William Atwood. possibility of interference on the part of the Crown, the more sober-minded and shrewd among them, in all probability, took a dif ferent view of the matter. The two cases were not alike. Bayard had not taken pos session of the government by force, admin istered it, and attempted to hold it thereafter against the authorized representative of William and Mary, as Leisler had done; in addition to which the Leislerians had vehe mently denounced the summary execution of Leisler before the King's pleasure could be known. It had been their chief political capital and the means by which they had come into power. To do, therefore, in Bayard's case, the very thing which they had so bitterly denounced in the case of Leisler, would have been so grossly incon sistent as to make it apparent that if they did so, they would not as a political party remain in power. The Lieutenant-Governor Nanfan, as sub sequently described by Lord Cornbury, was a young man of so little experience, or knowledge, that Atwood and Weaver, he said, were able to draw to themselves and their party the whole administration of the government.1 It is said in the account of the trial, that several leading and influential citizens interested themselves in favor of a reprieve, and either through their influence, or from an apprehension of the consequences if the sentence was carried into effect, a scheme was devised, in all probability by Atwood, to grant a reprieve, if Bayard would admit that he had been justly con victed of the crime for which he had been tried; thereby securing his acknowledgment of the validity of the proceedings against him, which would not only shield Atwood, but if Bayard brought an appeal to the King and Privy Council, would have put him in the position of applying for the reversal of a judgment which he had himself ad mitted was right. Emot drew up an application for a re1 4 Col. Doc. 1011.
193
prieve, and together with Bayard's son, brought it to Nanfan, who, when it was pre sented, " got into a great passion," and declared that no reprieve would be granted, unless Bayard " would confess his offence, and ask pardon for it," " and that if he did not sign a written acknowledgment to that effect within a day, that the warrant for his execution would be signed. I have assumed that this scheme was of Atwood's devising, as the active and leading part he took in the matter of the reprieve, and everything con tained in the documents that have come down to us, indicate it. He probably thought that if Bayard were convinced that he would certainly be hanged on the day fixed, if he did not comply, that he would, to save his life, make this written acknowl edgment. If he did so, he knew little of the nature of the man with whom he had to deal, for, however revengeful Bayard may have shown himself in bringing about the immediate execution of Leisler, and whether or not he had been, as Bcllamont believed, "the go-between " in procuring commissions from Governor Fletcher for pirates, under the guise of privateers, on this occasion, when his life was in peril, he showed a manly courage and deep-seated religious convic tions. Wrhcn Nanfan's reply was communi cated to him, his answer was that he would never wrong his conscience by accusing himself of a crime that he had not com mitted. His reply was probably as unex pected as it was embarrassing. So far as the prisoner was concerned, it admitted of no other course but to grant the reprieve, or execute him, and this they were not pre pared to do, for in addition to the reasons already given, Bayard had been for years one of the most conspicuous men in the colony. He was, as has been said, a Hol lander by birth, who had been brought to New Amsterdam, when a child, by his widowed mother, who was a sister of Gov. Stuyvesant; and his father being a Hugue not, he was a representative of those that
