes of this war for independence. The issue, instead of 422 ROYAL GOVERNORS becoming more distinct, seems even more obscure. The occasions are well known; the fundamental causes are yet to be more accurately determined. But no enumeration of those causes will be complete which does not give vital prominence to the conflicts and controversies between Assemblies and the roval Governors. t/ BIBLIOGRAPHY Manuscript Sources Transcripts of Instructions and Additional Instructions to Royal Governors , together with Letters from the Lords of Trade and the Board of Trade , chiefly in Relation to Massachusetts Bay. These Transcripts were made under the direction of Mr. Albert Matthews for the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, and contain over two thousand pages of material. They are now deposited in the Library of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, Massachusetts. British Transcripts in the Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. Letters of Governor Bernard , Sparks Collection, IV, in Harvard College Library. This contains thirteen volumes, in which is much important data necessarily omitted from the one-volume compilation prepared by Messrs. Channing and Coolidge, under the general title, Barrington- Bernard Correspondence. Documents, consisting of letters, proclamations, reports, etc., in the Archives Division of the State House, Boston, Massa¬ chusetts, especially volumes with titles: Legislature , Letters. General Printed Sources Acts of the Privy Council England , Colonial Series, Vol. VI, The Unbound Papers , London, 1912. American Archives , Force, Washington, D. C., 1837-1848, Vols. IV, V. Adams, James Truslow. The Founding of New England , Boston, 1921. Adams, John. History of the Dispute with America , London, 1784. Adams, John. Novanglus, in Works , IV, Boston, 1850-1856. Andrews, C. M. The Colonial Period, New York, 1912. Andrews, C. M. Colonial Self Government in America, 1652 - 1689, New York, 1904. 424 ROYAL GOVERNORS Andrews, C. M. List of Commissions , Instructions , and Addi¬ tional Instructions issued to the Royal Governors and others in America, Annual Report of the American Historical Associa¬ tion for 1911, pp. 393-528. Bancroft, George. History of the United States , Boston, 1891. 10 vols. Channing, Edward. A History of the United States, New York, 1905-1922. 5 vols. Chalmers, George. Introduction to the History of the Revolt of the American Colonies, Boston, 1845. 2 vols. Cheyney, E. P. European Background of American History, New York, 1904. Doyle, J. A. English Colonies in America, London, 1882. 5 vols. Franklin, Benjamin. Writings , edited by A. H. Smyth, New York, 1905-1907. 10 vols. Greene, E. B. The Provincial Governor, New York, 1904. McCormac, E. I. Colonial Opposition to Imperial Authority during the French and Indian War , Berkeley, California, 1911. Osgood, Herbert L. History of the American Colonies in the 17th Century , New York, 1904-1907. 3 vols. Palfrey, John Gorham. History of New England, Boston, 1858-1890. 5 vols. Pownall, Thomas. Administration of the Colonies, London, 1765. Weeden, W. B. Economic and Social History of New England, Boston, 1890. 2 vols. Winsor, Justin. Narrative and Critical History of America, New York, 1887-1889. 8 vols. Massachusetts Journals of the Houses of Representatives of Massachusetts Ray, 1715-177 J. A complete set of these Journals cannot be found in any one place, although the file in the Archives Division, State House, Boston, is complete from 1730 to 1773, inclusive. Reprints of the entire series, 1715-1780, edited by Dr. BIBLIOGRAPHY 4 25 Worthington Chauncey Ford, are now being published by the Massachusetts Historical Society at the charge of the William Bradford Homer Dowse Fund. Volumes I to IV, 1715-1723, have already been issued. Journals of Each Provincial Congress of Massachusetts in 1774- 1775 , edited by William Lincoln, Boston, 1838. Barry, J. S. History of Massachusetts , Boston, 1856. 3 vols. Belcher Papers. Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections , Series 6, VI, VII. Channing, Edward, and Archibald Cary Coolidge. Barring¬ ton- Bernard Correspondence , Cambridge, 1912. Cushing, Harry A. History of the Transition from Provincial to Commonwealth Government in Massachusetts , New York, 1896. Douglas, Charles H. Financial History of Massachusetts , New York, 1891-1892. Columbia Studies, Vol. I. D uni way, C. A. Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts , New York, 1906. Hutchinson, Thomas. History of the Colony {and Province) of Massachusetts Bay , London [1765], 1768, 1828. 3 vols. Kimball, Everett. The Public Life of Joseph Dudley , New York, 1911. Lincoln, Charles H. Correspondence of William Shirley , New York, 1912. 2 vols. Mather, Cotton. Diary of Cotton Mather , Mass. Hist. Soc., Coll., Series 7, VII, VIII. Mather, Cotton. Life of Sir William Phips , London, 1697. Mather, Cotton. Magnolia Christi Americana , Hartford, 1820. 2 vols. Matthews, Albert. Essay on Colonel Burgess , Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Publications , XIV, 363-372. Minot, G. R. Continuation of the History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay from the Year 174-8 to 1765 , Boston, 1856. 2 vols. Pownal, Charles A. The Life of Thomas Pownal , London, 1908. Sewall, Samuel. Diary of Samuel Sewall , 1674-1729 , 3 vols., Mass. Hist. Soc., Coll., Series 5, V, VII. 426 ROYAL GOVERNORS Winsor, Justin. Memorial History of Boston , Boston, 1880- 1881. 4 vols. Wood, George Arthur. Public Life of William Shirley , New York, 1920. New Hampshire Documents and Records Relating to the Province of New Hampshire , edited by Nathaniel Bouton and others, Concord, etc., 1867- 1907, Vols. I- VII, XVIII, XIX, usually cited as Provincial Papers. Acts and Laws of His Majesty's Province of New Hampshire in New England : with Sundry Acts of Parliament , 1696-1771 , edited by Albert Stillman Batchellor, Vols. I, II. New Hampshire Historical Society, Collections , 1824-1893. 10 vols. Proceedings , 1872-1897, 3 vols. Adams, Nathaniel. Annals of Portsmouth , Portsmouth, 1825. Fry, W. H. New Hampshire as a Royal Province , New York, 1908. Mayo, Lawrence Shaw. The Life of John Wentworth , New Haven, 1922. Robinson, Maurice H. History of Taxation in New Hampshire , New York, 1904. Sanborn, E. D. History of New Hampshire , Manchester, 1875. Sanborn, F. B. History of New Hampshire , New York, 1904. New York Journal of the Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Colony of New York , 1691-1765, New York, 1764-1766. 2 vols. Journal of the General Assembly of the Colony of New York , 1766- 1776, Albany, 1820. 9 books bound in one. Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, edited by E. B. O’Callaghan and B. Fernow, Albany, 1856-1887. 15 vols. New York Historical Society, Collections, 1811-1859. 9 vols. Publications, Fund Series, 1868-1893. 37 vols. Colden, Cadwallader. Papers, New York Historical Society, Coll., Series 2, IX, X (1876-1877). BIBLIOGRAPHY 427 Brodhead, J. R. History of the State of New York , New York, 1853, 1871. 2 vols. Jones, Thomas. History of New York during the Revolutionary War , and of the Leading Events in the Other Colonies at That Period , New York, 1879. 2 vols. Keys, Alice Mapelsden. Cadwallader Colden , a Representative Eighteenth Century Official , New York, 1906. Schuyler, Geo. W. Colonial New York , New York, 1885. 2 vols. Spencer, C. W. The Cornbury Legend , New York Hist. Assoc., Proc.f 1914. Smith, William. The History of the Late Province of New York from its Discovery to 1762 , New York, 1829-1830. 2 vols. Wilson, J. G. Memorial History of the City of New York from its first Settlement to the year 1892 , New York, 1892-1893. 4 vols. New Jersey New Jersey Historical Society, Collections , Newark, 1846-1872. 7 vols. Papers of Lewis Morris , New Jersey Hist. Soc., Coll ., Vol. IV. Fisher, Edgar Jacob. New Jersey as a Royal Province , New York, 1911. Tanner, Edwin P. The Province of New Jersey , 1664-1738 , New York, 1908. VITA. The author was born in Albany, New York, Dec. 2, 1895. After completing high school and college work at Villanova College, receiving in 1917 the degree of Bachelor of Arts, he was ordained, after three years of further study, to the priest¬ hood in the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine. Graduate studies in the Catholic University of America were begun in the fall of 1920, and consisted of courses in American History, in the History of Education and in Church History. INDEX Acts, resolves as substitute in Massa¬ chusetts, 71; short time, as weapon of House there, 77 ; riders as weapon, 111, 174; right to repeal, 119; of Parliament as Massachusetts laws, 170; wording of enactment clause in Massachusetts, 202; legality of enact¬ ment after death of King, 358; right to copies in New Jersey, 381. See also Code. Adams, J. T., on colonial Governors, 19; on Andros, 34, 34n.; on colonial New Englanders, 35; on Cranfield, 24 5n., 246. Adams, John, on Shirley, 121; rejected for Council, 216; delegate to Con¬ gress, 223n. Adams, Samuel, Commencement oration on resistance, 9; Gazetteer and Bernard, Bernard on, 176, 183, 190; and salary question, 205; as chief agitator, 208, 209; and removal of General Court, 209; and town memorials, 212; and movement for union, 216; and salary of judges, 220; delegate to Congress, 223 n.; excepted from pardon, 240. Addison, Joseph, and Wentworth, 257w. Addresses to Governor, right to advance copy, 340-342. Adjournment, Massachusetts contro¬ versies over right, 60, 89, 118; Ex¬ planatory Charter on, 72; day to day in New Jersey, 386, 387. Administration of colonies, English, fundamental character, 25; Bernard and instability of policy, 168, 171, 174; character in New Hampshire, 251, 252; effect in New York, 303, 304, 310, 320, 321; Bedford’s tighten¬ ing policy, 338. Admiralty, Massachusetts House and courts, 76; fee question, 156. Agent, provincial, of Massachusetts on salary question, 84-87, 90, 93, 100; control over, 118; instructions on im¬ pending Stamp Act, 154; appoint¬ ment and dismissal, 169, 170, 180; salary, 208, 262, 264; first, of New Hampshire, 247 n.; New Hampshire, and removal of Belcher, 262, 264; of New York, House controlled, 317, 369. Agitation, generality, popular attitude, 28, 29, 215; Bernard’s warning, 153; in New York, 369. Albany, convention (1748), 338. Allen, Samuel, as Governor of New Hampshire, and land claim, 251, 252, 255. American Revolution, remoteness of causes, 7, 30; and legality, 17; con¬ tests of Governors and Assemblies as education for, 418, 421; contests and causes, 419-422. See also Independ¬ ence. American Whig, anticipates independ¬ ence, 370. Andros, Sir Edmund, as Governor in Massachusetts, 33-35; rule in New Hampshire, 251; rule in New York, 287. Anglican Church. See Established church. Anne, Queen, instructions on salary question, 46; on fort at Pemaquid, 47; and charges against Dudley, 50; portrait for Massachusetts, 52; and treasurer in New York, 301. Appointive power, encroachment by Assemblies, 26, 156; House’s method of control in New York, 328, 340. Appropriations, specific, as weapon of Assemblies, 26, 416, 417. See also Expenditures; Salaries; Supply of treasury. Ashurst, Sir William, and Burges, 256n. Asia, at Boston, 227. Assemblies, popular status in quarrels with Governors, 11; looking behind Governor to King, 11-13; Parliament as model, 12-14; influence of political philosophy and environment, 14-16; as protector of popular liberties, and legality, 16-18; and provincialism, 18; and lack of legal redress against Governors, 22, 23; and instructions 430 INDEX to Governors, 23; chief matters of dispute: finances, salaries, 26; equity courts, 27; prorogations, 28; paper money, 28, 417; generality of agita¬ tion, 28, 29, 416; courses and results of conflicts, 29; as continuous institu¬ tion, 63; attainment of power in Massachusetts, 148; Albany con¬ vention on (1748), 338; New York protest against suspension, 369; underlying causes of contests with Governors, 415; methods of aggres¬ sion: control of supply, 416, 417; specific appropriations, 416, 417; audit of expenditures, 416, 417; own treasurers, 416, 417; Governor’s weapons against, 416; religious and land questions, 417; success, 418; educational value of contests, 418, 421; character of contests, 418-420; contests and causes of American Revolution, 419-422. See also Acts; Addresses; Adjournment; Agent; Appointive power; Clerk; Com¬ mittees; Council; Courts; Defense; Dissolutions; Elections; Finances; Governors; Independence; Meeting place; Military powers; Oath; Parliament; Postponement; Pro¬ rogations; Provincial Congress; Qualifications; Speaker; Suspending clause; Suspension; Veto; and colonies by name. Assumption of civil government, in Massachusetts, 237, 239-242. Atkinson, Theodore, chief justice, 27 5n.; Councillor, 27 6n. Attorney-General, right to choose in Massachusetts, 118. Audit. See Expenditures. Barefoote, Walter, as executive in New Hampshire, 251. Barrington, Lord, on avoiding trouble, 174. Bassett, J. S., on legality of English attitude, 17. Batchellor, A. S., on Cranfield, 246. Bedford, Duke of, colonial policy, 338. Belcher, Jonathan, on insubordination of Massachusetts, 9, 10; on Assembly and instructions, 23; on general opposition of Assemblies, 29; and appointment of Shute, 53, 256rc.; as agent, and salary question, 84, 87, 100, 106-109; rejected for Council, 85, 95; appointment as Governor, character, 94, 95, 119-121; salary controversy, and temporary grants, 96-101, 122, 126; allowance and depreciated currency, 100; and con¬ trol over expenditures, 101-110; de¬ fense question, 110; paper money, 111-115, 118; Land Bank, 115-117; rejects Councillors, 117; on his dis¬ placement, 117; minor disputes, 118; spoils system, 119; results of ad¬ ministration in Massachusetts, 121; on New Hampshire and separate Governor, 253 n.; New Hampshire salary question, 260; and salary of Lieutenant-Governor there, 260n.; and supply and redemption of paper money there, 261-265; New Hamp¬ shire agent and efforts for removal, 262, 264; and judging elections to House, 265; and boundary, 266; re¬ sults of administration in New Hamp¬ shire, 267; method of rule, 267w.; and plot against Wentworth, 274w.; conciliatory administration in New Jersey, 404, 405; deficient salary there, 405, 407; and land troubles, 406, 406n.; and intercameral strife, 407-409; and seat of Assembly, 408w. Belknap, Jeremy, on Cranfield, 245n.; on J. Wentworth, 276. Bellomont, Earl of, prosecution, 22; attitude as Governor in Massachu¬ setts, 39, 40; and defense, 40; salary question, pluralism, 40-42; death, 42, 299; as ruler of New Hampshire, 255; on Fletcher, 29 5n.; administra¬ tion of New York, 299. Bernard, Sir Francis, on value of New York governorship, 21; appointment to Massachusetts, expectations, 148; and anti-prerogative party, 149; and enforcement of Sugar Act, 149; and public affairs, 150; contests over emergency military appropriations, 150-152, 162, 170, 171, 180; warning against agitation, 153; and census, 153; and parliamentary taxation, 157; and Stamp Act, defense of con¬ duct, 156-165; and Stamp Act dis¬ turbances, compensation and indem¬ nity, 158, 159, 163, 164, 167, 170; and repeal of Stamp Act, 165; rejects Otis as speaker, 165; general hostility toward, vindication, 165, 171, 173, 176, 182-185, 188; and choice of Councillors, 165-167, 174, 175, 180, 186; and defense, 167; resentment INDEX 431 and apprehensions, 167-169, 177, 182; and forfeitures, 169; avoids trouble, 169, 170; and acts of Parliament as Massachusetts laws, 170; and in¬ stability of home policy, 168, 171; salary, 169, 171, 189; and Hutchin¬ son’s presence in House, 171; and Newfoundland proclamation, 172; and riders, 174; advises colonial representation, 175; and circular letter, 175, 178; home correspondence incident, 175, 178, 185, 188, 190; and calling for troops, 177, 181; petitions for removal, articles, 179-181, 189; and royal appointment of Councillors, 182, 184, 191; avoids convening Gen¬ eral Court, and irregular meeting, 182, 183, 190; on general disloyalty, 183, 184; and military menace of General Court, 185-187; last session, itemized legislative needs, 187-190, 193; and quartering, 190, 192; final resolves against, 190-192; leaves, final warning, 192, 194; and failure to prorogue General Court, 193; in¬ dictment, 195; administration in New Jersey, 409. Bills of credit. See Paper money. Blind Tax in New Jersey, 375, 379, 380. Board of Trade, on independence tendencies (c. 1720), 7, 8; on con¬ ditions in Massachusetts (1723), 9, 10; on Andros, 35; and salary question, 41, 45, 86, 97; and Burnet, 72 n., 314; and paper money, 127; on Assembly and military powers, 145; and early New Hampshire government, 245; and Cranfield, 249; and Wentworth, 278 n.; and Governor as member of Council, 320; and New York grants, 348, 350; and prolonged Assembly, 385. Boone, Thomas, administration in New Jersey, 409. Borland, John, and trade charges, 50. Boston, and non-resident representa¬ tives, 39; Governors ask for troops at, 71, 84, 158, 168; impressment riots, 129-131; and quartering, 142, 144; instructions to representatives (1770), 198; town memorial, 212. See also next titles, and Meeting place. Boston Massacre, 196. Boston Port Bill, enforcement, character of required submission, 222-224. Boston Tea Party, 219. Boundary, Massachusetts-New Hamp¬ shire contest, 266; New York contests, 356. Bowdoin, James, delegate to Congress, 223n. Boyne, at Boston, 227. Bradley, Richard, on independence tendency in New York, 326. British Constitution, colonial interpre¬ tation, 15, 16. Brodhead, J. R., on Cornbury, 300. Burges, Elizeus, and governorship, 52, 256. Burgoyne, John, ordered on colonial service, 230. Burlington, N. J., as seat of Assembly, 390. Burnaby, Andrew, on trend towards independence, 321. Burnet, William, character as Governor, 24; appointment to Massachusetts as punishment, 72, 314; instructions, 76, 77; salary question, 77-91; re¬ moval of General Court from Boston, 83; asks for troops, 84; turns tables on House, 85; rejects Belcher for Council, 85, 95; right of adjourn¬ ment, 89; dies, 91; payment to heirs, 91, 93; clearance fees, 92; other controversies, 92; as Governor of New Hampshire, salary there, 259; term, 260n.; in New York, and de¬ ferred election, 313; as chancellor, 314; and Huguenots, 314; loses popularity, 314; in New Jersey, and deferred election there, 385; and proprietary interests, 385; salary contest there, 386, 388; day by day adjournments, 386, 387; and quali¬ fications and oath of representatives. 386, 387; tactless attitude, 387. Cambridge, Mass., adjournment of General Court to, protests, 60, 62, 186, 196, 199-202, 204, 209, 210. Canadian expedition, of 1746, Massa¬ chusetts and, 129; New York supply, 333-335, of 1711, New York and, 306; New Jersey and, 383, 384. Cape Breton expedition. See Louisburg. Cartagena expedition, Massachusetts and, 129; New Hampshire and, 265; New York and, 324; New Jersey and, 393. Castle William, garrison desired, 71; controversy over repairs, 111, 119; force, 167; support, 174. 432 INDEX Census in Massachusetts, 153. Chalmers, George, on democratic ten¬ dencies, 30; on Shute, 53; on naval stores conflict, 54; on press contro¬ versy, 56. Chancery (equity), controversies over control, 27; question in New York, 314, 317, 318. Channing, Edward, on character of Governors, 24; on Cornbury, 300. Charter of Massachusetts, Explanatory, 45, 71; general welfare clause as weapon, 75; and salary controversies, 80, 82, 88, 89; and right of adjourn¬ ment, 89; and control over expendi¬ tures, 104-106, 108, 109; and paper money, 113; and suspended laws, 116; and instructions, 201, 205, 207, 222; as contract, 211; and Provincial Congress, 234-236; and assumption of government, 241, 242. Circular letter of Massachusetts (1768), 175. Clark, John, speaker, 58, 62. Clarke, George, right to rule, 321; grants and redemption of paper money, 322. Clearance, fees, controversy in Massa¬ chusetts, 92. Clerk of House, contest in New Jersey, 379. Clinton, George, Governor of New York, causes of contests, policy of concilia¬ tion, 327; military supply contest, recriminations, 328-338; advises Crown salary for Governors, 332; pays war expenses out of private purse, 334; refusal to deal with House, protests, 335-337, 343, 344; and printing of documents, 337; and paper money, 337; arraignment of House, 337, 338; Shirley’s investi¬ gation and advice, 338, 339, 341; re¬ sents disrespect, 339; right to ad¬ vance copy of addresses of House, 340-342; futile efforts against ag¬ gressions of House, 339, 341; on completeness of House’s control, 340, 341; demand for obedience to in¬ structions, 341-343; and unpaid public debts, 341, 343; House’s charges against, 342, 347; temporary harmony, delayed instructions, 344, 345; political effect of administration, 345; popular hostility, 346. Clinton, Sir Henry, ordered on colonial service, 230. Code, question in Massachusetts, 140; New Hampshire early, 244, 246n. Coercion of New England as policy, 227, 229. Colden, Cadwallader, as executive, 24; period of administrations, 356; po¬ sition at beginning, 356; and quotas, 357 ; and legality of acts passed after death of King, 358; and judicial tenure, 358-362; and theatre, 359; and Monckton, 360, 360n., 362; and fee table, 360, 361; and land grants, 362; intrigue for appointment, 363; and parliamentary taxation, 364; refusal to sign home addresses, 365; and Stamp Act riots, renewal of oath, refused compensation, 365-368; sal¬ ary, 366; and appeal from jury ver¬ dict, 366; published refutation, re¬ ception, investigation, reaction, 367, 368, 370; bargain on paper money and quartering, 370; and salary for Dunmore, 371; character, 372, 373; political effect of administrations, 373. Commander-in-chief, transfer of power in Massachusetts, 201; taken from colonial Governors, 231. Committee of Correspondence, Mas¬ sachusetts standing, instructions against, 216, 221; New Hampshire, 281; New York, 369. Committees, legislative, outside func¬ tions in Massachusetts, 118, 169; membership in New Hampshire, 275. Connecticut, subjugation suggested, 227, 229. Constables, Cranfield and appoint¬ ment, 248. Continental Congress, call by Massa¬ chusetts, 223, 225; and government for Massachusetts, 239-241; New Hampshire delegates, 282; New York and, 372; New Jersey and, 412. Cooke, Elisha [1], and Phips, 38; and Bellomont, 40; and appointment of Dudley, 43. Cooke, Elisha [2], and naval stores controversy, 54; rejected for Council, 54; rejection as speaker, 56; speaker pro tem., 64; rejected as Indian com¬ missioner, 65, 66. Cornbury, Lord, Governor of New York, character, 300; conflict over supply, question of embezzlement, 300-303; religious persecution, 302; list of charges against, recall, 303; INDEX 433 political effect of administration, 303; results of administration in New Jersey, 374, 382; supply and land rights contest there, 374-378, 381; and Blind Tax, 375, 379, 380; and contested election, 376, 377, 380; and clerk of House, 379; grievances against, answer, rejoinder, 380, 381; and audit of receiver-general’s ac¬ counts, 381; and trial upon informa¬ tions, 382. Cosby, William, Morris on, 21m.; Governor of New York, and Sugar Act, 315; first grant, loses popularity, 315; and Zenger trial, 316, 317; and agent, 317; and bills of credit, 317; chancery dispute, 317, 318; salary, 317m.; and deferred election, 318-320; as member of Council, 320; effect of administration, 321; death, 321; peaceful administration in New Jersey, 389. Council of Massachusetts, rejection of appointments to, 44, 54, 60, 64, 86, 95, 117, 140, 165, 174, 178, 180, 186, 199, 205, 216, 222; relations with Dudley, 44 m.; declares Dudley de¬ posed, 52; and paper money, 67, 75, 76, 113; and control over expendi¬ tures, 67, 103, 105, 106; quorum, 68; and salary question, 80, 91, 93; and agents, 84, 85, 93; and supply bills, 111; and excise bill, 132; contest with House, 156; and ignoring of Stamp Act, 165; Bernard and choice after Stamp Act, 165; and acts of Parliament as Massachusetts laws, 170; and military appropriations, 170, 171; Bernard and appointments to, 173, 178, 180; joins popular party, Bernard and royal appointments, 181, 182, 184, 191; and removal to Cambridge, 200; and Boston Tea Party, 219; and impeachment of Oliver, 220; Mandamus Councillors, 226-228, 237, 240; and assumption of government, 241. Council of New Hampshire, and Cran- field, 248; as instrument of Ports¬ mouth, 257; as Court of Appeal, 259m.; and financial controversy, 263, 264; as Wentworth family affair, 276; and salary question, 279. Council of New Jersey, attitude under Cornbury and Ingoldsby, 381, 383; strife with House, 384, 385, 407, 408; and money bills, 386; and control over expenditures, 391; and fees bill, 395, 397; and militia bill, 395, 397; chief justice as member, 397; and meeting at Trenton, 401, 402; and paper money, 402, 403. Council of New York, and prerogative, 287m.; and money bills, 306, 307, 349; and Zenger trial, 316; Governor as member, 320; deserts Clinton, 340; vetoes supply, 348; Delancey shifts responsibility to, 349, 350; and judicial tenure, 362; and appeal from jury verdict, 366. Councils, Franklin on, 137. Counties, controversy in New Hamp¬ shire, 274, 280. Courts, Franklin on character of judges, 19, 20; complaints on Massachusetts, under Dudley, 51; payment of judges’ salaries in Massachusetts, im¬ peachment, 212, 214, 218; authority to establish in New Hampshire, 249, 250; Court of Appeal there, 259m.; new counties and seats there, 274-280; power to establish in New York, 305, 314, 317, 318; judicial tenure and salaries in New York, 358-362; ap¬ peal from jury verdict in New York, 366; qualifications of jurors in New Jersey, 381; trial upon informations there, 382; New Jersey House and appellate jurisdiction, 394. Cranfield, Edward, Lieutenant-Gov¬ ernor of New Hampshire, 245; character, 245m., 246; supply contro¬ versy, oppressions, 246-249; and Cutt Code, 247m.; complaints against, 247w.; appointment of constables as revenge, 248; attempt to levy taxes, 248, 249, 251; and establishment of courts, 249, 250; financial gains, 249n.; leaves, 251. Customs at Boston, fees question, 156; question of income tax on commis¬ sioners, 207, 208. Cutt, John, as President of New Hamp¬ shire, 244, 245. Dartmouth, Earl of, on authority of Parliament, 213; and Hutchinson, 219; and coercion of Massachusetts, 227, 229, 230; on Lexington and Concord, 232. Defense, appropriation questions in Massachusetts, 42, 110, 118, 167, 174; Franklin on colonial attitude, 136-138; in New York, 328, 330; 434 INDEX bill in New Jersey, 396, 398. See also Fortifications; Military power. De la Moy, Peter, and accounts, 295. Delancey, James, and Clinton’s policy, 327; popularity and unpopular in¬ structions, policy, 346, 349-351; and temporary supply, 347, 348, 351; political character, 352; no salary 352n.; second term, 353, 356; death, 356. Democracy, reasons for colonial ten¬ dency, 30. See also Independence. Dissolutions of Assembly, Gage’s order frustrated, 225; complaint in New Hampshire, 247-249, 261, 265; Went¬ worth’s order ignored, 281. Dongan, Thomas, and Cranfield, 248; as Governor of New York, 286. Douglass, William, on equity courts, 27. Dover, N. H., independent govern¬ ment, 244. Doyle, J. A., on administration of New Hampshire, 24 5n. Dudley, Joseph, as President of New England, 33; unpopular appointment as Governor of Massachusetts, char¬ acter, 42, 43, 44n., 256; rule as formative period, 43, 44, 52; veto of Councillors, 44; relations with Coun¬ cil, 44 n.; rejection of speaker, 45; salary controversy, 45-47; and fort at Pemaquid, 47; and House’s ad¬ dress to Queen, 48 ; efforts to supplant. Port Royal charges, 48, 49; charges on Nova Scotia trade, 49-51; and naval stores, 51; other conflicts, 51, 52; deposed, reinstated, death, 52; administration in New Hampshire, salary grant, 255. Dudley, Paul, rejected by Belcher, 118rc. Dummer, Jeremiah, and Burges and Shute, 53, 256n. Dummer, William, acting Governor of Massachusetts, 67, 72, 92; salary question, 73, 92; and military power, 73; and appropriations, 73; and paper money, 74-76; results of ad¬ ministration, 76. Dunbar, David, Lieutenant-Governor of New Hampshire, 258n. Dunmore, Earl of, as Governor of New York, 370; salary question, 371n. Elections, Massachusetts Convention and frequent, 237, 239; deferred, in New Hampshire, 258; judging for New Hampshire House, 265; writs controversy there, 272-274, 282-285; speaker and special writs, 275; de¬ ferred, in New York, 313, 318-320; New York Septennial Act, 313n., 398; disputed, in New Jersey, 376, 377, 398; deferred, there, 384, 385; numerous New Jersey, under Morris, 398. Elizabethtown, N. J., meeting of As¬ sembly, 408n. Equity. See Chancery. Established church, Fletcher’s contest for, in New York, 296, 297 ; as matter of controversy, 417. Excise, personal liberty and Massachu¬ setts bill, 132; intercameral contest there, 156. Exeter, N. H., independent govern¬ ment, 244. Expenditures, specific appropriations and audit as weapons of House, 26, 416, 417; early claims of House in Massa¬ chusetts, 67, 68, 73; Councils and money bills, 67, 103, 105, 106, 111, 306, 307, 349, 386, 391; controversy under Burnet, 92; under Dummer, 93; under Belcher, audit before pay¬ ment, 101-110; addresses to King, 102, 107, 109; House’s appeal to towns, 103, 104; charter rights, 104- 106, 108, 109; royal instructions on control, 109, 110; for defense, 110; Bernard’s emergent military appro¬ priations, 150-152; New Hampshire House and control, 253; New York House and control, Fletcher’s mal¬ feasance, 293-298; House appoint¬ ment of treasurer, effect of House’s control, 301, 324, 346/1., 348; Corn- bury and embezzlement, lack of proper checks, 301, 302; aggressive attitude of New York House, 304; struggle under Hunter, final victory of House, 305-313; under Clinton, 323-326, 340-343, 345; Delancey’s instructions against specific appro¬ priations, ignored, 346, 347, 350, 351; control of military, 348; control question in New Jersey, 391, 394, 407. See also Salaries; Supply of treasury. Explanatory Charter of Massachusetts on speaker, 45; cause, provisions, 71. Fees, legal, in New York, 360, 361; of representatives in New Jersey, 381. Felton, John, arrest, 283. INDEX 435 Feme covert, bill in New Jersey, 394, 395ft.. Finances. See Expenditures; Land Bank; Paper money; Salaries; Supply; Taxation; Treasurer. Fletcher, Benjamin, Governor of New York, character, political effect of administration, 291, 298, 299; and inquiry into colonial debts, 292; con¬ firms privileges of House, 292; and salary, 292; contest over supply, mal¬ feasance, 293-298; and control over religious establishment and appoint¬ ments, 296, 297; land grants, 298. Folsom, Nathaniel, delegate to Con¬ gress, 282ft. Foreign coin, regulation in Massachu¬ setts, 51. Forfeitures on vessels, Bernard’s sup¬ posed interest, 169. Fort Pownal, reduction of garrison, 167; support, 174. Fort William. See Castle William. Fortifications, Massachusetts House and frontier, 39, 40, 45, 47, 48, 110, 167; and Castle William, 71, 111, 119, 167, 174. See also Defense. Franklin, Benjamin, on colonial Gov¬ ernors, 19, 20; on colonial political attitude (1754), 136-138; Massachu¬ setts agent, 203; Hutchinson Letters, 215, 218; on his son, 410. Franklin, James, press censorship, 56ft. Franklin, William, character as Gov¬ ernor of New Jersey, 409; and Stamp Act, 410; and quartering, 411; and paper money, 411; and robbery of treasury, 412; and Provincial Con¬ gresses, 412, 413; arrest, 413. French and Indian War, trade with the enemy, 24; Franklin on colonial attitude, 136-138; quartering ques¬ tions, 142-144; Massachusetts and quotas, 146; and Pownal’s policy, 146; and paper money in New Hamp¬ shire, 271, 272; New York supply, 348, 350-356; New York and later quotas, 357. Frontier, influence on attitude of As¬ semblies, 14-16. Gage, Thomas, and troops for Boston, 181, 187, 190; Governor of Massa¬ chusetts, instructions, 221, 222; re¬ jects Councillors, 322; sustains Port Bill, 225; dissolution orders frus¬ trated, 225; postpones General Court, 225; and Mandamus Councillors, 227; policy and inadequate military support, 228-230; and Convention, exchange of accusations, 228, 233- 237; and conciliatory overtures, 231; and policy of indemnity, exceptions, 231, 240; authority as Governor re¬ pudiated, 232, 238, 239, 242; and election of representatives (1775), 237, 238; excepted from pardon by Massachusetts, 240. Gallery for public in Massachusetts House, 169. General Court. See Massachusetts. General welfare, clause in Massachusetts charter as weapon of House, 75. George I, reinstates Dudley, 52; and prerogative, 53. George II, and Massachusetts, 86; and New York House, 348. Gove, Edward, revolt, 247ft. Governors, character of colonial, 18-22; usurpations, 23; good, 24; Franklin on, 137; under assumption of gov¬ ernment in Massachusetts, 241. See also Assemblies; Instructions; Sal¬ aries; and Governors and colonies by name. Grants. See Supply. Graves, Samuel, excepted from pardon by Massachusetts, 240. Greene, E. B., on good Governors, 24; on gradual consciousness of diver¬ gencies, 30. Hamilton, Andrew, on redress against Governors, 22; on prorogations, 28. Hampton, N. H., independent govern¬ ment, 244. Hancock, John, rejected for Council, 186, 199, 205; rejected for speaker pro tern., 198; rejected as commissary- general, 204; temporary desertion, 208; approved as speaker pro tern., 209; presides over Provincial Con¬ gress, 225, 237; delegate to Conti¬ nental Congress, 223ft.; excepted from pardon, 240. Hardy, Sir Charles, appointment as Governor of New York, 353; in¬ structions and grants, 353-356; leaves, 356. Hardy, Josiah, administration in New Jersey, 409; cause of removal, 409ft. Harvard College, Shute and, 65. See also Cambridge. Hillsborough, Earl of, Bernard corre- 436 INDEX spondence, 178, 190; on Massachu¬ setts income tax on Crown officers, 208. House of Representatives. See As¬ semblies, and colonies by name. Howe, Sir William, ordered on colonial service, 230. Huguenots, naturalization in New York, 31 In.; Burnet and, 314. Hunter, Robert, character as Gov¬ ernor, 24, 312; task as Governor of New York, aggressiveness of House, 304; instructions, 304; supply con¬ test, 305-313; and Canadian expe¬ dition, 306; and establishment of courts, 307; and naturalization bill, 311, 312; policy as Governor of New Jersey, 384, 385. Huske, Ellis, chief justice, 27 5n. Hutchinson, Thomas, character as Gov¬ ernor, 24; on Andros’s government, 34; on Phips, 38w.; on Dudley, 42, 50n.; Lieutenant-Governor, antago¬ nism toward, 149; decision in Sugar Act fees case, 150; writs of assistance case, 152; Stamp Act riots, 158; and petition to King on Stamp Act, 158n.; dropped from Council, 165-167; presence in House, 171; and bargain on Council, 173; acting Governor, knowledge of affairs, 194; position, 195; unpropitious events, 195; and prorogations, 196, 208; instructions and meetings at Cambridge, 196, 199-202, 204, 209, 210; suppression of disorders, 197, 198; and quartering, 198; salary question, 198, 204-207, 210; rejects speaker, 198, 209; and governorship, acceptance, 198, 204; rejects Councillors, 199, 205, 215; and transfer of power of commander- in-chief, 201; and wording of enact¬ ment clause, 203; attempts at con¬ ciliation, 203, 205, 206; and naval stores, 206; and income tax on Crown officers, 207; veto of agents’ salaries, 208; Thanksgiving proclamation, 209; on loyalty, 210; on theory of charter, 211; on town memorials, 213; on authority of Parliament, 213; salary and impeachment of judges, 214, 220; Hutchinson Letters, 215-218, and Committee of Corre¬ spondence, 216; removal asked, 218; considered overzealous, 219; and Boston Tea Party, 219; superseded, 221; convention at Albany, 338. Hutchinson Letters, 215-218. Imperialism, and frontier forts, 47. Impressment, Boston riots, 129-131; New York and military, 357. Independence, early accusations of de¬ sire, 7, 8; evidences, 24; as to justi¬ fication, 25; causes of development, gradual growth, 29-31; assertion of House’s paramount rights as prelude, 58; Massachusetts accused of desire (1729-33), 86, 109; significance of impressment riots, 130; Bernard’s accusation of desire, 180; as funda¬ mental question in Massachusetts (1769), 194; S. Adams’s hint, 209; Dartmouth on purpose, 227; Hunter insinuates desire, 307; trend in New York, 321; and House’s control over expenditures, 324, 326, 345,417; pre¬ dicted (1769), 370; development of philosophy of, and strife with Gov¬ ernors, 415, 417. See also American Revolution. Indians, and Andros’s government, 34n.; Massachusetts controversies over measures against, 57, 65; Massachu¬ setts and war (1764), 156. Informations, New Jersey trials upon, 382. Ingoldsby, Richard, as executive in New York, 304; in New Jersey, 383, 384. Instructions to Governors, attitude of Assemblies toward, 23; and charter rights, disregard in Massachusetts, 80, 82, 88, 89, 99, 104, 105, 113, 121; right to know reasons, 202, 216; New York House and obeying, 309, 310, 341-343. See also Governors by name. Iroquois, Massachusetts commissioners to, 65. Isle of Shoals, Wentworth’s proclama¬ tion from, 285w. James II, colonial policy, 33; and New York, 286. Jennings, Samuel, speaker, 378. Joffrey, George, Councillor, 277 n. Judges. See Courts. Jury, appeal from verdict, 366; qualifi¬ cations in New Jersey, 381. Justices of the peace, and election of loan officer in New Jersey, 398. Kalm, Peter, on trend toward inde¬ pendence, 321. Keyes, A. M., on Colden, 373. INDEX 437 Kimball, Everett, on Dudley’s un¬ popularity, 44 n. King, colonial attitude toward, 11-13. See also Administration; Independ¬ ence; Instructions . King George’s War, and Massachusetts paper money, 128; Canadian expe¬ dition, 129, 333-335; quartering, 133; supply question in New York, 328- 338; New Jersey and preparation, 396, 399, 400n., 402. See also Louis- burg. King William’s War, military expendi¬ tures in New York, 293. Kirke, Percy, and governorship, 42w. Land Bank controversy, 115-117, 122, 129. Land grants. Mason claim and New Hampshire government, 245, 252, 255; B. Wentworth and, 275; Fletcher’s, in New York, 298; bound¬ aries and division there, 362; as matter of controversy, 417. See also Proprietary interests. Laws. See Acts. Legality in Revolutionary struggle, 17. Leisler, Jacob, revolt and rule, 287, 288. Lexington, Mass., on royal instruc¬ tions, 23. Lexington and Concord, battle of, and rebellion, 232. Lincoln, Mass., and representation, 132. Livingston, William, on colonial con¬ ditions, llw. Livius, Peter, Councillor, 277 n.; and Wentworth, 278w. Loudoun, Earl of, on Pownal, 141; and quartering, 142. Louisburg expedition, Massachusetts and, 129; New Hampshire and, 270, 271; New Jersey and, 399, 402. Lovelace, Lord, Governor of New York, 303, 304; in New Jersey, 383. Lynne, N. H., writ of election question, 282n. Mandamus Councillors in Massachu¬ setts, 226-228, 237, 240. Marblehead, Mass., town memorial, 212w. Martyn, Richard, and Council, 24 6n. Mason, John, land claim and royal government, 245, 252, 255. Massachusetts, early law against taxa¬ tion without representation, 7; ac¬ cused of desire for independence (1722), 8; Belcher on insubordina¬ tion, 9, 11; Board of Trade on con¬ ditions (1723), 9, 10; population, militia, and navigation then, 10; and salary payments by Crown, 27 ; under Andros, 33-35; failure at self-govern¬ ment, 35; new charter, provisions, 36; appointment of Phips, 36, 37; his contests, 37, 38; charges against him. House and removal, 38, 39; resi¬ dential qualification for House, 39; under Stoughton, 39, 42; first royal vetoes, 39; Pemaquid Fort contro¬ versies, 39, 40, 45, 47, 53, 118, 129; Bellomont’s attitude, harmony, his salary and pluralism, 39-42; neglect of defense, 42, 110, 118, 167, 174; Dudley’s appointment and character, 42, 43, 44 n.; his administration as formative period, 43, 44, 52; re¬ jection of Councillors, 44, 54, 60, 64, 86, 95, 117, 140, 165, 174, 178, 180, 186, 199, 205, 216, 222; rejection of speakers, 45, 56-59, 62, 72, 118, 165, 198; Dudley’s salary controversy, 45-47; suppression of House’s ad¬ dress to Queen, 48; and fort at Ports¬ mouth, 48; charges against Dudley, 48-51; question of naval stores, 51, 54-56, 206; other conflicts with Dudley, 51; Queen Anne’s portrait, 52; deposition of Dudley, 52; ap¬ pointment of Shute, his provocative instructions, 52, 53; freedom of the press, 54-56; salary question under Shute, 57-59, 68-70; priority of allowances or legislation, 59, 73, 80, 87; right of adjournment, 60, 72, 89 118; House’s memorial to King on Shute’s address, 61, 63; removal of General Court from Boston, protests, 60, 62-64, 83, 85, 186, 196, 199, 200- 202, 204, 209, 210, 222; Indian ques¬ tions under Shute, 64-66; encroach¬ ments on Governor’s military powers, 65, 66, 73, 129, 144-146; Shute leaves, 66; Shute and paper money, 67, 74; control over expenditures, 67, 68, 73, 92, 93, 101-110; Parlia¬ ment and salary question, 70, 86, 87, 90, 107; Shute’s faults, 70; resolves and short-time acts, 71, 77; Gov¬ ernors and regular troops for Boston, 71, 84, 158, 168, 177, 181; Explana¬ tory Charter, 71; results of strife under Shute, 72; appointment of Burnet, 72; under Dummer, 72-76, 438 INDEX 92; salary of acting Governor, 73, 92, 140; allowances and paper money issues, 75, 76; popular advance under Dummer, 76; interference with Ad¬ miralty Courts, 76; Burnet’s instruc¬ tions, 76, 77; salary question under him, 77-91; salary question and charter rights, 80, 82, 88, 89, 99, 100; salary memorial to King, agents and their advice, their fund, 83-87, 90, 93; warrants for salaries in House held up, 85; death of Burnet, payment to his heirs, 91, 93; clearance fees, 92; other controversies with Burnet, 92; appointment of Belcher, his charac¬ ter, 94, 95, 119-121; his instructions on salary, 96, 97; his salary contest, 97-101; temporary salary grants ac¬ cepted, 99, 100, 122; expenditure controversy under Belcher, 101-110; address to King on expenditures, 102, 107, 109; expenditure control and charter rights, 104-106, 108, 109; paper money under Belcher, limita¬ tion of issues, 111-115, 118; Land Bank, 115-117, 122, 129; appoint¬ ment and character of Shirley, 117, 118, 121; Belcher’s minor disputes, 118; new towns and representation, 118, 131, 132, 140, 169; his use of patronage, 119; political results of his administration, 121; popularity and success of Shirley, 121, 133-136; his salary grants and depreciation of currency, 123-126; summary of salary controversies, 126; paper money issues under Shirley, war needs, 127, 128; House and military affairs under him, impressment riots, 129-131; Shirley and the excise measure, 132; Shirley and Pownal and quartering, 133, 142-144; under Spencer Phips, problem of supply, other questions, 138-140; appointment of Pownal, his problem, 140-142; influence of ab¬ sence of Governor, 141; and Pitt’s war policy, quotas, 146; war time and Pownal’s policy, 146; regret at his transfer, 146, 147; powerful position of House, 148, 169; Bernard’s ap¬ pointment and expectations, 148; his struggle with anti-prerogative party, 149; Sugar Act fees case, 149; Bernard’s emergent military appro¬ priations, 150-152, 162, 170, 171, 180; writs of assistance case, 152, 153; Bernard’s warning against agitation. 153; census as warning (1763), 153; and renewal of Sugar Act, 154; House’s separate instructions to agent on impending Stamp Act, 154-156; contests with Council, 156; grants to person instead of to office, 156; and Indian war (1764), 156; House and Stamp Act, 156, 158-165; House and Stamp Act Congress, 157; Stamp Act riots, compensation, 158, 159, 163, 164, 166, 167, 170; House demands opening of courts, 165; Bernard and repeal of Stamp Act, 165; Bernard and choice of Council¬ lors, Hutchinson, 165, 174, 178, 180; Bernard’s resentment and appre¬ hensions, 167-169, 177, 182-185; Bernard and instability of English policy, 168, 171, 174; appointment and dismissal of agent, 169, 170, 180; Bernard avoids trouble, 169, 170, 181; acts of Parliament as Massachusetts laws, 170; general hostility toward Bernard, 171, 173, 176, 183, 188, 194; Hutchinson’s presence in the House, 171 ; proclamations of another colony, 172; attempted bargain on Council¬ lors, 173; riders, veto of items, 174; circular letter (1768), question of re- cission, 175, 178; Shelburne’s cen¬ sure, 175; Bernard’s home correspond¬ ence, 176, 185, 188, 190; celebration of anniversary of Stamp Act repeal, 177; and Townshend Acts, 179, 190, 192; petitions for Bernard’s removal, articles, 179-181, 189; proposed royal appointment of Councillors, 182, 184, 191; Bernard avoids calling General Court, irregular meetings, 182, 183, 190; evidences of general disloyalty, 183, 184; House and military menace of Court House, 185-187; Bernard’s final session, 185-193; refusal to pro¬ vide quartering, 187, 190, 192, 198; Bernard’s specific requests for legis¬ lation, 188-190; refusal of salary to him, 189; final resolves against him, 190-192; his departure and final warning, 192; fundamental prob¬ lem, 194; Hutchinson’s equipment and position as acting Governor, 194; protests on prorogations, 196, 205, 208, 221; responsibility for dis¬ orders, 197; protests on troops, 197; Hutchinson and governorship, ap¬ pointment, 198, 204; transfer of powers of commander-in-chief, 201; INDEX 439 wording of enactment clause, 202; colonial Committee of Correspond¬ ence, 203, 216, 221; preparedness of militia, 203; Hutchinson’s attempt at conciliation, 203, 205, 206; accept¬ ance of Crown salaries, impeachment of judges, 204-207, 210, 214, 220, 221 n.; income tax on Crown officers, 207, 208; salaries of agents, 208; Adams carries on, 208, 209; Hutchin¬ son’s Thanksgiving proclamation, 209; town memorials, 212; authority of Parliament, 213; Hutchinson Letters, 215-218; popular attitude toward agitation, 215; movement for union, 216; Virginia Resolves, 216; removal of Hutchinson asked, 218; ministry’s disapproval of his zeal, 219; Boston Tea Party, Governor’s helplessness, 219; Gage’s appoint¬ ment and instructions, 221; Boston Port Bill, General Court at Salem, 222-224; and Continental Congress, 223, 225; culminative expression of grievances, 224; non-importation, 224; Gage postpones General Court, Convention organized. Convention on right of postponement, 225, 226; Mandamus Councillors, 226-228, 237, 240; policy of coercion, 227, 229; Gage and inadequate military force, 228-230; disarmament of people sug¬ gested, 228; character and status of Provincial Congress, and Gage, 228, 232-236, 240; and conciliatory over¬ tures, 230; proposed indemnity, ex¬ ceptions, 231, 240; effect of Lex¬ ington and Concord, 232; repudiation of Gage’s authority as Governor, 232, 238, 239, 242; Provincial Congress and military preparations, 234, 236-238; assumption of civil government, status, 237, 239-242; Congress and frequent elections, 237, 239; second Congress, 237 ; Gage and regular election (1775), 237, 238; counter to Gage’s pardon proclamations, 240; independent General Court, anomaly, 242; and union with New Hamp¬ shire, 253; New Hampshire bound¬ ary, 266; New York boundary, 356; character of contests with Governors, 419, 420. Massachusetts Gazette , and Bernard, 176, 183. Mather, Cotton, on appointment of Phips, 37. Mather, Increase, charges against An¬ dros, 35; and new charter, 36; and appointment of Phips, 37. Mauduit, Jasper, letter from House on Stamp Act, 154. May hew, Jonathan, on protection of rights, 153. Meeting place of Assembly, contro¬ versies in Massachusetts, 60, 62-64, 83, 85, 186, 196, 199-202, 204, 209, 210, 222; in New Jersey, 390, 400, 401, 408rc. Military powers, encroachment by As¬ semblies, 26, 65, 66, 73; under Shir¬ ley, 129; Pownal and House’s aggres¬ sion, 144-146; Bernard’s emergent appropriations, 150-152, 162, 170, 171; transfer in Massachusetts, 201; general transfer from colonial Gov¬ ernors, 231. See also Defense; Militia; Standing army; and wars by name. Militia, Massachusetts (1723), 10; preparedness there, 203, 234, 236- 238; New Jersey bill, 382, 383, 393, 395, 397. Monckton, Robert, and Colden and judicial tenure, 360, 360w., 361; re¬ turn, 364. Montgomerie, John, as Governor of New York, 314; administration in New Jersey, 388, 389; death, 389. Moody, Joshua, and Cranfield, 247 n. Moore, Sir Henry, popular policy as Governor of New York, 366; and compensation for Colden, 367; and protest against suspension of Assem¬ blies, 369; and agent, 369; death, 370. Morris, Lewis, on colonial Governors, 21w.; and Cosby, 21n.; character as Governor, 24; on generality of dis¬ putes, 29; on Cornbury, 303; and proprietary interests. Councillor, 378; appointment as Governor of New Jersey, position, 390; controversy over supply, 391-394, 396, 397, 399, 400, 402-404; and Cartagena expe¬ dition, 393; on soft policy, 393; and feme covert bill, 394; and legal fees bill, 394, 395, 397 ; and paper money, 394, 396, 400, 402, 403; and House’s attempt at appellate jurisdiction, 394; bargain on supply and legislation, 394; and militia bill, 395, 397; and at¬ tempt to nullify suspending clause, 395, 397; and nepotistic pluralism, 397; and contested election, 398; on 440 INDEX danger in aggression of House, 398, 403; tirades, 399; effect of character on relations, 399, 401; and blame for failure of supply, 399, 400; and place of meeting, 400-402; and anti-pro¬ prietary disturbances, 400; death, 404; political effect of administra¬ tion, 404. Mutiny Act, Massachusetts House on, 192. Nanfan, John, as executive, 299n. Natick, Mass., and representation, 132. Naturalization bill in New York, 311. Naval stores, conflicts in Massachusetts, 51, 54-56, 206. Navigation, Massachusetts (1723), 10. Nepotism, Wentworth, 276. New Hampshire, Massachusetts and separation, 47; independent Gov¬ ernor, 117w., 268; beginning as royal province, Cutt as President, 244, 245; nativity of executives, 244; beginning of House, 244; Cutt Code, 244, 24 Qn.; land claims and government, 245, 252, 255, 417; appointment of Cran- field, 245; his character, 24 5n., 246; supply controversy under him, dis¬ solutions, 246-249; Gove’s revolt, 247n.; complaints against Cranfield, 247w.; his appointment of constables, 248; his attempt to levy taxes, 248, 249, 251; piracy act, 249; power to establish courts, 249, 250; Barefoote as executive, 251; Andros’s rule without House, 251; restoration of House, 251; character of English ad¬ ministration, 251, 252; period of local self-government, 25 In.; Usher as executive, 252; supply and salary controversy under him, 252-254; de¬ sire for reunion with Massachusetts, 253; House and application of appro¬ priations, 253; under jurisdiction of Massachusetts Governor, 253n.; re¬ moval of Usher, 254, 255; period of harmony, 255; permanent grant to Dudley, 255 ; under Vaughan, perma¬ nent salary refused, 256; Shute’s Council as Portsmouth instrument, 257; paper money under Shute, 257; deferred election, complaint, 258; J. Wentworth as executive, 258; re¬ jection of speaker, 258, 259, 273; Burnet and salary, 259; Court of Appeal question, 259 n.; Belcher’s salary conflict, depreciated currency, 260; Belcher and redemption of paper money, poverty, war burden, deadlock, 261-265; frequent dissolu¬ tions by Belcher, 261, 265; agent’s salary and work for removal of Belcher, 262; Belcher and judging elections to House, 265; boundary question, 266; Belcher’s character and political results of administration, 267; appointment of B. Wentworth, Wentworth dynasty, 267, 276; harmony under him, 268; his salary question, 268-270; paper money under him, war issues, 270-272; writs of election controversy, 272-274, 282- 285; county division and court seats, 274, 280; writ for special election, 275; membership of legislative com¬ mittees, 275; encroachment on mili¬ tary powers of Governor, 275; Went¬ worth’s land grabbing, permitted resignation, 275, 276; conditions favoring administration of J. Went¬ worth [2], 276; his nepotism and favoritism, 276; his popularity and worth considered, 277, 278, 285; his salary controversy, 278, 279, 28 On.; Committee of Correspondence and rupture with Governor, 281; House meeting after dissolution, delegates to Continental Congress, 281; post¬ ponement of Assembly, 282; and reconciliation, 282-284; seizure of provision ships, 282; attack on fort at Portsmouth, 282n.; arrest at Gov¬ ernor’s house, 283; Wentworth’s flight, 283n., 284, 285; his proclama¬ tion of prorogation from Isle of Shoals, 28 5n.; character of contests with Governors, 418. New Jersey, political results of Corn- bury’s administration, 374, 382; Cornbury’s supply and proprietary interests conflict, 374-378, 381, 382; Blind Tax, 375, 379, 380; precedence of legislation or supply, 376, 397, 399, 402, 404; disputed elections, 376, 377, 380, 398; clerk of House, 379; remonstrance to Cornbury, grievances, graft, 380, 381; accounts of receiver-general, 381; right to copy of laws, 381; trials upon infor¬ mations, 382; militia act, 382, 383, 393, 395, 397, 404; Lovelace’s ad¬ ministration, 383; Ingoldsby’s policy, 383; and Canadian expedition (1711), 383, 384; Hunter’s policy, harmoni- INDEX 441 ous results, intercameral strife, 384, 385; Burnet and deferred election, 385; Burnet and proprietary inter¬ ests, 385; his salary contest, 386, 388; day to day adjournments, 386, 387; Council and money bills, 386; quali¬ fications and oaths of representatives, 386, 387; effect of Burnet’s tactless attitude, 387; later harmony under Burnet, 388; joint governorship as cause of harmony, 388, 389; Mont¬ gomerie’s administration, 388, 389; separation from New York governor¬ ship, 388-390; Cosby’s peaceful ad¬ ministration, 389; Morris’s appoint¬ ment and position, 390; seats of Assembly, 390, 400-402, 408n.; ad¬ vance in power of House, Morris on it, 390, 398, 403; supply controversy under Morris, 391-394, 396, 397, 399, 400, 402-404; control over ex¬ penditures, 391, 394, 407; and Cartagena expedition, 393; Morris on uses of soft policy, 393; feme covert bill, 394, 39 5n.; acknowledg¬ ment of deeds, 394; legal fees con¬ test, suspending clause, 394, 395, 397; paper money, 394, 396, 400, 402, 403, 411; House’s effort for ap¬ pellate jurisdiction, 394; Morris’s barter on supply, 394; and King George’s War, 396, 398, 399, 400n.; House on parliamentary prohibition of paper money, 396; pluralism of Morris’s son, 397; justices of the peace and election of loan officers, 398; short-lived Assemblies under Morris, 398, 403; his tirades, House’s replies, blame for failure of supply, 399, 400-402; effect of Morris’s char¬ acter, 399; anti-proprietary disturb¬ ances, 400, 406; advance of House during Morris’s administration, 404; Belcher’s conciliatory administration, 404, 405; his deficient salary, 405, 407; Belcher and intercameral strife, 407-409; Bernard, Boone, Hardy, 409; Franklin’s character as Gov¬ ernor, 409; Stamp Act affairs, 410; quartering, 411; robbery of provin¬ cial treasury, 412; Provincial Con¬ gress and Franklin, 412, 413; arrest of Franklin, 413; proprietary rights and contests, 417; character of con¬ tests with Governors, 418. New York, Bernard on value of gov¬ ernorship, 21; and Bellomont’s plu¬ ralism, 41; Dongan’s rule with and without House, 286; and Andros, 287; causes of Leisler revolt, 287; appointment of Sloughter, provision for House, 288; declaration against Dongan’s acts and permanent sup¬ port, 288; declaration of right of representation, 288; salary dispute under Sloughter, poverty, 289; Sloughter’s neglect of public busi¬ ness, 289, 290; precedence of supply or legislation, 290, 325, 326, 359, 361, 393; political precedents from Sloughter’s administration, 290, 291; Fletcher’s character, political effect of administration, 291, 298, 299; House and inquiry into public debts, 292; confirmation of privileges of House, 292; Fletcher’s salary grant, 292; his contest over supply, mal¬ feasance in military finances, 293- 298; conflict over religious establish¬ ment and appointments, 296, 297; Fletcher’s land grants, 298; Bello¬ mont’s administration, 299; factions in House, 299, 300; character of Cornbury, 300; Cornbury’s supply, 300, 301, 303; House and own treas¬ urer, 301, 324, 346n., 348; Cornbury and embezzlement, 301, 302; lack of checks on expenditures, 302; list of grievances against Cornbury, his recall, 303; political effect of his ad¬ ministration, 303, 304; Hunter’s task, aggression of House, 304; power to establish courts, chancery, 305, 307, 314, 317, 318; sole power to tax, 305; Hunter’s contest over control of finances, victory of House, 305-313; supply for Canadian expedition (1711), 306; Council and money bills, 306, 307, 349; grant to Hunter (1712), 308; accountability of receiver-gen¬ eral, 310; naturalization act, 311, 312; Hunter’s character, 312; ap¬ pointment of Burnet, 313; deferred elections, 313, 318-320; Septennial Act, 313w., 398; Burnet’s loss of popularity and transfer, 314; Mont¬ gomerie’s peaceful administration, 314; Cosby’s first grant and loss of popularity, 315; Zenger trial, politi¬ cal phase, 316, 317; agent question, 317; bills of credit under Cosby, 317; Governor as member of Council, 320; effect of administrations to 1736, 320, 321; succession on Cosby’s death. 442 INDEX 321 ; Clarke’s annual supply and redemption of paper money, 322-327 ; House’s control over expenditures, 323-326, 340-343, 345; underlying causes of Clinton’s contests, 327; Clinton and paper money, 328, 337; Clinton and military supply, recrim¬ inations, 328-338; House’s method of control over appointive power, 328, 340; and Canadian expedition (1746), 333-335; Clinton’s refusal to deal with House, deadlock, 335-337, 343, 344; dispute over printing docu¬ ments, 337; points of Clinton’s ar¬ raignment, House’s unofficial reply, 337, 338; Shirley’s diagnosis of troubles, 338, 339; Clinton’s futile efforts against “innovations”, 339, 341; his resentment of disrespect, 339; Governor’s demand for advance copy of addresses to him, 340-342; Clinton on completeness of House’s control, 340, 341; House and obedi¬ ence to royal instructions, 341-343; unpaid debts, responsibility, 341, 343; charges against Clinton, 342, 347; temporary harmony due to delayed instructions, 344, 345; effect of Clin¬ ton’s administration, 345; Osborne’s arrival, instructions, and suicide, 345, 346; House’s right to inspect treasury accounts, 346n.; Delancey’s popularity, unpopular instructions, and policy, 346, 349-351; House and instructions for permanent supply, royal reprimand, 347, 348, 350, 351; supply for French and Indian War, 348, 350-352, 354-356; Delancey shifts responsibility onto Council, 349, 350; and prohibition of legal tender, 350, 351; Delancey and sal¬ ary, 352 n.; Delancey’s second term, 353, 356; appointment of Hardy, in¬ structions, temporary grants allowed, 353, 355; Hardy and permanent revenue, 353; controversies over boundaries, 356; Hardy leaves, 356; Colden’s position at beginning of ad¬ ministration, 356; later French and Indian War quotas, 357; legality of acts passed after death of King, 358; judicial tenure and salary contest, 358-362; Colden’s theatrical permit, 359; fee table, 360, 361; land grant boundaries and division, 362; House and agent, 363, 369; protest on Sugar Act and parliamentary taxation. Colden and addresses, 364, 365; Stamp Act riots, Colden and com¬ pensation, 365-368; Colden’s renewal of oath, 365; Moore’s popular policy, 366; appeal from jury verdict, 366; Colden’s published refutation, investi¬ gation, reaction, 367, 368, 370; pro¬ test of House against parliamentary suspension of Assemblies, 369; Com¬ mittee of Correspondence, 369; paper money and quartering bargain, 370, 371; Dunmore, question of salary, 370; Tryon’s rule, 371; conservatism, 371; government seized by revolu¬ tionists, 372; Colden’s character, in¬ fluence of his administrations, 372, 373; separation of New Jersey gov¬ ernorship, 388-390; character of contests with Governors, 419. Newcastle, Duke of, on Massachusetts, 71; colonial policy, 338. Newfoundland, proclamation in Massa¬ chusetts, 172. Nicholson, Sir Francis, and Leisler’s re¬ volt, 288; Lieutenant-Governor, 288. Non-importation, suspension of Assem¬ blies for supporting, protest, 369. Nova Scotia, charges against Dudley concerning trade, 49-51; Shirley’s recommendations on government, 135. Oath of representatives, question in New Jersey, 386. Oliver, Andrew, letters, 217 «., 21 8n.; removal as Lieutenant-Governor asked, 218; convention at Albany, 338. Oliver, Peter, chief justice, salary ques¬ tion, impeachment charges, 220, 221w. Osborne, Daniel, arrival as Governor, instructions, suicide, 345, 346. Osgood, H. L., on Dudley, 256. Otis, James, as opposition leader, 150; writs of assistance case, 152; expres¬ sion of loyalty, 153; letter to Mau- duit on Stamp Act, 154; Stamp Act Congress, 161; rejected as speaker and as Councillor, 165, 178, 186; lessens activity, 174; and Gazette, 176; and reception of Gov. Went¬ worth, 188; insane, 208. Oxford, N. H., writ of election question, 282n. Paine, R. T., delegate to Congress, 223n. Paper money, as frontier measure, 16; INDEX 443 as source of controversy, 28, 417; controversies in Massachusetts: under Shute, suspending clause, 67, 112; under Dumrner, interpretation of limiting instructions, 74; and decline of Massachusetts, 90; depreciation and salaries, 100; under Belcher, limitation, 111-115; address to King, appeal to Parliament, 113; redemp¬ tion question, 114, 128; issues under Shirley, war needs, 127, 128; gradual discontinuance, 129, 139; contro¬ versy in New Hampshire: under Shute, 257 ; depreciation and salaries, 260, 269; struggle for redemption, 261-265; B. Wentworth and war issues, 270-272; New York contro¬ versies: under Cosby, 317; redemp¬ tion, 322; for King George’s War, 328, 337; and prohibition of legal tender, 350, 351; for French and Indian War, 354n.; quartering act bargain, 370, 371; New Jersey con¬ troversies: early, 394, 396; House on parliamentary prohibition, 396; Gov¬ ernor Franklin and, 411. Parliament, influence of development on colonial sentiment, 12, 323, 344; legality of attitude toward colonies, 17; and colonial salary controversy, 70, 86, 87, 90, 107; and paper money, 111-114; Bernard and authority to tax colonies, 157; acts as Massachu¬ setts laws, 170; Massachusetts dis¬ cussion of authority, 213; declaration of colonial authority, 229; overtures, 230; suspension of colonial Assemblies, 369; New Jersey House on paper money prohibition as encroachment, 396. See also Stamp Act. Partridge, William, as executive of New Hampshire, 254, 255. Patronage, Belcher’s use, 119; Went¬ worth dynasty in New Hampshire, 267, 276n. Pemaquid, contest over fort at, 39, 40, 45,47,53,118,129. Penobscot Indians, negotiations, 57 ; measures against, 65, 140. Personal liberty, and excise in Massa¬ chusetts, 132. Perth Amboy, N. J., as seat of Assem¬ bly, 390. Phips, Spencer, as acting Governor, problem of supply, 133n., 138-140; salary, 140; other difficulties, 140. Phips, Sir William, prosecution, 23; appointment as Governor of Massa¬ chusetts, 36, 37; career, 3 6n.; salary controversy, 37; other conflicts, 38; charges against, 38; House and re¬ moval, 38; and residential qualifica¬ tion, 39. Pierce, Daniel, Councillor, 277 n. Piracy, New Hampshire act on, 249. Pitt, William, war policy, 146, 357. Plymouth, Mass., town memorial, 212n. Plymouth, N. H., writ of election ques¬ tion, 282 n. Political theory, colonial, 14, 15. Pontiac Conspiracy, Massachusetts and, 156. Population, of Massachusetts (1723), 10. Port Royal, charges against Dudley, 49. Portsmouth, N. H., Massachusetts and fort at, 48; independent government, 244; control over Council, 257; and popularity of J. Wentworth, 277; flight of Loyalists, 282; attack on fort, 282. Postponement of meeting, of General Court, right, 225; of New Hampshire Assembly, 282. Pownal, John, agency, and Colden’s appointment, 363. Pownal, Thomas, appointment as Gov¬ ernor of Massachusetts, problems, 140-142; and assertion of preroga¬ tive, 141; salary grants, 142; and quartering, 142-144; and military power, 144-146; and quotas, 146; policy, 146; transfer to South Caro¬ lina, regret, 146, 147. Pratt, Benjamin, and New York chief justiceship, 361, 362. Press, controversy in Massachusetts over official publications, 54-56; li¬ bellous pamphlets, 61; Zenger trial, 316, 317; Clinton’s contest in New York, 337. Privy Council, on control over expendi¬ tures in Massachusetts, 109. See also Board of Trade. Proprietary interests in New Jersey, contest under Cornbury, 374-378, 381; Ingoldsby and, 383; and Burnet, 385; disturbances, 400, 406; as mat¬ ter of controversy, 417. Prorogations, as source of controversy, 28; protests in Massachusetts, 196, 205, 208, 221. Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, organization of first, 225, 226; work, 444 INDEX 228, 237; status, and Gage as Gov¬ ernor, 229, 232-236, 247; military preparation, 234, 236-238; takes over financial control, 236; and for¬ mal assumption of civil government, 237, 239-242; policy of frequent elections, 237, 239; election and meeting of second, 237; and regular annual election, 237, 238; repudiates authority of Gage, 238, 239; meeting of third, 240. Provincial Congress of New Jersey, and Governor Franklin, 412-414. Provincialism, influence, 18. Public debts, responsibility for unpaid, in New York, 292, 341, 343. See also Paper money. Quakers in New Jersey, and Blind Tax, 375; and Canadian expedition (1711), 384; and militia act, 396. Qualifications of representatives, resi¬ dential in Massachusetts, 39; judging there, 180; question in New Jersey, 386, 387. Quartering of troops, Shirley’s conflict with Massachusetts House, 133; Pownal and, 142; general opposition, 183; House refuses to provide (1769), 187, 190, 192; Hutchinson and, 198; question in New York, 370; in New Jersey, 411. Queen Anne’s War, fort at Pemaquid, 47; Port Royal, 49; Dudley and trade with the enemy, 49-51; Cana¬ dian expedition, 306, 383, 384. Quorum of Council in Massachusetts, 68. Randolph, Edward, on Gove’s revolt, 247. Rebellion, Dartmouth on existence, 232. Receiver-general, accountable to New York House, 310; audit of accounts in New Jersey, 381. Reconciliation, English overtures (1775), 230-232; indemnity for Mas¬ sachusetts, exceptions, 231, 240; ef¬ forts in New Hampshire, 282-284. Religious freedom, extent in New York, 296n. Removal of Assembly. See Meeting place. Repeal of acts, right, 119. Representation, Massachusetts contest over new towns and increase, 118, 131, 132, 135, 140, 169; New York declaration of right, 288. See also Taxation. Residence for Governor, question in Massachusetts, 41. Residential qualification for Massachu¬ setts House, 39. Resolves, as weapon of Massachusetts House, 71. Rhode Island, subjugation advised, 227, 228. Riders, as weapon of House, 111; Bernard and, 174. Rights of Englishmen, Assemblies and, 13; and salary controversy, 46, 79; and independence, 321; change in colonial concept, 414. Rindge, Daniel, Councillor, 276w. Robinson, M. H., on early taxation without representation, 251. Rockingham, Marquis of, and J. Went¬ worth, 276, 278 n. Rogers, Daniel, Councillor, 277 n. Roman Catholics in colonial New York, 296n. Roxbury, Mass., town memorial, 212w. Salaries, controversies between Gov¬ ernors and Assemblies, 26; Crown payment, 27, 69, 204-207, 210, 218, 332; controversies in Massachusetts: first, under Phips, 37; “presents” to Bellomont, his pluralism, 40-42; Board of Trade’s demands, 41, 45, 86; Dudley’s controversy, 45-47; royal orders for fixed, arguments against, 46; as pressure on Shute, 57; priority of allowances or legislation, 59, 73, 80, 87; House’s control under Shute, 68, 69; during absence, 69, 125, 126; modification of requirement, perma¬ nent dropped, 69; and action by Parliament, 70, 86, 87, 90, 107; of acting Governor, 73, 92, 140; and paper money issues, 75, 76; Burnet’s instructions, 77, 86, 87; his contro¬ versy, 78-91; and charter rights, 80, 82, 88, 89, 100; House’s appeal to towns, basis of contention, 81-83; memorial to King, agents and their advice, 83-87, 90, 93, 100; Belcher’s instructions, 96, 97; his controversy, 97-101, 122; acceptance of tempo¬ rary grants allowed, 99, 100, 123; Shirley’s temporary grants and depre¬ ciated currency, 123-126; summary of controversy, 126; Pownal’s grants, 142; grants to persons rather than to office, 156, 328; Bernard’s, 169, 171, 189; controversy in New INDEX 445 Hampshire: under Cranfield, 246- 249; under Usher, 252-254; perma¬ nent grant to Dudley, 255; perma¬ nent, refused Vaughan and Shute, 256, 257; Burnet and fixed, 259; Belcher’s controversy, depreciated currency, 260; Lieutenant-Governor, 260 n.; under B. Wentworth, 268- 270; of J. Wentworth, 278, 279; con¬ troversies in New York: declaration against permanent support, 288; contest under Sloughter, biennial grant, 289, 290; five-year provision for Fletcher, 292; Cosby’s, 317n.; reduction as weapon of House, 322, 323; Delancey and, 352 n.; judicial, 358-362; Colden’s and Dunmore’s, 366, 371; controversies in New Jer¬ sey: Cornbury’s, 375-378, 381; Bur¬ net’s, 386, 388; Belcher’s deficient, 405, 407. See also Supply. Salaries of representatives in Massachu¬ setts, 85, 118. Salem, removals of General Court to, 83, 85, 222; town memorial, 212 n.; Pro¬ vincial Convention, 225; military dispersion of meeting, 236. Saratoga, massacre at, 331. Scarborough at Portsmouth, 282, 283 n. Septennial Act in New York, 313 n., 398. Sewall, Samuel, and Dudley, 4 5n., 50; sage advice, 72. Sharpe, Horatio, as Governor, 24. Shelburne, Earl of, and Massachusetts, 175. Shirley, William, appointment as Gov¬ ernor of Massachusetts, 117, 118; character, 121; popularity and suc¬ cess, reason, 121, 133, 136; on his problems, 122; and salary, depreci¬ ated currency, 123-126; and paper money, 127, 129; and House in mili¬ tary matters, 129; other contro¬ versial affairs, 129; and impressment riots, 129-131; and representation, 131, 132, 135; and excise, 132; and quartering, 133; Catholic wife, 133; inferential troubles, 134, 135; and parliamentary taxation, 136; ab¬ sences, effect, 141; diagnosis of New York troubles, 338, 339; aid from New Jersey, 399, 402. Shute, Samuel, appointment as Gov¬ ernor of Massachusetts, 53; charac¬ ter, 53; instructions, consequent con¬ troversies, 53; naval stores question, and control of press, 54-56; rejection of Councillors, 54, 60, 64; rejections of speaker, 56-59, 62, 72; salary question, 57-59, 68-70; priority of allowance or legislation, 59; and right of adjournment, 60, 72; House’s memorial to King on, 61, 63; and removal to Cambridge, 62, 64; bick¬ erings, 64, 66, 70; and Indian trouble, 64-66; and House’s en¬ croachment on military powers, 65, 66; leaves, 66; and paper money, 67, 112; faults, 70; political results of controversies, 70, 72; unpopular¬ ity, desires troops, 71; not reap¬ pointed, 72; salary question in New Hampshire, 257; and Council there, 257; and paper money there, 257; and Vaughan, 257 n. Sloughter, Henry, appointment as Gov¬ ernor of New York, reception, 288, 289; salary question, neglect of gov¬ ernment, 289, 290; political influence of administration, 290; death, 291. Smith, William, and Colden, 370. Somerset at Boston, 227. Sovereignty, colonial theories, 15. Speaker, in Massachusetts, rejection by Governors, 45; 56-59, 62, 118, 165, 198; Explanatory Charter on, 72; right to veto choice in New Hamp¬ shire, 258, 259, 273; and writ of special election there, 275. Spencer, C. W., on Cornbury, 300. Spotswood, Alexander, as Governor, 24. Stamp Act, and Bernard and Massa¬ chusetts House, Bernard’s self-defense, 156-163; disturbances at Boston, compensation, 158, 159, 163, 164, 166, 167, 170; business results of nullification, opening of courts de¬ manded, 163, 165; Bernard and repeal, 165; contest and choice of Councillors, 165-167; Bernard’s ap¬ prehensions after contest, 167-169; celebration of anniversary of repeal, 177; New York riots, reparation, 365-368; in New Jersey, 410. Stamp Act Congress, calling, 157. Standing army. Governors’ requests for troops at Boston, 71, 84, 158, 168, 177, 181; support of troops at Bos¬ ton, 170, 171; House and menace to Court House by, 185-187; protest on presence, 197; efforts to re-enforce at Boston, 227, 230, 232; indictment by Provincial Congress, 235. See also Quartering. 446 INDEX Stoughton, William, as acting Governor, 39, 42. Sugar Act, Bernard and fees case, 149; writs of assistance, 152; efforts against renewal, 154; Cosby and, 315. Sullivan, John, delegate to Congress, 282 ft. Supply of the treasury, control as weapon of House, 26, 416, 417; pre¬ cedence over legislation, 59, 73, 80, 87, 290, 325, 326, 359, 361, 376, 393, 397, 399, 402, 404; problem of meth¬ od in Massachusetts under Spencer Phips, 138-140; New Hampshire controversy under Cranfield, 246- 249; under Usher, 252-254; New York contest under Fletcher, 293- 298; under Cornbury, 300, 301, 303; under Hunter, 305-313; under Clarke, one-year grants, 322-327; Clinton’s instructions to regain control, 327; Clinton and military supply, 328- 338; Clinton on completeness of House’s control, 340, 341; House and royal instructions, 341-343, 346-348, 350; New York and precedent and practice in other colonies, 350, 353; instructions permitting temporary grants, 353, 355; conflict in New Jersey under Morris, 391-394, 396, 397, 399, 400, 402-404. See also Expenditures; Paper money; Sala¬ ries; Taxation. Suspending clause, on paper money bills in Massachusetts, 67, 112; attempt to nullify in New Jersey, 395, 397. Suspension of Assemblies, New York protest, 369. See also Dissolutions; Elections; Postponements; Proroga¬ tions. Tailer, William, as acting Governor of Massachusetts, 52, 92. Taxation, early Massachusetts law against, without representation, 7 ; Shirley and parliamentary, 136; Franklin on parliamentary (1754), 137; Massachusetts House on repre¬ sentation and, 154, 155, 160, 161; Bernard and parliamentary, 157; Bernard advises colonial representa¬ tion, 175; colonial income tax on Crown officers, 207, 208; Massa¬ chusetts Provincial Congress takes charge, 236; Cranfield’s attempt without representation in New Hampshire, 248, 249, 251; power in New York, 305. See also Excise; Finances. Thanksgiving proclamation, ignoring of Hutchinson’s, 209. Theatre, Colden’s permit, 359. Tonnage. See Clearance. Towns, appeal of Massachusetts House to, 81-83, 103, 104; new, and increase in representation, 118, 131, 132, 135, 140, 169; memorials, 212. Townshend Acts, protest of Massachu¬ setts House, 179, 190, 192. Trade with the enemy, during French and Indian War, 24; charges against Dudley, 49-51. Treasurer, House appointment in New York, 301, 324, 346ft., 348; as weapon of House, 416, 417. Treasury, robbery in New Jersey, 412. See also Supply. Trenton, Assembly at, 400, 401. Trial over seas, Dudley’s practice, 51. Tryon, William, as Governor of New York, 371. Union, Massachusetts resolves (1773), 216; day of thanksgiving for, 234. See also Continental Congress. Usher, John, as executive of New Hamp¬ shire, character, 252; supply and sal¬ ary controversy, 252-254; and con¬ trol over expenditures, 254; removal, 254, 255; reappointment, 255. Van Dam, Rip, as executive of New York, 299ft.; and succession to Cosby, 321. Vaughan, George, as executive of New Hampshire, salary question, 256; rights as Lieutenant-Governor, sus¬ pended, 257 ft. Vaughan, William, on Cranfield, 246, 247ft. Vetch, Samuel, and trade charges, 50. Veto, first royal, of Massachusetts acts, 39; short-time acts as hindrance to royal, 77 ; Phips on right of Governor, 140; of items, 174. See also Suspend¬ ing clause. Virginia resolves, Massachusetts and, 216. Waldron, Richard [1], as executive of New Hampshire, 245; Councillor, 246 ft. INDEX 447 Waldron, Richard [3], and Belcher, 267 n.; speakership and B. Went¬ worth, 273 n., 274. Walpole, Horatio, and Burnet, 72 n. Warner, Daniel, Councillor, 277 n. Warner, Jonathan, Councillor, 277 n. Washington, George, on Shirley, 121. Weare, Nathaniel, New Hampshire agent, 247n. Wentworth, Benning, character as Gov¬ ernor of New Hampshire, 24; ap¬ pointment, 117w., 267; harmony, 268; salary question, 268-270; and paper money, 270; writs of election contro¬ versy, 272-274; rejects speaker, 273; court seats conflict, 274; minor ques¬ tions, 275; land grabbing, accumula¬ tion of wealth, 275, 276; permitted to resign, 276. Wentworth, John [1], appointment as Lieutenant-Governor of New Hamp¬ shire, 257 as executive, 258; speaker controversy, 258, 259; term, 258 n.; salary, 260n. Wentworth, John [2], character as Gov¬ ernor of New Hampshire, 24; recep¬ tion in Boston, 188; appointment, 275; and resignation of uncle, 276; favorable conditions, 276; nepotism, 276; popularity and worth consid¬ ered, 277, 278, 285; salary question, 278, 279, 280n.; estate, 279, 280; court seats controversy, 280; rup¬ ture with House, and meetings of dissolved House, 281; postpones new Assembly, 282; and conciliation, 282- 284; writs of election question, 282- 285; flight, 283 n., 284, 285; procla¬ mation from Isle of Shoals, 285w. Wentworth, M. H., Councillor, 276w. Wentworth dynasty in New Hamp¬ shire, 267, 276, 276n. Wiggin, Andrew, speaker in New Hampshire, 259 n. Wilks, Francis, Massachusetts agent, 90. Zenger, J. P., trial, 316, 317. Date Due