The public life of Joseph Dudley; a study of the colonial policy of the Stuarts in New England, 1660-1715

Front matter

HARVARD HISTORICAL STUDIES

PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY FROM THE INCOME OF

Volume XV

Preface

KThe officials sent to New England by the Stuarts were L harshly dealt with by the early historians of Massachusetts. Some attempts have been made to rehabilitate Andros and Randolph, but little has been done for Joseph Dudley, whose career was longer than that of any other official in early Massachusetts. It is not, however, the purpose of this monograph to meet the criticisms of Dudley's character ; his personality, indeed, though interesting, was singularly unlovely. I have rather attempted to examine the Stuart colonial policy and to set forth the practical political problems connected with its application in New England, and to show the parts played by the various agencies connected with its development. I have viewed Dudley as an EngHsh official charged with the execution of the English policy, and although taking into consideration his personality, I have investigated more particularly the problems and difficulties which faced all royal officials in New England at that period. Joseph Dudley was chosen partly because he has been so savagely attacked, but largely because in a study of his career I was able to touch all the New England colonies and New York as well, and to cover the period from the first imposition of the Stuart policy upon New England until the accession of George I.

I wish to acknowledge the kind assistance that has been extended to me by the authorities and officials of the Library of Harvard University, the Smith College Library, the

Vi PREFACE

American Antiquarian Society, the Hampshire County Bar Association ; and the officials in charge of the Massachusetts Archives, the British Museum, the Privy Council Office, the Public Record Office, and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts in London, and the Bodleian Library of Oxford University. Acknowledgments are also due to Professor C. M. Andrews of Yale University, who kindly put his expert knowledge of the English archives at my disposal while I was carrying on the investigation of the English material. Especial acknowledgments are due to Professor A. B. Hart of Harvard University, under whose direction a dissertation was prepared upon the same subject and offered in partial fulfilment for the requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in 1904. But, above all, I am under the greatest obligations to Professor Edward Channing, who first suggested the subject and under whose direction the early investigation was carried on, and who has given freely of his time in reading and criticising the manuscript and proof.

EVERETT KIMBALL.

Smith College, April, 1911.

Chapter I

THE EARLY LIFE OF JOSEPH DUDLEY AND THE LOSS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CHARTER

1660-1686

The life of Joseph Dudley falls between the period of the settlement of New England and the American Revolution. His public career did not begin until Charles II had been on the throne for more than ten years; and most of his associates were men of the second generation, who faced new conditions and were called upon to solve other problems than those of the first planters. The material condition of Massachusetts had also changed. Commerce had flourished, wealth had increased, and a party devoted to the preservation of these interests had arisen and was strongly opposing the leaders of the first generation of settlers, who recalled the time when Massachusetts existed independently of both crown and commonwealth. By birth and training Joseph Dudley belonged to the party of independence; but his career was a direct contradiction to his inheritance, and was spent in a consistent endeavor to realize the aims of the moderate party of the seventeenth century, which developed into the loyalist party of the eighteenth. This is the key to his political activity, and he should be judged by the aims of this party rather than by the ideals of the first planters. This policy, too, explains his strength and his weakness, which made him at once influential in England and the most hated man in the colonies, — a man of great ambitions, who from the point of view of the party of independence has been justly termed a traitor, but whose real aims have been too little understood.

Joseph Dudley was born in Roxbury, September 22, 1647, the son of Thomas Dudley, the second governor of Massachusetts, who was over seventy years of age when Joseph, his fourth son, was born.^ The stern and intolerant character of the father was not inherited by the son ; nor did he receive much training from his father, who died, leaving him a child of four years. His mother soon married the Reverend John Allen, minister of the church in Dedham, with whom Joseph lived and who was responsible for his upbringing. He received as good an education as the colony afforded, and was graduated from Harvard College in 1665 with the intention of becoming a minister, like his stepfather. Deciding, however, to enter the field of pohtics, he was made a freeman of the Massachusetts Bay Company in 1672,^ and the next year was elected to the General Court as representative from Roxbury,^ from which town he was returned every year imtil 1676. During the war with Philip he was chosen one of the commissioners to accompany Major Savage in his attempt to hold the Narragansetts in obedience, and was also present at the destruction of the Narragansett stockade, where the power of the Indians was broken.^ It was possibly in

* Savage, Genealogical Dictionary, ii. 76 ; Dean Dudley, History of the Dudley Family, 162.

^ Massachusetts Colony Records, iv. pt. ii. 585. •' Ibid. 550.

* Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts, i. 273.

recognition of his services there that he was elected to the Court of Assistants (the upper house of the Massachusetts legislature)/ to which he was returned every year, with the exception of 1684, until the charter of the Company was revoked.

Meanwhile his position was strengthened by the marriage of his sisters. One, Anne, much his senior, had married Simon Bradstreet, the leader of the moderate party and the last governor of the Company under the first charter. Another had married Major-General Denison, who consistently supported his brother-in-law and was known as a prerogative man. Dudley himself married the daughter of Edward Tyng, who was an Assistant for over twelve years and later sat in the Council of his son-in-law. Thus, through inherited prestige and connections by marriage, Dudley exercised considerable influence. The position of Assistant was peculiarly suited to show his abilities as an administrator, and he was frequently put upon committees.^ In 1676 he was one of the committee appointed to draw up an answer to the king's letter; from 1677 to 1681 he served as one of the commissioners for the United Colonies ; in 1679 he was on committees appointed to revise the laws and to determine the boundaries between the colonies of Massachusetts Bay and New Plymouth. He was also frequently chosen to treat with the Indians, in deahng with whom he showed such skill and gained such insight and knowledge of their habits that his reputation as an Indian negotiator, though recognized in England, was regarded with suspicion by the colonists.

The conditions in Massachusetts and Boston were changing. The purposes of the original planters had hitherto been the ideals of the governors and the people. The aims

' Massachusetts Colony Records, v. 77. ^ Ibid. 100, 237, 244, 270, 315, 329, etc.

of the clergy and the magistrates, generally working in harmony, had prevailed, and had governed the morals and the political policy of the colony ; and the stern idealism of Winthrop or Endicott had overborne the opposition of any who were inchned to substitute their own poHtical or material interests for the ideals of the founders. But now, on the one hand, England was coming into closer touch with the colony, attempting to enforce her rule, and at the same time offering material advantages to men who were willing to accept this control. On the other hand, Massachusetts was no longer completely dominated by the old clerical party. The population was increasing more from natural causes than by the immigration of those bitterly opposed to England, and many men of the second generation who had not experienced persecution in England were wilhng to assent to some closer relations with the mother country. The colony, moreover, was prospering and increasing in wealth; trade was becoming more important, and was not only adding more resources to the community, but was arousing new ideas and influences; and as the stake of the colonists was larger they grew more cautious and less ready to risk their increasing prosperity in open conflict. In addition, there was a dissatisfied element in Massachusetts which had suffered at the hands of the colonial government. Many of this class had attempted to gain redress from England; but hitherto England had been able to give them little effective aid. From 1660, however, the government of the Restoration was willing to listen to these complaints and ready to give active help in enforcing its judgments, thus strengthening the hands of the party which was opposed to the old independent government.

Although these conditions might be found in Boston, the country towns were less influenced by increasing wealth and new ideas. In them the old simplicity of life and austerity of thought and manners still remained, and the old spirit and ideals of the founders of the Puritan commonwealth were kept alive by the almost unchallenged influence of the clergy. Thus a conflict was inevitable, and the field of the struggle was the General Court. Although there were no legal distinctions in the qualifications for membership in the two branches that together formed this body, yet the freemen naturally chose as Assistants the more experienced, the better educated, or those best fitted to act in an administrative capacity. For the representatives they selected men whom they knew, inhabitants of the towns they represented, who were acquainted with and reflected the opinions of their constituents. Thus it happened that in the Court of Assistants there were many men of wealth and position amenable to new ideas and influences, while in the House of Representatives the country party, which reflected the old ideas, was most numerous. This distinction between the houses is the key to many of the political divisions of the period, — to the hesitancy that was displayed during the last years of the charter government, and to many of the conflicts during the administration of Dudley.

The restoration of the Stuarts marks a change in the method in which England exercised control over her American colonies. Before the great civil war, both James I and Charles I had appointed committees of the Privy Council to regulate the colonial trade.^ With the rise and supremacy of Parliament during the war this control was assumed by Parliament, and a commission was appointed headed by Robert, Earl of Warwick, as governor-in-chief of all the colonies. In 1655 a

^ For an exhaustive treatment of this subject, see Andrews, British Committees, Commissions, and Councils of Trade and Plantations, 1622-1675.

larger board was established, consisting of councillors, judges, ofificials, and merchants, which busied itself chiefly with the regulation of colonial commerce. With the restoration in 1660 the crown and Privy Council once more assumed control of the colonial policy. This control was first directed by two advisory bodies, — one a committee of the Privy Council for Foreign Plantations,^ the other an advisory council for trade, composed of prominent men and some of the members of the Privy Council.^ In 1674, however, this system of dual boards was abandoned, and a standing committee of twenty-four members of the Privy Council was appointed, which was known as the Lords of Trade.^ This body was continued, with various changes in its personnel, until 1696, when William III organized a Board of Trade consisting of the great officers of state and eight commissioners, among whom were William Blathwayt and John Locke, who had been active in colonial affairs in the reign of Charles II ; and this board was, in turn, continued by Anne, under whom it became an active and efficient body. It was with the Lords of Trade, just established at his entrance into public life, that Dudley had relations for nearly forty years, — a board on which sat some of the ablest men in England, who from experience, observation, and careful study had developed ideas concerning colonial control which they tried to make effective in New England. It is not surprising, nor is it to Dudley's discredit, that he was influenced by these men and their ideas ; nor should the fact that their aims differed from the desires of many persons in Massachusetts be sufficient to condemn them and cause Dudley to be regarded as a traitor.

The Stuarts had a threefold policy. Their first object,

1 New York Colonial Documents, iii. 32-34. *Ibid. 30-32. ^Ibid. 228-229.

undisguised mercantilism, was to unite England and her colonies in closer commercial relations, — to incorporate the trade of the colonies in the commerce of the empire and utilize their resources to increase the prosperity of the mother country. The colonial navigation laws, in which this policy is embodied, had their origin in the commonwealth ; but their provisions were reenacted and extended in a series of five acts passed between 1660 and 1696.^ The net result of these acts was to prohibit the direct trade of the colonies with Europe, but at the same time to admit them to a share in the commerce of Great Britain. After the freedom which they had enjoyed, these restrictions seemed burdensome; for the colonists were by no means ready to abandon the lucrative trade that had grown up with France, Spain, and the Canaries. A second object of the policy of England was to ''regulate" the colonial governments, or, in other words, to make their laws and procedure like those of England. The result of this regulation would have been to make the colonies more dependent on England and to increase the influence of the king ; but at the same time, such a policy would have put an end to the illegal practices which had grown up in America. The third object was to settle the religious and political disputes that were rife in the colonies, to protect those whom religious opinions had debarred from political rights, and to put an end to the conflicting claims of the various colonies, and particularly to those rights which Massachusetts exercised over Maine and New Hampshire. To accomplish these aims, and also to utilize the military resources of the colonies, the Lords of Trade, after repeated attempts to control the

^Statutes of the Realm, v. 246-250, 394-395, 449-452, 792-793, vii. 103-107; Channing, "The Navigation Laws," American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, New Series, vi. 160-179.

various independent jurisdictions, sought to make their will effective by a union of all the New England colonies and a centralization of the authority of England. This later object, it will be seen, was realized only for a short time under the administration of Andros ; but the difficulties which England experienced in her attempts to assert her political, commercial, and military control led her administrators again and again to turn their thoughts to this method. Dudley himself had come to see the need of colonial cooperation even before he was brought into contact with the Lords of Trade ; ^ and, as his ideas developed with wider experience, he became one of the strongest advocates of this feature of the English policy.

Even before Dudley began his public life, the king had attempted to carry out his plans. In 1664 a commission was sent to Massachusetts to hear complaints and to enforce the judgments of the crown ; but it accomplished nothing save to stir up bitter feeling. Agents were sent to England by Massachusetts, but they neither won the contentions of the colony nor surrendered its privileges. An open conflict seemed imminent when England became involved in a series of wars, and the struggle was postponed for a decade. In 1676 the king was again ready to enforce his policy, and sent a messenger to Massachusetts, ostensibly to carry a letter directing the government to send agents to England to explain its conduct in Maine and New Hampshire, but also to report upon the religious, commercial, and military conditions of the colony and the temper of the people. The messenger chosen was Edward Randolph, a connection of the Mason family, the proprietors of New Hampshire, a man who had

1 Dudley to Secretary Allen of Connecticut, February 6, 1681, Toppan, Edward Randolph, i. 139, note.

EARLY LIFE — LOSS OF MASSACHUSETTS CHARTER g

been employed by the king on confidential affairs, and a personal friend and correspondent of William Blathwayt, clerk of the Privy Council.^ From this time he becomes one of the central figures of New England, the agent of the crown, the enemy of Massachusetts, and the ally of Dudley, It iS' to be noted, moreover, that the first appearance of Randolph coincides with the entrance of Dudley into the Court of Assistants, a position notably congenial to the latter and one well suited to his abilities, but also one where he would be under the influence of the party least dominated by the aims of the early settlers and most ready to guard the material interests of the colony.

Randolph's reception by the governor and magistrates was not of such a nature as to lead him to regard the loyalty of the colony very favorably,^ and he allowed his temper to color some of his observations. In general, however, he followed his instructions faithfully,^ and, allowing for exaggerations in his estimates of population and resources, he makes few actually false statements ; yet his whole report put the colony in an unfavorable light and greatly overestimated the independence of Massachusetts. He certainly gave a false impression when he wrote, ''No law is enforced or esteemed there but such as made by the General Court," and again, ''There is no notice taken of the acts of navigation or any other of the acts of trade ;" but it must be admitted that an agent of the admiralty might justly believe that such was the

1 Toppan's Edward Randolph, published by the Prince Society, contains a most valuable memoir of Randolph and a collection of the important documents connected with this period. Two additional volumes of papers have been published by the same society, edited by Rev. A. T. S. Goodrick, who in his introduction throws new light upon Randolph's personal character. See also Channing, History of the United States, ii. 159-160.

^ Toppan, Edward Randolph, ii. 216. ^ Ibid. 196.

lo TEE PUBLIC LIFE OF JOSEPH DUDLEY

case. Randolph misjudged as well the relative strength of the parties, and greatly overestimated the influence of the moderate element which he found represented in the Court of Assistants. He was shrewd enough, however, in his judgment of individuals, and correctly reported that the "most popular and well principled men ... in the magistracy " were Denison, Bradstreet, and Dudley ; ^ but he did not realize that the temper of the representatives and the country people was as unyielding as ever. In his association with the malcontents and men of moderate principles he lost sight of the real temper of the people.

The open and avowed purpose of Randolph's coming was to call upon Massachusetts to defend her conduct in Maine and New Hampshire.^ These territories had been given by a series of vaguely defined grants to Sir Ferdinando Gorges and to Captain John Mason, neither of whom had been successful in his attempts to colonize the region. The growth of Massachusetts and the dispersion of her settlers peopled these territories with colonists more in harmony with the Puritan government of Massachusetts than with the royalist proprietors in England ; and as a result of settlement, aggression, and negotiation these regions were included in the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. At the Restoration the heirs of both Gorges and Mason appealed to the Lords of Trade, and one of the imsuccessful objects of the commission of 1664 had been to settle this question. As a pretext to bring the whole conduct

' Randolph to Coventry, June 17, 1676, Toppan, Edward Randolph, ii. 203- 209; Randolph to the king, September 20, 1676, ibid. 216-225; Randolph's report to the committee, October 12, 1676, ihid. 225-259; the king to "the government of Boston," March 10, 1675-1676, ibid. 192-194.

2 A. S. Batchellor, in his edition of the Laws of New Hampshire, i. pp. xxix et seq., gives a brief discussion of this subject, together with extracts from the Massachusetts records.

EARLY LIFE — LOSS OF MASSACHUSETTS CHARTER ii

of Massachusetts irnder review, the Committee took up these complaints and directed that agents from the colony should appear before it. The General Court complied, and WilHam Stoughton and Peter Bulkley were sent with instructions which allowed them to defend the course of Massachusetts in New Hampshire and Maine, but directed them to plead absence of instructions to all other complaints.^

Before the agents reached England, Randolph arrived there and stirred up as much hostility as possible against them. He repeated the general charges of disobedience, and urged the very efl&cient method which was afterwards adopted, that of questioning the validity of colonial land titles.^ The Lords of Trade reported that the only way to bring the colony to terms was for the king to appoint a royal governor and thus make void the colonial charters ; ^ and the law officers of the crown, whose opinion was received May i6, 1678, held that, although the charter was still good, the misdemeanors of the colonists were sufficient to make it void. * Not only, therefore, did the agents see the possibility that a governor might be sent, but the colonial merchants resident in England expected the appointment of one.^ By pleading the want of instructions, however, the agents contrived to ward off this catastrophe.

Shortly after the agents arrived in England, the judges to whom the conflicting claims to Maine and New Hampshire

^ Massachusetts Colony Records, v. 113-116.

'^ Representations of Randolph, May 6, 1677, Toppan, Edward Randolph, ii. 265-268. ' Ibid. 297.

* Ibid. iii. 4. A year before the chief justices Raynsford and North, in discussing the claims of Massachusetts to Maine and New Hampshire (see note I, below), reported that the Massachusetts charter made "the Adventurers a corporation upon the place."

* Blinman to Increase Mather, August 9, 1678, Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 4th Series, viii. 335.

were referred decided that neither Mason nor Massachusetts had any good claim to the government of New Hampshire, a decision which left the settlers directly dependent upon the crown. The title to Maine, was, however, they decided, vested on the heirs of Gorges.^ It was now rumored that the kmg was in negotiation with these heirs in an attempt to buy Maine with the intention of uniting it with New Hampshire, and forming a single province for his favorite Monmouth. In order to forestall such a calamity, the agents made a successful effort and purchased Maine for £1250, a proceeding which the king took 'Very ill,"^ from this time on showing active personal hostility toward the colony. To counteract this state of things, the agents received new instructions from home. They were directed to enlarge upon the services of the colony in gaining New England from the French and the Dutch, and upon the lucrative trade of that region; but their bargain for Maine was approved, and the purchase money was voted. They were to report that the colony promised to amend its conduct in certain particulars ; but the legahty of the navigation laws was questioned on the ground that "The subjects of his Maj*'*'^ here not being represented in Parliament, so wee have not looked to ourselues to be impeded in our trade by them." They were not to allow, through any concession of theirs, that "any least stone should be put out of the wall " of the charter ; but they were directed to report that the oath of allegiance had been taken by the magistrates, and that the arms of the king were to be "carved by an able artist, & erected in the court house." ^ These

1 Calendar of State Papers, America and West Indies, 1677-1680, No. 342.

2 Board of Trade, Colonial Entry Book (Ms.), 106, p. 8.

* For the address to the king, the declaration of the government, and the instructions to the agents, see Massachusetts Colony Records, v. 197-203.

slight concessions and ingenious instructions rendering the longer stay of the agents useless, they petitioned to return; and the Committee, recognizing the futihty of continuing negotiations, allowed them to go, but wrote a letter demanding new agents with more satisfactory instructions.^ The men chosen for this new mission were Joseph Dudley and John Richards.^

The acceptance of this agency was the turning-point in Dudley's career. Hitherto he had been respected and honored in New England ; he had filled many offices of trust, and his skill, honesty, and ability had never been questioned. It is true that he did not always receive the largest number of votes in the choice of Assistants, but his name stood well up on the list ; and he represented the moderate party in Boston, rather than the extreme unyielding party of the country towns. Now he was called to undertake a difficult and almost hopeless mission. The career of a colonial agent was not such as to attract ambitious men, nor was the reward received sufficient to compensate for the loss of prestige. Cotton Mather, writing in 1702, stated the case correctly when he said, "Such has been the jealous disposition of our New-Englanders about their dearly bought privileges, and such also has been the various understanding of the people about the extent of those privileges, that of all the agents, which they have sent over unto the Court of England, for now forty years together, I know not any one, who did not at his return, meet with some very froward entertainment among his country-men."^ In the present instance it was almost a forlorn hope which Dudley was called upon to lead. Randolph's reports had poisoned the minds of the Lords of Trade, the competition of the colony

1 Toppan, Edward Randolph, iii. 44.

2 Massachusetts Colony Records, v. 346. ' Mather, Magnolia, i. 270.

with the London merchants had alienated some natural political allies/ the purchase of Maine had angered the king, and the long-continued resistance of Massachusetts had made further defence difficult.

Notwithstanding the fact that the agents went well recommended, a hostile reception was prepared for them. Governor Hinckley of Plymouth commended Dudley to B lath way t, secretary of the Lords of Trade,^ thus laying the foundation of an alliance which proved an object of suspicion to the colonists, but an advantage to Dudley. Randolph, however, did all that he could to render the mission fruitless. To Sir Leoline Jenkins, secretary of state, he wrote, "Nothing these Agents promise may be depended upon" ; ^ and to the Bishop of London, "Major Dudley is a great opposer of the faction heere . . . who, if he finds things resolutely manniged, will cringe and bow to anything ; he hath his fortune to make in the world, and if his Majesty, upon alteration of the government, make him captain of the castle of Boston and the forts in the colloney, his Majesty will gaine a popular man and obleidge the better party. ... As for Capt. Richards, he is one of the faction, a man of meane extraction, ... he ought to be kept very safe till all things tending to the quiett and regulation of this government be perfectly settled."''

The "faction" to which Randolph referred was the party in the General Court bent upon resistance, composed largely of representatives from the country towns, but led by men like Danforth, the deputy-governor, Elisha Cooke, and Elisha

^Andrews, Colonial Self-Government, 259-260; Calendar of Slate Papers, America and West Indies, 1675-1676, No. 881.

2 Hinckley to Blathwayt, May 26, 1682, Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 4th Series, v. 65.

' Toppan, Edward Randolph, iii. 142-144. * Ibid. 145-149.

Hutchinson. For this faction Randolph had the greatest contempt, and believed it to be the source of all the opposition to his plans. His estimate of Dudley, though not complimentary, was in the main justified by his subsequent relations with him. Dudley was an opposer of the faction, in that he belonged to the moderate party ; but his nature was so pliant that he would often seem to surrender the contention temporarily in order to gain his purpose ultimately. The charge that he had his fortune to make may be taken as referring to his well-known ambition ; but whether at this date he had made any positive agreement with Randolph is open to doubt. It is true that a passage in one of Randolph's letters to the Lords of Trade, in which he says that Dudley "will give a sight" of his instructions,^ may seem to imply some compact ; yet there is no other evidence, and such an act on Dudley's part would have been quite in accord with his conception of his functions, — namely, to put an end to the misunderstandings between England and Massachusetts,

At first the General Court resolved to try the use of money, and directed the agents to tender Lord Hyde two thousand guineas for the king's private use ; but the attempt recoiled upon them, and Dudley wrote to Bradstreet, "Truly, sir, if you was here to see how we are ridiculed by our best friends at court ... it would grieve you." ^ "Sir, it is a hard service we are engaged in," wrote Richards to Increase Mather.^ The Lords of Trade were openly hostile; they ordered the agents to produce a commission empowering them to consent to any alteration of the charter, and advised the king to pro-