Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 07.pdf/276

 William A twood. him without giving him an opportunity of being heard, and that that Governor's ap pointment of Mompesson, on the death of Dr. Bridges, was merely until the Queen's pleasure should be known, which had, never been signified. " It was," he says in a sub sequent communication, " beyond dispute that, if Lord Lovelace had lived, De Peystcr, Walter, and Dr. Staats would have been re stored," and Atwood evidently felt a like as surance in respect to himself, for Mompes son having been the confidential adviser of Lord Cornbury, and having misled the gov ernment by signing an address justifying Cornbury's conduct, there was some reason for Atwood's anticipation that the removal of Mompesson would follow that of the Governor. There was an indication, also, that in that event, he would be restored to his former position, for the Queen sent his petition to the Attorney-General for that of ficer's opinion upon the application, who reported that Cornbury suspended Atwood upon charges " without hearing what he had to say "; that Mompesson, by his appoint ment, was to enjoy the office only until Her Majesty's pleasure should be known, and what was of more importance, coming from the legal adviser of the Crown, that he con ceived it fit, in the case of an officer holding like Atwood, so considerable a post under the government, that Her Majesty should make known her royal intention respecting him. But the newly appointed Governor, Lord Lovelace, died within six months after coming to the colony, and possibly, through that cause, no action was taken either upon Atwood's petition, or that of his former associates. It was more than a year before another governor was appointed, and Atwood, after waiting some time, prepared what he called a memorial to the Lords of Trade, calling their attention to a petition that had been sent to them some time before by De Pcyster, Walter, Dr. Staats, Gouverneur, the 5 Col. Doc. 1 68.

247

speaker of the Assembly, and Provost, a member of the Council, asking them, if it were only out of regard for the injured memory of Lord Bellamont and for the wel fare and peace of the province, " to procure Atwood's restoration to the station to which King William had appointed him, and to give credit to the account which they felt assured he would faithfully give "; who, they declared, " whilst he was permitted to exercise the office of Chief Justice among them, showed such impartiality, knowledge of the law, and unwearied diligence, as made them earnest petitioners for his restitution." After which Atwood, in this memorial, gave a long and misleading recital of facts, put together in such a way as to leave the im pression that he had been greatly wronged, followed by a statement of all that had been done up to that time to have him restored, as an act of justice on the part of the gov ernment. This memorial, from an indorsement upon it, was received and read on the 26th of October, 1709, but it does not appear that any action was taken upon it by the Lords of Trade, or that Atwood made any further efforts. It is said in Phillips's Biographical Index that he died in 1705, but this is a mistake, as he was living four years after wards, when he presented this memorial. When or where he died, I do not know. "In the National Biographical Dictionary," now being published in London, the fullest work of the kind that has appeared in the English language, it is said that the year of his death is uncertain, and after the presenta tion of this memorial, I have been unable to find anything further respecting him. The Leislerians afterwards, as a party, may be said to have ceased to exist; but many individuals among them continued thereafter antagonistic to those in power, a feeling transmitted to their descendants, who agreed in the views, and supported the measures that brought about the American Revolu tion.