NOTES.
102 The principal authority for the facts of Andros’s life before he became governor of the Duke of York’s province is a biographical sketch in the History of Guernsey, by Jonathan Duncan, Esq., London, 1841, written by the late Mr. Thomas Andros of Guernsey, who died in 1853. This sketch was copied in N. Y. Colonial Documents, ii. 740, and has been used by W. H. Whitmore in his memoir of Sir Edmund Andros, in the first volume of The Andros Tracts. Mr. Whitmore has added to the sketch some few additional facts collected from a pedigree at the Heralds’ Office and from private family papers. His memoir is the most convenient, as it is the fullest and most accurate, life of Andros that has appeared. The History of Guernsey, by Ferdinand Brock Tupper, contains a few additional facts in regard to him, but of trifling importance. Vide pp. 367, 377, 392. See also Chronicles of Castle Cornet by the same author.
103 Duncan, History of Guernsey, p. 89.
104 Memoir of the Life of the late Reverend Increase Mather, D. D., London, 1725, pp. 10–12.
105 Whitmore, Andros Tracts, I. ix. Duncan, p. 106.
106 Pedigree, in Andros Tracts, I. vi. Duncan, p. 588. From Calendar of State Papers, Am. and W. Indies, we learn that Andros saw service in the West Indies, being major in a regiment of foot, commanded by Sir Tobias Bridge, which left England in March, 1667, and arrived in Barbadoes in April. He returned to England in 1668, as bearer of despatches and letters to the government, and was in England in September of that year. Whether he returned to Barbadoes is not evident, but he was in England in Jan., 1671, and throughout the year. The regiment was disbanded and four companies sent to England, arriving there Oct. 5, 1671, and were incorporated in the new dragoon regiment being raised for Prince Rupert, to which Andros received his commission Sept. 14, 1671. This chronology is irreconcilable with that given in the pedigree or by Duncan.
107 For relations of Lord Craven and Elizabeth, see Miss Benger’s Memoir of the Queen of Bohemia.
108 Duncan, p. 588. Calendar of State Papers, America and the West Indies (1661–1668), 1427, 1436, 1439, 1476, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1824, 1839, (1669–1674), 394, 545.
109 Duncan, pp. 588–89. America and W. Indies (1669–1674), 554, 559, 625, 639, 791. Mackinnon, Origin and Services of the Coldstream Guards, i. 185.
110 Tupper, History of Guernsey, 2d Ed., London, 1876. He says (p. 392): “Edmund Andros had succeeded his father as bailiff (bailli) in 1674, with power to nominate a lieutenant during his long non-residence; he was also a colonel of dragoons, and after his return from his successive North American governments, he was constituted lieutenant-governor of Guernsey by Queen Anne, who dispensed with his executing the office of bailiff and accepted Eleazar Le Marchant as lieutenant-bailiff.” Apparently he had some trouble at first from the governor of the island, Christopher, Lord Hatton, for we find (p. 377) a royal order sustaining Andros, and forbidding Lord Hatton to disturb him in the office of bailiff.
111 N. Y. Col. Doc., iii. 215. The boundaries stated in this Commission are as follows: “All that part of ye Maine Land of New England beginning at a certaine place called or knowne by ye name of St. Croix next adjoyneing to new Scotland in America and from thence along ye sea Coast unto a certaine place called Pemaquin or Pemaquid and soe up the River thereof to ye furthest head of the same, as it tendeth northwards and extending from thence to the River Kinebequi and soe upwards by ye shortest course to ye river Canada northwards. And also all that Island or Islands comonly called or knowne by ye several names of Matowacks or Long Island scituate lying and being towards ye West of Cape Codd and ye Narrow Higansetts abutting upon ye maine land betweene ye two rivers there called or knowne by ye severall names of Conecticut and Hudsons River together also wth ye said river called Hudsons River and all ye land from ye West side of Conecticut River to ye East side of Delaware Bay, and also all those severall Islands called or knowne by ye name of Martine mynyards and Nantukes otherwise Nantukett, together with all the lands islands soiles rivers harbours mines mineralls quarryes woods marshes waters lakes fishings hawking hunting and fowling and all royaltyes and profitts comôdityes and hereditaments to the said several islands lands and premisses, belonging and apperteyning with their and every of their appurtenancies.”
112 For Andros’s own account of the first three years of his administration, see N. Y. Col. Doc., iii. 254–257. For the surrender of New York, Documentary History of New York, iii. 43; Andros’s report on state of the province, i. 60.
113 That this was recognized by men qualified to judge, vide letter from Lieutenant-Colonel Talcott to Andros, Connecticut Colonial Records (1678–89), p. 399; vide also Doc. Hist. N. Y., i. 99; Conn. Col. Rec. (1665–78), pp. 397, 404, 461, 492. For Andros’s own official report of the assistance he rendered New England in Philips’s war, see N. Y. Col. Doc., iii. 264, 265. For remarks upon the contrasted Indian policies, see Brodhead, Hist. New York, ii. 281–290.
114 Conn. Col. Rec. (1678–89), p. 283. N. Y. Col. Doc., iii. 236.
115 Conn. Col. Rec. (1665–78), pp. 260, 334, 335, 339–43, 578–86. N. Y. Col. Doc., iii. 254.
Governor Dongan’s jealousy of Andros makes his statement of Andros’s intentions ten years before questionable authority, especially when it is remembered that at the time he made the statement he was busily engaged in trying to persuade the people of Connecticut to ask to be annexed to New York, rather than to Massachusetts under Andros. Under these circumstances, one cannot help suspecting his testimony as to memoranda left behind by Andros, who was one of the most cautious and methodical of men. N. Y. Col. Doc., iii. 415. If Andros intended to surprise the post, he certainly was very ill-judged to send notice of his claim beforehand. For the best account of these proceedings, see Brodhead, Hist. of N. Y., ii. 284–286.
116 Brodhead, Hist. of New York, ii. 303–306. New Jersey Archives, i. 156–347.
117 Conn. Col. Records (1678–89), 283–285.
118 Mass. Rec., iv. (2), 359–361. Brodhead, History of New York, ii. 127.
119 N. Y. Col. Doc., iii. 257 ff.
120 N. Y. Col. Doc., iii. 254, 258, 259, 266, 267. See also Randolph’s report in the same vol. 242. Hutchinson, Coll., 476, 490. Brodhead, ii. 290. Mather’s Brief History of the War, 117, 129, 254.
121 N. Y. Col. Doc., iii. 264, 265.
122 N. Y. Col. Doc., iii. 235, 256.
123 N. Y. Col. Doc., iii. 260–265.
124 N. Y. Col. Doc., 279–284, 302–308. For Andros’s answer, 308–313.
125 N. Y. Col. Doc., iii. 314–316.
126 Duncan, 589. N. Y. Col. Doc., ii. 741. Hutchinson, Coll., 542.
127 Whitmore, Andros Tracts, I. xlix., Note D. “In an old pedigree written about A. D. 1687 by Charles Andros uncle of the governor, and still preserved in the family, we find:
‘The 13th April 1683, the King, Charles II. gave the charge of Gentleman in ordinary of his privy chamber’ to Sir Edmund, and ‘the 6th day of the month of June 1685, the King, James II. gave a Commission to the above Sir Edmund Andros to command a troop of Cavalry to go against the rebels in England.’ This refers of course to Monmouth’s Rebellion. ‘In August, 1685, he was made Lieut.-Colonel of Lord Scarsdale’s cavalry.’”
128 Palfrey, Hist. of New England, iii. 319, 334. In 1678, Andros had written Blathwayt that there would be danger of Indian difficulties, “so long as each petty colony hath or assumes absolute power of peace and war, which cannot be managed by such popular governments as was evident in the late Indian wars in New England.” N. Y. Col. Doc., iii. 271. Earlier still, Gov. Winslow of Plymouth had told Randolph that New England could never flourish until its several colonies were placed under his Majesty’s immediate government (Hutchinson, Coll., p. 509), and Randolph had urged the matter upon the council in his celebrated report. Hutch., Coll., 477–503.
129 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., 4th Series, vol. ii.
130 Rhode Island Col. Records, iii. 175–197. Chalmers, Political Annals, 278.
131 Whitmore, I. xxvii. Cambridge Almanac, 1687.
132 Whitmore, I. xxvii. Goldwin Smith, in his recent work on The United States, seems to suppose that this occurred in New Hampshire.
133 Conn. Col. Records (1678–89), 376–378.
134 Conn. Col. Records (1678–89), 389.
135 Chalmers, Political Annals, 297, 298. General History of Connecticut, by a Gentleman of the Province (Rev. S. Peters, D. D.), London, 1781.
Peters’s account is as follows: “They resigned it (the charter) in propria forma, into the hands of Sir Edmund Andros at Hertford, in October, 1687, and were annexed to the Mass. Bay colony, in preference to New York, according to royal promise and their own petition. But the very night of the surrender of it, Samuel Wadsworth of Hertford, with the assistance of a mob, violently broke into the apartments of Sir Edmund, regained, carried off and hid the charter in the hollow of an elm, and in 1689, news arriving of an insurrection and overthrow of Andros at Boston, Robert Treat, who had been elected in 1687, was declared by the mob still to be Governor of Connecticut. He daringly summoned his old Assembly, who being convened, voted the charter to be valid in law, and that it could not be vacated by any power, without the consent of the General Assembly. They then voted, that Samuel Wadsworth should bring forth the charter; which he did in a solemn procession, attended by the High Sheriff, and delivered it to the Governor. The General Assembly voted their thanks to Wadsworth, and twenty shillings as a reward for stealing and hiding their charter in an elm.”
136 Conn. Col. Rec. (1678–89), 248.
137 Bulkeley, Gershom, Will and Doom, in Conn. Col. Rec. (1678–89), 390, 391.
138 Conn. Col. Rec. (1678–89), 393 note, 404 note.
139 Trumbull, History of Connecticut, i. 371–375.
140 For Andros’s own account of the transaction, see N. Y. Col. Doc., iii. 722–726. Andros Tracts, iii. 20, 21. R. I. Col. Rec., iii. 281.
141 It is interesting to notice in this regard, that the chief complaint Increase Mather made against Andros, in his interview with James II., was that he did not sufficiently observe the king’s Declaration of Indulgence. Mather, Cotton, D. D., Life of Increase Mather, p. 41, London 1725. Parentator, pp. 109–116 (reprinted in part in Andros Tracts, iii. 121–187). Cf. Randolph’s account in N. Y. Col. Doc., iii. 578; also, Chalmers, Pol. Annals, 426.
142 Whitmore. Andros Tracts, i. 1–10. Hutchinson, i. 374–377. N. Y. Col. Doc., iii. 722, 726. Palfrey, History of New England, iii. ch. xiv., xv. That the revolution was carefully prepared and planned, see Mather, Samuel, Life of Cotton Mather, p. 42, and N. Y. Col. Doc., iii. 587, 588 (Deposition of Philip French), New York, 1689.
“The above said Mr. Philip French further declared that being on board the ‘Prudent Sarah,’ Benjamin Gillem Mastr coming from England in company with Sir Willm Fips. heard him speak severall times the words following to this effect, ‘that he did say the first fishing boat he mett he would hire and goe privately ashore and rise a company without beating of drum, and that he would take the packets sent to Sr Edmund and not deliver them to him, except he appeared in Councill, and there would secure him.’
“That about the same time upon the said voyage he heard Sr Willm Fips say that he appeared before the Lords, and one of them starting up asked him whether they would stand by the rights of their Charter, or for the abuses they had received from Sir Edmund Andros; it was answered, by the right of their charter.
“And about the same time this Deponant heard him say, that they (which this Deponant supposes were the Lords or the Cômons assembled in Parliament) told him, that if they did give them trouble to hang Sir Edmund, they deserved noe funds.”
143 Conn. Col. Rec. (1678–89), 250, 455–460.
144 N. Y. Col. Doc., iii. 723. Whitmore, Andros Tracts, iii. 22, 23, 41–43 (for his escape and capture, 95–102).
145 Hutchinson, i. 394.
146 Beverly, History of Virginia, i. 37. C. W. (Charles Wolley), A. M., A Two Years’ Journal in New York. For an unfavorable account, Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., v. 124–166, “An Account of the Present State and Government of Virginia.” The Sainsbury Papers, in the State Library at Richmond, Va., are transcripts and abstracts from the London originals, of all official papers of this period, relating to Virginia, and an examination of them made in 1892, through the kindness of the State Librarian, gave strong corroboration of the view of Andros’s administration presented by Wolley and Beverly, and presented Blair and his friends in a less amiable light than they have presented themselves. Cf. Meade, Old Churches and Families of Virginia, i. 107, 108. Perry, History of the American Episcopal Church, vol. i. chapter vii.
147 Perry, Historical Collections of the American Colonial Church: Virginia.
148 Whitmore, I. xxxiv. Duncan, 130, 131, 589. “In 1704, under Queen Anne, he was extraordinarily distinguished by having the lieutenant-governorship of Guernsey bestowed on him, whilst he also continued bailiff, his duties, as such, being dispensed with for the time, he having power given to him to appoint his lieutenant-bailiff, who was likewise authorized to name a deputy.”
149 Whitmore, I. xxxv.
150 Duncan, 589. “Sir Edmund was for many years at the head of a mixed and adventurous population, in newly settled and important colonies, distant from the mother country, a station at all time arduous, but immeasurably so in the age of revolutions in which he lived, when the institutions longest established were not exempt from the common jeopardy, and unusual energy was called for in all, wherever situated, by whom the royal authority was to be asserted. He resolutely encountered the duties and responsibilities of his high office throughout the long course of his career, and was successful in resisting, in his military as well as in his civil capacity, the intrigues and hostilities of the neighboring French and Indians, to which he was continually exposed. By some of the chroniclers of the period, who wrote, doubtless, not uninfluenced by its partisanship, he has been represented, in his earlier government under James the Second, as an abettor of tyranny; but by others of them, appearing to have possessed the best means of judging of the circumstances under which he acted, his conduct has been liberally estimated. His later administration, under William the Third, is allowed to have been irreproachable. All the colonies advanced greatly in improvement whilst under his charge; and the fact that he was distinguished by the marked approval and successive appointments of his several sovereigns, after, no less than before, the Revolution, cannot but be interpreted as the strongest testimonial in his favor, and highly to the honor of his reputation.”
Chalmers remarks (Political Annals, i. 422): “The charges of greatest magnitude were not the faults of the governor, but of the constitution; the smaller accusations arose from actions directly contrary to his instructions. Did he act contrary to them and to his commission, he had been the most faithless of servants, and most criminal of men. But he did not. For, when the agents of the province impeached him before William, they accused him not of acting inconsistent with either, but of having exercised an authority unconstitutional and tyrannous. His conduct was approved of by James; and he was again appointed a colonial governor by William, because he equally appeared to him worthy of trust. Unhappily oppressed by a real tyranny, the colonists of those days beheld every action with diseased eyes, and their distempers have descended in a great measure to their historians, who have retailed political fictions as indubitable truths.” And again: “What a spectacle does the administration of Andros hold up to mankind for their instruction; under a form of government, plainly arbitrary and tyrannous, more real liberty was actually enjoyed than under the boasted system, which appeared so fair.”
151 Doc. Hist. of N. Y., i. 179.