effect in averting the blow which soon after crushed the political liberties of all New England.'

Randolph, immediately upon his arrival, repaired to Piscataqua, which place he reached on the 27th of the month. On the 1st of January, 1679-80, he delivered the Commission to those for whom it was intended. It was received with the greatest reluctance, "in regard that several of the new Council were obliged, either by their possessing great tracts of land from Mr. Mason, or by being sworn to the Government of Boston." At first only the President (John Cutt) and one member of the Council, would accept their appointments. The ministers were now summoned to give their advice on the subject, who recommended that those who had declined acting should accept their Commission, saying "that it was better for those to govern, who had formerly acted under Massachusetts, than for others of different principles to command them," which might be the case if they should refuse to serve. Upon this the other five members of the Council (Martyn, Vaughan, Daniel, Hussey, and Waldron) yielded, and agreed to qualify themselves; and the Commission was published, and the oaths of office taken by the members of the new administration, on the 21st of January. Writs were issued for calling a General Assembly, in which were named the persons in each town who should be allowed to vote, and the oath of allegiance was administered to each voter. On the 26th of February a Public Fast was observed, to implore the divine blessing on the Assembly which was about to meet, and "the continuance of their precious and pleasant things." The first General Assembly convened at Portsmouth on the 16th of March, and was opened with prayer and a sermon by Rev. Joshua Moody. One of their first acts was to write a letter to the General Court at Boston, in which they say:

The late turn of Providence made amongst us, by the all-ordering Being, hath given occasion for this present application, wherein we crave leave, as we are in duty bound

1st. Thankfully to acknowledge your care for us and kindness while we dwelt under your shadow, owning ourselves deeply obliged that you were pleased, upon our earnest request and supplication, to take us under your government, and ruled us well whilst we so remained, so that we cannot give the least countenance to those reflections that have been cast upon you, as if you had dealt injuriously with us.

2dly. That no dissatisfaction with your government, but merely our submission to Divine Providence, to his Majesty's commands, to whom we owe allegiance, without any seeking of our own, or desire of change, was the only cause of our complying with that present separation from you that we are now under; but should have heartily rejoiced if it had seemed good to the Lord and his Majesty to have settled us in the same capacity as formerly. And withal we hold ourselves bound to signify, that it is our most unfeigned desire that such a mutual correspondence betwixt us may be settled, as may tend to the glory of God, the honor of his Majesty, whose subjects we all are, and the promoting of the common interest and defence against the common enemy, that thereby our hands be strengthened, being of ourselves weak and few in number, and that, if there be opportunity to be anywise serviceable unto you, we may shew how ready we are thankfully to embrace the same."

The Assembly also drew up an Address to the King, expressing the

1 Chalmers, Annals, pp. 397, 486-7, 488-91, History of the Revolt, i. 138-9; Farmer's Belknap, pp. 88-9; Adams, pp. 63-4; the King's letter of July 24, 1679, in Hutch. Coll. Papers, pp. 521-2; and page 743. Jones's Statement will be found, ante, pages

617-21.

2 This letter was read in the General Court, May 22d, 1680, and ordered to be recorded. Hutchinson, i. 296.

same gratitude and good-will towards their neighbors of Massachusetts which was carried to England by "Mr. Jowles."

Randolph remained at Piscataqua until the 22d of January, 1679-80. Then, returning to Massachusetts, he passed a few days at Salem, and reached Boston in time to be present at the assembling of the General Court in February. He soon after went back to Piscataqua, and entered upon the execution of his office as Collector, &c. On the 22d of March he seized a ketch, belonging to Portsmouth, but bound from Maryland to Ireland, on pretence of a breach of the Acts of Navigation. The master hereupon brought an action against him, before the President and Council, and recovered damages and costs. Randolph's behavior at the trial was so insolent, that the Council obliged him publicly to acknowledge his offence, and ask their pardon. He then appealed to the King. Having appointed Captain Walter Barefoote Deputy-Collector for Portsmouth, notice was given “that all vessels should be entered and cleared with him." Upon which Barefoote was brought to examination, and afterwards indicted for "having, in an high and presumptuous manner, set up his Majesty's Office of Customs without leave from the President and Council; for disturbing and obstructing his Majesty's subjects in passing from harbor to harbor and town to town; and for his insolence in making no other answer to any question propounded to him but my name is Walter.'" 2

On the 30th of December, 1680, Robert Mason arrived from England, bringing with him the King's Mandamus, of Oct. 1, 1680, to the President and Council of New Hampshire, in which his Majesty says, "we have so composed all matters with him, [Mason,] that for the time past, until the 24th day of June, 1679, he shall not claim or demand any rent, dues, or arrears, whatsoever; and for the future he, his heirs or assigns, shall receive only sixpence in the pound yearly of every tenant, by way of quit rent, according to the true and just yearly value of what is improved by any of the inhabitants. And whereas the said Robert Mason hath humbly signified to us, that he is preparing to transport himself, for the taking care of his affairs and interest in the said Province, and for the giving a secure and legal confirmation of the estates of such persons as are now in possession, but without any right or legal title to the same; and he being a person whom we have esteemed useful to our service, as he is chiefly concerned in the welfare of that our Province, we have further thought fit to constitute and appoint him to be one of our Council therein, and we do hereby order and require you, our President and Council, that, immediately after his arrival, you do admit him one of our Council of our Province of New Hampshire, he first taking the oaths mentioned in our Commission." Mason accordingly took his seat at the Council-board, and assumed the title of Lord Proprietor. He soon made himself obnoxious by his proceedings, trying to persuade some of the people to take leases of him, threatening them with punishment for their refusal so to do, forbidding them to cut timber, &c. &c. His "Stewards" excited great disturbance by demanding rents of several persons, and threatening to sell their houses for payment. Great uneasiness was caused by these procedures. Petitions were presented by the towns, as well as by individuals, to the Council for protection; who hereupon published an order,

1 Randolph's letter of Jan. 29, 1679-80, to Gov. Josiah Winslow, of Plymouth, in Mass. Hist. Coll. vi. 92-4; Chalmers, Annals, pp. 491-2; Farmer's Belknap, pp. 90-2; Addresses of the General Assembly to the King, dated March 29th, and June 11th, 1680, ibid., pp. 455-7; Adams, pp. 64-5; the letter of the Assembly to the General Court of Massachusetts, March 25, 1680, ibid., pp. 65-7, and also in Hutchinson, i. 295-6.

Randolph's letter to Winslow; Farmer's Belknap, p. 93; Adams, pp. 67-9.

prohibiting Mason, and his agents, from a repetition of such irregularities, at the same time declaring their intention to transmit the complaints of the people to the Sovereign. Upon this Mason would no longer sit in Council, and refused to appear when summoned; and when he was threatened with judicial proceedings, he declared that he would appeal to the King, and issued a summons to the President and several members of the Council, and others, to appear before his Majesty in three months. This being considered "an usurpation over his Majesty's authority here established," a warrant was issued for his apprehension, but he succeeded in eluding the search, and sailed for England on the 27th of March, 1681.'

Meantime there had been received in Boston the King's letter of Sept. 30, 1680, in which he informs the Colony, that he had received a petition from Robert Mason, setting forth his further pretensions to the propriety of soil in a tract of land lying between Merrimack and Naumkeag Rivers, by virtue of a Grant bearing date in the nineteenth year of the reign of James I., [March 9, 1621-2,] in the examination whereof the Lords of our Committee of Foreign Plantations had made such a progress that the right of our subjects had been thereupon settled, without the humble entreaty of your said agents, and the consent of the said Robert Mason, that, in regard of their sudden departure and want of power in that behalf, the determination thereof might be suspended until the arrival of other agents," and commanding them to send over agents within three months; "and"-such is the language of the royal missive"that the matter of the complaints of the said Robert Mason may be then determined, we expect that your agent or agents be not only prepared to lay before us such evidences of right as you may have to the propriety of soil in that tract of land claimed by him, but we direct you also to make a public signification of our pleasure unto all the inhabitants and terre-tenants thereof, that they do furnish at the same time your said agents, or such others as they may depute, with the proofs of their respective titles to the land possessed by them, to the end they may be fully satisfied in our royal justice, that they have not been prevented in the full improvement of their lawful defence, which we hereby direct them to make before us in Council." We have seen, in a previous note, what were the proceedings on the receipt of this letter. We are told by Hutchinson, that "as for Mason's claim, it was looked upon as groundless and extravagant, and the Court gave themselves but little concern about it, further than to observe that, if he had any pretence to the lands, his title would be fairly tried upon the spot, where by law, and according to the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor General, in 1677, it ought to be tried." No agents were sent, and at last came Charles's letter of Oct. 21, 1681, "perhaps the most extraordinary one ever sent by a Sovereign to his subjects." Among the numerous charges contained in this document is this:

66

That you have exercised great excesses towards our subjects in our Province of Maine, and laid taxes upon them in an arbitrary manner,3

1 Farmer's Belknap, pp. 93-4; Adams, pp. 63, 69. The King's Mandamus is in Belknap, pp. 457-8.

2 See pages 614-16.

3 The people of Maine were never pleased with their subjection, as a Province, to Massachusetts; they never cordially submitted. As long as they enjoyed the privileges of the Colony, as a County, they were well content; but it was an entirely different thing to be reduced from a state of equality to the condition of a subordinate territory. They said that although Massachusetts accounted herself a free State, yet this was no security to them that they should be less arbitrarily governed than when a single person was the proprietor. In 1630 or 1681 a petition was transmitted to the King, signed by one hundred and seventeen of the inhabitants, in which they represent

without making us acquainted with your proceedings in that Government, which, by the express words of our Grant, derived unto you from Ferdinando Gorges, is subordinate and subject to the power and regulation of the Lords and others our Council for Foreign Plantations."

Let us follow Dudley and Richards-the accredited agents of the Massachusetts Colony -to England. We behold them arraigned, in August, 1682, before the Lords of the Committee for Trade and Foreign Plantations, to answer to the accusations preferred against their Government. To the complaint that the Colony had forestalled the King in the purchase of Maine, we find them replying, "that the purchase of the Province of Maine was made by them, not out of any disloyal inclination, or intention to infringe his Majesty's royal prerogative, or to prevent his Majesty's taking the same into his own hands, but upon real desire to accommodate his Majesty's subjects, the inhabitants of that Province, and their own mutual peace and safety, and with good advice first had that they might do so." To the charge of oppression and arbitrary taxation in the same territory, they say, "the Massachusetts in the last Indian War were at £10,000 charge in defending the said Province, when most of it was laid waste. Mr. Gorges petitioned his Majesty that he might have the said Province upon some dormant Letters Patents he had thereof; whereupon the then agent for the Massachusetts Colony bought Mr. Gorges's pretended title to the said Province for £1,250, to no other end than to quiet the inhabitants in the possessions that they had improved with the expense of so much sweat and coin, and preserved with their blood, without taking one farthing from them for it ;" and as for assigning the Province to the King, "that the Massachusetts by their purchase could design no more than a generous charity, since to have bought a litigated title, with intent to have prosecuted a recovery therein, had been champerty, and punishable by the laws of England; of which purchase what assignment can they make, which can benefit any assignee, but what were unlawful to be taken, and must be destructive of the pious and charitable end now effected." As to the requisitions in the King's letter of July 24th, 1679, with regard to Mason's Province, they said that they had been complied with; and that as to Mason's further claim, specified in the King's letter of Sept. 30, 1680, his Majesty had already given orders that it should be "first tried upon the place, and a public signification to the terre-tenants was forthwith made, as appears by an Address from the inhabitants."

The result of the agency of Dudley and Richards has been already related, and we will, therefore, again turn our attention to Robert Mason and the Province of New Hampshire. On Mason's arrival in England, in the spring of 1681, he represented to Charles the difficulties which attended the establishment of his rights under the present administration, and solicited a change in the government. Cutt, the President," an honest man and a loyal subject," had died on the 5th of April, 1681, and complaints had been exhibited against those who had acquired authority since his decease, as favoring too much ancient principles of government, as opposing the

that, "notwithstanding the great loss sustained by the late Indian War, we are still op pressed with heavy rates and taxes, imposing the sum of £3000 and upward to be collected and paid by the inhabitants of three towns, (viz.) York, Wells, and Kittery;" and in August, 1680, it became necessary for the Massachusetts Government to send an armed force of "sixty soldiers, in a ship and sloop, to still the people at Casco Bay." The tax above mentioned is probably referred to by the King in his letter. See Maine Hist. Coll. 1. 158-9; Sullivan, pp. 335-6; Folsom, p. 145; Hutchinson, i. 296-7, note; Williamson, i. 563. "The Humble Petition of the inhabitants of the Province of Maine, in New England," is in Maine Hist. Coll. 1. 302–4.

See pages 741-2.

2 The King's letter of Sept. 30, 1680, in Hutch. Coll. Papers, pp. 523-4; Hutchinson, i. 300; Chalmers, Annals, p. 443; King's letter of Oct. 21, 1681, ibid., p. 449; the " Answers" of Dudley and Richards, ibid., pp. 452-5, 456-7.

operations of the Acts of Navigation." The laws which had been transmitted to England by the Assembly for approval in accordance with a provision of their new Constitution - - were condemned by the Lords of the Committee of Plantations, in December, 1681, who reported to the King on the 13th of January, 1681-2, that they had taken into consideration the state of the Province, and had perused several letters, Orders of Council, and Acts of Assembly, lately received from that place, "whereby it appears to us," say they, "that some persons now in the government there have carried on and abetted divers irregular proceedings, which are in no manner consistent with your Majesty's service and the intended settlement of that Province. And we do likewise find the public Acts and Orders (the most part of them) so unequal, incongruous, and absurd, and the method, whereby the Council and Assembly have proceeded in the establishment of the same, so disagreeable and repugnant to the powers and directions of your Majesty's Commission, that we cannot hope for such a settlement and regulation of affairs in that Province, as their dependence on your Majesty and [the] welfare of the Plantation do require, unless your Majesty shall appoint some fit and able person, of whose fidelity and sufficiency your Majesty is well assured, who may be authorized by your Majesty's Commission and instructions to settle that place under such rules of government and laws as are necessary for the regulation and improvement of that Province; which we humbly offer to your Majesty as the best means to prevent all farther irregularities, and to render that place as well useful to the Crown as able to defend itself from the attempts of the natives or any foreign invasion." In consequence of this report the former Commission for the government of New Hampshire was revoked; Mason, by a deed enrolled in Chancery, Jan. 25, 1681-2, surrendered to the King one fifth part of the quit-rents which had or should become due, which, with the fines and forfeitures which had accrued, or which should subsequently arise, were to be appropriated to the support of a Governor; and on the 9th of May, 1682, a Commission was issued, appointing Edward Cranfield Lieutenant-Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the Province of New Hampshire. By this Commission not only was that of Sept. 18, 1679, declared void, but all laws passed under its authority were annulled, "that others, more suitable to the dignity of government, might be enacted." Mason, who had mortgaged the whole Province to Cranfield, for twenty-one years, as security for the payment of £150 per annum, for the space of seven years, was placed at the head of the Council, with the right to appoint two burgesses to the Assembly. His claims are recited in the Commission, and the Governor is directed to adjust, if possible, the differences between him and the people, and if he is unable so to do, then "to transmit to England such cases, impartially stated, with his opinion and reasons on the same, that his Majesty, his heirs and successors, with advice of the Privy Council, may hear and determine the same."

Cranfield, having relinquished a profitable office at home, with the hope of bettering his fortunes in New England, arrived at Portsmouth, and published his Commission, on the 4th of October, 1682, and immediately summoned an Assembly, which convened on the 14th of November following. Thus was established the first royal government in New England.'

This autumn was received by Massachusetts a final appeal concerning Mason's claims-a letter from the King, dated June 23, 1682, brought, perhaps, by Cranfield, but which did not reach Boston "till October Court was up.' It was read in the General Court on the 7th of February, 1682-3, and was found to relate to the suits between Mason and the terre-tenants

1 Farmer's Belknap, pp. 94, 96-8; Adams, pp. 69, 71-2; Chalmers, History of the Revolt, i. 140, Annals, pp. 492-3; the Report of the Lords of Trade and Foreign Plantations, Jan. 13, 1681-2, ibid., pp. 508-9. There is a Brief of Cranfield's Commission in Farmer's Belknap, pp. 496-8.