Wayward Massachusetts
Except for the northern frontier, where Indian forays and
atrocities continued for many years longer, the last great struggle
with the Indians in New England was finished. The next danger came
from a different quarter and in a different form. In June, 1676, two
months before the Indian War was over, one Edward Randolph arrived
from England to make an inquiry into the affairs of Massachusetts.
That colony had scarcely weathered the ever-threatening peril of the
New World when it was called upon to face an attack from the Old
which endangered the continuance of those precious privileges for
which the magistrates at Boston had contended with a vigor shrewd
rather than wise. As we have seen, the position that Massachusetts
assumed as a colony largely independent of British control was
incompatible with England's colonial and commercial policy, a
position that was certain to be called in question as soon as the
authorities at home were able to give serious attention to it.
This opportunity did not arrive until, in 1674, the plantations
council was dismissed, and colonial business was handed over to the
Privy Council and placed in the hands of a standing committee of
that body known as the Lords of Trade. This committee, which was
more dignified and authoritative than had been the old council, at
once assumed a firmer tone toward the colonies. It caused a
proclamation to be issued announcing the royal determination to
enforce the acts of trade, and it made the King's will known in
America by means of new instructions to the royal governors there.
It stated clearly the purpose of the Government to bring the
colonies into a position of greater dependence on the Crown in the
interest of the trade and revenues of the kingdom, and it showed no
inclination to grant Massachusetts, with all the charges and
complaints against her, preferential treatment. At the same time it
was not disposed to pay much attention to religious differences,
minor misdemeanors, and neighborhood quarrels, if only the colony
would conform to British policy in all that concerned the royal
prerogative and the authority of Parliament; but it made it
perfectly plain that continued infractions of parliamentary acts and
royal commands would not be condoned.
Had the leaders of Massachusetts been more complaisant and less
given to a policy of evasion and delay, it is not unlikely that the
colony would have been allowed to retain its privileges; and had
they been less absorbed in themselves and more observant of the
world outside, they might have seen the changes that were coming
over the temper and purpose of those in England who were shaping the
relations between England and her colonies. But Massachusetts had
grown provincial since the Restoration, looking backward rather than
forward and moving in very narrow channels of thought and life, so
that she was wrapped up in matters of purely local interest. The
clergy were struggling to maintain their control in colony and
college, while the deputies in the legislature, representing in the
main the conservative country districts, were upholding the clerical
party against some of the magistrates, who represented the town of
Boston and were inclined to take a more liberal and progressive view
of the matter. These country members saw in England's attitude only
the desire of a despotic Stuart régime to suppress the liberties of
a Puritan commonwealth, and failed to see that the investigation
into the affairs of Massachusetts was but an effort to establish a
colonial policy fundamental to England's welfare and power.
It cannot be said that, from 1660 to 1684, the Government in England
displayed undue animus toward the colony. It allowed Massachusetts
to do a great many things that in law she had no right to do, such
as coining money and issuing a charter to Harvard College. Its
demand for a broadening of the Massachusetts franchise was in the
interest of liberty and not against it, and the insistence on
freedom of worship deserves no reproof. Its condemnation of many of
the Massachusetts laws as oppressive and unjust shows that in some
respects legal opinion in England at this time was more advanced
than that in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and, even at its worst,
English law did not go to the Mosaic code for its precedents. There
is a distinct note of cruelty and oppression in some of the
Massachusetts and Connecticut legislation at this time, and many of
the Puritan measures were harsh and arbitrary and liable to abuse.
Even the Government's support of the Mason and Gorges claims was not
dishonorable, and while it may have been unwise and, in equity,
unjust, it was not without excuse. The Government listened to
complaints of persecution, as any sovereign power is required to do,
and was naturally impressed with the weightiness of some of the
charges; yet so little inclined was it to tamper with Massachusetts
that the colony might have succeeded, for a longer time at least, in
maintaining the integrity of its control, had not the question of
colonial trade brought matters to a crisis.
Under Charles II, finances presented a difficult problem, for
Parliament in controlling appropriations took no responsibility for
the collection of money granted. To meet the deficit which during
the earlier years of the reign was ever present, efforts were made
to increase the revenue from customs, and so successful was this
policy that, after 1675, these customs revenues came to be looked
upon as among England's greatest sources of wealth. Now, inasmuch as
trade with the colonies was one of the largest factors contributing
to this result, England, as she could not afford to maintain
colonies that would do nothing to aid her, came more and more to
value her overseas possessions for their commercial importance,
classing as valuable assets those that advanced her prosperity, and
treating as insubordinate those that disregarded the acts of trade
and thwarted her policy. The independence that Massachusetts claimed
was diametrically opposed to the growing English notion that a
colony should be subordinate and dependent, should obey the acts of
trade and navigation, and should recognize the authority of the
Crown; and, from what they heard of the temper of New England,
English statesmen suspected that Massachusetts was doing none of
these things.
Back to: Plymouth and New England Colonies
