[ 130 ] STEVE J. STERN unwillingness of English civil authorities to help the church financially.88 Thus groups as similar in theological doctrine as the English and Dutch could act reasonably with each other. By the 1680s, then, the policy of bargaining with Dutch leaders and including them in the English structure of status and power overcame the extreme ethnic sensitivity of 1674-76. In September of 1678 Andros "found the Country quiet" more concerned about French and Indian problems than about internal divisions. By 1680, moreover, the duke of York heard complaints "of yo[u]r [Andros's] favoring Dutchmen before English in trade!' A year later an investigator sent by London reported charges of "particular Connivance practiced to some few Dutch Merchants viz1 ffredrick Phillips & Stephanus Van Cortlandt" members of Andros's council.87 That such accusations were possible shows how far English authority and Dutch residents had come to terms with each other. The Dutch population had the same rights to property and economic activity as the English, and their church had a semi-established status. Moreover, enclaves of Dutch hegemony existed along the upper Hudson Valley and Long Island for those who wished to escape the heterogeneity of New York City. Dutch elites shared in the exercise of power in New York City and in the province as a whole. Peace between England and the Netherlands abroad meant that English and Dutch New Yorkers could concentrate on achieving a modus vivendi at home. The 1683 "Act of naturalizing all those of forreigne Nations at present inhabiting within this province" was in many ways a symbolic codification of the results of one and a half decades of Anglo-Dutch politics.88 The continued satisfaction of the Dutch provincial interest in the 1680s allowed other concerns to dominate Dutch political activity in that decade. In February 1689 the Glorious Revolution in England substituted William, the Dutch prince of Orange, and his wife Mary on the throne for James II. Political revolution in England undercut the legitimacy of James II's colonial institutions, creating a political crisis that was exploited by discontented groups in several colonies. New York was no exception. The new period of political flux facilitated 86 Ecc Rec, II, 8oo, 754, 755. 87Andros to Blathwayt, October 12, 1678, N.Y. Col. Docs., Ill, 272; Werden to Andros, May 24,1680, ibid., 284; Report of John Lewin, ibid., 307. zs Colonial Laws of New York, I, 123-24.