PREFACE

VOLUME II, now completed, contains the extant Royal Commissions issued to certain of the Crown officials of the Massachusetts Bay from 1681 to 1774, both included.

At the meeting of this Society held in March, 1893, our associate Mr. Abner Cheney Goodell generously presented to the Society copies of the Royal Commissions and of the Royal Instructions issued to certain of the Crown officials of the Massachusetts Bay, 1681–1774.1 At that time it was supposed that the Commissions and the Instructions together would fill a volume of about five hundred pages, and printing at once began. But as this progressed, an occasional new Commission and many new Instructions were found, and soon it was obvious that the material would far outrun the limits of a single volume. In addition, the resources of the Society were adequate only to the task of paying for its Transactions. When, therefore, the Table of Regnal Years, the Charter, the Explanatory Charter, the Commissions of the Governors as Governor, and the Instructions from 1686 to 1702, had been set, printing was brought to a stop for lack of funds. In 1910, however, one of our resident members, ever alive to the needs of the Society, offered to provide for the expense of issuing the Commissions, which (as it was now clear) would fill an entire volume of our Collections. Printing was resumed as soon as possible, and the present volume is the result. In 1912 the same member placed the Society under additional obligations by offering to pay for the printing of the Royal Instructions, and work on these has been resumed.

The Committee gratefully acknowledges the Society’s indebtedness for many courtesies extended to the Editor by the officials of the Public Record Office, London; by Miss Lucy Drucker of London; by Mr. James Joseph Tracy, Chief of the Archives Division of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the clerks under him; and by the officials of many libraries, historical societies and institutions, and by individuals, in this country.

Of the fifty-eight Commissions that are known to have been issued — one to the Collector, Surveyor, and Searcher of Customs in the Colonies of New England; two to the President of the Council for New England; four to the Governor, one to the Lieutenant-Governor, and two to the Secretary and Register of the Territory and Dominion of New England; twenty-seven to the Governors, twelve to the Lieutenant-Governors, and seven to the Secretaries of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay; and two to the Bishop of London — fifty-three are printed in this volume. The five Commissions of which no copies have been found, though diligent search has been made for them in London, Boston, and elsewhere, are the following, with their actual or approximate dates:

16912	Isaac Addington	Secretary
16913	William Stoughton	Lieutenant-Governor
17114	William Tailer	Lieutenant-Governor
1715 April 285	William Tailer	Lieutenant-Governor
17166	William Dummer	Lieutenant-Governor

The present volume actually contains fifty-four Commissions, but the Commission of Lord Willoughby as Vice-Admiral of Barbados is inserted merely because Dudley’s Commission of November 13, 1685, was not recorded in full. Of the fifty-three Commissions relating to Massachusetts, twenty-eight are printed from copies obtained in London, there being no copies at the State House; nine are printed from copies at the State House, there being no copies in London; fifteen are printed from copies obtained in London collated with copies also at the State House; and one7 is printed from a copy obtained in London collated with an exemplification in the library of the Massachusetts Historical Society. It thus appears that of the fifty-three Commissions, copies of twenty-four only are now to be found at the State House. Two of these — that of Randolph (1685) and that of Andros (1686) — are in the volume labelled Massachusetts Archives, CXXVI. 95–96, 7–16. The remaining twenty-two are in one or the other of two volumes respectively labelled “Crown Commissions, 1628–1663” and “Crown Commissions, 1677–1774.”8 Yet neither of these volumes contains a Commission of earlier date than 1717, and no Governor’s Commission of earlier date than 1741.9 That so few Commissions are now extant is matter for surprise, for it is reasonable to suppose that such important documents would have been recorded in Boston on their arrival. Indeed, there is evidence that they were so recorded. Thus on June 11, 1702, after Dudley had taken the oaths as Governor, “His Excellency further proposed, that Her Majesty’s Letters Patent to himselfe as Governour, and his Comissⁿ for vice Admiral and the Hon^ble the Lieut^t Gov^rs Commission might be made of Record. Which the Council advised accordingly.”10 Again, on August 12, 1728, Burnet’s Commission as Vice-Admiral was read in Council and “the Secretary directed to record it.”11 Yet none of these Commissions is now extant. It may also be observed that at one time there was apparently still another volume of Crown Commissions, which has likewise disappeared.12 No doubt the melancholy explanation of the fact that so many documents that ought to be in the State House are not there, is that they were destroyed when the original Boston Town House was burned in 1711 or when the new Town House (the present old State House) was seriously injured by fire in 1747.13

Of the Commissions found in the Public Record Office there are, generally speaking, two copies of each — one in the Colonial Office Records and one in the Patent Rolls. The copies in the Colonial Office Records were drafts merely, blank spaces being frequently left for the insertion of dates, and changes were sometimes later made. On the other hand, the final stage through which a Commission passed was enrolment in the Patent Rolls; and hence, wherever possible, Commissions should be printed from that source. Of the seventeen Commissions issued to the Governors (or President) as Governor (or President), one — that of Shute (1716) — is in the Colonial Office Records but not in the Patent Rolls; while the remaining sixteen are in the Patent Rolls. Of the thirteen Commissions issued to the Lieutenant-Governors, four — those of Stoughton (1691), Tailer (1711, 1715), and Dummer (1716) — are not extant; two — those of Andrew Oliver (1770) and Thomas Oliver (1774) — are neither in the Patent Rolls nor in the Colonial Office Records; while seven — those of Nicholson (1688), Povey (1702), Dummer (1727), Tailer (1730), Phips (1732), and Hutchinson (1758, 1761) — are in the Colonial Office Records but not in the Patent Rolls. Of the ten Commissions issued to the Secretaries, one — that of Addington (1691) — is not extant; one — that of Randolph (1685) — is neither in the Patent Rolls nor in the Colonial Office Records; while the remaining seven are in the Patent Rolls. Of the two Commissions issued to the Bishop of London, both are in the Patent Rolls. The Commissions issued to the Governors as Vice-Admiral are not in the Patent Rolls; but four — those of Willoughby (1667), Dudley (1685) and Andros (1686, 1688) — are in the Colonial Office Records; while the remaining thirteen are in the Royal Courts of Justice.14 It thus appears that of the fifty-four Commissions in this volume, thirty-two are printed from copies obtained from the Patent Rolls. In the present volume, a statement of the source or sources of the text is appended in every instance.

The following extracts, explaining the “Offices and Documents connected with the Working of the Great Seal,” taken from a report dated May 15, 1841, by Sir Francis Palgrave, at that time Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, give an authoritative account of the processes, and are here reprinted for convenience, the report not being generally accessible in this country:

General Course of affixing the Great Seal. . . . The whole process of passing Letters Patent under the Great Seal is, however, very complicated, and differing according to the nature of the documents. The subject, therefore, will be rendered more intelligible, by first submitting to your Majesty a general view of the course or cycle of these documents; which course, in the numerical majority of cases, that is to say, in the cases of Patents for Inventions, Charters of Incorporation, and other Instruments of the like nature, issued as of grace and favour, upon the application of your Majesty’s subjects, is the following: —

1 Petition addressed to the Crown, upon which is grounded the

2 Reference to the Law Officer or Officers by the		Privy Council, or Secretary of State.
3 Report		of attorney Solicitor General, or one of them, and of Privy Council, if required, as explained below.

4 Warrant under your Majesty’s Sign Manual, which is the authority for the
5 Bill (called the Queen’s Bill) under your Majesty’s Sign Manual; which is the authority for the
6 Bill of Privy Signet; which is the authority for the
7 Writ of Privy Seal; which, having the recepi of the Lord Chancellor, is the authority for the
8 Patent under the Great Seal.
9 The Writ of Privy Seal is transmitted by the officer who makes out the patents to the
10 Six Clerks, who enrol the same, and who transmit the enrolment and writ to the
11 Clerks of the Petty Bag, who transmit the same to the
12 Chapel of the Rolls.

In some cases, as after mentioned, when the Great Seal is affixed by the commands of your Majesty, or of your Ministers of State, the stages (1, 2, 3)15 are entirely dispensed with, and in others (if it be your Majesty’s pleasure) the stages (6, 7) are also dispensed with, except as to the fees.

But if the Great Seal be affixed by your Lord High Chancellor, in exercise of the authority annexed by law or custom to his office, then the stages (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) are dispensed with, except that in certain cases a Bill (5) is signed by your Majesty.

Royal Warrants, and Classes which they include. — The warrant (4) is a mandate under your Majesty’s sign manual, and countersigned, as before mentioned, directing the party to whom it is addressed to prepare a Bill for your Majesty’s signature, technically called “the King’s Bill,” or now “the Queen’s Bill” (5). The directions and commands so given, are addressed to your Majesty’s Attorney-General alone, or to your Majesty’s Attorney or Solicitor General in the disjunctive, or to your Majesty’s Attorney and Solicitor General jointly, as after mentioned, or to the Judge Advocate, or to the Clerk of your Majesty’s Signet, as the nature of the instrument may require. . . . If your Majesty’s Attorney-General be of opinion that the patent ought to be granted, he reports his opinion to your Majesty accordingly: if he should be of a contrary opinion, he does not make a report in the negative, but refrains from making any report at all, and the application drops. . . .

The report (3) thus given is lodged by the party obtaining the same with your Majesty’s Secretary of State for the Home Department, who prepares the Warrant (4) for your Majesty’s signature. This warrant is addressed to the Attorney or Solicitor General in the disjunctive, and delivered to the applicant or his agent, and is taken to the Patent Bill Office, and the Queen’s Bill (5), the Bill of Privy Signet (6), the writ of Privy Seal (7), are successively made out. The Patent (8), under the Great Seal, follows. The writ of Privy Seal transmitted (9) by the officer who issued the patent is entered upon the Patent Roll (10) by the Six Clerks; and the writ and enrolment, after having been lodged for a time by the Six Clerks with the clerks of the Petty Bag (11), at last reach their final place of deposit (12) in the Chapel of the Rolls. . . .

Patent Bill Office. — The functions of your Majesty’s Attorney and Solicitor General in relation to the documents passing the Great Seal have been in part detailed, but some further particulars remain to be added. A portion of the business, including that which may be termed confidential, is transacted at the chambers of these functionaries for the time being, and is under their control as individuals, and conducted by their private or chamber clerks, also for the time being. But the business of preparing the Queen’s Bill (5) for your Majesty’s signature is conducted in a permanent office entitled the “Patent Bill Office,” or more commonly the “Patent Office,” . . . To this office, all the warrants (4) directed to the Attorney and Solicitor General, or either of them, are brought by the agents of the parties interested in the same (if relating to private applications), or are transmitted by the Government Departments if relating to public business. . . . These Queen’s Bills are prepared by the Clerk of the Patents according to the precedents preserved in the office, if the instrument be one for which there is now a settled and accustomed form, or from the drafts which, in new or special cases (e.g. Charters of Incorporation), are transmitted with the warrants. . . . The Queen’s Bill for your Majesty’s signature is engrossed upon parchment, and two other copies are made, also upon parchment, exactly of the same form and size, which copies become the original Bills of Privy Signet (6) and writs of Privy Seal (7) when afterwards perfected by the respective officers. The signatures or signature of the law officers or law officer to the docket are or is procured by the Clerk of the Patents; and the Queen’s Bill and the transcripts are delivered to the party or functionary by whom the same is to be passed, and he takes the first to the office of your Majesty’s Secretary of State for the Home Department, where your Majesty’s signature is obtained to the Queen’s Bill. The transcripts, in the same manner, reach the Privy Signet and Privy Seal Offices, and, excepting in the addition of the formal parts, and the adding of the needful signatures, no alteration is ever made in these transcripts. As they are received from the Patent Bill Office, so are they (with such additions) issued as the Bill of Privy Signet and Writ of Privy Seal. . . .

Privy Signet Office — Bills of Privy Signet, how passed. — Pursuant to the statute made in the 27th year of the reign of King Henry VIII., entitled “An Act concerning the Clerks of the Privy Signet and Privy Seal,” all signs manual (except in certain cases therein specified) upon which instruments passing the Great Seal are to be grounded, must first be brought to this department for the purpose of issuing the Bill under your Majesty’s Signet, and the signature of one of the clerks, which Bill of Privy Signet is the foundation or authority for the Writ of Privy Seal. According to the present practice, these signs manual are of two classes: the signs manual or warrants (4) relating to ecclesiastical preferments, which proceed at once from your Majesty’s Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Signs Manual, or “Queen’s Bills” (5), from the Patent Bill Office of the Attorney and Solicitor General.

In the first case, the Clerk of the Privy Signet upon receipt of the warrant (4) prepares and completes the Bill of Privy Signet, which is addressed to the Lord Privy Seal, and is the authority for issuing the Writ of Privy Seal. In the other cases, the party by whom the Patent is passed (and whether it be public or private the process is the same) lodges in this office the Queen’s Bill (5), with your Majesty’s signature: and the transcript of the instrument upon parchment being received from the Patent Bill Office of your Majesty’s Attorney and Solicitor General, it is collated, completed, and rendered a bill of Privy Signet by the Clerk, who subscribes and affixes your Majesty’s signet to the same, addresses it as above stated to the Lord Privy Seal, and forwards it to his office. . . .

Privy Seal Office — Passing of the Writs. — When the Privy Signet comes into this office, the Keeper of the Records prepares the Bill or Writ of Privy Seal, by adding the formal parts to the transcript of the Queen’s Bill, which he has received from the Attorney-General’s Patent Office; and he presents the same to the Lord Privy Seal, in order that the Seal may be affixed thereto. The Seal itself is in the custody of the Lord Privy Seal, and kept at his house. . . . The Writ of Privy Seal is then taken, by the agent or messenger of the private party or public department on whose behalf it is issued, to the Officers of the Chancery, by some one of whom the Patent is to be made out, that is to say, the Clerk of the Patents, or the Clerk of the Crown Office, or the Clerk of the Custodies. When the Writ of Privy Seal reaches the Lord Chancellor, he signs a memorandum called the Recepi at the foot of the same, and this signature of his Lordship is the authority to his Officers for preparing the Letters Patent, and affixing the Great Seal to the same. . . .

Constitution of the [Six Clerks’] Office. — The Six Clerks of your Majesty’s High Court of Chancery were re-incorporated by King Charles I., by charter bearing date the 17th day of June, in the 11th year of his reign. . . .

Patent Rolls. — The making up of the Patent Rolls belongs to the Six Clerks collectively, but, in consequence of the statute of the 3 and 4 Will. IV. c. 94, the duty is executed in the name of each of the five surviving Six Clerks in rotation: the clerk who thus receives the profit is termed the “Riding-clerk,” and he also exercises the office of “Comptroller and Supervisor of the Hamper,” as a responsible and accountable duty. The offices of “Riding-clerk” and of Comptroller of the Hanaper are distinct. . . .

The business of the enrolment, constituting what has been pointed out as the tenth stage of Letters Patent (10), is performed by an individual who is a law-stationer; he is not upon the establishment of the Six Clerks’ Office, but he is allowed to sit in the Office in order that he may do his work under the inspection of the Six Clerks. The materials from which he makes the entries upon the Roll are furnished by the Privy Seal Writs, the Warrants and Bills under your Majesty’s Sign manual, and the Proclamations, which are transmitted annually, generally within a month after the 10th of October in each year, from the Patent Bill Office, the Crown Office, and the Clerk of the Presentations. Commissions of the Peace, Patents containing Exemplifications of pleadings, and some other Patents under the Great Seal, principally those issuing upon the Chancellor’s Fiat, are no longer, as anciently, entered upon the Patent Roll, and no Record, properly speaking, is preserved of them. The writing clerk obtains the Privy Seal Writs and Bills and Warrants from the different offices. He then arranges the whole mass in chronological order, and engrosses the instruments which they contain upon the membranes or skins which, when tacked together, compose the Patent Roll.16 . . .

Palgrave then goes on to explain how documents are transmitted from the Six Clerks’ Office to the Petty Bag Office, and from the Petty Bag Office to the Chapel of the Rolls.17

It will be observed that the Commissions of the Governors as Vice-Admiral are, from 1685 to 1730, in Latin, while those from 1741 to 1774 are in English. It is perhaps worth while to show exactly when English was substituted for Latin in such documents. In 1731 there was passed (4 George II, Chapter 26) “An Act that all Proceedings in Courts of Justice within that Part of Great Britain called England, and in the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, shall be in the English Language.” This Act is in part as follows:

WHEREAS many and great Mischiefs do frequently happen to the Subjects of this Kingdom, from the Proceedings in Courts of Justice being in an unknown Language, . . . To remedy these great Mischiefs, . . . be it enacted . . . That from and after the Twenty fifth Day of March, One thousand seven hundred and thirty-three, all Writs, Process, and Returns thereof, . . . and all Patents, Charters, Pardons, Commissions, Records, . . . shall be in the English Tongue and Language only, and not in Latin or French, or any other Tongue or Language whatsoever, . . .

III. Provided always, that nothing in this Act, nor any thing herein contained, shall extend to certifying beyond the Seas any Case or Proceedings in the Court of Admiralty; but that in such Cases the Commissions and Proceedings may be certified in Latin, as formerly they have been.18

Not to extend to Proceedings in Court of Admiralty.

The third section apparently makes the Act permissive, not mandatory, as regards Admiralty commissions and proceedings, leaving the authorities free to use either Latin or English. As a matter of fact, the authorities immediately chose English. The Commission of Richard Fitzwilliam as Vice-Admiral of the Bahamas, dated March 3, 1733, was in Latin; while that of William Mathew as Vice-Admiral of the Leeward Isles, dated April 27, 1733, was in English, as were all subsequent such Commissions.19 For the English translations of the Latin Commissions in this volume, the Society is indebted to one of the members of the Committee of Publication, — Mr. George Lyman Kittredge.

Within the past few years the Colonial Office Records, preserved at the Public Record Office, have been re-arranged and are now catalogued under a new system of references. These new references are employed in the present volume.20

For the Committee of Publication,

Albert Matthews,

Editor.

Boston, February 1, 1913.

1 Later Mr. Goodell gave copies of the Commissions of Vice-Admiral.

2 In an Instruction issued to Addington on December 11 it is stated that “His Majesty” has “been Graciously pleased, by his Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England, to Grant unto you the Office and Place of Secretary of their Majesties Province of the Massachusetts Bay in New England” (Public Record Office, Colonial Office, Class 5, Vol. 905, p. 404). Hence Addington’s Commission must have been issued on or before December 11, 1691.

3 Stoughton’s Commission was presumably issued in December, 1691.

4 This Commission of Tailer was presumably issued in the spring or summer of 1711, as he was sworn on October 4th (Council Records, v. 456).

5 The exact date of this Commission has been obtained from the Council Records (vi. 379) for September 24, 1715.

6 Dummer’s Commission was presumably issued in the spring or summer of 1716, as he was sworn on October 5th (Boston News Letter, October 8, 1716, p. 2/1).

7 The Commission of Burges (1715).

8 These two volumes, it may be added, contain many documents besides Royal Commissions. The volume labelled “Crown Commissions, 1677–1774” has no index. The volume labelled “Crown Commissions, 1628–1663” has an index, doubtless made many years ago, but this index is worthless since it wrongly describes some of the documents and omits others altogether. Consequently, in order to ascertain exactly what documents are in the two volumes, the latter must be examined page by page. Moreover, the documents in the two volumes are not included in the Index volumes to the Archives. Hence an adequate index to the two volumes would be serviceable.

9 As already stated in the text, however, copies of two earlier Commissions (1685 and 1686) are in the Massachusetts Archives, cxxvi. 95–96, 7–16.

10 Council Records, iii. 325.

11 Council Records, ix. 83.

12 There are two pieces of evidence to support the statement in the text. First, the words “Old volume 3” are written in ink on the recto of the first leaf, unnumbered and otherwise blank, of the volume labelled “Crown Commissions, 1677–1774.” That volume contains, besides the leaf just mentioned, two leaves unnumbered and blank; seventy-nine leaves containing records, the folios numbered from 1 to 158; and then forty-nine unnumbered and blank leaves.

Second, on pp. 45–48 of the volume labelled “Crown Commissions, 1628–1663” is recorded the “Commission of William Burnet &c Commissioners for the trial of Pirates,” dated December 13, 1728. After the Commission is written (on p. 48) “Examined p^r J Willard Se͞c͞r͞y,” the words “J Willard Se͞c͞r͞y” being in the hand of Willard himself. Then follow these words, not in the hand of Willard: “Recorded in the Secretary’s Office in Boston in the Book of Commissions &c^a from the Crown, from Page 297, to Page 303. — ꝑ J Willard Sec̄ry Dec^r 23. 1729.” This “Book of Commissions &c^a from the Crown,” which must have been in existence in 1729, is not now extant. Following the entry dated December 23, 1729, are these entries:

Recorded the 6^th of October 1738 ꝑ Ja^s Martin Sec͞ry

The fifteen preceeding Pages make a true Copy of his Majesty’s Commission for the Trial of Pirates &c. as the Same stands on the Publick Records of the English Colony of Rhode Island &c. taken therefrom & duly Examined this first day of April 1748 By Tho Ward Sec͞ry.”

It is obvious, therefore, that this Commission of December 13, 1728, was not entered in “Crown Commissions, 1628–1663” before April, 1748. Cf. the note immediately below.

13 The fire of 1747 occurred on the morning of December 9. The same afternoon a committee was appointed in the Legislature to consider what should be done with regard to the loss of documents, and on the 11th —

Josiah Willard Esq^r from the Committee of both Houses appointed to consider the Circumstances of the Province in relation to the Desolation of the Court House, gave in the following report, viz^t

The Committee . . . Report as their Opinion . . . That the Secretary record in his Office the first or old Charter of this Province & the Charter of King William & Queen Mary with the Commissions of the Governour, Lieu^t Governour Justices of the Superiour Court & his own (Court Records, xviii. 275–276).

Now the first forty-five pages of “Crown Commissions, 1628–1663” contain, in the order named, the Colony Charter (1629), the Province Charter (1691), the Explanatory Charter (1725), Secretary Willard’s First (1717) and Second (1728) Commissions, Lieutenant-Governor Phips’s Commission (1732), and Shirley’s Commissions (1741) as Governor and as Vice-Admiral. All these, with the exception of the last two, are in the hand of Willard, and even the last two are attested by Willard. The inference is irresistible that this particular volume, which in no event could have been begun later than 1756 (in which year Willard died), must have been begun soon after the fire of 1747 in response to the report of the committee made December 11, 1747. The three Charters were saved and so could be copied, while the Commissions were doubtless in the possession of the three officials and not in the Town House. Cf. p. xviii note 4, ante. It may be added that on December 11, 1747, the house “Voted, That his Excellency the Governour be desired . . . to appoint a Day of Humiliation and Prayer throughout this Province . . . on Occasion of the great Difficulties the Province Labours under, and the Frowns of Divine Providence, more especially in Regard of the Destruction of the Court-House in Boston, and great Part of the publick Records by Fire” (House Journal, p. 186). Whoever has had occasion to search in vain for documents that must once have been in the State House realizes how fearful was the loss occasioned by the fire of 1747.

14 None of the Commissions in Vice-Admiralty previous to 1741 are in the State House, and consequently those from 1685 to 1730 are printed from copies obtained from the Royal Courts of Justice. The Commissions from 1741 to 1774 are in the State House and are here printed from copies obtained from that source. But copies of these Commissions are also in the Royal Courts of Justice, Admiralty Registry, Muniment Books, the references being as follows: Shirley (1741), Vol. 8, p. 182; Pownall (1757), Vol. 9, p. 114; Bernard (1760), Vol. 9, p. 127; Bernard (1761), Vol. 9, p. 139; Hutchinson (1771), Vol. 10, p. 128; Gage (1774), Vol. 10, p. 155.

15 The figures within parentheses, here and elsewhere in these extracts, of course refer to the twelve stages mentioned in the text, pp. xxi–xxii.

16 Second Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, London, 1841, pp. 26–27, 28, 30, 32–33, 40, 41.

17 Ibid. pp. 41, 43, 44, 46.

18 Statutes at Large (1734), vi. 307. The Act of 4 George II, Ch. 26, was in 1733 extended to Wales by the Act of 6 George II, Ch. 14 (Statutes at Large, vi. 485).

19 For this information, the Editor is indebted to Miss Lucy Drucker.

20 Some Notes on the Commissions are in preparation and will be printed in a later volume of Publications.

21 All dates in the Preface, in these Lists, and in the Index, are New Style.

22 This date is approximate: see p, xvi note 2, ante.

23 His Commission is not extant.

24 This date is approximate: see p. xvi note 1, ante.

25 His Commission is not extant.

26 The exact date of this Commission is not known: see p. xvii note 1, ante.

27 His Commission is not extant.

28 His Commission is not extant: see p. xvii note 2, ante.

29 The exact date or this Commission is not known: see p. xvii note 3, ante.

30 His Commission is not extant.

31 His Commission is not extant.

32 This date is approximate: see p. xvi note 1, ante.

33 His Commission of 1716 is not extant.

34 The exact date of this Commission is not known: see p. xvii note 3, ante.

35 His Commission is not extant.

36 This date is approximate: see p. xvi note 2, ante.

37 His Commissions of 1711 and 1715 are not extant.

38 The exact date of this Commission is not known: see p. xvii note 1, ante.

39 This List is based on data obtained from the Council Records, the Court Records, the Massachusetts House Journals, the Boston newspapers, and other contemporary sources.

40 Stoughton held this office not by Royal commission, but by appointment from President Dudley.

41 The Andros government was overthrown on April 18, 1689.

42 The Andros government was overthrown on April 18, 1689.

43 The Andros government was overthrown on April 18, 1689.

44 The names or Acting-Governors are printed in italics, as is also the Council when the government devolved upon the latter.

45 Stoughton died July 7, 1701.

46 Burges never came to this country.

47 Burnet died September 7, 1729.

48 Spencer Phips died April 4, 1757.

49 The outbreak or the Revolution makes it impossible to say exactly when Gage, Thomas Oliver, and Flucker left office.

50 This date is approximate: see p. xvi note 2, ante.

51 Stoughton died July 7, 1701.

52 This date is approximate.

53 The exact date of this Commission is not known: see p. xvii note 1, ante.

54 The exact date of this Commission is not known: see p. xvii note 3, ante.

55 Tailer died March 1, 1732.

56 Spencer Phips died April 4, 1757.

57 Andrew Oliver died March 3, 1774.

58 See p. xxxiv note 6, ante.

59 This date is approximate: see p. xvi note 1, ante.

60 Addington died March 19, 1715. On March 26, 1715, Gov. Dudley appointed Addington Davenport and Paul Dudley to keep the Seals.

61 This date is approximate.

62 Willard died December 7, 1756.

63 Andrew Oliver was appointed Secretary by Lt.-Gov. Phips on December 13 and took office December 15, 1756. He was sworn under his Royal Commission June 1, 1758.

64 See p. xxxiv note 6, ante.

65 See Province Laws, i. 753, footnote †, respecting the change in enumerating the Year occasioned by the death of Queen Mary which occurred 28 December, 1694.

66 Sic.

67 These words occur in the printed copies, but are not in the original. See also Colony Charter.

68 Omitted in the original.

69 Sic.

70 Sic.

71 Sic.

72 Liberties.

73 Narragansett.

74 Sic.

75 Sic.

76 In printed copies this is “the,” but the omission in the original seems better supplied as above.

77 Sic.

78 Sic in the original, but “for” in the printed copies.

79 profession.

80 Sic.

81 Sic.

82 rejected.

83 Sir John Trevor, Sir William Rawlinson, and Sir George Hutchins were appointed Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal, 15 May, 1690; and were succeeded by Lord Somers as Chancellor, 3 May, 1693.

84 This heading, as throughout the volume, is not a part of the Commission, having been inserted for convenience by the Editor. A short rule always separates the heading from the Commission.

85 Sic.

86 Sic.

87 Sic.

88 Sic.

89 Sic.

90 Sic: our high.

91 Sic: settle.

92 The copy of Dudley’s Commission as President recorded in the Public Record Office, Colonial Office, Class 5, Vol. 904, pp. 252–258, bears date 27 September; but the copy on the Patent Roll bears date 8 October: see p. 43, ante.

93 In the Commissions of which there are copies both in the Public Record Office in London and in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, words and letters in brackets are such as appear in the Record Office copies, but not in the copies in the Secretary’s office; and words in brackets, italicized, occur in the copies in the Secretary’s office, but not in the copies in the Record Office. Trivial differences — such as the use of the ampersand, punctuation, initial capital letters, and spelling (as “Massachusetts” or “Massachusets,” “mere” or “meer,” “tried” or “tryed,” “shore” or “shoar,” “well beloved” or “welbeloved,” “Lieutenant” or “Lieu^t,” “territories” or “territorys,” etc.) — are not noted.

94 Sic: on.

95 Sic: any.

96 Sic.

97 Sic: and grant.

98 Sic: the same.

99 Sic: by you.

100 Sic.

101 Sic.

102 Dudley’s Commission of 13 February, 1701–2, of which a copy came too late for insertion in its proper place, will be found in the Appendix, pp. 391–396, post.

103 The final “e” or “æ” is omitted for lack of space on the parchment.

104 This paragraph is in the Exemplification, but not in the copy in the Patent Roll.

105 These words are in the copy in the Patent Roll, but not in the Exemplification.

106 What follows is found in the Exemplification only.

107 This Exemplification, which was given to the Massachusetts Historical Society about 1810, is the only document of the sort (among the Commissions printed in this volume) that is now known to be extant. It is engrossed on three sheets of parchment (the initial letter containing a representation of George I), and appending is the Great Seal of England (now broken).

108 The differences between the Exemplification and the copy in the Patent Roll are noted in footnotes.

109 Sic: further Pleasure.

110 Sic.

111 Sic: if it.

112 Sic: same or.

113 Sic.

114 Sic: the Third.

115 Sic.

116 Sic.

117 Sic: Province.

118 Sic: which shall.

119 Sic: to.

120 See footnote, p. 56, ante.

121 Sic.

122 See footnote, p. 56, ante.

123 Gov. Bernard was created a Baronet 5 April, 1760.

124 See footnote, p. 56, ante.

125 See footnote, p. 56, ante.

126 See footnote, p. 56, ante.

127 Doubtless a clerical error for “twenty eighth:” see p. 173, ante.

128 See footnote, p. 56, ante.

129 In our texts of Latin documents, abbreviations are expanded in italics, and letters omitted without marks of abbreviation are placed within square brackets.

130 Sic: Portorico.

131 Sic: per.

132 Sic: eorum.

133 Sic: eorum.

134 Sic: eorum.

135 Sic: assistentium.

136 Sic: repertis.

137 Sic: Forisfactis.

138 Sic: Poenis.

139 Sic: ad.

140 Sic: commissa.

141 Sic: eorum.

142 Sic: dependentibus.

143 Sic: Potestate.

144 Sic: eorum.

145 Sic: earundem.

146 Sic: eorum.

147 Sic: eorum.

148 Sic: eaque.

149 Sic: et.

150 Sic: exiget.

151 Sic: eorundem et eorum.

152 Sic: provisorum.

153 Sic: earundem et earum.

154 Sic: eorundem et eorum.

155 Sic: eorundem et eorum.

156 A translation of this Commission will be found in the Appendix, pp. 357–368, post.

157 Sic: quadraginta.

158 “Lord” omitted by mistake.

159 See pp. 187–198, ante. A translation of this Commission will be found in. the Appendix, p. 369, post.

160 See pp. 187–198, ante.

161 Sic: quadraginta.

162 Sic: but the letters doubtless belong to the next entry.

163 See pp. 187–198, ante. A translation of this Commission will be found in the Appendix, pp. 370–371, post.

164 Sic: observata.

165 Sic: exigendam.

166 Sic: positorum sive poneudorum.

167 Sic: flumiua.

168 Sic: crassitudinem.

169 Sic: nostra.

170 Sic: nostra.

171 Sic: nostra.

172 Sic: contingente.

173 Sic: nostra.

174 Sic: duraturas.

175 Sic: receperis.

176 A translation of this Commission will be found in the Appendix, pp. 372–380, post.

177 The Commission of Sir William Beeston, Governor of Jamaica, dated 15 September, 1692, is entered in Royal Courts of Justice, Admiralty Registry, Muniment Books, Vol. 4, p. 98. It is identical with that of Sir William Phips (pp. 206–215, ante) except as regards the names and date and that against the words “(Judice Registrario et Mariscallo exceptis)” (p. 213, ante) there is written in the margin “This clause was by order of Sir Ch. Hedges y^e Judge left out in this patent.”

178 This Commission and the five following Commissions were not enrolled in full, the Commissions to Beeston, Crow, etc., mentioned therein having numbers put in to correspond with the numbers in the margin to show where the differences lay. This was a common practice in these Admiralty Muniment Books to save time in enrolling.

179 The Commission of Mitford Crow, Governor of Barbados, dated 26 February, 1701–2, is entered in Royal Courts of Justice, Admiralty Registry, Muniment Books, Vol. 5, p. 58. It is identical with that of Sir William Phips (pp. 206–215, ante) except as regards names and date, and as follows: The words “(Judice Registrario et Mariscallo exceptis)” (p. 213, ante) do not appear, nor is there any note about them. Also, at the end, where Phips’s Commission reads “decet sub pena Juris et periculo incumbenti” (p. 215, ante), Crow’s Commission reads “decet sub poena contemptua Literarum patentium ipsius Regiae Majestatis de et super premissis omnibus et singulis Nobis factarum et concessarum et periculo incumbente Datum” etc. And at the end is this note:

This I approve of as a standing forme of a vice Admirall’s Patent for the Forreigne Plantations.

Feb. 23 1701–2	HEN: NEWTON.
19° Feb. 1701°	Jurat sub valore 50^ɫ ꝑ annum

180 The Commission of Robert Lowther, Governor of Barbados, dated 12 February, 1714–5, is entered in Royal Courts of Justice, Admiralty Registry, Muniment Books, Vol. 6, p. 161^b, and is identical with that of Sir William Phips (pp. 206–215, ante) except as regards the names and date and that the words “(Judice Registrario et Mariscallo exceptis)” (p. 213 ante) do not appear, nor is there any note about them.

181 See the note to Elizeus Burges’s Commission, page 225, ante.

182 The Commission of Robert Hunter, Governor of Jamaica, dated 11 September, 1727, is entered in Royal Courts of Justice, Admiralty Registry, Muniment Books, Vol. 7, p. 120, and is identical with that of Sir William Phips (pp. 206–215, ante) except as regards names and date and that the words “(Judice Registrario et Mariscallo exceptis)” (p. 213, ante) do not appear, nor is there any note about them.

183 The Commission of George, Lord Forbes, Governor of the Leeward Islands, dated 8 January, 1729–30, is entered in Royal Courts of Justice, Admiralty Registry, Muniment Books, Vol. 8, p. 10^b, and is identical with that of Sir William Phips (pp. 206–215, ante) except as regards names and date and that the words “(Judice Registrario et Mariscallo exceptis)” (p. 213, ante) do not appear, nor is there any note about them.

184 Sic: Rowers.

185 Sic.

186 Sic: wont.

187 Sic: forfeitures.

188 Sic.

189 Sic.

190 Sic.

191 Sic: Treasures.

192 See pp. 257–266 ante.

193 Sic.

194 Sic: artificers.

195 Sic: our.

196 Sic.

197 Sic: Sentence.

198 Dummer’s First commission (1716) is not know to be extant.

199 Tailer’s First Commission (1711) and his Second Commission (28 April, 1715) are not known to be extant.

200 See footnote, p. 56, ante.

201 See footnote, p. 56, ante.

202 See footnote, p. 56, ante.

203 Sic.

204 See footnote, P. 56, ante.

205 See footnote, p. 56, ante.

206 See footnote, P. 56, ante.

207 Sic: to be.

208 See footnote, p. 56, ante.

209 See footnote, P. 50, ante.

210 Sic: New England.

211 The late Mr. R. E. G. Kirk of London, to whom we were indebted for collating our copy of this Commission with the Patent Roll, stated that this enrolment is a transcript from the original letters patent, which may still be extant, perhaps in the Registry of the Bishop of London. As usual in enrolments, the first and last clauses are abbreviated. The letters patent no doubt began thus: “Georgius, Dei gratia Rex Magne Britannie,” etc.; and ended thus:

In cuius rei testimonium presentes has literas nostras fieri fecimus patentes. Teste meipso, apud Westmonasterium, nono die Februarij, anno regni nostri terciodecimo.

With respect to this Commission, see the Publications of this Society, v. 112–115, where will be found an English translation of a part of the Commission and a letter from Mr. Goodell relating to it. A translation of the Commission in full will be found in the Appendix to this volume, pp. 381–385, post. This Commission was revoked and a new Commission, which follows, was issued to Gibson by George II on 29 April, 1728.

212 Mr. Kirk, who furnished us with a copy of this Commission from the Patent Roll, stated that in the printed copy “ꝑtiñ ꝑagenđ” are said to be inserted in the original, “as it seems by mistake of the clerk.”

213 Mr. Kirk stated that the original, in Colonial Office, Class 323, Volume 9, No. 10, begins thus: “Georgius Secundus, Dei gratia Magnæ Britanniæ, Franciæ, et Hiberniæ, Rex, fidei defensor, &c. Reverendo,” etc.; and ends thus:

In cujus rei Testimonium, has literas nostras fieri fecimus patentes. Teste meipso apud Westmonasterium, vicesimo nono die Aprilis, Anno Regni nostri primo. Per Bre’ de Privato Sigillo. Bisse & Bray.

It should be added that this Commission is printed, both in Latin and in English, in Documents relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, v. 849–854. A translation will be found in the Appendix to this volume, pp. 386–390, post.

214 The translation of the Latin Commissions of Vice-Admirals (pp. 187–236, ante) has been made with constant reference to the English phraseology of William Shirley’s Commission (pp. 237–246, ante), and of the Commission of Hans Stanley as Vice-Admiral in the Isle of Wight in 1765 (as printed in Sir Sherston Baker, The Office of Vice-Admiral of the Coast, 1884, pp. 51–63).

215 The Latin text of this Commission will be found on pp. 187–198, ante.

216 Or Binney, as Benin was then sometimes called. See Rymer’s Fœdera, xix. 370. The Latin text (p. 187, ante) has Binniœ.

217 The Latin text (p. 188, l. 26, ante) has vel, but we should certainly read per (“throughout”). See Andros’s Second Commission, p. 204, l. 23, ante, and cf. Rymer’s Fœdera, xv. 158, 194.

218 Here ubicunque should doubtless be inserted in the Latin text (p. 188, l. 31, ante). See Phips’s Commission, p. 207, l. 2, ante.

219 The Latin text (p. 189, l. 29, ante) erroneously omits quœ. See Phips’s Commission, p. 207, l. 29, ante.

220 The Latin text (p. 190, l. 22, ante) has existentium by error for assistentium. See Phips’s Commission, p. 208, l. 22, ante.

221 The Latin text (p. 190, l. 30, ante) has reportis by error for repertis. See Phips’s Commission, p. 208, l. 30, ante.

222 An old word for “whale.”

223 The Latin text (p. 191, l. 23, ante) has forisfacturis by error for forisfactis. See Phips’s Commission, p. 209, l. 18, ante.

224 Made agrees with letters, above.

225 Here the Latin text (p. 192, l. 6, ante) has Ac and begins a new paragraph. The ms is unreadable as printed. The scrivener or copying clerk did not heed or understand the sense. The emendation ad is certain (see the formula in Rymer’s Fœdera, xv. 195). The connection is: “appointed or to be appointed . . . for hearing and determining . . . all and singular the treasons,” etc.

226 These participles and adjectives belong grammatically to “amercements, issues, fines, perquisites, mulcts, and pecuniary punishments whatsoever and forfeitures of [all] recognizances” in lines 26–28, p. 361, ante.

227 I. e., the premises.

228 The Latin text (pp. 192–193, ante) is somewhat corrupt here. For a better reading, see Phips’s Commission (p. 211, ante; with translation, p. 376, post, and the footnote).

229 The Latin text (p. 194, l. 3, ante) erroneously omits “being” (existentibus) here and adds “and being” (ac existentia) to “adjacent” (adjacentia). Compare Phips’s Commission, p 211, l. 11, ante.

230 See p. 377 note 1.

231 Literally “made” (factam) (p. 194, l. 17, ante).

232 The Latin text (p. 195, l. 2, ante) has eosque by error for eaque. See Phips’s Commission, p. 212, l. 9, ante.

233 The Latin text (p. 195, l. 8, ante) has ad (“to or for”) by error for et (“and”). See Phips’s Commission, p. 212, l. 14, ante.

234 See p. 378 note 1.

235 The Latin text (p. 195, l. 14, ante) has exigit (“requires”) doubtless by error for exiget (“shall require”). See Phips’s Commission, p. 212, l. 20, ante.

236 Per is accidently omitted in the Latin text (p. 195, l. 20, ante). Cf. p. 358 note 1, ante.

237 Grammar requires editorum et provisorum for the edits, et provisa of the Latin text (p. 195, l. 30, ante.) The sense is beyond question.

238 Happening belongs to mayhem.

239 See p. 379 note 2.

240 The Latin text of this Commission will be found on pp. 199–200, ante.

241 The Latin text (p. 200, l. 1, ante) has quadrigenos (“four hundred”), an error for quadraginta (“forty”). The same error occurs in Andros’s Second Commission, p. 204, l. 4, ante.

242 The Latin text of this Commission will be found on pp. 203–205, ante.

243 The Latin text (p. 204, l. 4, ante) has quadrigenis (“four hundred”), a manifest error for quadraginta (“forty”). Cf. Dudley’s Commission, p. 200, l. 1, ante.

244 The Latin text of this Commission will be found on pp. 206–215, ante.

245 The Latin text (p. 208, ante) omits aut.

246 The words here translated by “to be heard and determined, assigned or to be assigned” (audiendis et terminanais assignatis seu assignandis, p. 209, ll. 33–34, ante), are an erroneous adaptation by the scrivener of a formula belonging to a provision not contained in Phips’s Commission (see pp. 192, 209, ante). They may be disregarded. The participles that follow (“happening,” etc.) belong to “amercements, issues,” etc., in l. 14, above.

247 I. e., the premises.

248 The words translated thus (“to proceed . . . thing”) refer to summary process. The Latin (p. 211, ll. 1–2, ante) is “velo levato sine strepitu et figura judicii sola facti et rei veritate inspecta procedendum.” Velo levato is a formula of the civil law meaning “openly and plainly” (literally, “the curtain being raised”). Strepitus judicialis (or judicii) and figura judicii are practically synonymous phrases for “formalities or technicalities in procedure.” An English commission for the trial of pirates (May 29, 1519) authorizes the court to proceed “summariè et de piano sine strepitu et forma seu figura Judicii ac solâ Facti Veritate inspectâ” (Rymer’s Fœdera, 2d edition, xiii. 700), these phrases occurring in a treaty of 1518 between England and France which had for its object the execution of summary justice in such cases, with avoidance of vexatious appeals and dilatory motions (Fœdera, xiii. 650). See Ducange, s. vv. velum, strepitus, figura, planum; Fœdera, xv. 161, 197; R. G. Marsden, Select Pleas in the Court of Admiralty, vol. i. p. lvi (Selden Society Publications, vi).

249 The words translated thus (“to proceed . . . thing”) refer to summary process. The Latin (p. 211, ll. 1–2, ante) is “velo levato sine strepitu et figura judicii sola facti et rei veritate inspecta procedendum.” Velo levato is a formula of the civil law meaning “openly and plainly” (literally, “the curtain being raised”). Strepitus judicialis (or judicii) and figura judicii are practically synonymous phrases for “formalities or technicalities in procedure.” An English commission for the trial of pirates (May 29, 1519) authorizes the court to proceed “summariè et de piano sine strepitu et forma seu figura Judicii ac solâ Facti Veritate inspectâ” (Rymer’s Fœdera, 2d edition, xiii. 700), these phrases occurring in a treaty of 1518 between England and France which had for its object the execution of summary justice in such cases, with avoidance of vexatious appeals and dilatory motions (Fœdera, xiii. 650). See Ducange, s. vv. velum, strepitus, figura, planum; Fœdera, xv. 161, 197; R. G. Marsden, Select Pleas in the Court of Admiralty, vol. i. p. lvi (Selden Society Publications, vi).

250 The words in brackets are not omitted in the Latin by accident; they are involved in the Latin conservandum et exequi et conservari faciendum (p. 211, l. 27, ante).

251 The Latin text (p. 211, l. 21, ante) has “as” (quam).

252 Of course per Transitum is to be read as one word (pertransitum), as in Willoughby’s Commission, p. 195, l. 5, ante.

253 “Mere office, i. e., inquisition. Office promoted, i. e., accusation.” (Sir Sherston Baker, The Office of the Vice-Admiral of the Coast, p. 83 note.)

254 Happening belongs to mayhem.

255 So the MS.

256 The Latin text (p. 214, l. 13, ante) has duraturum by error for duraturas.

257 All these titles belong to one and the same person.

258 The Latin text of this Commission will be found on pp. 341–347, ante.

259 That is, Chief Justice of the King’s Bench.

260 The Latin text of this Commission will be found on pp. 348–353, ante.

261 Sic.