網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

that it was impossible to enforce a harmonious policy upon so many independent jurisdictions; he saw the commands of the crown regarding both military and judicial affairs ignored by both Connecticut and Rhode Island, and the laws of England broken with impunity. He had been personally insulted; but that, he said, he was willing to bear from a consciousness of having attempted to do his duty. He was, however, obliged to report, "I am humbly of opinion that if these comands be be easily passed over they will presume to a very great Degree, And her Majestys Comands will be greatly slighted to the hurt of these Governments & their just Dependence and obedience, besides that I shall be personally insulted by them, which if there were nothing else in the matter I could well bear, knowing that therein I have done my Duty to her Majesty & Justice to her Good Subjects of the several Provinces, who being equally her Majestys Subjects ought to be equally defended [illegible] & taxed for that end."

crown.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"1

In Massachusetts he had difficulty enough, though in that colony the charter defined and protected the rights of the In neither Rhode Island nor Connecticut were the rights of the crown in the least guaranteed; on the contrary, both of these colonies were practically self-governing communities with their own rights and prerogatives defined and guaranteed against England. Dudley's solution of these difficulties was to have these charters revoked and all the New England colonies consolidated into one jurisdiction. This was no new idea; it was a system with which Dudley was thoroughly familiar from his experience on the Council of Andros, who had ruled over the very jurisdiction that Dudley now desired for himself. But the days of such high-handed

1 Dudley to the Board of Trade, in its Papers, New England (Ms.), 13,

proceedings as had characterized the surrender of the Connecticut and Rhode Island charters in the time of James II had gone by. One of the causes of the Revolution of 1689 had been the enforced surrender of the municipal charters in England; and William III had recognized the necessity of proceeding with more circumspection. Nevertheless, it was necessary to find a solution for the impossible conditions that obtained in some of the colonies. To free Protestant Maryland from its Catholic proprietor, Attorney-General Holt had in 1690 given an opinion that in case of necessity, the king might resume the powers granted by a charter.1 Still later, as has been seen, it was held that the king might appoint a captain-general for the military forces of a colony while allowing the civil government to remain undisturbed; and finally, in 1694, it was held that upon an "extraordinary exigency" the crown might appoint a governor for the civil as well as for the military functions of the government.2

Even before his appointment as governor of Massachusetts, Dudley had seen the possibilities of these opinions and had used his influence to have the charters of Connecticut and Rhode Island rescinded. Although it might seem perfectly proper to act upon the opinion of the law officers of the crown, an act of Parliament would, beyond all question, be final. Accordingly, by Dudley's influence, a bill was introduced into the House of Lords whereby the charters of Connecticut and Rhode Island were revoked; but for some unknown reason the project was abandoned. Dudley, however, did not relax his efforts. In one of his first reports he declares that little 1 Chalmers, Opinions, 65.

2 Ibid. 66.

* Trumbull, History of Connecticut, i. 429.

Ashurst to Winthrop, May 5, 1701, Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 6th Series, iii. 69. A copy of the bill is in Hinman's Antiquities, 299.

can be expected from Rhode Island "till Her Majesty be pleased to remove that little shadow of Government there remaining. 1 ." This fell in with the ideas of the Lords of Trade, who, although they answered that the present session of Parliament was so far spent that nothing could be done, nevertheless, called the attention of the queen to their frequent representations on the evils of independent governments. Again in 1704, the Board sent a long representation to the Privy Council, repeating the complaints which Dudley from Massachusetts was urging against Rhode Island and which Cornbury from New York was making against Connecticut. The Privy Council referred these complaints to the law officers of the crown, who gave it as their opinion that they did not find anything in the clauses of the charters "that can exclude your Majesty (who has a right to govern all your subjects) from naming a Governor on your Majesty's behalf, for those colonies at all times."2 Several hearings were held by the Privy Council, before which Sir Henry Ashurst appeared for Connecticut; and the matter was finally referred to Parliament.

Dudley had played his cards well so far. Without doubt he was actuated to a great extent by personal ambition and by a desire to be made governor of the same dominion over which Andros had formerly ruled. He already had New Hampshire and Massachusetts under his jurisdiction, but he was wise enough not to include New York in his project. Instead, he adopted the shrewd course of conciliating Lord Cornbury, the governor of New York and the cousin of the queen, thereby

1 Board of Trade, Papers, New England (Ms.), 12, M. 10. 'Chalmers, Opinions, 66; Board of Trade, Colonial Entry Books, New England (Ms.), 39, D. 374, and 40, E. 6-14, 358 et seq.; Register of the Privy Coun cil (Ms.), Anne, ii. 152, 197, 205, 218, and iii. 52, 89.

converting a possible rival and enemy into a friend and ally. Thus these two "hammonds" (Hamans), as Sir Henry Ashurst called them,1 consolidated their influence and worked together with a fair prospect of success. The Connecticut agent was Dudley's old enemy, and kept himself informed of each step of the proceedings. He believed that an attempt was to be made in 1703-1704, and sent to Connecticut for material for the defence; 2 but, as has been seen, the Privy Council was more deliberate, for, giving both the accuser and the accused opportunity to prepare their charges and their defence, it did not act till 1705-1706. As a result of the hearings before the Privy Council, a bill was again introduced into the House of Lords, where it was again thrown out, as Ashurst reports, on the first reading.3

It was a difficult political combination which Dudley had set out to attack, and it was extremely fortunate for both Connecticut and Rhode Island that they were able to combine their defence and join their different sources of influence. The reputation of Rhode Island was none too good. Too many representations from too many royal officials had been made concerning her lawlessness, her smuggling, and her piracies, to allow it to be supposed that she was a hardly abused colony. It was fortunate for her that she was able to put Connecticut in the front rank of her defence. Connecticut, by judicious yielding and waiting for a more favorable time to insist upon her contentions, had gained almost all she desired and had surrendered practically none of her privileges. Connecticut thus contributed to the common defence a good name com

1 Ashurst to the Governor and Council of Connecticut, April 22, 1707, Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 6th Series, iii. 378.

2 Ashurst to Wait Winthrop, July 25, 1703, ibid. v. 119.

3 Ibid. iii. 326–327, May 21, 1706.

bined with a great reputation for persistence, and, in addition, all the influence which the indefatigable Ashurst could stir up among the nonconformists. On the other hand, the Quaker element, strong in Rhode Island, employed William Penn. In certain periods of Penn's career, his intervention would have been harmful; but now he was in high favor, and as proprietor of the largest province in America and as the leading Quaker in England, he was able to exert considerable influence. In addition to all these various hostile agencies, the bill had the misfortune to be introduced by a divided ministry, which may have withdrawn it for the sake of harmony. To whatever combination of forces the defeat was due, Dudley's immediate hopes were at an end; and, although as late as 1709 Sir Henry Ashurst warned the Governor and Council of Connecticut that "ye Cannanite is in y° land & watches for yor halting,"1 there is no evidence that either Dudley or the Board of Trade renewed the attempt during the reign of Queen Anne. On the other hand, there is evidence that Dudley accepted the defeat with good grace; for his complaints concerning the neighboring colonies diminish, and he seems to have attempted to make the best of conditions which he believed were not for the best interests of England.

The colonists could see in this attempt nothing but another example of Dudley's ambition, which they thought was ever ready to sacrifice their welfare to gain its own ends; and it is true that his plan for colonial union would have destroyed the independence of two colonial governments, and would have increased the control of England and the influence of the crown. However dangerous it might be from the point of view of the colonists, to the home government the plan had great merits. By such a union, the administration would have

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 6th Series, v. 191-194.

« 上一頁繼續 »