either to the incapacity of Andros or to the slackness of men serving under a commander whom they disliked.

II. The Revolution in New England.-Whether the New England colonists would have long endured the misgovernment of Andros may be doubted. At all events, when the news of the Revolution of 1688 reached them, they were quite ready for an outbreak. Seldom has a revolution been so easy and so bloodless. The people rose with one accord, seized Andros, and turned out his officials. The other New England colonies did likewise. All the old Colonial Governments were restored, but only to hold their power till the English Government made some definite arrangement. This was not done for four years, and during that time the old constitutions were in force. In 1691 the case of Massachusetts came before the English Government. The agents for the colony soon saw that it was hopeless to think of recovering their old charter, and only applied themselves to getting as favourable an one as they could in its place. The English Government proposed to unite Plymouth to Massachusetts. The Plymouth agent at first resisted this, but he soon found that there was no chance of Plymouth being allowed to remain under a separate government, and that, if not joined to Massachusetts, it would be to New York. As his countrymen would have liked this still less, he yielded. In 1692 the new charter was sent out. The one great change which it made was, that the Crown appointed the Governor, while before the people had elected him. The General Court was to consist of twenty-eight councillors and an Assembly of representatives. The councillors were to be elected every year by the General Court; the representatives by the inhabitants of the various towns. No religious qualification was required from electors as formerly, but all who had freeholds worth forty shillings a year, or other estate of forty pounds value, were admitted to vote. All laws made by the Court were to be

sent home to England for approval. This, and the change in the manner of appointing the Governor, quite deprived Massachusetts of that independence which she had always hitherto claimed. In his appointment of a Governor the King showed his wish to conciliate the people. He sent out Sir William Phipps, a native of Massachusetts, of low birth, who when a lad fed sheep, and afterwards became a ship's carpenter. In that trade he heard of a Spanish ship which had sunk with treasure on board. Having raised the vessel, he brought a great sum of money to England, and was knighted by the King. James II. made him sheriff of New England, but, unlike most of James's officers there, he did his best to serve his country, and won the esteem of the New Englanders. He was a man of no great ability, but honest, benevolent, and popular. The inhabitants of Massachusetts and New Hampshire would have gladly seen the two states again joined. But though the King had joined Plymouth against its wish to Massachusetts, he chose to keep Massachusetts and New Hampshire separate. This was ascribed to the influence of John Allen, who had bought the proprietorship of the soil in New Hampshire, and now obtained the governorship. New Hampshire had never had a charter, and none was granted to it now; but the government went on as before. The New England colonies which fared best at the Revolution were Connecticut and Rhode Island. Their charters were restored, so that they retained their old constitutions, and alone of all the colonies chose their own Governors. In 1690 and the two following years New England was engaged in a war with the French settlers in Canada and their Indian allies. But this was only part of a struggle between the French and English settlers which lasted, with one break, for more than twenty years, and it will therefore be better to tell of it in another chapter.

CHAPTER IX.

NEW ENGLAND AFTER THE REVOLUTION.

New England under William and Mary (1)— executions for witchcraft (2)-the French in Canada (3)-war between the French and English settlers (4)—peace with the Indians (5)— the New England charters in danger (6)--disputes in Massachusetts between the governor and the assembly (7)—Belcher's dismissal (8)-War with Canada (9)—the smaller New Englana colonies (10).

1. New England under William and Mary.-The charter just mentioned left some important points unsettled. It did not definitely decide whether the Acts of the English Parliament were to be in all cases binding on the colony, nor did it say whether the English Parliament had any power of taxing the colonists. The Court of Massachusetts tried to decide this latter point in their own favour. In 1692 they passed an Act declaring that no tax should be levied in the colony without the consent of the Court. To this law the English Government refused its assent. If it had passed, it would have saved many quarrels between the colonists and their Governors, in which the latter were always worsted, and it might have even prevented the separation of the colonies eighty-four years later. Connecticut soon found itself in opposition to the English Government. Colonel Fletcher, the Governor of New York, had a commission from the Crown giving him the command of the Connecticut militia. He did not wish to use this himself, but merely to assert his right, and then to transfer the commission to the Governor of Connecticut. The Court of Connecticut objected to this, and contended that such a conmission was contrary to their

charter. Fletcher entered the country to enforce his commission. Captain Wadsworth, the same man who was said to have hidden the charter, was in command of the militia. When Fletcher ordered his commission to be read, Wadsworth commanded the drums to beat, so that no one could hear the commission. Fletcher ordered them to stop, whereupon Wadsworth threatened him with violence. A mob soon assembled, and Fletcher thought it prudent to retreat. It seems strange that he should have suffered himself to be so easily baffled, yet he does not appear to have made any further attempt to enforce his orders. But though he did not succeed in appointing an officer in Connecticut, he still had the right of giving orders as commander-in-chief ; and the people of Connecticut declared that he revenged himself by issuing troublesome and harassing orders. New Hampshire soon afterwards showed a like spirit of independence. Allen, the new Governor, got into a dispute with several persons, who had settled on the lands that he claimed. The New Hampshire Court decided against him. He then appealed to the King. The Colonial Government refused to admit this appeal, but their refusal was overruled by the King. In 1697 Lord Bellomont was appointed Governor of New York, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. He was sensible, conciliatory, and popular; but, unhappily, he died in 1700, little more than a year after his arrival. During his governorship the Board of Trade, to which the management of colonial affairs had been handed over, sent out a letter warning him against the desire of the colonists for independence, and especially dwelling on their misconduct in not allowing appeals to the King. Bellomont was succeeded by Joseph Dudley, who had been Governor under James II. He was soon engaged in disputes with the Assembly, in all of which he was worsted. He claimed the right of annulling the election of a councillor. Nevertheless the councillor kept

his seat. In 1705 Dudley laid before the Assembly two points, on which he had special instructions from the English Government. These were-1, The establishment of two forts, one on the Piscataqua, the other at Pemaquid, a spot on the coast near Acadia; 2, The allotment by the Court of a fixed salary to the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and Judges. The Assembly refused to entertain either of these proposals; the former, because the forts would be useless to the colony; the latter, because the means of the colonists varied from time to time, and because it was the right of English subjects to raise by their own votes such sums of money as might be wanted. Dudley gave way on both points. He seems to have been a time-serving man, but not without regard for his fellow-countrymen, and with nothing of the tyrant in his nature, and so to have lacked both the wish and the power to constrain the settlers. Moreover, he was suspected of various acts of dishonesty, and so perhaps felt himself in the power of the Assembly.

2. Executions for Witchcraft.- Before going further it will be well to speak of some important matters which happened during the governorship of Dudley and his two predecessors. The New Englanders, like most people in those days, believed in witchcraft, and more than one person in the colony had been accused of it and put to death. The most noted case was that of an old woman, a Mrs. Hibbins, whose brother and husband had held high offices in Massachusetts, and who was hanged as a witch in 1655. In 1691 a panic seized the colony. Some children persuaded themselves that they were bewitched. The matter was taken up by one Cotton Mather, a minister. His father, Increase Mather, also a minister, was one of the ablest and boldest of those who had opposed Charles II. and James II. in their dealings with Massachusetts. The son, Cotton, was a vain pushing man, with some learning, but no wisdom.

En