the Reverend Godfrey Dellius, a Dutch clergyman formerly stationed at Albany, of whom Bellomont wrote, “If a great lyar, incendiary, and proud person make up the character of piety, then M' Dellius may pass for a saint."1

Yet Dudley regarded his life in England in the nature of an exile. He had, as he informed every New England man who visited him, “a passion for laying his bones there, which equalled that of the ancient Athenians"; but, though he keenly felt his absence from his wife and home, he was so ambitious that he could not bring himself to return a discredited and disappointed man. In 1697, two years after his unfortunate experience in the Leisler affair, but before Bellomont was actually appointed and while his friend Stoughton was acting as governor, he wrote to his wife, "I have used all propper means to return home in the service of my country this year, but it is otherwise disposed by the providence of God, and to that we must submit; and the more patiently we do it, the more acceptable it is." His eldest son, Paul, joined him in London; and his father, though straitened in means, gave him every possible advantage. Neither in England nor in Massachusetts, however, did his affairs prosper, and he wrote to his son, December 23, 1700: "I see no way for my owne return and think it absolutely necessary that you return this year. I shall loose what I have there and my respect and hopes and family, for want of a head; nor shall I be able to support myself and you here much longer, but shall fall into contempt, and that will be what I cannot bear and live. . . . If my arrears fayle me, I must sell my land

1 Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 6th Series, iii. 520-521. * Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts, ii. 114.

See four letters from Dudley to his wife, Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 6th Series, iii. 513-517.

under my feet to pay my debts, and that will please those in New England that do not love my name." 1

In spite of discouragements, Dudley did not relax his efforts. Indeed, if the report of Sir Henry Ashurst can be believed, it required all his time to check Dudley's ambition. "As for my self," he wrote, "the keeping you from [a] patent to ruine you & from D. being yor gouerner, I haue spent many dayes." Though Ashurst remained his enemy, Dudley succeeded in winning to his support the other agent for Massachusetts, Constantine Phipps; and he found a still stronger ally in Cotton Mather. How he regained the interest of the Mathers is not altogether clear, but the explanation probably lies in a petty quarrel in the Massachusetts General Court. Increase Mather wished to be sent to England as agent for the colony, but was thwarted in this ambition by Elisha Cooke, the common enemy of both Dudley and the Mathers. The diary of Cotton Mather shows that he spent many days in anxious prayer for his father's ambition, but without result, until, he writes, "my mind suddenly felt a strange and strong operation upon it which caused me to break forth into expressions of this importance The Lord will do The Lord will do it. My Father shall be carried unto England and so shall there have a short but great opportunity to glorify my Lord Before Christ in a most wonderful way it shall be brought about." An alliance between Dudley and the Mathers would certainly be a wonderful thing, but upon a clear understanding it would be beneficial to both parties. Though it cannot be proved that this thought was the "strong opera

1 See four letters from Dudley to his wife, Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 6th Series, iii. 520.

2 Ashurst to Wait Winthrop, May 8, 1698, ibid. v. 40.

3 From a manuscript diary of Cotton Mather, in possession of the American Antiquarian Society.

tion" from Heaven, yet an agreement was made between them. Dudley pledged himself to the interest of the Mathers - a pledge that he found it impossible to fulfil - and was able to cite in England their sanction for his ambition.

After the death of Lord Bellomont all these trains of influence were set in motion. Cutts supported Dudley loyally and sang his praises to Marlborough; Godfrey Dellius tried to influence the bishops; the Bishop of St. Asaph believed that Dudley was the man to advance the cause of the church and of missions; Blathwayt remained his friend and urged his appointment. His long experience, his success in England as governor of the Isle of Wight, his abilities as an administrator, and his skill as an Indian agent were among the points urged in his favor. Nor were colonial influences neglected. The colonists resident in London asked that he might be sent to Massachusetts, the English colonial merchants petitioned for his appointment, the dissenting ministers wrote to their brethren in New England praising him, and a letter from Cotton Mather was read with telling effect.1 Only Sir Henry Ashurst remained hostile, and amid such a chorus of praise, his voice was not heeded.

Dudley was commissioned by William III, but before he could leave England the king died. His present good fortune, however, did not desert him; for Queen Anne renewed his commission, and showed him the unusual favor of remitting some of the ordinary fees. The commission is dated April 1, 1702;3 on the 12th, Dudley took his oaths before the Privy Council, and on April 13 sailed for Boston.

1 Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts, ii. 115.

Ibid. 116.

'Patent Roll No. 3421, 1 Anne, No. 26.

Register of the Privy Council (Ms.), Anne, i. 82.

CHAPTER V

JOSEPH DUDLEY, GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS

PARLIAMENTARY RELATIONS WITH THE GENERAL COURT

THE "Glorious Revolution" of 1689 produced a vital change in the constitution of the Massachusetts Bay colony. Until 1685 the colony was practically a self-governing community; from 1685 to 1689 it was completely dependent upon the will of the crown; from 1689 to 1691 the old magistrates resumed their powers, and, though the government had little show of legal foundation, it was tacitly recognized in England. Meantime the agents of the colony were utilizing every influence they possessed to gain the restoration of the old charter and the continuance of the de facto government upon a legally recognized foundation. The early years of the reign of William III, however, were not of such a character as to allow him to give calm consideration to the nice points of colonial administration or to weigh accurately the merits of the colony's claims. Much had to be left to his advisers; and of these, William Blathwayt, whose skill, industry, and knowledge impressed the king, was probably most influential in determining the fate of Massachusetts. Hence it happened that, although Mather and Cooke and the other agents for the colony employed good counsel and utilized every particle of proper, and possibly of questionable, influence that they could exert, their efforts came to nothing, and the old charter was not restored. On the contrary, Massachusetts received a form of government in which the powers of the colonists were

limited and through which the influence of the crown could be more effectively exerted.

Weighing the possibilities of the restoration of the old charter with the genuine advantages offered by the new one, Increase Mather loyally accepted the inevitable and thus became influential in the appointment of the new governor and Council; but in so doing he aroused the enmity of Cooke, whose experience in England led him to develop into the leader of the opposition to the new government when it was established in Massachusetts. It was, however, on the whole fortunate that Cooke had failed. Had the old charter been restored, the colony would have been at the mercy of the crown in every dispute with England. Countless questions concerning the laws passed by the General Court would have arisen, which from the point of view of the English legalists, would have been decided adversely to the colony. The charter of a commercial company, however much interpretation and practice had altered it, was a precarious foundation for so large a community as the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

The new charter, issued in 1691, established a royal province which included the Massachusetts Bay colony, Nova Scotia and Maine and the lands between them (which had in 1664 been granted to the Duke of York), Plymouth and the Narragansett country, in short, all the colonies north of Connecticut and Rhode Island, except New Hampshire, which was left a separate royal province. The executive power was vested in a governor and deputy-governor, who, together with the secretary, were appointed by the crown. The upper house, or Council, was, after the terms of the original royal appointees had expired in 1693, to be elected by the House of Representatives with the assent of the governor. The House con