Part 3

It is evident that no person was executed for a political offence, and that none of the atrocities of Jeffreys or Lauderdale were repeated in this country. It is equally evident that no one was fined or imprisoned for non-conformity to the Church of England, and the contrast with the mother country is entirely in our favor. If the fees exacted were excessive, a point hereafter to be considered, was Andros a gainer thereby? From a report made at the time, and printed in N.Y. Colonial Documents, iv. 263, it appears that Andros was paid a fixed salary in 1686, of £1200 sterling; in 1687, the same, and in 1688, £1400 sterling, out of the revenue. We have yet to learn of any claim made against Andros for fees illegally collected or for public money mis-appropriated. PALMER indeed, in his Impartial Account, makes a strong defense for Andros on this head. The Council were all old residents; the Secretary and Collector, who received the greatest fees, were not appointed by Andros, and indeed Randolph quarrelled with him. The Treasurer was John Usher, who continued to reside here after the downfall of Andros, and the Chief Justice was Dudley. It is hardly probable that Andros was responsible for the appointment of any of the higher officials, nor should he be justly charged with the table of fees which was fixed for their benefit by a committee of the Council.

Reduced to plain statements, the personal charges against Andros seem to be, first, a zeal for Episcopacy, which led him to insist upon having a place for Church services in one of the Boston meeting-houses for a time; and secondly, a rude or insolent carriage towards his disaffected subjects.

As to the first, the facts are patent, and they do not seem to constitute a very heinous offence. It was undeniably a great annoyance to the members of the Old South Church, to have the Governor use the building for Episcopal services, but as they were held only when "the building was not occupied by the regular congregation," (PALFREY, iii. 522,) we cannot greatly censure Andros for his course.

As to his treatment of persons accused of misdemeanors, we find but one instance which was worthy of censure. The case of the Rev. Mr. Wiswall of Duxbury, as narrated at p. 100 of this volume, is an evidence of inhumanity on the part of some one. If he were compelled to journey and appear before the Council when disabled by gout, it was an act disgraceful to the authorities; yet we must add, that Andros is not accused directly of being the persecutor. The other instances sink into insignificance, and at most prove only that Andros was a passionate man, who did not hesitate to express uncomplimentary opinions very freely. When Andros "called the people of the country Jacks and Toms;" and when, the constables having made an address to Sir Edmund as to how they should keep the peace if the sailors from the Frigate made a fray, "he fell into a great rage and did curse them and said they ought to be sent to Gaol and ordered Mr. West to take their names,"--we cannot on that account rank him with Kirke or Claverhouse.

So in two cases cited by his accusers, in pages 107 and 111 following: when certain impertinent busy-bodies brought an Indian to testify that Andros was engaged in a conspiracy to bring on an Indian War,--a story whose folly was only equalled by the harm it might cause if believed by the people,--Andros contented himself with ridiculing them, though afterwards they were fined by the courts. To prove that he discountenanced making defence against the Indians, his opponents offer the testimony of certain village officials, whose affidavits prove only that Sir Edmund probably had read Shakespeare.

We fail, therefore, to see any evidence that Andros was cruel, rapacious, or dishonest; we know of no charge affecting his morality, and we find a hasty temper the most palpable fault to be imputed to him.

To return to our sketch of his public acts. He arrived at Boston, a place which he had before visited in October, 1680, to wait upon Lord Culpepper, (N.Y. Col. Doc. iii. 308,) in the "Kingfisher," Sunday, December 19, 1686, and landed the next day attended by about sixty soldiers. He was received with great acclamation of joy, and was escorted by a great number of merchants and others, to the Town House. He at once proceeded to organize his government, which it must be remembered, as constituted by his commission, was composed of the Governor and his Council. The other officers, judges, collectors, &c., were at hand, and the objects of the new rulers were soon disclosed. By losing their Charter and its representative form of government, the colonists had lost the privilege of taxing themselves. The Governor and Council imposed the tax; and when the inhabitants of the town of Ipswich attempted to resist the law, the patriotic leaders of the movement were tried, fined and imprisoned. The judges were Dudley, Stoughton, Usher and Randolph. This trial ended all attempts to dispute this claim of the government, but it was only the natural result of the forfeiture of the Charter, and in no sense the act of the Governor.

The other claim of the Crown was to the ownership of all the land, which involved two questions, viz. as to lands already owned by the settlers, and waste lands. The government held that private titles were invalid, unless confirmed by the Crown on the payment of a quit rent. Preposterous as this doctrine may seem, it had staunch defenders, and Andros was in earnest in enforcing it. Many complied with the requirements of the government, but the work was not completed when the Revolution came. As to Andros's share of the blame, Palmer makes the best defence, when he points out that Writs of Intrusion were brought only against a few persons to test the right, and these persons were those able to contest the question, and not obscure individuals. The moral question as to waste lands is more difficult of decision, since the argument is not without force, that it was better for Andros to grant them to persons who would improve them, than for the towns to hold them, unimproved, as commons.

Among the earliest acts of Andros, was his extending his authority over New Hampshire, Plymouth and Rhode Island, as well as Maine and Massachusetts. In October, 1687, he visited Hartford, and took the government of Connecticut also into his hands, and he afterwards traveled through that Colony. The first few months of 1688 were spent at Boston in consolidating the legislation necessary for the future guidance of the government.

He had at this time the misfortune to lose his wife, who died January 22, 1687-8, and was buried in the church-yard adjoining King's Chapel.[6]

[Footnote 6: In TRUMBULL'S Conn. Records, iii. 437, is a letter from John West to John Allen at Hartford. It is dated January 21st, (Saturday,) and states that he writes to let Allen "know the great griefe and sorrow wee are in for my Lady Andros, who since Tuesday last was sevenight hath been extreamly ill, and soe continues almost at the Court of Death, and is a greate affliction to his Excellency who is most passionately concerned. If it should please God to call her to himselfe, wee should all have a greate losse of a right good and vertuous Lady."

In a postscript West adds--"January 26th. Mr. Belcher not proceeding on his intended Journey, have opportunity to add that on Sunday last the Lady Andros departed this life, to the great griefe and sorrow of his Excellency and all that knew her."

As to the funeral, the following account is given in Judge Sewall's Diary, quoted in BRIDGMAN'S King's Chapel Epitaphs, p. 318. "Between 4 and 5 I went to the funeral of the Lady Andros, having been invited by the Clark of the South Company. Between 7 and 8 (lychns illuminating the cloudy air) the corpse was carried into the herse drawn by six horses, the soldiers making a guard from the Governor's house down the Prison Lane to the South meeting-house; there taken out and carried in at the western door, and set in the alley before the pulpit, with six mourning women by it. House made light with candles and torches. There was a great noise and clamor to keep people out of the house that they might not rush in too soon. I went home."]

In April, 1688, Andros visited Portsmouth and Pemaquid, where he repaired the fort, and proceeding to Penobscot, he seized some property of Castine, a Frenchman who had settled there among the Indians. Returning to Boston, "he found a great promotion awaiting him in a new commission, creating him Governor of all the English possessions on the mainland, except Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia."[7] His command embraced New England, New York and New Jersey, with its capital at Boston.

[Footnote 7: PALFREY, iii. 558, 561, 562.]

In July, August and September, 1688, Andros made a tour through the Colonies, going through the Jerseys, and visiting New York city, Albany and Hartford. During this visit he had held a conference with the chiefs of the Five Nations, and had notified the Governor of Canada that these tribes were under the protection of the English. He must therefore have been surprised and disgusted to find that hostilities were imminent in the Colony of Maine. The cause of this outbreak was probably the resentment of Castine, whose property had been taken by Andros in the spring, and whose influence with the Penobscots was great.

At first, the Governor tried the effect of conciliation, but finding this useless, he collected some seven hundred troops,[8] and in November, 1688, he proceeded to Maine to defend the settlers there. He established and garrisoned several forts, a list of which will be found in Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. 3rd S. i. 85. At Pemaquid, he received information of the probable designs of the Prince of Orange upon England, and January 10th, 1689, he issued the Proclamation which will be found on p. 75 of the present volume.

[Footnote 8: PALFREY, iii. 568.]

He returned to Boston early in March,[9] and the chief event of that month was the accusation that he had entered into a conspiracy with the Indians against the Colony, a base and foolish calumny. On the 4th of April, 1689, the news of the landing of the Prince of Orange in England was brought to Boston from Nevis by John Winslow, who had a copy of the Prince's Declaration. Andros had been previously warned however, by his friends in New York.

[Footnote 9: Ibid, iii. 570.]

From this time until the 18th of April, there were doubtless plots and conspiracies without end. On that day the people of Boston rose against Andros and his government, but no hint is given us of the real contrivers of the revolution. PALFREY, iii. 579, writes, "It would be very interesting to know when and how the rising in Boston was projected. But conspirators do not show their hands while they are at their game; and after the settlement under King William, it became altogether unsuitable for those who had been privy to the facts to let it be known that the insurrection at Boston was a movement independent of his enterprise." The contemporary accounts of the proceedings are numerous and full of detail. BYFIELD'S Account was printed very soon and will be found in this volume; HUTCHINSON gives in his History, (i. 374-377,) a copy of a letter sent to Gov. Hinckley; PALFREY in the notes to his History, gives a number of citations from original papers, including the narrative of John Riggs, a servant of Sir Edmund's; and last, O'CALLAGHAN, (N.Y. Col. Documents, iii. 722,) prints Andros's own version. The events themselves are so fully described in the following pages, that it is necessary to say only that Andros, who was in the fort on Fort-hill, was obliged to surrender on the first day, April 18th, and was lodged under guard at Mr. Usher's house. On the 19th he was forced to order the surrender of the Castle in the harbor, and the Rose frigate was also given up and partially dismantled. A provisional government was at once formed, and Andros was transferred to the custody of John Nelson at the fort. We have printed in the present collection a statement by the Captain of the Castle, of the good treatment afforded Andros and his companions. It seems by BYFIELD'S story, that Sir Edmund made an unsuccessful attempt to escape disguised in woman's apparel, in April; he was more successful on the 2nd of August, when by the treachery of one of the corporals, he escaped from the Castle and reached Rhode Island. Waiting there too long, probably for some vessel bound to New York or to England, he was captured by Major Sanford and sent back to his former prison.

The following named persons were imprisoned with Andros. (R.I. Records, iii. 257.) "Joseph Dudley, Judge Palmer, Mr. Randolph, Lt. Col. Lidgett, Lt. Col. Macgregry, Captain George, Major Brockholes, Mr. Graham, Mr. West, Captain Treffry, Mr. Justice Bullivant, Mr. Justice Foxcroft, Captain White, Captain Ravencroft, Ensign Pipin, Dr. Roberts, Mr. Farewell, Mr. Jemeson, Mr. Kane, Mr. Broadbent, Mr. James Sherlock, sheriff, Mr. Larkin, Captain Manning, Lt. Jordaine, Mr. Cutler,"--25 in all, to which BYFIELD adds Mr. Crafford and Mr. Smith, and HUTCHINSON says that the number seized and confined amounted to about fifty. Probably some were soon released, or were too obscure in rank to be recorded.

It is our intention now to trace the personal fortunes of the deposed Governor, rather than the course of his successors. He was kept prisoner until February, 1690, when, in accordance with an order from England, Sir Edmund and his companions were sent thither for trial. The order, which was caused by letters which they had managed to convey to the Court, was dated July 30, 1689, but it did not reach Boston till very late in the year, and the prisoners were sent by the first opportunity.[10]

[Footnote 10: See HUTCHINSON, i. 392; R.I. Records, iii. 256.]

The Colony sent over Elisha Cooke and Thomas Oakes to assist their agents, Sir Henry Ashurst and Increase Mather, in prosecuting their charges against Sir Edmund and his associates. We find in the New York Col. Documents, iii. 722, and also in R.I. Records, iii. 281, an account by Sir Edmund of his administration, which is termed by PALFREY (iii. 587) "extremely disingenuous," though we cannot assent to this term. In it he says that he and his friends were sent to England "where, after summons given to the pretended agents of New England, and their twice appearance at the Council Board, nothing being objected by them or others, they were discharged."

HUTCHINSON, indeed, (i. 394,) attempts to lay the blame of this release of Andros and his more guilty associates, upon Sir John Somers, the counsel employed by the agents. It may be nearer the truth to say that Andros had committed no crime for which he could be punished, and that he had in no way exceeded or abused the powers conferred upon him.

At all events, Andros was favorably received at home, and in 1692 was appointed Governor of Virginia, to which command was joined that of Maryland. "He brought over to Virginia the Charter of William and Mary College, of which he laid the foundation. He encouraged manufactures and the cultivation of cotton in that Colony, regulated the Secretary's office, where he commanded all the public papers and records to be sorted and kept in order, and when the State House was burned, had them carefully preserved, and again sorted and registered. By these and other commendable acts, he succeeded in gaining the esteem of the people, and in all likelihood would have been still more useful to the Colony had his stay been longer, but his administration closed in November, 1698." (O'CALLAGHAN, Woolley's Journal, p. 67.)

Strangely enough, the Governor who in Massachusetts was chiefly hated for his love of Episcopacy, was overthrown in Virginia for quarrelling with the Church authorities. The Earl of Bellomont writes in 1690, in a letter printed in N.Y. Col. Doc. iv. 490, "Sir Edmund Andros for quarreling with Doctor Blair in Virginia, brought the resentment of the Bishop of London and the Church (they say) on his head, which is the reason he has lost his government, and by the same rule they would get me recalled by making this a church quarrel." Bishop Meade in his "Old Churches and Families of Virginia," i. 157-8, gives some account of this controversy. The opponent of Andros was the Rev. James Blair, Commissary of the Bishop of London and President of the College, who seems to have passed nearly all his life in disputes with successive Governors; and it is no proof that Andros was in the wrong that he was recalled and superseded. The record of the trial of Dr. Blair is preserved at Lambeth, the result being that he returned triumphant with a good sum of money for his College.

Sir Edmund soon reappears, however, as the recipient of Court favor, being in 1704 appointed Governor of Guernsey, an office which he held for two years, retaining also the post of Bailiff of the Island, which he had for life. This is nearly the last we learn of him, and his age, nearly seventy years, must have debarred him from farther service. We find his name indeed among the new members in the "Proceedings of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 20 Feb. 1712-3 to 19 Feb. 1713-4;"[11] and this was in the last year of his life, as he was buried at St. Anne's, Soho, Westminster, London, 27th Feb. 1713-4, in his 76th year.

[Footnote 11: Communicated by W.S. Appleton, Esq.]

There remain to be noticed only a few items in respect to Sir Edmund's marriages, all occurring after his return from Virginia.

We do not know how soon after the death of his first wife in 1688 he married again; but the examination made for us by Joseph L. Chester, Esq., of London, shows that Sir Edmund's second wife was Elizabeth, third daughter and co-heiress of Thomas Crispe of Quekes, co. Kent. Her father, who died in 1680, was the oldest son of Thomas Crispe, Esq. of Gondhurst, co. Kent, nephew and heir-male of Henry Crispe of Quekes. She was a widow, having married first Christopher Clapham, (son of Sir Christopher Clapham, Knt. of Clapham, co. York,) who died 15th November, 1677, and was buried in Birchington Church, Isle of Thanet, co. Kent: by him she had but one child, Christopher Clapham, who is mentioned in Andros's Will. It may be added, that Sir William Craven, brother of the first Lady Andros, married Mary Clapham, a sister-in-law of this Mrs. Elizabeth Clapham. The connection between the families rendered this second marriage of Andros the more natural.

The second Lady Andros was buried at St. Giles'-in-the-Fields, co. Middlesex, August 18th, 1703.

Sir Edmund married thirdly, April 21st, 1707, Elizabeth Fitzherbert, of whose family nothing has been found. She survived him and was buried at St. Anne's, Soho, February 12th, 1716-17. He left no issue by any of his wives, though representatives of the family, in the line of his nephew, still reside at Guernsey.

In reviewing the long public career of Sir Edmund Andros, we are struck not less by the amount of work which he performed than by the censures which his services incurred. He was the Governor at times of every Royal Province on the mainland, and exercised a larger influence than any other of the rulers sent hither by Great Britain. He was repeatedly accused of dishonesty and oppression, yet he passed harmless through repeated examinations only to receive fresh promotion. He was apparently the chosen follower of James, and yet there is no reason to suspect him of any disloyalty to his country at the anxious period when that monarch was striving to retain his throne. He was intrusted by William with the government of Virginia, and was honored by Queen Anne; thus holding office under four successive monarchs. Surely there must have been some noble traits of character in a man thus perpetually involved in contests and thus invariably successful.

It is certainly to be regretted that we have been led to form our opinion of Andros from the reports of men who were deeply interested in maligning him. That his government was distasteful to the citizens of Massachusetts is undeniable, but no man sent here to perform the same duty would have been acceptable. In reality the grievance of the colonists lay in the destruction of their Charter, and filled with hatred to those who had thus deprived them of this accustomed liberty, they were at enmity with every form of government that might be imposed in its place. The leaders indeed found that a restoration of the Charter was impossible, but Increase Mather's letters testify how reluctantly the people acquiesced, and how sharply he was blamed for not effecting impossibilities.

As to the government of Andros, we fail to see in it any special hardships or persecution. He himself declares that he levied for the expenses of the State only the usual annual tax of a penny in the pound, which had been the rate for the previous fifty years. If other officers, not appointed by him, nor under his control, charged unmerciful fees, that was a matter to be urged against them. It is a significant fact, however, that most of these officers remained in America and were unmolested. If under instructions from the Crown, and fortified by the opinions of English judges, he attempted to collect rent for lands which the settlers claimed were their own, unless he used fraud or violence, he should no more be blamed than the lawyers employed in the cases.

We see then no reason to doubt that Sir Edmund Andros was an upright and honorable man, faithful to his employers, conscientious in his religious belief, an able soldier, possessed of great administrative abilities, a man worthy to be ranked among the leaders of his time. He may have been hasty of speech, yet his words were followed by no acts of revenge; he may have been proud of his ancestry and his position at Court, yet we find no evidence that his pride exceeded the bounds of decorum. He was singularly fortunate in acquiring the affection of the Indians at a time when their good-will was of immense importance; and his overthrow was the precursor of one of the most disastrous Indian wars that New England ever experienced.

It should be remembered, finally, that he labored under the disadvantage of being here at the time of a transition in affairs. He was fast building up a party here of those who wished to assimilate Massachusetts to other portions of the British empire. There were many, and those not the poorest or least educated, who were sorry when the reaction succeeded for a time and the old rule was re-established. And yet the triumph was but nominal, for the old Charter and the old system were never restored. The Colony was destined to enter upon a new career which was to reach to the Revolution, and undoubtedly a potent influence at the outset was the breaking up of old associations effected by Andros. The only injustice we need to repair, is the mistaken idea that he was the ruling cause of the change--it was something far more powerful. Unless, therefore, we are disposed to quarrel with the progress of events, and to wish to restore our State to the primitive rule of the Puritan church, we should cease to make a bugbear of the instrument of its overthrow. We may class Andros rather among those statesmen, unwelcome but necessary, whose very virtues and abilities are detested in their lifetime, because they do so thoroughly their appointed work and initiate new periods in national history.

WILL OF SIR EDMUND ANDROS.

[Extracted from the Principal Registry of Her Majesty's Court of Probate, in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury.]

In the Name of God, Amen.