class="x-ebookmaker-pageno" title="-24-"/>

One thing seems evident, the government now imposed on New England was not the act of Andros, nor is there any proof that he sought the position of Governor. Randolph indeed had labored for years to effect the downfall of the Charter government; and as Palfrey has shown in successive chapters, in aid of the same purpose were the efforts of English merchants whose trade was injured by the commercial enterprise of Massachusetts, and the denunciations of English politicians, who considered the Charter government an infringement of the Royal prerogative. We have seen no evidence of Andros's complicity with these enemies of New England, and no proof of an unfriendly disposition when he accepted office.

It will hardly be imputed to Andros as a fault that he took the view of the Royal authority which prevailed at Court. As a subordinate, appointed to a certain position to carry out a certain policy, he had no choice but to obey or resign. In carrying out the commands of his master, he can only be blamed if his conduct was cruel or even harsh, in excess of his instructions. It will certainly be difficult, we think, to fasten any such stigma upon Andros. Leaving his political offences, for which the King was responsible, what personal charges can be substantiated against him?

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