Question

edward randolph condemns the massachusetts bay company, 1683
in the 1640s, england experienced civil war between supporters of the king and supporters of parliament. during this time, because england had become a commonwealth (a republic rather than a monarchy), massachusetts declared itself a commonwealth, although they had no authority to do so. after king charles ii was restored to the throne in 1660, the british government attempted to take more control of the massachusetts bay colony. finally in 1684, king charles ii revoked the massachusetts bay charter to strengthen british control over the colony and to punish the colony for disobeying its original charter. this action led to the creation of the dominion of new england in 1685. the following are the charges against massachusetts bay.
articles of high misdemeanour exhibited against the governor and company of massachusetts by edward randolph.

1. they execute the powers in their charter otherwise than as directed, and exceed them.
2. they have made laws contrary to the laws of england, and have not repealed those objected to by sir william jones and sir francis winnington as they promised.
3. they have obstructed the execution of the acts of trade and navigation, and refused to recognise many of them. they award executions against the kings officers in causes under appeal to the king, obstruct his officers in the discharge of their duty, refuse appeals to the king, and set up their own naval office in opposition to his.
4. they impose customs (taxes) on goods imported from england, though this was judged by sir robert sawyer to be illegal.
5. they opposed the kings commissioners in 1664, notwithstanding their protestations of loyalty, proclaimed the general court the supreme judicature of the colony, received goffe and whalley, the regicides, with honour, and protected them.
6. they have not administered the oath of allegiance to the king to the inhabitants, though required by law and by their charter.
7. they discourage members of the church of england, forcing them under penalties to attend their puritan meetings, and accounting all others unlawful assemblies.

close reading questions

1. what are some of the reasons randolph gives for revoking the charter? of what does he accuse the colony?
2. how does this list of grievances demonstrate the power struggles that occurred between england and the colonies? how is this struggle also tied to britains mercantile policies and navigation acts?
3. how and why did colonies like massachusetts resist colonial control?

Explanation:

1. Randolph accuses the colony of exceeding charter - granted powers, making laws contrary to England's, obstructing trade and navigation acts, imposing illegal customs, opposing royal commissioners, not administering the oath of allegiance, and discouraging the Church of England.
2. The grievances show power struggles as the colony was asserting its own authority against British central control. The struggle relates to mercantilism as the Navigation Acts aimed to benefit Britain economically, and the colony's actions like imposing customs and obstructing trade acts were seen as threats to British economic dominance.
3. Colonies resisted colonial control to maintain local autonomy and economic interests. They wanted to make their own laws, control trade in ways beneficial to them, and practice their own religious and political beliefs without excessive British interference.

Answer:

1. Reasons for revoking the charter: Exceeding charter - granted powers, making non - compliant laws, obstructing trade and navigation acts, imposing illegal customs, opposing royal commissioners, not administering the oath of allegiance, and discouraging the Church of England. He accuses the colony of disloyalty and acting outside of its legal boundaries.
2. Demonstrates power struggles as the colony was asserting local authority against British central control. Tied to mercantilism as the colony's actions threatened British economic dominance under the Navigation Acts.
3. Resisted to maintain local autonomy and economic interests, to make local laws, control trade, and practice their own beliefs without excessive British interference.