other things. The general supervision of the colonies was assigned to
a standing committee of the privy council, styled the "Lords of the
Committee of Trade and Plantations," and henceforth familiarly known
as the "Lords of Trade." Next year the Lords of Trade sent an agent to
Boston, with a letter to Governor Leverett about the Mason and Gorges
claims. Under cover of this errand the messenger was to go about and
ascertain the sentiments which people in the Kennebec and Piscataqua
towns, as well as in Boston, entertained for the government of
Massachusetts. The person to whom this work was entrusted was Edward
Randolph, a cousin of Robert Mason who inherited the property claim to
the Piscataqua county. To these men had old John Mason bequeathed his
deadly feud with Massachusetts, and the fourteen years which Randolph
now spent in New England were busily devoted to sowing the seeds of
strife. In 1678 the king appointed him collector and surveyor of customs
at the port of Boston, with instructions to enforce the navigation laws.
Randolph was not the man to do unpopular things in such a way as to dull
the edge of the infliction; he took delight in adding insult to injury.
He was at once harsh and treacherous. His one virtue was pecuniary
integrity; he was inaccessible to bribes and did not pick and steal from
the receipts at the custom-house. In the other relations of life he
was disencumbered of scruples. His abilities were not great, but his
industry was untiring, and he pursued his enemies with the tenacity of a
sleuth-hound. As an excellent British historian observes, "he was one of
those men who, once enlisted as partisans, lose every other feeling in
the passion which is engendered of strife." [37] [Sidenote: The Lords of
Trade] [Sidenote: Edward Randolph]

The arrival of such a man boded no good to Massachusetts. His reception
at the town-house was a cold one. Leverett liked neither his looks nor
his message, and kept his peaked hat on while he read the letter; when
he came to the signature of the king's chief secretary of state, he
asked, with careless contempt, "Who is this Henry Coventry?" Randolph's
choking rage found vent in a letter to the king, taking pains to remind
him that the governor of Massachusetts had once been an officer in
Cromwell's army. As we read this and think with what ghoulish glee the
writer would have betrayed Colonel Goffe into the hands of the headsman,
had any clue been given him, we can quite understand why Hubbard and
Mather had nothing to say about the mysterious stranger at Hadley.
Everything that Randolph could think of that would goad and irritate the
king, he reported in full to London; his letters were specimens of that
worst sort of lie that is based upon distorted half-truths; and his
malicious pen but seldom lay idle.

While waiting for the effects of these reports to ripen, Randolph was
busily intriguing with some of the leading men in Boston who were
dissatisfied with the policy of the dominant party, and under his
careful handling a party was soon brought into existence which was ready
to counsel submission to the royal will. Such was the birth of Toryism
in New England. The leader of this party was Joseph Dudley, son of
the grim verse-maker who had come over as lieutenant to Winthrop. The
younger Dudley was graduated at Harvard in 1665, and proceeded to study
theology, but soon turned his attention entirely to politics. In 1673 he
was a deputy from Roxbury in the General Court; in 1675 he took part in
the storming of the Narragansett fort; in 1677 and the three following
years he was one of the Federal Commissioners. In character and temper
he differed greatly from his father. Like the proverbial minister's son
whose feet are swift toward folly, Joseph Dudley seems to have learned
in stern bleak years of childhood to rebel against the Puritan theory of
life. Much of the abuse that has been heaped upon him, as a renegade and
traitor, is probably undeserved. It does not appear that he ever made
any pretence of love for the Puritan commonwealth, and there were many
like him who had as lief be ruled by king as by clergy. But it cannot be
denied that his suppleness and sagacity went along with a moral nature
that was weak and vulgar. Joseph Dudley was essentially a self-seeking
politician and courtier, like his famous kinsman of the previous
century, Robert, Earl of Leicester. His party in Massachusetts was
largely made up of men who had come to the colony for commercial
reasons, and had little or no sympathy with the objects for which it was
founded. Among them were Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Baptists, who
were allowed no chance for public worship, as well as many others who,
like Gallio, cared for none of these things. Their numbers, moreover,
must have been large, for Boston had grown to be a town of 5000
inhabitants, the population of Massachusetts was approaching 30,000,
and, according to Hutchinson, scarcely one grown man in five was a
church-member qualified to vote or hold office. Such a fact speaks
volumes as to the change which was coming over the Puritan world. No
wonder that the clergy had begun to preach about the weeds and tares
that were overrunning Christ's pleasant garden. No wonder that the
spirit of revolt against the disfranchising policy of the theocracy was
ripe. [Sidenote: Joseph Dudley]

It was in 1679, when this weakness of the body politic had been duly
studied and reported by Randolph, and when all New England was groaning
under the bereavements and burdens entailed by Philip's war, that the
Stuart government began its final series of assaults upon Massachusetts.
The claims of the eastern proprietors, the heirs of Mason and Gorges,
furnished the occasion. Since 1643 the four Piscataqua towns--Hampton,
Exeter, Dover, and Portsmouth--had remained under the jurisdiction of
Massachusetts. After the Restoration the Mason claim had been revived,
and in 1677 was referred to the chief-justices North and Rainsford.
Their decision was that Mason's claim had always been worthless as based
on a grant in which the old Plymouth Company had exceeded its powers.
They also decided that Massachusetts had no valid claim since the
charter assigned her a boundary just north of the Merrimack. This
decision left the four towns subject to none but the king, who forthwith
in 1679 proceeded to erect them into the royal province of New
Hampshire, with president and council appointed by the crown, and an
assembly chosen by the people, but endowed with little authority,--a
tricksome counterfeit of popular government. Within three years an
arrogant and thieving ruler, Edward Cranfield, had goaded New Hampshire
to acts of insurrection. [Sidenote: Royal province of New Hampshire]

To the decisions of the chief-justices Massachusetts must needs submit.
The Gorges claim led to more serious results. Under Cromwell's rule in
1652--the same year in which she began coining money--Massachusetts
had extended her sway over Maine. In 1665 Colonel Nichols and his
commissioners, acting upon the express instructions of Charles II.,
took it away from her. In 1668, after the commissioners had gone home,
Massachusetts coolly took possession again. In 1677 the chief-justices
decided that the claim of the Gorges family, being based on a grant from
James I., was valid. Then the young Ferdinando Gorges, grandson of the
first proprietor, offered to sell the province to the king, who had now
taken it into his head that he would like to bestow it upon the Duke
of Monmouth, his favourite son by Lucy Walters. Before Charles had
responded, Governor Leverett had struck a bargain with Gorges, who ceded
to Massachusetts all his rights over Maine for L1250 in hard cash. When
the king heard of this transaction he was furious. He sent a letter to
Boston, commanding the General Court to surrender the province again on
repayment of this sum of L1250, and expressing his indignation that
the people should thus dare to dispose of an important claim off-hand
without consulting his wishes. In the same letter the colony was
enjoined to put in force the royal orders of seventeen years before,
concerning the oath of allegiance, the restriction of the suffrage, and
the prohibition of the Episcopal form of worship. [Sidenote: The Gorges
claim]

This peremptory message reached Boston about Christmas, 1679. Leverett,
the sturdy Ironsides, had died six months before, and his place
was filled by Simon Bradstreet, a man of moderate powers but great
integrity, and held in peculiar reverence as the last survivor of those
that had been chosen to office before leaving England by the leaders of
the great Puritan exodus. Born in a Lincolnshire village in 1603, he was
now seventy-six years old. He had taken his degree at Emmanuel College,
Cambridge, had served as secretary to the Earl of Warwick, and in 1629
had been appointed member of the board of assistants for the colony
about to be established on Massachusetts bay. In this position he had
remained with honour for half a century, while he had also served as
Federal Commissioner and as agent for the colony in London. His wife,
who died in 1672, was a woman of quaint learning and quainter verses,
which her contemporaries admired beyond measure. One of her books was
republished in London, with the title: "The Tenth Muse, lately sprung up
in America." John Norton once said that if Virgil could only have heard
the seraphic poems of Anne Bradstreet, he would have thrown his heathen
doggerel into the fire. She was sister of Joseph Dudley, and evidently
inherited this rhyming talent, such as it was, from her father. Governor
Bradstreet belonged to the moderate party who would have been glad to
extend the franchise, but he did not go with his brother-in-law in
subservience to the king. [Sidenote: Simon Bradstreet and his wife]

When the General Court assembled, in May, 1680, the full number of
eighteen assistants appeared, for the first time in the history of the
colony, and in accordance with an expressed wish of the king. They
were ready to yield in trifles, but not in essentials. After wearisome
discussion, the answer to the royal letter was decided on. It stated in
vague and unsatisfactory terms that the royal orders of 1662 either had
been carried out already or would be in good time, while to the demand
for the surrender of Maine no reply whatever was made, save that "they
were heartily sorry that any actings of theirs should be displeasing
to his Majesty." After this, when Randolph wrote home that the king's
letters were of no more account in Massachusetts than an old London
Gazette, he can hardly be accused of stretching the truth. Randolph kept
busily at work, and seems to have persuaded the Bishop of London that
if the charter could be annulled, episcopacy might be established in
Massachusetts as in England. In February, 1682, a letter came from the
king demanding submission and threatening legal proceedings against the
charter. Dudley was then sent as agent to London, and with him was sent
a Mr. Richards, of the extreme clerical party, to watch him. [Sidenote:
Massachusetts answers the king]

Meanwhile the king's position at home had been changing. He had made
up his mind to follow his father's example and try the experiment of
setting his people at defiance and governing without a parliament. This
could not be done without a great supply of money. Louis XIV. had
plenty of money, for there was no constitution in France to prevent his
squeezing what he wanted out of the pockets of an oppressed people.
France was thriving greatly now, for Colbert had introduced a
comparatively free system of trade between the provinces and inaugurated
an era of prosperity soon to be cut short by the expulsion of the
Huguenots. Louis could get money enough for the asking, and would be
delighted to foment civil disturbances in England, so as to tie the
hands of the only power which at that moment could interfere with his
seizing Alsace and Lorraine and invading Flanders. The pretty Louise de
Keroualle Duchess of Portsmouth, with her innocent baby face and heart
as cold as any reptile's, was the French Delilah chosen to shear the
locks of the British Samson. By such means and from such motives a
secret treaty was made in February, 1681, by which Louis agreed to pay
Charles 2,000,000 livres down, and 500,000 more in each of the next two
years, on condition that he should summon no more parliaments within
that time. This bargain for securing the means of overthrowing the laws
and liberties of England was, on the part of Charles II., an act no less
reprehensible than some of those for which his father had gone to the
block. But Charles could now afford for a while to wreak his evil will.
He had already summoned a parliament for the 21st of March, to meet at
Oxford within the precincts of the subservient university, and out of
reach of the high-spirited freemen of London. He now forced a quarrel
with the new parliament and dissolved it within a week. A joiner named
Stephen College, who had spoken his mind too freely in the taverns at
Oxford with regard to these proceedings, was drawn and quartered. The
Whig leader Lord Shaftesbury was obliged to flee to Holland. In the
absence of a parliament the only power of organized resistance to the
king's tyranny resided in the corporate governments of the chartered
towns. The charter of London was accordingly attacked by a writ of
_quo warranto_, and in June, 1683, the time-serving judges declared it
confiscated. George Jeffreys, a low drunken fellow whom Charles had made
Lord Chief Justice, went on a circuit through the country; and, as Roger
North says, "made all the charters, like the walls of Jericho, fall down
before him, and returned laden with surrenders, the spoils of towns."
At the same time a terrible blow was dealt at two of the greatest Whig
families in England. Lord William Russell, son of the Earl of Bedford,
and Algernon Sidney, younger son of the Earl of Leicester, two of the
purest patriots and ablest liberal leaders of the day, were tried on a
false charge of treason and beheaded. [Sidenote: Secret treaty between
Charles II. and Louis XIV] [Sidenote: Shameful proceedings in England]

By this quick succession of high-handed measures, the friends of law and
liberty were for a moment disconcerted and paralyzed. In the frightful
abasement of the courts of justice which these events so clearly showed,
the freedom of Englishmen seemed threatened in its last stronghold. The
doctrine of passive obedience to monarchs was preached in the pulpits
and inculcated by the university of Oxford, which ordered the works of
John Milton to be publicly burned. Sir Robert Filmer wrote that "not
only in human laws, but even in divine, a thing may by the king be
commanded contrary to law, and yet obedience to such a command is
necessary." Charles felt so strong that in 1684 he flatly refused to
summon a parliament.

It was not long before the effects of all this were felt in New England.
The mission of Dudley and his colleague was fruitless. They returned to
Boston, and Randolph, who had followed them to London, now followed them
back, armed with a writ of _quo warranto_ which he was instructed not to
serve until he should have given Massachusetts one more chance to humble
herself in the dust. Should she modify her constitution to please a
tyrant or see it trampled under foot? Recent events in England served
for a solemn warning; for the moment the Tories were silenced; perhaps
after all, the absolute rule of a king was hardly to be preferred to the
sway of the Puritan clergy; the day when the House of Commons sat still
and wept seemed to have returned. A great town-meeting was held in the
Old South Meeting-House, and the moderator requested all who were for
surrendering the charter to hold up their hands. Not a hand was lifted,
and out from the throng a solitary voice exclaimed, with deep-drawn
breath, "The Lord be praised!" Then arose Increase Mather, president
of Harvard College, and reminded them how their fathers did win this
charter, and should they deliver it up unto the spoiler who demanded it
"even as Ahab required Naboth's vineyard, Oh! their children would be
bound to curse them." Such was the attitude of Massachusetts, and when
it was known in London, the blow was struck. For technical reasons
Randolph's writ was not served; but on the 21st of June a decree in
chancery annulled the charter of Massachusetts. [Sidenote: Massachusetts
refuses to surrender her charter] [Sidenote: It is annulled by degree of
chancery, June 21, 1684]

To appreciate the force of this blow we must pause for a moment and
consider what it involved. The right to the soil of North America had
been hitherto regarded in England, on the strength of the discoveries of
the Cabots, as an appurtenance to the crown of Henry VII.,--as something
which descended from father to son like the palace at Hampton Court or
the castle at Windsor, but which the sovereign might alienate by his
voluntary act just as he might sell or give away a piece of his royal
domain in England. Over this vast territory it was doubtful how far
Parliament was entitled to exercise authority, and the rights of
Englishmen settled there had theoretically no security save in the
provisions of the various charters by which the crown had delegated its
authority to individual proprietors or to private companies. It was thus
on the charter granted by Charles I. to the Company of Massachusetts Bay
that not only the cherished political and ecclesiastical institutions
of the colony, but even the titles of individuals to their lands and
houses, were supposed to be founded. By the abrogation of the charter,
all rights and immunities that had been based upon it were at once swept
away, and every rood of the soil of Massachusetts became the personal
property of the Stuart king, who might, if he should possess the will
and the power, turn out all the present occupants or otherwise deal with
them as trespassers. Such at least was the theory of Charles II., and
to show that he meant to wreak his vengeance with no gentle hand, he
appointed as his viceroy the brutal Percy Kirke,--a man who would have
no scruples about hanging a few citizens without trial, should occasion
require it. [Sidenote: Effect of annulling the charter]

But in February, 1685, just as Charles seemed to be getting everything
arranged to his mind, a stroke of apoplexy carried him off the scene,
and his brother ascended the throne. Monmouth's rebellion, and the
horrible cruelties that followed, kept Colonel Kirke busy in England
through the summer, and left the new king scant leisure to think about
America. Late in the autumn, having made up his mind that he could not
spare such an exemplary knave as Kirke, James II. sent over Sir Edmund
Andros. In the mean time the government of Massachusetts had been
administered by Dudley, who showed himself willing to profit by the
misfortunes of his country. Andros had long been one of James's
favourites. He was the dull and dogged English officer such as one often
meets, honest enough and faithful to his master, neither cruel nor
rapacious, but coarse in fibre and wanting in tact. Some years
before, when governor of New York, he had a territorial dispute with
Connecticut, and now cherished a grudge against the people of New
England, so that, from James's point of view, he was well fitted to be
their governor. James wished to abolish all the local governments
in America, and unite them, as far as possible, under a single
administration. With Plymouth there could be no trouble; she had never
had a charter, but had existed on sufferance from the outset. In 1687
the charters of Rhode Island and Connecticut were rescinded, but the
decrees were not executed in due form. In October of that year Andros
went to Hartford, to seize the Connecticut charter but it was not
surrendered. While Sir Edmund was bandying threats with stout Robert
Treat, the queller of Indians and now governor of Connecticut, in the
course of their evening conference the candles were suddenly blown out,
and when after some scraping of tinder they were lighted again the
document was nowhere to be found, for Captain Wadsworth had carried
it away and hidden it in the hollow trunk of a mighty oak tree.
Nevertheless for the moment the colony was obliged to submit to the
tyrant. Next day the secretary John Allyn wrote "Finis" on the colonial
records and shut up the book. Within another twelvemonth New York and
New Jersey were added to the viceroyalty of Andros; so that all the
northern colonies from the forests of Maine to the Delaware river were
thus brought under the arbitrary rule of one man, who was responsible to
no one but the king for whatever he might take it into his head to do.
[Sidenote: Sir Edmund Andros] [Sidenote: The Charter Oak]

The vexatious character of the new government was most strongly felt at
Boston where Andros had his headquarters. Measures were at once taken
for the erection of an Episcopal church, and meantime the royal order
was that one of the principal meeting-houses should be seized for the
use of the Church of England. This was an ominous beginning. In the
eyes of the people it was much more than a mere question of disturbing
Puritan prejudices. They had before them the experience of Scotland
during the past ten years, the savage times of "Old Mortality," the
times which had seen the tyrannical prelate, on the lonely moor, begging
in vain for his life, the times of Drumclog and Bothwell Brigg, of
Claverhouse and his flinty-hearted troopers, of helpless women tied to
stakes on the Solway shore and drowned by inches in the rising tide.
What had happened in one part of the world might happen in another, for
the Stuart policy was the same. It aimed not at securing toleration but
at asserting unchecked supremacy. Its demand for an inch was the prelude
to its seizing an ell, and so our forefathers understood it. Sir
Edmund's formal demand for the Old South Meeting-House was flatly
refused, but on Good Friday, 1687, the sexton was frightened into
opening it, and thenceforward Episcopal services were held there
alternately with the regular services until the overthrow of Andros. The
pastor, Samuel Willard, was son of the gallant veteran who had rescued
the beleaguered people of Brookfield in King Philip's war. Amusing
passages occurred between him and Sir Edmund, who relished the
pleasantry of keeping minister and congregation waiting an hour or
two in the street on Sundays before yielding to them the use of their
meeting-house. More kindly memories of the unpopular governor are
associated with the building of the first King's Chapel on the spot
where its venerable successor now stands. The church was not finished
until after Sir Edmund had taken his departure, but Lady Andros, who
died in February, 1688, lies in the burying-ground hard by. Her gentle
manners had won all hearts. For the moment, we are told, one touch of
nature made enemies kin, and as Sir Edmund walked to the townhouse
"many a head was bared to the bereaved husband that before had remained
stubbornly covered to the exalted governor." [38] [Sidenote: Episcopal
services in Boston] [Sidenote: Founding of the King's Chapel, 1689]

The despotic rule of Andros was felt in more serious ways than in the
seizing upon a meetinghouse. Arbitrary taxes were imposed, encroachments
were made upon common lands as in older manorial times, and the writ of
_habeas corpus_ was suspended. Dudley was appointed censor of the press,
and nothing was allowed to be printed without his permission. All the
public records of the late New England governments were ordered to be
brought to Boston, whither it thus became necessary to make a tedious
journey in order to consult them. All deeds and wills were required
to be registered in Boston, and excessive fees were charged for the
registry. It was proclaimed that all private titles to land were to be
ransacked, and that whoever wished to have his title confirmed must pay
a heavy quit-rent, which under the circumstances amounted to blackmail.
The General Court was abolished. The power of taxation was taken from
the town-meetings and lodged with the governor. Against this crowning
iniquity the town of Ipswich, led by its sturdy pastor, John Wise, made
protest. In response Mr. Wise was thrown into prison, fined £50, and
suspended from the ministry. A notable and powerful character was this
John Wise. One of the broadest thinkers and most lucid writers of his
time, he seems like a forerunner of the liberal Unitarian divines of
the nineteenth century. His "Vindication of the Government of the New
England Churches," published in 1717, was a masterly exposition of the
principles of civil government, and became "a text book of liberty for
our Revolutionary fathers, containing some of the notable expressions
that are used in the Declaration of Independence." [Sidenote: Tyranny]
[Sidenote: John Wise of Ipswich]

It was on the trial of Mr. Wise in October, 1687, that Dudley openly
declared that the people of New England had now no further privileges
left them than not to be sold for slaves. Such a state of things in the
valley of the Euphrates would not have attracted comment; the peasantry
of central Europe would have endured it until better instructed; but in
an English community it could not last long. If James II. had remained
upon the throne, New England would surely have soon risen in rebellion
against Andros. But the mother country had by this time come to repent
the fresh lease of life which she had granted to the Stuart dynasty
after Cromwell's death. Tired of the disgraceful subservience of her
Court to the schemes of Louis XIV., tired of fictitious plots and
judicial murders, tired of bloody assizes and declarations of indulgence
and all the strange devices of Stuart tyranny, England endured the
arrogance of James but three years, and then drove him across the
Channel, to get such consolation as he might from his French paymaster
and patron. On the 4th of April, 1689, the youthful John Winslow brought
to Boston the news of the landing of the Prince of Orange in England.
For the space of two weeks there was quiet and earnest deliberation
among the citizens, as the success of the Prince's enterprise was not
yet regarded as assured. But all at once, on the morning of the 18th,
the drums beat to arms, the signal-fire was lighted on Beacon Hill, a
meeting was held at the Town-House, militia began to pour in from the
country, and Andros, summoned to surrender, was fain to beseech Mr.
Willard and the other ministers to intercede for him. But the ministers
refused. Next day the Castle was surrendered, the Rose frigate riding in
the harbour was seized and dismantled, and Andros was arrested as he was
trying to effect his escape disguised in woman's clothes. Dudley and the
other agents of tyranny were also imprisoned, and thus the revolution
was accomplished. It marks the importance which the New England colonies
were beginning to attain, that, before the Prince of Orange had fully
secured the throne, he issued a letter instructing the people of Boston
to preserve decorum and acquiesce yet a little longer in the government
of Andros, until more satisfactory arrangements could be made. But
Increase Mather, who was then in London on a mission in behalf of New
England, judiciously prevented this letter of instructions from being
sent. The zeal of the people outstripped the cautious policy of the
new sovereign, and provisional governments, in accordance with the old
charters, were at once set up in the colonies lately ruled by Andros.
Bradstreet now in his eighty-seventh year was reinstated as governor of
Massachusetts. Five weeks after this revolution in Boston the order to
proclaim King William and Queen Mary was received, amid such rejoicings
as had never before been seen in that quiet town, for it was believed
that self-government would now be guaranteed to New England. [Sidenote:
Fall of James II.] [Sidenote: Insurrection in Boston, and overthrow of
Andros, April 18, 1689]

This hope was at least so far realized that from the most formidable
dangers which had threatened it, New England was henceforth secured.
The struggle with the Stuarts was ended, and by this second revolution
within half a century the crown had received a check from which it never
recovered. There were troubles yet in store for England, but no more
such outrages as the judicial murders of Russell and Sidney. New England
had still a stern ordeal to go through, but never again was she to be
so trodden down and insulted as in the days of Andros. The efforts of
George III. to rule Englishmen despotically were weak as compared with
those of the Stuarts. In his time England had waxed strong enough to
curb the tyrant, America had waxed strong enough to defy and disown him.
After 1689 the Puritan no longer felt that his religion was in danger,
and there was a reasonable prospect that charters solemnly granted him
would be held sacred. William III. was a sovereign of modern type, from
whom freedom of thought and worship had nothing to fear. In his theology
he agreed, as a Dutch Calvinist, more nearly with the Puritans than with
the Church of England. At the same time he had no great liking for so
much independence of thought and action as New England had exhibited. In
the negotiations which now definitely settled the affairs of this part
of the world, the intractable behaviour of Massachusetts was borne in
mind and contrasted with the somewhat less irritating attitude of
the smaller colonies. It happened that the decree which annulled the
charters of Rhode Island and Connecticut had not yet been formally
enrolled. It was accordingly treated as void, and the old charters were
allowed to remain in force. They were so liberal that no change in
them was needed at the time of the Revolution, so that Connecticut was
governed under its old charter until 1818, and Rhode Island until 1842.
[Sidenote: Effects of the Revolution of 1689]

There was at this time a disposition on the part of the British
government to unite all the northern colonies under a single
administration. The French in Canada were fast becoming rivals to be
feared; and the wonderful explorations of La Salle, bringing the St.
Lawrence into political connection with the Mississippi, had at length
foreshadowed a New France in the rear of all the English colonies,
aiming at the control of the centre of the continent and eager to
confine the English to the sea-board. Already the relations of position
which led to the great Seven Years' War were beginning to shape
themselves; and the conflict between France and England actually broke
out in 1689, as soon as Louis XIV.'s hired servant, James II., was
superseded by William III. as king of England and head of a Protestant
league. [Sidenote: Need for union among all the northern colonies]

In view of this new state of affairs, it was thought desirable to unite
the northern English colonies under one head, so far as possible, in
order to secure unity of military action. But natural prejudices had to
be considered. The policy of James II. had aroused such bitter feeling
in America that William must needs move with caution. Accordingly he did
not seek to unite New York with New England, and he did not think it
worth while to carry out the attack which James had only begun upon
Connecticut and Rhode Island. As for New Hampshire, he seems to have
been restrained by what in the language of modern politics would be
called "pressure," brought to bear by certain local interests. [39]
But in the case of the little colony founded by the Pilgrims of the
Mayflower there was no obstacle. She was now annexed to Massachusetts,
which also received not only Maine but even Acadia, just won from the
French; so that, save for the short break at Portsmouth, the coast of
Massachusetts now reached all the way from Martha's Vineyard to the Gulf
of St. Lawrence. [Sidenote: Plymouth, Maine, and Acadia, annexed to
Massachusetts]

But along with this great territorial extension there went some
curtailment of the political privileges of the colony. By the new
charter of 1692 the right of the people to be governed by a legislature
of their own choosing was expressly confirmed. The exclusive right of
this legislature to impose taxes was also confirmed. But henceforth no
qualification of church-membership, but only a property qualification,
was to be required of voters; the governor was to be appointed by the
crown instead of being elected by the people; and all laws passed by
the legislature were to be sent to England for royal approval. These
features of the new charter,--the extension, or if I may so call it, the
_secularization_ of the franchise, the appointment of the governor
by the crown, and the power of veto which the crown expressly
reserved,--were grave restrictions upon the independence which
Massachusetts had hitherto enjoyed. Henceforth her position was to be
like that of the other colonies with royal governors. But her history
did not thereby lose its interest or significance, though it became,
like the history of most of the colonies, a dismal record of
irrepressible bickerings between the governor appointed by the crown and
the legislature elected by the people. In the period that began in 1692
and ended in 1776, the movements of Massachusetts, while restricted
and hampered, were at the same time forced into a wider orbit. She was
brought into political sympathy with Virginia. While two generations
of men were passing across the scene, the political problems of
Massachusetts were assimilated to those of Virginia. In spite of all
the other differences, great as they were, there was a likeness in the
struggles between the popular legislature and the royal governor which
subordinated them all. It was this similarity of experience, during
the eighteenth century, that brought these two foremost colonies into
cordial alliance during the struggle against George III., and thus made
it possible to cement all the colonies together in the mighty nation
whose very name is fraught with so high and earnest a lesson to
mankind,--the UNITED STATES! [Sidenote: Massachusetts becomes a royal
province]

For such a far-reaching result, the temporary humiliation of
Massachusetts was a small price to pay. But it was not until long after
the accession of William III. that things could be seen in these grand
outlines. With his coronation began the struggle of seventy years
between France and England, far grander than the struggle between Rome
and Carthage, two thousand years earlier, for primacy in the world,
for the prerogative of determining the future career of mankind. That
warfare, so fraught with meaning, was waged as much upon American as
upon European ground; and while it continued, it was plainly for the
interest of the British government to pursue a conciliatory policy
toward its American colonies, for without their wholehearted assistance
it could have no hope of success. As soon as the struggle was ended, and
the French power in the colonial world finally overthrown, the perpetual
quarrels between the popular legislatures and the royal governors led
immediately to the Stamp Act and the other measures of the British
government that brought about the American revolution. People sometimes
argue about that revolution as if it had no past behind it and was
simply the result of a discussion over abstract principles. [Sidenote:
Seeds of the American Revolution already sown]

We can now see that while the dispute involved an abstract principle of
fundamental importance to mankind, it was at the same time for Americans
illustrated by memories sufficiently concrete and real. James Otis
in his prime was no further distant from the tyranny of Andros than
middle-aged men of to-day are distant from the Missouri Compromise. The
sons of men cast into jail along with John Wise may have stood silent in
the moonlight on Griffin's Wharf and looked on while the contents of the
tea-chests were hurled into Boston harbour. In the events we have here
passed in review, it may be seen, so plainly that he who runs may read,
how the spirit of 1776 was foreshadowed in 1689.




BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.


An interesting account of the Barons' War and the meeting of the first
House of Commons is given in Prothero's _Simon de Montfort_, London,
1877. For Wyclif and the Lollards, see Milman's _Latin Christianity_,
vol. vii.

The ecclesiastical history of the Tudor period may best be studied in
the works of John Strype, to wit, _Historical Memorials_, 6 vols.;
_Annals of the Reformation_, 7 vols.; _Lives of Cranmer, Parker,
Whitgift, etc._, Oxford, 1812-28. See also _Burnet's History of the
Reformation of the Church of England_, 3 vols., London, 1679-1715;
Neal's _History of the Puritans_, London, 1793; Tulloch, _Leaders of the
Reformation_, Boston, 1859. A vast mass of interesting information is
to be found in _The Zurich Letters, comprising the Correspondence
of Several English Bishops, and Others, with some of the Helvetian
Reformers_, published by the Parker Society, 4 vols., Cambridge, Eng.,
1845-46. Hooker's _Ecclesiastical Polity_ was published in London, 1594;
a new edition, containing two additional books, the first complete
edition, was published in 1622.

For the general history of England in the seventeenth century, there are
two modern works which stand far above all others,--Gardiner's _History
of England_, 10 vols., London, 1883-84; and Masson's _Life of Milton,
narrated in connection with the Political, Ecclesiastical, and Literary
History of his Time_, 6 vols., Cambridge, Eng., 1859-80. These are
books of truly colossal erudition, and written in a spirit of judicial
fairness. Mr. Gardiner's ten volumes cover the forty years from the
accession of James I. to the beginning of the Civil War, 1603-1643. Mr.
Gardiner has lately published the first two volumes of his history of
the Civil War, and it is to be hoped that he will not stop until he
reaches the accession of William and Mary. Indeed, such books as his
ought never to stop. My friend and colleague, Prof. Hosmer, tells me
that Mr. Gardiner is a lineal descendant of Cromwell and Ireton. His
little book, _The Puritan Revolution_, in the "Epochs of History"
series, is extremely useful, and along with it one should read Airy's
_The English Restoration and Louis XIV_., in the same series, New York,
1889. The best biography of Cromwell is by Mr. Allanson Picton, London,
1882; see also Frederic Harrison's _Cromwell_, London, 1888, an
excellent little book. Hosmer's _Young Sir Henry Vane_, Boston, 1888,
should be read in the same connection; and one should not forget
Carlyle's _Cromwell_. See also Tulloch, _English Puritanism and its
Leaders_, 1861, and _Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy in
England in the Seventeenth Century_, 1872; Skeats, _History of the
Free Churches of England_, London, 1868; Mountfield, _The Church and
Puritans_, London, 1881. Dexter's _Congregationalism of the Last Three
Hundred Years_, New York, 1880, is a work of monumental importance.

On the history of New England the best general works are Palfrey,
_History of New England_, 4 vols., Boston, 1858-75; and Doyle, _The
English in America--The Puritan Colonies_, 2 vols., London, 1887. In
point of scholarship Dr. Palfrey's work is of the highest order, and
it is written in an interesting style. Its only shortcoming is that it
deals somewhat too leniently with the faults of the Puritan theocracy,
and looks at things too exclusively from a Massachusetts point of view.
It is one of the best histories yet written in America. Mr. Doyle's work
is admirably fair and impartial, and is based throughout upon a careful
study of original documents. The author is a Fellow of All Souls
College, Oxford, and has apparently made American history his specialty.
His work on the Puritan colonies is one of a series which when completed
will cover the whole story of English colonization in America. I have
looked in vain in his pages for any remark or allusion indicating that
he has ever visited America, and am therefore inclined to think that he
has not done so. He now and then makes a slight error such as would
not be likely to be made by a native of New England, but this is very
seldom. The accuracy and thoroughness of its research, its judicial
temper, and its philosophical spirit make Mr. Doyle's book in some
respects the best that has been written about New England.

Among original authorities we may begin by citing John Smith's
_Description of New England_, 1616, and _New England's Trial_, 1622,
contained in Arber's new edition of Smith's works, London, 1884.
Bradford's narrative of the founding of Plymouth was for a long time
supposed to be lost. Nathaniel Morton's _New England's Memorial_,
published in 1669, was little more than an abridgment of it. After two
centuries Bradford's manuscript was discovered, and an excellent edition
by Mr. Charles Deane was published in the _Massachusetts Historical
Collections_, 4th series, vol. iii., 1856. Edward Winslow's _Journal of
the Proceedings of the English Plantation settled at Plymouth_, 1622,
and _Good News from New England_, 1624, are contained, with other
valuable materials, in Young's _Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers_,
Boston, 1844. See also Shurtleff and Pulsifer, _Records of Plymouth_,
12 vols., ending with the annexation of the colony to Massachusetts in
1692; Prince's _Chronological History of New England_, ed. Drake, 1852;
and in this connection Hunter's _Founders of New Plymouth_, London,
1854; Steele's _Life of Brewster_, Philadelphia, 1857; Goodwin's
_Pilgrim Republic_, Boston, 1887; Bacon's _Genesis of the New England
Churches_, New York, 1874; Baylies's _Historical Memoir_, 1830;
Thacher's _History of the Town of Plymouth_, 1832.

Sir Ferdinando Gorges wrote a _Briefe Narration of the Originall
Undertakings of the advancement of plantations into the parts of
America, especially showing the beginning, progress, and continuance
of that of New England_, London, 1658, contained in his grandson's
collection entitled _America Painted to the Life_. Thomas Morton, of
Merrymount, gave his own view of the situation in his _New English
Canaan_, which has been edited for the Prince Society, with great
learning, by C.F. Adams. Samuel Maverick also had his say in a valuable
pamphlet entitled _A Description of New England_, which has only come
to light since 1875 and has been edited by Mr. Deane. Maverick is, of
course, hostile to the Puritans. See also Lechford's _Plain Dealing in
New England_, ed. J.H. Trumbull, 1867.

The earliest history of Massachusetts is by Winthrop himself, a work of
priceless value. In 1790, nearly a century and a half after the author's
death, it was published at Hartford. The best edition is that of 1853.
In 1869 a valuable life of Winthrop was published by his descendant
Robert Winthrop. Hubbard's _History of New England_ (_Mass. Hist.
Coll._, 2d series, vols. v., vi.) is drawn largely from Winthrop and
from Nathaniel Morton. There is much that is suggestive in William
Wood's _New England's Prospect_, 1634, and Edward Johnson's
_Wonder-working Providence of Zion's Saviour in New England_, 1654; the
latter has been ably edited by W.F. Poole, Andover, 1867. The records
of the Massachusetts government, from its founding in 1629 down to the
overthrow of the charter in 1684, were edited by Dr. Shurtleff in 6
vols. quarto, 1853-54; and among the documents in the British Record
Office, published since 1855, three volumes--_Calendar of State Papers_,
_Colonial America_, vol. i., 1574-1660; vol. v., 1661-1668; vol. vii.,
1669--are especially useful. Of the later authorities the best is
Hutchinson's _History of Massachusetts Bay_, the first volume of which,
coming down to 1689, was published in Boston in 1764. The second volume,
continuing the narrative to 1749, was published in 1767. The third
volume, coming down to 1774, was found among the illustrious author's
MSS. after his death, and was published in London in 1828. Hutchinson
had access to many valuable documents since lost, and his sound judgment
and critical acumen deserve the highest praise. In 1769 he published
a volume of _Original Papers_, illustrating the period covered by the
first volume of his history. Many priceless documents perished in the
shameful sacking of his house by the Boston rioters, Aug. 26, 1765. The
second volume of Hutchinson's _History_ was continued to 1764 by G.R.
Minot, 2 vols., 1798, and to 1820 by Alden Bradford, 3 vols., 1822-29.
Of recent works, the best is Barry's _History of Massachusetts_, 3
vols., 1855-57. Many original authorities are collected in Young's
_Chronicles of Massachusetts_, Boston, 1846. Cotton Mather's _Magnolia
Christi Americana_, London, 1702 (reprinted in 1820 and 1853), though
crude and uncritical, is full of interest.

Many of the early Massachusetts documents relate to Maine. Of later
books, especial mention should be made of Folsom's _History of Saco and
Biddeford_, Saco, 1830; Willis's _History of Portland_, 2 vols., 1831-33
(2d ed. 1865); _Memorial Volume of the Popham Celebration_, Portland,
1862; Chamberlain's _Maine, Her Place in History_, Augusta, 1877. On New
Hampshire the best general work is Belknap's _History of New Hampshire_,
3 vols., Phila., 1784-92; the appendix contains many original
documents, and others are to be found in the _New Hampshire Historical
Collections_, 8 vols., 1824-66.

The _Connecticut Colonial Records_ are edited by Dr. J.H. Trumbull,
12 vols., 1850-82. The _Connecticut Historical Society's Collections_,
1860-70, are of much value. The best general work is Trumbull's _History
of Connecticut_, 2 vols., Hartford, 1797. See also Stiles's _Ancient
Windsor_, 2 vols., 1859-63; Cothren's _Ancient Woodbury_, 3 vols.,
1854-79. Of the Pequot War we have accounts by three of the principal
actors. Mason's _History of the Pequod War_ is in the _Mass. Hist.
Coll._, 2d series, vol. viii.; Underhill's _News from America_ is in the
3d series, vol. vi.; and Lyon Gardiner's narrative is in the 3d series,
vol. iii. In the same volume with Underhill is contained _A True
Relation of the late Battle fought in New England between the English
and the Pequod Savages_, by Philip Vincent, London, 1638. The _New Haven
Colony Records_ are edited by C.J. Hoadly, 2 vols., Hartford, 1857-58.
See also the _New Haven Historical Society's Papers_, 3 vols., 1865-80;
Lambert's _History of New Haven_, 1838; Atwater's _History of New
Haven_, 1881; Levermore's _Republic of New Haven_, Baltimore, 1886;
Johnston's _Connecticut_, Boston, 1887. The best account of the Blue
Laws is by J.H. Trumbull, _The True Blue Laws of Connecticut and New
Haven, and the False Blue Laws invented by the Rev. Samuel Peters_,
etc., Hartford, 1876. See also Hinman's _Blue Laws of New Haven Colony_,
Hartford, 1838; Barber's _History and Antiquities of New Haven_, 1831;
Peters's _History of Connecticut_, London, 1781. The story of the
regicides is set forth in Stiles's _History of the Three Judges_ [the
third being Colonel Dixwell], Hartford, 1794; see also the _Mather
Papers_ in _Mass. Hist. Coll._, 4th series, vol. viii.

_The Rhode Island Colonial Records_ are edited by J.R. Bartlett, 7
vols., 1856-62. One of the best state histories ever written is that
of S.G. Arnold, _History of the State of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations_, 2 vols., New York, 1859-60. Many valuable documents are
reprinted in the _Rhode Island Historical Society's Collections_. The
_History of New England, with particular reference to the denomination
called Baptists_, by Rev. Isaac Backus, 3 vols., 1777-96, has much
that is valuable relating to Rhode Island. The series of _Rhode Island
Historical Tracts_, issued since 1878 by Mr. S.S. Rider, is of great
merit. Biographies of Roger Williams have been written by J.D. Knowles,
1834; by William Gammell, 1845; and by Romeo Elton, 1852. Williams's
works have been republished by the Narragansett Club in 6 vols., 1866.
The first volume contains the valuable _Key to the Indian Languages of
America_, edited by Dr. Trumbull. Williams's views of religious liberty
are set forth in his _Bloudy Tenent of Persecution_, London, 1644; to
which John Cotton replied in _The Bloudy Tenent washed and made White in
the Blood of the Lamb_, London, 1647; Williams's rejoinder was entitled
_The Bloudy Tenent made yet more Bloudy through Mr. Cotton's attempt
to Wash it White_, London, 1652. The controversy was conducted on both
sides with a candour and courtesy rare in that age. The titles of
Williams's other principal works, _George Fox digged out of his
Burrowes_, Boston, 1676; _Hireling Ministry none of Christ's_, London,
1652; and _Christenings make not Christians_, 1643; sufficiently
indicate their character. The last-named tract was discovered in the
British Museum by Dr. Dexter and edited by him in Rider's _Tracts_,
No. xiv., 1881. The treatment of Roger Williams by the government
of Massachusetts is thoroughly discussed in Dexter's _As to Roger
Williams_, Boston, 1876. See also G.E. Ellis on "The Treatment of
Intruders and Dissentients by the Founders of Massachusetts," in _Lowell
Lectures_, Boston, 1869.

The case of Mrs. Hutchinson is treated, from a hostile and somewhat
truculent point of view, in Thomas Welde's pamphlet entitled _A Short
Story of the Rise, Reign, and Ruin of Antinomians, Familists, and
Libertines that infected the Churches of New England_, London, 1644. It
was answered in an anonymous pamphlet entitled _Mercurius Americanus_,
republished for the Prince Society, Boston, 1876, with prefatory notice
by C.H. Bell. Cotton's view of the theocracy may be seen in his _Milk