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. So in two cases cited by his accusers, in pages 107 and 111 following: when certain impertinent busy-bodies brought an Indian to testify that Andros was engaged in a conspiracy to bring on an Indian War,--a story whose folly was only equalled by the harm it might cause if believed by the people,--Andros contented himself with ridiculing them, though afterwards they were fined by the courts. To prove that he discountenanced making defence against the Indians, his opponents offer the testimony of certain village officials, whose affidavits prove only that Sir Edmund probably had read Shakespeare. We fail, therefore, to see any evidence that Andros was cruel, rapacious, or dishonest; we know of no charge affecting his morality, and we find a hasty temper the most palpable fault to be imputed to him.