December Meeting, 1947

A STATED Meeting of the Society was held at the Club of Odd Volumes, No. 77 Mount Vernon Street, Boston, on Thursday, 18 December 1947, at three o’clock in the afternoon, the President, Augustus Peabody Loring, Jr., in the chair.

The records of the Annual Meeting in November were read and approved.

The Corresponding Secretary reported the receipt of letters from the Reverend Frederick Lewis Weis, of Lancaster, and Mr. Kenneth John Conant, of Cambridge, accepting Resident Membership in the Society.

The Hon. Leverett Saltonstall, a Resident Member since 1931, and the Hon. Robert Fiske Bradford were elected Honorary Members, and Mr. Samuel Chamberlain, of Marblehead, Mr. Julian Lowell Coolidge, of Cambridge, Mr. Bartlett Harding Hayes, Jr., of Andover, Dr. Henry Forbush Howe, of Cohasset, Mr. Carleton Rubira Richmond, of Milton, and Mr. Sidney Talbot Strickland, of Plymouth, were elected Resident Members of the Society.

Mr. Charles Eliot Goodspeed read a paper entitled:

Extortion, Captain Turner, and the Widow Stolion

I

IN the year 1825 James Savage, reviewing the trial of Robert Keayne for extortion in 1639, wrote: “. . . the attempt to prevent demand of high price for any commodity, however willing the purchaser may be to give it, is preposterous and destructive to all commerce between man and man.”1 Fifty-nine years later the English economist Thorold Rogers said, “In the middle ages, to regulate prices was thought to be the only safe course whenever what was sold was a necessary of life, or a necessary agent in industry. Hence our forefathers fixed the prices of provisions, and tried to fix the price of labour and money. . . . That we have tacitly relinquished the practice of our forefathers is, I repeat, the result of the experience that competition is sufficient for the protection of the consumer. But I am disposed to believe that, if a contrary experience were to become sensible, we should discredit our present practice, and revive, it may be, the past, at least in some directions.”2

The opinions of these two men are quoted here as a reminder (if a reminder be necessary), of the changed attitude towards government regulation of industry within a comparatively short time. With a new economic structure of society has come the fulfilment of Professor Rogers’ prediction. The laissez-faireism of men like Savage has been tossed out of the window.

The measures that have been taken to control labor and commerce in the United States during recent years are not new. They revert in principle to the mediaeval statutes to which Professor Rogers referred. They also, which more closely concerns us, follow attempts along these lines made by the Bay colonists of Massachusetts. Government control of wages, prices and profits in the United States today raises questions that are still debated, but, as has often been said, in New England three centuries ago no one dreamed of challenging the right of magistrates to dictate the wages paid to workmen, the prices set on commodities and the percentage of profit allowed to merchants. The fifty or more orders on these subjects passed by the Massachusetts courts between 1630 and 1650 show how important they were thought in that colony. Reading these measures for the first time one is surprised to see the extent to which they were aimed at wage-earners. Winthrop repeatedly declaims against the exactions of laborers. Labor legislation in Massachusetts began with an order of the Court of Assistants passed at its first session in August, 1630,3 which placed a ceiling on wages and became the forerunner of laws now in force, more favorable to the worker.

The subject of wages, however, enters only incidentally into the following account of Captain Turner, and it has nothing to do with Turner’s complaint against Mrs. Jane Stolion. In these subjects, extortionate profits in trade is the economic background. Turner’s relations with Mrs. Stolion are in themselves unimportant, but Turner was a useful man and an appreciation of his services to both the Bay Colony and New Haven is overdue. Mrs. Stolion is another pack of goods. A hard and grasping shopkeeper, no religionist, I wonder what visions of gain lured the widowed Jane to trust her life and goods to the bleak Atlantic and her future to an association with the censorious followers of John Davenport.

The words “extortion” and “oppression” were in common use in early New England. They were used interchangeably, chiefly to indicate either the excessive wage-demands of laborers or the excessive profits of shopkeepers, especially in circumstances where the buyer’s necessity gave an undue advantage to the seller of services or of merchandise. Practices of this sort have been condemned as immoral or anti-social from the times of Moses and the Hebrew prophets. Saint Paul wrote in one of his letters to the Corinthian church: “. . . if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.”4 A dictum less exclusive but wider in scope and carrying a greater weight of authority to the Massachusetts puritan of 1630 was the Levitical injunction: “And if thou sell ought unto thy neighbour, or buyest ought of thy neighbour’s hand, ye shall not oppress one another.”5 Today, the words oppression and extortion have other meanings. Here, they are only used as men like John Cotton and John Winthrop would have understood and applied them.

An illustration of these remarks is supplied from New Haven by the defendant’s response to a charge of slander printed in the Town Records, 2 November 1658:

Jo. Thompson, being warned to the Court to answere Tho. Morris in an action of defamation, Tho. Morris being disabled to attend the Court by reason of sicknes, Gervase Boykin his Attorney declared that the said John Thompson had spoken reproachfully concerning the said Tho. Morris; he being at Jeremiah Osburnes, they speakeing to him of the dearness of commodities, he answered, how could they be otherwise when workemen take so deare for their worke, instancing Tho. Morris, who demanded as he said 5^s a day, & Goodman Peakins 3^s a day. Another time being at Sargeant Jefferies, he said that he was a 100^l the worse for Tho. Morris, and that he had opprest him, and that he had not walked according to rules of righteousness towards him, with other bad words. . . .6

II

At the height of the immigration tide in 1635 complaint was made in Boston that goods brought for sale by the emigrant ships were excessively priced. It is not clear that this grievance was chargeable to the adventurers who owned the goods or to the shopmen who bought them for resale in the town. Either way, the transactions on shipboard bred disorder. Winthrop hints at the doings on these occasions. Their precise nature can only be conjectured, but as the imported merchandise was greatly needed, a crowd of shopkeepers and thrifty householders doubtless competed for it; and, we may imagine, the riffraff of the town came along to carouse with the sailors and join in their rowdy songs.

Conduct of this sort was not tolerable in Massachusetts and the General Court took action for its suppression. On the fourth of March an order was passed to prohibit all purchases from the ships except under license from the Governor. A partnership-committee was appointed with authority to board the vessels and purchase such goods as were judged “to be usefull for the country,” these to be stored “in some maggasen, neere to the place where the shipp anchors,” and for twenty days offered for sale “after v^l per centum profitt, & not above.”7 Nine men [from Cambridge, Charlestown, Dorchester, Ipswich, Roxbury, Salem, Saugus and Watertown] were selected to supply the necessary capital and put the measure into effect. Captain Nathaniel Turner [of Saugus] was first on the list of those named.

The scheme did not work and after four months’ trial the prohibitory order was cancelled.8 On which, it may be presumed, the committee disposed of the goods that were piling up in its warehouse and shut up shop. Eight months later, in modified form, the order was revived.9 The new order omitted the provision for a sales agency and the prohibitions were limited to the purchase and resale of “provision of victualls.” Evasions of this act followed, however, and at the next General Court it, too, was repealed.10 Winthrop sums up the business in his journal. He says: “For preventing the loss of time, and drunkenness, which sometimes happened, by people’s running to the ships, and the excessive prices of commodities, it was ordered, that one in each town should buy for all, etc., and should retain the same within twenty days at five per hundred, if any came to buy in that time. But this took no good effect; for most of the people would not buy, except they might buy for themselves; and the merchants appointed could not disburse so much money, etc.; and the seamen were much discontented, yet some of them brought their goods on shore and sold them there.”11

Although these measures failed they might have been taken for a warning to those traders, whether forestallers, engrossers or regrators12 whose operations seriously increased the price of commodities. Imported goods were urgently needed, not only for the original settlers of the Bay Colony, but also for newcomers whose rapidly increasing numbers were causing inflation. Nevertheless, the evil of oppressive prices grew, bearing fruit five years later in the notorious case of extortion in which Robert Keayne, the leading shopkeeper of Boston and founder of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company was the defendant.

In the attempt to suppress extortion in Massachusetts, Nathaniel Turner, of whose English antecedents I have no information, is seen to have been an agent.

From the fact that Turner applied for admission as a freeman in the Massachusetts Company in October, 1630, it has been inferred that he was one of the Winthrop company that came over in the summer of that year. He settled at Saugus (renamed, Lynn) and in 1632 was made a freeman. His residence in New England was about equally divided between Massachusetts and New Haven. In Massachusetts he was employed in various colony affairs. His services there may be briefly summarized.

In 1634 he was named Captain of the military company at Saugus. In the years 1634–1636 he was a Deputy to the General Court. He was appointed to the Salem Quarterly Court 1636–1637. He was a member of various committees for establishing boundaries. One of the committee for building fortifications at Castle Island, Charlestown, and Dorchester, he contributed £10 towards the Castle Island “Sea fort.” His name is the twelfth on the earliest membership list of the Military Company13 and he was one of the four Massachusetts commanders under Endecott in the military excursion that began the Pequot War. Underhill, in his narrative of this affair at Block Island in 1636, tells of Turner’s alertness and courage in the irregular fighting with the natives. He says that on one occasion “Captain Turner stepping aside to a swamp, met with some few Indians and charged upon them, changing some few bullets for arrows,” by which “Himself received a shot upon the breast of his corselet, as if it had been pushed with a pike, and if he had not had it on, he had lost his life.”14

After Endecott and his command returned to Boston late in 1636 Turner did not stay long in Massachusetts. Two years had not passed before he joined the company of recent comers from London to the Bay, who, under the leadership of John Davenport and his wealthy parishioner Theophilus Eaton, without colonial status made a settlement at the mouth of the Quinnipiac River in Connecticut.

From the time when Turner came back from Block Island to the day that he left Boston for good, eighteen months elapsed. What he did during some of this time is a mystery. The historian of Lynn says that in 1637 he took part in the campaign in which the Pequot tribe of Indians was destroyed.15 Convincing evidence to fortify this statement is lacking. The question is debatable and will not be discussed here.16 It may be mentioned, however, that on 17 May 1637, the day on which Israel Stoughton was put in command of the Massachusetts troops taking part in the Pequot expedition, Turner was appointed to a committee for providing men, munitions and provisions for the campaign.17

Several reasons why he left Massachusetts may be suggested. Turner had considerable ability in both civil and military affairs and in material things he was well-to-do above most of his neighbors. If, as may be imagined, Turner entertained ambitions, he could have seen little opportunity in the Bay Colony for the advancement that his intelligence, military skill and soundness in the puritan faith warranted, for, there, in the words of Trumbull, “the principal men were fixed in the chief seats of government which they were likely to keep.”

Another circumstance may have prompted Turner to emigrate. Some of the Bay towns were becoming over-settled. From Saugus, Turner’s neighbors were leaving, one group going to Long Island and another to Cape Cod.18 John Cotton, then in the curious, if not awkward situation of lodging his friend, Anne Hutchinson, under duress, while he entertained her inquisitor, John Davenport, beneath the same roof—John Cotton himself (though for a different reason) was toying with the thought of moving to Quinnipiac.19

But there was a more important consideration than either of these. Turner was orthodox and the congregations about him were in turmoil. They were, in the words of the hymn

. . . by schisms rent asunder, by heresies distrest.

In Saugus the church was divided by the recent ministry of the Reverend Stephen Bachelir. Scarcely two years had passed since Salem and Boston were at odds over Roger Williams; and now, just as Eaton and Davenport were about to lead their followers to the shores of Connecticut, Boston almost to a man (and woman) was infected with the theological vagaries20—the “schismatical singularities”—seditiously promulgated by Mistress Hutchinson. Surrounded by these manifestations of discord in the most vital affairs of the Bay Colony, it is not surprising that Turner, whose house had been destroyed by fire not long before, threw in his lot with Davenport’s people. Skilled as he was in the use of arms, the founders of New Haven found in Turner a valuable recruit.

III

Just when Turner and his family left Massachusetts is not known.21 Probably they were in the company that sailed for Quinnipiac on 30 March 1638. It is certain that Turner was domiciled in New Haven when the settlement there was organized in 1639. He was one of eleven men appointed in June to the foundation work of the church; in October he was elected Deputy to the New Haven Plantation Court. The following year, having been chosen Captain of the Guard, brother Turner’s position as one of the top-notch men in the quasi-colony was assured.22

Eaton and Davenport, the leaders of the infant community in which Turner was now established, were described by Cotton Mather as the “Moses and Aaron” of New Haven. The men who led their followers to the Canaan of New England were—again Mather—“as holy and as prudent and as genteel persons as most that ever visited these nooks of America.” Their plan was to settle in Massachusetts but for several reasons it was decided to seek another place. Quinnipiac, an Indian town at the mouth of the river of that name in Connecticut, was chosen, its commodious harbor being a prime consideration.

It is not necessary to emphasize the commercial side of the settlement. Davenport, the religious leader (who also participated in some commercial undertakings), planned to establish a rigid church order, with legislation based on the Code of Laws for Massachusetts,23 compiled by his friend Cotton, for which the Word of God was fundamental authority, while Eaton, the Governor, and his fellow-merchants, looked for a speedy and profitable return on their capital. Though the conduct of their enterprises probably differed in no way from the general practice of the day, the development of a commercial spirit “taken up with the income of a large profit” was criticized by a contemporary writer,24 whose censure points to what has been called “the ‘perpetual dilemma’ of the religious community in secular society,” the “in the world but not of the world,” of New Testament teaching. Though the tender conscience of Edward Johnson led him thus to rebuke the merchants of both New Haven and Massachusetts it is highly improbable that these men were aware of a variance between the precepts of religion and their commercial ambition. Yet the spiritual dangers of their circumstances were apparent to Davenport when he preached his first sermon (the substance of which has not been preserved) from Matt, iv: i, “Then was Jesus led up into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.” How an attempt to enforce the code of ethics set forth by John Cotton in connection with the Keayne extortion case in 163925 would have been regarded by the traders of Boston, or of New Haven where Cotton’s Code of Laws proposed for Massachusetts was taken as a pattern, is an interesting speculation.

New Haven received its name by designation of the General Court in September, 1640. Excepting a seaport of that name on the Solent (whose association with the Quinnipiac settlers, if any, I have not discovered) the name is not found in England, but its general significance, indicating “a place of shelter, safety or retreat”; the “happy harbour of God’s saints” is obvious.

In its early days the New Haven settlement, as has been said, looked to Massachusetts for leadership, particularly in legislation. Yet the first wage and price order passed by the New Haven court was more comprehensive in scope and detail than any similar measure adopted in Massachusetts up to that time.26 In June, 1641, less than eight months after the first General Court convened, that Court passed an order of considerable length in which hours of labor and rates of pay for services were dictated. Laborers, planters, mowers, boatmen, thatchers, carpenters, joiners, plasterers, bricklayers, coopers, ship-carpenters “and the like” found their daily wages fixed. The price of building material, such as planks, clapboards, shingles, lime, etc., was prescribed. Piecework also was included. As house lots in New England were generally enclosed27 and the protection of field crops from depredation was of major importance, the paragraph in which the charges allowed for fencing are fixed is quoted below as a specimen of the regulations adopted in this comprehensive statute.

Fenceing with pales, as houslotts, now are, for felling and cleaveing posts and rails, crosscutting, hewing, mortising, digging holes, setting up and nailing on the pales, the worke being in all the parts well wrought and finished, not above 2^s a rod, butt in this price pales and carting of the stuffe not included. Fencing with 5 railes, substantiall posts, good railes, well wrought, sett upp and rammed, that pigs, swine, goates and other cattell may be kept out, not above 2^s a rod. Fencing with 3 railes, good stuff, well wrought and finished, not above 18^d the rod.28

The measure from which these provisions are taken was not concerned with wages and prices alone. The hand of Captain Turner appears in an earlier section where the profit on imported goods is determined. On transactions at retail three pence to the shilling was the limit except “when bought from ships or other vessells here” in which instance “not above three obulus in the shilling by retale, nor above a peny in the shilling by wholesaile” was permitted.29 Although this order did not prohibit shipboard purchases it is evident that Turner had not forgotten the futile attempt to stamp out forestalling which had been assigned to him when in Massachusetts.

All of these regulations of wages, prices and profits were repealed by the General Court in 1642,30 and so far as the records show, when Turner laid the charge of extortion against an elderly New Haven shopkeeper in 1645, no statute expressly mentioning extortion or oppression was in force. Had the defendant in the case so pleaded, the New Haven Court might have quoted the Mosaic ordinances which, being dictated by God, were of fundamental authority. That these ordinances were so regarded was clearly stated by the General Court for the Jurisdiction at New Haven in 1644 when it was “ordered thatt the judiciall lawes of God, as they were delivered by Moses, and as they are a fence to the morrall law. . . shall. . . be a rule to all the courts in this jurisdiction in their proceeding against offendors. . . .”31 No one familiar with the Mosaic code and the early New England courts will doubt that extortion would be treated by any of those courts as a breach of the moral law.32

It was in such conditions that Turner brought his complaint against Mrs. Stolion.

Having made Turner’s acquaintance we will introduce his adversary.

IV

Jane Stolion was the daughter of William Edwards, a yeoman of Mayfield in Sussex, England. Her husband, dead long before she emigrated to America, was Thomas Stolion of Buckstye.33 About the year 1640 Mrs. Stolion arrived in New Haven with her son Abraham, leaving another son and a daughter in London; and having rented a house on Chapel Street began business there. Mrs. Stolion, like Captain Turner, her antagonist, possessed considerable means.34 Her trading was on a larger scale than that of a dame’s penny shop. The charges against her in the extortion case show that she was avaricious in her dealings. She was not a member of the New Haven church. An inkling of her character may be gathered from the New Haven court records. On one occasion Mrs. Stolion was granted an order against a slanderer. At another time arbitrators were called to settle her difference with “Mr. Eliz. Goodman.” In 1644 an order was issued for payment of a debt due her. In 1646 a special order rated her for taxes.35 Even more illuminating than these sidelights on Mrs. Stolion’s affairs are the charges produced in her quarrel with Turner.

The Stolion case arose from a matter of little moment. The difference between the widow and Captain Turner was in itself a trifling affair. Mr. Stolion had some cloth which Turner agreed to buy. Barter being usual, the Captain offered in exchange, a cow. The bargain was practically completed when, for reasons which will appear, the Captain welshed. He not only welshed, but with a prudence dictated by the circumstances, he dispatched his servant with an oral message to the widow.

Captain Turner has been called “New Haven’s Miles Standish” and there is more than one parallel. Longfellow has recited in familiar verse the Plymouth captain’s faintheartedness before a pretty maiden. Turner, who like Standish feared no foe so long as the foe was an Indian, was afraid to face the visage of an angry shopkeeper.

It is said that a woman always has her weapon ready. Mrs. Stolion’s weapon was her tongue. She had a double grievance. Turner’s decision to repudiate their deal affected her purse. The captain’s failure to justify his action in person silenced her apparatus belli.

But if the widow was thus debarred from the exercise of her tongue before Turner himself, the story was told to her customers who quickly retailed it about town. In a small community gossip flourishes, and it may be imagined that New Haven’s market place with its grisly decoration of a murderous Indian’s head buzzed with feminine excitement. For Turner all this talk meant loss of face and to the military leader of the colony loss of face was unbearable.36

The desire to retaliate injuries to oneself is not an amiable trait but it is pretty firmly planted in human nature. Turner had not attained the virtue of disregarding aspersions. Moreover, the temptation to revenge himself on the widow was strengthened by the present opportunity. Many of his neighbors had suffered from Mrs. Stolion’s exorbitant prices and were willing to give their testimony of her exactions. Determined on reprisal, the injured captain therefore collected evidence of the widow’s oppressive dealings with her customers, and thus armed, laid his complaint before a friendly court. From this point the record will take over. The entry, of dated 3 December 1645, reads:

Captayne Turner informed the court that Mrs. Stolion hath complayned to sundry persons that he made a bargaine with her for cloth for which shee accepted cowes; but was disapoynted to her great damadge, & therfore he desired she might shew what cause he had given her soe to doe.37

Mrs Stolion pleaded that the captayne came to her howse to buy some cloth, chose a peece of 20^s a yard, and said he would have sixe yards of it, and Mrs. Stolion should have a cow, and both aggreed to have her prized by some indifferent men; the captayne said alsoe that he had neede of more cloth & commodityes to the vallew of 12^l & told her she should have 2 cowes, and she said when her son came home he should come & chuse them; accordingly when her son came home he went to the captayne, chose 2 cowes, and when he came home he tould her the captayne would come the next day & speake with her, but came not according to his promise, and though she sent to him yet he came not.

The captayne said he did really intend to have had some cloth and that she should have a cowe, and when Mr. Stolion came to chuse one of the best cowes he had, and Mr. Stollion told him he might as well let his mother have 2 cowes, for she had neede of cowes and the captayne had need of cloth and commodities, whereuppon the captayne let him chuse another cow & set him a prise, namely, 12^l. Mr. Stolion said he would give but 10^l, the captayne told him he would abate 10^s. Mr. Stolion said he would give noe more but 10^l, they parted and the captayne promised he would come and speake with his mother, but because he could not well goe to Mrs. Stolion, & haveing heard of the dearnes of her commodities, the excessive gaynes she tooke, was discouradged from proceedinge, & accordingly bid his man tel her he would have none of her cloth, and nameing sundry perticuler instances of commodities sold by her at an excessive rate, left it to the consideracion of the court whether she had not done him wronge in complayning of him, and if she might not be dealt with as an oppressor of the commonweale.

The court conceyved the captayne was to blame that he did not goe to her according to his promisse, espetially that after he heard she was unsatisfied he did not attend her satisfaction, but withall that the captayne might justly offer it to the consideration of the court whether such selleinge be not extortion, and not to be sufferred in the commonwealth.38

1 The captayne complayned that she sold some cloth to Wm Bradly at 20^s per yard that cost her about 12^s, for which she received wheate at 3^s 6^d per bushell, and sold it presently to the baker at 5^s per bushell who received it of Wm Bradly, only she forbaring her monny 6 monthes.
2 That the cloth which Leiut Seely bought of her for 20^s per yard last yeare, she hath sould this yeare for 7 bushells of wheate a yard, to be delivered in her chamber, which she confest.
3 That she would not take wompon for commodityes at 6 a penny39 though it were the same she had paid to others at 6, but she would have 7 a penny, as Thomas Robinson testified.
4 That she sold primmers at 9^d apeece which cost but 4^d here in New England. Thomas Robinson testified that his wife gave her 8^d in wompom at 7 a penny, though she had but newly received the same wompom of Mrs. Stolion at 6.40
5 That she would not take beaver which was merchantable with others at 8^s a pownd, but she said she would have it at 7^s and well dryed in the sun or in an oven. Leiut. Seely, the marshall & Isaacke Mould testified it. John Dellingham by that meanes lost 5^s in a skinne (that cost him 20^s of Mr. Evance and sold to her,) viz^d 2^s 6^d in the waight and 2^s 6^d in the price.
6 She sold a peece of cloth to the 2 Mecars at 23^s 4^d per yard in wompom, the cloth cost her about 12^s per yard & sold when wompom was in great request.
7 That she sold a yard of the same cloth to a man of Connecticott at 22^s per yard, to be delivered in Indian come at 2^s per bushell at home.
8 She sold English mohejre at 6^s per yard in silver, which Mr. Goodyeare and Mt. Atwater affirmed might be bought in England for 3^s 2^d per yard at the utmost.
9 She sold thridd after the rate of 12^s per pownd which cost not above 2^s 2^d in old England.
10 That she sold needles at one a penny which might be bought in old England at 12^d or 18^d per hundred, as Mr. Francis Newman affirmeth.41

With this presentment of Mrs. Stolion’s alleged extortions Turner rested. He was, perhaps, content that in a measure attention had been diverted from himself. After all, the broken agreement concerned only two persons. The effects of the widow’s extortions, however, were felt in every house in the town. Again the record.

The Court seriously weighing all the perticulers chardged agaynst Mrs. Stolion, conceived that the nature and aggravations of the aforesaid chardges was proper for a court of magistrates to consider off, and therefore respited and refferred it to the Court of magistrates to be held at Newhaven the last Munday in March next.42

In the latter part of February following this decision the General Court, or town meeting, levied a tax on the three shopkeepers of New Haven, Mrs. Stolion being one of them. Besides the ostensible reason for the order there were probably others. Popular resentment against extortion was doubtless one. The repeated distress call of the town treasurer, whose funds were exhausted, was another. The record supplies a third:

For that some of considerable estates & tradeing doe live in the towne & have hitherto injoyed comfortable fruite of civill administrations & chardges, themselves in the meane time haveing small or noe rates, it is ordered that hence forward all such shalbe rated from time to time as this court shall judge meete. And for the present Mrs. Stolion is ordred to pay after the rate of 20^s a yeare to the treasurer, Mr. Godfrey 20^s a yeare [etc].43

Nothing more of the Stolion case is known as the records of the New Haven Jurisdictional Courts (which would include the Magistrates’ Courts) for a period that would cover March, 1646, are lost.44 If a substantial fine was imposed on Mrs. Stolion the result may have affected her health. Death was at hand. On 25 May the session of the General Court was interrupted by a message for Mrs. Stolion’s trustees. It is recorded that

Mr. Goodyeare & Mr. Robert Newman being desired to goe to Mrs. Stollion who lyeth very weake & thought her change draweth nigh, they had leave to depart the court.45

And so departed Mrs. Stolion,46 her body to the earth of the neighboring Green; her soul to await the Judgment of the Great Assize. Turner’s death also occurred about the same time. The circumstances that led to his untimely end are these.

The colony—to use that common but inaccurate designation of the New Haven settlement—auspiciously founded by men of wealth, had not prospered as was expected. Its capital was dwindling. Currency was extremely scarce. The trade that had been developed with the West Indies, Virginia, Manhattan, New England and across the seas was insufficient to supply the community’s needs. A profitable commerce with England had not been established.47 Moreover, the so-called colony had neither charter nor patent. The New Haven settlers had no title to their lands other than those secured from the natives through the agency of Captain Turner.

These being the conditions, late in 1644 it was voted to send a representative to England for the purpose of soliciting a patent from Parliament.48 A small vessel was built; a cargo of wheat, peas, hides and beaver skins49 was collected for adventure; some plate, perhaps for conversion into coin, was supplied by the wealthier men of the community, and in January, 1646, a month after Turner parted from Mrs. Stolion in the town-house, the ship, carrying some of New Haven’s leading men, Turner included, made way through the frozen harbor bound for London and a market. She was never seen again. No word came from the men who in winter rashly faced the North Atlantic in a craft believed by many to be unseaworthy.

On Turner’s death, therefore, history is silent, and the sketch of his life ends here.50

There is, however, a legend that purports to show the manner in which the New Haven ship was lost. As an introduction of that legend will elevate the conclusion of the Turner-Stolion case to a region above the plane of petty mundane ethics, the story is given below. Relating as it does to a preternatural appearance at New Haven two years after the undescribed disaster occurred, it is taken from accounts that are either contemporaneous with, or not too remote from, the event that they commemorate.

V

Half a century after the appearance of a “phantom ship” in the sky at New Haven, Cotton Mather (h. c. 1678), who was then gathering material for his Magnalia Christi Americana, asked the New Haven minister, James Pierpont (h. c. 1681), for some account of the phenomenon. Pierpont’s reply follows.

Reverend and Dear Sir,

In Compliance with your Desires, I now give you the Relation of that Apparition of a Ship in the Air, which I have received from the most Credible, Judicious and Curious Surviving Observers of it.

In the Year 1647. [sic] besides much other Lading, a far more Rich Treasure of Passengers, (Five or Six of which were Persons of chief Note and Worth in New-Haven) put themselves on Board a New Ship, built at Rhode-Island, of about 150 Tuns; but so walty, that the Master, (Lamberton) often said she would prove their Grave. In the Month of January, cutting their way thro’ much Ice, on which they were accompanied with the Reverend Mr. Davenport, besides many other Friends, with many Fears, as well as Prayers and Tears, they set Sail. Mr. Davenport in Prayer with an observable Emphasis used these Words, Lord, if it be thy pleasure to bury these our Friends in the bottom of the Seas, they are thine; save them! The Spring following no Tidings of these Friends arrived with the Ships from England: New-Haven’s Heart began to fail her: This put the Godly People on much Prayer, both Publick and Private, That the Lord would (if it was his Pleasure) let them hear what he had done with their dear Friends, and prepare them with a suitable Submission to his Holy Will. In June next ensuing, a great Thunder-storm arose out of the North-West; after which, (the Hemisphere being serene) about an Hour before Sun-set a SHIP of like Dimensions with the aforesaid, with her Canvas and Colours abroad (tho’ the Wind Northernly) appeared in the Air, coming up from our Harbour’s Mouth, which lyes Southward from the Town, seemingly with her Sails filled under a fresh Gale, holding her Course North, and continuing under Observation, Sailing against the Wind for the space of half an Hour. Many were drawn to behold this great Work of God; yea, the very Children cry’d out, ‘There’s a Brave Ship!’ At length, crouding up as far as there is usually Water sufficient for such a Vessel, and so near some of the Spectators, as that they imagined a Man might hurl a Stone on Board her, her Maintop seem’d to be blown off, but left hanging in the Shrouds; then her Missentop; then all her Masting seemed blown away by the Board: quickly after the Hulk brought into a Careen, she overset, and so vanished into a smoaky Cloud, which in some time dissipated, leaving, as everywhere else, a clear Air. The admiring Spectators could distinguish the several Colours of each Part, the Principal Rigging, and such Proportions, as caused not only the generality of Persons to say, This was the Mould of their Ship, and thus was her Tragick End; but Mr. Davenport also in publick declared to this Effect, “That God had condescended, for the quieting of their afflicted Spirits, this Extraordinary Account of his Soveraign Disposal of those for whom so many Fervent Prayers were made continually.

Thus I am Sir, Your Humble Servant, James Pierpont.51

It will be noticed that Pierpont speaks of the manifestation described by him as being viewed by “admiring [astonished] spectators,” and this at a time when marvels were not uncommon.52 His testimony, however, comes some years after the event. A nearly contemporaneous report is supplied by John Winthrop in his Journal. Winthrop must be credited with a belief in the phenomenon, being himself not untouched by the so-called superstition of the day. His account, the earliest that we possess, is under date 28 June 1648. It reads:

There appeared over the harbor at New Haven, in the evening, the form of the keel of a ship with three masts, to which were suddenly added all the tackling and sails, and presently after, upon the top of the poop, a man standing with one hand akimbo under his left side, and in his right hand a sword stretched out towards the sea. Then from the side of the ship which was from the town arose a great smoke, which covered all the ship, and in that smoke she vanished away; but some saw her keel sink into the water. This was seen by many, men and women, and it continued about a quarter of an hour.53

It is possible that Winthrop’s account of the phantom ship was supplied by Theophilus Eaton of New Haven, with whom Winthrop was in correspondence.54 The testimony of “credible, judicious and curious [careful] surviving observers,” on which Pierpont’s version was based, may have been supplemented by family tradition for Pierpont’s first wife was a Davenport, granddaughter of the Reverend John who died 1670. These witnesses and their reporters, like everyone of the time, accepted without question the validity of the New Haven manifestation as a divine revelation. Belief in special providences was universal.

Today, if such demonstrations were seriously discussed, the pragmatically minded would regard their truth as unimportant; the significance lies in the appropriateness of the legend to the circumstances from which it arose. Psychology, however, speaking from an assured seat in the austere company of the approved sciences, credits the stories to “collective hallucination” or “mass hysteria,” the workings of imagination in overwrought minds under the promptings of preconceived ideas.

Yet until the tenets of humanism disclose reality in their own phantoms of security and well-being there will probably be those who look back on the past with a sympathy that is spiritually akin to the faith of the New England fathers; back of the time when the turbid flood of modern life swept over the New England wilderness; back to the day when Davenport’s little company standing on the New Haven shore saw above the water that lapped their feet, not a mirage to mock their sight, not phantasy to betray their yearning—only the divinely miraculous sign of the righteous, beneficent God.

1 The earliest pedigree, apparently made about 1598, is in the first volume of the Harleian Society. The second, of 1623, is in Surrey Archœological Collections, xi. The third, of 1624 or 1625, is in the forty-third volume of the Harleian Society.

2 Calendar of State Papers, Henry VIII, xvii. 167.

3 The Registers of St. Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey [supplement to The Genealogist, New Series, vi], 3.

4 Bradford’s History of Plymouth Plantation, William T. Davis, Editor (New York, 1908), 286.

5 Surrey Record Society, Surrey Musters, 147.

6 Court Minutes of Sewer Commissioners, 1. 240.

7 Id., i. 193.

8 Harleian Society, i. 87.

9 A. Ridley Bax, “Surrey and the Spanish Armada,” Surrey Archœological Collections, xvi. 249–250.

10 Acts of the Privy Council of England, New Series, xxii (London, 1901), 551. Id., xxiii. 19.

11 Calendar of State Papers, Elizabeth, 1591–1594, 464.

12 A. Ridley Bax, “The Lay Subsidy Assessments for the County of Surrey,” Surrey Archaeological Collections, xviii. 165, 187, 188.

13 The Registers of St. Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey [supplement to The Genealogist, New Series, viii], 166.

14 Index Society Publications, xxv. 166.

15 A. Ridley Bax, “Members of the Inner Temple, 1547–1660,” Surrey Archœological Collections, xiv. 22.

16 The Registers of St. Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey [supplement to The Genealogist, New Series, viii], 147.

17 A. Ridley Bax, “Documents Illustrative of the Heralds’ Visitations,” Surrey Archœological Collections, xxiii. 211.

18 Harleian Society Registers, v. 65.

19 John Venn and J. A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses, Part I, ii (Cambridge, 1922), 191.

20 A. Ridley Bax, “Members of the Inner Temple, 1547–1660,” Surrey Archœological Collections, xiv. 26.

21 Acts of the Privy Council of England, 1615–1616 (London, 1925), 246.

22 Sir Thomas Gardyner’s letter to the King, 1630, transcript in author’s possession.

23 Mill Stephenson, “A List of Monumental Brasses in Surrey,” Surrey Archœological Collections, xxvii. 86.

24 Harleian Society Publications, xliii. 60.

25 Bradford’s History, 287.

26 Revista del Collegio Araldica, 1905 et seq.

27 Records of the old milizia aurata are believed to be in the Propaganda archives of the Vatican. A special search of the archives failed to reveal any mention of Gardyner.

28 John Aubrey, History of Surrey, iv. 158.

29 Paget, Croydon Homes of the Past, 53.

30 Chancery records, abstract in author’s possession.

31 1 Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc., xx. 60–88.

32 John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal “History of New England,” J. K. Hosmer, Editor (New York, 1908), 1. 63.

33 3 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., viii. 321.

34 Bradford’s History, 287.

35 Winthrop, op. cit., ii. 194.

36 3 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., viii. 321.

37 Proc. Am. Antiq. Soc., April 1867, 113.

38 Winthrop, op. cit., 1. 101. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574–1660, 157.

39 Thomas Morton, The New English Canaan, Charles Francis Adams, Editor (Boston: Prince Society, 1883), 338.

40 3 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., vi. 29–43.

41 John Corbet Anderson, Chronicles of the Parish of Croydon, Surrey, 79.

42 Gardyner letters, 1637–1638, photostats in author’s possession.

43 Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses, ii. 193.

44 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1640–1641, 425.

45 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1627–1628, 496.

46 Paget, op. cit., 54.

47 Seventh Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts (London, 1879), 686.

48 Owen Manning and William Bray, The History and Antiquities of the County of Surrey, i. 565.

49 Chancery records abstracts, transcription in author’s possession.

50 Testamentary declaration 1653, photostat in author’s possession.

51 5 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., i. 381, plate 13.

52 Memorials of the Civil War comprising the Correspondence of the Fairfax Family, Robert Bell, Editor (London, 1849), ii. 38.

53 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1660–1661, 104.

54 Id., 403.

55 Id., 600–601.

56 Paget, op. cit., 54.

57 Calendar of Treasury Papers, 1660–1667, 328.

1 Printed, with Louis F. Eaton, Jr., as joint author, in The New England Quarterly, xx (1947), 291–316.

2 Albert Matthews, “Comenius and Harvard College.” Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, xxi. 172, n. 5. J. M. Batten (John Dury, Advocate of Christian Reunion [Chicago, 1944], 147, n. 2) quotes part of the translation from Cotton’s Magnalia.

3 Matthews, ibid.

4 Cf. Isabel MacBeath Calder, Letters of John Davenport (Oxford University Press, 1937), 175–176. In note 1 to page 175 she refers also to A. B. Davenport, A Supplement to the History and Genealogy of the Davenport Family, in England and America, from A.D. 1086 to 1850 (Stamford, 1876), 393–395, but it is not clear whether the whole of Davenport’s letter is printed here, or only the extracts given by Cotton Mather.

5 She is referring apparently to the date of a letter (given by her on pages 172–174) from Davenport to Winthrop mentioning the sending of papers and books by Dury to Davenport and “the 2 Teaching Elders at Boston.” The letter is endorsed as received by Winthrop on 11 August 1660, but is dated 11 June 1660.

6 Which I have been permitted to examine by the kindness of their owner, Lord Delamere.

7 Dury did in fact go to England in 1630 to begin his negotiations for ecclesiastical peace.

8 Printed in the Appendix to this article.

9 One of the signatories of Norton’s letter.

10 Winthrop Papers, ii (1865), 504; Calder, 141–143, who dates it 19 June.

11 E.g., by Calder.

12 Matthews, 171–172; Calder, 172–174, who dates it 11 June.

13 Cf. note 4.

14 “Dr. Robert Child the Remonstrant.” Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, xxi. 1–146.

15 I am indebted to Lord Delamere, the owner of Hartlib’s papers, for permission to use them.

16 Kittredge, op. cit., 7–8.

17 The original letter, torn and eaten away badly in places, and two copies, one incomplete, the other corrected by Hartlib himself, have been found among Hartlib’s papers. The full text of the original, restored as far as possible, is given in the Appendix.

18 Described by Kittredge, op. cit., 17–91.

19 Op. cit., 63.

20 Kittredge, op. cit., 60, 92, 93, 98, 99, 125, 129–132. The letters of 13 May 1648 and 23 March 1648/49 are printed in Winthrop Papers, v, 1645–1649, Massachusetts Historical Society (Boston, 1947), 221–223 and 324.

21 Johann Mathesius (1504–1565), minister to a mining community in Joachimsthal, Bohemia, published a collection of sermons called Sarepta oder Bergpostille.

22 An entry in 1649 gives the information from Child that this had been done.

23 J. Ferguson, Bibliotheca Chemica, 2 vols. (Glasgow, 1906), ii, 167, does not give this edition.

24 Not in Ferguson, op. cit., and not yet identified.

25 Perhaps François du Soucy, of whose Sommaire de la medicine chymique Child had a copy; cf. W. J. Wilson, “Robert Child’s Chemical Book List of 1641,” Journal of Chemical Education, xx. 127, number 33, and Ferguson, op. cit., ii. 388.

26 I do not find this in Ferguson.

27 Published in 1651.

28 Carmihill, a Scotsman, is mentioned in one of Sir Cheney Culpeper’s letters to Hartlib in connection with the menstruum universale or Alkahest; but he has not yet been identified. He may be the “freind in Scotland, who hath perfected Helmont’s menstruum and made many excellent experiments by it for transmutation,” of whom Child writes to John Winthrop the younger in his letter of 13 May 1648 from Gravesend; Winthrop Papers, v. 222.

29 An entry in 1650, probably written in February, says that his library “of many selected books” had come from New England. A list of his chemical books, drawn up in 1641, is given in Winthrop Papers, iv. 334–338, and is exhaustively annotated by Wilson, op. cit., 126–129, where item 110 should perhaps read, not “Bornellii,” as suggested by Professor Jantz, but “Burnetti,” or “Bornetti,” i.e., Burnet, for whom see Ferguson, op. cit., i. 133.

30 By Antonio Neri. Christopher Merret translated it for the Royal Society in 1662.

31 The collection of rarities ultimately went, through Elias Ashmole, to the University of Oxford.

32 It is probably he of whom Hartlib records: “Dr. Bates about Canterbury a pretty man. An acquaintance of Mr. Worsley and Dr. Child. The 15 of Dec[ember] 1649 hee was the first time at my house.” I am not sure if George Bate is the man referred to.

33 According to Kittredge, op. cit., 63, n. 3.

34 There is also a list of “Mr. White’s inventions,” which include stoves, stills and furnaces, and are no doubt those of this William White.

35 He writes from Spanish Point, Barbados, but his references are undoubtedly to the Bermudas.

36 Later in the year Child told Hartlib that Henshaw was about to put into practice “a model of [a] Christian Learned Society” (referring to J. V. Andreae’s Christianae Societatis Imago, translated in 1647 by John Hall as “A Modell of a Christian Society”) by joining with six friends “that will have all in common, devoting thems[elves] wholly to devotion and studies, and separating thems[elves] from the world, by leading a severe life for diet, apparel etc. Their dwelling-house to bee about 6 or seven miles from London. They will have a Laboratorie and strive to do all the good they can to their neighbourhood.” Child, Obadiah Walker and Abraham Woodhead were to be members, and so, too, we may presume, were Joseph Webbe and Thomas Vaughan, who was writing his “Philosophia Adamica” (Magia Adamica, Ferguson, op. cit., ii. 196) at this time, according to Child. This is the group mentioned by Child in his letter of 26 August 1650 to the younger Winthrop; see Kittredge, op. cit., 99.

37 Child went to see Dr. Fludd at Maidstone in 1650, and took Elias Ashmole there in 1651 (Kittredge, op. cit., 100); but it is most unlikely that Child knew Robert Fludd (ibid., 129), for, if he had, Hartlib would certainly have mentioned the fact.

38 By Charles Estienne, completed by Jean Liébault; published in 1554.

39 Perhaps Oliver de Sevres, whose Théâtre d’Agriculture (Paris, 1600) is mentioned in the third edition of Hartlib’s Legacy, 253; but in that case Child’s statement seems unacceptable.

40 Maison rustique, or, the Countrie farme, translated by R. Surflet, appeared in 1600; a revised edition, by Gervase Markham, with additions from French, Spanish and Italian authors, was published in 1616.

41 Bernard Palissy (d. 1590), the French potter. Mersenne, writing to Theodore Haak on 10 December 1639, said that Palissy had, like Gabriel Plattes, written a book on minerals, waters, etc., which had been published in 1580, and that Palissy “a de fort belles choses et est plaisant a lire”; later, he sent this and possibly other books by Palissy to Haak for Plattes and Haak to look at. Hartlib seems to be referring to Mersenne’s opinion of Palissy in a letter of 10 August 1640 printed by D. Masson, Life of John Milton, 7 vols. (London, 1859–1 894), iii. 217.

42 Probably William Johnson, for whom see Ferguson, op. cit., ii. 449.

43 Bartholomaeus Carrichter. No English translation of his works is listed in the British Museum Catalogue.

44 Isaac Dorislaus the younger; I know of no translation of Glauber by him.

45 The British Museum Catalogue gives Johann Kentman: Nomenclaturae rerum fossilium, 1565, in C. Gesner, De omni rerum fossilium genere.

46 Meaning apparently Virginia, Virgo Triumphans. A book about Virginia, with the title Virgo Triumphans, by Edward Williams, appeared in 1650.

47 Leader had first gone to Massachusetts in 1645 to manage iron works in which Child, John Winthrop the younger and others were financially interested; Kittredge, op. cit., index under Leader.

48 I hope to write a separate article on Stirk, about whom Hartlib’s papers contain much new and valuable information.

49 Probably John, for some information concerning whom see later, and also Kittredge, op. cit., index. Child judged him in 1650 to have become one of the best husbandmen in the whole of England.

50 William Stallenge wrote “Instructions for the increasing of Mulberie trees and breeding of silke-wormes,” published in 1609. Child mentions him in the Legacie, first edition, 72, but says the book is out of print.

51 William Howe’s Phytologia Britannica, published anonymously in 1650.

52 Both lucerne and sainfoin are dealt with in Child’s “large letter” in Hartlib’s Legacie.

53 The name is given, from Child, as Wadwood elsewhere in the Ephemerides.

54 His coal-balls, according to his A new, cheape and delicate Fire of Cole-balles (London, 1603), 8. Plat had mentioned this invention briefly in The Jewell House of Art and Nature (London, 1594), 69–70.

55 Not Christian Huygens; possibly his father, Constantyn.

56 “As of muskmellons etc. etc.” The word is not so spelt in the Ephemerides, but as “mashmillons.” Hartlib may have meant muskmelons, which Child wished to see introduced into England from New England; Kittredge, op. cit., 107.

57 In 1650 Dr. John French mentioned him to Child as “my learned friend, and your experienced fellow-traveller.” Walter Charleton may be meant.

58 Elsewhere in the Ephemerides Hartlib quotes Child: “The herbe called Cardomin [Cardamine, presumably] beaten to powder and drunk in beer or posset hath done most wonderful cures of the falling sickness.”

59 Already mentioned above under 1649 and 1650, respectively.

60 Parts (e.g., 115–116, 116–117) of the third edition of Hartlib’s Legacy (1655) deal with abele trees. Child accepted (ibid., 150) Boate’s correction (ibid., 123) that the abele is Populus alba.

61 William Lilly, presumably.

62 An entry in the Ephemerides for 1655 says that Ashmole “dwels not far from Mr. Brewerton [William Brereton] in whose county [Cheshire] he married his wife.”

63 Cf. Ferguson, op. cit., i. 52.

64 Murrough O’Brien (1614–1674), who declared for Charles I in 1648.

65 See n. 2, p. 27.

66 Kittredge, op. cit., 122.

67 Lisnagarvy, now Lisburn, is in County Down, a few miles southwest of Belfast.

68 John Dury was at this time library-keeper at St. James’s Palace. Ashmole was about to print “some ould Ms. of Chymistry,” according to Child’s letter of 13 November 1651 to Hartlib.

69 In the Legacie, first edition, 68 (the second, but the proper page 68) Child mentions Marshall, “who hath 3. or 400 Insects, and can give a very good account of their original feedings.”

70 Hartlib made Worsley and Child known to each other early in 1648.

71 Boyle did not go to Ireland until 1652; T. Birch, Works of the Hon. Robert Boyle, 6 vols. (London, 1772), I. L.

72 Under the Earl of Derby it had been a nest of Royalist privateers which had hindered traffic; it surrendered on 31 October 1651.

73 William Rowe, secretary to the Irish and Scottish Committees of the Council of State.

74 “The Gardiner of Yorke garden” is mentioned in Child’s letter of 1 March 1644/45 to the younger Winthrop (Winthrop Papers, v.11); Evelyn (Diary, ed. Wheatley, 4 vols. [London, 1879], ii. 79) mentions this garden as being in the Strand and having belonged to the Duke of Buckingham.

75 Hartlib, in May, 1654, hoped “shortly to be acquainted” with Marshall; Birch, op. cit., vi. 85.

76 His “large letter,” which formed the bulk of Samuel Hartlib his Legacie; Turnbull, Hartlib, Dury and Comenius (University Press of Liverpool, 1947), 97, number 37.

77 In his first letter of 1 August 1651 Child said that Colonel Hill had “scarce lyen 3 nights in his house” since Child’s arrival in May.

78 Glauber’s Philosophical Furnaces (London, 1651), translated by John French; see Ferguson, op. cit., i. 293.

79 His “large letter” in the second, 1652, edition of Samuel Hartlib his Legacy.

80 Cf. Legacie, first edition, 68–69: “I know that if one take pure neate honey and ingeniously clarify and scum and boile it, a liquor may be made not inferiour to the best sack, muscadine etc. in colour like to rock-water, without ill odour or savour; so that some curious Pallates have called it Vin Greco, rich and racy Canary, not knowing what name to give it, for its excellency. . . An excellent drinke not unlike this may be made of Sugar, Molossoes, Raisins, etc.”

81 Sir Richard Weston, who died in 1652, and whose Discours of Husbandrie used in Brabant and Flanders was published by Hartlib in 1650; second edition, 1652.

82 See n. 49 for his Theatrum Chemicum. He assisted John Tradescant the younger in the preparation of his book, Museum Tradescantianum, published in 1656.

83 Arnold Boate; cf. Kittredge, op. cit., 108.

84 “The Alphabet of Interrogatories,” of 25 pages, which comes after “An Interrogatory relating more particularly to the Husbandry and Naturall History of Ireland” in the 1652 edition of Hartlib’s Legacy.

85 Whom he had got to know, through Hartlib, early in 1648.

86 Walter Blith. The third impression, “much augmented,” of his The English Improver, or a New survey of Husbandry, was published at London in 1652.

87 For a second edition, the first having been published in 1652; Turnbull, op. cit., 100, number 41.

88 Probably his appointment as Secretary to the Commissioners for the Affairs of Ireland; see Kittredge, op. cit., 120, n. 2.

89 Though he had known Petty since at least as early as May, 1648; Kittredge, op. cit., 98.

90 He is referred to as Sir Edward in the next letter.

91 On 23 November 1652; in that letter he acknowledged a letter from Hartlib of 7 August, not 6 August; but see n. 82.

92 Cf. Ferguson, op. cit., i. 326.

93 To the second edition of Hartlib’s Legacy, apparently.

94 Cf. Kittredge, op. cit., 121.

95 Hartlib embodied most of the things in Ireland “worth a philosophical pen” in his letter of 8 May 1654 to Boyle (Birch, op. cit., vi. 84). His account there is worth comparing with the following which Child wrote in his letter of 2 February 1652/53 to him: “there are some things worth a philosophical pen in these places viz. how it cometh to passe, that here are not frogs, toads, snakes, neither moale, nor nightingales, rarely magpyes, and how some kinds of fowles and beasts, we have not in England, as diverse hawkes, Cockes of the wood, Pintayles, wolves, black foxes, greyhound wondrous large, as also diverse plants, viz. maccamboys, sunaman maine[?], cane apples, also diverse fishes, further to enquire what truth there is concerning generation of barnacles, which much abound here, what vertue in the mosse of a dead mans skull, how it grows—also what vertue in St. Patricks well, about 16 miles from hence, as also of diverse things which the Irish foolishly report of Saint Patrick, also it were worth the while, strictly to examine their petrifying fountaynes, which abound in these parts, whither they transmute all woods, or only holly, as is commonly reported: whither turfe doth grow, how much and how, also concerning diverse Iles, in one of which its reported a dog will not live, and a woman cannot have children in—also of Lakes, some of which are accounted bottomless, another at certaine times casting forth yellow amber—also concerning stones like birds, which they say St. Patrick turned into stone for chirping, when he was preaching.” Many of these “things” were listed in the “Interrogatory relating more particularly to the Husbandry and Natural History of Ireland,” appended to the second edition of Hartlib’s Legacy. Cf. Kittredge, op. cit., 115–116 and 122, n. 2. Sir Thomas Browne referred several times in his writings to the (supposed) absence of venomous creatures in Ireland; in his Pseudodoxia Epidemica (first published in 1646), Bk. VI, Chap. VII, he referred particularly to the absence of frogs, toads and serpents; see his Works, ed. S. Wilkin, 3 vols. (London, 1852), ii. 79.

96 He says he received this letter on the day after his letter of 23 November was written. His reference in that letter to Hartlib’s letter of 7 August (see n. 77) must therefore be a mistake for 6 August. 4 vols. (London, 1903), ii. 124.

97 See n. 78.

98 He was executed after the surrender of Limerick on 27 October 1651; S. R. Gardiner, History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1649–1656, New Edition, 4 vols. (London, 1903), ii. 124.

99 His Common Good, or, the Improvement of Commons, Forrests, and Chases by lnclosure, etc., was published at London in 1652.

100 Mentioned in Child’s letter of 23 November 1652; see above.

101 My colleague, Dr. T. S. Stevens, thinks that ferrous sulphate is meant.

102 For Michael Sendivogius see Ferguson, op. cit., ii. 364–370.

103 I do not find this in Child’s “large letter.”

104 This experiment is described in the third edition of the Legacy, 12–13, at the end, after 303.

105 His “large letter”; Legacie, first edition, 48–49: “In Kent it is usual to steep Barly when they sow late, that it may grow the faster; and also to take away the soile; for wild Oates, Cockle and all save Drake will swimme; as also much of the light come, which to take away is very good. If you put Pigeons-dung into the water, and let it steep all night, it may be as it were half a dunging.”

106 Drawk.

107 An extract of a letter from Amsterdam, 28 November 1650, in the Legacie, first edition, 120–121, says: “From Paris I am advertised (for certain) of one, who did last year (1649) ferment one grain of wheat which this year hath produced him 114 Eares and within them 6000 graines, which is more than 80 Eares, and 600[!] graines of your English Friend’s [i.e., Cressy Dymock, see n. 94].” The “secret” of this experiment is given, ibid.,124.

108 In the Legacie, first edition, 120, Cressy Dymock, in a letter of 26 September 1650 describing one of his experiments, says: “Out of one single Barly-Corne is sprung about 80 Ears, of which neare 60 had, some 38, some 36, 34, 32, 30, and hardly any less than 38 [? = 28], which in all is above 2000 for one.”

109 Cf. Legacie, first edition, 8, where Child had already claimed these results. Sir Thomas Browne considered the question of the hundredfold increase of grain in his Miscellany Tracts, 1, section 31, Works, iii. 174–178.

110 Described in the Legacy, third edition, 12–13, at the end, after 303. Experiments somewhat similar to this and to the one referred to in n. 90, including the suggestion of Gabriel Plattes for steeping grain in rain water and cow dung or saltpetre, had been described in the first edition, 124–125 and 128.

111 This is what the word appears to be in the manuscript. It is printed as “salt” in the third edition of the Legacy (see n. 100); but this is probably a mistake, because the addition of salt had already been mentioned.

112 The discourse survives among Hartlib’s papers as a sheet headed “Quaestio de fertilitate omnibus Naturae scrutatoribus indefessis proposita.” An English translation, under the heading “A great Question concerning Fruitfulnesse. Offered to all ingenious Searchers of Nature,” was published in the Legacy, third edition, 16, at the end, after 303. It is not the same as “A Philosophical Letter concerning Vegetation or the causes of Fruitfulnesse,” printed in the Legacy, third edition, 217–219.

113 Not found.

114 Described in the Legacy, third edition, 13, at the end, after 303. The description is an English version of an account in Latin sent by Dr. George Horne of Leyden to Hartlib on 12 September 1652 and preserved among Hartlib’s papers. Hartlib copied out the Latin version, and a further account of the experiment (drawn from Home’s letter to him of 15 September 1653, also preserved among Hartlib’s papers) in his letter to Boyle of 28 February 1653/54 (Birch, op. cit., vi. 82–83). Child’s observations on this experiment and the other two referred to in notes 90 and 96 are printed in the Legacy, third edition, 13–15; they are taken, almost word for word, from Child’s letter of 2 February 1652/53 to Hartlib.

115 To satisfy this desire of Child’s to know how to extract sal terrae and how it differs from nitre, Hartlib obtained (cf. Legacy, third edition, page wrongly marked 12, at the end, after 303) from three friends explanations which are printed as “expositions” in the Legacy, third edition, 17–23, at the end, after 303.

116 Apparently it was never finished.

117 In 1649 Dury and his wife were at any rate contemplating the making and selling of perfumes as a means of earning a living at St. James’s Palace; Turnbull, op. cit., 260–261, 267. Dury was appointed keeper of the books and medals at St. James’s on 28 October 1650 (ibid., 266), and Stirk may have begun to distil oils there soon after his arrival in England towards the end of 1650. He was certainly doing so in March, 1652, as Dury’s letters to Hartlib show; but illness, apparently in April of that year, stopped the work, and it was perhaps when Dury returned from a mission to Sweden in July, 1652 (ibid., 271), that Stirk had to leave St. James’s, the news being conveyed to Child in Hartlib’s letter of 6 August.

118 Cf. Legacie, first edition, 63–69.

119 Charles Butler wrote The Feminine Monarchic, or a Treatise concerning Bees and the due ordering of Bees, 1609.

120 Child probably means John Levett, who wrote The ordering of Bees, 1634.

121 A Treatise of Fruit-Trees, by Ralph Austen, published in 1653.

122 In his “Answer” to Dr. Boate in the third edition of the Legacy (1655), 142, Child wrote of making beer without malt; cf. Kittredge, op. cit., 110.

123 My colleague, Dr. T. S. Stevens, suggests that Enula campana, i.e., elecampane, is meant.

124 Molasses, presumably.

125 Op. cit., 122.

126 Birch, op. cit., vi. 80, 81, 82 and 85.

127 Ibid., 78.

128 Op. cit., 123; the letter is printed in 1 Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc., xvi. 212–214.

129 I wonder if the 3 is not a misreading of an 8 written by Hartlib; it would be worth while comparing this figure with the other two threes in the letter, which is presumably in the possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

130 Cf. Kittredge, op. cit., 112, where the “mention” is quoted from the third edition of the Legacy, 133–134.

131 Quoted in part by Kittredge, op. cit., 108–109.

132 Kittredge, op. cit., 103, n. 1, and 110, n. 1, indicates changes made in the “large letter” for the third edition.

133 See n. 98 above.

134 Probably included in the third edition, 91–92 (where he writes of the destruction caused to crops by crows, rooks, rats and mice, and of the failure to plant saffron, hops, etc.) and on 93–95 (where he mentions a great deficiency in the storing of corn and indicates remedies).

135 Printed on 13–15, at the end, after 303; see n. 100 above. The “experiments,” for steeping corn, are also printed there, 12–13.

136 Printed in the Legacy, third edition, 118–120.

137 Op. cit., 98, n. 4.

138 Hartlib’s letter of this date, and Winthrop’s reply, are among Hartlib’s papers.

139 Op. cit., 129–146.

140 See above, under 1649, and n. 15.

141 Op. cit., 129.

142 See above, under 1650, and n. 24.

143 Kittredge, op. cit., 135.

144 Op. cit., 134, n. 4

145 Found among Hartlib’s papers.

146 Letter of 23 November 1652.

147 Letter of 2 February 1652/53.

148 Op. cit., 4 and n. 4 there, and 5, n. 4.

149 A sheet containing this recipe in Hartlib’s hand lies among his papers. Hartlib sent the information to Boyle on 28 February 1653/54 (Birch, op. cit., vi. 83), and printed it in the third edition of his Legacy, 263.

150 John Francius, a refugee from Silesia; cf. J. and J. A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses, Pt. I (Cambridge, 1922), ii. 172.

151 Op. cit., 4, 45–47, 84, 93–98.

152 I have assumed, on what seems to be sufficient evidence, that when Hartlib quotes Mr. Child in his Ephemerides, he does not mean Robert Child, whom he usually refers to as Dr. Child or occasionally as simply Child; and I have assumed that for Hartlib there is only one Mr. Child.

153 Cf. above, under 1650, for Dr. Child’s promise to get Hartlib an Italian recipe for preserving mackerel in oil and spices.

154 Amersfoort, in the Netherlands.

155 He seems to be “that famed pretender in France” mentioned by Hartlib in his letter to Boyle of 28 February 1653/54 (Birch, op. cit., vi. 79). He is mentioned in 1661 in the correspondence between Hartlib and John Worthington (J. Crossley, The Diary and Correspondence of Dr. J. Worthington, 3 vols., Chetham Society Publications, 13, 36, 114 [Manchester, 1847–1886], ii. 6, 54), and a letter from him to Hartlib among the latter’s papers shows that he was in London in that year.

156 See above, n. 46.

157 Mercury.

158 Massachusetts.

159 The rivalry between Charles de Menou, Sieur d’Aulnay (Dony) de Charnisay and Charles de Saint-Étienne de la Tour is referred to in Winthrop Papers, iv, 163 8–1644 (Massachusetts Historical Society, 1944), passim.

160 Small coastal vessels.

161 Ketches.

162 A street near the Mansion House, London. For the history of the name, cf. John Stow, Survey of London, ed. W. J. Thoms (London, 1842), 97–98.

163 Christopher Merret.

1 John Winthrop, “The History of New England” [Journal], (Boston, 1825), i. 314n.

2 J. E. Thorold Rogers, Six Centuries of Work and Wages (New York, 1884), 139, 140.

3 Records. . . of Massachusetts Bay. . . (Boston, 1853–1854), i. 74.

4 1 Corinthians, v. 11.

5 Leviticus, xxv. 14.

6 New Haven Town Records (New Haven, 1917), i. 365. Cotton Mather has some remarks on oppression in his Magnalia (ed., 1855), ii. 398–399.

7 Records of. . . Massachusetts Bay . . . , i. 141–142.

8 Id., 149.

9 Id., 166.

10 Id., 174. A transaction in which Winthrop’s “brother [Hugh] Peter” bought at a round profit to its owners the consignment of provisions on a ship (“the Charity, of Dartmouth”) that arrived in Boston in 1636, illustrates a phase of the existing conditions. Peter’s purchase, for benefit of the Colony towns, included thirty-nine hogsheads of meal, twenty-five of peas, eight of oatmeal and forty of malt. This, Winthrop says, “saved the country £200.”

11 Winthrop, “History of New England” [Journal] (Boston, 1853), i. 192.

12 “A Forestaller is he, that buyeth or causeth to bee bought, or maketh contract or promise for the having or buying of any victuall or wares, comming by land or water towardes any Faire or Market to be solde, or comming from beyond the Sea towards anie Citie, Port, Haven, Creek, or rode of this Realme, to bee solde, before the same shalbe in the Faire or Market, Citie, Port or Haven readie to be sold: Or that by any meanes maketh motion to any person for enhauncing the price of the same: or that doth disswade, moove, or stirre any person (comming to the market or faire) to forbeare to bring any of the same to any faire, market, citie, Port, or haven to be sold.

A Regrator is he that regrateth or getteth into his possession, in any faire, or market, any corne, wine, fish, butter, cheese, candles, tallow, sheepe, lambes, calves, swine, pigges, geese, capons, hennes, chickins, pigeons, conies, or other dead victuall whatsoever brought to any faire or market to be sold, & selleth the same again in any faire or market kept there, or within foure miles thereof.

An Ingrosser is he that ingrosseth or getteth into his hands by buying, contract, or promise taking (other than by demise, lease or grant, of land or of tithe) any corne growing in the fieldes, or other corne or graine, butter, cheese, fish, or other dead victuall, within England, to the intent to sel the same againe. But such as doe buy barley or oates (without forestalling) and turne the same into malt or oatmeale, and sell it again: and such victuallers of all sortes, as buy victuall (without forestalling) and sell it by retaile againe, and Badgers and Drovers (being lawfully licenced and not abusing their licences) are excepted. So be al buyers of wines, oiles, spices, and other forraine victualles brought from beyond sea hither, except fish and salt onely, 5. Ed. 6. cap. 14: 5. Elizab. ca. 12: 13. Elizab. cap. 25.” William Lambard, Eirenarcha: or of The office of the Justices of Peace (London, 1594).

13 This body, “The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company” of today was gathered not later than February, 1638. It was licensed by the General Court 8 June but did not receive full recognition until 13 March 1639 when, designated as “the Millitary Company of the Massachusetts,” its powers were defined and provision for its support was made through a grant of 1,000 acres of land. Winthrop, “The History of New England” [Journal], i. 305; Records of. . . Massachusetts Bay. . . i. 231, 250–251.

14 Underhill, Newes from America (London, 1638), in 3 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., vi. 6.

15 Alonzo Lewis, History of Lynn (Boston, 1829), 61.

16 Those parts of the records of the time that give color to Lewis’s claim may be studied by any who are interested. Pertinent passages can be found in Winthrop, “History of New England” [Journal], i. 254; Records of. . . Massachusetts Bay. . ., i. 112, 175, 190–191, 195, 197, 232; Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts, I (Salem, 1911), 5, 7. Besides these references the accounts of the Pequot War given by contemporary writers should be consulted.

17 Records of. . . Massachusetts Bay. . ., i. 195.

18 Records of the Colony of New Plymouth . . . , i. 57, 89; Hubbard, General History of New England (Boston, 1815), 244–245.

19 Winthrop, A Short Story. . . 1644, in Antinomianism in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, C. F. Adams, Editor (Boston, 1894), 225, 361, 388.

20 On the antinomianism controversy, Cotton Mather remarks: “’Tis believed, that Multitudes of Persons, who took in with both Parties, did never to their dying Hour understand what their Difference was;. . . Nevertheless there did arise in the Land a Distinction between such as were under a Covenant of Works, and such as were under a Covenant of Grace;. . . The Disturbance proceeded from thence into all the General Affairs of the publick: the Expedition against the Pequot-Indians was most shamefully discouraged, because the Army was too much under a Covenant of Works; and the Magistrates began to be contemned as being of a Legal Spirit, and having therewithal a tang of Antichrist in them. . . .” Magnalia Christi Americana (1702), book vii, 14.

21 Turner had six children, whose names with some facts concerning them are given in Savage’s Genealogical Dictionary. Three of these children are also mentioned (one, discreditably), in the New Haven Town Records. Of Mrs. Turner little appears beyond the information that after the death of her husband she was married to a Dutchman, Samuel Van Goodenhausen, admitted as a free burgess of the town in 1647. Goodenhausen’s name frequents the town records, some of the references being concerned with the inheritances of his step-children.

22 Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven (Hartford, 1857), 16, 21, 40.

23 Isabel M. Calder, “John Cotton and the New Haven Colony,” New England Quarterly, iii (1930), 82–94.

24 Captain Edward Johnson, who attributed the loss of ships voyaging on commercial ventures to “the correcting hand of the Lord upon his N. E. people.” He writes: “. . . the Lord was pleased to command the wind and Seas to give us a jog on the elbow, by sinking the very chief of our shipping in the deep, and splitting them in shivers against the shores; a very goodly Ship called the Seaforce was cast away. . .: as also another ship set forth by the Merchants of New-haven, of which the godly Mr, Lamberton went Master, neither ship, persons, nor goods ever heard of. . . with divers others which might be here inserted; this seemed the sorer affliction to these N. E. people, because many godly men lost their lives, and abundantly the more remarkable, because the Lord was pleased to forbid any such things to befal his people in their passage hither; herein these people read, as in great capital letters, their suddain forgetfulness of the Lords former received mercy in his wonderful preservation, bringing over so many scores of ships, and thousands of persons, without miscarriage of any, to the wonderment of the whole world that shall hear of it, but more especially were the Merchants and traders themselves sensible of the hand of the Lord out against them, who were in some of the ships, and had their lives given them for a prey. . . . Wonder-Working Providence of Sions Saviour in New England, W. F. Poole, Editor (Andover, 1867), 214–215.

It is of interest to find a somewhat similar criticism by Francis Parkman, who in an introductory note to Pioneers of France in the New World says that in early New England “in defiance of the four Gospels, assiduity in pursuit of gain was promoted to the rank of a duty, and thrift and godliness were linked in equivocal wedlock.”

25 The “rules of direction” suggested by Cotton for such cases, as quoted by Winthrop, are:

Some false principles were these:—

1. That a man might sell as dear as he can, and buy as cheap as he can. 2. If a man lose by casualty of sea, etc., in some of his commodities, he may raise the price of the rest. 3. That he may sell as he bought, though he paid too dear, etc., and though the commodity be fallen, etc. 4. That, as a man may take the advantage of his own skill or ability, so he may of another’s ignorance or necessity. 5. Where one gives time for payment, he is to take like recompense of one as of another.

The rules for trading were these:—

1. A man may not sell above the current price, i.e., such a price as is usual in the time and place, and as another (who knows the worth of the commodity) would give for it, if he had occasion to use it; as that is called current money, which every man will take, etc. 2. When a man loseth in his commodity for want of skill, etc., he must look at it as his own fault or cross, and therefore must not lay it upon another. 3. Where a man loseth for casualty of sea, or, etc., it is a loss cast upon himself by providence, and he may not ease himself of it by casting it upon another; for so a man should seem to provide against all providences, etc., that he should never lose; but where there is a scarcity of the commodity, there men may raise their price; for now it is a hand of God upon the commodity, and not the person. 4. A man may not ask any more for his commodity than his selling price, as Ephron to Abraham, the land is worth thus much. “The History of New England” [Journal], i. 381–382.

26 In preparing this order the New Haven Court doubtless had before it (in manuscript form) Cotton’s draft of laws for Massachusetts. Paragraphs one and three of Cotton’s chapters on “Commerce” read: 1. First, it shall be lawful for the governor, with one or more of the council, to appoint a reasonable rate of prizes upon all such commodities as are, out of the ships, to be bought and sold in the country. 3. To the intent that all oppression in buying and selling may be avoided, it shall be lawful for the judges in every town, with the consent of the free burgesses, to appoint certain selectmen, to set reasonable rates upon all commodities, and proportionably to limit the wages of workmen and labourers; and the rates agreed upon by them, and ratified by the judges, to bind all the inhabitants of the town. The like course to be taken by the governor and assistants, for the rating of prizes throughout the country, and all to be confirmed, if need be, by the general court. 1 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., v. 180.

An order that dealt with wages, prices and oppression was adopted at Hartford in 1639. That order was less comprehensive than the New Haven enactment. “Hartford Town Votes 1635–1716,” Coll. Conn. Hist. Soc., vi. 27–28, 82.

27 The eight original divisions of land (now bounded by York, Grove, State and George streets) that surrounded New Haven’s Market Place would call for nearly a thousand rods of fencing.

28 Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 37.

29 Id., 35.

30 Id.,61.

31 Id., 130.

32 Extortion was, however, forbidden by law not long after. In the New Haven Code of 1655 a paragraph headed “Oppression” reads:

“To prevent, or suppress much sin against God, and much damage to men, which doth, and may grow by such as take liberty to oppress, and wrong others, by taking excessive wages for work, or unreasonable prises for commodities: It is Ordered, That if any shal offend in either of the said cases, upon complaint and proof, every such person shal be punished by Fine, or imprisonment, according to the quality and measure of the offence, as the Court shal judge meet.” New-Haven’s Settling in New-England. And Some Lawes for Government. . . (London, 1656).

33 John Comber, Sussex Genealogies, Ardingly Centre (Cambridge, 1932), 191.

34 In 1659, “Mrs. and Mr. Stolion’s estate” was a creditor of Stephen Goodyear’s estate in the sum of £478–08–01. Records of the Colony or Jurisdiction of New Haven (Hartford, 1858), 306. Mrs. Stolion had property, real and personal, in England, as her will, signed 9 April 1640, shows. The American Genealogist, xvi. 138–140. In fairness to the widow’s reputation it should be said that on the death of her husband, which occurred several years before her emigration, she “medled not with any part of his estate, further than her owne joynture extended.” These matters are detailed in a letter from Theophilus Eaton to John Winthrop, 30 October 1648. 4 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., vi. 350–353.

35 Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 56, 80, 147, 186, 199.

36 Turner lived on Church Street between Elm and Wall Streets. Mrs. Stolion’s shop was on the southerly side of Chapel Street at or near the High Street intersection. Within the central area of New Haven at this time there are said to have been some 100 families.

37 Although no law concerning sales contracts existed, either in New Haven or Massachusetts, it seems probable that a formal complaint by the widow would have received favorable attention by the court. In the Bay Colony records (i. 309), there is this entry 29 October 1640, “Attachment was granted to Thomas Fowle against Thomas Owen, to attach such goods as are in his possession, for performance of his bargaine of corne.”

38 Only eight months before Captain Turner had himself been a defendant (with two others) in a charge of “extortion or sinfull unrighteousness in the prices of leather.” The complainant failed, however, to make good his charge. Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, i. 161, 163.

39 The rate fixed by the General Court at New Haven, 23, 8mo., 1640.

40 Wampum, of inferior quality, currently passed at a reduced rate.

41 Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 174–176.

42 Id., 176.

43 Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 199.

44 Id., iv.

45 Id., 241.

46 Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 307. Mrs. Stolion’s son Abraham was not with his mother at her death. Having been sent to England on her affairs in 1645 he did not return until late in the year 1646. His conduct as administrator of his mother’s estate was that of a fair-minded man. 4 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., vi. 350–351. In substance, the will of Abraham’s brother Thomas, “gent,” administered in 1680, is given in the New England Hist. Gen. Reg., xlix. 247–248.

47 Hubbard makes some interesting comments on the New Haven traders and the errors of their mercantile policy. A General History of New England. . . (Cambridge, 1815), 318 ff.

48 Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 149.

49 Hides were obtained by barter from the West Indies; the New Haven merchants obtained beaver from Delaware Bay and from their Dutch neighbors at Manhattan.

50 Turner’s estate, rated at £800 in 1643, was appraised in 1647 at £457.07.03. His indebtedness, which amounted to less than £50, included the sum of 12 shillings due to Mrs. Stolion. Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 91. New Haven Probate Court Records, i. 15. The respect in which Turner’s memory was held is shown by incidental references in the New Haven Town Records for 1659 and 1663, i. 406; ii. 40.

51 Cotton Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana (London, 1702), book i, 25–26.

52 Savage, in his Genealogical Dictionary, speaks of Pierpont’s account of the phantom ship as “evidence of his felicity of fancy.” Savage’s own labored opinion of the whole matter is given in a note to Winthrop’s account in the latter’s “History of New England” (1853), ii. 400–401. Hubbard makes no reference to the story, nor does Hutchinson. Hutchinson in speaking of the voyage quotes only Cotton’s phrase that the passengers “all went to heaven by water, the ship never being heard of after their sailing.” In 1824 the pastor of East Haven reprinted the Pierpont story in The East-Haven Register with the remark: “It is a singular affair and will be amusing to most of the readers.” To this he adds: “I insert it without any comment, leaving every reader to make what speculations he pleases concerning it.”

53 Winthrop, “The History of New England” [Journal], ii. 399–400.

54 Eaton wrote to Winthrop on 6 August 1646, “I have received yours of the 19(4) and 3(5) the later letter almost a month before the former came to hand, two days since. In both I see your labour of love, and that you are sensible of our affliction & exercise concerning Newhaven shipp, of which we yet heare no certainty, but desire to waite with due submission (though the cupp be very bitter) to our wise and good Father’s providence.” 4 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., vi. 345–346.

1 Printed in The New England Quarterly, xxi (1948), 459–492.

2 The data for this article was gathered at the University of California where the author held the appointment of Research Associate in History during the summer of 1946.

3 William B. Weeden, Economic and Social History of New England, i. 143.

4 Samuel E. Morison, “The Commerce of Boston on the Eve of the Revolution,” Proc. Am. Antiq. Soc., xxxii. 24.

5 Id. Professor Morison’s study is based on incomplete statistics for the three years, 1771, 1772 and 1773.

6 Id.

7 Colonial Office, Series 5, volumes 848 (1686–1719), 849 (1752–1756), 850 (1752–1765) and 851 (1756–1765). See Charles M. Andrews, Guide To The Materials For American History, To 1783, In The Public Record Office of Great Britain, i. 171. It should be noted, however, that these Naval Office Lists do not give a complete picture of Boston’s trade, since the activities of the fishing fleet and of the vessels participating in the intra-New England trade are not recorded.

8 For a description of the office of the Naval Officer see George L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, 1660–1754, i. 267–272 and Lawrence A. Harper, The English Navigation Laws, 170–176.

9 This microfilming project, consisting of copying all the extant Naval Office Lists of the English, American and Caribbean colonies, was undertaken by Professor Lawrence A. Harper of the Department of History. During the late war the Metcalf Committee on Micro-copying Manuscripts in English Depositories copied all of the Colonial Office Series 5 and deposited the film in the Library of Congress. For further information regarding this latter project see Vernon D. Tate, “From Binkley To Bush,” The American Archivist, x. 253.

10 It is the intention of the author to prepare a similar study for the port of Salem.

11 For further biographical details see Walter K. Watkins, “The Pemberton Family,” New England Hist. Gen. Reg., xlvi. 396

12 Actually the extant portion of the Naval Office List for the year 1752 begins with 29 September. However, for the sake of uniformity and comparability the entries and clearances for the eleven days from 29 September to 9 October inclusive have been excluded.

13 The inclusive dates of the four quarters are (1) 5 January–4 April, (2) 5 April–4 July, (3) 5 July–9 October and (4) 10 October–4 January.

14 Lawrence A. Harper, The English Navigation Laws, 394–395.

15 Id., 389, 395.

16 Id., 396–399. The chief enumerated articles which affected the trade of the American colonies are:

1661:	cotton wool, dyewoods, fustic, ginger, indigo, logwood, sugar (white and brown) and tobacco.
1705:	molasses and rice.
1706:	naval stores.
1722:	beaver skins and furs and copper ore.
1764:	cocoa nuts, coffee, hides and skins, iron, lumber, pimento, pot and pearlashes, raw silk and whale fins.

17 Id., 400.

18 Id., 401.

19 Id., 402–403.

20 George L. Beer, British Colonial Policy, 1754–1765, 76.

21 Session 1754–1755, c.345 session 1755–1756, c.6, 7, 11, 16, 20, 30; session 1756–1757, c.15. Massachusetts (Colony), The Acts and Resolves . . . of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay . . . , iii, 814, 865, 866–867, 870–871, 880–881, 884–885, 901–903, 998. In 1757 and again in 1758, as a contribution to the military effort, Massachusetts placed a temporary “embargo upon [the] ships and other vessels in this province.” Session 1756–1757, c.35 (7–20 April 1757) and session 1757–1758, c.25 (25 March–1 June 1758). iii. 1046; iv, 70–71.

22 George L. Beer, British Colonial Policy, 1754–1765, 72.

23 Id., 79

24 Id., 84. The “Rule of 1756,” that is the ruling of the British prize courts that a neutral power could not engage in a trade which was opened to it only by “the pressure of war,” to some extent hampered the trade of the English colonies with the Dutch and Spanish in the Caribbean. Id., 94–96.

25 Id., 85, 112–113.

1 Though later writers and bibliographical dictionaries have varied the spelling to La Motte and La Mothe, Cadillac was almost unique among the French in Canada of his day in sticking to one signature, as above. See Bulletin des Recherches Historiques, xv. 56.

2 Edmond Roy, Rapport sur les Archives de France relatives a l’histoire de Canada (Ottawa, 1911), pp. 998–1000; Bulletin de la Societe Historique de Tarn et Garonne, xxxv. 175–196.

3 Agnes Laut, Cadillac, knight errant of the West (Indianapolis, Bobbs Merrill, 1931), fassim; Jean Delanglez, “Cadillac’s early years in America,” Mid-America, xxvi (1944, n. s. xv). 4, 12–13.

4 New Brunswick Historical Society, Publication No. 13, p. 94.

5 L’Abbe H. A. Verreau, Quelque notes sur Antoine de Lamothe de Cadillac, n.p. n.d., 6–10; Archives de France, Marine, series B 12, pp. 86–87; Colonies, series C II D 2, 119 vo; Massachusetts Historical Society. Collections, series iii, vol. 1. 82.

6 Roy, op. cit., p. 999; Paris, Bib. Nat. Clairambault mss. 849, p. 70; Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society. Collections, xxxiii (1904). 648–649; Clairambault mss. 882, pp. 143–144; Delanglez, op. cit., 19–29.

7 In the Margry papers, Bib. Nat. Mss. fr. n.a. 9299, folio i, Father Delanglez has found a reference to correspondence about the alleged nobility of Cadillac’s family in the Archives de la Gironde, series C 128 and 131.

8 For St. Castin see Pierre Daviault, Le Baron de St. Castin, chef A benaquis (Montreal, 1946).

9 Colonies D 2C, 222, 556 (Alphabet Lafillard); Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society, op. cit., p. 648; see further, Delanglez, op. cit., pp. 4–7.

10 Burke’s Peerage, 1949 (99th) Edition (London, 1949), p. 2205.

11 Colonies. C II, D 3, 103; D 4, 4 and 36.

12 Colonies. C II D 2.

13 See Clarence M. Burton, In the footsteps of Cadillac (Detroit, 1899).

14 For accounts of this “forest feudalism” see Edmond Rameau de St. Pere, Une Colonie Féodale en Amérique, L’Acadie (Paris), 2 vols., 1889, Daviault, op. cit., and Richard W. Hale, Jr., The Story of Bar Harbor (New York, Ives Washburn, 1949).

15 Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society, op. cit. xxxiii. 165, 651–653, 663, 670. Ibid., xxiv. 19–29, has an inventory of Cadillac’s possessions at the end of his stay that shows what wealth could be secured at Detroit. Gouttins’ letter is in Colonies C II, D 2, dated 2 September 1689 and misfiled under 1690.

1 For the business transactions of this corporation, and a general introduction to the whole subject, see: George Parker Winship, The New England Company of 1649 and John Eliot [Publications of the Prince Society, xxxvi] (Boston, 1920), and “Samuel Sewall and the New England Company” in Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc, lxvii. 55–110. Material concerning the missionary work in New England is abundant, an embarrassment of riches. Cf. J. Hammond Trumbull, “Origin and Early Progress of Indian Missions in New England,” in “Report of the Council,” 1 Proc. Am. Antiq. Soc, lxi. 15–61, containing an appendix of “Books and Tracts in the Indian Language”; Daniel Gookin, “Historical Collections of the Indians in New England, &c.” 1674, in 1 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc, i. 141–232; also Gookin, “An Historical Account of the Doings and Sufferings of the Christian Indians, in New England in the Years 1675, 1676, 1677,” Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc, ii. 423–534; Experience Mayhew, Indian Converts (London, 1727); “Acts of the Commissioners of the United Colonies of New England,” Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, David Pulsifer, Editor, ix–x (Boston, 1859); John W. Ford, Some Correspondence Between the Governors and Treasurers of the New England Company in London and the Commissioners of the United Colonies in America, The Missionaries of the Company and Others Between the Years 1657 and 1712, To Which are added the Journals of the Rev. Experience Mayhew in 1713 and 1714 (London, 1896), xxxii, 128; also numerous letters and reports of the missionaries Eliot, Mayhew, Cotton, Bourne, the Tuppers and Treat, and the tracts by Winslow, Eliot, Shepard, the Mathers, and other English and American divines; Cotton Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana; Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, i. 18–23 [Eliot], 116–117 [Pierson], 131–133 [Missionary Mayhews], 183–186 [Treat], 318–321 [Peabody], 329–335 [Edwards], 388–393 [Sergeant], 497–499 [Hawley], 548–556 [West]; F. L. Weis, Colonial Clergy and Colonial Churches of New England (Lancaster, 1936); and the standard histories of Massachusetts and New England.

2 Johnson’s Wonder-Working Providence, J. Franklin Jameson, Editor (New York, 1910), 262–264.

3 The first tract is reprinted in 1 Coll, Mass. Hist. Soc, i. 242–250; the three following tracts were reprinted in 3 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc, iv. The latter contain letters by Mr. Eliot. The Clear Sunshine, &c. is by Rev. Thomas Shepard of Cambridge.

4 Weis, Colonial Clergy of N. E., 229.

5 Howard Millar Chapin’s “Introduction” to Williams’ Key, &c. (5th edition, Providence, 1936).

6 Howard Millar Chapin’s “Introduction” to Williams’ Key, &c. (5th edition, Providence, 1936).

7 Knowles, Memoir of Roger Williams, 52, 109, as quoted by Trumbull, op. cit., 17.

8 Weis, Colonial Clergy, 139; Sprague, Annals, i. 183.

9 Ebenezer Clap, History of Dorchester (Boston, 1859), 10–13.

10 John Winthrop, Journal, James Kendall Hosmer, Editor (New York, 1908), ii. 224, 319.

11 Winthrop, op. cit., ii. 318–321, 324.

12 Walter Eliot Timing, History of the First Church in Roxbury (Boston, 1908), 25–27.

13 Sprague, Annals, I. 19–20; Thwing, op. cit., 29.

14 Records of the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, Nathaniel Bradstreet Shurtleff, Editor (Boston, 1853–1854), II. 189.

15 Thwing, op. cit., 33–35; Sprague, Annals, i. 18–23.

16 Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, i. 17; Trumbull, op. cit., 17, 16, to which may be added from the same author: Letter of Gov. Craddock to Endecott at Salem: “We trust you will not be unmindfull of the mayne end of our plantation, by indeavoringe to bring the Indians to the knowledge of the gospell,” and oath of the governor and deputy-governor, which bound them to do their “best endeavor to draw on the natives of this country, called New England, to the knowledge of the true God.”

17 Trumbull, op. cit., 16.

18 Ibid., 16.

19 Lechford, Plaine Dealing, 53.

20 The Day Breaking, &c., 20.

21 Trumbull, op. cit., 18–19.

22 Gookin, “Historical Collections,” &c., in i Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc, 1. 170.

23 Winship, New England Company, xv; Gookin, op. cit., 212.

24 Thomas Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts, i (3rd edition, Boston, 1795), 150–160. Pelham, Hutchinson, Thompson, Floyd and Governor Winslow had lived in New England; James Sherley was interested in Plymouth Colony.

25 Winship, The New England Company, xvii.

26 From a breviate of the Act in Hutchinson, History, i. 153–154. Mr. Winship gives much longer excerpts in his New England Company of 1649 and John Eliot, xiv–xix, q.v.; Hazard’s Historical Collections, i. 635; G. D. Scull, “The Society for Promoting and Propagating the Gospel in New England,” New England Hist. Gen. Reg., xxxvi. 157–158.

27 See note 23 above.

28 Winship, op. cit., vii, xix–xx, xxxvii–xliv; the new charter is printed in the appendix to Birch’s Life of Boyle, 319–335. Gookin, op. cit., i, 213–219.

29 Hutchinson, History, i. 118–120, 153–160.

30 Printed in Ford, Some Correspondence, &c., pp. 97–127.

31 Now a very rare volume. A copy may be found at the American Antiquarian Society.

32 Much of the above data relating to the Mayhews comes from a brief résumé of a paper read before the annual meeting of the Society of the Descendants of the Colonial Clergy at King’s Chapel, Boston, 4 May 1936, by the Reverend Abbot Peterson, d.d., on “The Mayhew Oligarchy.” For further discussion in great detail see Col. Charles Edward Banks, The History of Martha’s Vineyard, 3 volumes.

33 An appendix to Mayhew’s Indian Converts, 1727, by Thomas Prince, gives biographical details of the lives of the elder Mayhews and their work among the Indians.

34 Sibley, Harvard Graduates, I. 496–508; Weis, Colonial Clergy of N. E., 62–64.

35 Weis, Colonial Clergy of N. E., 36–37.

36 Weis, Colonial Clergy of N. E., 209.

37 Weis, op. cit., 208; Sprague, Annals, i. 183–186, cf. 184; Gookin.

38 Gookin, op. cit., i. 212–213.

39 During the discussion which followed the reading of this paper at the meeting of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts on 23 Dec. 1948 one of the gentlemen present declared that some of the Maine Indians were still of pure native stock. The present writer is very glad to note this correction, though no disparagement was intended by his remark. He has known several Gay Head Indians for whom he has the highest respect. Note also the last paragraph concerning the Gay Head Church (No. 33 in the appendix below). Concerning that paragraph, it may be said that these were descendants of the original stock of whom even Canonicus could be proud. F.L.W.

40 Winship, op. cit., lii.

41 Winship, op. cit., liii.

42 Hutchinson, History, i, 155 n.

43 Massachusetts Acts and Resolves, 1762.

44 James Frothingham Hunnewell, History of the Society for Propagating the Gospel among the Indians and Others in North America (Boston, 1887); Samuel Atkins Eliot, “From Scalping Knife to Can Opener: A Sketch of the Origins and Work of an Old Massachusetts Society,” Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc, lxvi. 107–125.

45 The present paper is a résumé of a manuscript by Frederick Lewis Weis, “The New England Company of 1649 and the Indian Missions in Colonial Times,” 1948.

46 Our Publications, xvi. 483–484.

47 Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, 1628–1686; Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, ix and x, being the “Acts of the Commissioners of the United Colonies of New England”; Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, 1636–1776; Arthur Adams, Register of the Pedigrees and Services of Ancestors [Conn. Soc. of Colonial Wars] (Hartford, 1941), 1131–1264; 1 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., v. 226–229; Frederic Baylies, Memoir of Plymouth Colony, ii. 150–192

48 George Parker Winship, “Samuel Sewall and the New England Company,” Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc., lxvii. 66; Ford, Some Correspondence, 80–82.

49 Records of the New England Company, 17 Feb. 1698/9, in History of the New England Company (London, 1871), 246; Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc, lxvii. 69; 5 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., v. 502.

50 Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc., lxvii. 63; Ford, Some Correspondence, 83–90, 92–93.

51 Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc., lxvii. 64; 6 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., i. 311.

52 Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc., lxvii. 75; 6 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., i. 412.

53 Cotton Mather, Diary, in 7 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., viii. 375.

54 Cotton Mather, India Christiana, 1721, names the Commissioners in 1721 as ffs., Samuel Shute, William Dummer, Samuel Sewall, Penn Townsend, Edward Bromfield, Simeon Stoddard, Thomas Fitch, Thomas Hutchinson, Adam Winthrop, Jonathan Belcher, Daniel Oliver, Increase Mather, Cotton Mather and Nehemiah Walter.

55 See note 8 above; C. K. Shipton, Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, iv. 213–214.

56 Connecticut Historical Society, v. 404. Commission dated 13 March 1724 names Samuel Shute, Edward Bromfield, Thomas Fitch, Jonathan Belcher, Adam Winthrop, Thomas Hutchinson, Penn Townsend, Rev. Cotton Mather, d.d., Joseph Talcott (of Conn.), Samuel Penhallow (of N. H.), Edward Hutchinson, Edmund Knight, Rev. Benjamin Colman, d.d., and Rev. Edward Wigglesworth, d.d.

57 C. K. Shipton, Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, iv. 126.

58 Our Publications, xvi. 575–577; Lawrence Shaw Mayo, The Winthrop Family, Boston, 1948, 146–150.

59 Shipton, op. cit., iv. 385; vii. 63, 388–389; 5 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., vii. 67.

60 Shipton, op. cit., vii. 63, 388–389.

61 Id., v. 596.

62 4 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., iv. 415.

63 Petition from Commissioners of Indian Affairs (Andrew Oliver, Thomas Hubbard, Harrison Gray, Thomas Cushing) to investigate selling of the Indian lands at Stockbridge to the whites, in Mass. Archives, 33: 479.

64 Minutes of the New England Company at London names William Phillips, paid as Treasurer, 1775–1777, 1784–1786. Probably news of the appointment of Mr. Isaac Smith did not reach him until 1777, due to the interruptions of the Revolutionary War.

65 Commissioners named to fill vacancies in New England, 3 April 1770, at a meeting of the New England Company at London on that date. Commissioners named to fill vacancies in New England, 3 April 1770, at a meeting of the New England Company at London on that date.

66 Commissioners named to fill vacancies in New England, (25?) April 1775, at a meeting of the New England Company at London on that date; Mr. Smith is named Treasurer for New England, and was paid for the duties of that office, 1777–1784, as per accounts of the Society in London.

67 Elected 19 July 1728; died 21 July 1728.

68 Reprinted in 1 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc, i. 242–250; Sabin.

69 Reprinted in 3 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc, iv. 1–23; Sabin.

70 Reprinted in 3 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc, iv. 25–67; Sabin.

71 Reprinted in 3 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc, iv. 69–98.

72 Id., iv. 99–147

73 Id., iv. 149–196.

74 Id., iv. 197–260.

75 Id., iv. 261–287.

76 Contains letters from the New England Commissioners, 22 September 1658; from Eliot, 10 December 1658 and 28 December 1658; and from John Endecott, 28 December 1658; Day of Fasting at Natick, 15 November 1658; and Pierson’s Some Helps for the Indians, &c.

77 Mr. Winship notes still another tract by John Eliot, A brief Tract of the present state of the Indian work, published in 1669. It is not known that any copy of this tract exists, though reference is made in the Company’s records to its being printed.

78 Some of these Eliot Tracts were used in compiling an appendix on the “Gospel’s Good Successe in New England,” attached to Of the Conversion of 5900 East Indians (London, 1650) [cf. Winsor, 339; a copy to be found in the Lenox Library]. As noted above, seven of these tracts are to be found in 3 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc, IV, and another in 1 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc, 1; five of the tracts may be found in Sabin’s Reprints, 1865, while still another was privately reprinted at Boston in 1868. Mr. Winship suggests that the two historical works of Gookin logically should belong to this series of tracts.

79 F. J. Powicke, Some Unpublished Correspondence of the Reverend Richard Baxter and the Reverend John Eliot, the Apostle of the Indians, 1656–1682 (Manchester, England, 1931), 66, from Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, July, 1931.

80 Twenty-three printed at Cambridge, Massachusetts; thirteen printed at Boston, Massachusetts; and two printed at London, England. See Trumbull’s list in Proc. Am. Antiq. Soc., lxi. 45–62 and Winsor’s list in Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc., xxx. 327–359. These societies possess by far the largest collections of these imprints. Eliot’s publications 3 to 23 were published in Cambridge, 24 was published at Boston.

81 Reprinted in 2 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., ix. 223–312.

82 This work ranks with Cotton’s amended translation of Eliot’s Bible as one of the best translations in the Indian language.

83 Reprinted in Eliot Indian Tracts, No. ix. q.v.

84 Reprinted in 1 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., iii. 203–239; v. 80–106.

1 George L. Kittredge, “George Stirk, Minister,” Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, xiii. 16–59; this article will hereafter be referred to as Kittredge I. There are many references to the younger Stirk in Professor Kittredge’s article on Dr. Robert Child the Remonstrant (hereafter referred to as Kittredge II), 1–146, of our Publications. It is to be regretted that Professor Kittredge died before being able to fulfill his promise (i. 52, ii. 146) of writing a paper on George Stirk the younger.

2 John Ferguson, Bibliotheca Chemica, 2 vols. (Glasgow, 1906), ii. 403.

3 As in a letter by him, of which there is a photograph between pages 47 and 49 of Kittredge i.

4 For the use of which and of other documents from Samuel Hartlib’s papers I am indebted to their owner, Lord Delamere.

5 The information given in the Dictionary of National Biography, that Stirk was born perhaps in 1606 in Leicestershire, got a medical degree and went to America, seems to be quite erroneous.

6 On pages 6–7 of A smart scourge, 1665, but signed (page 8) by Stirk on 9 December 1664, he says: “as for my Chemical Studies, this is the one and twentieth year therein.”

7 Winthrop Papers, v, 1645–1649, Mass. Hist. Soc. (Boston, 1947), 241–242. The younger Winthrop may have influenced Stirk towards the study of chemistry.

8 Kittredge i. 16.

9 Winthrop Papers, v. 235–236 and 239–240.

10 See note 6

11 Page 7.

12 Stirk did not use the title in any of his earlier publications; but, as we shall see, Benjamin Worsley referred to him as “Dr. Sterky” in November 1650, and Stirk’s friend, Astell, in the preface to his edition, 1675, of Stirk’s Liquor Alchahest, styles him “Dr.”

13 Winthrop Papers, v. 98, n. 1.

14 Ferguson, op. cit., ii. 404, quoting from John L. Sibley, Biographical Sketches of Graduates of Harvard University, i (Cambridge, 1873), 131–137.

15 Or possibly early in 1645, because, according to the D.N.B., he came to England towards the end of 1644, was appointed lieutenant colonel in the parliamentary army and died soon afterwards at Lincoln. His son, William, was at New College, Oxford, from 1652 until after the Restoration.

16 Ferguson, op. cit., ii. 404, n. 1, quoting Sibley.

17 Kittredge i. 54.

18 Her name is given as Susanna by W. R. Parker in the introduction to his edition of The Dignity of Kingship asserted, Facsimile Text Society, Publication No. 54 (1942), xviii.

19 Ferguson, op. cit., ii. 404, quoting Sibley.

20 Another entry in the Ephemerides says Stirk “is a M^r of Art in N[ew] E[ngland] and theref[ore] in Old E[ngland] also enjoying the same Priviledges.”

21 This does not tally with his father being a minister of the Church of England; yet Child repeated the statement to Hartlib in 1651. Kittredge (1. 22), however, says that Stirk’s father was a “high Calvinist,” but was nevertheless, while minister in Bermuda, “under no suspicion of nonconformity.”

22 There seems to be no further evidence on this matter, and it is difficult to fit this period of two years’ confinement into the known history of Stirk’s life between 1644 and 1650.

23 Natures Explication, Epistle to the Reader.

24 Ibid., 35–38.

25 A smart scourge, 6–7. Cf. what Astell wrote of him in the preface to his edition of Stirk’s Liquor Alchahest: “That his acquirements were great, is not unknown to the world, especially to those who had any intimate familiarity with him, his writings testifie his ability in the Philosophy, or learning of the schools, as well as in that of Nature, his discoveries having truly intituled him Philosophus per Ignem.”

26 Probably Thomas Howard, second Earl. 1586–1646.

27 Kittredge i. 16, 55, and n. 2 on 55.

28 Kittredge ii. 101 and n. 6 there.

29 In that year Leader was replaced by John Gifford in the management of iron works in Massachusetts; Kittredge ii. 12.

30 In his Pyrotechny, Epistle Dedicatory, iii, Stirk says of Helmont: “whom I formerly made my Chymical Evangelist, but do now believe, not convinced by his Arguments and Reasons, but by Experimental Confirmation and Practical Ocular Demonstration.” Cf. ibid., 78, where Stirk acknowledges that he has reaped more benefit from Helmont’s writings than from those of any other ancient or modern writer, and has spent fourteen years in the prosecution of Helmont’s discoveries without the least cause for repenting that he ever undertook to do so. In 1650 Hartlib recorded that Stirk was a great lover and admirer of Helmont, and in the same year Child told Hartlib that Stirk knew “almost all Helmont by heart.”

31 Not identified.

32 Stirk himself said, in a letter to the younger Winthrop of 2 August 1648: “I have built a furnace, very exquisitely”; Winthrop Papers, v. 241–242. In Natures Explication, 38, he said, speaking of the early years of his chemical studies: “I invented many sorts of Furnaces.”

33 Hartlib made this entry in his Ephemerides just after 23 April.

34 For a description of a process for the transmutation of metals see 119–120 of The Stone of the Philosophers in Collectanea Chemica (1893).

35 Cf. Pyrotechny, 55, where Stirk says: “The Gifts of God are not our own to employ at our pleasure, but are to be used for his Glory, and the good both of ourselves, and such among whom we converse.”

36 Cf. Ferguson, op. cit., ii. 403; Stirk “is said to have . . . obtained. . . a quantity of a powder for transmuting metals into silver . . . but [to have] lost his powder in attempts to convert it into the tincture for gold.” For other cases of supposed transmutation of metals, and stories based thereon of a mysterious adept who possessed the necessary “stone” or powder, see Kittredge ii. 133–134. Stirk himself, in an undated letter to Clodius which I place in July or August 1652, told of the recent visit to him in London of an old philosopher (of at least 75 years of age) from Brussels, a familiar friend of Helmont when alive, who had received, along with Helmont, a little piece of the Elixir Aurificum from a Monsieur Shatteleet, a friend of Helmont, and who had many secrets, including a universal liquor, and could dissolve everything, including gold, on which he worked chiefly, trying to recombine this volatile irreducible oil with its mercury, separated by his tinctures, and to digest it into a green, white and yellow powder.

37 Cf. 88 of The Stone of the Philosophers, in Collectanea Chemica (1893): “some, who were adepts in the art, have by painful processes taken gold for their male, and the mercury, which they knew how to extract from the less compacted metals, for a female.” Cf. 97–98: “We shall go on to observe that the ores of Metals are our First Matter, or sperm, wherein the seed is contained, and the key of this art consists in a right dissolution of the ores into a water, which the philosophers call their mercury, or water of life, and an earthy substance, which they have denominated their sulphur. The first is called their woman, wife, Luna, and other names, signifying that it is the feminine quality in their seed; the other they have denominated their man, husband, Sol, etc. to point out its masculine quality. In the separation and due conjunction of these two with heat, and careful management, there is generated a noble offspring, which they have for its excellency called the quintessence, or a subject wherein the four elements are so completely harmonised as to produce a fifth subsisting in the fire, without waste of substance, or diminution of its virtue.”

38 In his address “To the Reader” in the Marrow of Alchemy, as quoted by Ferguson, op. cit., ii. 475, Stirk says that the author of that work “was an eye-witnesse of the great secret … [and] had by gift a portion of that precious Jewel so sought for by many but found of few; which portion although he did for the most part lose it in hopes of multiplication of it (which he could not attain, being of the White not the Red powder), yet by diligent search and industry he attained the preparation of the Philosopher’s Mercury, and by it to the preparation of the Elixir of the first order, which is indeed but of small vertue compared to what it may be advanced to . . . [but] which will tinge ☿ or any imperfect metal into ☾.” On 8 August 1653, Hartlib recorded that Clodius had transcribed and sent to Moriaen the true preparation of this Philosopher’s Mercury, as Stirk had imparted it to Boyle. Stirk describes the differences between Philosopher’s Mercury and the Alcahest in his Pyrotechny, 22–25.

39 Marrow of Alchemy, First Part, 1654, Second Book, 21–32.

40 Henry Jones (1605–1682).

41 Pyrotechny, 79.

42 Ibid., 18–19. He devotes five chapters of that work (IX–XIII, 17–46) to a description of its “vertue and efficacy,” the material from which it is made and the manner of making it.

43 In Natures Explication, 1657, 295, Stirk states the time involved rather differently: “I must ingenuously professe that my mind was so fixed with eagerness after that secret [Liquor Alcahest] that I did for nigh ten years make it my main search.” In his Pyrotechny, 34, he writes “of many years tryals (off and on) but of nigh two years almost daily (I am sure weekly) search.” The two years may well have dated from his arrival in England at the end of 1650.

44 In his Pyrotechny, 26–27, Stirk said he hoped to be able to prepare the liquor in 50 ♁ [= ? days], perhaps in only 40. Boyle ultimately saw and admired the liquor which Stirk obtained, but it seemed to him “far short of the Alkahest”; T. Birch, Works of the Hon. Robert Boyle, 6 vols. (London, 1772), ii. 97 (where the “chymist” is to be identified with Stirk, and where the “Dr. C.” is Clodius). The white tincture (which transmutes the inferior metals into silver), and the (higher) red (which is a universal remedy) are described in The Stone of the Philosophers, 116–117.

45 Early in 1651 Child told Hartlib that the elixir which Stirk was then making “is not yet that universal Alkahest, but it is an approximation.” Stirk must have told Child about the progress of his experiments before the latter left England for Ireland, where he landed on 20 May 1651, for Child wrote thus from Ireland to Hartlib about Stirk on 23 November 1652: “I believe he hath already tould me his Alkahest. I am glad if it prove soe.”

46 Natures Explication, 295. Astell, a friend of Stirk, stated in the preface to his edition (1675) of Stirk’s Liquor Alchahest: “I must confess, I never could get a sight of the Alchahest prepared by him.”

47 Pyrotechny, 31, 34. On 153, 159–160 and 168–169 he writes of his lack of conveniences, such as space and suitable furnaces, for further operations. In Natures Explication, 225, he also writes of “oft times running in debt for conveniences, and necessaries, and sparing out of my belly to finde out new experiments.” Astell, op. et loc. cit., speaks of Stirk’s “want of conveniences, being hurried from place to place,” as a possible reason for his never having seen Stirk’s Alcahest.

48 Pyrotechny, 49; cf. 80, where he disapproves of the zeal that made him search for the Liquor, almost to the neglect of all other things, when he would have done better, as he advises others to do, to proceed more gradually and secure ground gained before trying to win new.

49 Pyrotechny, 21. In 1652 Clodius called Stirk’s Alcahest a most noble medicine and universal, except for the stone, “which requires another preparation.”

50 Ibid., 28–31.

51 Ibid., 32.

52 Ibid., 32–33.

53 A few weeks later, however, Child told Hartlib that Stirk, then lodged with Mr. Webbe [perhaps Joseph Webbe], was making a liquor which was an approximation to the Alcahest, and which would do to cure, without pain or injury, the stone “in the reines and bladder,” but would need at least ten weeks for its preparation. Moreover, later, in his Starkey’s Pill [? 1660], 8, Stirk claimed to have prepared the Ludus of Helmont, twenty drops of which cure the stone “radically, both in the kidneys and bladder, and take away all future inclinations thereto.” For this Ludus, and Hartlib’s wish to have it prepared for him by Clodius in 1659, see Birch, op. cit., ii. 96–97, and vi. 122.

54 Sic, for ? melliginem.

55 Starkey’s Pill, 2. Cf. A brief Examination, where he says (p. 1) that in 1651 he began to use publicly in his medical practice several “succedaneous” remedies, i.e., rather inferior substitutes, for the cure of diseases, especially acute diseases, and (p. 4) that he had, since 1655, “amended and advanced beyond credit” the pill, whose preparation he taught to Mr. Mathew in that year. In his The Admirable Efficacy . . . of True Oil . . . of Sulphur Vive (in Collectanea Chemica [1893], 51–53) he refers to the pill as an “anodinous elixir,” saying that he had improved upon it to such an extent that it was now the most inferior in virtue of all his medicines, and called by him his “Elixir Diaphoretick Commune,” of which “able, judicious practitioners (having once bought his more effective and higher graduated preparations in the same kind) have so low an esteem (comparatively to these others) that they desire no more thereof.”

56 On 24 March 1652 Dury, who had embarked on a ship for Sweden, wrote to Hartlib that, when he opened the medicine which Stirk had given him, he found that “the moist aire of the sea had begunne to cause it melt; therefore I gotte a small glass bottle and put it into it, that if it should melt it should not be lost.”

57 Natures Explication, in the Epistle to the Reader, which is dated 20 November 1656.

58 Natures Explication, 232–233. He adds: “but my cures are too contemptible for the rich, counsel and medicine in almost two thirds of my cures scarce exceeding, sometimes not amounting to a crown, not one in forty rising to above an Angel.” On p. 225 he says, in reference to a physician who was making £1000 a year, that he himself cures in a year about as many poor patients gratis as this physician has in his practice, and goes on: “to others that are rich, I give both medicines and counsel, asking nothing till the cure is performed, and then by some put off with little, and by some with nothing, because my medicaments are but little in quantity, and the cure (beyond expectation) speedily effected; and yet whatever I do get I lay out in future discoveries, and all to do good to an ungrateful generation; oft times running in debt for conveniences, and necessaries, and sparing out of my belly to finde out new experiments in medicine, and yet for all this getting on one hand hatred and opposition, and on the other hand, contempt for performing cures so soon and cheap; yet I know that my reward will be a good name when I am gone, and from God hereafter.”

59 Cf. Birch, op. cit., II. 150–151, where Boyle quotes from Helmont about this salt of tartar, discusses the possibility of volatilizing it, and mentions that “an ingenious acquaintance of mine [? Clodius], whom notwithstanding my wonted distrusts of chymists, I durst credit, affirmed to me, that he had himself seen a true and real Sal tartari volatile, made of alkali of tartar, and had seen strange things done with it” [? by Stirk]. Stirk himself (Pyrotechny, 80) quotes, like Boyle, the same advice of Helmont to the medical chemist: “If you cannot attain to that hidden fire [the Liquor Alcahest], yet learn to make the Salt of Tartar Volatile, that by it you may make your dissolutions.”

60 Op. et loc. cit.

61 Early in 1651 Hartlib recorded that Stirk should have gone on first of all with his “lucriferous” experiment of antimony (for transmutation) and have prepared his universal medicines afterwards.

62 Cf. what Boyle says of this elixir and of its use as a cordial and as a medicine, and what Hartlib and John Beale thought of it; Birch, op. cit., ii. 149, vi. 94, 351. According to Stirk (Pyrotechny, 30), Helmont commended it for long life.

63 Perhaps chiratin, one of the chief constituents of chirata, from which a bitter is made.

64 On 2 August 1648 Stirk asked the younger Winthrop to lend him Helmont’s De Febribus; Winthrop Papers, v. 241–242.

65 For this cf. Birch, op. cit., ii. 122, 129.

66 See Birch, op. cit., ii. 130–131, for Boyle’s views on its use as a medicine for pleurisy, coughs and other “distempers.”

67 Stirk claimed (Starkey’s Pill, 6) that, so far as was known, he was the first person to make this medicine in England, which he did in 1652 for Boyle, “who hath wrote of its excellency, as his extant Treatise thereof can testify.” He adds that it “is yellow as the purest gold and approaches the element of the fire of Venus,” and that it is much superior to a preparation that he made in 1651 for Boyle, who commended it. Boyle does not seem to have devoted a treatise to it, but refers to it as “cheap enough to be fit for the use of the poor” and as “flores colchotharis,” and says that he and “an industrious chymist” [Stirk] known to Pyrophilus [Richard Jones, later Viscount Ranelagh], whom he is addressing, looking at that tract of Helmont’s which he calls Butler, tried whether a medicine, somewhat approaching to that he (Helmont) made in imitation of Butler’s stone, might not be easily made out of calcined vitriol, and found this medicine, of which he then describes the preparation and virtues (Birch, op. cit., ii, 135–136). Stirk mentions Helmont’s Ens Veneris and his “Tractate entituled Butler” in Pyrotechny, 157. Cf. Birch, of. cit., ii. 215–219, where Boyle describes how he and Stirk first found the medicine, its preparation, dose, use for fevers, etc.; and v. 590, for its effect in a febris petechialis.

68 Boyle discusses the making and medicinal virtues of spirit of blood; Birch, op. cit., iv. especially 617 and 637–745 (really 645).

69 Stirk described its preparation and eulogized it as a “sovereign remedy for most (not to say all) diseases” in his Pyrotechny, 32–33; cf. Birch, op. cit., vi. 612–613.

70 Dury, who had embarked at London on a ship for Sweden by 24 March 1652, wrote to Hartlib on 14 May of that year asking whether Stirk had set to work on his oils and with what success, and also enquiring what sale the oil had had which Stirk was preparing when Dury left London. Apparently the venture did not succeed, for Stirk lamented to Robert Child his misfortune in removing to St. James’s to distil oils.

71 Benjamin.

72 So I interpret Hartlib’s bad writing. His meaning is not clear. Ratcliffe was a suburb of London outside the city wall towards the east. There was a Glasshouse, which appears to have been an inn, in Broad Street; but that was within the city wall.

73 Angel water.

74 Hartlib gives this information after quoting, as a parallel and confirmation, the following passage about diamonds from Fontana, De Microscopio, 150: “Arena specillo supposita non arenam videmus, sed praestantissimos Smaragdos et Rubinos: insuper cernuntur Porphyritides Achates et innumerae gemmae.” Francesco Fontana’s (1580–1656) Novae coelestium et terrestrium Rerum Observationes, specillis a se inventis, et ad summam perfectionem perductis editae (Naples, 1646), has a treatise on the microscope.

75 Hartlib’s record states also that (Jean Baptista) Coen had imparted to Moriaen as “a very rare secret” the way to make white and yellow diamonds.

76 Clodius, who had this information from Boyle and passed it on to Hartlib, was to give the method a trial.

77 Page 79.

78 Henry Carey, first Earl, died 1666. On 28 February 1653/1654 Hartlib wrote Boyle about Stirk (Birch, op. cit., vi. 80): “I hear there are secret transactions between him and my Lord Dover; but I am afraid they will all vanish into smoke.”

79 Hartlib thought it was Mr. Webbe [perhaps Joseph Webbe].

80 Talc.

81 Hartlib comments: “But it’s objected that the oile will foul them for all that.”

82 Henry More may be meant; or John Moore, Mrs. Dury’s second son by her first husband.

83 Presumably Thomas. Four works by him were published in 1650: Anthroposophia Theomagia, Anima Magica Abscondita, Magia Adamica, and The Man-Mouse taken in a Trap (Ferguson, op. cit., ii. 195–196).

84 This may have been his own Liquor Alkahest, of which he wrote a Latin version (cf. Pyrotechny, 35), but which was published in English.

85 Apparently as the result of the use of some such medicine as the Liquor Alcahest, or some substitute for it. Cf. Pyrotechny, 150, for the renewing of hair, teeth, and also skin.

86 Since coming to England, presumably.

87 So the manuscript.

88 Of the philosopher’s stone, no doubt.

89 Presumably the Epistle to King Edward IV.

90 Called this time “the Indian manuscripts of Stirk”; yet the marginal note has “Ms. chym. Stirk.”

91 Johann Friedrich Schlezer, who came to England in 1655 as the agent of the Elector of Brandenburg.

92 J. F. Hartprecht, concerning whom see my article, “Peter Stahl, The First Public Teacher of Chemistry at Oxford,” Annals of Science, vol. 9, no. 3 (September 1953), 267, n. 14.

93 Frederick Kretschmar, a physician, who was in London from 1657 to 1658 seeking financial help for twenty exiled Protestant families driven out of Bohemia.

94 For this and other manuscripts which Stirk said he got from the person to whom they were given by the author see Ferguson, op. cit., ii. 475–476, and Kittredge ii. 134–136.

95 Writing, presumably.

96 The reference is perhaps to the Introitus Apertus.

97 As mentioned above (p. 000), he was there in March 1652; it was perhaps when Dury returned from Sweden in July 1652 that he had to leave.

98 As Hartlib put it in a letter to Boyle of the 28th of that month; Birch, op. cit., vi. 80.

99 Pyrotechny, 172.

100 Royal and other innocent bloud, 43.

101 The Dignity, Introduction, p. xviii, n. 7.

102 When he wrote The admirable efficacy; cf. Ferguson, op. cit., ii. 404.

103 A smart scourge, 8.

104 Epistolar Discourse, 63.

105 Stirk was introduced to Boyle by Child, a mutual friend (Pyrotechny, Epistle Dedicatory). This must have been between about 29 November 1650, by which date Stirk had arrived in England, and 16 January 1651, by which time Stirk had prescribed a medicine for Boyle. Boyle must have undertaken to help Stirk, or employ him, because Dury, who had asked Boyle, through Hartlib, on 2 April 1652, to persuade Stirk to set upon his lucriferous experiments and not “to make haste at an adventure upon the great worke,” writing to Hartlib on 14 May of that year, says: “I would also know, what realitie he [Boyle] hath performed towards Mr. Stirk.”

106 Cf. the advice Stirk himself gave, no doubt with his own case in mind, in his Marrow of Alchemy, Second Part (1655), 22:

“Nor let thy room be so, wherein thy heat

Thou keep’st immortal, that the fumes arising

From coals no vent may finde, for thou maist get

(As some have done, hereof less care devising)

Therby much harm, which late thou will repent,

Hazarding life by their most hurtful scent.”

107 Letter from Hartlib to Boyle, 28 February 1653/1654; Birch, op. cit., VI. 79. Hartlib writes (ibid., 80, 81) of Stirk’s “ungrateful obstinacy” and of him as being “altogether degenerated,” as having always concealed “his rotten condition,” as having deceived Mr. Webbe and had no communication with Clodius since Boyle went to Ireland, and as not keeping his promise to write “diligently” to Boyle. The English doctor (Kittredge ii. 136) says of his coming to know Stirk after the latter had used up all his “tincture”: “Then, at my expense, and that of certain friends of mine, we discovered the emptiness of his words.” Kittredge himself (ii. 146) refers to Stirk’s “teeming brain and not too scrupulous conscience.” The last entry in Hartlib’s Ephemerides of direct information from Stirk was made between 3 and 25 September 1653.

108 Presumably in that year.

109 Pyrotechny (1658), 161–164 and 168–169. Stirk says through the malice of Dr. William Currer, who “perverted my Attorney, produced an unconscionable hellfaced Fellow (with a Bushel-wide Conscience) to swear against me, and prevaricate against the Truth, by which Oath I was considerably and unrighteously damnified.” Currer, he adds, was a former acquaintance who had, since his persecution of Stirk, lost his medical and moral reputation, much to Stirk’s grief, for Currer had been a man of wit, a scholar, an able physician and an acute chemist.

110 Which may have begun in 1657, for John Beale, in a letter to Hartlib of 3 November of that year, refers to Stirk’s “distresse.” He adds: “I. . . did expect that his foule language would beget strong adversaries.” This gives a clue perhaps to Stirk’s “confinement,” for he had attacked the Galenical doctors severely in his Natures Explication (1657; Epistle to the Reader signed by Stirk on 20 November 1656). It must be noted, however, that in that work (Epistle Dedicatory) Currer is one of the doctors specifically mentioned as “chymically given,” and therefore exempt from Stirk’s attack. Stirk may, therefore, have been in error in attributing his “confinement” to the malice of Currer. It was early in 1651, before going to Ireland, that Child told Hartlib about Currer, who was then apparently in England, and either he or Hartlib may have brought Stirk and Currer acquainted with one another. Early in 1653 Child described Currer to Hartlib as “real and honest to his freind[s] and a very good chymist,” and added, “I know not a better companion in that kind for Stirk than he is.”

111 We do not know when this “confinement” ended, but it may not have been over by 8 December 1657, when Hartlib told Boyle (Birch, op. cit., vi. 97) he had got an answer to Beale’s “demands about insects,” which were intended for Stirk, from another “good hand.”

112 Quoted by Kittredge (ii. 136) from an English doctor’s account of Stirk, written not later than 1677. There is no other evidence, so far as I know, to confirm this statement, and the accounts of his death, to be mentioned later, do not seem to bear it out.

113 The D.N.B. says 1666, and so does Astell, Stirk’s friend, in the Preface to his edition (1675) of Liquor Alchahest; but this date is unlikely, in view of the definite statement by George Thomson (referred to in n. 114) and of the sharp fall in deaths from plague after September 1665.

114 Ferguson, op. cit., ii. 403, 449; three accounts of his death are given there, 404.

115 Pyrotechny, 93.

116 A smart scourge, 6–7.

117 Natures Explication, 37–38.

118 Stirk says of himself (Marrow of Alchemy [1654]; Ferguson, op. cit., ii. 475): “being unwilling myself to fly to writing before my wings be fledged with more experience.”

119 Birch, op. cit., vi. 80.

120 Kittredge ii. 136.

121 In the Preface to his edition of the Liquor Alchahest (1675).

122 Cf. Stirk’s own account (n. 4, page 218) of the treatment he had met with in his attempts to “do good to an ungrateful generation.”

123 Ferguson, op. cit., ii. 403, says that Stirk seems to have been kindly judged by George Thomson and Jean le Pelletier, as well as by Astell.

124 He says (Natures Explication, 327): “The Doctors say of me that I am a mountebank and want method.” He himself calls that treatise “somewhat tart against the abuses of the Galenists” (Pyrotechny, Epistle Dedicatory).

125 The number was given as twelve by an English doctor; Kittredge ii. 135–136. Besides those given in the text, four others are named: Fons Chymicae Philosophiae, Brevis via ad vitam longam, Elenchus errorum in arte chymica deviantium, and Brevis Manuductio ad Campum Sophiae.

126 “Which concerns chiefly Paracelsus Liquor Alchahest.” It is given as Brevis Manuductio by Kittredge ii. 136.

127 The account so far given is based on what Stirk wrote in the preface, “To the Reader,” to the Marrow of Alchemy, First Part (1654). Cf. Ferguson, op. cit., ii. 475

128 Kittredge ii. 134.

129 Kittredge ii. 135–136; but the doctor erred in stating that Stirk, when he was 23 years old, received the tincture or white elixir in America from Child, and probably erred in stating that he also got from Child the titles of twelve tracts (on chemistry) that he composed. This doctor has not yet been identified; he says that he made Stirk’s acquaintance the year after Stirk got the tincture from Child (i.e., when Stirk was 24, and therefore in 1652), but did not come to know Stirk well until the latter had used up all he had of the tincture.

130 Kittredge ii. 134, n. 4, says at the end of poems published in John Heydon’s Idea of the Law (1660), and his Theomagia (1664). Professor Kittredge (ibid., 146) hoped to prove, when time served, that “Eirenaeus Philalethes was the creation of George Stirk’s teeming brain . . . and the works ascribed to him, so far as they ever existed, were of Stirk’s own composition.” Unfortunately, time did not serve, and Professor Kittredge never wrote his promised account of Stirk.

1 Since this paper was written, the property at Indian Hill has been returned to the family, and is now owned by Mr. Edward S. Moseley. He has deposited the pouch, together with other ethnological material, in the Peabody Museum of Salem.

2 The Poor-Poore Family Reunion at Haverhill, September 14, 1887, 84–91.

3 History of Essex County, Massachusetts, with Biographical Sketches of Many of its Pioneers and Prominent Men, Hamilton Hurd, Compiler (Philadelphia, 1888), ii. 1873.

4 John J. Currier, “Ould Newbury”: Historical and Biographical Sketches (Boston, 1896), 347–356

5 Sidney Perley, The Indian Land Titles of Essex County, Massachusetts (Salem, 1912), 41.

6 Frederick Johnson, “The Indians of New Hampshire,” Appalachia, No. 89 (June, 1940), 3–15.

7 William C. Orchard, “The Technique of Porcupine Quill Decoration Among the North American Indians,” Contribution From The Museum of the American Indian Heye Foundation, IV (New York, 1916), No. 1.

8 Id., 14–18.

9 Id., 41–42, Fig. 45.

10 Frank G. Speck, “The Double-Curve Motive in Northeastern Algonkian Art,” Canada Department of Mines, Geological Survey, Memoirs, xlii. Fig. 2.

11 Id., Fig. 10.

12 Id., Fig. 11.

13 Frank G. Speck, Penobscot Man (Philadelphia, 1940), 129, Fig. 51.

14 Marius Barbeau, “The Native Races of Canada,” Transactions of The Royal Society of Canada, Third Series, xxi, Sec. ii (1927).

15 Frank G. Speck, “The Double-Curve Motive in Northeastern Algonkian Art,” passim, p. 17. “Indian Art Handicraft of Eastern Canada,” School Arts, xliii (April, 1944), 266–270.

16 Alanson Skinner, “An Antique Tobacco-pouch of the Iroquois,” Indian Notes and Monographs, Museum of the American Indian Heye Foundation, ii (New York, 1919–1920), 107–108.

17 Frank G. Speck, Naskapi (Norman, Oklahoma, 1935), 227–230.

1 Henry Wilder Foote, Annals of King’s Chapel (Boston, 1882), i. 121.

2 Foote, Annals, i. 131.

3 Foote, Annals, i, 124–125.

4 Publick Spirit, Illustrated in the Life and Designs of the Reverend Thomas Bray, D.D. Late Minister of St. Botolph without Aldgate (London, 1746), 10–11. See also Samuel Clyde McCulloch, “Dr. Bray’s Commissary Work in London,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., ii (1945), 333–348, and the readable recent biography by H. P. Thompson, Thomas Bray (London: S.P.C.K., 1954).

5 Lawrence C. Wroth, “Dr. Bray’s ‘Proposals for the Incouragement of Religion and Learning in the Foreign Plantations’—A Bibliographical Note,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, lxv (1932–1936), 518–534.

6 Thompson, Thomas Bray, 17.

7 Thompson, Thomas Bray, 29.

8 A typical binding is reproduced in Walter Muir Whitehill, A Boston Athenœum Miscellany (Boston: Boston Athenæum, 1950), plate I.

9 Thomas Bray, 31–32.

1 The suggested possible exhibits to be installed in the Islesford Museum was taken from “Report of Visit to Islesford Museum, Little Cranberry Island, Acadia National Park,” and submitted to the Regional Director by J. Paul Hudson, Museum Administrator.

1 As far as can be determined these were the only three acts dealing with the writs of assistance. The discussion of “An Act to prevent Fraudes and Concealments” will bring out how little power the customs officials really had. The only previous act relating to the problem was 28 Hen. VI. c. 5 which granted a writ of trespass to merchants who were “aggrieved” by the extortions of customs officials by seizures and arrests. They were empowered to recover 40 pounds. Statutes of the Realm ([London], 1810–1822), ii. 356–357. Cf. 11 Hen. VI c. 16, ibid., ii. 288; also “An Acte lymiting the tymes for laying on Lande Marchandise from beyonde the Seas, and touching Customes for Sweete Wynes,” i Eliz. c. ii, ibid., iv. 372–374.

Edward Channing in A History of the United States (New York, 1905–1925), iii. 3, notes that in 1621 the House of Commons had been requested “that Writs of Assistance be not so frequently granted to Sheriffs.” This seems to be a writ of possession, not a writ of assistance to customs officials. Journals of the House of Commons, 26 March 1621, i. 574.

2 12 Car. II c. 19, Statutes of the Realm, v. 250.

3 14 Car. II c. 11, ibid., v. 393–397.

4 7 & 8 Gul. III c. 22, ibid., vii. 103–107.

5 V., e.g., The History and Proceedings of the House of Commons from the Restoration to the Present Time (London, 1742–1744), I; The History and Proceedings of the House of Lords from the Restoration in 1660 to the Present Time (London, 1742–1743), i; The Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803 (London, 1806–1820), IV; The Parliamentary or Constitutional History of England from the Earliest Times to the Restoration of King Charles II (London, 1762–1763), xxii, xxii; cf. Leo Francis Stock (ed.), Proceedings and Debates of the British Parliaments Respecting North America (Washington, D. C., 1924– ), i.

6 12 Car. II c. 19, Statutes of the Realm, v. 250, which will form the basis of the discussion in this section.

7 Cf. David Ogg, England in the Reign of Charles II (Oxford, 1934), i. 155–159.

8 12 Car. II c. 18, Statutes of the Realm, v. 246–250.

9 12 Car. II c. 9, ibid., v. 207–225.

10 Vide supra, p. 2, footnote 1. For a warrant of seizure with power to overcome resistance see Journals of the House of Commons, 16 May 1660, viii. 27.

11 Journals of the House of Lords, 18 May 1660, xi. 33.

12 Journals of the House of Commons, 28 May 1660, viii. 48.

13 Ibid.

14 The Commons committee was listed as: “Col. Birch, Mr. Pryn, Mr. Annesley, Mr. Finch, Mr. Gott, Mr. Weston, Mr. Knightly, Sir Wm. Doyley, Mr. Earneley, Sir Auth. Irby, Mr. Bainton, Mr. Powell, Sir John Potts, Mr. Francis Gerrard, Mr. Clapham, Sir Tho. Belhouse, Col. White, Col. Jones, Col. King, Mr. Jolliffe, Mr. Foley, Mr. Swale, Col. Bowyer, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Rich, Mr. Fowell, Lord Aurigier, Mr. Smyth, Alderman Fredrick, Sir John Pelham, Sir Richard Temple, Mr. Andrews, or any Three of them. . . .” Ibid.

15 V., e.g., Journals of the House of Commons, 23 May 1660, viii. 44; 30 May, p. 49; 1 June, p. 52; 8 June, p. 59; 12 June, p. 62; 19 June, p. 68; 20 June, p. 69–70; 22 June, p. 72; 23 June, p. 73; etc. passim to 25 July, p. 102. V.e., subsequent citations.

16 The full title was: “An Act takeing away the Court of Wards and Liveries and Tenures in Capite and by Knights Service and Purveyance, and for setling a Revenue upon his Majesty in Lieu thereof.” 12 Car. II c. 24, Statutes of the Realm, v. 259–266.

17 “A Subsidy granted to the King of Tonnage and Poundage and other summes of Money payable upon Merchandize Exported and Imported.” 12 Car. II c. 4, ibid., v. 181–183.

18 “The Rates of Merchandizes,” ibid., v. 184–203.

19 Journals of the House of Commons, 26 July 1660, VIII. 103.

20 “Certain Rules Orders Direcons & Allowances for the Advancement of Trade and incouragem^t of the Merchant, as also for the Regulating as well of y^e Merchants in making due Entryes & just payment of theire Customes, as of the Offic^rs in all the Ports of this Kingdom in the faithfull discharge of theire dutie,” Statutes of the Realm, v. 203–205.

21 Ibid., p. 205.

22 Journals of the House of Commons, 4 August 1660, VIII. 111.

23 Ibid., 6 September 1660, VIII. 154.

24 Ibid., 8 September 1660, VIII. 159.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid., 10 September 1660, VIII. 161.

27 Ibid.

28 V., e.g., Journals of the House of Lords, 17 May 1660, XI. 31; 18 May, pp. 32–33; 19 May, p. 34; 21 May, p. 34; 24 May, pp. 35, 39, 40; 25 May, pp. 40–41; 28 May, p. 44; 29 May, p. 45; 21 June, pp. 71–72; 16 July, p. 92; 17 July, p. 95; 18 July, p. 96; 19 July, p. 97; 21 July, p. 100; 23 July, p. 101; 24 July, p. 1055 27 July, p. 108; 28 July, pp. 109–110; 30 July, p. 110; 31 July, p. 112; 7 August, p. 119; 13 August, p. 126; 14 August, p. 127; 18 August, p. 133; 8 September, p. 164; 10 September, p. 165.

29 Ibid., 31 August 1660, xi. 150.

30 Ibid., 8, 9 September 1660, xi. 164.

31 Ibid., 10 September 1660, xi. 166.

32 Ibid., 13 September 1660, xi. 171.

33 Ibid., p. 176.

34 12 Car. II c. 19, Statutes of the Realm, v. 250.

35 “An Act for confirming Publique Acts,” 13 Car. II c. 7, Statutes of the Realm, v. 309–310; “An Act for setleing the Revenue on His Majestie for His Life which was setled on His late Majestie for His Life,” 1 Jac. II c. 1, ibid., vi. 1; “An Act for making good Deficiencies & for preserving the Publick Credit,” 1 Ann. c. 7, ibid., viii. 40–48; “An Act for reviving continuing and appropriating certain Duties upon several Commodities to be exported and certain Duties upon Coals to be waterborn and carried coastwise and for granting further Duties upon Candles for Thirty two Years to raise Fifteen hundred thousand Pounds by Way of a Lottery for the Service of the Year One thousand seven hundred and eleven and for suppressing such unlawful Lotteries and such Insurance Offices as are therein mentioned,” 9 Ann. c. 6, ibid., ix. 366–384; “An Act for redeeming the Duties and Revenues which were settled to pay off Principal and Interest on the Orders made forth on four Lottery-Acts passed in the ninth and tenth years of her late Majesty’s Reign; and for redeeming certain Annuities payable on Orders out of the Hereditary Excise, according to a former Act in that Behalf; and for establishing a General yearly Fund, not only for the future Payment of Annuities at several Rates, to be payable and transferable at the Bank of England, and redeemable by Parliament, but also to raise Monies for such Proprietors of the said Orders as shall choose to be paid their Principal and Arrears of Interest in ready Money; and for making good such other Deficiencies and Payments as in this Act are mentioned; and for taking off the Duties on Linseed imported, and British Linen exported,” 3 Geo. I c. 7, Statutes at Large (London, 1763), v. 103–119.

36 Journals of the House of Commons, 6 November 1660, viii. 175; Journals of the House of Lords, 6 November 1660, xi. 176.

37 Journals of the House of Commons, 19 November 1660, viii. 186.

38 Ibid., 23 November 1660, viii. 191.

39 Lawrence Averell Harper, The English Navigation Laws (New York, 1949), 57–58.

40 Journals of the House of Commons, 19 November 1660, viii. 186.

41 Ibid., 23 November 1660, viii. 191.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid., 7 December 1660, viii. 201.

44 Ibid., 21, 22 December 1660, viii. 222, 225.

45 Journals of the House of Lords, 8 April 1661, xi. 240; Journals of the House of Commons, 8 April 1661, viii. 245.

46 V., e.g., Journals of the House of Commons, 11 May 1661, viii. 2475 14 May, pp. 249, 252; 21 May, p. 257, etc.

47 Ibid., 13 June 1661, viii. 270.

48 Ibid., 18 June 1661, viii. 273–274.

49 Ibid., 21 June 1661, viii. 275; 22 June, p. 278; 27 June, pp. 282, 283.

50 Ibid., 28 June 1661, viii. 283; cf. 8 July, p. 294; 9 July, p. 296; 10 July, p. 296.

51 Ibid., 12 July 1661, viii. 299.

52 Ibid., 8 May 1661, viii. 245.

53 Ibid., 13 July 1661, viii. 301.

54 Ibid., 18 July 1661, viii. 305. On Friday, Sir Robert Atkins had leave to go to the country. Ibid., 19 July, p. 205.

55 Ibid., 20 July 1661, viii. 307; 22 July, p. 308; 23 July, p. 309.

56 Ibid., 30 July 1661, viii. 316.

57 Ibid., 26 July 1661, viii. 313.

58 Journals of the House of Lords, 20 November, xi. 332–333.

59 Journals of the House of Commons, 20 November 1661, viii. 316.

60 Ibid., 21 November 1661, viii. 317; cf. 22 November, pp. 317, 318; 23 November, p. 318; 27 November, p. 321; 4 December, p. 325; 6 December, p. 326; 9 December, p. 328; 10 December, p. 328, etc.

61 Ibid., 18 January 1661/62, viii. 347.

62 The Committee consisted of “Sir Phil. Warwick, Mr. Comptroller, Mr. Secretary Morris, Mr. John Ashburnham, Mr. Edw. Seymour, Sir Edw. Seymour, Mr. Fane, Mr. Phillips, Sir John Duncomb, Sir John Nicholas, Mr. Nicolas, Sir Wm. Lowther, Mr. York, Sir John Goodrick, Sir Tho Strickland, Mr. Henry Coventry, Lord Bruce, Mr. Strickland, Sir Clement Fisher, Sir John Holland, Serjeant Charlton, Mr. Knight, Mr. Marvill, Mr. Sam Trelawney, Mr. Birch, Mr. Clifford, Mr. Rigby, Sir Allen Broderick, Sir Richard Ford, Mr. Vice Chamberlain [Sir George Carteret], Mr. Cofferer [William Ashburnham], Sir Clem. Throckmorton, Mr. Henry Seynour, Lord Fanshaw, Mr. Phillips, Sir Robert Howard, Lord Cornbury, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Prynn, Colonel Fretchvile, Sir Wm. Fleetwood, Mr. Goodrick, Mr. Fra. Finch, Mr. Tho. Coventry, Sir Clifford Clifton, Sir Rich. Franklyn, Sir Humph. Bennet, Sir Ralph Banks, Mr. Winston Churchill, Sir Tho. Meres, Sir Anth. Irby, Mr. Jonathan Trelawney, Sir Allen Apsley, Mr. Kirkby, Mr. Phillips, Sir Hen Puckering, alias Newton, Mr. Newton, Mr. Milward, Colonel Windham, Colonel Sandys, Sir Tho. Tompkins, Lord de le Spencer, Sir Robert Holt, Dr. Birkinhead, Mr. Wren, Sir Ja. Smith, Mr. Spry, Mr. Culliford, Sir Tho. Lee, Sir Tho. Chute, Sir Chichester Wray, Sir John Shaw, Mr. Wandesford, Mr. Ciscowen, Mr. John Churchill, Mr. Milward, Mr. Gilby, Mr. Mountague, Sir Gilbert Garrard, Mr. Orme, Mr. Garraway, Sir John Robinson, Sir Wm. Thompson, Mr. Jolliff, Mr. Broome Whorwood, Sir Solomon Swale, Mr. Morton, Mr. Windham, Mr. Wm. Sandys, Mr. Westphaling, Sir Courtney Poole, Lord Angier, Sir Cha. Harbord, Mr. Harbord, Sir Tho. Smith, Mr. Smyth, Sir Tho. Leigh, Mr. John Jones, Sir Tho. Gore, Mr. Whittaker, Mr. Bulteele, Mr. Chetwind, Colonel Robinson, Sir Hen. North, Mr. Jolly, Sir Geo. Ryve, Mr. George Mountague, Sir Rich. Everard, Sir Anth. Cope, Sir Edm. Peirse, Mr. Crouch, Alderman Fowke, Sir Theo. Biddulph, Sir John Talbot, Sir Wm. Compton, Mr. Manwaring, Mr. Coriton, Sir Tho. Widdrington, Sir John Harrison, Sir Edw. Mosley, Sir John Brampston, Baron of Kinderton, Sir John Marley, Mr. Attorney of the Duchy [John Heath], Sir Edw. Harlow, Sir Tho. Littleton, Mr. Steward, Colonel Legg, Sir Ben. Ayloff, Mr. Higgons, Sir Wm. Batten: and all the members of this House, that come to the said committee, are to have voices thereat.” Ibid., 29 January 1661/62, viii. 353, 354. The additional names have been supplied by Leo Francis Stock (ed.), Proceedings and Debates of the British Parliaments Respecting North America (Washington, D. C., 1924– ), 1. 295–296.

63 Journals of the House of Commons, 29 January 1661/62, viii. 353–354.

64 Cf. ibid., 6 February 1661/62, viii. 359. The subcommittee on fees seems to have been quite busy and were ordered to sit despite the “sitting of any Grand Committee, or the Committee of Customs.” Ibid., 8 March, p. 382. Their work is evidenced by the tables of fees adopted before Parliament was prorogued. v. ibid., 22 April, p. 412; 10 May, p. 426; 13 May, p. 428; 16 May, p. 432; 17 May, p. 434; 19 May, P. 435

65 Ibid., 14 March 1661/62, viii. 387; v.e., 13 March, p. 386.

66 Ibid., 19 March 1661/62, viii. 390; v.e., 17 March, p. 388.

67 Ibid., 20 March 1661/62, viii. 391.

68 Ibid., 21 March 1661/62, viii. 391–392.

69 Journals of the House of Lords, 21 March 1661/62, xi. 413; 22 March, p. 414; 24 March, pp. 416–417. The committee in the House of Lords consisted of: “Lord Privy Seal, Marq. Winton, L. Chamberlain, Comes Derby, Comes Bridgwater, Comes Bollinbrooke, Comes Portland, Comes Anglesey, Comes Carlile, Viscount Stafford, Abp. Yorke, Bp. Durham, Bp. Oxon., Bp. Sarum, Bp. Lyncolne, Bp. St. David’s, Bp. Exon., Bp. Norwich, Bp. Hereford, Ds. Craven, Ds. Lucas, Ds. Lexington, Ds. Townsend, Ds. Ashley.” Journals of the House of Lords, 24 March 1661/62, xi. 416–417.

Some time previously a petition of masters and owners of ships complaining of “an Oppression concerning Ballast” had been given to a committee but we hear no more about it. Ibid., 17 June 1661, p. 282.

70 Ibid., 17 April 1662, xi. 432.

71 Ibid., 19 April 1662, xi. 433; Journals of the House of Commons, 19 April 1662, viii. 410.

72 Journals of the House of Commons, 22 April 1662, viii. 412; 24 April, p. 413.

73 Ibid., 28 April 1662, viii. 415.

74 Ibid., 3 May 1662, viii. 418; Journals of the House of Lords, 3 May 1662, xi. 443

75 Journals of the House of Lords, 3 May 1662, xi. 444.

76 Ibid.

77 Ibid., 19 May 1662, xi. 471.

78 14 Car. II c. 11, Statutes of the Realm, v. 394. Cf. the following paragraph on searching ships of war. They “shall be lyable to all Searches and other Rules which Merchants Ships are subject unto by the usage of His Majesties Custome house (victualling Bills & entring excepted) upon pain to forfeit One hundred pounds And upon refusal to make such Entries as aforesaid as wel Outwards as Inwards the said person or persons which are or shall be appointed for managing the Customes and Officers of His Majesties Customes and their Deputies shall and may freely enter and go on board all and every such Ship or Vessel of War and bring from thence on shoar into His Majesties Store house belonging to the Port where such Ship shall be all Goods and Merchandizes prohibited or uncustomed which shall be found aboard any such Ship as aforesaid.” Ibid.

79 Ibid.

80 “And forasmuch as it doth appeare by dayly experience that there are great Practises and Combinations betweene the Importers and Owners of Goods and Merchandizes and the Seizers and Informers with design and intent to defraud the force of the Law and His Majesty of His Duties and Customes Be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid That no Ship or Shipps Goods Wares or Merchandize shall be seized as forfeited for or by reason of unlawfull Importation or Exportation into or out of this Kingdome of England Dominion of Wales or Port and Town of Berwick or any the Ports Members or Creeks thereunto belonging or for not payment of any Customes or Subsidies nowe due or hereafter to be due and payable to His Majestie but by the person or persons who are or shall be appointed by His Majestie to manage His Customes or Officers of His Majesties Customes for the time being or such other person or persons as shall be deputed and authorized thereunto by Warrant from the Lord Treasurer or Under Treasurer or by special Commission from His Majesty under the Great or Privy Seale And if any Seizure shall hereafter be made by any other person or persons whatsoever for any the Causes aforesaid such Seizure shall be void and of none effect Any Statute Law or Provision to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding.” Ibid., p. 397.

81 Ibid., p. 250.

82 Ibid., p. 394.

83 An interesting case under this clause arose in America in April, 1768, concerning the brig Lydia. See the documents in the Public Record Office, Treasury Papers, Series 1, 465, 466. Compare the proposals of the Commissioners of the Customs in Scotland for the improvement of the revenue, 5 December 1768. Ibid., 467.

84 Journals of the House of Commons, 29 January 1661/62, viii. 353–354; supra, pp. 21–22.

85 Cf. “An Act for confirming Publique Acts,” 13 Car. II c. 7, Statutes of the Realm, v. 309–310; “An Act for setleing the Revenue on His Majestie for His Life which was setled on His late Majestie for His Life,” 1 Jac. II c. 1, ibid., vi. 1; “An Act for making good Deficiencies & for preserving the Publick Credit,” 1 Ann. c. 7, ibid., viii. 40–48; “An Act for reviving continuing and appropriating certain Duties upon several Commodities to be exported and certain Duties upon Coals to be waterborn and carried coastwise and for granting further Duties upon Candles for Thirty two years to raise Fifteen hundred thousand Pounds by Way of a Lottery for the Service of the Year One thousand seven hundred and eleven and for suppressing such unlawful Lotteries and such Insurance Offices as are therein mentioned,” 9 Ann. c. 6, ibid., ix. 366–384; “An Act for redeeming the Duties and Revenues which were settled to pay off Principal and Interest on the Orders made forth on four Lottery-Acts passed in the ninth and tenth years of her late Majesty’s Reign; and for redeeming certain Annuities payable on Orders out of the Hereditary Excise, according to a former Act in that Behalf; and for establishing a General yearly Fund, not only for the future Payment of Annuities at several Rates, to be payable and transferrable at the Bank of England, and redeemable by Parliament, but also to raise Monies for such Proprietors of the said Orders as shall choose to be paid their Principal and Arrears of Interest in ready Money; and for making good such other Deficiencies and Payments as in this Act are mentioned; and for taking off the Duties on Linseed imported, and British Linen exported,” 3 Geo. I c. 7, Statutes at Large (London, 1763), v. 104–119.

86 “An Act for confirming Publique Acts,” 13 Car. II c. 7, Statutes of the Realm, v. 309–310.

87 Cf. Journals of the House of Commons, 13 May 1661, viii, 247–248; 14 May, p. 249; 16 May, p. 252; 28 May, p. 260; 13 June, p. 270; 14 June, p. 271; 15 June, p. 272; 17 June, p. 273; 18 June, p. 284; 19 June, p. 275; 22 June, p. 278; 1 July, p. 287; Journals of the House of Lords, 2 July 1661, xi. 296; 3 July, p. 296; 3 July, p. 298; 6 July, p. 300; 8 July, p. 303.

88 Journals of the House of Commons, 23 July 1661, viii. 309; cf. 18 January 1661/62, p. 347; 22 January, p. 349; 23 January, p. 350; 28 January, p. 352; 3 February, p. 356; 7 February, p. 361; 18 February, pp. 367–368; 21 February, P. 37o; 15 March, p. 387; 21 March, p. 393; 26 April 1662, p. 414; 28 April, p. 414; 7 May, p. 423.

89 “An Additionall Act for the better ordering and collecting the Duty of Excise and preventing the Abuses therein,” 15 Car. II c. 11, Statutes of the Realm, v. 488–492.

90 14 Car. II c. 3, Statutes of the Realm, v. 358–364.

91 V., e.g., “An Act for the speedy provision of money for disbanding and paying off the forces of this Kingdome both by Land and Sea,” 12 Car. II c. 9, Statutes of the Realm, v. 207–225; “An Act for supplying and explaining certaine defects in an Act entituled An Act for the speedy provision of money for disbanding and paying off the forces of this kingdome both by Land and Sea,” 12 Car. II c. 10, ibid., pp. 225–226; “An Act for the speedy disbanding of the Army and Garrisons of this Kingdome,” 12 Car. II c. 15, ibid., pp. 238–241; “An Act for inabling the Souldiers of the Army now to be disbanded to exercise Trades,” 12 Car. II c. 16, ibid., pp. 241–242; “An Act for raising seaven-score thousand pounds for the compleate disbanding of the whole Army and paying off some part of the Navy,” 12 Car. II c. 20, ibid., pp. 250–251; “An Act for granting unto the Kings Majestie Fower hundred and twenty thousand pounds by an Assessment of three score and ten thousand pounds by the moneth for six moneths for disbanding the remainder of the Army, and paying off the Navy,” 12 Car. II c. 27, ibid., pp. 269–277; “An Act for further suplying and explaining certaine defects in an Act intituled An Act for the speedy provision of money for disbanding and paying off the forces of this kingdome both by land and sea,” 12 Car. II c. 28, ibid., pp. 277–282; Journals of the House of Commons, April 25, 1660 to 29 December 1660, viii. 1–244, passim; Journals of the House of Lords, 25 April 1660 to 29 December 1660, xi. 1–239, passim.

92 13 Car. II Stat. I, c. 1, Statutes of the Realm, v. 304.

93 Journals of the House of Commons, 8 May 1661, viii. 245.

94 Ibid., 14 May 1661, viii. 249. Both of these men had been prominent in the previous Parliament with bills involving search. Sir Heneage Finch had reported amendments from the grand committee for the bill to prevent frauds and concealments. Ibid., 10 September 1660, viii. 161; supra, p. 8. Both of them had been appointed to work on abolishing the Court of Wards. Ibid., 21 December 1660, viii. 220; cf. 23 November 1660, p. 189; 12 December, p. 204. In the present Parliament both were to be appointed (with Charlton as chairman) to help prepare a bill for granting “twelve hundred and three score thousand pounds” to the King. 13 Car. II Stat. II, c. 3, Statutes of the Realm, v. 325–348; Journals of the House of Commons, 27 November 1661, viii. 321. Both were to be appointed to the committee on a temporary bill to regulate printing. Journals of the House of Commons, 26 July 1661, viii. 313; cf. 25 July, p. 312. Charlton was also to be appointed to the committee on the bill for preventing frauds and abuses in the customs. Ibid., 29 January 1661/62, p. 354.

95 Journals of the House of Commons, 17 May 1661, viii. 254.

96 Ibid., 21 May 1661, viii. 257.

97 Ibid., 22 May 1661, viii. 258.

98 E.g., ibid., 17 June 1661, viii. 273.

99 E.g., ibid., 18 June 1661, viii. 274.

100 E.g., ibid., 17 June 1661, viii. 273.

101 E.g., ibid., 19 June 1661, viii. 275; v.e., ibid., 1 June, p. 264; 8 June, p. 267; 25 June, p. 280; 28 June, p. 284; 9 July, p. 296.

102 Ibid., 16 July 1661, viii. 303.

103 13 Car. II Stat. I, c. 6, Statutes of the Realm, v. 308.

104 Journals of the House of Commons, 17 July 1661, viii. 304.

105 Journals of the House of Lords, 22 July 1661, xi. 317; cf. ibid., 18 July, p. 313; 19 July, p. 314; 27 July, p. 323; Journals of the House of Commons, 27 July 1661, viii. 314.

106 Journals of the House of Lords, 30 July 1661, xi. 330; Journals of the House of Commons, 30 July 1661, viii. 316.

107 Journals of the House of Commons, 3 December 1661, viii. 324; cf. ibid., 6 December, p. 326.

108 Journals of the House of Lords, 19 December 1661, xi. 355.

109 Ibid.

110 Journals of the House of Commons, 10 January 1661/62, viii. 342.

111 Journals of the House of Lords, 7 January 1661/62, xi. 359; Journals of the House of Commons, 10 January 1661/62, viii. 342.

112 Journals of the House of Commons, 10 January 1661/62, viii. 342; cf. ibid., 7 January, p. 341.

113 Ibid., 11 January 1661/62, viii. 343.

114 Ibid., 11 January 1661/62, viii. 343–344; 14 January, p. 345; 17 January, p. 347; 22 January, p. 349; 31 January, p. 355; 13 February, p. 363; 22 February, p. 371; 26 February, pp. 373–374

115 Ibid., 17 January, 1661/62, viii. 347.

116 Ibid., 13 February 1661/62, viii. 363.

117 Ibid., 28 February 1661/62, viii. 375; 1 March, pp. 375–376.

118 Ibid., 1 March 1661/62, viii. 376.

119 Ibid., 4 March 1661/62, viii. 378; cf. ibid., 6 March, p. 380.

120 Ibid., 7 March 1661/62, viii. 381.

121 Ibid., 11 March 1661/62, viii. 384; 13 March, p. 386; 14 March, p. 387.

122 Journals of the House of Lords, 14 March 1661/62, xi. 407.

123 “And for the better securing the Peace of the Kingdome be it further enacted and ordained and the respective Leiutenants or any two or more of theire Deputies are hereby enabled & authorized from time to time by Warrant under theire Hands and Seales to employ such Person or Persons as they shall thinke fitt (of which a Commissioned Officer and the Constable or his Deputy or the Tythingman or in the absence of the Constable and his Deputy and Tythingman some other Person bearing Office within the Parish where the search shall be shall be two) to search for and seize all Armes in the custody or possession of any person or persons whom the said Leiutenants or any two or more of theire Deputies shall judge dangerous to the Peace of the Kingdome and to secure such Armes for the service aforesaid and thereof from time to time to give Accounts to the said respective Leiutenants and in theire absence as aforesaid or otherwise by theire directions to theire Deputies or any two or more of them.” 14 Car. II c. 3, Statutes of the Realm, v. 360.

124 Journals of the House of Lords, 20 March 1661/62, XI. 412.

125 Journals of the House of Lords, 17 April 1662, xi. 431; v.e., Ibid., 21 March 1661/62, xi. 413; 10 April 1662, p. 437; 11 April, p. 437; 14 April, p. 439; 15 April, p. 430; 16 April, p. 430.

126 All amendments have been pieced together from the debates reported in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. See especially: Journals of the House of Lords, 12 May 1662, xi. 455; Journals of the House of Commons, 3 May 1662, viii. 420; 5 May, p. 521.

127 Journals of the House of Lords, 17 April 1662, xi. 431–432; 18 April, p. 432; Journals of the House of Commons, 18 April 1662, viii. 409.

128 V., e.g., Journals of the House of Commons, 30 April 1662, viii. 417; 3 May, p. 418–419.

129 The wording for these amendments has been taken from the Statutes of the Realm, v. 360, which differs from the account in the Journals of the House of Commons, e.g., 3 May 1662, Tin. 420, only in punctuation and capitalization.

130 Idem, ibid.

131 Journals of the House of Commons, 3 May 1662, viii. 420. The committee consisted of “Serjeant Charlton, Sir Tho. Meres, Mr. Coventry, and Sir Thomas Littleton.” Ibid.

132 See footnote 4 supra.

133 Journals of the House of Commons, 5 May 1662, viii. 421.

134 Statutes of the Realm, v. 360. The words in italics (which are supplied) are the additions of the House of Commons; the remainder was the original proviso of the House of Lords.

135 See infra.

136 For further debate see, e.g., Journals of the House of Commons, 6 May 1662, viii. 421–422; 7 May, p. 423; 9 May, p. 424, and supra. One of the amendments offering particular difficulty was the assessment of the Peers; cf. ibid., 9 May 1662, viii. 424.

137 Journals of the House of Commons, 10 May 1662, viii. 425; Journals of the House of Lords, 10 May 1662, xi. 453.

138 Stock, op. cit., 1. 292.

139 Journals of the House of Lords, 12 May 1662, xi. 455.

140 The word “Lord” was also to be left out of the “4th Line.” It is difficult to see where this word would belong, except perhaps before “Leiutenant,” a correction adopted in other sections of the bill, but may have been inserted here as this clause came from the Commons. Journals of the House of Lords, 12 May 1662, xi. 455; cf. ibid., p. 453.

141 Journals of the House of Lords, 12 May 1662, xi. 455.

142 Ibid., 19 May 1662, xi. 471.

143 Ibid., 13 May 1662, xi. 457; cf. ibid., 14 May 1662, xi. 459–460.

144 Ibid., 14 May 1662, xi. 459–460; Journals of the House of Commons, 14 May 1662, viii. 429.

145 Journals of the House of Commons, 16 May 1662, viii. 431.

146 Ibid.; Journals of the House of Lords, 16 May 1662, xi. 463; cf. ibid., p. 464.

147 Journals of the House of Lords, 16 May 1662, xi. 463; cf. ibid., p. 464.

148 Ibid., 16 May 1662, XI. 464; 17 May, pp. 464–465, 466; Journals of the House of Commons, 17 May 1662, viii. 432, 432–433.

149 “An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses,” 14 Car. II c. 33, Statutes of the Realm, V. 428–433.

150 Journals of the House of Commons, 3 July 1661, viii. 288.

151 Ibid., 25 July 1661, viii. 312.

152 Ibid., 26 July 1661, viii. 313.

153 Ibid.

154 Ibid., 27 July 1661, viii. 314.

155 Journals of the House of Lords, 27 July 1661, xi. 323.

156 Ibid., 27 July 1661, xi. 324.

157 Ibid., 29 July 1661, xi. 325; Journals of the House of Commons, 29 July 1661, viii. 315.

158 Ibid.

159 Journals of the House of Commons, 29 July 1661, viii. 315.

160 Journals of the House of Lords, 29 July 1661, xi. 325.

161 Ibid., 29 July 1661, xi. 326.

162 Ibid.

163 Journals of the House of Commons, 29 July 1661, viii. 315.

164 Ibid.; Journals of the House of Lords, 29 July 1661, xi. 326.

165 Journals of the House of Lords, 29 July 1661, xi. 327.

166 Ibid.

167 Ibid.

168 Journals of the House of Commons, 29 July 1661, viii. 316.

169 Journals of the House of Commons, 16 December 1661, viii. 333; Journals of the House of Lords, 16 December 1661, xi. 351.

170 Journals of the House of Lords, 17 December 1661, xi. 353.

171 Ibid., 16 January 1661/62, xi. 365.

172 Ibid., 17 January 1661/62, xi. 366.

173 Ibid., 22 April 1662, xi. 435.

174 Ibid., 28 April 1662, xi. 439.

175 14 Car. II c. 33, Statutes of the Realm, v. 432. This article seems to have been amended in the House of Commons as a section was annexed to the original act in a separate schedule. Quite possibly it was one of the amendments discussed on 19 May 1662. Journals of the House of Commons, 19 May 1662, viii. 434.

176 14 Car. II c. 33, Statutes of the Realm, v. 433. The original and the amendment have been dissected through the Journals of the House of Commons, 19 May 1662, viii. 434–435.

177 Journals of the House of Commons, 2 May 1662, viii. 417.

178 Ibid., 3 May 1662, viii. 418.

179 Ibid., 17 May 1662, viii. 434.

180 Ibid., 19 May 1662, viii. 434.

181 Ibid.; Journals of the House of Lords, 19 May 1662, xi. 468.

182 Journals of the House of Commons, 29 July 1661, viii. 315; cf. supra, p. 47.

183 14 Car. ii c. 33, Statutes of the Realm, v. 433. It would seem from the Journals of the House of Commons that the clause was inserted at the end of the proviso, but it is clear only from its present position in the Statutes of the Realm. Journals of the House of Commons, 19 May 1662, viii. 435.

184 14 Car. ii c. 33, Statutes of the Realm, V. 433; Journals of the House of Commons, 19 May 1662, viii. 435.

185 Journals of the House of Commons, 19 May 1662, viii. 435; Journals of the House of Lords, 19 May 1662, xi. 468.

186 Journals of the House of Lords, 19 May 1662, xi. 469.

187 Journals of the House of Commons, 19 May 1662, viii. 435–436; Journals of the House of Lords, 19 May 1662, xi. 470.

188 Journals of the House of Lords, 19 May 1662, xi. 472.

189 “An Act for explaining a Clause in an Act made at the Parliament begun and holden at Westminster the Two and twentieth of November in the Seventh Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King William the Third intituled An Act for the better Security of His Majesties Royal Person and Government,” 1 Ann. c. 2, Statutes of the Realm, viii. 5–6, also mentions writs of assistance but only as existing:

“And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid That no Commission of Association Writ of Admittance of Si no omnes Original Writ Writ of Nisi prius Writ of Assistance nor any Commission Process or Proceedings whatsoever in or issuing out of any Court of Equity nor any Process or Proceeding upon any Office or Inquisition nor any Writ of Certiorari or Habeas Corpus in any Matter or Cause either Criminal or Civil nor any Writ of Attachment or Process for Contempt nor any Commission of Delegacy or Review for any Matters Ecclesiastical Testamentary or Maritime or any Process thereupon shall be determined abated or discontinued by the Demise of the said late King but all and every such Writ Commission Process and Proceedings shall be and are hereby revived and continued and shall be in full Force and Vertue and shall and may be proceeded upon as if His late Majesty were living nor hereafter by the Demise of Her present Majesty or any King or Queen of this Realm shall any Commission of Assize Oyer and Terminer General Gaol Delivery or of Association Writ of Admittance Writ of Si non omnes Writ of Assistance or Commission of the Peace be determined But every such Commission and Writ shall be and continue in full Force and Vertue for the Space of Six Months next ensuing notwithstanding any such Demise unless superseded and determined by Her Majesty Her Heirs or Successors and also no Original Writ Writ of Nisi Prius Commission Process or Proceedings whatsoever in or issuing out of any Court of Equity nor any Process or Proceeding upon any Office or Inquisition nor any Writ of Certiorari or Habeas Corpus in any Matter or Cause either Criminal or Civil nor any Writ of Attachment or Process for Contempt nor any Commission of Delegacy or Review for any Matters Ecclesiastical Testamentary or Maritime or any Process thereupon shall be determined abated or discontinued by the Demise of Her Majesty or any King or Queen of this Realm But every such Writ Commission Process and Proceeding shall remain in full force and vertue to be proceeded upon as if Her Majesty or such other King or Queen had lived notwithstanding any such Death or Demise,” ibid., p. 6.

190 7 & 8 Gul. iii c. 22, Statutes of the Realm, vii. 103–107.

191 “An Act for preventing Frauds and regulating Abuses in his Majesties Customes,” ibid., v. 393–397; cf. preceding section.

192 Ibid., vii. 104.

193 This phrase will come in for discussion in later colonial history. Cf. the difficulty of the collector and comptroller of New London, 24 May 1766, PRO, Treas. 1, 453, and the opinion of the attorney general, 17 October 1766, PRO, Treas. 1, 453, both cited in George G. Wolkins, “Malcom and Writs of Assistance,” Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc., lviii (1924–1925), 58–61, 71–73.

194 The phrase “like Assistance” was sometimes interpreted to mean a writ of assistance. Thus the argument of Jeremy Gridley in 1761 reported in the manuscript “Israel Keith’s Pleadings, Arguments, Extracts, &c,” printed in Horace Gray, “Writs of Assistance” in Josiah Quincy, Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Superior Court of Judicature of the Province of Massachusetts Bay Between 1761 and 1772 (Samuel Quincy [ed.], Boston, 1865), p. 481; cf. pp. 478–482. It seems to have been a more general phrase and may have referred to this paragraph of “An Act for preventing Frauds and regulating Abuses in his Majesties Customes,” 14 Car. II c. 11:

“And be it further enacted and ordained That all Officers belonging to the Admiralty Captaines and Commanders of Shipps Forts Castles and Block-houses as alsoe all Justices of the Peace Mayors and Sheriffs Bayliffes Constables and Headboroughs and all the Kings Majesties Officers Ministers and Subjects whatsoever whom it may concern shall bee aiding and assisting to all and every person and persons which are or shall bee appointed by His Majesty to manage His Customes and the Officers of His Majesties Customes and theire respective Deputies in the due Execution of all and every Act and Thing in and by this present Act required and enjoyned And all such who shall be aiding and assisting unto them in the due execution hereof shall be defended and saved harmelesse by vertue of this Act,” Statues of the Realm, v. 400.

195 V., e.g., Journals of the House of Commons, 21 January 1695/96, xi. 400–407; cf. ibid., 17 December 1695, p. 365; 7 February 1695/96, p. 434; 29 February, p. 477; 3 March, p. 488; 4 March, p. 490; 5 March, p. 491, etc., passim; Journals of the House of Lords, 3 December 1695, xv. 603; 5 December, p. 605; 9 December, p. 608; 12 December, p. 610; 13 December, pp. 611–612; 14 December, p. 613; 16 December, p. 614; 17 December, p. 615; 18 December, p. 616.

196 Journals of the House of Lords, 20 December 1695, xv. 619; cf. ibid., p. 618.

197 Ibid., 30 December 1695, xv. 623.

198 Ibid., 30 December 1695, xv. 624; cf. ibid., 3 January 1695/96, xv. 628; 6 January, p. 630; 7 January, pp. 631, 632; 9 January, p. 634; 15 January, p. 641.

199 Ibid., 3 January 1695/96, xv. 628; 6 January, p. 630; cf. previous footnote and the places there cited; cf. mention of a draft of a bill for the better collection of customs, in 1685, Calendar of Treasury Books, viii. 363, 381, 385, 387, 397, 404, etc.

200 Ibid., 7 January 1695/96, xv. 631.

201 Ibid., 7 January 1695/96, xv. 632.

202 House of Lords, Committee Books, v. 11, Library of Congress, photofilm.

203 Journals of the House of Lords, 9 January 1695/96, xv. 634.

204 Ibid., 15 January 1695/96, xv. 641; House of Lords, Committee Books, v. 28.

205 House of Lords, Committee Books, v. 29–30.

206 “Their Lordships likewise took Notice to them of their Letter, which they had prepared to send, as from themselves, to the several Governors of those Plantations, under the distinct Proprietors; which their Lordships recommended to them, to make Application to the Lords of the Treasury, that they would move the Council, ‘That Letters to that Effect might be sent from the Council, as more effectual to the Preservation of Trade in those Parts;’ which the Commissioners have likewise informed their Lordships they have since done, and that it is in a Way to be dispatched accordingly.” Journals of the House of Lords, 20 January 1695/96, xv. 646.

207 Journals of the House of Commons, 23 January 1695/96, xi. 409; Herbert L. Osgood, The American Colonies in the Eighteenth Century (New York, 1924), i. 178.

208 Journals of the House of Commons, 27 January 1695/96, xi.415; cf. ibid., 1 February, p. 424; 6 February, p. 433.

209 Ibid., 12 February 1695/96, xi. 440; cf. ibid., 22 February, p. 461; 3 March, p. 487; 5 March, p. 491; 6 March, p. 495.

210 Ibid., 9 March 1695/96, xi. 501.

211 Ibid., 12 March 1695/96, xi. 505–506.

212 Ibid., 19 March 1695/96, xi. 524; Journals of the House of Lords, 19 March 1695/96, xv. 711.

213 Randolph had previously been active in the colonies.

214 House of Lords, Committee Books, v. 36–41; cf. the proposal of Randolph, 30 April 1681, Calendar of Treasury Books, vii. 131.

215 Journals of the House of Lords, 19 March 1695/96, xv. 711.

216 Ibid., 20 March 1695/96, xv. 712.

217 Ibid., 23 March 1695/96, xv. 714.

218 Ibid., 24 March 1695/96, xv. 716.

219 Ibid.

220 Ibid., 26 March 1696, xv. 718; 27 March, p. 819.

221 V. Journals of the House of Commons, 31 March 1696, xi. 539–540, for the amendments.

222 Journals of the House of Lords, 28 March 1696, xv. 720.

223 Ibid., 28 March 1696, xv. 720; Journals of the House of Commons, 28 March 1696, xi. 547.

224 Journals of the House of Commons, 31 March 1696, xi. 5 39–540.

225 Ibid.; Journals of the House of Lords, 31 March 1696, xv. 722.

226 Journals of the House of Lords, 31 March 1696, xv. 722.

227 Ibid., 10 April 1696, xv. 732; Journals of the House of Commons, 10 April 1696, xi. 555.

228 14 Car. II c. 11, Statutes of the Realm, v. 393–397.

229 12 Car. II c. 19, Statutes of the Realm, v. 250. This bill was re-enacted by “An Act for confirming Publique Acts,” 13 Car. II c. 7, ibid., 309–310; “An Act for setleing the Revenue on His Majestie for His Life which was setled on His late Majestie for His Life,” 1 Jac. II c. 1, ibid., vi. 1; “An Act for making good Deficiencies & for preserving the Publick Credit,” 1 Ann. c. 7, ibid., viii. 40–48; “An Act for reviving continuing and appropriating certain Duties upon several Commodities to be exported and certain Duties upon Coals to be waterborn and carried coastwise and for granting further Duties upon Candles for Thirty two Years to raise Fifteen hundred thousand Pounds by Way of a Lottery for the Service of the Year One thousand seven hundred and eleven and for suppressing such unlawful Lotteries and such Insurance Offices as are therein mentioned,” 9 Ann. c. 6, ibid., ix. 366–384; “An Act for redeeming the Duties and Revenues which are settled to pay off Principal and Interest on the Orders made forth on four Lottery-Acts passed in the ninth and tenth Years of her late Majesty’s Reign; and for redeeming certain Annuities payable on Orders out of the Hereditary Excise, according to a former Act in that Behalf; and for establishing a General Yearly Fund, not only for the future Payment of Annuities at several Rates, to be payable and transferrable at the Bank of England, and redeemable by Parliament, but also to raise Monies for such Proprietors of the said Orders who shall choose to be paid their Principal and Arrears of Interest in ready Money; and for making good such other Deficiencies and Payments as in this Act are mentioned; and for taking off the Duties on Linseed imported, and British Linen exported,” 3 Geo. I c. 7, Statutes at Large (London, 1763), v. 104–119; cf. supra, section one.

230 With such a witness as Randolph it is quite possible that this Parliament intended to issue general search warrants, particularly for the colonies. Certainly they intended all that was allowed in England. By this time there had been published in England a Latin form of a general writ of assistance which was to be translated for the writ of 1755 in Massachusetts. [William Brown], Compendium of the Several Branches of Practice in the Court of Exchequer, at Westminster (London, 1688). Parliament may have had this writ in mind.

231 “An Act to prevent Fraudes and Concealments of His Majestyes Customes and Subsidyes,” 12 Car. II c. 19, Statutes of the Realm, v. 250.

232 Supra, section one.

233 “An Act for preventing Frauds and regulating Abuses in his Majesties Customes,” 14 Car. ii c. 11, Statutes of the Realm, v. 393–397.

234 Supra, section two.

235 207–208.

236 Clifford K. Shipton, Sibley’s Harvard Graduates (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933), iv. 162–167.

237 Judge Edmund Quincy, who had married Tutor Flynt’s sister Dorothy, added in 1706 to the Quincy homestead a wing, containing a study with a bedroom above, reached by a private staircase, for his brother-in-law’s accommodation. See Edith Woodbury Coyle, “The Quincy Homestead,” Old-Time New England, xix (1929), 147–158.

238 Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, iv. 164–165.

239 Harvard Tercentenary Exhibition Catalogue of the Furniture Silver Pewter Glass Ceramics Paintings Prints Together with Allied Arts and Crafts of the Period 1636–1836 (Cambridge, 1936), 103, describes various pieces of silver owned by Tutor Flynt, and illustrates (Plate 17) the pair of candlesticks by John Coney given by students in 1716.

240 Wilfred Partington, ed., The Private Letter-Books of Sir Walter Scott (London, 1930), 181–182.

241 H. J. C. Grierson, ed., The Letters of Sir Walter Scott 1811–1814 (London, 1932), 113–114. Scott tells of the confusion resulting on an evening when, by chance, ladies had lingered longer than usual in the dining room, the butler “stalked into the room bearing in both hands this brilliant Heirloom.” Upon perceiving his blunder he beat a hasty retreat crying “God forgie me”—as no Frenchman would have—and “shrouding with a napkin the late object of his solemn entry.”

242 Ch. Meaux Saint-Marc, L’école de Salerne, traduction en vers français . . . avec le texte latin (Paris, 1880), 73, where the text is given as

Antiquo more mingens pedis absque pudore

Mingere cum bombis res est saluberrima lombis.

243 Frederick A. Pottle, ed., Boswell on the Grand Tour Germany and Switzerland 1764 (New York, 1953), 136.

244 The presence of a silver chamber-pot in the Corporation silver of York, England (reported by Jerome D. Greene), led Dr. Bowditch to envision the happy hope that it might be Tutor Flynt’s and that, if so, it might be borrowed for the Tercentenary exhibition. Inquiry produced a courteous communication from the Lord Mayor of York that gave indisputable evidence that the York pot was not Flynt’s.

245 Poems on Affairs of State, From the Time of Oliver Cromwell, to the Abdication of K. James Second (London, 1716, 6th ed.), i. 215–216.

246 For an account of this bibliographical fraud, which sprang from boredom with the pretentions of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, see Charles Eliot Goodspeed, Yankee Bookseller (Boston, 1937), 63–65. This unique work was given to the Club of Odd Volumes by Charles H. Taylor (1867–1941) of the Boston Globe, “the fictitious Mr. Smith” of Mr. Goodspeed’s autobiography.

247 On exhibition in the Chenery Library. The object is 10½″ in diameter and 2½″ deep.

248 Charles P. Curtis tells me that his cousin, Horatio Greenough Curtis, of the Harvard Class of 1865, who died in 1922, saw it.

249 Carl Van Doren, Benjamin Franklin (New York, 1938), 632, quoting Madame de Campan, Mémoires sur la vie privée de Marie Antoinette.

250 In the four years that have passed since I suggested the possibility of this historical expurgation in the May, 1954, issue of Athenœum Items no denial has been made by the Bostonian Society.

1 An allusion to Hebrews xi. 13–16.

2 In the name of God, Amen.

We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith and honour of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.

1 Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, S. E. Morison, ed., 1952, 59; W. S. Nickerson, Land Ho!—1620 (1931), 115.

2 H. M. Dexter, ed., 1865, 2.

3 Bradford, 75; 1912 ed., 1. 189–191.

4 William MacDonald, Select Charters, 18.

5 Bradford, 29; 1912 ed., 65.

6 These Particular Plantations have never been made the subject of an intensive study; P. A. Bruce is exasperatingly vague about them in his Institutional History of Virginia, ii. 290–294, 327; the best study so far is in C. M. Andrews, Colonial Period of American History, 1. 128–133. There was to have been a Puritan Particular Plantation earlier, Francis Blackwell’s; Bradford is the sole authority on his unfortunate voyage and shipwreck in 1618–1619.

7 Andrews, 1. 132.

8 Bulletin of the New York Public Library, iii (1899), 162, where the Smyth of Nibley patent is printed. Some fifty papers of this Hundred are in the New York Public Library. There is a calendar of them in Bulletin, i. 186–190, and many of the documents are printed in i. 68–72 and iii. 160–171, 208–223, 248–258, 276 295. John Smyth of Nibley, M.P., was a very important person in England who never emigrated; the best account of him is by Wallace Notestein in the introduction to his Commons Debates 1621 (New Haven, 1935), I. 69–86.

9 Susan Kingsbury, ed., Records of Virginia Co. of London, 1. 221, 228.

10 Bradford, 34; 1912 ed., 1. 95. Wincop was tutor or chaplain in the household of Thomas Fiennes-Clinton, third Earl of Lincoln, whose daughters were Lady Arbella Johnson and Lady Susan Humfry of the Massachusetts Bay migration. The patent has not survived; nor do we know why it was unsatisfactory. Although Wincop did not migrate, he could have assigned the patent to those who did, as John Peirce must have done.

11 Bradford, 37; W. C. Ford gives all the particulars of this offer from Dutch sources in the 1912 ed., 1. 99.

12 For Weston and his group of Merchant Adventurers, see Andrews, 1. 261, 330–331.

13 MacDonald, Select Charters, 23–33; Documentary History of Maine, vii. 15–18.

14 Bradford, 39; 1912 ed. 1. 103. This is the passage relied upon by Bradford Smith, Bradford of Plymouth, 108–109, to prove that the Mayflower was really headed for New England from the first.

15 Andrews, 1. 263, with numerous references. This lack of fishing monopoly also made investment in the Pilgrim migration much less attractive to Weston and his associates, and partly explains the hard conditions that they exacted.

16 The sentiment against a fishing monopoly is reflected in the debate in Parliament in 1621, where Gorges and Sir John Bourchier of the Council for New England are described as “two Mercuries” who “would monopolize the fishing” and deny others liberty to cut wood and erect fishing stages; “theis New England men will neither plant themselves nor suffer the laborynge oxe.” F. L. Stock, Proceedings and Debates in British Parliament Respecting North America, 1. 37–38, and Notestein, Commons Debates 1621, v. 378–379. In Lord Baltimore’s charter of Maryland 12 years later, although his lordship was granted virtually sovereign powers over his propriety, fishing rights were expressly excepted; for the Charter states in Article XVI, “Saving always to Us, our Heirs and Successors, and to all the Subjects of Our Kingdoms of England and Ireland, of Us, our Heirs and Successors, the Liberty of Fishing for sea fish, as well in the sea, bays, straits and navigable rivers, as in the harbors, bays and creeks of the province aforesaid; and the privilege of salting and drying fish on the shores of the same province; and, for that cause, to cut down and take hedging wood and twigs there growing, and to build huts and cabins, necessary in this behalf.”—Translation in F. N. Thorpe, Federal and State Constitutions, etc., iii. 1683–1684.

17 Kingsbury, I. 303. This hint of the future compact from the Virginia Company is dated 2 February 1619/20, whilst the Rev. John Robinson’s better-known hint about their civil community, body politic and choice of magistrates is in a letter of about 1 August 1620. Bradford, 370; 1912 ed., 1. 132–134.

18 Council for New England in 1625 asserted its claim to the Hudson region, causing a Dutch ship, Orangenboom, to be detained at Plymouth, England, on the ground that it was unlawfully bound for Manhattan. (A. S. F. Van Laer, Documents Relating to New Netherland, in the H. E. Huntington Library, 1924, 261); and so in 1627 did Governor Bradford (Letter-Book, 364–365).

19 Victor Paltsits, in Proc. A.A.S., xxxii (1924), 39–65. Paltsits proves that the yarn of Samuel Argall’s calling at Manhattan in 1613, and finding Dutch traders there whom he compelled to recognize English authority, is completely devoid of foundation in fact.

20 Earl G. Swem, “Maps Relating to Virginia,” Bulletin of the Virginia State Library, vii (1914), 41–44.

21 A. C. Flick, History of the State of New York, 1 (1933), 165–168. The Figurative Map of 1616 is reproduced in Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York, E. B. O’Callaghan, ed., 1. 13, and separately; more recently in I. N. P. Stokes, Iconography of Manhattan, ii (1916), ch. iii, plate 23.

22 A bit of negative evidence is this: the Figurative Map shows Plymouth Bay very clearly and names it Crane Bay; but Bradford never used this name or any other name that is on the Figurative Map.

23 P. 12; 1855 ed., 22.

24 1912 ed., 1. 158–161.

25 John Pory, Lost Description of Plymouth (Champlin Burrage, ed., 1918), 35. Pory’s statement seems to dispose of Andrews’ contention (1. 133, 259) that the Virginia Company never would have allowed the Pilgrims to settle so far from Jamestown as the Hudson.

26 It is interesting to note that the Virginia Company contemplated giving the Pilgrims the task of training and bringing up sundry Indian children. The General Court of the Virginia Company of London (Kingsbury, 1. 310–311) on 16 February 1619/20, upon motion of Sir John Wolstenholme, a friend of the Pilgrims, took into consideration giving “John Peirce and his Associates” this charge. But a special committee reported that “for divers reasons” this would be “inconvenient”: (1) the Pilgrims did not intend to sail for several months; (2) they would “be long in settling themselves”; (3) the Indians were “not acquainted with them.” The Indian children were therefore apportioned among Smith’s, Berkeley’s and Martin’s Hundreds.

27 Channing, United States, 1. 121.

28 J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York, 1. 180–181, and his Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York, 1. 38.

29 The legal implications and limitations of this patent are described in Andrews, 1. 280. It is printed in Bradford, 1912 ed., 1. 246–251, with facsimile of the original.

30 Boundaries were not mentioned in the Virginia Company’s patents to the Particular Plantations because they were settled upon at Jamestown after the patentees arrived; in New England, however, there was no Jamestown since the Council never did establish a colony or a general government of its own. Hence the omission of boundaries from this patent was serious.

31 His bill in Chancery is printed in New Eng. Hist. Gen. Reg., lxvii (1913), 147–153, and the case is discussed by Andrews, 1. 282–283, who, unnecessarily I think, couples Peirce with Lyford as victims of Pilgrim misrepresentation.

32 1. 283.

33 Compact, Charters and Laws of the Colony of New Plymouth (Wm. Brigham, ed., 1836), 21–26; in part in MacDonald, Select Charters, 51–53.

34 Except for the Dominion of New England period, 1686–1689. Viola Barnes, Dominion of New England (1923), 27–28.

35 This word looks a little like seale, with a punctuation mark following it. The sense would seem to require the plural; there were originally six seals affixed to the instrument. C. D[eane]. Under each signature was originally a strip of parchment and a seal, of which four are still attached to the document. The sixth signature has been torn from the film. This Patent was first printed by Deane in 4 Mass. Hist. Soc. Collections, 11. 156–163.

36 This typescript made from Ford ed. Bradford, 1. 407–410. Collated with facsimile in same by Antha E. Card.

37 On the back of the parchment is the following attestation: “Sealed and del’d in the presence of John Bulmer, Tho: Belweeld, John Fowller.”

38 Vol. lxxxvii. ff. 123–129.

39 2nd Series VII (also called The Farnham Papers, 1) pp. 109–125.

40 This is followed by “made” in the original.

41 Collections, Massachusetts Historical Society, 1st ser., 1. 275; Narragansett Club Publications, vi. 349.

42 Collections, Massachusetts Historical Society, 4th ser., vii (Winthrop Papers), 426.

43 Connecticut Archives, Indians 1, Document 12.

44 John Russell Bartlett, ed., Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England, 11. 267, 274–275.

45 William Hubbard, The Present State of New-England (London, 1677), Part ii, 82–83.

46 Collections, Massachusetts Historical Society, 1st ser., v. 227; Connecticut Archives, Foreign Correspondence i, Document 15; Calendar State Papers, Colonial, 1677–1680, 409.

47 Calendar State Papers, Domestic, 1675–1676, 435, 438; 1676–1677, 300; Calendar Stale Papers, Colonial, 1675–1676, 372–373; Massachusetts Archives, lxviii, Documents 199–201; F. L. Gay Transcripts, Plymouth Papers 1. In the library of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

48 Collections, Massachusetts Historical Society, 1st ser., vi. 207; Connecticut Archives, War 1, Document 35c; Massachusetts Historical Society, Miscellaneous 111. See also Increase Mather, A Brief History of the War With the Indians in New-England [London, 1676], Samuel C. Drake, ed. (Albany, 1862), 117; Calendar State Papers, Colonial, 1675–1676, 350.

49 Connecticut Archives, War 1, Document 44; Franklin B. Hough, ed., A Narrative of the Causes Which Led to Philip’s Indian War, etc. (Albany, 1858), 143–145; Charles H. Lincoln, ed., Narratives of the Indian Wars (New York, 1913), 88.

50 Thomas Savage to the Council of Massachusetts, 28 March 1676, Massachusetts Archives, lxviii, Document 189.

51 Samuel G. Drake, ed., Tragedies of the Wilderness (Boston, 1846), 60–68; History and Proceedings of the Pocumtuck Valley Memorial Association, 11. 462–470; Massachusetts Archives, III, Document 330; Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, ed., Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, v. 162, 168.

52 Calendar State Papers, Colonial, 1675–1676, 465–466; Shurtleff, op. cit., v. 140–141; Connecticut Archives, War 1, Document 126.

53 Calendar State Papers, Colonial, 1675–1676, 409.

54 Magnalia Christi Americana, 2nd ed. (Hartford, 1820), ii. 493.

55 Collections, Massachusetts Historical Society, 3rd ser., vi. 182–183.