« 上一頁繼續 »
in his instructions, but issued a special instruction of twenty clauses directed to the enforcement of the laws of trade.
With such instructions, sure to increase his difficulties, Dudley sailed for Boston, April 13, 1702. The passage was a pleasant one; Dudley's companions, two missionaries of the Church of England sent out by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, so enjoyed themselves that one of them declared that had the passage been five months instead of five weeks it would have seemed short. Though at times he was so desperately seasick that his life was despaired of, Dudley was evidently very happy, and perhaps a little patronizing to his shipmates, whom he nevertheless charmed by his gracious manner. Keith, one of them, thus writes of him: "He was so very civil & kind to M' Gordon & me that he caused us both to eat at his Table all the Voyage, and his Conversation was both pleasant and Instructive, in so much that the Great Cabin of the Ship was like a Colledge for good Discourse both in matters Theological and Philosophical and very cordially he joined daily with us in divine worship, and I well understand he purposeth to give all possible Encouragem to the Congregation of the Church of England in this place.”3
While the weeks were thus passing pleasantly for Dudley, a very different feeling pervaded Massachusetts. His career under Andros was still remembered by many; his conduct in the trial of Leisler was generally disapproved; and his persistent scheming for office during the past ten years had not increased his popularity. Moreover, it may well be believed that the remnants of the old "faction” and the party led by Cooke might well fear the coming of a man of his abilities and power. It was discussed whether it would be advisable to prevent his landing by force;? but fortunately for Massachusetts, no such step was taken. On the other hand, the opponents of Cooke and his party, among whom the Mathers must be reckoned for the moment, rejoiced at the opportunity of defeating their rivals. With them must be counted the few who had supported Dudley during the administration of Andros, and all those who hoped for place or influence under the changed conditions. Their satisfaction was as little concealed as the hostility of Dudley's enemies; and, if Wait Winthrop correctly reported their feelings, several of Dudley's enemies were “beforehand marked out for displeasure, at least, if not to be Leislerized, as they call it.”Happily, however, both friends and enemies suspended their mutual animosities, and not only was his landing unopposed, but the Council made extensive plans for his reception.3 .
1 Ibid. D. 118.
* Patrick Gordon to the secretary of the Society, in the Society's Letters (Ms.), i. No. 12.
• Keith to the secretary, ibid. No. 9.
On the day of his landing, Dudley met the General Court and began a struggle which was to continue throughout his administration. Although the constitutional reforms of the “Glorious Revolution" did not reach the American colonies, attempts were made by the colonial assemblies to copy the sovereignty of the House of Commons. Though legally dependent upon royal commissions, charters, and acts of Parliament, and hence strictly subordinate and non-sovereign bodies, the colonial assemblies were constantly claiming for themselves the same rights in legal and financial matters that were exercised by Parliament. All the efforts of the Board of Trade,
1 George Larkin to the Board of Trade, in its Papers, New England (Ms.), 11, K. 4.
? Winthrop to Ashurst, March, 1702, Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 6th Series, v. 110.
• Massachusetts Archives (Ms.), xlviii. 345.
the English sovereigns, and even Parliament itself, to restrict their freedom of action and to control their legislation, were met by protests, evasions, or, when all else failed, by grudging concession. Moreover, the lower houses of the assemblies persisted in regarding themselves as possessed of all the prerogatives which the English House of Commons had in its relations with the House of Lords. The councils of the colonial assemblies seemed, from their appointive character, to bear some resemblance to the hereditary chamber in Parliament; and certainly in most royal colonies the councils usually acted in harmony with the royal governors. To check this seeming encroachment, the representatives adopted the same procedure that had won for the House of Commons its independence and sovereignty.
The success of the contentions of the colonists is best seen in New York, a royal province, which existed without a charter, entirely dependent upon the will of the crown. Beginning in 1689 on the slender basis of a clause in Sloughter's commission which allowed an assembly, the representatives steadily advanced their pretensions. Frankly asserting that they were imitating the English House of Commons, they gained privileges and rights, until by 1715 they controlled the raising and appropriating of money ;? had the appointment of the provincial treasurer in their hands, were through their control of the purse influential in the direction of military affairs, had obtained a voice in the establishment of the courts, and had made good their pretension that, like the Commons, their money bills could not be amended.' Two circumstances aided the New York colonists. The period was one of almost continuous warfare, and New York was constantly threatened from the north; hence the military exigencies of the time frequently forced the governors to yield to the popular clamor in order to gain the much-needed supplies. The character of the governors appointed during this period was the second favoring circumstance. All of them were Englishmen, none of them were men of marked ability, and most of them were in such desperate financial straits that they willingly bartered a constitutional point for the grant of salary which the Assembly doled out in return.
1 New York Colonial Documents, iv. 1121.
* Journal of the Legislative Council of New York, i. 78-80; and Journal of Assembly, i. 150.
Journal of Assembly, i. 150, 157, 224, etc.
Many of the constitutional points which vexed the governors of New York were settled by the Massachusetts charter, most of them in favor of the Assembly; and in addition, the power of the governor over his Council was greatly restricted in Massachusetts. That colony, like New York, was threatened by the French, and doubly so, since overland invasions from Canada menaced the inland towns, while the commerce of the colony and its seacoast settlements were endangered by the French possession of Port Royal. There was the same necessity for military operations as in New York, and even greater supplies were demanded, raised, and expended. Yet during this period it is to be doubted whether the politicians, though incessantly active, gained a single constitutional point. Rather, with two exceptions, they were led to comply with demands of the crown.
The great reason for this appears to be in the character of the colonial governors. As has been seen, Phips and Bellomont were not successful, nor were their characters such as to
1 Journal of Assembly, i. 99-202, 199, 207, 307.
promise any great success. Joseph Dudley, on the other hand, was possessed of great force and ability. He had shown his energy and capacity in every post that he had occupied, and now in the maturity of his powers he was returning to a field with which he was familiar. Phips, it is true, was a native of the colony; but there was a vast difference between a rough sea captain for whom a lucky adventure had won a title, and the son of the second governor of Massachusetts, who had family connections, education, and long experience both in England and America at his command. Bellomont, perhaps, had as high ideals of the duties and functions of a colonial governor; but without support from England, and entirely dependent upon the annual grants of the Assembly, he bad been unable to withstand the pressure. As has been shown, during his nine years' residence in England Dudley had gained new and influential friends, men who stood high in the councils of Queen Anne, while Blathwayt, his former friend and patron, remained his constant supporter. In addition; Dudley was a wealthy man. Just how great an estate he possessed at this time cannot be ascertained; but, as has been seen, his income was sufficient, — with difficulty, it is true, - to support him and his son Paul in England, and had allowed him to become a member of Parliament. Life in Boston was vastly less expensive than in London, and Dudley found it easy not merely to exist upon his private income, but to pass as one of the wealthy men of the colony. Thus in ability, experience, and fortune Dudley differed from the previous governors of Massachusetts and from his needy contemporaries in the neighboring provinces, and hence entered upon the political struggles with better prospects of success.
Relying upon such support, Dudley at once adopted a vigorous tone with the General Court, and invited rather than