ing the legality of his own titles, and believed that in a court of law they would be held invalid. Yet in the Council he never voted to grant lands already occupied to any but their present owners. Unlike Sewall, who after many waverings and questionings finally petitioned for the confirmation of his title,1 Dudley seems to have sought this security quite willingly; and in this course he was followed by some of the leading men in the colony.3

2

If the government of Andros was in direct contradiction to the political ideals of New England, the logical exercise of its powers was such as to render it intolerable; nor was the temper of Andros or Dudley or their subordinates conciliatory, but rather harsh and overbearing, in the extreme. Although the news of the success of William of Orange was known in Massachusetts in March, there was no open demonstration against Andros until the receipt of the "Declaration" which William issued upon undertaking the invasion of England. By this he declared that "all Magistrates who have been unjustly turned out, shall forthwith ressume their former Employments." Although in all probability this clause applied solely to magistrates in England, "it imparted the

1 See Sewall to Increase Mather, July 24, 1688, ibid., 4th Series, viii. 517; for Sewall's petition, ibid., 5th Series, v. 220-221.

2 "Andros Records," American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, New Series, xiii. 487.

In a note in Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 6th Series, i. 68, the legality of Andros's proceedings is argued. It would seem that he could have taken no other course, a fact recognized by Dudley, Sewall, Stoughton, and some of the leading men in the colony; but the technical legality of his conduct does not diminish the selfishness of Randolph or the injustice done to the colonists. Andros and Dudley were trying to carry out the policy of England, which showed a "tendency to apply principles of law and methods of legal procedure which had been developed in England to its colonies, with a sublime disregard of the wishes of the colonists and of conditions which necessarily prevail in frontier settlements.". Channing, History of the United States, ii. 184.

needed impulse to colonial revolt in that it gave or seemed to give a quasi-legal sanction to the rising."" There was a general uprising in Boston. Andros, Randolph, and Captain George of the frigate Rose were seized and imprisoned, and the former government, with Bradstreet as governor, was reëstablished.

2

Dudley was, in the words of Danforth, "in a peculiar manner the object of the people's displeasure." He was returning from holding court on Long Island when he was seized, brought to Boston, and confined in jail. He was ill at the time, and was therefore released on a bond for a thousand pounds given by Shrimpton, Paige, and Hutchinson on condition that he be "confined to his house at Roxbury till further Ord not to go out of said house or the precints of his yard except to the public worship of God on the Sabbath." About midnight, however, a mob broke into his house and carried him back to the jail. The keeper, fearing that this high-handed act would involve him in difficulties, refused to receive him without a warrant from the magistrates. Unable to obtain this, the mob took him to the house of his niece, Mrs. Paige, where he was confined. Again his enemies came to search for him, but, though wrecking the house, failed to find him. His brother-in-law, Bradstreet, on whom the preservation of the peace devolved, then wrote to him:

"S. The tumult in the town is So Great & so Suddene & no Reason will be heard or regarded, that I am necessitated earnestly to entrent you for ye Safety of yr Selfe & family

1 Channing, History of the United States, ii. 199.

Danforth to Increase Mather, quoted in Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts, i. 348, note.

Board of Trade, Papers, New England (Ms.), 5, No. 21, iii.

* Calendar of State Papers, America and West Indies, 1689–1692, No. 310.

& well fare of ye whole country to yield quictly to yr present stresse which I hope you will never repent.

Dudley, perhaps willing to secure his personal safety, complied with the request and was lodged in jail, where he remained for ten months, until the king ordered his release and transportation to England.

When he arrived in London, he and his fellow-prisoners were confronted with a list of charges prepared by a committee of seven of the leading colonists.2 Dudley was accused of having committed no less than one hundred and nineteen illegal acts, the most frequent charge being that of proceeding illegally in the administration of justice. Associated with this charge was the exaction of excessive fines and fees. The first accusation may be easily dismissed; for, granting the legality of the commission of Andros, nothing illegal can be attributed to Dudley in the actions alleged. But though there was no illegality there was sufficient arbitrariness to account for the hatred of the people; and it is significant that in his letter of defence, written while he was still in prison, to Cotton Mather, Dudley makes no apology for his conduct on the bench. In this letter, however, he denies that he was responsible for excessive fees, saying that he never gave a warrant for any, and that all were fixed by the Council. Here the records give absolute evidence to the contrary; for Dudley was one of a committee of five to settle the fees, and it is prob

1 Board of Trade, Papers, New England (Ms.), 5, No. 21, iv. Andros Tracts, i. 149–173.

'June 5, 1689, Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections 6th Series, iii.

able that his influence as chief justice had great weight. He was, moreover, on the committees that settled and approved the fees granted to Randolph. Even if he were personally innocent, therefore, he was morally responsible for much of the system.

The next group of charges refer to his presidency, the most important being that he accepted an illegal commission. How much weight this charge would have with the Lords of Trade, who themselves drew up the commission, may well be doubted; and Dudley shrewdly answers that it was his duty to accept it, and that this was the opinion of several of the important people of the colony, since they took office with him, — an evident hit at Winthrop, who helped prepare the charges.

He is next accused of having shown a malicious spirit in his letters before the loss of the charter, and to have plotted for its destruction. There is, however, no evidence that he plotted for the destruction of the charter or sought office before the orders for the quo warranto were issued. On the other hand, he expressly denies this charge, and it has been shown from hostile evidence that he was working for the interests of Massachusetts until the case became hopeless. Even if the charge could have been substantiated, Dudley's willingness to accept office and to make effective the policy of the committee would have been a recommendation in its eyes; but the fact remained that the colonists could not forgive him for gaining advancement through their misfortunes.

Several minor complaints were made against him for acts committed during his administration. Some of these have been mentioned and discussed; but the charge most emphasized was that he cheated the crown out of its just dues by false accounts. The only evidence offered for this accusation were the letters of Randolph already quoted; but these were

very dangerous weapons, for in the first place, they show that Randolph did not get as much plunder as he expected, and are therefore to Dudley's credit, and, secondly, Randolph himself was accused of being the accomplice of Dudley, and hence his testimony is to be discredited.

Dudley's defence to the king was brief and dignified.1 He called attention to his fifteen years of service in the government, reminded the Committee how he had appeared before it as agent for the colony, and briefly spoke of his service as president of the temporary council. He declared that both as judge and as councillor, under the Andros government, "he faithfully to his understanding served the Crowne & the true interest of those Plantations . . . and according to his best skill gave Judgement in matters of Law according to the Lawes and Statutes of the Realm of England and the peculiar Laws of that Government." He then described his experience during the revolution, and submitted his case to the Lords of Trade. This defence was presented to the Committee April 24, 1690; but, as no person appeared for the colony to sign and assume the responsibility for the charges against Dudley and his fellow-prisoners, the king ordered their discharge.2

It is not probable that, even if the colony had been able to push the charges farther, the action of the king and committee would have been different. Dudley and Andros may have been unwise, certainly they were overbearing and tactless; but in their attempt to make effective the will of the English government, and in their execution of the decrees of the courts and the commands of the Lords of Trade, it would have been difficult for the English authorities to find anything illegal. Indeed, it was their zeal to carry out their instructions that had rendered them so unpopular and that led the colonists 1 Andros Tracts, ii. 182. 2 Ibid. 173, et seq.