336

CHAPTER XI

THE BEGINNINGS OF ROYAL GOVERNMENT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

Some two years elapsed after the opinions had been delivered in England which established the law of the case, before decisive steps were taken to set up a royal government over the four towns of New Hampshire. These towns had felt the influence of the proprietary system only to a very slight extent, and for more than a generation they had been entirely free from it. Pressure from the home government they had felt only during the brief visit of the royal commissioners. When Massachusetts brought the settlements beneath her sway, the formal consent of the inhabitants had been obtained, and the majority had doubtless joined with heartiness in giving it. An Anglican minority, however, had submitted unwillingly to Puritan rule, and were ready to welcome its cessation, if that were not to result in too great restriction of local independence. But social conditions in the New Hampshire towns were essentially the same as those in Massachusetts, and the mild infusion of Anglicanism made only a slight difference. No more robust example of the Puritan clergyman was to be found at that time in New England than was the Rev. Joshua Moody of Portsmouth, and his influence was such that the royal officials called him the archbishop. They found that he virtually, if not actually, held a seat in the council. Vaughan, Weare, Waldron, and many other settlers shared in his spirit. They had been content under Massachusetts government and had participated in its benefits. Not the least among these was the sense of security which came from connection with the larger colony, in the case of possible conflicts with the Indians.¹ Now, as the

337

result of a judicial opinion delivered in England, they were to be transferred under royal control. At the same time the active assertion of the territorial claims of Mason was to be revived, though he legally possessed no rights of government with which to enforce them. Because of the character of Mason himself and of the chief agent whom the English government employed, the change was for a time fraught with serious consequences to the colonists who were immediately concerned. It also furnished an object lesson to other New Englanders which was little likely to prepossess them in favor of the regime which Edward Randolph was so ardently laboring to establish.

As a temporary measure the English government, in 1679, issued a commission to John Cutt,¹ a prominent and respected merchant of Portsmouth, as president, to administer the affairs of the province with the assistance of a council. The president had long been active as a local official under the Massachusetts government. So also had the members of the council, who in each case stood among the leading men in their towns. Richard Martyn and William Vaughan of Portsmouth and Richard Waldron of Dover were among the councillors. The spirit of conciliation toward the colonists which was indicated in the make-up of the council was further shown in the provision that within three months an assembly should be called. Such regulations about elections should be enforced as seemed most convenient. The usual provisions for securing the rights and authority of the crown were included in the commission, especially those for appeals in both criminal and civil cases, for the submission of the acts of assembly to the crown, and for the administration of the oath of allegiance to all officials. Though these provisions were customary in royal commissions, it is needless to say that they appeared strange and novel in New England. The king’s seal was to be used in the administration of justice. Authority and direction were also given in the commission respecting the exercise of the most important powers of government. The president and

338

council were also informed that Mason had agreed to grant full titles to all landholders in the province for the improved land which they held, and to retain the unimproved land for himself, to be disposed of in the future. He had also agreed not to demand a rent in excess of 6d. in the pound on the value of real estate. No claims for rent prior to June 12, 1680, should be urged. If any of the inhabitants should refuse to agree to these terms, the president and council should, if possible, effect a settlement, but if not, the evidences and opinions in the case should be sent to England. Though the proprietor was left with his territorial rights, the crown could not permit their exercise except under certain conditions and limitations which were prescribed by itself.

As soon as this government went into operation, it became evident that affairs would be conducted to a large extent according to New England traditions. In March, 1680, the general assembly¹ met at Portsmouth. It was chosen by electors, all of whom, as specified in the summons which was issued by the president and council, were named in the writs. To all, except a few from Dover, the oath of allegiance was administered. The naming of electors in the writs was a provincial procedure, and subversive of local rights in the towns. But it was intended, we may suppose, to exclude the votes of those who were not in agreement with the Massachusetts party in the province. The first business of the assembly was to send a letter to Massachusetts expressing gratitude for the protection which had been received from that colony in the past, and stating that separation from her had been due to other causes than dissatisfaction.

The assembly then passed a considerable list of general laws, the first which had ever been enacted by a New Hampshire legislature. Among them appears the characteristic criminal legislation of the Puritan commonwealths, passed with slight regard to the provisions of English law on the same subjects. The township system was also confirmed,

339

together with all town grants and other grants of land and rights within the province. Controversies involving titles to land, it was declared, should be tried before juries elected by the freemen of the towns. These enactments were sure to be regarded by Mason as inconsistent with his title as proprietor, while the method of selecting jurymen here prescribed was quite inconsistent with English law and practice. Provision was made for annual assemblies—which should also act as a court of appeal—and for an inferior court held by the president and council. It should meet three times annually, sitting in Dover, Hampton, and Portsmouth in succession. In the assembly, the council, and on the bench the president, or his deputy, should have the casting vote in cases of a tie. The laws relating to courts and officers by which the towns had previously been governed, so far as they were not repugnant to the laws of England, should be continued in force. Provision was made for a franchise which was based chiefly on the freehold, though also with clauses requiring that the recipients should be Protestants who were moral in life and who should have taken the oath of allegiance. The method of levying and collecting the province rate, in the usual form of the combined personal and property tax, was prescribed. Richard Martyn, a member of the council and an active defender of the rights of the colonists, was appointed treasurer.¹ A beginning was made in limiting fees by prescribing those of the marshal or sheriff.

In December, 1680, Mason and Richard Chamberlain appeared in the province.² The latter was an English barrister, a friend of Mason, and had been appointed secretary to the council of New Hampshire. Mason brought with him a warrant from the king, requiring that he should be admitted to a seat in the council. This was obeyed. Chamberlain states in letters to Blathwayt and to the lords of trade that the council deliberated for three days before they would permit him to begin performing duties of his office as secretary.

340

It seems that the members of the council, supported by Moody, insisted that Chamberlain should take an oath of secrecy. The object of this was to prevent his communicating the business of the council to the authorities in England. But one of the principal injunctions which had been laid upon him by those same English officials was to write home frequently and to send accounts of all the business done in his office and of all orders and papers which were registered there. Therefore Chamberlain refused to take the oath. “I told them,” he wrote later to Blathwayt, “that I intended to be guided alike by my duty to the council here and to the ancient laws of England. As a compromise, I suggested that the matter might stand over till I received instructions from England, but after that I was set on by the whole posse comitatus of the council, both ordinary and extraordinary, including Mr. Moody, their archbishop. I positively declared that I neither could nor would derogate from the king’s commission. I said just now that Mr. Moody was virtually of the council, and I believe Mr. Mason will inform yon of his superintending in all matters public and private, but I confess that I told him he was none of the council. The occasion was upon his inculcation of my oath of secrecy, and his interpretation of the terms of my commission. He resented it so much that I fear I have done my business as a church member.”¹ This was the first time that a blow was directly aimed by a royal official and a lawyer at the peculiar function which for so many years the New England clergy had been performing in the councils of their respective colonies. From a statement which was made to the effect that they knew what they had to do, it was conjectured, says Chamberlain, that they debated matters before they came to the sessions.

When finally Chamberlain had been admitted to his office, he requested the books and papers belonging to it, which were in the hands of Elias Stileman, who, when Waldron succeeded Cutt as president, was appointed as his deputy. At first he was told that they had no council book. He asked to have one provided, but he was told that the country was

341

poor. Later, what was apparently a rough draft of the acts and orders of the council was delivered to Chamberlain to transcribe and keep for his own use, while the fair copy was to remain in the possession of Stileman. Stileman was also recorder and clerk of the writs, and retained the papers which were filed in connection with the business of that office. He was at the same time captain of the fort. Here was an accumulation of offices almost as notable as any which we have in the proprietary provinces. But still more was to come. “To make my commission insignificant,” writes Chamberlain, “they have appointed three of themselves to be joint secretaries or registrars of the province; Stileman for the matters aforesaid and for Portsmouth and Dover, Samuel Dalton for Hampton and Exeter, and Richard Martyn to take charge of the shipping. I have told the Council that I believe it to be the law that persons who are judges in any court of judicature cannot also be ministers to the same court. It is derogatory to the King’s service that the Deputy President of the province and a lawmaker should also hold so mean an office as maker of writs and attachments.” Coming to matters of still closer personal interest, the secretary wrote: “My fees are so small that they are not worth the naming. My salary and perquisites are ordered to be settled according to the measure of other colonies, but the authorities here do not see fit to do it, so that hitherto I hold but the name of an office, the profits being shared by the persons before named. I beg that the King will fix my salary and order the Council to pay it, and that the issue of writs and other due perquisites may be attached to my office.” The first royal governor was soon to find that the climate of New Hampshire was well adapted for freezing out royal officials, while Chamberlain was finding that its inhabitants were adepts in the art of starving them out. He was among the first, but was by no means the last, of that class in the colonies to feel pressure of this sort. The customs officials, beginning with Randolph, were more fortunate in having their salaries guarantied by the home government.

Sessions of the assembly were held in March, and again at intervals until December, 1680. It also acted as a court of

342

appeals, Chamberlain calling attention to the fact that provision for this was not made in the commission of government.¹ Chamberlain also states that, with Mason, he attended the election at Dover for deputies to the second assembly, which met in March, 1681.² “At that time,” he says, “several demanded their liberty to vote, which was denied by Major Walderne, our present President. It was then said that but thirty were allowed to vote, and Mr. Mason, when he withdrew, was followed by many, complaining that a hundred and fifty persons, all payers of great taxes, were excluded from voting.” Chamberlain reported that it was thought the deputies were nominated by the council, and that it allowed none but whom it pleased to vote at elections.³

When the general assembly addressed itself to legislation and to the revision of the laws, the deputies and council apparently sitting in one house, Chamberlain presented objections to the laws which had been passed the previous year. He condemned them as unnecessary because the king had sent over a volume of English statutes, which were ready to their hand. He also objected to them on the ground that they were drawn so largely from the statute book of Massachusetts. “Surely,” he said, “it would not please his Majesty that we should cast off obedience to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, and yet yoke ourselves inseparably under its laws.” He finally criticised a number of the laws because they were repugnant to the statutes of England. Upon the necessity of repealing the act conferring these grants he especially insisted. But the arguments of the secretary met with no response.

In point of law the original claim of the Mason family to the ungranted and unimproved land of New Hampshire and to a reasonable quit rent from the granted and improved land was valid. Their right to it was as clear as that of

343

the proprietors of New Jersey to the land of their province. But practically there was an important difference between the position of Robert Mason and that of the New Jersey proprietors. The latter administered the territorial affairs of their province uninterruptedly from the time of their grant. But more than a generation had now passed since members of the family of John Mason had been connected with New Hampshire, except as persistent claimants of its lands and of rights of government over it as well. Their agitation had been carried on in England, and, so far as rights of government were concerned, it had failed. The claims to land had been sustained, and Robert Mason, under authority from the crown, now appeared to realize upon those. It was the first time that one who claimed to be proprietor of New Hampshire had set foot on its soil.¹

To continue the comparison: the proprietors of New Jersey set up a government of their own, and, whether legally or not, used it as an aid in the administration of their territorial affairs. Mason had no coercive authority. He was forced to depend at the outset on a government which, though organized under royal authority, was in spirit as hostile both to Mason and to the existing colonial policy of England as Massachusetts itself. During a period of forty years the settlers had been making their own terms with the Indians respecting land, or settling within town grants, while the authority for their action was self derived or came from a commission of Massachusetts. We know what difficulty the proprietors of New Jersey met in their efforts to collect rents from settlers who had only just received patents from another source. It was an obstacle which they never overcame, and which almost mastered them when they had to meet it unsupported by rights of government. How then could Mason expect to induce any, except a small minority, of the people of New Hampshire to pay rent to him unless they were compelled to do so? It is reported that Richard. Martyn had said that neither the king nor Mason had any

344

more right to land in New Hampshire than Robin Hood, and that the council meant to oppose him. Waldron had warned people in Dover not to accept confirmation of their land from Mason.¹ According to Chamberlain, the council assumed toward Mason the attitude which Martyn said it would, though his statement that the people generally were ready to submit to the proprietor is both improbable and inconsistent with evidence which has survived in the province.

In person and through stewards of his own appointment Mason at once began to urge his claims.² The renewal of patents, or taking out of leases, was insisted upon. Rents were demanded and prohibitions to cut firewood or timber were issued. The title of lord proprietor was assumed, to the first word in which designation Mason certainly had no claim. Mason states that he offered to confirm titles on reasonable terms, and that one-half of the inhabitants came to him to have their lands confirmed. Among those who accepted the offer was President Cutt himself. But in the midst of Mason’s campaign the president died (March,1681), and Richard Waldron succeeded to his place. If we are to believe Mason, the agitation against himself originated chiefly in the council, and was led by Waldron and Martyn. But as soon as the people became aware of what was intended, opposition was started in all the towns. Sermons were preached, and both public and personal appeals against Mason were made by members of the council and their supporters. Mason posted declarations charging the councillors with disobedience to the king’s commission. Some of those in Dover were torn down by Waldron, and he is said to have threatened Mason’s agents with punishment. A proclamation was issued warning all against executing Mason’s illegal orders, which were issued under his assumed title of lord proprietor. Local tradition, as set forth by Belknap and others, is to the effect that resistance to Mason was spontaneous and general. It is easily conceivable

345

that both statements, under proper limitations, are true.

From the time when Waldron took office Mason ceased to attend the council, and hostile messages passed between the two parties. The council forbade Mason to proceed in such manner as he was doing, and prepared to transmit complaints to the king. Thereupon Mason himself threatened to appeal to the king, and summoned the president and council to appear within three months in London. An order was then issued for Mason’s arrest, but he avoided it and returned to England.¹ These events, together with the reception which Randolph had met when he attempted to seize a vessel for illegal trading, furnish additional evidence that the spirit of New Hampshire was much the same as that of Massachusetts. While the controversy with Mason was in progress, Barefoote and his assistants were again arrested² for seizing a vessel without the knowledge of the provincial authorities.

Steps were now taken in England, in the interest of Mason and Randolph, to terminate the existence of the presidency and thus open the way for the fuller assertion of royal control. Chamberlain at this time wrote the letters home from which we have quoted at length. A statement equally unfavorable to the council was also sent, over the signatures³ of Nicholas Shapleigh, Francis Champernowne, Walter Barefoote, and William Bickham, all of whom were fully identified with the royal and proprietary interest. Mason, on his arrival in England, in addition to his own petition, presented articles against Martyn and Waldron, alleging that they had not taken the oaths of allegiance and that they were opposing royal authority. Even the deceit which Waldron had practised on the Indians at the close of the late war, and which was ultimately to cost him his life, was cited against him.⁴ In order the better to secure the establishment of royal government, Mason also agreed to surrender to the crown all the fines and forfeitures, and one-fifth

346

of the rents and profits, which were his due as proprietor of New Hampshire. These he proposed should be used for the support of royal government in that province. Judging from the reception which Mason’s claims had met in the province, the offer could not greatly impoverish the proprietor or enrich the governor for whom its benefits were intended. But the offer was duly accepted by the crown. After examining the acts which had been passed during the administration of Cutt, the committee of trade and plantations voted to recommend that the king disallow them all, on the ground that they were unsatisfactory both in style and matter. Evidence of final action is lacking, as well as proof that the colonists were notified of the fact that the acts had been disallowed. This leaves the validity of the so-called “Cutt code” in doubt. But another recommendation of the committee was surely acted upon. Because of the irregularity of proceedings in New Hampshire, they urged that some one be appointed “to settle the country, with such Commission and Instructions as are usually given to other Governors.” On the strength of these representations, Edward Cranfield was appointed royal governor of New Hampshire,¹ March, 1682. After the appointment Mason mortgaged the land of the entire province to the governor for twenty-one years as security for the payment of £150 annually for seven years.

Cranfield, years before, had served as gentleman usher to the king. In 1675 he was appointed head of a commission to bring off the English from Surinam, after that island had finally been surrendered to the Dutch in exchange for New Netherland.² The duties which were then imposed upon him he seems to have satisfactorily performed. But we know nothing in his character or previous experience which tended to develop the sympathy and discretion that were needed in the office to which he was now called. Cranfield received to their full extent the powers which the English government was then coming to bestow on royal governors, provision at

347

the same time being made for the continuance of the assembly. As was common at the time, a clause was introduced into the commission to the effect that, until an assembly made provision for an adequate revenue, the existing taxes and imports should continue to be levied. It was a power which the government in New Hampshire found it especially necessary¹ to use. The personnel of the council was not greatly changed. The specifications concerning Mason’s claims remained unmodified. The duties, and at the same time the income, of Chamberlain were increased by his appointment as register of deeds and clerk of all the courts of the province. Walter Barefoote, who had been one of the least scrupulous among Randolph’s agents, was admitted to the council and made justice of the peace and judge of the court of pleas held at Great island. One Joseph Raines, who was apparently a passionate and brutal man,² was appointed sheriff and attorney general. These appointments were indicative of a more strenuous policy on the part of Mason and his adherents. By means of them, offices, as far as possible, were accumulated in the hands of his supporters. The mortgage, to which reference has been made, gave Cranfield a personal interest in the efforts which were now to be renewed for the purpose of extorting a territorial revenue from New Hampshire. The more numerous the suits, the larger would be the fees of the judges and other court officers.

Cranfield at first seems to have been inclined toward friendly relations with the people of New Hampshire.³ After inquiring into charges which Mason and Randolph had preferred against Waldron and Martyn, though for a long time they had been leaders in opposition to the proprietor’s claims, the governor found nothing to convict them of disloyalty. They were therefore restored to the council, from which for a time they had been suspended. He also expressed the belief that Mason had misrepresented both the resources of New Hampshire and the temper of its people. He criticised also the attitude and character of the secretary,

348

Chamberlain. It seemed to him that the people were loyal to the king, and that what they really desired was a fair trial at law of the questions in controversy. To a judgment reached in that way he believed they would willingly submit. He was clearly of the opinion that any attempt to establish the Church of England in the province would be very grievous to the people, for they were devout and tenacious of their worship.

It is difficult to understand how it was that the man who, on December 1, 1682, expressed such reasonable views, by the close of that very month had totally changed his mind, and was ready to enter upon the most reckless and tyrannical course of policy which was ever followed by an appointee of the crown in the American continental colonies. From Cranfield letters one would infer that the change was caused by a conviction that the people, combined throughout New England in Congregational churches and under the lead of their ministers, were bent on resisting, or at least thwarting, the plans of the crown.¹ This opinion seemed to be strengthened by evidences which he saw of the impossibility of enforcing the acts of trade in New England. But it will not do to attribute anything like decisive influence over the mind of Cranfield to considerations like these. The colonists, who saw what he did, were convinced that greed was the prime motive of his conduct, as it was also of all his associates and followers. His relations with Mason were so express and intimate as to give unusual strength to this motive and to array them both in a partnership against the people. Cranfield is reported to have said that he came for money and money he would have.² When Nathaniel Weare took a petition against Cranfield to England, the governor is reported to have exclaimed that he would get the names of the sub-scribers, “ and it would be the best haul he ever had, for it would be worth £100 a man.”³ The history of his administration, which lasted for about three years, though an unbroken record of vulgar oppression and extortion, is

349

interesting as an illustration of the lengths to which it was possible for a royal governor to go before, through process of appeal, his career could be checked.

Under Cranfield New Hampshire had its first experience of disagreements between the governor and assembly, and the exercise by the former of the right of dissolution. With his assembly in its first session the governor was on amicable terms. It passed a number of laws, the one of greatest immediate importance transferring the selection of jurors from the freemen of the towns to the sheriff. This necessary act of conformity with English law enabled Cranfield, Mason, and their clique to control the make-up of juries when the time came to bring suits over land titles to trial.¹

Cranfield’s assembly met for its second session in January, 1683. The governor offered a bill for raising a revenue, which the assembly refused to pass. After this they insisted on originating all bills; also on their right to establish courts and nominate judges. These and other bills which were proposed by the assembly the governor said led directly toward independency. He therefore dissolved the assembly, and wrote home that with the assent of the council he should continue the impositions which had been levied since the time of President Cutt.²

It was the dissolution of this assembly that occasioned the attempt at an uprising which was led by Edward Gove of Hampton. Gove had been a member of the assembly, and, half crazed by drink and political excitement, he attempted to arouse the inhabitants, especially of his own town and Exeter and Dover, to revolt. He declared that the governor, because he held the office of vice admiral under the Duke of York, would introduce popery; also that his commission was invalid and its powers had been exceeded. A few appeared with him, mounted and under arms. But the militia was called out and the seditious parties were soon induced to disperse or surrender. Gove, with nine others,

350

was brought to trial for high treason before a special court, of which Richard Waldron was the chief judge. Gove behaved insolently before the court. Though the plea of lunacy was privately urged, he was found guilty and sentenced to be executed. The others were convicted of being accomplices, but were released on security for reappearance, if called for. Gove, in obedience to the reference in the king’s commission concerning such cases, was sent to England. There he was imprisoned in the Tower, but finally, through the help of Randolph, was pardoned.¹

A year passed before the next assembly was called, and by that time passions were so heated that agreement was not to be expected. It was need of revenue which at last forced Cranfield to the unwelcome alternative. Availing himself of rumors of an approaching war, he called an assembly in January, 1684, to meet near his own residence at Great island, and submitted to it a bill to provide for the repair of the fort, for ammunition, and to meet other charges of the government. It had already passed the council. The measure was debated, and then the house adjourned for the night, the members returning up the river to their homes. On the next day they rejected it. The governor then charged them with having consulted Mr. Moody and other enemies of the government, and immediately dissolved the assembly. Imitating the measures of Charles I, Cranfield then procured the appointment of several of the opposition members to the office of constables, in order to prevent their serving in the legislature. In order to escape the duty of serving in this office a fine of £10 must be paid.²

When, in the following summer, there were rumors of an Indian outbreak, Cranfield wrote, “We have not twopence in the Treasury, nor one farthing paid since my arrival, though I have pressed earnestly on two Assemblies for money for the support of the Government.”³ The second

351

session to which Cranfield referred was that of May, 1684. But of that he wrote that he did not think it prudent to let them sit, for their humor was the same as when Gove took up arms. “They will not vote twopence for the support of the government,” he continued, “and the very rates of Cutt’s and Walderne’s time have been continued by us according to the Royal Commission, but we do not think it safe to publish it, having no strength to countenance our proceedings.” The assembly was called together again in July to pass, at the command of the home government, the Jamaica act against pirates. After this was done it was then dissolved, and no successor was called. In all the assemblies of Cranfield’s administration the son of Richard Waldron was speaker, and nearly the same persons were in all cases returned as members. No breach between the executive and the representatives could be more complete than that which developed at this time and under these circumstances in New Hampshire.

The relations between Cranfield and his council were of course continuous, and they had an intimate connection with the conflict which he and Mason were waging with the people at large. Though, as has been stated, the changes at first were few, by the time the administration had run half its course the personnel of the council had been almost completely changed. Two members had died; Waldron, Martyn, and Gilman were suspended. Fryer, Eliott, Hinckes,¹ Sherlock, and Francis Champernowne were appointed. By this process the council was filled with persons who either were in league with the governor and Mason, or who would not oppose their policy. From the list of faithful councillors several of the important offices of the province were filled. Either as councillors or justices of the peace, they acted as the principal judges in the quarter sessions of the province. The creation of a political machine like this was a familiar occurrence in the proprietary provinces. To some Anglicans in New Hampshire it was probably welcome. But to the Puritan majority, who under the guidance of

352

Massachusetts had hitherto monopolized political power, it . seemed even worse than it was.

The point about which the conflict chiefly raged was the territorial claims of Mason, supported as they were by the interest and authority of the governor. Writs were first issued against Major Waldron, charging him with trespass and with keeping Mason, the proprietor, out of possession of various tracts of land at Dover and other places.¹ Similar process was instituted against Vaughan, Stileman, and the other principal landholders of the province. Waldron at the first trial challenged all the jurors as interested persons, because some of them held leases of Mason and the others lived on land which Mason claimed. To break, if possible, the power of this charge the jurors all took an oath that they were not concerned in the lands in question, and should neither gain nor lose by the cause. Upon this Waldron said aloud to the people who were present, “That this was a leading case, and that if he were cast they must all become tenants to Mason; and that, all persons in the province being interested, none of them could legally be of the jury.” After that, as the trial progressed, Waldron produced no evidence and made no defence whatever. The others followed his example.²

But this course made no impression on either court or jury. Verdicts favorable to Mason were rendered in every case, and suits were tried in rapid succession. It is stated, on the best authority, that a standing jury was kept for the purpose from month to month. Vaughan, writing in the winter of 1684, says, “The actions go on, and are turned off hand apace, twelve at a clap, after the old manner.” Again, early in March, he writes, “The court was adjourned yesterday to the next month; probably that they might levy the executions that are in bank before they cut out any more work.”³ Mason, however, is said to have levied only a small part of the executions to which he became entitled, because

353

there were few or none to whom he could sell or lease the lands when they came into his possession. It was indeed publicly stated on his authority that very few came to him to take deeds for land which was already in their possession. With an appearance of fairness Mason offered to waive the advantages which he had gained through favorable judgments, and, under proper security, to submit the cases to trial in Westminster Hall. None, however, except Vaughan, appealed to England, and he lost his case.¹

Suit was also brought against Richard Martyn, formerly treasurer and one of those whom Cranfield had suspended from the council, for fines and forfeitures which he had received while in office, and judgment with costs was recovered against him for nearly £80. Martyn appealed to Mason as chancellor for relief, and a decree was issued, that the sum should be assessed proportionally upon the surviving members of the late council and the heirs of those who had died. This was afterwards reversed by the king in council.² In connection with all the suits which were brought the highest possible rates of fees were collected.

Having assumed practically full legislative power, the governor and council prohibited vessels from Massachusetts entering port, because that colony did not enforce the acts of trade. They also raised the value of silver money—the Spanish and Mexican coins which were in circulation—from 6s. 8d. to 6s. per ounce, hoping thereby to bring more money into the province. They changed the bounds of towns. They not only ordered the continuance of taxes, but also that constables should forbear collecting town or parish rates until those of the province were paid. Many orders relating to minor affairs, though within the customary sphere of executive action, were issued.³ William Vaughan and other citizens, for various acts of opposition or resistance to the measures of the government, were imprisoned and

354

detained there for indefinite periods, as a convenient method by which to relieve the governor of their interference.

But the most remarkable feature of Cranfield’s policy was his attack on the clergy of the province in the person of Rev. Joshua Moody. As time passed Cranfield seems to have become thoroughly convinced that the clergy and Congregationalism in general were chiefly responsible for the tendencies toward independence which he saw in New England. Visits which he made to Massachusetts helped to confirm his opinion. He became especially bitter against Harvard College, believing it to be a seminary of sedition and that it ought to be suppressed. To this subject he repeatedly returns in his letters and dwells on it at length.¹ The ministers, wrote he, disapprove of the oaths of allegiance and supremacy as unlawful, and publish this view as a part of their doctrine. It speaks well for Cranfield’s intelligence that he saw so clearly the source of the special trend in New England politics. But he had nothing to offer as a remedy, except the silencing of the ministers and a thoroughgoing sacramental test for all office holders. For the purpose of enforcing religious uniformity in New England, he would revive the acts of Elizabeth which, though they mentioned the dominions, had never been put into force there. He would compel the ministers, though not in orders, to administer the sacrament according to the ritual of the English Church. He would have it administered to himself and others as Anglican communicants. In short, near the close of the seventeenth century and twenty years after the English government had signified its abandonment of all idea of enforcing uniformity in the colonies, Cranfield advocated a revival of the policy which is attributed to Laud. Nothing shows his recklessness, or indicates the lengths to which he was prepared to go, quite so clearly as this.

Moody, the Portsmouth minister, had from the first been outspoken in his opposition to the new autocratic regime. He had already had one or two encounters with Cranfield, and it was known that his advice was sought by leaders of the opposition.² The governor began with an effort to secure

355

an observance of Christmas and of the 30th of January. Then he issued an order that the ministers should admit to the Lord’s Supper all persons who were of suitable years and not vicious, and their children to baptism; to all who desired to receive the sacrament according to the English form it should be administered, and any clergyman who refused so to do should suffer the penalty specified in the act of uniformity. Cranfield then, on behalf of himself, Mason, and Hinckes, required Moody to administer the sacrament to them. The clergyman, as was expected, refused. An information, based on the statutes of Elizabeth, was then drawn against him by the attorney general, and he was arrested and brought to trial in the quarter sessions. Moody plead that he was not in orders; that he did not receive his maintenance according to the statutes; that the alleged statutes were not intended for the plantations, liberty of conscience being enjoyed there and confirmed by the governor’s commission. But after the exertion of some pressure a majority of the justices were brought to condemn him, and he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment without bail. He was confined for thirteen weeks in the house of Captain Stileman, where he soon had Major Vaughan as a fellow prisoner. After his release Moody was not permitted to preach in New Hampshire, and soon removed to Boston, where he remained until 1692. No single event of Cranfield administration aroused such deep and widespread feeling of opposition as did this.

But in point of time the last offence which Cranfield committed against what all the colonists considered to be their inherited rights was an attempt to collect taxes which had not been voted by a representative assembly. The effort was made in the spring of 1684, after the prospect of obtaining a revenue through appropriation had vanished, and when it had become evident that little more could be expected as the result of judicial pressure.¹ Collection was first ordered through the constables, but they were able to procure nothing. Then Thomas Thurton, the provost marshal

356

and one of the most unscrupulous and offensive agents of the governor, was ordered to do it with the assistance of his deputies and the constables. As the people still refused to pay, Thurton began to levy by distraint. In some cases cattle and goods were seized and sold at auction, and parties are said to have been imprisoned. At Exeter Thurton was resisted, and even some women threatened him with hot spits and scalding water. At Hampton he was beaten, his sword was taken away, and he was tied to a horse and, with a rope around his neck, was conveyed out of the province to Salisbury, in Massachusetts.¹ The local justice found it impossible to procure the arrest and commitment of the rioters. A cavalry troop was ordered out, but not a man responded. The patience of the four New Hampshire towns had now reached its limit, and Cranfield, with his gang of plunderers, found himself powerless. By the natural course of events within the province itself his reckless career had come to an end. He was already writing home that the winters were too cold for him, and that he desired to be transferred to a warmer clime.

But steps had long since been taken which were to insure action on the part of the home government. About the close of 1683 money had been raised by subscription in the four towns to defray the expenses of an agent to England. Petitions had been drawn and signed. Nathaniel Weare of Hampton was selected as the agent, and he quietly left the province for Boston, whence he sailed for Europe. Major Vaughan was appointed to procure depositions of later acts of misgovernment and send them to Weare. It was because of Vaughan’s connection with this, and his refusal to give security for his good behavior, that he was arrested and kept in prison for nine months. Some depositions, however, were procured, though witnesses had to be taken out of the province to be sworn. Weare, with such information as he had, presented his complaint, and in July, 1684, it was referred to the lords of trade.² It charged Cranfield with illegally erecting courts and establishing fees exclusive of the assembly;

357

with violating the provisions of his commission relating to the Mason controversy by insisting that the claims should be decided on the spot and by interested jurors; that excessive fees and costs had been levied, and some who had been unable to pay them had been imprisoned; that others, for lack of money to carry on their suits, had been forced to submit; that the value of money had been altered; that several persons had been imprisoned without just cause; that the governor and council had assumed legislative power; that the governor had done his utmost to prevent the people from laying their complaints before the king and procuring the necessary evidence.

The lords of trade, after they had received the complaint,¹ sent copies of it and of the proofs which accompanied it to Cranfield. They directed him to let all persons have free access to the records and give them all needful assistance in collecting evidence against him. The order was obeyed, though complaint was made by Mason that town books were concealed from him, the clerks taking oath that they knew not where they were. Mason’s suits were also suspended. After the collection of evidence had been completed, a revised indictment was sent to England and a hearing of the case was held before the lords of trade in March, 1685.²

In April an order in council was issued which contained the final decision. It was that Cranfield had not pursued his instructions in reference to Mason’s claims, but instead had caused courts to be held and titles to be decided in the province, and that with exorbitant costs. He had also exceeded his power in regulating the value of coin. As Cranfield had already requested leave of absence and it had been granted, no further action was taken. He returned to England by the way of Jamaica, and was subsequently appointed to the collectorship of Barbadoes. Walter Barefoote, who was the deputy, became acting governor, and held the place until Dudley’s commission as president of New England arrived.

← Vol. III, Pt. IV, Ch. X   Table of Contents   Vol. III, Pt. IV, Ch. XII →