over, was not popular. To the difficulties of the task of endeavoring to enforce a distrusted English policy were added all the enmities he had made during his previous administration in the colony. Thus he always encountered bitter and unrelenting enemies who brought personal spite and zeal to the conflict and made at least two concerted attempts to accomplish his removal.

His most consistent enemy was Sir Henry Ashurst, who from the time when he was first employed by the Massachusetts agents in 1690 never ceased to oppose Dudley. As has been seen, he discredited Dudley in Parliament and blocked his ambition to succeed Sir William Phips, and he thwarted Dudley's plan to unite Connecticut and Rhode Island under one jurisdiction. These services he was never tired of recounting; but his enmity found expression in more active ways, and from 1702 to 1710 he was in communication with Dudley's opponents, seeking examples of his misrule and actively pressing for his removal. In season and out of season, he was on the alert and left no means untried to secure his object. Near the end of his life, when Dudley's position seemed secure, Ashurst wrote, "Every body thinkes him an excellent Gov' but S H. A."2

Next to Ashurst, though not so consistent in their enmity, were the Mathers, father and son, with all the interests and influence that they could control. This enmity was inherited from the revolutionary period; but just previous to Dudley's appointment a reconciliation had taken place, the price for which can only be inferred. There is evidence to believe

1 Ashurst to Wait Winthrop, August 28, 1704: "I shuld bee glad a safe hand to haue the acco. of all D[udley's] proceedings in New England. (Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 6th Series, v. 131).

2 Ashurst to Increase Mather, May 10, 1710, ibid. 216.

་

that Cotton Mather sought Dudley's friendship and favored his appointment in the hope that he might utilize the governor's influence in the quarrels in which both Cotton and Increase Mather were involved. Dudley had hardly landed, however, before he offended the Mathers by consulting with their opponents; and the reconciliation, founded on such an insecure basis, was seriously undermined.1 Then, when by the election of Leverett to the presidency of Harvard College the ambition of the Mathers seemed forever blocked, the friendship was converted into open and bitter hostility. Their disappointment was increased when they remembered how completely Dudley had been in their power at the time of the Revolution, and when they recognized that without their aid he probably could never have been appointed governor; but, as will be seen, their very vindictiveness and bitterness reacted against them, for in their eagerness to press home every charge against the governor, they included ridiculous rumors which discredited their whole effort.

Though Sewall and Wait Winthrop were both connected with Dudley through the marriages of their children, they also opposed him. Winthrop was in constant communication

1 "The WRETCH went unto those men [Byfield and Leverett] and told them, that I had advised him to be no ways advised by them; and inflamed them into an implacable rage against me." - Diary of Cotton Mather, June 16, 1702, ibid. 1st Series, iii. 138.

2 Quincy (History of Harvard University, i. ch. viii) gives an account of the Mathers' attempts to utilize Dudley's influence and their anger at their failure to do so. He also credits Dudley with making the suggestion that the college obtain, by a resolution rather than by an act of the General Court, the revival of the charter of 1650, and suggests that it was through Dudley's influence that this action was not questioned in England. This course is contrary to the policy that Dudley usually pursued in his relations with the English authorities, but it is typical of his sharp political practice. Although he alienated the Mathers, he gained the support of the rich and influential group to which Brattle and Leverett belonged.

with Ashurst, and was a possible candidate for the post of governor or lieutenant-governor if Dudley should be removed. Sewall, personally honest, was a time-server, ever ready to congratulate the governor on his success, but secretly working for his downfall and for the appointment of Higginson.' The opposition of these men differed from that of the Mathers; for Dudley remained on friendly terms with Winthrop and Sewall throughout his life, and his personal relations with them were close and intimate. Their antagonism was merely a piece of personal politics, -Sewall's to protect his own interest and reputation, Winthrop's to gain advantage and satisfy his own ambition. Of a still different character was the opposition of Elisha Cooke. He was one of the survivors of the old revolutionary party, and was opposed alike to the compromises of the Mathers and to the avowed English policy of Dudley. He deprecated what he considered the surrender of Massachusetts in the acceptance of the charter, and bitterly resented his exclusion from the Council by Phips. Representing ideas so contrary to those which Dudley held, it is not to be wondered at that the governor refused him a seat in the Council, nor is it strange that Cooke steadily attempted to thwart Dudley and seek his removal. His enmity, however, was open and consistent, quite different from the selfish inconsistency of the Mathers and the temporizing treachery of Sewall and Winthrop.

Closely connected with the opposition of Cooke, and forming the party of which he was the leader and on which he could rely, were the remnants of the old revolutionary party. This group was particularly active in some of the country towns, and included not merely those who opposed the new régime

1 Sewall to Ashurst, February 25, 1707–1708, Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 6th Series, i. 359.

and hated Dudley as the betrayer of the charter, but those who distrusted executive control of any sort. Another group of opponents was found in New Hampshire. Here Lieutenant-Governor Usher and those who sought for profit in land speculation from the proprietors were always ready to procure and sign petitions for Dudley's removal. Equally active and troublesome were the disappointed place-hunters and the merchants whom Dudley had been obliged to offend by the enforcement of the navigation laws. Their names were found on every petition to remove him; and their affidavits beginning with the vague "It is reported," though satisfying to the Mathers, were not believed in England. Finally, toward the end of his administration, Dudley was confronted by the Land Bank party, a faction more dangerous than any other combination he had faced, for it was founded upon a definite principle rather than upon jealousy and envy. This party, operating in England under the changed conditions consequent on the accession of George I, was successful in bringing about Dudley's removal.

Against these opponents, Dudley had to gather a party on which he could rely. The more wealthy merchants in Boston, whose interest it was to support him as the representative of the conservative party in banking, favored him. The contractors and purveyors of the army were on his side. In country towns he won friends by giving commissions in the militia. He kept an open house during the session of the Court, and set a lavish table, to which he took care to invite the country members, who were sometimes won over by this means. And in spite of his failings of temper he possessed a good deal of tact and personal charm, by which, when everything else failed, he could sometimes transform an enemy into a friend.

This party, strong as it was in Massachusetts, would not have been sufficient to keep him in office without a powerful backing in England. It has been seen that he made himself acceptable to patrons as diverse as Blathwayt, the Bishop of London, and Lord Cutts. Blathwayt was Dudley's sponsor from his entrance into English intrigue on his first mission to England; and he remained his constant supporter. As clerk of the Privy Council, member of the Board of Trade, or member of Parliament, he acquiesced in Dudley's first appointment as president of the Massachusetts council, suggested his service in New York, and very probably procured him the post under Lord Cutts. Blathwayt and Dudley together attempted to thwart the reversal of the Leisler attainder; and Blathwayt urged Dudley's appointment as governor in 1695 and 1702, and advised, supported, and defended him throughout the greater part of his administration.

Though Blathwayt's influence seemed almost permanent in the Board of Trade, Dudley sought to bring himself before the attention of other English politicians. In this endeavor he was aided by John Chamberlayne, whose friendship he retained throughout his administration. Besides possessing influence as a literary and scientific man, active in the affairs of the church and busy about the court, Chamberlayne was an inveterate letter-writer. He was, in short, just the person to act as Dudley's confidential representative to keep him informed concerning the feeling in England. Aside from the enjoyment which he had in the task, Chamberlayne expected the more solid reward of the position as English agent for Massachusetts; but this Dudley could not obtain for him.' Through Chamberlayne he was informed of the

1 "I am very sorry to find that the business of the Agency drives as heavily as Pharaoh's charriots in the Red Sea." Chamberlayne to Dudley, June 22,