Chapter XVI: An Experiment in Administration (2)

Sewall, _Diary_, vol. I, pp. 141, 162, 171 _f._

Footnote 1057:

_Dudley Records_, p. 277.

Footnote 1058:

Sewall, _Diary_, vol. I, p. 207. Sewall's remark was evidently made to
work off his spleen, for he adds, laconically, “besides 'twas
Entail'd.”

Footnote 1059:

H. W. Foote, _Annals of King's Chapel_ (Boston, 1882), vol. I, p. 90.

Arbitrary and unnecessarily irritating as was the Governor's course in the matter, it must be confessed to have been a very mild form of religious tyranny, as compared with that customarily indulged in by the Puritans themselves. But in various minor ways he gave additional offense to the clergy and more bigoted laymen, whose Puritanism had at this time reached its narrowest point. On Christmas Day, the observance of which was punishable by fine under the colony's laws, Sewall sadly observes that the “governor goes to the Town-House to Service Forenoon and Afternoon”; though he takes some heart by noting that “shops open today generally and persons about their occasions.”[1060] A little later, Increase Mather writes in his diary, that “this Sabbath [Saturday] night was greatly profaned by bonfires &c. under pretence of honor to the King's Coronation.” A sort of secondary Sabbath had been developed by the clergy about the mid-week “lecture,” and on one of these days, Mather notes that “Sword playing was this day openly practised on a Stage in Boston & that immediately after the Lecture, so the Devil has begun a Lecture in Boston on a Lecture day which was set up for Christ.”[1061] Happily, the old order was changing, and the community was gradually loosening the shackles of what, for most, had become merely a dreary formalism.

Footnote 1060:

Sewall, _Diary_, vol. I, p. 163.

Footnote 1061:

_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings_, Series II, vol. XIII, pp. 410 _f._

In an earlier chapter, we attempted to show what a change was wrought in the attitude of the Puritans when they passed from opposition to the government in England to the control of that in the colony. Under Andros, they now once more found themselves in opposition; and it is instructive to note in how many particulars they again proclaimed as tyranny what they had themselves been practising. We have seen how laws had been passed prohibiting anyone from settling in the colony, or leaving it without the consent of the rulers. These laws had never been repealed by the colonial authorities, but it was now complained that “whereas by constant usage any person might remove out of the countrey at his pleasure, a Law was made that no man should do so without the Governours leave.” In view of the continuous refusal of the Puritan government, when in power, to permit any dissatisfied citizen to go to England to lodge complaint against their arbitrary acts, of which refusal many examples have been cited, the complaints against Andros in the matter are an amusing instance of immediate change of feeling upon discovering whose ox was being gored. There is nothing to indicate that Andros had any intention of preventing anyone from carrying an appeal; but the same writer who complained of the above act goes on to say, with an entire lack of humor, considering the past history of the colony, “how should any dissatisfied persons ever obtain liberty to go to England to complain of their being oppressed by Arbitrary Governours?”[1062] As a matter of fact, dissatisfied persons now possessed that liberty for the first time in the history of Massachusetts.

Footnote 1062:

_Andros Tracts_, vol. I, pp. 80, 142. The act is given in vol. III,
pp. 92 _f._

Under the former régime, the right to organize churches, the regulation of the schools, and the licensing of printing, had all been kept rigidly under the control of the government, which meant the representatives of the minority of the population constituting the Congregational church. But a loud cry of tyranny was raised when the new government passed an act that no schools should be kept except “such as shall be allowed,” and established Dudley as censor of the press, which Hutchinson admits merely changed its keeper.[1063]

Footnote 1063:

_Andros Records_, pp. 467, 249; Hutchinson, _History_, vol. I, p. 318.
Andros was required by his instructions not to allow unlicensed
printing. _New Hampshire Laws_, vol. I, p. 166.

The order that all records of the former governments should be lodged at Boston undoubtedly entailed hardship for anyone who wished to examine them; and the requirement that final action in the probating of wills or granting letters of administration, in estates of the value of over £50, must take place in Boston was also an unpractical attempt at bureaucratic centralization.[1064] Moreover, West, to whom Randolph had farmed out the office of Secretary, was a peculating subordinate, of whom Randolph later wrote that he “extorts what fees he pleases, to the great oppression of the people, and renders the present government grievous.”[1065] The legal fees, as enacted in 1687, were fair and moderate,—that for the probate of a will, for example, being ten shillings,—and there is only questionable evidence for Hutchinson's statement, inaccurate in another respect, that the usual charge was fifty shillings.[1066] But there is some evidence that West and some of the minor officials attempted extortion even after the establishment of an official scale; and Randolph complained that two of them, West being one, were insubordinate in Maine, where they “were as arbitrary as the great Turke,” and were upsetting matters already settled by Andros.[1067] How far Andros might have been able to organize the enormous and administratively unwieldy dominion, and rid himself of unreliable subordinates, had he been given time, cannot be known, as he was to have only a few months in which to do so after the addition of the southern provinces.

Footnote 1064:

_Andros Records_, p. 467; _Cal. State Pap., Col., 1689-92_, p. 202;
_Randolph Papers_, vol. VI, p. 271; _Conn. Col. Records_, vol. III,
pp. 423 _f._

Footnote 1065:

_Randolph Papers_, vols. VI, p. 223, and IV, p. 198.

Footnote 1066:

Hutchinson, _History_, vol. I, pp. 320 _f._ For the legal fees under
the Dudley and Andros administrations _vide_ _Dudley Records_, pp.
242, 245, 283; _Andros Records_, pp. 266, 467; _Randolph Papers_, vol.
IV, pp. 147 _ff._

Footnote 1067:

_Ibid._, pp. 226, 228.

Aside from these and other difficulties, his administration would undoubtedly have been wrecked on the question of taxation, whether the Revolution had occurred in England or not. He himself, and every one else apparently, except the King, realized the necessity for an elected assembly; but it had been denied, and there was, therefore, nothing to do but to levy the taxes without the direct consent of the people. Under his commission, Andros, “by and with the advice and consent” of a majority of his Council, had been given power to levy such taxes as might be necessary for the support of the government;[1068] and at the session of March 1, 1687, a general bill, embodying some former ones, was presented for consideration. It aroused warm discussion over details, and both the records, and the long subsequent complaint of Stoughton and others that Andros had “held the Council together unreasonably a very long time about it,” would indicate that on that day, at least, there had been no suppression of freedom of debate.[1069] After a second reading, and a lapse of two days, it was passed on the third day, _nemine contradicente_, according to the records, though the complainants, several years later, claimed that the vote had not been counted, and that many of the councilors had remained silent, under “great discouragement and discountenance.”[1070]

Footnote 1068:

_Colonial Society Massachusetts Publications_, vol. II, pp. 46 _f._

Footnote 1069:

_Andros Records_, pp. 256; _Andros Tracts_, vol. I, pp. 139 _f._

Footnote 1070:

_Andros Records_, p. 258; _Andros Tracts_, vol. I, p. 140. Part of the
complaint is disproved by the written record.

The attempt to levy the tax met with immediate resistance in Essex County, and particularly in the town of Ipswich, where the men assembled in town-meeting refused to elect an assessor. Under the leadership of John Wise, certain of the inhabitants drew up a protest, stating that their liberties as Englishmen had been infringed, and refusing to pay any taxes not levied by an elected assembly.[1071] Twenty-eight were at once arrested, of whom a number, “appearing more ingenuous and less culpable,” were promptly released.[1072] Six, however, supposed to be the ringleaders, were thrown into prison at Boston, a writ of _habeas corpus_ having been denied.[1073] When they were later brought to trial, Dudley was the presiding judge, and Wise claimed that the jury was packed for the occasion. The six were fined, in all, £185, and forced to pay heavy charges in court fees, while Wise was suspended from his ministerial functions. The fines were large, but the offense naturally was serious in the eyes of Andros, who had, perforce, to carry out a policy not of his own making; and it may not be unfair to recall that, in the days when the “saddle was upon the Bay mare,” the Puritans had levied fines of £750 upon Dr. Child and his fewer associates.

Although the towns, as has been stated, had never had legal standing as corporations, and, with the overthrow of the charter, had ceased to have a political one, the new government had, nevertheless, allowed them to continue functioning much as usual. As a result of the attitude of those in Essex on the tax-matter, however, the Council passed a law limiting town-meetings to one a year for the purpose of electing local officers, and thus struck at the very root of popular government in the colony.[1074]

Footnote 1071:

_Ibid._, pp. 83 _ff._; _Randolph Papers_, vol. IV, pp. 171 _ff._

Footnote 1072:

_Andros Records_, pp. 477 _f._

Footnote 1073:

The right of _habeas corpus_ under the Statute of Charles II, 1679,
did not apply to the colonies. It is questionable whether our rights
to it depend upon that statute or the common law. _Cf._ A. H.
Carpenter, “Habeas Corpus in the Colonies,” _American Historical
Review_, vol. VIII, pp. 19 _f._ In spite of the charges against
Andros, the leaders apparently took the ground, before his arrival,
that the right did not extend to the colony. _Cf._ Mather Papers,
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll_., Series IV, vol. VIII, p. 390.

Footnote 1074:

_Andros Records_, p. 494; _Conn. Col. Records_, vol. III, pp. 427
_ff._

The addition of one colony after another, in rapid succession, to the province for which Andros was responsible, raised administrative problems of the gravest sort, and had necessitated journeys from Boston to Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York. When the last-named had been placed under his rule, in 1688, he had also been given the main control over Indian affairs for nearly all English North America, and had also had to journey to Albany for a conference with the Mohawks. With wholly inadequate assistance from the greedy office-seekers, who in large part formed his staff, his position was certainly an unenviable one. It was not long before the Indian question on the eastern frontier, with the larger danger of the French lurking in the background, also arose, to add to the difficulties of the harassed Governor. It was, unquestionably, a wise policy to unite the Indian affairs of all the colonies under one head; for the French in the valleys of the St. Lawrence and the Mississippi now threatened the entire rear of the English empire on the continent, and in the impending struggle between the two, the allegiance of the Indian tribes dwelling between them would become a factor of supreme importance. The disunited English colonies, quarreling among themselves, and wholly selfish in the various policies pursued by them in relation to the natives, offered a contrast, palpable enough to the savages, to the unified control of the French.

Andros had already made one trip to the eastward, in the spring of 1688, for the purpose of restoring the fort at Pemaquid; and while there, had despoiled the home of St. Castine, an intruding French trader, who was living a half-savage life with an assorted selection of Indian wives, more notable for number than for virtue.[1075] The Governor called together the sachems of the local tribes, endeavored to bind them to the English cause, and then had to proceed to New York. While he was detained there, several minor Indian attacks occurred at New Haven, up the Connecticut River, and in Maine, resulting in the killing, in all, of some twenty-six whites.[1076] After a proclamation ordering the Indians to restore their prisoners and surrender the murderers had proved unavailing, Andros organized an expedition of several hundred men, and himself marched with them into Maine, destroying many of the Indian settlements, and capturing much of their ammunition and supplies.[1077] Randolph claims, however, what is confirmed by other documents, that Boston merchants sent the enemy a vessel of forty-two tons loaded with powder, shot, and food, and so undid much of Andros's work.[1078]

Footnote 1075:

_Randolph Papers_, vol. IV, pp. 224 _ff._

Footnote 1076:

_Hutchinson Papers_, vol. II, p. 309; _Randolph Papers_, vol. IV, p.
276; _Andros Tracts_, vol. II, p. 207.

Footnote 1077:

_Cal. State Pap., Col., 1685-88_, p. 615; _Andros Tracts_, vol. III,
pp. 21 _f._

Footnote 1078:

_Randolph Papers_, vols. IV, p. 277, and VI, p. 294. This is confirmed
in _Cal. State Pap., Col., 1689-92_, pp. 212, 564, 585. _Cf._, also,
_Andros Tracts_, vol. III, p. 24.

The Indian troubles were made the basis for the spreading of alarming rumors that Andros was intending to turn the colonies over to France, and introduce popery, and even that the Mohawks were to be called in to destroy Boston. All sorts of trumpery evidence was adduced to lend color to these unfounded libels, to which even Increase Mather did not hesitate to lend his influence.[1079] While they were utterly without foundation so far as Andros was concerned, who treated them with deserved contempt, they fitted in with both the religious and political fears of Protestant Englishmen in the closing years of the Stuarts. Moreover, recently published letters of Randolph now show that he, at least, had begun to trim his sails to meet a possible breeze from Rome, should James make England a Catholic country; and his suggestion as to the superior usefulness of Jesuits, as instruments among the Indians, and even of the possibility of establishing a monastery, may have been noised abroad.[1080] As we have already noted, the mentality of the Massachusetts of this period was peculiarly liable to panic and fantastic fears; and whether or not the leaders believed the fables they spread, they undoubtedly realized that the readiest way to organize a revolution against Andros would be by religious prejudice.

Footnote 1079:

_Ibid._, vols. I, pp. 30, 101 _ff._, and II, pp. 50 _f._

Footnote 1080:

_Randolph Papers_, vol. VI, pp. 242 _f._, 246, 251.

It is probable that the fundamental weakness of the King's policy would have borne its natural fruit, even had there been no Revolution in England; but that event was to offer the most favorable opportunity for the minor movement in the colony. Andros was still at Pemaquid when he received what was probably his first intimation of the coming attempt to overthrow the government in England, in the form of a proclamation, which the King ordered to be published, calling upon all subjects to show their loyalty in view of a threatened invasion from Holland.[1081] By the end of March, 1689, the Governor was back in Boston, and, ten days later, young John Winslow arrived from the island of Nevis, with news of Prince William's landing in England and a copy of his declaration.[1082] Rumors had also reached Andros, who requested Winslow to show him the declaration as confirmation. On Winslow's refusal, Andros told him he was “a saucy fellow,” and had him committed to jail for overnight, releasing him in the morning, when he showed the paper to the magistrate.[1083]

Footnote 1081:

_Andros Tracts_, vol. I, p. 75 _n._

Footnote 1082:

_Ibid._, pp. 77 _f._; _Randolph Papers_, vol. IV, p. 277; _N. Y. Col.
Docts._, vol. III, p. 581.

Footnote 1083:

_Andros Tracts_, vols. I, p. 78, and II, p. 209; _Randolph Papers_,
vol. V, p. 57.

Andros's position was a difficult one. Although not in sympathy with much both in the religious position and in the absolutist tendencies of his Stuart masters, he had to the full the soldierly qualities of obedience and loyalty, and on the 16th of April, he wrote to Brockholls in New York that there was “a general buzzing among the people,” and warned the magistrates and officers to be on their guard against probable trouble.[1084]

Footnote 1084:

Cited by Hutchinson, _History_, vol. I, pp. 332 _f._

Two days after, on the 18th, the storm broke in Boston. There is evidence to indicate that the leaders had laid their plans some time in advance, and that the staging of the events followed a preconcerted arrangement, in spite of their feigned ignorance.[1085] Early in the morning, armed crowds of men and boys proceeded to the centre of the town from either end, captured Randolph, several of the justices, the sheriff, a number of the captains, and others of the government, and locked them in the jail. Andros had already taken refuge in the fort, while Dudley was absent on Long Island. Bradstreet, Danforth, and others of the popular leaders were escorted to the Town-house, and at noon a lengthy, and certainly not hastily prepared, declaration was read to the assembled people from a balcony.[1086] It was an able, but exceedingly biased, indictment of the Andros government, while the art of the demagogue was evident in the weaving in of old slanders as to the Governor's pretended treachery with the French and Indians, the raking up of the Popish Plot in England, and a passing tribute to the “Scarlet Whore.” It ended with flattering references to the Prince of Orange, and the statement that the persons of “those few Ill men,” who had been the authors of the colony's misery, had been seized lest they should have given the province “away to a Forreign Power,” before orders might be received from the new Parliament. The wording would indicate that it had been expected that Andros, and perhaps Dudley, who, with Randolph, were certainly the chief of the “ill men” in popular estimation, would already have been in custody by the time it was read. Andros's having taken refuge in the fort probably upset the plans in that respect. The paper contains every internal evidence, indeed, of having been prepared some time before, and certainly not after, the mob had begun its work on that eventful morning. Nevertheless, Winthrop, Bradstreet, Stoughton, Danforth, and others of the leaders immediately drew up another, stating that the action of the people was a surprise, of “the first motion whereof” they had been entirely ignorant, and calling upon Andros to surrender the government, and deliver up the fort, which otherwise would be carried by storm.[1087]

Footnote 1085:

For the events of the revolution, _vide_, _Andros Tracts_, vols. I,
pp. 3 _ff._, II, pp. 191 _ff._, and III, pp. 22 _ff._, 145 _ff._;
Hutchinson, _History_, vol. I, pp. 334 _f._; _Randolph Papers_, vol.
IV, pp. 264 _ff._; _Cal. State Pap., Col., 1689-92_, pp. 33, 66 _ff._,
92 _ff._

Footnote 1086:

Given in _Andros Tracts_, vol. I, pp. 11 _ff._

Footnote 1087:

_Andros Tracts_, vols. I, p. 20, and III, p. 145 _n._; Osgood,
_American Colonies_, vol. III, p. 419.

To have held the little fort, or the defenses on Castle Island, for any length of time, in the face of overwhelming odds, would have been impossible. To have defended the fort temporarily against attack would merely have caused useless bloodshed; and, fortunately for the colonists, Andros, throughout his whole career, had never shown the bloodthirsty vindictiveness of an Endicott or a Norton. That he was no coward is shown by the fact that he abandoned the shelter of the fort, and made his way through the tumultuous streets to a personal conference with the revolutionary leaders gathered in the council chamber. The meeting, however, effected no compromise; Andros was made prisoner, and, through one of his subordinates, but apparently on his orders, the fort was surrendered. The following day, the Castle also was yielded, and possession taken of the frigate, though the latter, in order to save the men's pay, was not required to be formally surrendered. Some days later, Dudley was located in the Narragansett country, brought to Boston, and placed in the common jail. In Europe, James II had dropped the Great Seal of England in the Thames, and fled to France. In America, his Dominion of New England lay shattered.

Demand for Surrender of Sir Edmond Andros
Broadside in Massachusetts Archives, State House, Boston
]