& well fare of ye whole country to yield quietly to yr present stresse which I hope you will never repent. Dudley, perhaps willing to secure his personal safety, complied with the request and was lodged in jail, where he remained for ten months, until the king ordered his release and transportation to England. When he arrived in London, he and his fellow-prisoners were confronted with a list of charges prepared by a committee of seven of the leading colonists.2 Dudley was accused of having committed no less than one hundred and nineteen illegal acts, the most frequent charge being that of proceeding illegally in the administration of justice. Associated with this charge was the exaction of excessive fines and fees. The first accusation may be easily dismissed; for, granting the legality of the commission of Andros, nothing illegal can be attributed to Dudley in the actions alleged. But though there was no illegality there was sufficient arbitrariness to account for the hatred of the people; and it is significant that in his letter of defence, written while he was still in prison, to Cotton Mather, Dudley makes no apology for his conduct on the bench.3 In this letter, however, he denies that he was responsible for excessive fees, saying that he never gave a warrant for any, and that all were fixed by the Council. Here the records give absolute evidence to the contrary; for Dudley was one of a committee of five to settle the fees, and it is prob 1 Board of Trade, Papers, New England (Ms.), 5, No. 21, iv. • Andros Tracts, i. 149–173. 'June 5, 1689, Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections 6th Series, iii. able that his influence as chief justice had great weight. He was, moreover, on the committees that settled and approved the fees granted to Randolph. Even if he were personally innocent, therefore, he was morally responsible for much of the system. an The next group of charges refer to his presidency, the most important being that he accepted an illegal commission. How much weight this charge would have with the Lords of Trade, who themselves drew up the commission, may well be doubted; and Dudley shrewdly answers that it was his duty to accept it, and that this was the opinion of several of the important people of the colony, since they took office with him, evident hit at Winthrop, who helped prepare the charges. He is next accused of having shown a malicious spirit in his letters before the loss of the charter, and to have plotted for its destruction. There is, however, no evidence that he plotted for the destruction of the charter or sought office before the orders for the quo warranto were issued. On the other hand, he expressly denies this charge, and it has been shown from hostile evidence that he was working for the interests of Massachusetts until the case became hopeless. Even if the charge could have been substantiated, Dudley's willingness to accept office and to make effective the policy of the committee would have been a recommendation in its eyes; but the fact remained that the colonists could not forgive him for gaining advancement through their misfortunes. Several minor complaints were made against him for acts committed during his administration. Some of these have been mentioned and discussed; but the charge most emphasized was that he cheated the crown out of its just dues by false accounts. The only evidence offered for this accusation were the letters of Randolph already quoted; but these were very dangerous weapons, for in the first place, they show that Randolph did not get as much plunder as he expected, and are therefore to Dudley's credit, and, secondly, Randolph himself was accused of being the accomplice of Dudley, and hence his testimony is to be discredited. Dudley's defence to the king was brief and dignified.1 He called attention to his fifteen years of service in the government, reminded the Committee how he had appeared before it as agent for the colony, and briefly spoke of his service as president of the temporary council. He declared that both as judge and as councillor, under the Andros government, "he faithfully to his understanding served the Crowne & the true interest of those Plantations . . . and according to his best skill gave Judgement in matters of Law according to the Lawes and Statutes of the Realm of England and the peculiar Laws of that Government." He then described his experience during the revolution, and submitted his case to the Lords of Trade. This defence was presented to the Committee April 24, 1690; but, as no person appeared for the colony to sign and assume the responsibility for the charges against Dudley and his fellow-prisoners, the king ordered their discharge.2 It is not probable that, even if the colony had been able to push the charges farther, the action of the king and committee would have been different. Dudley and Andros may have been unwise, certainly they were overbearing and tactless; but in their attempt to make effective the will of the English government, and in their execution of the decrees of the courts and the commands of the Lords of Trade, it would have been difficult for the English authorities to find anything illegal. Indeed, it was their zeal to carry out their instructions that had rendered them so unpopular and that led the colonists 1 Andros Tracts, ii. 182. 2 Ibid. 173, et seq. to make charges so impossible of proof. Dudley, moreover, was too valuable an instrument for the Lords of Trade to lose. He had shown his readiness to accept their policy while agent for Massachusetts; he had served creditably as president of the temporary council after the dissolution of the Company; and on Andros's arrival he had surrendered his office and taken the place of chief justice, where he had done much to make the administration an immediate success. But it was the very success of his policy which showed the colonists their true position and led to the overthrow of the government. It has been suggested that Dudley did all in his power to render the administration hateful, hoping that by its fall he might gain some advantage. From a study of his later career this does not seem probable. As his whole life shows, Dudley was a consistent adherent to the power of the crown and to its prerogatives, whether exercised directly or by deputy. As president, he asserted his own rights, and as chief justice he was equally careful of the prerogatives of Andros. He tried consistently to carry out his instructions, cost what it might. It was for this latter characteristic that he was sought as an administrator both in England and in the colonies; but this trait, together with his failings of temper, made him the most unpopular man in the Andros administration. Though he was acquitted and rewarded by the king, Dudley's record followed him throughout his life and made him the most hated man in New England; and because of this his later administration as governor of Massachusetts was rendered exceedingly difficult. CHAPTER IV SCHEMING FOR OFFICE JOSEPH DUDLEY Member of THE COUNCIL for New York, 1689-1702 ALTHOUGH the charges against Dudley were dismissed, his position in England was far from enviable. Not only had he apparently lost the influence of his friends in Massachusetts, but he was so detested in that colony that he might expect its enmity to continue to pursue him. He was in the position of a discharged prisoner against whom the indictment has failed for want of evidence. It is true that he was released; but he was in London separated from his friends and relatives, on whose assistance he might count, and jealously watched by the Massachusetts agents, one of whom was Elisha Cooke, his bitter enemy. Although his conduct might escape condemnation, it was evident that William III would be unwilling to offend the colonists, just as his struggle with France was beginning, by rewarding a fallen official of James II. But Dudley had one friend at this crisis who now aided him. William Blathwayt was a power in colonial affairs. Through all the changes of sovereigns, shiftings of committees, and alterations in the personal composition of the board, Blathwayt, as one of the Lords of Trade and as clerk of the Privy Council, contrived to remain a permanent element in the direction of |