Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/97

 1705-29] Massachusetts and its governors. 65 The Board of Trade, acting as the advisers of the Crown on colonial questions, supported Dudley's views in favour of fixed salaries. But the Assembly stood firm. In 1705 the two Houses presented a joint address to the governor, in which they laid down the doctrine that it was "the native privilege and right of English subjects to raise and dispose of money according to the present exigency of affairs." Dudley's personal unpopularity beyond doubt embittered the dispute. But the action of the Assembly fifteen years later made it clear that the contest was one of principle. In 1720 the governorship of Massa- chusetts was conferred on William Burnet, son of the Bishop of Salisbury. The father's Whiggery and latitudinarianism might be held in the eyes of New Englanders to wipe out the taint of episcopacy; and the reception given to the son clearly showed approval of the appointment. But neither Burnet nor the Hanoverian government which appointed him had any intention of accepting the interpretation of Whig prin- ciples for which the Assembly of Massachusetts was contending. The Crown adopted the exceptional course of sending out by the governor a distinct instruction to the Assembly. " As they hope to recommend themselves to the continuance of our royal grace and favour, they must manifest the same by immediate compliance with what has been so often recommended to them." The instruction went on to say that the recommendation in question was the payment of a fixed salary. The amount was specified as at least 1000 ; and the Assembly was warned that non-compliance would be regarded as "a manifest mark of un- dutiful behaviour," and would necessitate the intervention of Parliament. The Assembly showed that clear and lawyer-like perception of the real issue which marked the proceedings of the colonists in the great dispute half a century later. They voted Burnet 1700, but a fixed salary they would not give. Burnet at length succeeded in winning over the Council, but the representatives were inflexible ; and when he died in 1729 the dispute was still unsettled. Burnet's successor, Jonathan Belcher, was a rich and influential Boston merchant. He had been first a representative and then a coun- cillor, and had been sent by the Assembly to England to plead their cause in the question of salary. No self-respecting man would have accepted a position which necessarily compelled him to turn his back on the very principles which he had just advocated. Belcher's career had shown that he had an elastic political conscience ; and the advisers of the Crown might have seen that it was a fatal error to entrust their affairs to a deserter from the popular cause, liable at every moment to be confronted with his own declarations. Again a fixed salary was demanded and Parliamentary intervention threatened, and again the demand was refused. This time the victory of the Assembly was complete. Henceforth the governor was allowed to accept a grant annually voted; only the condition was imposed and accepted that o. M. H. YII. en. ii. 5