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.