because they needed his confirmation, but usually because of his skill and tact in dealing with them. When these failed, an outburst of temper or some high-handed action would sometime win him the victory.

In dealing with the House, Dudley used much the same method. He invariably insisted upon his prerogative, not only in the use of the veto, but also in military affairs and in purely executive acts. In these attempts he was aided by the Council, which usually sided with him in his disputes with the House, and always when the dispute was over a question of prerogative. At the first session of the General Court in 1702, the House not only refused to comply with the recommendations of the Council concerning the fortification of Pemaquid, but even refused to hold a conference over the matter. This action the Council declared to be a "great Infringement on the rights and Priviledges of the Council [and insisted] upon the said Conference and Desire the Governour to direct it accordingly." On the next day the House weakened and ordered the Conference. Again, in the summer of 1703 the House amended a tax bill by adding the restriction that drafts on the treasury for incidental expenses should not exceed eighty pounds. This displeased the governor and Council, who voted that the bill be sent back and the "Tackage" be removed. Though the House attempted to carry the point, it was forced to retract after another speech and a message from the governor.3

2

The Council regarded itself as the upper house in point of dignity, and attempted to force the deputies to attend upon it. In 1703 it demanded a copy of an address which the House was preparing for the queen. The House refused, saying

1 Records of the General Court (Ms.), vii. 329.
2 Ibid. November 3.

'Ibid. 416, July 17, 21, 22, 1703.

୮

L

that its journal was on its table and that the councillors could come and examine it for themselves. After a deadlock of a few days the matter was finally compromised by the Council's sending a committee to receive a copy from the clerk of the House.1 In 1705, however, the Council failed to support Dudley. He was urging that the House take some action concerning the queen's commands relating to the question of salaries and forts. The House tried to evade the issue by alleging a small attendance; whereupon Dudley called the deputies to the council chamber and was "very tort & tight in his speech" with them." The House returned, and presently sent up a long paper denying that the forts were necessary and asserting that it was one of its privileges to fix the salaries as it chose; and to the governor's mortification, the Council concurred with the House in this matter. In one instance in which the Council had not supported him adequately, Dudley reported untruthfully that the Council was unanimous, and thus drew upon himself a vigorous protest from a dissenting member."

In spite of these means, Dudley was not always successful in gaining his ends. Perhaps the most noteworthy failure, aside from the questions of fortifications and salary, was the quarrel over the choice of the speaker of the House. The governor had continued to strike out Oakes whenever he was elected to the Council; hence in 1705 the House chose him for its speaker. The governor vetoed the choice, but the 1 Records of the General Court (Ms), viii. 11-12.

Ibid. 149, September 6, 1705.

'Sewall to Winthrop, September 7, 1705, Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 6th Series, v. 135.

Records of the General Court (Ms.), viii. 150–153, September 11, 12, 1705.

Ibid. 153.

Sewall's Diary, November 20, 25, 1707, Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 5th Series, vi. 202.

House refused to elect any one else or to make any compromise, though urged by Sewall, who was sent on a committee for that purpose.1 There was a long debate in the Council, and the question was finally decided against the governor, who yielded for reasons thus stated by himself: "I am very well satisfied of Her Majty right & prerogative to Allow or disallow the Speaker of the Assembly of this province as well as the Council being all elected by the Assembly. Therefore I have proceeded' as I have done & as far as I can at present in this matter but I have the just Sence of the pressing Affairs of the War that demand a very Sudden dispatch of this Session, That will not consist of long debates of anything, & therefore I shall not delay the Affairs necessary for the Security of the Province which I desire may be first attended. Saving to Her Most Sacred Ma" her just Rights as above at all times." The Board of Trade, to which Dudley reported this circumstance, approved his action. "You did well," it wrote, "to Assert her Majesty's Prerogative in that particular... and therefore you may upon the like occassions acquaint the Council that it will not be thought fitt that her Majesty's right of having a negative upon the Choice of Speaker and Counsellours be given up."3

2

There were, however, two points in his instructions on on which Dudley was unable to force the Court to take action. The first was the question of the fortifications at Piscataqua and Pemaquid. The defence of the northern frontier had_ been begun by Sir Edmund Andros shortly before the outbreak of the war between France and England. On his last

1 Records of the General Court (Ms.), viii. 114-115, May 30, 1705; Sewall's Diary, May 30, 1705.

2 Massachusetts Archives (Ms.), cviii. No. 30.

'Board of Trade, Colonial Entry Book, New England (Ms.), 41, F. 115.

journey north, he had established eleven forts or posts and garrisoned them with six hundred men; but in the following year some of these were captured and, the troops being withdrawn, the fortifications had fallen into decay. In 1693 Sir William Phips renewed the policy of Andros and erected a fort at Pemaquid from plans furnished him by the English government; but his action was regarded by the colonists in the light of a grievance and his policy was unpopular. Bellomont had not been any more successful; and just before Dudley was commissioned the Board of Trade had presented a strong recommendation on the subject to the Privy Council.1 The Privy Council had inserted a clause in Dudley's instructions upon the matter, and had passed a special order directing Massachusetts and New Hampshire to fortify five posts on their coasts.2

Dudley, moreover, had probably given the Board of Trade to understand that he could force the Court to make some appropriation; and certainly he made a gallant attempt, for during the first three years of his administration, this question was the leading one. At first it looked as if the governor might gain his point, for the Council reported in favor of a fort at Pemaquid, and the House, by its refusal to hold a conference, angered the Council; but the matter ended in a deadlock, and the Court was finally dissolved. Another attempt was made in the spring session, but to no effect; and again in the fall the House not only refused to carry out the commands, but made the Pemaquid question one of the principal

1 Massachusetts Archives (Ms.), lxx. 484. For the correspondence before

Dudley's arrival, see Massachusetts Acts and Resolves, vii. 678-682.

2 Register of the Privy Council (Ms.), Anne, i. 216.

* November 17-29, 1702, Records of the General Court (Ms.), vii. 347–357. See also Massachusetts Acts and Resolves, vii. 739–741.

4 Records of the General Court (Ms.), vi. 366.

features in the address that it was preparing for the queen.1 At the summer session of 1705 the governor again urged the question, and presented a letter from the queen directing the House to make some appropriation for this purpose; but nothing was done.2 Dudley had to confess himself beaten; in fact, he had reported a year before that he was "sorry nothing that could be said would move them from a stubborn resolved temper, which has possessed the Assembly, that they will agree to nothing wherein they may show their obedience to her Majesty."3 So, after a struggle of three years, the matter was dropped.*

5

Dudley's other failure to carry out his instructions was in another inherited dispute. Bellomont and Phips had both been instructed to have the assembly fix a definite salary for the governor instead of forcing him to depend upon its appropriations. This the Court refused to do; but Dudley, relying upon his influence, desired a special instruction upon that subject, and, as has been seen, received one. In his_ first speech to the Court he pointed out that Massachusetts was the only province where some stated salary was not settled on the governor, and urged that the queen's commands be obeyed and a settlement made at once. On June 27 the House made him a present of five hundred pounds, but nothing was said about a settlement. In the fall session the governor

1 Ibid. viii. 10-11.

2 Council Records (Ms.), iv. 146.

Dudley to Nottingham, April 21, 1704, quoted in Palfrey's History of New England, iv. 291 note.

A summary of the legislative proceedings on this question is in Massachusetts Acts and Resolves, viii. 515-519.

For a further account of the salary dispute, containing extracts from the archives, see Massachusetts Acts and Resolves, viii. 292-294, 339–341.

Reprinted ibid. 293.

"Ibid. i. 498; and vii. 343, ch. 20.