The charters of Rhode Island and Connecticut did not order their enactments to be submitted to the royal supervision, a requirement which at one time there was danger would be made,[247] but which was in good part prevented by the ready reasoning of Dummer in his _Defence of the New England Charters_. One act of Rhode Island, published at this time, seemingly invalidates that colony’s claim for unfailing toleration. In the edition of her laws printed in 1715 there is one which disfranchises Romanists. No one is able to find beyond dispute when, in the chaotic mass of her enactments, it became a law. To relieve the pride of her people from any imputation so contrary to the professed purport of all her history, Arnold, the historian of Rhode Island, has labored to show that the wording of the statute was simply the interpretation of a committee; but it was an interpretation that successive editors kept up till after the close of the Revolutionary War.[248] * * * * * In Massachusetts matters were not much improved under the rule of Dummer. An issue soon arose. The House insisted that Walton and Moody, commanders at the eastward, should be suspended, and refused supplies till it was done. Dummer claimed that as commander-in-chief he had the responsibility of such a change. He was forced, however, to yield, and appointed Thomas Westbrooke in the place of Walton, who, having obeyed the governor rather than the House, found he must retire without the pay which he had earned. In England Shute was presenting to the king his memorial against the province.[249] When the House heard of it they appropriated £100 to hire counsel for the defence; but the upper branch gave the resolve a negative. So the House sent an address to the king,[250] in which the council would not join. The House would then despatch a new agent; the council was content with Dummer; a compromise was reached, by which Elisha Cooke was sent to join Dummer. Shute and his opponents were in due time heard before the Privy Council. The aspect of affairs grew threatening. A Boston man, John Colman, wrote home that the charter was in danger.[251] It ended in the sealing of a new explanatory and supplemental charter,[252] in which Shute’s demands were fairly met, in that there was in it an undeniable expression of the right of the governor to reject a speaker, while the House itself was denied the right to adjourn beyond two days. With this new order Col. Samuel Vetch had hopes of succeeding Shute; but the old governor was not displaced. The General Court prudently accepted the new charter, January 15, 1725. [Illustration: INCREASE MATHER.