" Misconceived assumptions led British politicians to view the colonies as subordinate tenants on land that they owned, "We are the landlords and they the tenants of our farms." Without a disruption to this relationship it is not surprising that politicians, "Didn't believe in any substantial government initiative," and were content to rule from a silent position. Historical legacy before 1714 supports this, with lessons learnt from a previous campaign whereby James II, prior to the Glorious Revolution of 1688, had tried to install authoritarian rule by abolishing the self-governing Puritan colonies and replacing them with the Dominion of New England. Aside from distaste for James's Catholic values, popular rebellions erupted in Massachusetts, Maryland, and New York emphasising the public abhorrence for anything other than this seemingly private rule they had become accustomed to. Economics also contributed to this approach, as British government corrupt or not, would not up set the prosperity from colonial trade. In exchange for the growth of trade in commodities such as tobacco, rice and sugar, politicians relaxed their supervision producing a substantial period know as "Salutary neglect," whereby Britain ignored the colonies. The Duke of Newcastle's pragmatic actions suitably account for this longstanding mentality between 1721-48. Through his position as Secretary of State for twenty-five years, his implementation of patronage politics afforded colonial legislators considerable power, sacrificing the right of Parliament to legislate the empire. Favouring to delegate power and accommodate the colonial elite resulted in far fewer initiatives from the disconnected stems of British government. The Board of Trade, Privy Council and colonial governors became collectively isolated and functioned as little more than housekeeping organisations. Without precise policies, the colonies persisted to be "out of sight and out of mind.