The Revocation of the Charter, 1684
It is difficult to understand the attitude of Massachusetts. Her leaders
probably 'thought that with the settlement of the Mason and Gorges claims
the most serious source of trouble with England was disposed of. They
believed, honestly enough, though the wish was father to the thought, that
the colony lay beyond the reach of Parliament and that the laws of England
were bounded by the four seas and did not reach America. Hence they deemed
the navigation acts an invasion of their liberties and could not bring
themselves to obey them. As to England's new colonial policy, it is
doubtful if they grasped it at all, or would have acknowledged it as
applicable to themselves, even if they had understood it. The experiences
and reports of their agents in England seem to have taught them nothing
and served only to confirm their belief that a Stuart was a tyrant and
that all English authorities were natural enemies. They had labored and
suffered in the vineyard of the Lord and they wished to be let alone to
enjoy their dearly won privileges. Randolph wrote, soon after his arrival
in New England, that the colony was acting "as high as ever," and that "
it was in every one's mouth that they are not subject to the laws of
England nor were such laws in force until confirmed by their authority."
The colony neglected to send the agents demanded, alleging expense, the
dangers of the sea, the difficulty of finding any one to accept the post,
and their belief that King and council were "taken up with matters of
greater importance," until finally in September, 1680, the King wrote an
exceedingly sharp letter, calling the excuses "insufficient pretences,"
and commanding that agents be sent within three months. Strange to say the
colony even then allowed a year to elapse before complying, and again
instructed those whom they sent to agree to nothing that concerned the
charter.
Before the agents arrived in the summer of 1682, the royal patience
was exhausted. Randolph's continued complaints that he was obstructed in
every way in the performance of his duties; the act of the colony in
setting up a naval office of its own; the revival of an old law imposing
the death penalty upon any one who should "attempt the alteration or
subversion of the frame of government "; the opinion of the
Attorney-General that the colony had done quite enough to warrant the
forfeiture of its charter; and the delay in sending the agents, which
seemed a further flouting of the royal commands — all these things brought
matters to a crisis. Therefore, when finally the Massachusetts agents
reached England, they found the situation hopeless. "It is a hard service
we are engaged in," they wrote; "we stand in need of help from Heaven."
Their want of powers provoked the Lords of Trade to say that unless they
were procured, the charter would be forfeited at once. Randolph was called
back in May, 1683, to aid in the legal proceedings which were immediately
set on foot. Other charters were falling: that of the Bermuda Company was
under attack; that of the City of London was already forfeited; and those
of other English boroughs were in danger. On June 27, a writ of quo
warranto was issued out of the Court of King's Bench against the colony.
The agents, refusing to defend the suit, returned to New England, and the
writ was given to Randolph to serve. He reached Boston in October, but
owing to delays in the colony and a tempestuous voyage back, he was unable
to return it to England within the allotted time. The first attempt
failed, but another was soon made. By the advice of the Attorney-General,
suit was brought in the Court of Chancery by writ of scire facias against
the company, and upon the rendering of judgment for non-appearance the
charter was declared forfeited on October 23, 1684.
Though the colony was given no opportunity to defend the suit, the
charter was legally vacated according to the forms of English law. The
colony was but a corporation, its charter but a corporation charter, and
in only one respect did it differ from other corporations, namely, its
residence in America. The methods of vacating corporate charters in
England were definite and in this case were strictly followed. Had
Massachusetts been a corporation in fact as well as in law, it is doubtful
if the question of illegality would ever have been raised; but as this
particular corporation was a Puritan commonwealth, the issue was so vital
to its continuance as to lead to the charge of unjust and illegal
oppression. On moral grounds a defence of the colony is always possible,
though it is difficult to uphold the Massachusetts system. It was
certainly neither popular nor democratic, tolerant nor progressive, and in
any case it must eventually have undergone transformation from within. The
city of Boston was increasing in wealth and importance, and trade was
bringing it into ever closer contact with the outside world. There were
growing up in the colony more open-minded and progressive men who were
opposing the dominance of the country party, which found its last governor
in Leverett, its chief advocates among the clergy, and its strength in the
House of Representatives, and which wished to preserve things as they
always had been. The leaders of this conservative party, Danforth, Nowell,
Cooke, and others, struggled courageously against all concessions, but
they were bound to be beaten in the end.
That the conservative members of the colony were thoroughly in
earnest and thoroughly convinced of the absolute righteousness of their
position, admits of no doubt. No man could speak of the loss of the
charter as a breach in the "Hedge which kept us from the Wild Beasts of
the Field," as did Cotton Mather, without expressing a fear of a Stuart,
of an Anglican, and of a Papist that was as real as the terrors of
witchcraft. To the orthodox Puritans, the preservation of their religious
doctrines and government and the maintenance of their moral and social
standards were a duty to God, and to admit change was a sin against the
divine command. But such an unyielding system could not last; in fact, it
was already giving way. Though conjecture is difficult, it seems likely
that the English interference delayed rather than hastened the natural
growth and transformation of the colony, because it united moderates and
irreconcilables against a common enemy — the authority of the Crown.
Back to: Plymouth and New England Colonies
