CONCERNING the ancestry of Sir Edmund Andros, the sole printed authority is the memoir in the History of Guernsey by Jonathan Duncan, (London, 1841,) which occupies about three pages in that book. This sketch has been copied by Dr. E.B. O'Callaghan in his "Documents relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York," (ii. 740), and also in a note in Woolley's Journal (Gowan's Bibliotheca Americana). It seems that Andros placed on record at Heralds' College a very elaborate pedigree of his family, September 18th, 1686, a few days before he sailed to assume the government of New England. Although this document was used probably by Duncan, it is now printed for the first time in full, from a transcript made by Joseph L. Chester, Esq., of London.

The family of Andros, or Andrews as it is more frequently spelt, was of great antiquity in Northamptonshire, being long settled at Winwick in that county. One branch, which was raised in 1641 to the dignity of Baronet, was resident at Denton in the same county; and from the similarity of the arms, it is evident that Sir Edmund claimed the same paternity. The pedigree recorded at Heralds' College is as follows.

[Heralds' College, Book 2 D, XIV. fol. 175b]

At the same time Sir Edmund recorded his coat-of-arms as described in the following document at Heralds' College, Grants of Arms, Book 1, 26. fol. 98.

During the exile of the Stuarts, Edmund Andros served in the army of Prince Henry of Nassau (Palfrey, iii. 127), and was faithful to their cause. His family indeed was eminent among the adherents of the King, as appears by the pardon granted 13th August, 1660, by Charles II. to the inhabitants of Guernsey. In it he declares that Amice Andros, Edmund his son, and Charles his brother, Sir Henry Davie, bart, and Nathaniel Darell, during the preceding troubles "continued inviolably faithful to his Majesty, and consequently have no need to be comprised in this general pardon." So also we learn by the monument to Elizabeth, mother of Sir Edmund, that she "shared with her husband the troubles and exile to which he was exposed for several years in the service of Charles I. and Charles II."[2]

Edmund Andros received his first considerable preferment by being made Gentleman in Ordinary to the Queen of Bohemia in 1660. He had undoubtedly been attracted to her service through the position of his uncle, Sir Robert Stone, who was Cup-bearer to that princess, and he was afterwards more closely allied to her friends in consequence of his marriage. Whether any part of his youthful years while he was a page in the Royal service, had been spent in her household or not, it is worthy of notice that as a young man Andros was in a position to acquire the accomplishments of a Court, and to behold Royalty in its most fascinating form.

Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia, was the only daughter of King James I. of England, and was born 19th August, 1596. She was married 27th Dec. 1612, to Frederick V., Count Palatine of the Rhine, Duke of Bavaria and Silesia, who was soon elected King of Bohemia, but lost all his possessions by the fortune of war. He died at Mentz, November 19th, 1632, having had thirteen children, of whom the best known were Prince Rupert, and Sophia, wife of Ernest Augustus, Elector of Hanover, mother of George I. of England.

The Queen of Bohemia had shared the exile and misfortunes of her English relatives, and returned to England, 17th May, 1661. She died February 13th, 1662, at London.

Historians have agreed in describing this princess as a most charming woman. Jesse (Court of England) writes thus: "Lively in her manners, affectionate in her disposition, and beautiful in her person; throwing a charm and a refinement over the social intercourse of life; she yet possessed with all these qualities, a strength of mind which never became masculine; talents which were never obtrusive, and a warmth of heart which remained with her to the end." "In prosperity modest and unassuming; in adversity surmounting difficulties and dignifying poverty, her character was regarded with enthusiasm in her own time, and has won for her the admiration of posterity." "In the Low Countries she was so beloved as to be styled 'the Queen of Hearts.'"

During her long widowhood, her chief adviser and friend was William, Earl of Craven, and it was to the sister of the chosen heir to a portion of the honors of this nobleman, that Edmund Andros was married, in 1671. It has been believed that the Earl of Craven was married to the Queen, and he was certainly one of the bravest and most honored gentlemen of his time.

In 1666, Andros was made Major of a Regiment of foot, which was sent to America. Duncan writes that Andros distinguished himself in the war against the Dutch, and was in 1672, "commander of the forces in Barbados and had obtained the reputation of being skilled in American affairs."

In February, 1671, Andros married Marie, oldest daughter of Thomas Craven of Appletreewick, co. York, and thus sister to the "heir in reversion to the Barony of Hamsted-Marshall." This match is a sufficient proof of the estimation in which he was held, as the lady was sister of the designated heir of the Earl of Craven, his former patron. The pedigree of the Cravens will be best understood by the annexed tabular statement.[3] The "Peerages" have left the matter obscure, but it has been rendered plain by some articles in "Notes and Queries" for 1868. The Earl of Craven, after the death of his brothers, entailed the Barony on his more distant cousins of Appletreewick, omitting the issue of his uncle Anthony Craven. At his death, April 9th, 1697, the title passed to William Craven, nephew of Lady Andros.

It is possible that Andros came to England for the marriage, and returned to Barbados; but we think it more probable that the regiment had been recalled to England. Duncan states that in April, 1672, a regiment raised for Prince Rupert was armed for the first time with the bayonet, that Andros was made Major, and the four Barbados companies then under his command were incorporated in it. In the same month, the proprietors of the Province of Carolina, of which the Earl of Craven was one, conferred on him the title of Landgrave, with four Baronies, containing 48,000 acres of land.

In April, 1674, Andros succeeded his father in his estates in Guernsey, and 30 June, was sworn as Bailly of the island, the reversion of that office having been before granted him.

We do not find mention of the occasion which recommended him to the attention of the Duke of York, but from his early attendance on the royal family, and his exceptional loyalty, he had probably long been known to that prince. Andros was accordingly selected to be the Governor of the Province of New York, which was claimed by the Duke, and had recently been restored to him by the Dutch. He arrived in this country, November 1st, 1674, accompanied by his wife.

A brief notice of the events which had occurred in this country immediately before his arrival, may render his subsequent proceedings more intelligible to the reader.

On the 27th of August, 1664, the Dutch Colony of New Netherland was surrendered to an English force under Col. Richard Nicolls. The King, Charles II., had already granted it, by patent dated 12 March, 1664, to his brother, the Duke of York. After it had been held by the English for over nine years, the Dutch had recaptured it, August 9, 1673; but under the terms of the treaty of peace, it was restored to its English owners. In a letter dated 7/17 July, 1674, the Dutch embassadors wrote that they had complied with the orders from the States-General to notify the King that the Province would be delivered to his agent; that Edmund Andros had been designated as the person, and was to sail before the end of the week. (N.Y. Col. Doc. ii. 733.) The Colony at that time was estimated to contain between six and seven thousand white inhabitants, to which number were to be added the English settlers on Long Island. Andros's commission, which was dated July 1, 1674, made him "Lieutenant and Governor" over that part of Maine which was styled Pemaquid, Long Island, Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard, and the territory from the west side of Connecticut River to the east side of Delaware Bay. This latter territory comprised not only the State of New York, but Delaware, New Jersey and a large portion of Connecticut; the claim of the Duke of York to which domains was by no means undisputed.

Andros was at the same time commissioned as captain of a regiment of foot, raised by the Duke of York for service in the Colony, and received the necessary money for the expenses attendant upon establishing the new government. He was accused by some of the Dutch colonists of having exacted a new and unlawful oath of allegiance from them, but this difficulty seems to have speedily subsided. His instructions had been explicit that he should not disturb those colonists who desired to remain in good faith, and we see no reason to doubt that Andros fulfilled his orders. He has left an account of his administration for the first three years (N.Y. Col. Doc. iii. 254-7) from which we take the principal items.

In October, 1674, he says, that having received possession of New York and reduced the east end of Long Island, he took in hand the turbulent at various other places; these once quieted, the country had been peaceful ever since. The next summer he commenced to press the Duke's claim to that part of the country between the Hudson and Connecticut rivers. He therefore wrote several letters to the Governor and General Court of Connecticut, but it may easily be believed that the claim was only a matter of form. In fact, both parties had a patent for the same land, since the Connecticut Charter covered all the land from the Narragansett Bay, due west to the South Sea, and the Duke of York's territory was to be carved from this domain. Andros indeed says with truth that the English claim had been abandoned, since under that patent Connecticut might claim "New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Carolina and the Spanish West Indies," as well as all New York. The Duke of York was not disposed to press the matter, and wrote to Andros in January, 1675-6, that he approved of the demand, as preserving his title entire, but hoped for some more convenient method of adjusting the boundaries in the future; the only stipulation he made, was that the Connecticut men should not approach within twenty miles of the Hudson River. Within a month, however, the hostile attitude of the Indians compelled the eastern colonists to apply to Andros for aid in the alarming position of affairs. On the 1st of July, 1675, a letter was sent by Gov. Winthrop of Connecticut to New York, and Andros not only was "much troubled at the Christians' misfortunes and hard disasters in those parts," but he proposed to start at once, with a force "ready to take such resolutions as may be fit for me," and to make the best of his way to Connecticut River; "his royal Highness's bounds," as he significantly termed them.

This was more than the colonists had anticipated; yet they were unwilling to bring the dispute of boundaries to an open rupture, especially at such a time. Andros, therefore, was allowed to come to Saybrook with his two small vessels, and was met by Robert Chapman and Thomas Bull in behalf of the Colony. Various protests were exchanged, and Andros caused the Duke of York's Charter and his commission to be read. After this ceremony, he declared he should depart immediately unless desired to stay. In return, the agents of the Colony, who had studiously disavowed any share in these proceedings, read a protest on the part of Connecticut. And so "his Honor was guarded with the town soldiers to the waterside, went on board, and presently fell down below the Fort, with salutes on both sides." (Trumbull, Col. Rec. Conn. ii. 584.) Thus both sides parted in peace, each content with its own performance; and a few years afterwards the boundary was settled by mutual concessions.

Andros pursued his plans for protecting his Colony, furnished the necessary arms and ammunition, and disarmed the friendly Indians. Returning to New York, he called together the neighboring sachems and renewed the treaties with them; and in August, 1675, he proceeded to Albany, where he succeeded in gaining the friendship of the Mohawks and other powerful tribes. For nearly a year, till the death of Philip, August 12th, 1676, Massachusetts and Connecticut suffered from the barbarous incursions of the Indians. During this time, Andros, by his own account, had remained unwillingly idle, his offers of assistance having been rejected by his neighbors. He would have brought into the field his Mohawk allies, but the offer being slighted he could only keep them true to their allegiance, build forts and boats, and prevent any increase of Philip's forces. He seems in fact to have been greatly offended by the assertions of the Massachusetts Colony, that it was at Albany, and through his connivance, that the hostile Indians had obtained their supplies of arms and ammunition. He sent two gentlemen to Boston to obtain satisfaction, and received only a letter "clearing the magistrates, but not the generalty, still aspersed without any known cause, complaint or notice." So indignant was he at this false accusation, that after his arrival in England, he petitioned the King in Council to cause inquiry into the truth of the matter; to which the agents, William Stoughton and Peter Bulkley merely replied, that they were not furnished with the information, and that evil-minded persons might have sold ammunition to the Indians despite the Governor's prohibition; in short, while evading all concessions or apologies, they insinuated the truth of the charge.

Towards the end of the summer of 1676, the Indian troubles broke out in the settlements in Maine, and though Massachusetts had taken possession of the Duke of York's territory of Pemaquid, Andros exerted himself to protect the settlers there, and sent an armed sloop thither.

In June, 1677, he sent a force to Pemaquid and constructed a fort there, which he garrisoned with fifty men; and he undoubtedly contributed much to the pacification of that country for the next few years.

In August, 1677, he visited Albany with an agent from Maryland, and there received anew the assurances of the friendship of the western Indians. At that time and place he received permission from the Duke of York to take a brief leave of absence, and we transcribe a few passages from the letter. "I am glad to find the quiet condition of your government notwithstanding the late troubles that have been in your neighbourhood." "In regard you express a desire to come for England for some time to look after your own concerns, if you shall towards the end of this summer continue to be of that mind, (not doubting your care to settle all things during your absence from your government in the best and safest manner), I do agree that you come away with the latest shipping, so as having the winter to yourself, you may be ready to return to your government with the first ships that go hence in the spring."

Andros indeed, up to this time had merited the thanks of his employer. He had kept the country at peace, and had already made its revenue equal to its current expenses. The former laws in force during the English rule had been re-established, and it would seem that he had even tried to persuade the Duke of York to concede to the settlers some form of a legislative Assembly. (N.Y. Col. Doc. ii. 235.) He therefore communicated to the Council and General Court of Assizes, in October, the permission he had received to visit England, and arranged all matters likely to arise in his absence. On the 17th November, 1677, he sailed from New York, not accompanied by his wife probably, as we find no mention of her.

During his stay in England at this time, Sir Edmund Andros was knighted, a sufficient proof of the favor in which he was held at court. On the 8th April, 1678, he was called before the Committee for Trade and Plantations, and was examined in regard to affairs in New England as well as in his own Colony. His answer was quite elaborate, and is printed in the New York Colonial Documents, iii. 260-265. In regard to his own Colony of New York, he estimates the towns, villages, and parishes at about twenty-four in number, the militia as numbering 2,000, the value of all estates at £150,000. He thinks a substantial merchant is one worth £500 to £1,000, and a planter is rich who has half as much in moveables.

His opinion of the settlements in New England certainly does not seem unfriendly. He states indeed that "the acts of trade and navigation are said, and is generally believed, not to be observed in the Colonies as they ought," yet he adds, "I do not find but the generality of the magistrates and people are well affected to the King and Kingdom, but most knowing no other government than their own, think it best and are wedded to and opinionate for it. And the magistrates and others in place, chosen by the people, think that they are obliged to assert and maintain said government all they can, and are Church-members and like so to be chosen, and to continue without any considerable alteration and change there, and depend upon the people to justify them in their actings."

Andros at this time brought before the Council the matter of the false charge that he had supplied the Indians with ammunition, and the Agents for Massachusetts, William Stoughton and Peter Bulkley accordingly replied, promising "To do their utmost endeavour" to remove any misunderstanding between Sir Edmund and their government.

On the 27th of May, 1678, he sailed for New York in the "Blossom," taking with him William Pinhorne, James Graham, John White, John West and others, including his chaplain, the Rev. Charles Woolley, whose Journal was published in 1701.[4]

He arrived on the 7th September, 1678, and found his Colony at peace, though there were still difficulties to be apprehended in dealing with the Indians. During the next two years Andros seems to have been much disturbed by controversies with some of the leading merchants, and complaints were freely made to the Duke of York that his Governor was dishonest. Accordingly, James wrote, May 24, 1680, to Andros, (N.Y. Col. Doc. iii. 283,) that he wished him to return to England "by the first convenience," turning over the government to Anthony Brockholst, the Lieutenant-Governor. Mr. John Lewen was sent hither as a special commissioner to investigate the accounts of the government, and his report (printed in N.Y. Col. Doc. iii. 302-8) was decidedly unfavorable to Andros. The Governor, however, who had sailed from New York, January 7, 1681, was able to refute the charges made against him, and ends his reply as follows:—

"Lastly, I answer to the whole report, I do find all the imputations upon myself to be wholly untrue and deny every part thereof."... "But if any objections or doubts remain, I am still ready to subject them to the greatest scrutiny his Royal Highness shall think fit, not doubting his Royal Highness's justice and my own vindication." (N.Y. Col. Doc. iv. 313.)

We have learned nothing respecting Andros's position in England for the next five years, except that he was in favor at Court, being, in 1683, sworn Gentleman of the Privy Chamber to the King, Charles II. He very probably devoted his attention to his estates in Guernsey, as in this year he and his wife received from the Crown a grant of the Island of Alderney for ninety-nine years, at a rent of thirteen shillings. In 1685, he was made Lieutenant-Colonel of the Princess of Denmark's Regiment of Horse, commanded by the Earl of Scarsdale.

The accession of James II. however, February, 1685, opened a new prospect of advancement. Andros seems to have been a staunch member of the Church of England, but his long intimacy with the Duke of York had doubtless given that Prince a favorable impression of his abilities. The Charter of Massachusetts, after a contest extending through many years, had been declared vacated, October 23rd, 1684. The notorious Col. Piercy Kirke[5] had been designated as the new Governor by Charles II. and confirmed by James, but New England had been spared the affliction of his presence. Joseph Dudley had been commissioned as President of the Council, and served as chief magistrate from May 15th, 1686, till December 19th following.

Andros was commissioned Governor in chief in and over the dominion of New England, June 3, 1686, though his appointment is spoken of as settled, in a letter from Randolph, dated at Boston, July 28th of that year. (Hutchinson Papers, ii. 288, Prince Society's edition.)

It would seem as if Andros had received less than justice from the historians of Massachusetts. Hutchinson (Hist. i. 353) writes of him, "he was less dreaded than Kirke, but he was known to be of an arbitrary disposition. He kept a correspondence with the Colony whilst he was Governor of New York. His letters then discovered much of the dictator." So Palfrey (iii. 517) in his admirable History, says that James "had known Andros many years as a person of resolution and capacity, of arbitrary principles, and of habits and tastes absolutely foreign to those of the Puritans of New-England; and could scarcely have been ignorant of his personal grudge against Massachusetts, on account of old affronts. It was not to be doubted that here was a man prepared to be as oppressive and offensive as the King desired."

It is certainly but justice to an officer who filled so many important positions to the entire satisfaction of employers so different as James II. and William of Orange, to scrutinize with deliberation such charges against his character, and to insist upon undoubted evidence of his personal iniquities.

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 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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.