threatened, in 1635, preparations were made for resistance; the ports were fortified, and men were willing to stake their all in the struggle. In 1685 there was no thought of open resistance; sullen acquiescence and apathy were the most that was displayed.

The revocation of the charter was, moreover, the easiest part of the policy of the Stuarts; it had been accomplished in England by legal process, and it had not been contested by the colonists. The remainder of the policy must be carried out in New England by officials appointed by the crown. Randolph's successful work was done. He had succeeded in overthrowing the charter and clearing the ground for the wider designs of the king. That he had done this for selfish reasons, by means of exaggeration and misrepresentations, does not detract from the effectiveness of his work; nor should the fact be forgotten that, largely because of his representations, the government was not intrusted to an Englishman like Kirke, but to a native of Massachusetts who thoroughly understood her history and peculiarities.

It was fortunate for New England that Dudley had made his choice of parties and had seen no disgrace in trying to serve both the king and Massachusetts. Had he inherited his father's stern and unbending nature, he might have become one of the leaders of the "faction," and under his direction a more determined resistance might have provoked England to take even stronger measures. As it was, both England and Massachusetts profited by his abilities. He so utilized the support of Randolph, and the interest of Sir Robert Southwell, Sir Leoline Jenkins, and perhaps of other English officials, that he, rather than an Englishman, was chosen to carry out the policy of royal control, thus saving Massachusetts from the usual type of colonial governor. He was ambitious

for position and power for himself and anxious for the prosperity of the colony; and in the brief period of his first administration he disappointed the greedy self-seekers like Randolph, and gave Massachusetts a just government.

On October 23, 1684, the judgment against the Massachusetts charter was formally entered in Chancery.1 At once the Lords of Trade began to prepare plans for the control of New England and to make preliminary drafts of the commissions and instructions for Colonel Kirke.2 Before these could be perfected, however, Charles II died, and in the confusion which followed the accession of his brother James II and the disorders of Monmouth's rebellion, the affairs of the colonies were held in abeyance. Hence it was not until September that Randolph could accomplish his purpose and gain a commission for Joseph Dudley. Still further delays kept him in England till January, 1686, when he finally sailed for Boston, arriving there May 14.

Unofficial information of the dissolution of the Company had reached Boston early in 1685; but, aside from the framing of futile appeals to the king, nothing was done. Although the government had no legal standing, it was continued until the exemplification of the judgment against the charter should be formally delivered. The regular elections to the General Court took place; but such was the apathy and so small the attendance, that it was necessary to urge some of the towns not to neglect to send deputies "at their perrill," and to call the "ruend elders" of the several towns to a special conference." At the next election, May 12, 1686, Dudley was

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 4th Series, ii. 246. 2 Toppan, Edward Randolph, iii. 332.

3 Board of Trade, Colonial Entry Book, New England (Ms.), 61, pp. 252–258. 4 Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 5th Series, viii. 300.

5 Massachusetts Colony Records, v. 492.

again dropped from the Court of Assistants, and Stoughton refused to serve.

Two days later Randolph landed in Boston, bringing with him the exemplification of the judgment against the charter, and the commission for the new government. He at once went to Roxbury to consult with Dudley concerning his procedure. The judgment and the commission were shown to a few of the Council, through whom the news spread; so that on the following Sunday, Mr. Willard prayed "not for the Governour or Government, as formerly; but spake so as implied it to be changed or changing. It seems Mr. Phillips at the Old Church prayed for the Governour and Deputy Governour." Together Randolph and Dudley drew up the summons to the members of the Council and made ready to assume the government. The members of the General Court, though long prepared, made no resistance, but contented themselves with trying to persuade Dudley not to accept the commission, and so to keep the government in their own hands. Failing in this, they broke up, "with hopes that either some unhappie accident in affairs of state at home, or by dissension raised by their artifices among the members in this new government, they might pervaile so far as to dissolve this new constitution and then reassume the government, which to accomplish they are solissitouse." 4

Dudley himself had some doubts as to his reception. Early on the day set for his inauguration he sought the counsel of 1 Sewall's Diary, May 16, 1686, Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 5th Series, v. 138.

The summons to John Winthrop is printed ibid., 6th Series, iii. 474.

Sewall's Diary, May 18: "Mr. Phillips had very close Discourse with the President, to persuade him not to accept: 'twas in Mr. Willard's Study Monday afternoon just at night. Mr. Stoughton and Mather there too."

'Randolph to the Archbishop of Canterbury, July 7 (?), 1686, Toppan, Edward Randolph, iv. 88.

Increase Mather, and later in the day wrote to him that he never wanted his favor and advice so much, and desired that he might explain the reasons for his procedure at this crisis.1 Unable to gain so valuable an ally, he put on a bold front and met the Old Court. Entering from the left with several of his Council, he took his seat on the bench and addressed the members of the old government, who were seated on the north side of the chamber. He greeted them as "considerable gentlemen of this place and Inhabitants of all parts of the countrey," and informed them that he could no longer deal with them as the Governor and Court. He then displayed the exemplification of the judgment against the charter and the commission for the new government. He offered to show them his instructions from the king and letters from the Lords of Trade, but hoped that they would not argue about the commands contained in them. He disclaimed any intention of harboring thoughts of revenge because of the injuries he had received, and assured them that although no address of the Governor and Court could come to the ears of the king, yet he and his Council would assist in getting a hearing in England for what "they know requisite for this peoples good." 2

Danforth then said, "I suppose you expect no reply from the Court?" To which Dudley answered, "I know no Court here in being till the Kings Court be in order and setled; and it will incurr the Kings displeasure so to understand yourselves and I suppose what I now speak is the mind of the rest of the Council here present." The president and the Council then retired, while some of the old government spoke their minds. Some urged a protest; but others, Sewall

1 Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts, i. 315 note.

2 Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, 1863-1864, p. 487.
3 Ibid.

among them, feeling "that the foundations being destroyed what can the Righteous do," advised acquiescence in the present conditions. 1

Three days later, on May 20, the Court passed a resolution replying to Dudley's address and criticising his commission. It declared that the commission contained no determinate rule for the administration of justice; that the subjects were abridged of their liberties as Englishmen both in the matter of legislation and in the laying of taxes; indeed, that all the privileges of the subject were transferred to the president and Council, "there being not the least mention of an assembly. . . . And therefore wee thinke it highly concernes yow to consider whither such a comission be safe, either for yow or us; but if yow are so sattisfied therein as that you hold yourselues oblejdged thereby, and do take vpon you the government of this people, although wee cannot give our assent thereto, yet hope shall demeane ourselves as true & loyall subjects to his majTM, and humbly make our addresses vnto God, &, in due time, to our gracious prince, for our reliefe." This protest was read in Dudley's Council on June 1, when it was ordered that Rawson, who signed the paper as secretary, should be examined about the "libellous paper; 3" but, so far as the record shows, nothing was done. This was the only protest made by the Court or by an assembly of the people, and the new government was quietly established, as was ordered by the commission.

The commission on which the government of Massachusetts was based first recited the fact that the old Company was dis

1 Sewall's Diary, May 17, 1686, Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 5th Series, v. 139.

2 Massachusetts Colony Records, v. 515.

"Dudley Records," Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, 2d Series, xiii. 237-238.