If rioters were committed, they were rescued by a new riot; when, in January, 1685, the troop of horse was ordered out, not a man obeyed the summons.

Cranfield, in despair, wrote imploringly to the government in England: "I shall esteem it the greatest happiness in the world to be allowed to remove from these unreasonable people. They cavil at the royal commission, and not at my person. No one will be accepted by them, who puts the king's commands in execution." His conduct met with approbation, and he was allowed to withdraw from the province. The character of New Hampshire remained unchanged. It was ever esteemed in England "factious in its economy, affording no exemplary precedents" to the friends of arbitrary power.

Massachusetts might, perhaps, still have defied the king, and escaped or overawed the privy council; but the merchants and manufacturers of England, fearing a rival beyond the ocean, discerned how their monopoly might be sustained, and pressed steadily toward their object. Their complaints had, in 1675, been received with favor; their selfish reasoning was heard with a willingness to be convinced.

The agents of the colony, in 1676, had brought with them. no sufficient power: "They professed their willingness to pay duties to the king within the plantation, provided they might be allowed to import the necessary commodities of Europe without entering first in England." An amnesty for the past would readily have been conceded; for the future, it was resolved "to consider the whole matter from the very root," and to reduce Massachusetts to "a more palpable dependence." That this might be done with its consent, the agents were enjoined to procure larger powers; but no larger powers were granted.

It was against fearful odds that Massachusetts continued the struggle. All England was united. Whatever party triumphed, the mercantile interest would readily procure an enforcement of the laws of trade. "The country's neglect of the acts of navigation," wrote the agents, "has been most unhappy. Without a compliance in that matter, nothing can be expected but a total breach." "All the storms of dis pleasure" would be let loose.

It was not, therefore, a surprise when, in April, 1678, the committee of plantations directed the attorney and solicitorgeneral to report whether the original charter had any legal entity, what was the effect of the quo warranto brought against it in 1635, and, lastly, whether the corporation had forfeited their charter by maladministration of its powers. In the following month the opinion of the crown lawyers, Jones and Winnington, was given, that the charter, if originally good, had not been dissolved by any quo warranto or judgment, but that the misdemeanors objected against the corporation were sufficient to avoid their patent. The committee immediately decided that a quo warranto should be brought against the charter of Massachusetts, and "new laws framed instead of such as were repugnant to the laws of England;" and Randolph was at once appointed "collector of his majesty's customs in New England." Many of the committee were confirmed in their belief that a general governor and a colonial judicature of the king's appointment were become "altogether necessary."

In Massachusetts a synod of all the churches was convened, to inquire into the causes of the dangers to New England liberty, and the mode of removing the evils. The general court, in 1678 and 1679, enacted laws, partially removing the grounds of complaint. High treason was made a capital offence; the oath of allegiance was required of every male above sixteen years in the colony; the king's arms were "carved by an able artist and erected in the court-house." The colony was unwilling to forfeit its charter and its religious liberties on a pecuniary question, and yet to acknowledge its readiness to submit to an act of parliament would be a surrender of the privilege of independent legislation. It therefore declared that "the acts of navigation were an invasion of the rights and privileges of the subjects of his majesty in the colony, they not being represented in parliament." "The laws of England," it added, “do not reach America." The general court then gave validity to the laws of navigation by an act of its own. "We would not," so they wrote to their agents, "that by any concessions of ours, or of yours in our behalf, any the least stone should be put out of the wall, and we hope that his majesty's favor will be as the north wind to scatter the clouds."

The committee of plantations proposed, as measures to be immediately adopted, that the bishop of London should appoint a minister to reside in Boston, and that conformists to the church of England should be admitted to all freedoms and privileges of the colony. The settlement of weightier matters was postponed till the charter should be set aside by a court of law.

In December, 1679, the agents, Stoughton and Bulkeley, arrived in Boston. About the same time came Randolph, whose patent as collector was recognised and enrolled, but who as yet received no help in the administration of his office. The commands of the king, that other agents should be sent over with unlimited powers, were not followed. Twice did Charles II. remonstrate against the disobedience of his subjects; twice did Randolph cross the Atlantic and return to England, to assist in directing measures against Massachusetts. The commonwealth continued its system of procrastination. But the extravagances and crimes of the anti-popery party in England soon brought about a reaction, and the king, dissolving parliament and making use of subservient courts, was left the undisputed master in his kingdom. A letter from him to Massachusetts announced categorically that agents must be sent over with full powers, or measures would be taken "whereby their charter might be legally evicted and made void." Moved by the nearness of the danger, the general court, in February, 1682, selected Joseph Dudley and John Richards as its agents. France had succeeded in bribing the king to betray the interests of England; Massachusetts was willing to purchase of him clemency toward its liberties.

The commission of the deputies was condemned by the privy council as insufficient, because they were expressly enjoined to consent to nothing that should infringe the privileges of the government established under the charter. In September, 1682, they were ordered to obtain full powers for the entire regulation of the government, or the method of a judicial process would be adopted. The agents represented the condition of the colony as desperate. Was it not safest for the colony to decline a contest, and throw itself upon the favor or forbearance of the king? Such was the theme of universal

discussion; it entered into the prayers of families; it filled the sermons of the ministers; and, finally, Massachusetts resolved, in a manner that showed it to be distinctly the sentiment of the people, to resign the territory of Maine, which was held by purchase, but not to concede one liberty or one privilege which was held by charter. If liberty was to receive its death-blow, better that it should die by the violence and injustice of others than by their own weakness.

Before the end of July, 1683, the quo warranto was issued; Massachusetts was arraigned before an English tribunal, under judges holding their office at the pleasure of the crown; and in October, Randolph, the hated messenger, arrived in Boston with the writ. At the same time, a declaration from the king asked once more for submission, promising as a reward the royal favor, and the fewest alterations in the charter consistent with the support of a royal government. To render submission in Massachusetts easy by showing that opposition was desperate, two hundred copies of the proceedings against London were sent over to be dispersed among the people. The governor and assistants, now eighteen in number, were persuaded of the hopelessness of further resistance; even a tardy surrender of the charter might conciliate the monarch. On the fifteenth of November, they therefore resolved to remind the king of his promises, and "not to contend with his majesty in a court of law," they would "send agents, empowered to receive his majesty's commands."

The magistrates referred their vote to "their brethren the deputies" for concurrence. During a full fortnight the subject was debated.

"Ought the government of Massachusetts," thus it was argued, "submit to the pleasure of the court as to alteration of their charter? Submission would be an offence against the majesty of Heaven; the religion of the people of New England and the court's pleasure cannot consist together. By submission Massachusetts will gain nothing. The court design an essential alteration, destructive to the vitals of the charter. The corporations in England that have made an entire resignation have no advantage over those that have stood a suit in law; but, if we maintain a suit, though we should be condemned,

we may bring the matter to chancery or to a parliament, and in time recover all again. We ought not to act contrary to that way in which God hath owned our worthy predecessors, who, in 1638, when there was a quo warranto against the charter, durst not submit. In 1664, they did not submit to the commissioners. We, their successors, should walk in their steps, and so trust in the God of our fathers that we shall see his salvation. Submission would gratify our adversaries and grieve our friends. Our enemies know it will sound ill in the world for them to take away the liberties of a poor people of God in a wilderness. A resignation will bring slavery upon us sooner than otherwise it would be; and will grieve our friends in other colonies, whose eyes are now upon New England, expecting that the people there will not, through fear, give a pernicious example unto others.

"Blind obedience to the pleasure of the court cannot be without great sin, and incurring the high displeasure of the King of kings. Submission would be contrary unto that which has been the unanimous advice of the ministers, given after a solemn day of prayer. The ministers of God in New England have more of the spirit of John Baptist in them, than now, when a storm hath overtaken them, to be reeds shaken with the wind. The priests were to be the first that set their foot in the waters, and there to stand till the danger be past. Of all men, they should be an example to the Lord's people, of faith, courage, and constancy. Unquestionably, if the blessed Cotton, Hooker, Davenport, Mather, Shepherd, Mitchell, were now living, they would, as is evident from their printed books, say, Do not sin in giving away the inheritance of your fathers.

"Nor ought we submit without the consent of the body of the people. But the freemen and church members throughout New England will never consent hereunto. Therefore the government may not do it.

"The civil liberties of New England are part of the inheritance of their fathers; and shall we give that inheritance away? Is it objected that we shall be exposed to great sufferings? Better suffer than sin. It is better to trust the God of our fathers than to put confidence in princes. If we suffer