Colonial America

by Richard Middleton, Anne Lombard

  1683 Quo warranto proceedings are instituted against Massachusetts.

  1685 James, duke of York becomes King James II. Articles of Misdemeanour are drawn up against Rhode Island and Connecticut. The Dominion of New England is created.

  1686 Sir Edmund Andros is named governor-general of the new dominion. New York's assembly and Charter of Liberties are revoked by James II.

  1687 The New England towns protest against arbitrary taxes.

  1688 New York is included in the Dominion of New England. William III invades England and initiates the Glorious Revolution.

  1689 (April) The Dominion of New England is overthrown in Boston. (June) Jacob Leisler takes control in New York. (July) The proprietary government in Maryland is overthrown. War breaks out with France.

  1690 Schenectady is devastated by the French and their Indian allies.

  1691 Jacob Leisler is executed in New York. A new charter is issued for Massachusetts.

  1695 An act of Parliament overturns the verdicts against Leisler and Milborne.

  1702 Nicholas Bayard is tried for treason.

  1 The Dominion of New England

  CHARLES II DIED in February 1685. For most of his reign his administration had been neither wise nor consistent. Except for the Navigation Acts, which were the work of Parliament, his policy had lacked direction, at least until 1680, for his main concern was to avoid the mistakes which had led to his father's execution. Expediency was therefore his guiding principle, laziness his natural bent. He preferred to put off today what could be done tomorrow.

  His successor, his brother James, duke of York, was a very different character, being a man of strong convictions. A staunch Catholic and a keen administrator, James II sought to centralize the management of his government and strengthen the power of the English Crown. It is important to note here that James was greatly influenced in this respect by Louis XIV, under whom France had replaced Spain as the most powerful state in Europe. Louis XIV's power stemmed not least from the bureaucratic abilities of his chief minister, Jean Colbert, who had centralized many branches of French government. Discordant groups, notably the aristocracy and Huguenots, as the French Protestants were known, had been brought to heel, while the army and navy had been placed on a professional footing. France was now the envy of Europe.

  In 1685 England's status was still minor compared to the grandeur of France under Louis XIV. To James, there seemed to be two roads which the English state could now take. It could remain dominated by special interest groups concerned only with their own rights and privileges. Alternatively, it could become a modern, centralized monarchy which was powerful at home and abroad, an option seemingly justified by the political theory of divine right of kings. Propounded by Sir Robert Filmer and other royal apologists, this theory held that the English monarchs were descended from Adam and were divinely appointed. Hence all rights were merely privileges which the monarch could summarily take away. Monarchs received their powers from God and were answerable only to him.1 James was committed to this theory, and no fear of exile or upsurge of militant republicanism ever made him consider moderating his beliefs.

  Members of the Whig party in Parliament on the other hand opposed Filmer's theories, arguing instead that government originated with the consent of the people. While the Whigs had no quarrel with monarchy per se, they believed that constitutional monarchy was just as efficient and more conducive to prosperity than absolute rule. The Whigs also tended to be anti-Catholic, believing that a supposedly tyrannical Catholic Church was trying to impose both tyranny and popery on the English population. In 1680 Shaftesbury and the Whigs in Parliament attempted to have James excluded from the succession because he was a Catholic. Charles realized that to preserve the succession and the English Crown, Parliament must be tamed. Accordingly, Charles dissolved Parliament and began to remodel the borough charters by writ of quo warranto. This step was necessary because these charters determined the method by which each town chose its member of Parliament. By changing the rules governing the election of members, he hoped to ensure the return of a more friendly House of Commons. The first borough to suffer such proceedings was the City of London in 1681.2

  Figure 16 Portrait of King James II, by Sir Godfrey Kneller, 1684. The National Portrait Gallery, London.

  Since many colonial institutions were based on similar charters, it was always likely that these centralizing processes would also be applied to them. The North American colonies by 1681 were a mosaic of small units, vulnerable to attack and difficult to administer. For 20 years Massachusetts had defiantly claimed that its charter placed it outside royal control while collector Randolph reported numerous breaches in the trade laws and loss of revenue to the king.

  Then in 1682 Massachusetts was ordered to send envoys to London to discuss the revision of its charter. Among the powers sought by the Crown were the appointment of governors and the hearing of appeals. The general court rejected both as undermining the political and religious purposes of the colony. The magistrates still believed that it was better to defy the king than to sin against God. They also noted that those English corporations which had already surrendered their charters had gained nothing by doing so. The magistrates were encouraged to resist by the prominent Boston minister Increase Mather, who argued that God would deliver them, as he had in 1637 and 1664, if they remained true to the covenant. Thus although envoys were finally sent, they were given no instructions to negotiate.

  The Crown's law officers accordingly commenced quo warranto proceedings against Massachusetts in June 1683. The list of infractions presented by Randolph was extremely damaging. Although Massachusetts sent its attorney general, he unfortunately did not contest the suit to indicate the province's disavowal of the action. The tortuous methods of the English legal system were extremely slow not least because the actual charter was still in America. Indeed, the Crown was reduced to seeking an alternative procedure, a warrant known as scire facias, to complete its case. Nevertheless, the inevitable verdict of the Court of King's Bench in October 1684 was that the charter was invalid.3

  The dissolution of the Massachusetts charter opened the door for the administration of James II to radically reorganize England's other North American possessions beginning in 1685. The hope was to create a vice-regal model of government, under which the Crown would appoint a governor to serve as its representative over a large territory, uniformly enforcing policies formulated by the Crown's advisors rather than by local governments. Spain had long used such a vice-regal system to govern its colonies in New Spain and Peru. The Crown already controlled New Hampshire, while Plymouth had no charter other than that issued by the defunct Council of New England. It was therefore decided to combine these with Massachusetts and Maine into one colony called the Dominion of New England. Not yet satisfied, the bureaucrats turned their attention to Connecticut and Rhode Island. In July 1685, Randolph charged their governments with misusing judicial power, failing to administer the required oaths, and persecuting Anglicans. Proceedings were also to be undertaken against the Jerseys and New York, on the grounds that these struggling entities were prejudicial to the king's authority and the collection of his revenue.

  If the members of the Massachusetts general court thought they could still maintain their independence, they were mistaken, for James II was a far more energetic absolutist than his brother Charles. His administration was determined to make its views prevail. James II had met his first Parliament in the spring of 1685 and secured a large revenue, a sign that the remodeling of the borough charters was working. His enemies were either in hiding or in sanctuary abroad and, unlike his predecessor, he had a professional army of 20,000 men and an efficient navy. Although the house of deputies in Massachusetts still talked of resistance, the magistrates knew that the end had come. To some extent the old leadership had lost confidence in the wake of the disasters of the past few years. In May 1686 the final meeting of the general court concluded with a short prayer amid tears.
<
br />   Initially, James II appointed Joseph Dudley, a political moderate, along with the Puritans' long-time nemesis, Edward Randolph, to run the colony, assisted by a council made up of members of the Massachusetts merchant elite. No formal charter was issued to replace the old; the king's commission was considered sufficient authority. Power was to be vested in the governor and council, who could try cases, convene the militia, appoint all officers, and make other arrangements for the defense of the dominion. Liberty of conscience was to be allowed, especially to such people “as shall be conformable to the rites of the Church of England.” No mention was made of an assembly or the passing of laws. For the time being the council would levy the existing taxes.

  Despite this radical challenge to the old Puritan-led system of government, many distinguished Massachusetts inhabitants remained willing to serve on Dudley's council, including Wait Winthrop and Fitz-John Winthrop, grandsons of the colony's founder. Some historians have argued that these men recognized the need to compromise in a world of commercial and imperial expansion, being more forward-looking in their outlook than the old Puritan leadership, with its community and precapitalist values. Self-interest was also a factor, since Dudley obliged members of his council with generous land grants. It was not long before Randolph was criticizing the new order for its lack of commitment to the Anglican Church and failure to observe the navigation laws.

  Within months, in June 1686, James II nominated Sir Edmund Andros as governor in chief.4 Andros's commission specifically gave him and the council power to make all laws and raise taxes, without input from any local assembly. To ensure that the former were conformable to English practice, laws and taxes were to be sent for approval by the government in Whitehall within three months.

  The imposition of the dominion was a bitter blow to all the colonies, and to none more so than Massachusetts. The general court was replaced by a nonelective council nominated by a royal governor. The Congregational Church was ousted from its special position. It seemed likely that Anglicanism would become the established religion, especially after Andros took over the Old South Meeting House and kept the regular congregation waiting while the Anglican minister celebrated morning service. These moves seemed especially threatening given widespread popular fears of a Roman Catholic conspiracy, to which New Englanders had always been particularly prone. It did not help matters when Andros introduced various new customs into public life. Massachusetts Puritans were horrified by a new requirement that litigants take an oath on the Bible before testifying in court, which they regarded as a violation of their covenant with God. They were even more appalled when authorities of the Andros government reintroduced the celebration of saints' days, considered a clear sign of popish idolatry. Puritans were especially fearful that Andros would require religious toleration of Catholics.

  Taxes were another grievous matter. Although Andros adopted the assembly's 1680 book of rates, there was nothing to prevent him from raising these later when it suited him. In 1687 several towns, notably Ipswich in Essex County, protested that the taxes were illegal, not having received the consent of the inhabitants according to the fundamental right of Englishmen. Andros quickly arrested the leading protesters and crushed the opposition. Indeed, one of the remarkable aspects of the period was the speed with which the commonwealth collapsed. It seemed the Puritans' confidence in their claim to be a covenanted people had been profoundly shaken.

  Other shocks lay in store. The courts of justice were streamlined; juries were to be appointed by the sheriffs rather than the local justices so as to better serve the purposes of the king. All lands purchased from the native inhabitants henceforth had to be validated by new deeds and were subject to quitrents. Such purchases had been widespread and, although most titles were confirmed, the expense and uncertainty involved left New Englanders deeply anxious, especially as certain holdings were challenged. This step suggested that all freehold titles would be terminated and quitrents imposed, thereby erasing the economic security which the settlers believed they had attained by immigrating to North America. The merchants, too, were shocked when the number of ports available for customs clearance was reduced to five. Equally disturbing was the decision that all infractions of the trade laws were to be determined in an admiralty court with no jury, only a presiding judge.

  In March 1688 curbs were imposed on the towns to prevent a repetition of the events at Ipswich. In the future meetings were to be held only once a year for the election of officials and no selectman could serve more than two consecutive terms, making it difficult for local leaders to establish themselves.

  Lastly, Andros's troops created a disturbing presence. Although he had arrived with only one company of redcoats and a frigate, the sight of these raised apprehensions about arbitrary rule, not least because Andros was given full power to declare martial law should an insurrection occur. Such fears were greatly increased by the general belief that James II's grand design was to impose popery on the people of America. Although no Catholics had yet arrived in New England, New York had an Irish Catholic governor, Thomas Dongan, and other Catholic officials. It was even feared that James II might ally with the French and their Indian allies to achieve his purpose.

  An outbreak of violence on the frontiers of Maine in 1688 thus did nothing to allay the New Englanders' apprehensions. Andros antagonized the population by impressing 300 young Massachusetts men into the militia, to be commanded by English officers as they marched northwards to attack the Abenaki. Confronted with strange officers and unfamiliar ideas of discipline, the men revived concerns about a popish plot and threatened to desert. For his part, Andros inadvertently repeated the mistake of Virginia's ex-governor Berkeley 15 years earlier, by appearing too lenient in attempting to negotiate with rather than fight the Indians.

  Although Andros had few friends even among the councillors appointed by Dudley, the inhabitants of New England were seemingly powerless to prevent events from taking their course. In December 1686 quo warranto proceedings were completed against Rhode Island. A year later it was the turn of Connecticut to join the dominion, after its inhabitants had indicated a preference for union with Massachusetts rather than New York. Their compliance meant that the legal surrender of their charter was never completed. In spring 1688 New York was included in the dominion, though it retained a deputy governor and council.

  The situation looked hopeless, although the Puritans had sent Increase Mather to London to plead their cause. They prayed that God might move the king to look more favorably on his dissenting subjects in North America. After all, God moved in mysterious ways; perhaps a direct appeal might have some effect.

  2 Massachusetts Reclaims Control

  Unknown to the troubled New Englanders, deliverance was actually at hand. James II's plans to create an absolute monarchy were rapidly alienating the English too. Nevertheless, he would probably have succeeded but for his simultaneous attempt to return England to Catholicism. It was one revolution too many.

  Although James never published his plans, it is clear that he hoped to reverse the Reformation in the manner in which it had begun, by royal example and decree. The first steps in this scheme had been to suspend the Test and Corporation Acts in 1687 and thus permit Catholics to serve in the army and hold public office. At the same time pressure was put on members of the nobility to convert to Rome. In so hierarchical a society the nobles were likely to be followed by their followers and dependants, thus beginning the great work of returning England to Catholicism.

  It was a monumental miscalculation on the king's part. There were enough Tories to help James II curb Parliament, but they were deeply upset by his open encouragement of Catholicism and lack of support for the established Anglican Church. It was by no means simply a question of religion; the Reformation had seen a change in the ownership of land following the dissolution of the monasteries and reorganization of the church. These titles were implicitly threatened should the religious settlement be undone.

  Until
1688 the nation was sustained by the knowledge that James II was old and apparently infertile, and that his daughter Mary, the heir, was a Protestant. In spring 1688, however, James's second wife, Mary of Modena, gave birth to a son, raising the prospect of a Catholic succession and the continuation of James II's policies in both church and state. This was too much. The Whigs were already alienated by the persecution of their leaders following the Exclusion crisis. Now even prominent Tories began to look for an alternative. One beckoned: William of Orange, Stadholder of Holland and husband of James's daughter, Mary. William had not only married a princess in the line of succession to the throne, he was also known throughout Europe as a symbol of Protestant resistance against Catholicism. In June 1688, seven prominent Whigs and Tories wrote to William to come and rescue the people of England.

  William was more than happy to oblige. Holland was again threatened by Louis XIV, and the possibility of enlisting England in the struggle against France was reason enough to forge an alliance. In addition, William did have claims to the English throne, both through his own family and that of his wife, should the allegations that James II's son was illegitimate prove true. In the fall of 1688 William swiftly assembled an army and fleet, landing in the West Country at Torbay. Everywhere he was greeted as a savior, while James II's army melted away or joined the invader. By the middle of November the king found it expedient to flee to France, first throwing the Great Seal into the Thames.

  Rumors of William's landing began to reach America in early spring 1689. They had been preceded by a warning from James II himself about the imminent danger of a Dutch invasion. Hence some discussion had already taken place in Massachusetts among the former elite as to whether they ought to take control should the news prove true. It was not until April 1689 that William's success was confirmed and the New Englanders realized that the English had secured what they still sought: the right to an assembly, the supremacy of the laws, protection from Catholicism, and protection against external foes.