Lavoided opposition. Following the example set by Bellomont, he summoned the representatives to the council chamber, where he addressed them. In this first address there was no apology or regret for his previous career, and no attempt to conciliate the men who twelve years before had sent him a prisoner to England. On the other hand, there was no exultation at his triumphant return, or any hint that his former opponents would suffer, or his present supporters be rewarded. Almost like a stranger, and entirely like a royal official, he discussed the position of Massachusetts and set forth what was expected of her. Massachusetts, he said, was not so profitable to England as the southern colonies were; therefore let the trade which this colony could supply, particularly in the matter of naval stores, be fostered. Above all, he cautioned, have "care that our Trade be kept within the Strictest Bounds of all Acts of Parliament and that all false Trade and piracys be with utmost diligence prevented and Supprest.” After touching upon the possibilities of war and the need of fortifications on the northern frontier, a much-debated point, he boldly attacked the question of the settlement of the governor's salary, which previous governors, acting upon royal instructions, had been unable to obtain. "Since this Province," he said, "is so particularly favored by the Crown in more instances than one, their ready obedience is justly expected in this, and all other Occasions."1 ୮ Thus at the very first meeting of the General Court, Dudley adopted a tone and urged policies which were bound to bring him into conflict with that assembly and to render his administration difficult. From a reading of his instructions, however, it is hard to see how he could have done otherwise; and perhaps he took this course willingly, believing that under his 1 Records of the General Court (Ms.), vii. 289, June 11, 1702. management the recalcitrant Court of Massachusetts might become more obedient and loyal. In his management of the assembly, Dudley displayed not merely the characteristics that he had shown in his previous career, but a keen appreciation of his position as the executive of the crown. He was always to be found on the side of prerogative, whether it was his own or whether it was connected with the rights of the Council, the officers, or the judges. He unfailingly attempted to carry out his instructions and commands from England, and never, except on the salary question, would submit to a compromise. He preferred, when it came to a question between obedience to the commands of the queen and compliance with the desires of the assembly, to insist upon the former, even at the expense of unpopularity and defeat. To this characteristic was due much of his unpopularity among the colonial politicians, but also to this he owed the support that was given him in England, which enabled him to maintain his position so long in the face of determined opposition. ך Although this position and the policies that he urged brought him into frequent collisions with the General Court, Dudley was enough of a New Englander to understand the people and to recognize the burdens which his policies entailed. Whenever the assembly adopted them Dudley was honest enough to report the same to the Board of Trade and to give the people just credit. In 1704, for example, he wrote to the Board, "I must doe the Assembly here that justice to say that though they have not obeyed Her Majesty in providing for my support here, they have very frankly submitted to my appoytment at all times for the numbers of men and their support." Such a frank recognition, which he took care to have 1 Board of Trade, Papers, New England (Ms.), 12, P. 6. placed on the records of the Court, was doubtless appreciated by the House, and made it somewhat less bitter than the words of its addresses and protests, framed by the politicians, would lead the reader to suppose. His relations with the Council were on the whole friendly; but this harmony was due more to the weakness of the Council and its jealousy of the lower house than to any popularity of his own. He was, however, in his relation to the Council, in a more difficult position than any other provincial governor in America. In all the other colonies save Connecticut and Rhode Island the councils were appointed by the proprietors or the crown, on the nomination of the governors. The charter of Massachusetts, on the contrary, provided that the Council should consist of twenty-eight men elected by the House with the approval of the governor; but, as the veto of the governor had been used in only one instance, the representatives had come to regard it as their privilege to elect whomsoever they chose to the Council. Dudley at once recognized the difficulties of his position and the anomaly of having the councillors depend for their seats upon the will of the House. In one of his first reports to the Board of Trade, he wrote in discouraging language concerning the cooperation of the Council in military affairs. “I am morally Assured," he declared, "before I Enter upon it with them, that I shall not obtain one Voice of a Councillour, for fear of their precarious places depending upon the peoples voices and so Her Majesties affairs here will unavoidably suffer till the Councill here shall value their Duty more than 1 Records of the General Court (Ms.), viii. 105. * Phips had removed Cooke. This is the only actual removal, but in Sewall's Diary, May 29, 1701, is this entry: “L' Gov' Aproves all but Mr. Corwin, and to him he demurrs, taking some time of Consideration” (Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 5th Series, vi. 34). their Situation or Depend absolutely upon her Majesties Appointment." Three months' experience in Massachusetts but convinced him that this method of choice was undesirable, not simply because of the Council's subserviency to the House, but also because of the character of the councillors chosen, and he thus reported: "As in this province the Council being of the Peoples Election many of the Most loyall Persons, and of the best Estates are not Imployed, and those that are so many of them are Commonwealthmen, and all so absolutely Depend for their Station upon the People that they dare not offend them, and so Her Majesty has no manner of service from them nor Cou❜ntenance to Her Majesty's affairs." 2 It is not strange, therefore, that, when Dudley found himself thwarted by the Council, he should have made use of his prerogative. This he did in 1703 by refusing to confirm five men as being either of poor estate or disaffected to the government. In the case of Cooke, who had opposed the charter consistently, and was leading the opposition in the House, Dudley was undoubtedly right. Perhaps, however, he pushed his resentment too far when he refused Peter Sergeant, who had married the widow of his old enemy Sir William Phips; yet it must be remembered that Sergeant was opposing the governor on the question of fortifying the northern posts and was urging the Council to join in the opposition. In any case, Dudley was within his legal rights, and the House was forced to comply, though unwillingly. This prerogative Dudley continued to exercise throughout his administration: during his term of service Cooke never sat in the Council; 1 Board of Trade, Papers, New England (Ms.), 11. L. 12. Records of the General Court (Ms.), vii. 385, May 27, 1703. but through the activity of Sir Henry Ashurst, the Board of Trade hinted that Dudley had better admit Sergeant, which he did in 1707. Thus his control over the Council was partly due to his repeated use of the veto over the choice of councillors, so that he forced the House to elect a Council which should, as his instructions required, be "well affected" to the government. Not that all the councillors were his supporters; but Dudley saw to it that none of the open enemies of the government or any persons implacably hostile to himself had seats. This liberal exercise of the right to refuse to confirm councillors precipitated an open breach with the House. Though forced to acquiesce in the governor's action, the House hated him for the exercise of his legal power. As a matter of fact, the election of the Council by the House was to weaken one of the means of influence that in other colonies was at the command of the royal governor. This was seen by Colonel Quarry, the successor of Randolph, who reported that it was impossible "for any Governour to serve the Interests of the Crown under the present Constitution of that Government, for as long as they have the choice of the Council . . . they have nothing to hope for or fear from the Queen's Government.' Dudley himself reported in 1703, "It is every day now more Apparent that nothing will proceed well here till Her Ma" will please to name her owne Council, the best men in the province can have no Share in the Civil Governm till then." By the "best" men Dudley meant his partisans, who, had they been in the Council, would doubtless have made his path smoother. Yet throughout his administration the councillors supported him on most questions, not merely 1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 3d Series, vii. 229. 2 Board of Trade, Papers, New England (Ms.), 12, N. 22. |