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.