him to come and demand that a special verdict be brought for Allen and himself, as, indeed, the governor was directed to do by special instructions from the queen. Dudley first ordered the court to be adjourned until he should be in Portsmouth; then he waited because of rumors of an impending Indian raid, and finally, when he did set out, was taken ill with a "seasonable fit of gravel," and thus was unable to be present at the trial. In his absence the court not only refused to bring in the desired verdict, but again found for the defendant and assessed the costs of the entire trial upon Allen. The case was once more appealed by Allen. An almost successful attempt at compromise was cut short by his death, and the suit was renewed by his son, Thomas Allen, in 1707. Again the Court of Common Pleas of the colony refused the desired writ of ejectment; and the Superior Court, despite directions to bring in a special verdict for the plaintiff, brought a verdict for Waldron and again put the whole costs of the trial upon the plaintiff. Dudley's sympathy was with the people throughout the whole dispute. Believing that they had some claims, in equity if not in law, to the lands they had defended, he reported to the Board of Trade, "I am firmly of the opinion, that the poor people Her [Majesty's] tenants and Inhabitants have possessed those lands thirty years and more, subdued them at the coste of the true present value, defended them for Sixty years past with the loss of their blood and treasure, it will be inconsistant with her Majesty's grace to her good Subjects either to Eject them or to put them to a rack rente.” 1 He therefore proposed that the queen should resume the original grant and compensate the heirs of Allen, and that, after confirming the present occupiers in their holdings, the crown should be reimbursed by the sale of the remaining waste lands.

1 Board of Trade, Papers, New England (Ms.), 14, T. 3.

The determination of the case was postponed, but before a final settlement was reached Thomas Allen died and Usher was removed from office, so the suit was not resumed. Thus a claim which had existed since the founding of the province ceased to be urged, not through lack of legal proof, but through the ability of the colonists to wear out the claimants.1

Although Dudley's suggestion for the settlement of this protracted dispute was not adopted, yet his proposed compromise was a wise and farseeing one, which showed an honorable escape from the difficulty for all parties concerned. To the colonists it would primarily give legal security for their land titles; and perhaps such a legal recognition of their claims might have done something to check the spirit of illegality and lawlessness too often successful in New England. The rights of Allen and Usher, vague and unsatisfactory as they were, had been recognized by the crown: by Dudley's plan, these were honorably and legally extinguished. The crown, moreover, while remedying injustice and showing generosity to both parties, was not to be the loser in the transaction. Aside from the solid financial returns which would accrue to it, the government was freed from a perplexing and protracted dispute, and might count upon the gratitude of both parties.

Thus by defending the province and aiding the colonists in time of danger, and by taking a larger and broader view than usually characterized colonial governors, Dudley was able to retain the support of New Hampshire throughout his administration.2

1 The case of Allen vs. Waldron, together with all the necessary documents, is printed in New Hampshire Provincial Papers, ii. 514–562. Belknap's History of New Hampshire (i. 308–328) gives a clear and well-tempered account, as does Batchellor's edition of the Laws of New Hampshire, ii. 2-3.

* Batchellor, in Laws of New Hampshire, ii. 3, takes an equally favorable view of Dudley's administration.

With Connecticut, his relations were not so harmonious. He was forced to bear much of the inherited distrust that was a legacy from the Andros administration, and to meet all the independent feeling of that colony, which, since the resumption of the charter, was greatly increased. His first collision was over military affairs. It has already been seen that Dudley was charged with the defence of all New England, and that even within his own province of Massachusetts he had great difficulty in leading the General Court to aid in protecting the northern frontier. The same difficulty in an increased degree faced him in dealing with Connecticut.

In May, 1703, Dudley wrote to Fitz-John Winthrop that he had information which led him to believe that the French were planning a descent upon Deerfield, and asked that the Connecticut towns might send some aid. This request was granted, and orders were given to send fifty men.2 But the attack upon Deerfield did not come until the following year; and meantime, Dudley sought to utilize the Connecticut troops upon the eastern frontier, and asked Winthrop to enlist a company whose transportation and supply Dudley would furnish. To this, Winthrop replied that danger to his own frontiers required him to keep all his forces at home, but that he would guard the Massachusetts towns in the Connecticut valley and would try to furnish Dudley with some Indians. This did not please Dudley, for he felt that a single company of Indians was a small quota for Connecticut to contribute in view of the great expense laid upon Massachusetts; and he significantly remarked in one of his letters, "If I be broke here you will stand but a little while."

He got

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 6th Series, iii. 129.
2 June 9, ibid. 131.

August 16, ibid. 139.

August 23, ibid. 149.

October 21, ibid. 159.

no satisfaction, however; Connecticut thought it best to defend the towns in Hampshire County with her own militia, merely allowing Dudley to equip and pay an exorbitant wage to a few Indians. Even these were cut off; for as a result of the Deerfield massacre Winthrop refused to allow them to proceed, and laid the whole matter before the Assembly.1

3

Dudley was not slow to inform the Board of Trade of his failure. On September 15, 1703, he reported, "In this necessity and great charge I have written in the most pressing manner to the Governours of Rhoad Island and Connecticot for the Advance of but 150 men between them, but can obtayn nothing." This brought a prompt rebuke from the people of Connecticut, one of whom declared that it was "not otherwise than it useth to bee"; and a special commission of the Connecticut Assembly was directed to make report of the services and expenses of the colony for military affairs and to lay an account "before her Majestie, to take off those calumnies our neighbours one way & the other have laid on us." 4 But Sir Henry Ashurst, now agent for Connecticut and Dudley's most bitter enemy, put an even worse construction upon the whole affair; for he wrote to Winthrop, "I am senceable Dud: & Co. doe complane of yo' not sending yo' quota that they may put the money in their pocketts.' As a result of these complaints and charges, Dudley was able to get little or no aid for the expeditions which he planned upon his own authority; and the assistance sent for the more general expeditions devised in England was but grudgingly given.

"5

1 Winthrop to Dudley, November 4, ibid. 159; Winthrop to the Connecticut Assembly, March 15, 1703–1704, ibid. 184.

2 Board of Trade, Papers, New England (Ms.), 12, N. 22.

John Chester to Winthrop, December 11, 1704, Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 6th Series, iii. 276.

Aside from the disinclination to contribute to distant expeditions from which no immediate safety or profit could be gained,―a disinclination which characterized all the colonies,— Connecticut felt aggrieved that the command of its militia was vested in the governor of Massachusetts. This power rested upon the opinion of the law officers of the crown that the king could appoint a commander-in-chief for the military forces of the colony; and it had formerly been intrusted to Governor Fletcher of New York. Although Fletcher probably had no such experience as tradition describes, he reported that he was unable to exercise command of the militia within the limits of the colony.1 Dudley also experienced difficulties in the exercise of his power. He was too wise to attempt to take command of the militia within the colony, as Fletcher essayed to do, but contented himself with calling for troops and insisting upon his right to commission officers of the Connecticut militia while they were serving within Massachusetts. Even this perfectly proper demand met with such opposition that Dudley at the time was forced to write to Winthrop, "S' I pray to be understood you shall withdraw your troops that you give me for her Majesties service when you please, but in this government their commission and service must be under the direction of her Majesties Commission here." 2 This may seem an "over-nice" point, as it did to Winthrop,3 who, while insisting upon his right to commission the officers, had directed them to obey the governor of Massachusetts; but when it is seen that the Connecticut troops were so unwilling to obey the Massachusetts authorities and so anxious to get home that they disbanded without orders, it can be 1 New York Colonial Documents, iv. 71.

* April 18, 1704, Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 6th Series, iii. 3 Ibid. 217. 191.

4

Letters of various officers to Winthrop, July, 1704, ibid. 237-244.