[91] The authorities were accused of great partiality in allowing, in several cases, persons accused by the afflicted to escape, when they were either related to them or their personal friends. Brattle, pp. 69, 70. [92] Calef, _More Wonders_, p. 144. [93] Calef, p. 144. Hutchinson, ii. 61. [94] Calef, pp. 55–64. [95] Smith, _History of Delaware County_, 152, 153. [96] _Documentary History of the State of New York_, iv. 85–88. [97] Barber, _Historical Collections, Virginia_, 436–438. [98] Hutchinson, ii. 62. [99] Calef, p. 105. Brattle, _as above_, pp. 72, 78. [100] Hutchinson, ii. 22. [101] Brattle, _as above_, p. 75. III. SIR EDMUND ANDROS. The casual reader of the usual American histories will receive from them an impression that Sir Edmund Andros was a merciless tyrant, whose administration was only redeemed from being utterly disastrous by its imbecility. Even Doyle in his first volume of _The English in America_ describes him as a wretched “placeman,” though in his later volumes he somewhat modifies this unfavorable criticism and describes him as respectable but stupid. Yet the fact remains, that the authorities in England held him sufficiently in esteem to send him to New York as lieutenant-governor under the Duke of York, and to New England as governor and captain-general of the united Dominion, which included New York and New Jersey as well as New England proper; and after a complete revolution in politics in England Andros was the man selected for the best position in the gift of the Board of Trade and Plantations, the governorship of Virginia. A man who had served the Stuarts well and faithfully, even incurring the odium which naturally attached to the agents of their unpopular measures, must have exhibited something more than dull stupidity, to recommend him to the officials of the Revolution. The career of a public servant under so many administrations must, at any rate, be of interest to all students of American history. It is the unfortunate fate of many excellent and useful officials, that, in the performance of their duty to the state, they are obliged to render themselves personally unpopular. It may freely be admitted that the British crown was generally unfortunate in the selection of its representatives in the American colonies; but, by a strange injustice of history, many of the utterly bad ones have had their faults forgotten or condoned, while one of the most able and efficient of them all, in spite of the careful and scholarly works in which his character has been vindicated, remains pilloried in the popular histories of the American colonies as a tyrant and oppressor.