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?