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.