took his departure, evidently somewhat nettled that the magistrates had not thought fit to acquaint him with the contents of their answer.'

On the 9th of August a special Court convened, when the Elders were desired to attend, and to consider of " the most expedient manner of making answer to the complaints of Mr. Gorges and Mr. Mason." It was determined to send agents to appear and make answer to the complaints, and William Stoughton and Peter Bulkley were selected for the purpose. Furnished with the General Court's Answer to the petitions of Mason and Gorges, and "qualified as to their instructions with utmost care and caution," the agents sailed from Boston on the 30th of October, 1676. Soon after their arrival in England, all parties appeared before the Lords of Trade and Plantations and the Lords Chief Justices, subsequently before the Chief Justices alone, and, lastly, before the Privy Council, on the 20th of July, when a final judgment was given, against the claims of Massachusetts.

But the agents were not yet to be dismissed. Many and great complaints were brought against the administration of the government of the Colony. Being examined with regard to the extent of their authority as respected these allegations, the agents said that they had no other power than to defend the Colony against the complaints of Mason and Gorges, and were not authorized to answer any other question than as private men. To this it was replied," that his Majesty did not think of treating with his own subjects as with strangers, and to expect the formality of powers; but, being determined to do what was right, they might inform their employers that, though he will not destroy their Charter, he had resolved to reduce them to a more palpable dependence on his Crown, in order that they might be of use to him in times of necessity;" and they were ordered to procure an extension of their authority from their Government; but no ampler powers were granted to their request. They were obliged to appear, several times, both before the King in Council, and the Lords of the Committee of Trade and Foreign Plantations, when it appeared, says the King, in his letter of October 21, 1681, "by the petition of divers considerable merchants, by the reports of the Commissioners of Customs, and by other undeniable testimony, that an unlawful course of trade had, for many years past, been encouraged, and was yet countenanced by the laws and practice of the Government, to the great diminution of our customs in England, violation of divers Acts of Parliament, and great prejudice of our subjects, who, with unequal advantages, contained themselves within the rules which the law directs for the management of trade." Mr. Stoughton, one of the agents, writes to Massachusetts, Dec. 1, 1677, that "the country's not taking notice of these Acts of Navigation, to observe them, hath been the most unhappy neglect that we could have fallen into; for more and more, every day, we find it most certain that, without a fair compliance in that matter, there can be nothing expected but a total breach, and all the storms of displeasure that may be." To the Lords of Trade the agents "professed their willingness to pay his Majesty's duties within the Plantation, provided they might be allowed to import the necessary commodities of Europe, without entering first in England." One of the complaints brought against Massachusetts was, that they, as a mark of sovereignty, coin money."7 The agents being questioned on this point, were made sensible," says the King, "of the great crime the Colony was answerable for, in coining money, for which they therefore besought our royal pardon.”

66

1 Narrative, Coll. pp. 510-11.

66

118

2 Hutchinson, i. 281; Farmer's Belknap, i. 87. For the particulars of the adjudication on the claims of Mason and Gorges, see pages 612 and Gi, note a.

3 King's letter of Oct. 21, 1681, in Chalmers, p. 446.

4 Chalmers, pp. 403-4.

5 Hutchinson, i. 288.

Chalmers, History of the Revolt, &c., i. 130.

7 Randolph, in Hutch. Coll. p. 480.

8 King's letter of Oct. 21, 1681; Randolph's "Articles," Hutch. Coll. p. 528.

The Committee of Plantations, having received all possible information, both from the agents,1 and from Randolph, and having entered into a serious consideration of the affairs of New England, in April, 1678, proposed the following queries to the Crown-Lawyers, Jones and Winnington.

1. Whether the people of the Massachusetts Colony have any legal Charter at all?

2. Whether the Quo Warranto brought against the Colony in 1635 3 had not worked the dissolution of such Charter as they had?

3. And, supposing the Charter were originally good, whether the Corporation had not, by maladministration of its powers, forfeited the same, so as to be now at his Majesty's mercy and disposal?

On the first query Jones and Winnington declined giving an opinion, inasmuch as it had already been decided in the affirmative by the two Chief Justices. To the second they replied in the negative. To the third they answer, that, if the alleged misdemeanors can be proved to be true, and to have been committed since the Act of Oblivion, they do contain sufficient matter to avoid the Patent, but that cannot be otherwise done than by a Quo Warranto.5

The Statute Book of the Colony was also submitted to the examination of the Crown-Lawyers, who "marked out" many of its enactments, "as repugnant to the laws of England, and contrary to the power of the Charter," of which the agents promised an amendment.

The Lords of the Committee at length delivered to the agents, to be by them transmitted to the General Court, a list of "those various evils which now produced so much disorder and vexation," for which they demanded an immediate remedy, with the result of their deliberations on the affairs of New England, concluding thus: Upon the whole matter their Lordships seem very much to resent that no more notice is taken, in New England, of what was so freely and with so much softness intimated to the agents; and they are so far from advising his Majesty immediately to grant the Colony a pardon, much less the accession of government of the country claimed by Mr. Mason, which the agents had petitioned for, that they are of opinion that this whole matter ought severely to be considered from the very root. For, if fair persuasions will not take place, neither will they take notice of commands that are sent, if nobody be there on the place to give countenance to his Majesty's orders, and truly to represent from that country what obedience is given to them. Agreed that it must be by a Governor, wholly to be supported by his Majesty; and that such a Governor many of the people there did languish after. But referred to Mr. Attorney and Solicitor, to consider whether his Majesty is at liberty to do herein as may be required." 7

The Lords soon after recommended Randolph to Lord Treasurer Danby, as the most proper person for Collector of the Port of Boston. Their choice being approved, a Commission was issued, in May, 1678, constituting him " Collector, Surveyor, and Searcher of his Majesty's Customs, in his Majesty's Colony of New England, (that is to say) Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, Rhode Island, the Province of Maine, and New Hampshire, and all other his Majesty's Colonies and Islands in New England"; and on the 9th of July following he received his Instructions from the Commissioners of Customs. But the High Treasurer desiring to know

1 See in Chalmers, pp. 436-8, extracts from the answers of Stoughton and Bulkley to the questions proposed to them by the Lords of the Committee, delivered in April, 2 To assist the Crown Lawyers in forming their opinion, the Lords of Trade sent Randolph "to attend them with several matters of fact."

1678.

3 See page 707.

4 When the claims of Mason and Gorges were submited to their examination. See pages 612 and 613, note a.

5 Chalmers, pp. 405, 438-40.

6 Ibid., p. 447.

7 Ibid., pp. 405, 440-1.

8 See these Instructions in Mass. Hist. Coll. xxvII. 129-38.

how the expenses of the office were to be defrayed, unless from the Exchequer, the Lords replied, March 10, 1678-9, "We have, upon this occasion, reflected what hath happened in New England since his Majesty's restora tion, and do find, not only by the affronts and rejections of those Commissioners which his Majesty sent out in 1665, but by the whole current of their behavior since, that, until his Majesty shall give those his subjects to understand that he is absolutely bent upon a general reformation of the abuses in that government, we cannot hope for any good from the single endeavor of any officer that may be sent, but rather contradiction and disrespect in all that shall be endeavored for his Majesty's service, if they will but call it an infringement of their Charter. Nor can we think how any the charges incident to those employments, could they have any execution, can be otherwise supported than from his Majesty's Exchequer. Wherefore, seeing there is now in preparation such a general state of that Colony, and such expedients to be offered his Majesty, as may bring it to a dependence on his Majesty's authority, equal to that of any other Colony, which we think his Majesty's steady resolution may effect; we, therefore, leave it to your Lordship's consideration, whether it be not best to suspend the departure of any such officer until there be a final resolution taken in this matter."

Meantime complaints continued to be made against the Massachusetts Colony. The toleration shewn to Quakers was thought to be one of the sins which had brought upon the country the Indian War, and a law was accordingly passed "that every person found at a Quaker's meeting should be apprehended, and committed to the House of Correction, or else pay £5 in money, as a fine to the country." "The agents wrote to the General Court that this law had lost them many friends. The King's letter of April 27, 1678, having been received, reproving them for a law, passed in the month of October previous, "for the reviving and administring a certain oath of fidelity to the country," the General Court repealed the obnoxious ordinance, and passed an Act requiring all persons above the age of sixteen years to take the oath of allegiance, on pain of fine and imprisonment, "the Governor, Deputy-Governor, and magistrates having first taken the same, without any reservation, in the words sent to them by his Majesty's order." Several other laws were also made, to remove the grounds of complaint against the Colony. High Treason was made punishable by death; and the King's arms were put up in the Court-house. But the Acts of Trade were not so readily complied with. They were declared "to be an invasion of the rights, liberties, and properties of the subjects of his Majesty in the Colony, they not being represented in Parliament;" it was contended that the laws of England were bounded within the four seas, and did not reach America; however, as his Majesty had signified his pleasure that those Acts should be observed in the Massachusetts, they had made provision, by a law of the Colony, that they should be strictly attended from time to time, although it greatly discouraged trade and was a great damage to his Majesty's Plantation." 996

While their agents were in England several Addresses were sent to the King by the General Court. In one of them, dated Oct. 16, 1678, they say, "let your Majesty be pleased to accept from our messengers an account of our ready obedience to your Majesty's command for taking the oath of allegiance in the form prescribed, and our repealing that law, referring to the oath, so ill resented by your Majesty, with some orders Mr. Attorney and Mr. Solicitor excepted against, as our messengers have intimated. What shall be incumbent on us we shall, with all dutifulness, attend, as becomes good Christians and loyal English subjects, and shall glory in giving your Majesty all just satisfaction." And "we humbly supplicate your Majesty

'Chalmers, Political Annals, pp. 405-6, 441-2, History of the Revolt, i. 131-2. 2 Hutchinson, i. 288-9.

3 Chalmers, Political Annals, p. 406, and History of the Revolt, i. 130.

4 See it in Hutchinson's Collection of Papers, pp. 515-16.

5 Massachusetts Records, cited by Hutchinson, i. 289-90.

6 General Court's letter to the agents, in Hutchinson, i. 290.

that our messengers, having despatched the business betrusted with them by us and commanded to attend by your Majesty, may be at liberty to return, and not be obliged to make answer to such complaints as are made by unquiet spirits, who seek, not your Majesty's, but their own, advantages, and our distress.'

Days of fasting and prayer were repeatedly appointed, to implore the blessing of God upon their endeavors for obtaining favor with the King, and the preservation of their Charter privileges. The 21st of November, 1678, was observed as a Fast throughout Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Connecticut. The General Court, at its session in May, 1679, summoned a Synod of all the churches in Massachusetts. This assembly convened at Boston, Sept. 10, 1679, when two questions were proposed for its consideration, viz. 1. What are the evils that have provoked the Lord to bring his judgments on New England? 2. What is to be done, that so those evils may be reformed? The Result of the Synod, pointing out the prevailing sins of the time, and the necessity of reformation, was presented to the General Court, which, by an Act of Oct. 15, 1679,"commended it unto the serious consideration of all the churches and people in the jurisdiction, enjoining and requiring all persons, in their respective capacities, to a careful and diligent reformation of all those provoking evils mentioned therein, according to the true intent thereof, that so the anger and displeasure of God, many ways manifested, might be averted, and his favor and blessing obtained."

Stoughton and Bulkley having at length obtained leave from the King, in May, 1679, to return home, reached Boston Dec. 23d, accompanied by Randolph, and bringing with them the King's letter of July 24, 1679, expressing his approbation of the "good care and discretion" of the agents, his satisfaction at the "great readiness wherewith our good subjects have lately offered themselves to the taking of the oath of allegiance," and his will that "those that desire to serve God in the way of the Church of England be not thereby made obnoxious or discountenanced from their sharing in the government, much less that they or any other, (not being Papists,) who do not agree in the Congregational Way, be by law subjected to fines or forfeitures, or other incapacities, for the same, which is a severity," says the King, "to be the more wondered at, whenas liberty of conscience was made one principal motive for your first transportation into those parts;" at the same time announcing the appointment of Randolph as Collector, and recommending him to their help and assistance "in all things that may be requisite in the discharge of his trust," and commanding that other agents, duly instructed, be sent over within six months after the receipt of this letter. A day of thanksgiving was kept for the safe return of the agents; but Randolph was received, according to his own account, more like a spy than one of his Majesty's servants;" he represents his welcome to have been " a paper of scandalous verses," and complains that all persons took the liberty" to abuse him in their discourses."3

Although the General Court neglected to comply with the King's commands as respected agents, it was deemed advisable to reply to his Majesty's communication, which was accordingly done on the 21st of May, 1680, and a second letter was despatched on the 12th of June. The King, understanding from these letters "that very few of his directions had been pursued by the General Court, the further consideration of the remaining particulars having been put off upon insufficient pretences, even wholly neglecting the appointment of other agents, which were required to be sent over within six months"

1 Hutchinson, i. 289. The General Court's Address is in Coll. Papers, pp. 516-18. 2 Hutchinson, i. 291-2; Mather's Magnalia, Book V. pp. 85-98.

3 Chalmers, p. 408; Hutchinson, i. 292-3; Randolph's letter of Jan. 29, 1679-80, to Gov. Winslow, of Plymouth, in Mass. Hist. Coll. vi. 92-4; Bancroft, ii. 122. The King's letter is in Hutchinson's Collection of Papers, pp. 519-22.

after the receipt of his letter in 1679, wrote again to the Colony, on the 30th of September, 1680, telling them that he had little expected that the marks of his grace and favor should have found no better acceptance, and command. ing them, on their allegiance, seriously to reflect upon his directions, and to send over, within three months after the receipt hereof, such person or per sons as they might see fit to choose, furnished with sufficient instructions to attend the regulation and settlement of their government, and to answer to the claim which Mason had set up to the lands between the Naumkeag and Merrimack Rivers.'

66

At the end of this year, 1680, Randolph, "soured by disappointment," returned to England, to complain of difficulties that had been foreseen, to solicit support in opposition to the principles and practice of a people." He laid before the King his Humble Representation of the Bostoneers, in which he vented the full torrent of his spleen against the unlucky Colonists, accusing them of having formed themselves into a Commonwealth, denying appeals to England, and neglecting to take the oath of allegiance; of having protected the murtherers" of his Majesty's father, of coining money, putting his Majesty's subjects to death for religion, imposing an Oath of Fidelity, and violating "all the Acts of Trade and Navigation," whereby his Majesty is "damnified in the customs £100,000 yearly, and the Kingdom much more.' Having thus discharged his “ pent-up wrath," he embarked again for Boston.2

66

Meantime the Governor, immediately on the receipt of his Majesty's letter, had summoned the General Court, "which being met January 4th," 1680-1, "and his Majesty's letter communicated with all duty and regard, the contents thereof were taken into serious consideration." Instructions were prepared for those who should be chosen agents; and the "whole Book of Laws" was 66 carefully perused, pursuant to the exceptions made by Mr. Attorney and Solicitor-General." But when they came to the choice of agents, William Stoughton and Samuel Nowell having received the appointment, peremptorily refused to undertake the service, alleging "the danger of the seas as an excuse, and another letter was sent to England, stating that they "find it no easy matter to prevail with persons, in any degree qualified, to undertake such a voyage at this time;" and that, though several elections had been made, they had not as yet obtained the consent of any; that "the present calamity of others of this country, now slaves in Algier, (and one of them an agent from one of his Majesty's Colonies here) not yet ransomed, does greatly discourage such as live in good credit and condition" from going as agents. And they remark that, "should persons under such a character be taken, we have cause to believe their ransom would be so high as that it would be hard for us to procure it amongst a poor people yet laboring under the burthen of the arrears of our late war with the Indians, and other extraordinary charges not yet defrayed," which “had so far impoverished them, as to make them almost incapable of the expense of such attendance."'3

Randolph had returned again to Boston early in the Spring of this year, 1681. His first act was to draw up a protest against the proceedings of the General Court, which, the Notary refusing to enter it, was posted in the Exchange. This was done in the month of April. The Court, by an Order of Oct. 1st, having obliged him to deposite a certain sum of money before they would allow him to "proceed to trial of causes relating to his Majesty's concerns," Randolph hastened back

1 See Hutchinson, i. 294; the King's letter, of Oct. 21, 1681, in Chalmers, and of Sept. 30, 1680, in Hutch. Coll Papers, pp. 522-5.

Chalmers, History of the Revolt, &c., i. 132, Political Annals, pp. 409-10; Hutchinson, i. 297; Randolph's Representation of the Bostoneers, in Coll. pp. 525-6.

3 Hutchinson, i. 299-300; the Answers of Dudley and Richards, in Chalmers; General Court's letter, dated June 3, 1681, in Coll. Papers, pp. 528-30.