determining all of these, Dudley was the central figure. The question of obtaining a sufficient revenue for the support of the government was a vital one for the Andros administration. By his commission Andros was directed to levy taxes for this purpose; while by his instructions he was directed to "continue to Raise and Levy such Rates Taxes and Impositions as are now or have lately been Laid . . . untill upon your further Examination and inquiry you shall represent unto us the Nature and quality of Such Rates, . . . how the same are Raised, . . and what other Taxes may be Raised . . as also what shall be necessary for the Support of the annuall Charge of Our Government there." Technically there were no revenue laws in existence, as the General Court had voted, on October 10, 1683, that all laws for the collection of taxes should expire in 1684.2 Nevertheless, the imposts were twice extended for a year at a time and collected by Dudley; while the ordinary country rates were, in 1684 and 1685, levied as they had been previously to 1684, and were continued by Dudley. All that Andros did was to continue these same laws.

He was, however, in the "Narrative of the Proceedings of Sir Edmond Androsse and his Complices" (an ex parte statement prepared by some of his councillors after the overthrow of his government in 1689, possibly to extenuate their own share in his government), accused of putting through the tax bill without counting the votes; and in a letter to Cotton Mather, Dudley

1 Laws of New Hampshire (ed. Batchellor), i. 158–159. Massachusetts Colony Records, v. 414.

Ibid. 438, 476; Whitmore's Laws of 1672, p. 312; "Dudley Records," Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, 2d Series, xiii. 241.

• Massachusetts Colony Records, v. 454, 505.

"Dudley Records," as above.

• Andros Tracts, i. 140.

3

asserts that he never assented to the tax bill.1 That there was opposition to this plan of continuing the former taxes the bare official records testify, for the bill was under discussion for more than a week in several council meetings at which never less than seventeen were present; and the records also show that Stoughton and Hinckley tried to delay it under the "pretence of having Some amendments."2 Their opposition, says Randolph, was but a part of the opposition of the landed class: "The Merch are for Land Taxes; but M' Dudley Stoughton and others who haue gott very large tracts of Land are for Laying all vpon the trading party." Andros, however, was not unreasonable; he insisted that the taxes and rates which were "according to the printed Law title publick Charges" should be levied by the Council."

The revenue collected according to the old law was not sufficient to defray the expenses of the government. Indeed, Andros had anticipated as much, and in accordance with his instructions had so reported to the king. In August, 1687, he was ready to make certain specific recommendations, which he sent to the king, and on November 3 the following direction was sent to him: "We approve of your proceedings in respect of the revenue, as reported in your letter of 31 August, and direct you to carry your proposals for the increase of customs and excise, etc., into effect." These proposals were incorporated into an act for additional revenue and imposts, and were passed at a meeting of which no records remain.8

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 6th Series, iii. 501.

* "Andros Records," American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, New Series, xiii. 256.

'Goodrick, Edward Randolph, 211.

4"Andros Records," 256.

Calendar of State Papers, America and West Indies, 1685-1688, No. 1197. Ibid. No. 1414. 7 Ibid. No. 1502. 8 Connecticut Colony Records, iii. 433.

Thus, although Andros may have been overbearing and arbitrary in his dealings with his Council, it is hard to see anything illegal in his method of raising money for the support of the government; on the contrary, there is evidence of a desire to carry out his instructions in the face of opposition from the colonists. He continued the old rates in spite of the attempt of some to shift the burden of the taxes; and levied additional ones only after he had laid his suggestions before the king and received permission to do so.

It was Dudley's part in enforcing this bill which made him particularly odious to the people. John Appleton, a former Assistant, and the Reverend John Wise of the town of Ipswich, led the resistance. On the evening of August 22, 1687, the day before the town-meeting was to be held, several of the inhabitants of Ipswich met at Appleton's house "and there discoursed and concluded that it was not the Towns Duty any way to assist that ill method of raising Money without a general Assembly." Accordingly the next day the town refused to elect a commissioner to assist in levying the prescribed rate. As a result, Appleton, Wise, and four others were charged with contempt and tried before Dudley and Stoughton. In his examination of Wise, it is asserted, Dudley used the phrase that was destined to trouble him in his later career, "Mr Wise you have no more priviledges left you, than not to be sold for Slaves."2 In accordance with his directions the jury rendered a verdict of guilty, and the prisoners were remanded to jail for three weeks and then heavily fined and put under bonds for future good behavior. Legally, Dudley's position was perhaps correct (though it is charged that the case was tried before a packed jury), and doubtless the colonists

1 Andros Tracts, i. 83. See also Waters, Ipswich in the Massachusetts Colony, 2 Andros Tracts, i. 85.

237-255.

needed some sharp lesson to make them realize their altered condition; but it was unfortunate for Dudley that he should have been the person to teach his fellow-countrymen this lesson. No defence can be made for his overbearing manner or for his harshness in the examination of the prisoners. These unfortunate characteristics frequently hindered him in the execution of his duties and rendered him hated throughout the colonies. Since the commission of Andros contained no provision for a general colonial assembly, the only legal gatherings left for the people were their town-meetings. Whether a town in Massachusetts was, like Dorchester, founded without the formal consent of the General Court, or, like the later towns, by the express and formal action of the Court, all of them considered themselves communities incorporated by the General Court and possessing the rights of self-government, taxation, and jurisdiction over the lands within their limits. To an English lawyer these pretensions seemed illegal; and technically, the towns in Massachusetts, being created by a nonsovereign body, had no legal standing as corporations. Emphatically this was true in the eyes of Andros and of his English associates on the Council. Therefore it is not strange that the governor attempted to "regulate" the towns, a proceeding which greatly infringed upon their privileges. duties of the towns in levying taxes were discussed by the Council, and finally, upon the report of a special committee of which Dudley was a member, a bill was passed making it unlawful for a town to hold meetings except at designated times, and then solely for the purpose of electing selectmen and constables and a tax commissioner to assist in levying the rates voted by the Governor and Council. Thus the town-meetings were forbidden to criticise or discuss the conduct of the

1 Connecticut Colony Records, iii. 427.

The

Governor and Council, and by the election of a tax commissioner were forced to become allies of the government in the collection of taxes.

But a still more serious attack was made upon the town system. Andros was directed by his commission to dispose of such lands "as now or hereafter shall be in our power to dispose of," and by his instructions was required to dispose of "other Lands Tenements and Heriditam'ts for which Our Royal Confirmation may be wanting." This clause was probably inserted in the instructions with a purpose, and its execution was designed to raise serious questions concerning substantially all the land titles in Massachusetts. Practically none of the landowners derived their titles from the king. An Indian deed or a grant from the General Court was the most that was thought necessary; and even these tenures were not usual, the majority of the landholders deriving their titles from the grants of towns, corporations which, by English law, had no legal standing. In addition there were in many towns lands or commons held, not by any individual, but by the town in its corporate capacity. Andros and his advisers held that there were few valid titles in Massachusetts, and served writs of intrusion on various individuals to force them to take out patents and pay a quitrent. Moreover, his favorites began to petition for the common lands, which, they asserted, were illegally held by the towns.

Dudley's position on this question was typical and consistent. He advised Andros that the clause in his commission referred only to waste lands, not to those held by individuals. He spoke openly against Randolph when he asked for Nahant Neck and Cambridge Common; but he had doubts concern

1 Dudley to Cotton Mather, June 5, 1689, Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 6th Series, iii. 505.