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.