William A twood. pages) " to show all the falsehoods, contra dictions, and absurdities" in the report. As this report of the trial was prepared by Bayard and his counsel, it is not entitled to the same weight that would be given to a publication by a disinterested person, who had taken full notes, and I have, therefore, in my statement of what occurred, inserted no fact that is positively denied in Atwood's pamphlet, or otherwise questioned. It was, however, a printed report of the trial pur porting to be substantially correct, and could not be impeached merely by assailing it with such general words as those I have quoted. If there were errors or omissions, they would have to be pointed out. If any statement was untrue, it would have to be denied, and what is denied in the pamphlet is of little or no importance, whilst what is material is admitted by not being contradicted. Some omissions are specified, but they were not material. Atwood and Weaver were fully heard by counsel in respect to their removal, with the three others, from the Council; the suspen sion of the two former from their offices; the actions brought against Atwood and the others for damages and upon Bayard and Hutchins' appeals, and the Privy Council confirmed the removal of the five counselors, and appointed the five persons recommended by Cornbury, in their place. It set aside the suit brought by Bayard for damages, upon the ground that no action would lie against the judges for what they did in their judicial capacity, nor against the jurors for what was done by them as jurors. An order was made declaring that " the Queen being sensible of the undue and illegal pro ceedings against " Bayard and Hutchins, the Governor of the Province was instructed to direct the Attorney-General to consent to " the reversing of the sentences against them, and all issues and proceedings there upon, and to do whatever was necessary to reinstate them in their honor and property," which was done. Weaver was not restored
243
to his offices, and Dr. John Bridges was ap pointed Chief Justice in place of Atwood.' Notwithstanding this decision of the Privy Council and the appointment of another as Chief Justice, Atwood determined to con tinue his efforts to be restored to the office from which he had been removed. With that end in view he maintained a corres pondence with the leading Leislerians in New York, with whom he had been associated, and who had kept up the hope of their follow ers by the assurance that " it would be their turn next," that " Atwood and Weaver would be approved in all they had done." 1 Through this correspondence he kept himself fully informed of what was taking place in New York under the rule of Lord Cornbury, and that rule was certainly of a character to give him every encouragement; for Corn bury was more arbitrary, bigoted, dishonest, and rapacious than any of his predecessors. "We never had," says Smith, the historian, writing in 1765, " a governor so universally detested; nor any one who so richly de served the public abhorrence "; and though he was a cousin of Queen Anne's, she re voked his commission, declaring, according to the same historian, that she would not countenance her nearest relatives in op pressing her people.3 It may be assumed that Atwood would use to his advantage what was revealed of the character of the man that had displaced him, and that he did so is indicated by the attention which the government afterwards gave to his requests. Before renewing his application, however, he resorted to his former method of ingratiating himself with the ministry by writing political tracts that would bring him again into notice, and be acceptable to the government, and hit upon a subject that had that effect. As far 1 4 Col. Doc. 972, 974, 975, ion, 1012, 1014, 1015, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1044, 1071, 1142, 1150. The act of 1691 under which Bayard and Hutchins were indicted and convicted, was repealed by the General Assembly in 1704.
- 4 Col. Doc. 107 1, 1017.
3 I Smith, 193 and 194.
