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life in disputes with successive Governors; and it is no proof that Andros was in the wrong that he was recalled and superseded.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.

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