網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

and had advised their union under a governor appointed by the king. In the commission granted to Dudley a decided advance was made, for Maine and New Hampshire were united with Massachusetts. Even wider plans, however, were under discussion by the Lords of Trade; and before the commission to Dudley was issued Randolph was ordered to prepare charges against both Connecticut and Rhode Island, with the purpose of vacating their charters by quo warranto proceedings and uniting them to Massachusetts. A copy of the writ against Rhode Island was received by Randolph in 1686, and upon its service Rhode Island submitted to the crown. Connecticut was able to take advantage of technicalities and so to postpone her submission. Owing to various delays two writs issued against her were outlawed before they could be served, but a third one, prepared October 23, 1686, was served in December of that year. Just before this, Andros arrived with instructions to assume the government of Connecticut in case that colony should submit to the king. In 1687, after considerable correspondence, Andros and several of his Council went to Hartford, where on October 31 he took control of the government and the colony was annexed to his jurisdiction. The governor, Treat, and the secretary, Allyn, were added to the Council to represent Connecticut. But though all New England was brought under one jurisdiction, the Lords of Trade were not yet satisfied: their attention was turned to New York and the Jerseys. In 1688 the proprietors of the Jerseys surrendered their charters, and Dongan, governor of New York,

1 July, 1685, Toppan, Edward Randolph, iv. 24.

a Rhode Island Colony Records, iii. 190. On June 27, 1686, Randolph wrote to Povey, “I left with the Gonof R: Island a Superannuated Summons of the Quo Warr" .... They are a sad sort of Mortalls as you euer heard of.” - Goodrick, Edward Randolph, 178179.

Connecticut Colony Records, iii. 248.

was superseded. A new commission was issued to Andros whereby he was made governor of practically the whole region north of the Delaware River, representatives from New York and New Jersey were added to his Council, and a single government was established for the whole region. The plans of the Lords of Trade were now complete, and they were ready to enjoy the advantages of their policy.

From the English point of view, this policy was statesmanlike and had many obvious advantages. To England the territory of the several colonies seemed small and their conflicting claims and jurisdictions petty. The Committee was weary of listening to disputes over boundaries and titles that were comparatively unimportant. It was difficult to deal with nine separate governments and to enforce a harmonious policy in five separate assemblies. A consolidation of these territories and the establishment of a government easily controlled by the crown seemed desirable. Not only would the petty disputes cease, but the administration of the law of England and her colonial policy would be effective. In addition, the military advantages were obvious. Already the crown had experienced difficulties in directing the military strength of the several colonies which augured ill for the future. Under this plan no such difficulties were anticipated, and it was expected that the government could direct the military resources of the united colonies as its policy might demand.

These very advantages, however, made the execution of the plan impossible in America. In all the New England colonies the governments were intensely democratic and dependent on the frequently expressed will of the people. In all there was a dread of executive usurpation. Each colony

1 New York Colonial Documents, iii. 550. Ibid. 537-542.

was jealous of its own resources, and was unwilling, save under the greatest necessity, to employ its troops outside of its own borders. Each had a policy of its own which in few cases would coincide with that of England, and which, even in those cases, commended itself to the colonists not as the policy of England, but as their own. Further dependence upon England and English control was not desired by the great majority of the people; rather they wished greater freedom and independence to carry out their own ideals. Finally, the foundation of the New England colonies was the result of particularism, and each felt its own individuality intensely. If the colonists themselves had failed to conquer their own prejudices and make the old New England Confederation permanent, it could hardly be hoped that a plan so alien to their thoughts as this could succeed.

Thus far the policy of England had been successful because it had involved legal questions which had been decided by English judges. There was, moreover, enough doubt in the colonies to prevent open resistance until the results of this policy should be clearly seen. In order to utilize the advantages thus far gained much depended upon the choice of the governor and his advisers; and in the appointment of Andros, the Committee displayed the same care which it had shown in the substitution of Dudley for Kirke. Sir Edmund Andros was, it is true, a favorite of James II; but he was personally honest and incorrupt. He had been governor of New York and had first-hand knowledge of the situation in New England. He was a soldier, but not a cruel man, and in his former experience in New York and his subsequent administration in Virginia he displayed considerable liberality. He was not, however, broad-minded, but a practical man who, without tact and with little sympathy for the ideals of others, attempted to perform his duty, which, as he believed, was to make the will of his superiors effective. It was not his personal character, or his personal failings (though these were many), but rather the task which he was called upon to perform, that caused the failure of the English policy in New England.

1 Whitmore (Andros Tracts, i. pp. xxiii-xxvii) was one of the first to attempt to defend the character of Andros from the charges of Palfrey and the older historians. Professor Osgood, in his American Colonies in the Seventeenth Cenlury, jj. 393-415, reviews the administration of Andros in an equally favorable light; while Professor Channing, in his History of the United States, ii. 173-185, from a fresh reading of the records takes a more severe view.

With the arrival of Andros at Boston, December 19, 1686, Dudley's temporary administration came to an end. On the following day Sir Edmund took the oaths from Dudley, published his commission, and assumed control of the government."

The Council consisted of twenty-seven men drawn from the territories under the jurisdiction of Andros, and included twelve of those who had been members of Dudley's Council. Seven was the number necessary for a quorum, but business could be transacted when there were only five present. From the records it appears that the largest council meeting was attended by twenty-one; but that number was never again equalled. Usually the attendance consisted of Andros, Randolph, Dudley (who was absent from but three meetings), and Usher, the treasurer; while Stoughton and Bulkley were ordinarily present and Wait Winthrop not often absent.?

December 20, 1686, “Andros Records,” American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, New Series, xiii. 240.

* That the enthusiastic welcome given to Sir Edmund was perhaps not altogether spontaneous may be gathered from the following extract from a letter of Randolph, December 22, 1686: “His Excellence was receiued at his Landing here with the Huzzaes of an innumerable company of poeple placed by the water side for his reception." Goodrick, Edward Randolph, 207.

Thus, the majority of those who were responsible for the government had been discredited by the colonists, but were regarded by Randolph as well affected; they were the same men who were associated with Dudley in his administration. Of these men the colonists held Andros, Randolph, and Dudley responsible for the so-called “tyranny" of Andros. This fact is significant as showing that, however much the constitutional theory of the government may have been questioned, it was the specific acts committed by the leaders that were : most hateful to the people.

As a member of Sir Edmund's government Dudley played an important part. He was constant in his attendance on the council meetings, and his advice and services were sought on all important matters. In his own administration a collection and revision of the laws of the colony had been begun, and Andros soon put Dudley on a committee to continue this work. He was appointed on the important committee to prepare the revenue bill, and on the one to fix the fees for the judges. He was made chief justice of the Superior Court, and censor of the press of the colony;" he also served, as one of the judges, on the committee to prepare the bill to regulate the town meetings and the election of the town officers. Thus from his activities as a councillor it can readily be seen why the people hated and distrusted him; but it was not so much his conduct as a legislator, in which Stoughton, Bulkley, and Winthrop were equally involved, as it was his acts as a judge in enforcing the laws passed that aroused the greatest opposition.

As has been shown, the whole theory of the government of Andros was questioned by the people; but in the operation of this government three points aroused bitter opposition. In 1“Andros Records," 246. ?Ibid. 244. •Ibid. 267. *Ibid. 249. Ibid. 478.

« 上一頁繼續 »