WILLIAM ATWOOD, CHIEF-JUSTICE OF THE COLONY OF NEW YORK, 1701-1703. III. By Charles P. Daly, LL.D., Ex-Chief-Justice of the New York Court of Common Pleas. UPON Atwood and Weaver's arrival in London they applied to the govern ment for a hearing and to be restored to their offices, which was deferred until auth entic documentary evidence of what had occurred could be obtained from New York. It came in the shape of a formal statement by Lord Cornbury of the reasons for what he had done, with letters giving more full details, and many papers and documents. Atwood filed an answer to the governor's reasons for suspending him, which was char acteristic of the man. He did not deny any one of the facts stated in the documents, beyond referring to them as " pretended " or "supposed " reasons, but took the objection that " nothing appeared under the Governor's own hands, but only copies of originals, if there were any, which copies were certified by Honan, an abetter of pirates, so that all the supposed proof rested upon papers de pending solely upon his certificate, which was without the seal of the province." The answer further set up that Lord Cornbury acted without authority, as by the terms of his office he, the Chief Justice, could not be suspended, until the Queen's pleasure was known, and " that the Governor acted equally without authority in imprisoning the sheriff, and ' releasing ' a condemned traitor, who had fully and freely confessed his crime," and finally that he " should not be obliged to make any further or particular answer, until he had leave to present articles against Lord Cornbury and one of his instruments, the Attorney-General Broughton, for maladmin istration," to which objections it would ap pear the Privy Council attached no weight,
for they disposed of the whole matter within ten days thereafter. The publication of the report of Bay ard's trial in London was so damaging to Atwood, and especially the account of what took place from the sentence to the grant ing of the reprieve, that Atwood felt the necessity of doing something to counteract it. Accordingly, in the same year in which the trial was reprinted, 1703, and apparently before the parties were heard before the Privy Council, a pamphlet, " The case of William Atwood, Esq.," etc., appeared in London with a very long title.' The name of the author is not given in the title page, but it was evidently written by Atwood, his peculiarly involved style, confused way of stating facts and pointless attempts at wit being unmistakable. It was a lengthy production, beginning with a rambling and inaccurate account of events in the colony before and after his arrival, to convey the impression that what he had done was indispensable to preserve the rights of the Crown against the efforts of what he called " the faction." The pub lished report of the trial was denounced as "spurious," with the declaration that it was "not within the intent of his short narra tive " (it was two hundred closely printed 1 The case of William Atwood, Esq. By the late King William of Glorious Memory Constituted Chief Justice of The Province of New York in America and Judge of the Admiralty there and in Neighbouring Colonies, with a true account of the Government and People of the Pro vince; particularly of Bayard's Faction and the Treason for which he and Hutc/iins' stand Attained; but Reprieved before the Lord Cornbury's Arrival, upon Acknowledging their offences and begging Pardon. London Printed in the Year MDCCIII.
