of James II. Moreover, to many of the rich merchants in New York the question of religion was a subordinate one, and it was freely asserted that there was a Catholic party ready to follow the lead of Nicholson or Dongan, who were believed to be in alliance with the French. The opposition, though greatly outnumbering the Catholics, was by no means united. Save for the few years between 1683 and 1686, when the experiment of an elected assembly was tried, New York was governed by an appointed council. The system of Andros was therefore not new; and the resident members of his Council, Van Cortlandt, Phillipse, and Bayard, though rich and prominent in the colony, were distrusted and envied by the people, who desired a share in the government. Without doubt the English settlers on Long Island formed a majority of this party, but there were merchants in the city who keenly felt their exclusion from the social and official aristocracy of the colony; chief among these was Jacob Leisler.

The uprising in New York followed hard upon that in Massachusetts. The same rumors of Catholic and French alliance and invasion were utilized to rouse excitement; and the obvious weakness of the fortifications of the city and the danger of the colony brought all the Protestant factions to act in coöperation for the moment. But Nicholson was not the man to preserve this temporary harmony. Losing his temper over some slight act of insubordination, he soon found that the city militia was beyond his control and in open mutiny. Leisler put himself at the head of the mutineers and seized the fort. Nicholson, fearing for his safety, deserted his post and soon went to England; Van Cortlandt, Bayard, and the other councillors were imprisoned or forced to flee, and Leisler became practically dictator. His rule, though revolutionary in its origin, was generally accepted throughout the

province, and received, in his own eyes at least, some legal authority by the receipt of a letter from the king, addressed "to such as for the time being take Care for the preserving the peace and administering the Laws in our Said Province of New York." Ignoring the presence of the members of Andros's Council, who were legally charged with the preservation of the peace, but who had been deprived of all power, Leisler assumed that his government was recognized by the king.

The English authorities, however, to whom both Leisler and Nicholson had appealed, had no intention of allowing the revolutionary government to become permanently established. On January 4, 1690, a commission and set of instructions were issued to Colonel Henry Sloughter, in which a Council was named containing none of the names of the revolutionists, but including Van Cortlandt and Bayard, the most bitter opponents of Leisler.2 Had Sloughter himself come directly to New York and presented his commission, Leisler doubtless would have at once surrendered; but, unfortunately, before he arrived his deputy, Ingoldsby, reached New York, and Dudley came upon the scene. Ingoldsby demanded the surrender of the fort, but could show only Sloughter's deputation to him, as his authority. This Leisler was perhaps correct in refusing to recognize. In the strained relations which followed it was difficult to keep peace; protests and counter-protests were issued by Leisler and the newly-appointed Council under Dudley, and finally, on March 17, Leisler opened fire and killed two of the king's soldiers. Even when Sloughter arrived, Leisler attempted to make terms for himself, but finally submitted and was detained as a prisoner.

Responding to the demands of Leisler's personal enemies,

1 British State Papers, America and West Indies (Ms.), 578, No. 36a. New York Colonial Documents, iii. 623 et seq., 685 et seq.

Sloughter constituted a special court and commissioned ten men "of approved integrity and loyalty and personally unconcerned in the late troubles." Joseph Dudley, who had been acting as president of the Council and was Ingoldsby's adviser before the arrival of Sloughter, was chief justice. Leisler and his associates were speedily indicted and brought before this court for trial. "Refusing to hold up his hand," Leisler read "a small paper offering that for-as-much he had been in power here he ought not to plead till such power was determined," thus claiming that the court had no jurisdiction since his acts were authorized by the letter of the king. The court decided that this amounted to no plea, but postponed proceedings to consult with the Council. On April 1 Leisler was again brought before the court, and Dudley advised him to plead; but he continued "his general talk refusing to plead

[until] he was ordered to be tyed up and putt in irons."2 On April 15, he was once again brought before the court; but he still remained obstinate, and on April 17 he was sentenced to death for murder and high treason. On the advice of the judges, Sloughter suspended the sentence until special orders should be received from England; but party feeling was so strong that the governor, influenced by his Council, at length gave way, and Leisler and his son-in-law were executed and their estates confiscated.

In the trial, Dudley had taken a leading part. He was probably intensely biased against Leisler, and displayed many of his unpleasant traits in his conduct of the case. Although as a judge he had advised Sloughter to suspend sentence until the king's pleasure should be known, yet as a member of the Council he apparently joined with the others in urging the governor to carry out the sentence at once. His conduct was 2 Board of Trade, Papers, New York (Ms.), iv. 4.

1 Ibid. 759.

1

unwise, but his decision was legal and was confirmed by the king. Nevertheless, in the exercise of his duty, he had offended many of his countrymen and given his enemies another point to urge against him in his later career.

Sometime in 1692 Dudley left New York and returned to New England, where he lived quietly at Roxbury. Although Governor Fletcher was directed to make Dudley first of his Council, he suspended him for non-residence, but still consulted him by letter. When Dudley returned to New England he found Massachusetts under the new charter, with Sir William Phips the newly-appointed royal governor, and Stoughton, Dudley's friend and former colleague, lieutenantgovernor. The new government was in the midst of difficulties. The frenzy of the witchcraft persecution was at its height, and Stoughton was taking a leading part in the prosecution. War was forcing even heavier taxes than Andros or Dudley had levied, and the futile expedition against Quebec had so strained the credit of the colony, that it had been neces

1 The documents concerning the Leisler trial and the reversal of the attainder are given in brief form in Calendar of State Papers, America and West Indies, 1689-1692, 1692-1697; they are printed in full in New York Colonial Documents, vols. iii.-iv., and in New York Historical Society, Collections, Publication Fund Series, 1868. The trial is discussed by Chandler, Criminal Trials, i. 262; and more fully by Chalmers, in Continuation of the Political Annals of the Present United Colonies (in New York Historical Society, Collections, Publication Fund Series, 1868, p. 72), where he says: "Of the fairness of their trial, the nature of their crime, or the justness of their sentence no doubt can be reasonably entertained; since they were not indicted for the part they had acted in the revolution or in the subsequent violences, but merely for holding a fortress by arms against the legal governor, which in judgment of law was levying war against the King. But the prudence of the measure may be justly questioned, because ill-timed examples only weaken the power which they are meant to support. William declared in favour of the validity of the judgement; yet ordered their estates to be returned to their children, because the services of the fathers required some attention to the sons."

2 Calendar of State Papers, America and West Indies, 1689–1692, No. 2514.

sary to resort to paper money. Moreover, the new governor's irascibility was offending some of the officials and stirring up opposition among the representatives. Dudley saw in these conditions a possibility for his future advantage. He took care to renew his influence over Stoughton, and regained the confidence of some of his friends. He utilized his wide family connection among the leaders of the colony, and by his letters to Fletcher fomented the trouble between him and the hottempered governor of Massachusetts.'. To prosecute his plans more effectively he decided to go to England, and sometime before February he was in London.2

Dudley's life in the next nine years presented a strange contrast to the lives of his fellow-colonists, and did much to remove whatever provincialism remained in his character. This was his third visit to London, and he found many friends. Blathwayt was still clerk of the Privy Council and ready to help him. He also gained a new patron in the person of Lord Cutts, who had led a regiment of the line at the battle of the Boyne and there won the reputation of being "the bravest of the brave," and secured the friendship of the king. About

1 British State Papers, America and West Indies (Ms.), 561, Nos. 18, iii. According to Randolph's report to Blathwayt, March 14, 1692-1693, the condition of the colonies was very critical and there was need for the presence of English officials. "Carolin," he wrote, "has a Gon' at Ashley River. yet is wholy vnsetled Coll: . . . Maryland quiet by force for ye present. . . . The 2 Jersyes haue a Mock Gom* vnder Mr. Hamilton.... Pensilvania is much like it. New york people much dissatisfied to haue all places filld vp with Irish.... New England is worse than Bedleham. Euery place full of Horror & Confusion. Connecticott ouer run with fraud & Hypocrisy. Road Island with folly & quakarisme. N: plymouth as poore as a Church mouse. Boston ouer spred with fantasticall delusions. Horrid Murthers Cruell slavery & oppression Rampant: the poeple are become more stupid then their Gon': more arbitrary then the members of their Councill & more inflexible then their pragmatticall Teachers." Goodrick, Edward Randolph, 433-434.

'Letter of Elisha Hutchinson, February 1, 1693, Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, 1835-1855, pp. 296–297.