lishment of a separate Province Government for New Hampshire in 1692, the Cutt Commission, the Laws passed under it, the Cranfield Commission, the Laws passed under it, and what purported to be a copy of the Cranfield Instructions, consisting of six articles. appear in the handwriting of Secretary Thomas Davis. He was the incumbent of the office between 1692 and 1694. The original Cranfield Instructions now appear to have been a much more elaborate document, containing 39 articles. The opposition of the people at this time against the newly constituted Allen Government administered by John Usher, the son-in-law of the Governor who had acquired the Masonian title, was quite as effective, if not as violent, as it had been in the time of Cranfield. As the article in the Cranfield Instructions (No. 26) by which a repeal of the laws passed in the time of Cutt was pronounced by the King, and many other articles of the document were eliminated and those retained given a new arrangement as a result of the revision of that document, the fact of that repeal became obscured, and finally passed out of mind. There is no evidence that a copy of the complete text of the Cranfield Instructions has been extant in America since the termination of the Cranfield Government or the beginning of the Usher Administration under the Allen Commission. The full text of these Instructions was recently discovered in the Public Record Office and a transcript sent over for the state in April, 1906, note; Huchinson v. R. R. Co., 73 N. H. 279; Farmer's Belknap, Chap. VIII.; Frank B. Sanborn, Hist. of N. H., Commonwealth Series, page 91; Edward Gove's Insurrection of 1683, Granite Monthly, Vol. 10 p. 185.

I Bouton N. H. Province Papers, 433-590; Laws of N. H. 16791702, pp. 48-92 and Appendix F; Chalmer's Political Annals of the Present United Colonies, Vol. 1, p. 493, et passim; Randall Correspondence edited by Robert Noxon Toppan, passim; The Puritan Commonwealth by Peter Oliver; The Cranfield Commission is printed in I Bouton, Prov. Papers, 433, and in I. N. H. Laws, 1679-1702, p. 48.

THE DOMINION OF NEW ENGLAND. PRELIMINARY COMMISSION AND ADMINISTRATION OF JOSEPH DUDLEY AND A COUNCIL OVER MAINE, NEW HAMPSHIRE, MASSACHUSETTS, AND THE NARRAGANSETT COUNTRY, MAY 25, TO DECEMBER 20, 1686.

The Administration of the Dominion of New England by a Council under the Presidency of Joseph Dudley was preparatory to that which was to follow under the Commission and Administration of Sir Edmund Andros. The purpose of restraining a developing spirit of independence and local representative government was the principal one in view on the part of the Stuarts. No elective representation of the people was conceded. The Dudley Commission was invested with limited legislative powers. A fragment of the commission had been published in Bouton's Province Papers, Vol. I. p. 590. The full text is printed in 1 Laws N. II. 1679–1702, p. 94. It is the transcript of an ancient copy lately in the possession of Hon. Charles J. Hoadley, sometime Librarian of the State of Connecticut. Note, 1 Laws N. H. 1679–1702, p. 93.

THE ANDROS COMMISSION AND ADMINISTRATION, INCLUDING AT THE OUTSET MAINE, NEW HAMPSHIRE, MASSACHUSETTS BAY, NEW PLYMOUTH, AND THE NARRAGANSETT COUNTRY, WITH THE ADDITION OF RHODE ISLAND IN DECEMBER, 1686, CONNECTICUT IN OCTOBERr, 1687, and NEW YORK AND EAST AND WEST JERSEY IN 1688 WITH THE ISLANDS AND OTHER TERRITORIES APPURTENANT; DECEMBER 20, 1686, TO APRIL 18, 1689

The Government of the Council of which Joseph Dudley was president being only a prelude to that of Sir Edmund Andros, was taken up by the latter and the preparatory experiment succeeded by what was intended to be a permanency without friction or hiatus. Sir Edmund Andros and his Council were empowered by their Commission to pass laws, establish Courts, and, subject only to the restrictions of the commission and instructions, to provide for the exercise of all the functions of government, executive and judicial, as well as legislative. The principle of popular representation in the legislative body, contrary to the advice of the Dudley Council, was excluded from this plan of government. The first commission of Sir Edmund Andros was dated June 3, 1686. A note to New Hampshire Laws 1679-1702 p. 145 contains the following bibliographical statement: "An ancient copy of the first commission is preserved in the archives of the state of Massachusetts. This has been printed in the third series, vol. 7, Collections of the Mass. Historical Society pp. 139-149. The manuscript copy is now partially illegible. It has been used, however, for these pages, defective passages being indicated by brackets and restoration being made from the Mass. Hist. Society's imprint. The copy of the Commission in N. H. Province Papers, Vol. 2, pp. 1-10, is, according to the editor's note (p. 1), from a manuscript copy in the office of the N. H. secretary of state. Another imprint, probably from the same type, is found in N. H. Historical Society Collections, vol. 8, pp. 268-278. The New Hampshire manuscript copy cannot now be found. The imprint from it in N. H. Province Papers, Vol. 2, p. 1-10, has been compared by Mr. B. F. Stevens with the copy in the English archives, preserved in the Public Record office in London, and the few differences in phraseology by him discovered noted and due corrections made. This appears in the volume used for the purpose by Mr. Stevens, and which is now in the custody of the New Hampshire Historical Society at Concord, N. II." See Mass. Archives, Vol. 126, pp. 7–16. The copy of the first body of instructions which is complete from the English Archives Colonial Entry Book, vol. 61, p. 283, is printed in 1 Laws N. II. 1679-1702, p. 155. The additional instructions which followed are printed in the same volume as far as they could be obtained. The second commission drawn with reference to the enlargement of his jurisdiction and with reference to other considerations suggested by the progress of events was of date April 7, 1688. It is reprinted in 1 Laws N. H. 1679-1702, p. 226, the copy being the same as that in Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York, vol. 3, pp. 537-542. And in the Public Record office in London, New England, vol. XXXIII, p. 381. The instructions which accompanied the second commission were dated April 16, 1688.

They are cited in the English Archives as follows:- New England, Vol. XXXIII., p. 392. They have been printed in the Documents Relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York, Vol. III. pp. 543-549, and in 1 Laws N. H. 1679-1702, p. 234. The volume last cited is the only publication which contains the Dudley Commission and the orders enacted under it, the first Andros Commission, the instructions under it, and the acts passed under the authority of that commission, the second commission and the instructions accompanying it. It appears that Mr. Palfrey was not aware that the Dudley Commission was extant. Palfrey, Hist. of New Eng. vol. 3, p. 485, N. 4; 1 Laws N. H. 1679-1702, p. 145. It is not impossible that the first series of Andros instructions, those of 1686, appeared for the first time in an American publication in 1 Laws N. H. 1679– 1702, pp. 155, above cited. This government came to an end by reason of a colonial uprising against it April 18, 1689 in the first war of the reign of William and Mary. Editor's notes, 1 Laws N. H. 1679-1702, pp. 92-267, passim. Many of the authorities relating to this period are cited in these notes. One of the most important of the recent additions to them is the Correspondence of Edward Randolph, edited by Robert Noxon Toppan, 1898. The Admiralty Commission of Sir Edmund Andros has been reconstructed from documents in the public record office in London. translated from the law Latin and printed in 1 Laws N. H. 1679–1702, Appendix H. II. p. 830. NEW HAMPSHIRE WITHOUT A COLONIAL GOVERNMENT APRIL 18, 1689 TO FEBRUARY 20, 1689-90

This was a period in which New Hampshire was left by the course of external events without a colonial government. None was provided by the home government and, owing to a division of sentiment in Hampton, the plan formulated and proposed in the province was not adopted and put in operation. The draft of this proposed form of government has been recovered in recent years. It is important as indicating what views were entertained by the people as to what the organic law should be. This document appears accompanied by a monograph by Charles Wesley Tuttle in his Historical Papers, Edited by Hoyt, 1889, pp. 197-214. It is reprinted with notes, 1 Laws N. H. 1679-1702, p. 260. See also "Unsettled State of the Province", by Samuel Dana Bell, 8 Collections New Hampshire Historical Society, p. 396.

THE SECOND UNION OF MASSACHUSETTS AND NEW HAMPSHIRE, 1690–1692

Accustomed as both colonies had been to government under the union which had continued from 1641 to 1679, and profoundly dissatisfied as they were with their experience with the other governments which had been imposed upon them since 1682, the reestablishment of the union was not only reasonable and logical, but was adopted with alacrity as soon as circumstances permitted. A formal avowal of the restoration of the charter of 1629 and the form of government that had grown out of it was deemed impolitic. The methods of government however that were adopted and exercised in the period of this second union appear by the record to be essentially those that were in conformity with the former constitution. It was ordered

by the General Court that the laws in force before the inauguration of the Dudley Administration in 1686 should be deemed to be the laws of the existing government. The assumption therefore is entirely permissible that the organic law for the United Colonies in the period between February 20, 1690 and the spring of 1692 was the same as that upon which the government in the time of the first union was based. Charter of Mass. Bay Colony, 1629, 1, Poore's Constitutions and Charters, p. 932; 1 Laws N. H. 1679-1702, pp. 267-499.

THE COMMISSION OF SAMUEL ALLEN, GOVERNOR, INCLUDING IN THE SAME DOCUMENT THAT OF JOHN USHER AS LT. GOVERNOR, 1692-1699

By the commission of Samuel Allen, dated March 1, 1691-2, and the instructions accompanying that commission, the province of New Hampshire was established as a separate government. A great majority of the people of each province were very desirous of a continuance of the union of Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The Masonian interest however had passed to the proprietorship of Samuel Allen, a London merchant. His influence was sufficiently potent to prevent the incorporation of the two colonies in one government, and to compass the appointment of himself as Governor and his son-in-law as Lt. Governor of New Hampshire. A stormy administration ensued, and, although the Allen interest controlled the Courts and the Council, the home rule party by the consistent opposition of the Assembly and by influences brought to bear in the home government by the colonial agents, procured the appointment of a Lt. Governor in their own interest in the place of Usher, and so far put the Allen schemes under the ban that they were never dominant in the province after the expiration of Allen's term in 1699. The Earl of Bellomont's opinion of the Allen party is vigorously stated in his correspondence. Note, 1 Laws N. H. 1679–1702, p. 611. For a discuscussion of the hardship and injustice of a separation of New Hampshire from Massachusetts at this time, and the imposition of the burdens of a province government upon a people with such paucity of numbers and resources, see Doyle's English Colonies in America, Vol. II. p. 329. This government terminated July 31, 1699. The commission and instructions of Samuel Allen are printed in 2 Bouton's N. H. Province Papers, p. 57; 1 Laws N. H. 1679-1702, p. 501. Corrections of the text are made from the copy of the commission in the public record office in London. 3 Province Papers, corrected ed., U. S. Historical Society.

THE COMMISSION AND ADMINISTRATION OF RICHARD EARL OF BELLOMONT AS GOVERNOR OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, WILLIAM PARTRIDGE BEING LT. GOVERNOR AND ADMINISTERING THE GOVERNMENT AFTER THE DEATH OF THE GOVERNOR

An early termination of the Allen Government in this province was foreshadowed by the appointment of William Partridge of the AntiMasonian-Allen party as Lt. Governor by the chief justices in the absence of the king on the continent by a commission dated June 26, 1696, and by the commission of Richard, Earl of Bellomont, to be Governor which occurred June 18, 1697. The Governor did not come into the province and assume the government here until July 31, 1699

and remained only eighteen days. He never returned. His death occurred March 5, 1701-2. Mr. Partridge administered the government from the time of the governor's departure from the province in August, 1699, until the assumption of government by Joseph Dudley under his own commission July 13, 1702. The Earl of Bellomont also had commissions for the government of other colonies including Massachusetts. Beginning with the Earl of Bellomont the same gov ernor was appointed for New Hampshire and Massachusetts by the successive commissions until 1741. Although an appointment for Mr. Usher as Lt. Governor to succeed Mr. Partridge in the term of Gov. Dudley was procured by the influence of the representatives of the Allen title, that party appears to have gradually lost much of its influence, and it was never again in control of the governorship of the province. Indeed Lt. Governor Usher was restrained by the terms of his commission from further meddling with this business. N. H. 1679-1702, pp. 607-708, passim. The New Hampshire Commission of Gov. Bellomont is printed in 2 Bouton N. H. Province Papers, p. 305. A manuscript copy is in the state archives. The copy of the instructions in the public record office in London is designated as "New England, vol. 36, p. 286." The Commission is also printed in 1 Laws N. H. 1679-1702, p. 612. The Instructions are printed in the same volume p. 621, a transcript having been procured from London for the purpose. The Commission of William Partridge to be Lt. Governor was preserved in the files of the province and state. It is printed in 2 Bouton, N. H. Province Papers, p. 259, and in 1 Laws N. H. 1679-1702, p. 515.

THE COMMISSION AND ADMINISTRATION OF JOSEPH DUDLEY, 1702-1716

The Commission of Joseph Dudley to be Governor of New Hampshire was dated April 1, 1702, and he assumed office in the province July 13, 1702. The commission of his successor Elizeus Burges was dated Feby. 8th, 1714-15 but Col. Burges never came to his governments in New England. His relinquishment of these offices was procured by Jeremiah Dummer and Jonathan Belcher for the consideration of one thousand pounds sterling. The last appearance of Governor Dudley in the Council or with the Assembly of New Hampshire was the 27th of April, 1715. Upon the resignation of Col. Burges, Col. Samuel Shute was appointed governor over New Hampshire and Massachusetts but did not assume office until Oct. 17, 1716, John Usher was recommissioned as Lieut. Governor of the province June 10th, 1703. His successor George Vaughan was appointed and assumed the office October 13, 1715. Usher gave way reluctantly but not with such vigorous resistance as he had displayed in the former administration when superseded by Partridge. Governor Dudley's administration in New Hampshire was successful and satisfactory. He was in sympathy with the people, as was Bellomont, in their contest against the claims of the Allens. A permanent salary was provided for him according to the requirements of the Queen's Instructions. His commission is printed in 2 Bouton's N. H. Province Papers, pp. 366-375. There is also an ancient manuscript copy of his commission and instructions in the files of the secretary of state at Concord. The second commission of John Usher as Lieut. Governor is printed in 2 Bouton N. H. Prov. Papers, 406. A copy is on